I'm advocating for people to understand that not being ready for this will be their demise.
Tell me, what would've been a better solution for WW2.
Let Adolph, Stalin, Hirohito, or worse both of them together, have Europe, and then have their free way to use the completely overwhelming resource advantage to kill you, or go and fight to the bitter end before they have it?
The most logical action to do if you can't win, is to fight. One must be ready to fight, even if it is a completely hopeless battle.
Second, I want to make you guys understand that, for now, NATO has 100% genuine ability to do something about its adversaries. Wait just a few more years at the current pace, and it wouldn't.
Third, if you chicken out, your weakness will rile the beast(s) even more, and fire up its appetites. It's showing your back to the tiger, an invitation for disaster.
Also, it's funny you bring up the Axis powers considering that America would have entirely sat out the entire war if it wasn't for Pearl Harbour and Japan constantly provoking a response with their actions in the pacific. I have also never seen the US ever go into a war where they did not have overwhelming power advantage over their enemies. By the time D-Day happened, the supply lines for the Axis were crippled beyond repair and the war was essentially already lost. It was just a matter of time before supplies ran out.
China has more than enough nuclear capability to cripple the entirety of NATO and they also are well aware that NATO has the capability to do likewise. Hence, neither parties are ever going to even contemplate an outright war with each other despite the wet dreams of war mongers from both sides.
First, no it isn't. Second, in a few more years, China will be the only country in the world with material, and military capacity to take the second strike, and keep on offence.
Third, you haven't learned anything if you ever studied WWII. While Germany was running on vapours in the late war, it was still running. They had few years more of small arms supplies, and still some food, which was indeed better than what union's officers had even in reich's final days. Last reserves of fuel were enough for more than a year of low intensity warfare. And yes, Germany fought to the bitter end. Otherwise, where did you thing hundred of thousand American casualties came?
Please don't comment on this matter anymore. You don't know anything about war.
What isn't? That China has enough nuclear capability to cripple the entirety of NATO or vice versa? I'd like to see you justify that tall claim. Your second "point" just sounds like fear mongering without substance. If any country could develop that capability, it is Russia with the largest land area of any country.
Also, my point about the Axis having essentially already lost the war thanks to crippled supplies was incorrect because "they had a few years more of small arms supplies, and still some food" and enough fuel to "last more than a year of low intensity warfare"? That's just an inevitable loss but with extra steps in between! I might not know anything about war but clearly you don't know anything about my argument if you thought this was an actual rebuttal.
Low intensity warfare? The Allies had enough bombers to collapse entire cities! Even the hundreds of thousand Americans dead were minor compared to the millions of Germans that perished.
That's kind of why we don't engage in these kinds of large scale ground invasion type wars anymore (at least without one side being completely overwhelmingly more powerful) - the costs are so astronomically high, both in money and in causalities.
The old Cold War was very clear that final victory involved civilian deaths in the millions. Be very clear: are you advocating for that?