I wouldn't try making a billion of people unhappy.

numbers don't matter in an age of WMDs

that'd be hypocrisy if you just accused us of being polluters

@Deleted User most will live after the war.

small numbers mean easier wipeout by WMDs, in any case

what, aren't you afraid of nuclear winter? fallout? destroying the earth?

>implying nukes are the only weapons of mass destruction

What to do after the war @Deleted User

yeah, how about you split open the earth's crust too, while you're at it.

>implying we wouldn't just explode a nuke under the ocean and create an enormous tsunami destroying most of china's coastal population

>implying we wouldn't use chemical warfare

your hatred for chyna is amusing

>chemical warfare that would irrevocably damage the world's ecosystems

>nuclear weapons that would irrevocably damage the world's ecosystems

you seem to be having an issue with this "pollution and eco-friendly solutions" thing

@Deleted User so you would not only go to war but also genocide?

>implying china has any ecosystems left

hemp groes everywhere here

Not necessarily genocide

I can get high by walking outside and picking some leafs

you haven't seen western china's ecosystem

stop generalizing

>western china hosts most of the population

your point was about ecosystems

don't change the point

@Deleted User then they will live and will be unhappy with you.

of course it was

@Bernoulli you should consider tourism in our southern provinces. the hills are famous there.

but there are no ecosystems in the east

none of significance

that's where all the population is

It would be very easy to destroy China

oh?

if NATO decided tomorrow

and we went all out

sure

amusing dream

*you're more than welcome to try*

I would love to

but the politicians of nowadays have a lot more shifting to do

edgy