NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I am now sick of reading why America sucks/doesn't suck, I've decided to try asking a question which I haven't seen yet- does America believe in manifest destiny?
Manifest Destiny is the idea that the United States is going to obtain complete and total world dominance because of divine decree/fate/they deserve it, etc. Generally it is the idea of an American empire, not through economic or political clout, but through overt control.

Since I am now sick of reading why America sucks/doesn't suck, I've decided to try asking a question which I haven't seen yet- does America believe in manifest destiny?
Manifest Destiny is the idea that the United States is going to obtain complete and total world dominance because of divine decree/fate/they deserve it, etc. Generally it is the idea of an American empire, not through economic or political clout, but through overt control.

O_o

I could have sworn Manifest Destiny was about US control of the area the continental US currently occupies...

O_o

I could have sworn Manifest Destiny was about US control of the area the continental US currently occupies...

I used to think that too. But I've heard journalists and politicians claim it extends to a global hegemony. Maybe they were wrong, or misusing the term. I should clarify that I mean it in the context of world hegemony.

O_o

I could have sworn Manifest Destiny was about US control of the area the continental US currently occupies... I read that it was the whole of North America....and that was a long time ago. One of the causes of the war of 1812 wasnt it?

Yes, it was one of the root causes of the war of 1812.

Yes, it was one of the root causes of the war of 1812.

Even more so the Mexican War.

sounds vaguely like the idea of lebensraum and all that...

Even more so the Mexican War.

Yes, of course. I just naturally think of the war of 1812 (being Canadian).

Yes, of course. I just naturally think of the war of 1812 (being Canadian).

Ah. But the War of 1812 was more like a teenager standing up to his parents for the first time. It was less about "Manifest Destiny" and more like a second war for independence. The Mexican War was little more than a land grab.

I read that it was the whole of North America....and that was a long time ago. One of the causes of the war of 1812 wasnt it?

and who won that :)

I digress, Yeah i think america i going to try and keep exterting infulence over the rest of world, well afganistan and iraq and now basically puppet states and the invading pattern shows no sign of slowing up really, becuase in theory this 'threat' of terroism cant ever really go away, considering it never really existed in the form its commonly understood as. However I can see Europe becomeing much more of a single super power over the next 50-70 years, and china will start to catch up with america in the next 50 to ish, i hate to play devils advocate but i imagine is america goes continue down the path which it appears to be doing of this manifest destinty and its shift towards the right, and europe and china get their act together, well that will probally be the next world wide conflict.

and who won that :)

I digress, Yeah i think america i going to try and keep exterting infulence over the rest of world, well afganistan and iraq and now basically puppet states and the invading pattern shows no sign of slowing up really, becuase in theory this 'threat' of terroism cant ever really go away, considering it never really existed in the form its commonly understood as.

Canada and Britain won the war, and America won the negotiations right after ;)

That seems to be the pattern right now, but that's assuming the conservatives maintain their dominance of American politics

No one really. They just decided to stop...except Jackson...

You suggesting England won the war of 1812? Also the US didnt start the Mexican-American war. It was the Mexican invasion of the nation of Texas that started it off.

When I think of Manifest Destiny. I believe it had to do with a land grab of days gone by. It also reminds me of the Monroe Doctorine. Which is America's hemispherical duties and ideology

No one really. They just decided to stop...except Jackson...

Well, the Canadian intention was to maintain their independence, and the Americans thought the war would be "just a matter of marching". By those standards, Canada won.

You suggesting England won the war of 1812? Also the US didnt start the Mexican-American war. It was the Mexican invasion of the nation of Texas that started it off.

When I think of Manifest Destiny. I believe it had to do with a land grab of days gone by. It also reminds me of the Monroe Doctorine. Which is America's hemispherical duties and ideology

America declared war on Mexico before Mexico declared war on America.

You suggesting England won the war of 1812? Also the US didnt start the Mexican-American war. It was the Mexican invasion of the nation of Texas that started it off.


Right. Damn those Mexicans.
When I implied England won, I only meant that militarily they forced the Americans south, burnt the whitehouse to the ground and captured Washington. From a political and economic standpoint they lost.

No American thinks that we can occupy the entire world. Not a one. There are least 9 mentally disabled posters on this forum.

No American thinks that we can occupy the entire world. Not a one. There are least 9 mentally disabled posters on this forum.

Ah, but how many of them are arrogant Americans, and how many of them are condescending Europeans?

Ah, but how many of them are arrogant Americans, and how many of them are condescending Europeans?
It's probably Skapdroe and puppets.

It's probably Skapdroe and puppets.

I'd say it's probably a pretty even split.

No American thinks that we can occupy the entire world. Not a one. There are least 9 mentally disabled posters on this forum.

You misunderstood my question. I didn't mean occupy, I meant dominate to a point where they have the first, last and only say on what happens. American hegemony, a collaboration of states underneath America's lead. Actually, some Americans believe they already have attained hegemony (that would be my cousin Ryan in Alabama, but I think I can say there's at least one other)

I'd say it's probably a pretty even split.
No, because no rational European is that condescending and no rational American is that arrogant.

No, because no rational European is that condescending and no rational American is that arrogant.
you assume that there are rational people on this board

No, because no rational European is that condescending and no rational American is that arrogant.

You presume, of course, that the world is comprised mainly of rational people?

you assume that there are rational people on this board
I assume that we have fewer than 9 people completely out of touch with reality.

you assume that there are rational people on this board
beat me to it.

No, because no rational European is that condescending and no rational American is that arrogant.

You've been here for over a year. What percentage of the posters on this forum would you say are "rational"?

I assume that we have fewer than 9 people completely out of touch with reality.
i think you assume wrongly...

No American thinks that we can occupy the entire world. Not a one. There are least 9 mentally disabled posters on this forum.

Not occupy it, control and dominate it. Since I'm one of the mentally disabled, I must point out that at least mine is an affective disorder, rather than cognitive.
Puppet states? Very American.

Not occupy it, control and dominate it. Since I'm one of the mentally disabled, I must point out that at least mine is an affective disorder, rather than cognitive.
Puppet states? Very American.
You believe Americans believe we will one day have overt control over the entire globe? 300 million people ruling 7 billion? Right...

No American thinks that we can occupy the entire world. Not a one. There are least 9 mentally disabled posters on this forum.

Your number 10

Your number 10
It's "you're." And you need one of these "." Next time you want to insult someone's intelligence, do it in English.

It's "you're." And you need one of these "." Next time you want to insult someone's intelligence, do it in English.

Maybe my native language is not English? So get off your high horse.

It's "you're." And you need one of these "." Next time you want to insult someone's intelligence, do it in English.
Next time you want to comment on grammar or punctuation, get it right.

You believe Americans believe we will one day have overt control over the entire globe? 300 million people ruling 7 billion? Right...

Well, theoretically, George Bush alone rules over 300 million, so it isn't that far fetched. However, again I must clarify. I didn't ask if it was possible, but rather if Americans believe it to be possible. Remember, Napoleon, Alexander, Hitler, Julius Caeser and many others believed they could rule the world, and some of them even did.

ACTUALLY...Manifest Destiney was simply the American's beliefe that it was their divine right to expand the nation to the Pacific Odean.

Maybe my native language is not English? So get off your high horse.
Boohoo. I'll be sure you have sympathy for you as you go posting on English-speaking forums.

Maybe my native language is not English? So get off your high horse.

Just out of curiosity, because you said maybe- so English is your first language and you just made a grammatical error, correct?

Well, theoretically, George Bush alone rules over 300 million, so it isn't that far fetched. However, again I must clarify. I didn't ask if it was possible, but rather if Americans believe it to be possible. Remember, Napoleon, Alexander, Hitler, Julius Caeser and many others believed they could rule the world, and some of them even did.To date no one has ruled the entire world - although Pinky and The Brain have come close a few times.

A number of incredibly egotistical twerps who had the fortune to have a fortune, and a sizeable and capable army, have ruled some large portions of the world.

As far as the Manifest Destiny of the United States - it appears that the destiny that is currently manifest is; We will be governed by an idiot who will continually appoint extremely objectionable people to important influential posts.

The only Americans that think they can control the world are Bush and his republican groupies.

The only Americans that think they can control the world are Bush and his republican groupies.
The why isn't North Korea a smoking nuclear crater?

ACTUALLY...Manifest Destiney was simply the American's beliefe that it was their divine right to expand the nation to the Pacific Odean.Exactly. And just who were these people who kept getting in the way? Mexicans? Apaches? Sioux? They simply had to be moved. [/sarcasm]

The why isn't North Korea a smoking nuclear crater?


Because underneath his republican hide there's just a small insignificant man who uses the military to cover it up. He's afraid of nuclear war, that's why. Key word, AFRAID.

But don't take that to mean that I like the thought of nuclear war, I just wish we had a worthwhile president.

Oh, and because he just wants to take out the little guys first.

Because underneath his republican hide there's just a small insignificant man who uses the military to cover it up. He's afraid of nuclear war, that's why. Key word, AFRAID.

But don't take that to mean that I like the thought of nuclear war, I just wish we had a worthwhile president.
Why should we be afraid? We're the only nation with a missle defense system, have more nuclear weapons of higher quality than anyone on the planet, we have everything to gain from it! Or are you just spouting garbage?

Exactly. And just who were these people who kept getting in the way? Mexicans? Apaches? Sioux? They simply had to be moved. [/sarcasm]

Well if they wanted to keep their lands, they should have fought harder, instead of dying like dogs.

Might means right, little buddy! :(

This reminds me of a great quote I once heard about Manifest Destiny on NS:
Havent' you heard? America is protected by Jesus magic!

Why should we be afraid? We're the only nation with a missle defense system, have more nuclear weapons of higher quality than anyone on the planet, we have everything to gain from it! Or are you just spouting garbage?


It's arrogant people like you who make people like them think all Americans want to control the world. No we shouldn't be afraid, but just because we're the only country in the world with a missle defense system doesn't mean we should start nuking every potential super power.

It's arrogant people like you who make people like them think all Americans want to control the world. No we shouldn't be afraid, but just because we're the only country in the world with a missle defense system doesn't mean we should start nuking every potential super power.
No, it's idiots like you who in one breath say that we want to control the entire world, and in the next breath say we could do it but just choose not. Hypocrite.

No, it's idiots like you who in one breath say that we want to control the entire world, and in the next breath say we could do it but just choose not. Hypocrite.


Remind me, when did I say that?

Remind me, when did I say that?
When did everyone in the world say I made them think Americans are arrogant?

Why should we be afraid? We're the only nation with a missle defense system, have more nuclear weapons of higher quality than anyone on the planet, we have everything to gain from it! Or are you just spouting garbage?


Sure sounds arrogant to me.

Sure sounds arrogant to me.
Again, where did everyone in the world say that I made them think all Americans are arrogant? Or are you the whole world now?

Again, where did everyone in the world say that I made them think all Americans are arrogant? Or are you the whole world now?


Let me see, I think I said something along the lines of, "It's arrogant people like you..." Key word, people. I never said it was just you, people like you who think that because we have nukes we should use them.

Let me see, I think I said something along the lines of, "It's arrogant people like you..." Key word, people. I never said it was just you, people like you who think that because we have nukes we should use them.
I never said we should use them. I said if our goal was world dominance why aren't we using them? Now you go make the quantum leap in logic.

I never said we should use them. I said if our goal was world dominance why aren't we using them? Now you go make the quantum leap in logic.


There's no need to yet. Bush figures that if he can take down the little guys without a nuke then it's been a pretty good war. If he continues his world conquest, then he might have to. World War 3 will be so much fun, wont it?

have more nuclear weapons of higher quality than anyone on the planet
and?

there are several nations with enough to destroy the planet - anything above that is just overkill

and?

there are several nations with enough to destroy the planet - anything above that is just overkill
I'd like to see you support the hackeneyed "destroy the planet" argument.

I never said we should use them. I said if our goal was world dominance why aren't we using them? Now you go make the quantum leap in logic.


Also, because if we do, then there wont be world to conquer.

Also, because if we do, then there wont be world to conquer.
Support that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. People live there not 60 years later.

Support that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. People live there not 60 years later.


Think about how many potential enemies we have. If we nuked them all it'd take longer than 60 years for the radiation to clear off. Do you know anything about nuclear bombs? (dumb question, you probably do, here it comes...)

Think about how many potential enemies we have. If we nuked them all it'd take longer than 60 years for the radiation to clear off. Do you know anything about nuclear bombs? (dumb question, you probably do, here it comes...)
Again, it's precisely because I DO know something about nuclear bombs that your arguments fall flat. The question is, what do you know about nuclear bombs?

Again, it's precisely because I DO know something about nuclear bombs that your arguments fall flat. The question is, what do you know about nuclear bombs?


Enough to know what will happen if a nuclear holocost ever does happen.

Enough to know what will happen if a nuclear holocost ever does happen.
Which is what? Please cite your source since I know you aren't just making up nuclear physics.

Which is what? Please cite your source since I know you aren't just making up nuclear physics.


Let's see, can't remember what it was called. Some show on the History Channel about nuclear submarines.

But really, what would make you think I'm a nuclear physics major?

Let's see, can't remember what it was called. Some show on the History Channel about nuclear submarines.

But really, what would make you think I'm a nuclear physics major?
I would just think that if you truly believed a nuclear war would end all life in the world, you would have based that belief in science.

I would just think that if you truly believed a nuclear war would end all life in the world, you would have based that belief in science.


But it is science. The only thing that would survive a nuclear war would be the side that wins, or cockroaches.

But it is science. The only thing that would survive a nuclear war would be the side that wins, or cockroaches.
Again, says who? You?

I actually studied some nuclear physics when I was in university, but I'm just going to leave that out of it in favour of citing a larger point- if the US ever used nukes, they'd be hit by nukes. Missile defense shield? Right, because all the tests they've done so far have been so successful.

I actually studied some nuclear physics when I was in university, but I'm just going to leave that out of it in favour of citing a larger point- if the US ever used nukes, they'd be hit by nukes. Missile defense shield? Right, because all the tests they've done so far have been so successful.
60%

Again, says who? You?


No, the History Channel.

I would just think that if you truly believed a nuclear war would end all life in the world, you would have based that belief in science.
nobody said it would end all life, just that it will destroy the world. when people say that, they mean it will destroy cities etc, maybe the end of human civilisation...not literally destroy the world. nothing could, its a pretty big place with all those galaxies and all...

No, the History Channel.
So the HC, based on the past and not the future, in social studies and not in science, is giving you information on nuclear physics that you can't quite recall, and thus have formulated the nukes = bad posistion?

nobody said it would end all life, just that it will destroy the world. when people say that, they mean it will destroy cities etc, maybe the end of human civilisation...not literally destroy the world. nothing could, its a pretty big place with all those galaxies and all...
How would nukes destroy every city and end civilization? Especially if one country nuked the other countries' silos and population centers first?

nobody said it would end all life, just that it will destroy the world. when people say that, they mean it will destroy cities etc, maybe the end of human civilisation...not literally destroy the world. nothing could, its a pretty big place with all those galaxies and all...


But don't people mean Earth? Or is the world you're reffering to all of existance?

So the HC, based on the past and not the future, in social studies and not in science, is giving you information on nuclear physics that you can't quite recall, and thus have formulated the nukes = bad posistion?


The History Channel had to base that show on scientific facts along with history.

How would nukes destroy every city and end civilization? Especially if one country nuked the other countries' silos and population centers first?
you think they would get all the silos? nope, and theres warheads on ships, planes, submaries etc

The History Channel had to base that show on scientific facts along with history.
Scientific facts that, although I've asked for them for 2 pages, have not made it into one of your posts?

you think they would get all the silos? nope, and theres warheads on ships, planes, submaries etc
You don't need to get all the silos. Just the people capable of launching them. In first world countries with nukes, the weapons are bound to a security code that generally only one person has access to.

But don't people mean Earth? Or is the world you're reffering to all of existance?
well if im being picky then the world is all existence, but yes, people generally mean Earth...and like i say, when people say it will destroy the world, they dont actually mean it will destroy Earth as a planet, just human civilisation really

Scientific facts that, although I've asked for them for 2 pages, have not made it into one of your posts?


Hey bud, I haven't seen any from you either, although I know your not bluffing. I'd like to see your proof-of-point for awhile.

You don't need to get all the silos. Just the people capable of launching them. In first world countries with nukes, the weapons are bound to a security code that generally only one person has access to.
ok, take the US.

the second theres a nuke launched against it, Bush is in a plane and in the sky being whisked away somewhere safe...i would imagine most nuclear powers have a similar strategy

Hey bud, I haven't seen any from you either, although I know your not bluffing. I'd like to see your proof-of-point for awhile.
I asked you first. And you're the one whose argument from 3 pages ago is contigent on nuclear weapons destroying all of civilization.

Since I am now sick of reading why America sucks/doesn't suck, I've decided to try asking a question which I haven't seen yet- does America believe in manifest destiny?
Manifest Destiny is the idea that the United States is going to obtain complete and total world dominance because of divine decree/fate/they deserve it, etc. Generally it is the idea of an American empire, not through economic or political clout, but through overt control.

Um wrong. It applies only to North America, i.e. America should also control Canada and Mexico.

ok, take the US.

the second theres a nuke launched against it, Bush is in a plane and in the sky being whisked away somewhere safe...i would imagine most nuclear powers have a similar strategy
There's a plane launched at the U.S. People are evacuated and whisked away somewhere safe. Oh wait. Well, at least nukes aren't several times faster than low-flying aircraft with no attempt made to hide them from radar.

60%

Right, so if I launch 10 nuclear missles at you, theoretically, 4 get through. That's just great.

nobody said it would end all life, just that it will destroy the world. when people say that, they mean it will destroy cities etc, maybe the end of human civilisation...not literally destroy the world. nothing could, its a pretty big place with all those galaxies and all...

That depends on whether or not you believe in God. :) But I agree that a nuclear holocaust would definitely not be good for anyone.

No, the History Channel.

Oh noes! Not the Almighty History Channel. Seriously, they suck. They even manage to screw up footage of WWI era dreadnoughts. Anyway, a nuclear war won't wipe out the globe. There's far too many targets and too few warheads to hit them with. Plus air bursts are relatively clean in terms of fallout, and the vast majority of hits will be using air bursts. Ground bursts are typically only used when something needs to be scoured from the ground, like runways, train yards, or bunkers.

How would nukes destroy every city and end civilization? Especially if one country nuked the other countries' silos and population centers first?

Query I: Since the United States is the only nation with even the theoretical ability to launch a tactical nuclear strike that would obliterate its enemies nuclear capacity, are you advocating a preemptive attack at some point in the future by the U.S.? Because if you aren't, then your second sentence is just a red herring.
Query II: How would a tactical nuclear strike destroy mobile missile sites such as submarines, or sites the US doesn't know exist?

Right, so if I launch 10 nuclear missles at you, theoretically, 4 get through. That's just great.
Assuming all ten make it to the mainland. How many countries have that kind of delivery system? Your arguments are better when you know what you're talking about.

I asked you first. And you're the one whose argument from 3 pages ago is contigent on nuclear weapons destroying all of civilization.


Isn't this always how these kinds of arguments go? Each side stalling until the other gives up because neither has a legitemit claim. I'm doing it right now. I know nothing about how the actual science of nuclear technology works. I'm betting you don't either. But I DO know what would happen if Bush started a nuclear war.

Um wrong. It applies only to North America, i.e. America should also control Canada and Mexico.

I suggest you read the first page of this thread, as I don't feel like rehashing that conversation.

Query I: Since the United States is the only nation with even the theoretical ability to launch a tactical nuclear strike that would obliterate its enemies nuclear capacity, are you advocating a preemptive attack at some point in the future by the U.S.? Because if you aren't, then your second sentence is just a red herring.
Query II: How would a tactical nuclear strike destroy mobile missile sites such as submarines, or sites the US doesn't know exist?
I'm saying, that if the goal of the U.S. was to be the sole power in the world, it would only be logical to destroy all its rivals before they reached a point at which they coudl compete.

I'm saying, that if the goal of the U.S. was to be the sole power in the world, it would only be logical to destroy all its rivals before they reached a point at which they coudl compete.

Funny, that isn't how they dismantled the Soviet Union. Warfare comes in many forms.

I'm saying, that if the goal of the U.S. was to be the sole power in the world, it would only be logical to destroy all its rivals before they reached a point at which they coudl compete.


And like I said, it isn't all Americans who want to take over the world. It's just Bush and his republicans.

Wouldn't it be funny if Bush came on CNN one day and said he had had a vision from god to take over the world? THAT would be hilarious.

Isn't this always how these kinds of arguments go? Each side stalling until the other gives up because neither has a legitemit claim. I'm doing it right now. I know nothing about how the actual science of nuclear technology works. I'm betting you don't either. But I DO know what would happen if Bush started a nuclear war.

Chances are you don't.

Really, the only nation that could present a nuclear threat to us is the USSR Mk II. We wouldn't start a nuclear war with our European allies, and China and North Korea would be speedbumps.

Okay, this is an old study, but it gives the effects of a full scale nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the US. While that scenarion does not apply, it explains what would happen in the event of a nuclear holocaust.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_5/DATA/1979/7906.PDF#search='nuclear%20war%20effects'

That's an American site too, so no arguing about credibility.

Chances are you don't.

Really, the only nation that could present a nuclear threat to us is the USSR Mk II. We wouldn't start a nuclear war with our European allies, and China and North Korea would be speedbumps.

So China would be a speedbump, eh? Somehow I think that perhaps you don't know what would happen in a nuclear war either.

That depends on whether or not you believe in God. :) But I agree that a nuclear holocaust would definitely not be good for anyone.
why does it depend whether i believe in god? :confused:

why does it depend whether i believe in god? :confused:

Many religions believe that God would never allow a nuclear war. Others believe that Har-Maggedon (Armaggedon, for those of you not so swift on the uptake) will be made manifest through nuclear war. I'm guessing this writer belongs to the former camp.

Canada and Britain won the war, and America won the negotiations right after ;)

That seems to be the pattern right now, but that's assuming the conservatives maintain their dominance of American politics

They also won a crucial battle that occurred after the armistice due to the lack of communication on the part of both armies. Battle of New Orleans ring a bell? That's what allowed the negotiations to turn out as a draw.

Many religions believe that God would never allow a nuclear war. Others believe that Har-Maggedon (Armaggedon, for those of you not so swift on the uptake) will be made manifest through nuclear war. I'm guessing this writer belongs to the former camp.
well, i dont believe in god...so who knows what will happen...

They also won a crucial battle that occurred after the armistice due to the lack of communication on the part of both armies. Battle of New Orleans ring a bell? That's what allowed the negotiations to turn out as a draw.

Some people argue that. However I think the reason that the negotiations were a draw was because the British populace, after fighting Napoleon and losing so many men, was not eager to fight the War of Independence II.

So China would be a speedbump, eh? Somehow I think that perhaps you don't know what would happen in a nuclear war either.

Yes, China would be a speedbump.

http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/icbm.htm

They'd give us a bloody nose in terms of losses, we'd utterly annihilate them.

Some people argue that. However I think the reason that the negotiations were a draw was because the British populace, after fighting Napoleon and losing so many men, was not eager to fight the War of Independence II.

It's not really something to dispute. The figures are there. On January 8, 1815, in the Battle of New Orleans, Britain greatly outnumbered Jackson and his men. They had 2,000 + casualties, and Jackson only had 71.

Ce fil ennuyeux. Au revoir.

Many religions believe that God would never allow a nuclear war. Others believe that Har-Maggedon (Armaggedon, for those of you not so swift on the uptake) will be made manifest through nuclear war. I'm guessing this writer belongs to the former camp.

What I meant was that if you believed that humans couldn't destroy the universe on their own, if you believed in God then you would believe in a force that could destroy it (for example to make room for the new Heaven and the new Earth) and if you didn't believe in God then you wouldn't believe that there was anything in existence capable of destroying the world.

Interesting site, if you look at war from a static standpoint. However do you really, truly believe that the Chinese could not buy nukes from Russia? Do you believe that an internet site will tell you the exact nuclear capability of a Communist nation which is very very good at keeping secrets? Do you think the Chinese could deliver nuclear weapons through non-conventional means? What would world reaction be? Even if no one went to war, a crippling nuclear strike by the US could produce all sorts of political and economic repercussions.
Next, based on what you've said, do you think the US can take over the world (not necessarily militarily, but through a combination of overt and covert political, military and economic actions)?

What I meant was that if you believed that humans couldn't destroy the universe on their own, if you believed in God then you would believe in a force that could destroy it (for example to make room for the new Heaven and the new Earth) and if you didn't believe in God then you wouldn't believe that there was anything in existence capable of destroying the world.

My apologies for misinterpreting you.

Interesting site, if you look at war from a static standpoint.

It's a great site. Plenty of info on practically every system in use. Seriously, you could spend hours just browsing through the stuff they have.

However do you really, truly believe that the Chinese could not buy nukes from Russia?

Actually, yes. Russia and China have fought several border wars even when Russia was still the USSR, and there isn't any real love between the countries. Also, the Russians aren't suicidal. Selling fuel to Iran is one thing, that gives them deniability. Selling actual weapons is in a totally different category of stupidity.

Do you believe that an internet site will tell you the exact nuclear capability of a Communist nation which is very very good at keeping secrets?

China's military is crap in terms of quality. Sure, they have some decent stuff, but it's all Russian designed or copied from the Russians. The only thing I'd be actually worried about are the few ICBMs they have, and *maybe* their SSBNs, but those are of a very questionable reliability.

No you think the Chinese could deliver nuclear weapons through non-conventional means?

Not really. It'd be incredibly risky and rather stupid of them.

What would world reaction be?

In the event of China somehow attacking the US, it finds itself at war with NATO, and if it was a nuclear attack, NATO responds in kind. The only question is how hard they choose to hit China, ranging from "bitchslap" to "pwned bitches!".

Even if no one went to war, a crippling nuclear strike by the US could produce all sorts of political and economic repercussions.

Taiwan's politicians blink a few times in a stunned "WTF?!" moment, and the US just lost one of its sources of cheap labor.

Next, based on what you've said, do you think the US can take over the world (not necessarily militarily, but through a combination of overt and covert political, military and economic actions)?

Nope. We have limitations.