Is some form of world war still possible in this day and age?

[NICO]

.......Let us pretend that you seeking some great advantage and could take down America without firing a shot what then? How could it not hurt you? Then all of a sudden you find out that your grandfather can no longer get his heart medication and a thousand other things like it and the advantage you though you would get disappears into unintended consequences..

I think you hit some important points there that differentiates our current situation compared to WWI or WWII. It is very difficult to go to war today because of how most economies are linked and how do you avoid hurting your own economy/industry in the process. Only really the states under sanctions like Iran or NKorea that are pretty isolated could maybe gain something going to war today.Most other countries would probably lose out.

Maybe second cold war will be just asymmetric (malware,virus,etc..) with a touch of SForces and PGMs mixed in.

I think in the US especially, a lot of people would be against my idea of some kind of international treaty that would provide some kind of baseline when it comes to these new threats as it smacks for some of New World Order conspiracies which has grown in size and craziness but I still think it is necessary and it would be one way of avoiding a second cold war.

 

[Sampanviking]

You may be interested to note, that on Wednesday 15th, there were some very interesting comments in the communique of the SCO Heads of State summit in Astana (Kazahkstan).

It appears that for the first time, that China and Russia have harmonised their foreign policies on a range of security issues, including:
NATO in Libya
US Missile Shields in Eastern Europe
US involvement in South East Asia and Oceania
Continues NATO presence in Afghanistan post 2014.

It is also worth noting that at the same summit, the new process for admitting new members was agreed and that India and Pakistan have expressed the intention to join the organisation together, after resolving their territorial disputes within 3 years.

Both of these countries attended the summit as observers and so seem quite comfortable with the contents of the communique as expressed above.

People may wish to consider the ramifications thereof.

 

[rip]

I think you hit some important points there that differentiates our current situation compared to WWI or WWII. It is very difficult to go to war today because of how most economies are linked and how do you avoid hurting your own economy/industry in the process. Only really the states under sanctions like Iran or NKorea that are pretty isolated could maybe gain something going to war today.Most other countries would probably lose out.

Maybe second cold war will be just asymmetric (malware,virus,etc..) with a touch of SForces and PGMs mixed in.

I think in the US especially, a lot of people would be against my idea of some kind of international treaty that would provide some kind of baseline when it comes to these new threats as it smacks for some of New World Order conspiracies which has grown in size and craziness but I still think it is necessary and it would be one way of avoiding a second cold war.

It is not so much that the idea of a treaty is not praise worthy in and of its self it is that there is no way to enforce it. If it cannot be enforced, monitored, or verified it creates more problems than it solves. Most governments that are involved in these kinds of things use surrogates, usually becoming partners with criminal organizations who do the work for tradeoffs. If you cannot identify the true sources and players behind the attack it only becomes a worthless piece of paper.

What is more likely to happens long term is that many life support systems, beginning with the information bases ones are going to become increasingly off line, proprietary, non-connected, non-standard, incompatible, and hence structurally less efficient because they are too vulnerable to malefactors of all kinds. The end result will be that economic activity will become in many very measurable ways far less efficient and the whole world will become poorer as a result of the absence of trust.

The people who think they can take advantage but misusing others trust will just move on to the next most venerable kind of targets. Now think of a world where nobody trusts anyone. It would be a world where the problems that are coming at us will be unsolved. Not because the problems themselves are insurmountable but because we failed to cooperate in solving them due to a failure of trust.

 

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

You may be interested to note, that on Wednesday 15th, there were some very interesting comments in the communique of the SCO Heads of State summit in Astana (Kazahkstan).

It appears that for the first time, that China and Russia have harmonised their foreign policies on a range of security issues, including:
NATO in Libya
US Missile Shields in Eastern Europe
US involvement in South East Asia and Oceania
Continues NATO presence in Afghanistan post 2014.

It is also worth noting that at the same summit, the new process for admitting new members was agreed and that India and Pakistan have expressed the intention to join the organisation together, after resolving their territorial disputes within 3 years.

Both of these countries attended the summit as observers and so seem quite comfortable with the contents of the communique as expressed above.

People may wish to consider the ramifications thereof.

You hit a very good point. Should you ever get a chance to read:
Terrorist Trail: Backtracking the Foreign Fighter [Paperback]
H. John Poole (Author), Mike Leahy (Illustrator), Ray L. Smith (Foreword)

In combo with:
On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace [Paperback]
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (Author), Loren W. Christensen (Author)

Please read them.

One critical point that H. John Poole made was the involvement of both China and Russia in Africa throughout the early 1960's and onwards, and the development of Satellite Proxy Armies (SPA) in regions, historically speaking, where the West instituted slavery on a proportionally large scale, unseen in human history.

One critical point that Lt. Col. Dave Grossman made was the evolution of how war was fought. From large land based armies to individual state-less operators. (Let me get back my books so i can quote them.)

@Ananda
“It's the responsibility of all players in this economics batllefield to try to convinces eveyone to avoid 'armed' option, and stick to the game of the systems. Just like economics dicipline it self wich trying to quantified human nature, the 'economic battlefield' systems will try to reduces human natures to the numbers that can be traded in the game.” #10. Para. 4.
“The present global economic system with all the ineffciency and injustices still provide the better alternatives for human to acquiared resources in more 'civilised' way in which you put as 'honest and fair' competions. But no competions is actually really fair and honest. It's only exist on an utopian level that we can only dream off.” # 15. Para. 2

Travel to some "third world countries", and tell that to them.

So is some form of world war still possible in this day and age? Let's hope not for the future generations. However you would have to analyze Political, Infrastructure, Military, Economic, Social, and Informational (PI-MESI) factors.

Small wars will also continue to exist indefinitely.

 

[Twinblade]

Some very interesting views, thank you to all that have posted.

But lets know throw a view at this. What if we were to think in terms of fiction/film setting/novel.

What then in the realms of semi-realistic fiction could start a global conflict?

If you look at ww1 and ww2, ww1 actually laid the foundations for a much larger, more destructive ww2. As of today NATO, Russia, India and China, neither have the intent nor the willpower to wage a full fledged war against each other and settle it in their favor.

However middle east is a totally different ballgame. Broadly divided into the Arab block, the Iranian block and the Israeli block, its as stable as barrels of gasoline in a dynamite factory. Here everyone hates everyone, and any two sides might have to work together (unwillingly) to whack the third out. A full out middle east war will certainly wreck the oil based economy, which may trigger a new great race for resources. It may be even a cold war like situation with no less than 2 players supporting rival factions in some troubled african nation with resources to gain the upper hand.

Since Russia has a lot of resources on hand, and India being run by peace loving hippies for the time to come, we can all guess which two blocks are going to face off each other in the long run.

 

[Beatmaster]

If you look at ww1 and ww2, ww1 actually laid the foundations for a much larger, more destructive ww2. As of today NATO, Russia, India and China, neither have the intent nor the willpower to wage a full fledged war against each other and settle it in their favor.

However middle east is a totally different ballgame. Broadly divided into the Arab block, the Iranian block and the Israeli block, its as stable as barrels of gasoline in a dynamite factory. Here everyone hates everyone, and any two sides might have to work together (unwillingly) to whack the third out. A full out middle east war will certainly wreck the oil based economy, which may trigger a new great race for resources. It may be even a cold war like situation with no less than 2 players supporting rival factions in some troubled african nation with resources to gain the upper hand.

Since Russia has a lot of resources on hand, and India being run by peace loving hippies for the time to come, we can all guess which two blocks are going to face off each other in the long run.

I understand what you are saying and to some extend i can agree to it.
But like other posters have said you have to realize that a fully fledged WO is not very likely to happen as there are a number of facts that makes it nearly impossible to wage a large scale war or prepare one.

Obviously if a fool would declare war to 20 countries at ones and start hitting around like a raging mofo yeah then you got yourself a very short lasting world war the reason i say short lasting is because of the watch dogs out there like the security council who will or who will be forced to take actions against the aggressor.
And yes economic power and size does matter when you are talking about a world war but imo it really does not matter who starts it as the rest of the world will not accept it so even when it might escalate in a world war i personally believe that the rest of the world will do what ever can be done to stop this war.

And maybe i see this wrong but today's economical and international interests alone is reason enough to avoid a fully fledged world war.
Its not like 1940 see my point? the world has become so dynamic and nearly everything is digital that starting a world war (Without nukes) is a challenge of its own and ones you pulled this off then the rest of the world will be ready and waiting.
So besides the very unrealistic scenario that US invades Russia and China pays a visit to the EU while the Arab and African nations having their own gang bang i really do not see how a nation could be able to start a world war, imo is suicide for any nations regardless if its a tiny nation or its the biggest and strongest nation around.

However lets forget a fully fledged WO for a sec here as it is unrealistic at this point however there are a number of places on this planet that could result in a regional conflict if the international community does not pay attention and the risks coming from these regional conflicts could result in a political world war as international interests and agreements might force a nation to step in which might lead into a military intervention of some sort.
But a world war? no i do not see that happen not saying that a world war is impossible but the risks and negative effects from a world war is way to much for anyone to carry at this point so i personally believe that even if nations hate each other and would love to see a mushroom cloud at each others capital that they still would do what ever it takes to avoid a world war, specially if you take into account what small conflicts can do to world economics and such.

just my cents here

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

If you look at ww1 and ww2, ww1 actually laid the foundations for a much larger, more destructive ww2. As of today NATO, Russia, India and China, neither have the intent nor the willpower to wage a full fledged war against each other and settle it in their favor.

However middle east is a totally different ballgame. Broadly divided into the Arab block, the Iranian block and the Israeli block, its as stable as barrels of gasoline in a dynamite factory. Here everyone hates everyone, and any two sides might have to work together (unwillingly) to whack the third out. A full out middle east war will certainly wreck the oil based economy, which may trigger a new great race for resources. It may be even a cold war like situation with no less than 2 players supporting rival factions in some troubled african nation with resources to gain the upper hand.

Since Russia has a lot of resources on hand, and India being run by peace loving hippies for the time to come, we can all guess which two blocks are going to face off each other in the long run.

I apologise in advance for the long post, but I am going to address two issues. The first is Twinblade above. I agree with most of your post. The Middle East is most definitely the major flash point at the moment. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians reminds me of the 1930s & has created tensions that are growing each day. The tensions between the Persians and the Arabs and the Israelis are as old as the bible. Add in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This brings me to another flash point.

India & Pakistan. India is not ruled by peace loving hippies as you claim. They have fought, I think, 2 wars against Pakistan and 1 against China. India at the moment is undergoing probably the largest modernisation of any armed forces in the world plus it is increasing it's capacity to include a larger carrier fleet and introducing SSBNs with a fleet of 12 planned. India also has some internal security issues it is dealing with as well as security issues in Kashmir along with border issues in Kashmir with Pakistan. Both nations have nukes and India has a long defence relationship with Russia, Pakistan with China.

The third flash point is the South China Sea including the Korean Peninsula & Taiwan. China is starting to vigourously assert its claim to the Spratly Islands. They have already had a shooting war with Vietnam in the 1980s. Recently they had a run in with the Philippines and have also had a run in with the Japanese Navy (JNSDF). They have got cranky about US navy exercises in the South China Sea as well.

I generally agree with what you are saying here. I also hope we never have a large scale conflict again.

But I think there was a question of how one could start. I pointed out some of the differences with what we would have today compared to WWI or WWII. We wouldn't have a Pearl Harbor but maybe something like STUXNET or even more dangerous form take out the power grid or telcoms? What would be the response of SKorea if NKorea were to take SK stock market out for a day?a week? multiple attacks against TV,radio,internet? I think after a few days the SKorean population would want to see some "kinetic" action taken against NK, especially after a few days in the dark with no electricity or water. It could get ugly pretty fast after that.

Just today, I read in Bloomberg, United airlines computers were down, a few days ago it was US Airways. Interesting? What happens if this keeps going on? Then other industries start having problems at their turn. Could something like this be a prelude to an attack today (unlikely), hackers having a good time (likely) or some country giving their programmers a trial run? Computer viruses are great, they weaken your enemy, hard to prove their origin and it's soft power. How and when do you know you are under attack? Where exactly is the threshold where you start using hard power (bombs) in retaliation against a virus (soft power)? Who was it that recently said if you take out our power grid, you'll end up with an LGB coming down on you? It might have been Gates, not sure.

Nico raises an interesting scenario and one I feel that needs to be discussed within the context of this topic. So far most of the discussion has centred upon state on state conflict which historically has usually been the case. One point Nico makes is:

I remember reading somewhere that during the 80s (Cold War), if the Soviets took out a US satellite, it was considered an act of war with dear and immediate consequences. This was well understood by both parties. Could it be that it is time that all major countries develop some shared protocol where if a country comes under attack by computer hacking, well, everyone knows what to expect? I think we do need some new treaties to cover some of these worldwide emerging threats.

What if a non governmental organisation committed an act of aggression against a state? 9/11.

Maybe like you said, terrorism is today's WW4. I would add if I may: piracy, mafias, counterfeiting and narcs in there too. None of them really could take down a developed country in the West but you start adding them together with their favorite corruptible politicians/judges du jour and now you have big problems for every country including USA.

Take it a step further from 9/11. Undoubtedly we have all been following the Murdoch scandal in the UK with the journos hacking cellphones. I see on tonights news that it may have spread to the US with the actor Jude Law claiming his cellphone was hacked in the US. Here you have a private corporation hacking into government figures, as well as private individuals, in the UK for private info to sell papers. This has a very real security implication. A similar organisation could have used the same methodology for more nefarious means. This is a cyber attack pure and simple; be it against an individual or a state.

Now the US has a rather large problem 24,000 files stolen from defense contractor: Pentagon | Defense Technology News at DefenseTalk The official line is that it could have only been done by a foreign intelligence service but there are multinationals out there who have far greater budgets than a lot of countries (including my own :bum ) Who is to say that a private corporation could not conduct a similar operation. The US & Europe also have a debt problem and because like most of the OECD countries, as well as many others, they rely upon electronic media to process financial transactions and data. It's another target for a cyber attack. The list goes on. Think how much we rely on electronic data transfer & management now.

A war, even a world war, doesn't have to be guns and explosions. It can be something far more insidious, economically devastating and far harder to counter. It can be started by a state or a non state entity and can go global because of the ongoing momentum, just like a virus. Look at the last global financial crash which started in Manhattan because of one greedy banker. Cause and effect.

Just something more to think about.

 

[Twinblade]

India & Pakistan. India is not ruled by peace loving hippies as you claim. They have fought, I think, 2 wars against Pakistan and 1 against China. India at the moment is undergoing probably the largest modernisation of any armed forces in the world plus it is increasing it's capacity to include a larger carrier fleet and introducing SSBNs with a fleet of 12 planned. India also has some internal security issues it is dealing with as well as security issues in Kashmir along with border issues in Kashmir with Pakistan. Both nations have nukes and India has a long defence relationship with Russia, Pakistan with China.

Well, if it weren't for peace loving hippies, the public opinion demanded for a full fledged war in 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006 & 2008 (nationalistic attitude runs very deep in asian societies, mostly silencing the voice of reason). Just saying

 

[phrank]

I think the one thing over looked is that if for some reason the US fell apart or pulled back from the world then a new war would be possible.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Thank you Rip.

I see no point trying to keep the two subjects seperate, as you say they will be joined at some point.

So lets discuss both from the outset.

For the initial question is "What would drive people to war on such a large scale?"

easy, resources! Let's face it, the world is getting smaller, resources are becoming more scarce, ummmm, it ain't rocket science!

 

[phrank]

water is getting harder and harder in many places of the world to get. There are many countries that I have read about that have come close to war over water.

 

[artstyle]

today they are many issues that could drive countries or even world into a full scale war

see for

food,water,drought------in african nations suffering from these issues there are possibilities of civil wars which in turn could turn into war or may be a full scale war when u.s,china , russia sides with countries where their interest lies.

oil and natural gas/fuel-------in the middle east countries , already engaged in a cold war and whose economies are based on fuel could easily be dragged into all out war , when u.s sides with israel (obvoiusly) and where the sensitive "muslim and ethnic groups" issue comes

power projection-------------south east asian countries in and around south china sea could go on a full scale conflict on china with u.s backing them,

economic and shipping---------- china could /be faced with / go in to a cold war with other economic gaints which it sees as a competitor ,
gulf of aden-mallca strait which is a important trade sea root for the eastren nations could spark litltle tensions starting with clashes between two vessels to an full scaled war likley involving (china,india,australia,japan)

boundary issues----------- one of the main problems/causes that could lead to war now-a-days
*s.korea-n.korea
*india-pakistan
*chian-india
*countries in /around south china sea
*israel-and surrounding countries
etc ....
*russia-other former ussr countries supported by nato

nuclear opting-----countries developing nuclear weps like iran n-korea could be attacked by their neighbours as a pre-emptive strike

all together the asia could be seen as a center for war scenarios with involvement of u.s/russia/nato to protect their interests.

 

[Armoredpriapism]

I don't think the threat of nuclear weapons is all limiting, sadly. I don't think we should so easily dismiss large scale war or even the use of nukes. China knows that if it nukes the US mainland that China will cease to exist, and the US knows that if it nukes China it would be very damaged, radioactive, and many millions of people short, so what could make any of those countries nuke each other? There's no point, they might as well nuke themselves – they won't launch unless someone is launching at them.

If a regional conflict in Southeast Asia drew in US hardware and personnel to duke it out against China or India, I don't think it would escalate into nuclear exchange unless one side thought it were about to be attacked by the others' nuclear force. And even so, a tactical exchange shouldn't necessarily lead to a strategic exchange. So as long as one side isn't backed into a military corner under a terminal threat what prevents large scale exchanges between modern forces, necessarily? I think there could be war over a limited area. Weapons systems would poor in from different forces and fight in modern ways, but that shouldn't lead to beach landings in Seattle or Tianjin.

I think a defense of Taiwan would be enacted by the US if it came to it, and once the world got there I think both sides would be saying, let's not let this get out of hand. To the Americans is a free Taiwan worth the loss of its homeland and millions upon millions of its people? No. Neither is its gain worth that risk to the Chinese. ICBMs wouldn't be used. But MAD theory aside there are many reasons why large countries wouldn't want to total war with each other, and I'm not saying there is a good chance of it happening in the next decades militarily anyway.

What I do see happening, if anything, which might be this century's method of conquest, is a rich country putting on a small country so much economic pressure that the country appeases the large every time it comes knocking. For a country like Vietnam, imagine its sternly holding its own against the Chinese in its dispute over oil. Vietnam is guarding its exploration with navy ships. China doesn't want a shooting war but it will have its oil, so it begins to buy up everything public. China directs its companies to buy everything for sale on Vietnam's stock market, its development land, its contracts. Everything Vietnam exports, China directs its companies to export the same thing at an artificially low price, even if the products take losses. China agrees to sell most of everything back, because it doesn't want the products in the first place, in exchange for the permanent oil rights to the area. If China were malicious and calculating enough, it could enact policies and make transactions to ruin a small economy, even if it also hurts China. This would be an act of aggression, and though no shots might be fired would still produce the same consequences. It could also be used as a threat.
Most humbly,
-Armored A. Prispiam

 

[Belesari]

China already does that to a extent.

By keeping its currency way undervalued it keeps its prices cheaper than those of the US. They are already trying to corner the market with items such as Solar power with Huge subudized industry.

I think we will just see far more forms of warfare increase in the rest of the century atleast.

In a very real sense the US has been in a cold war from 1948 to far in the future.

I don't think the threat of nuclear weapons is all limiting, sadly. I don't think we should so easily dismiss large scale war or even the use of nukes. China knows that if it nukes the US mainland that China will cease to exist, and the US knows that if it nukes China it would be very damaged, radioactive, and many millions of people short, so what could make any of those countries nuke each other? There's no point, they might as well nuke themselves – they won't launch unless someone is launching at them.

If a regional conflict in Southeast Asia drew in US hardware and personnel to duke it out against China or India, I don't think it would escalate into nuclear exchange unless one side thought it were about to be attacked by the others' nuclear force. And even so, a tactical exchange shouldn't necessarily lead to a strategic exchange. So as long as one side isn't backed into a military corner under a terminal threat what prevents large scale exchanges between modern forces, necessarily? I think there could be war over a limited area. Weapons systems would poor in from different forces and fight in modern ways, but that shouldn't lead to beach landings in Seattle or Tianjin.

I think a defense of Taiwan would be enacted by the US if it came to it, and once the world got there I think both sides would be saying, let's not let this get out of hand. To the Americans is a free Taiwan worth the loss of its homeland and millions upon millions of its people? No. Neither is its gain worth that risk to the Chinese. ICBMs wouldn't be used. But MAD theory aside there are many reasons why large countries wouldn't want to total war with each other, and I'm not saying there is a good chance of it happening in the next decades militarily anyway.

What I do see happening, if anything, which might be this century's method of conquest, is a rich country putting on a small country so much economic pressure that the country appeases the large every time it comes knocking. For a country like Vietnam, imagine its sternly holding its own against the Chinese in its dispute over oil. Vietnam is guarding its exploration with navy ships. China doesn't want a shooting war but it will have its oil, so it begins to buy up everything public. China directs its companies to buy everything for sale on Vietnam's stock market, its development land, its contracts. Everything Vietnam exports, China directs its companies to export the same thing at an artificially low price, even if the products take losses. China agrees to sell most of everything back, because it doesn't want the products in the first place, in exchange for the permanent oil rights to the area. If China were malicious and calculating enough, it could enact policies and make transactions to ruin a small economy, even if it also hurts China. This would be an act of aggression, and though no shots might be fired would still produce the same consequences. It could also be used as a threat.
Most humbly,
-Armored A. Prispiam

 

[Sampanviking]

China already does that to a extent.

By keeping its currency way undervalued it keeps its prices cheaper than those of the US. They are already trying to corner the market with items such as Solar power with Huge subudized industry.

I think we will just see far more forms of warfare increase in the rest of the century atleast.

In a very real sense the US has been in a cold war from 1948 to far in the future.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only differential between production in China and the US is the exchange rate?

I think the reason you can't compete with Chinese products is because they have lower land prices, much cheaper labour costs and can build infrastructure at a fraction of the cost and with far less red tape than in the US.

Remember between 2004 and 2008 the yuan strengthened by 20% against the dollar but the US deficit continued to grow unhindered.

The root of Americas problems are and remain firmly on home soil.

 

[Belesari]

No. I was giving a specific instance of what could be called economic warfare.

China has much associated with its rise to a idustrial powerhouse. China's low land cost is true but it is now begining to go up as the middle class rises and aquires more wealth and with it land and power. The cheaper labour cost is also true but this has become less and less because new rising powers like Indonesia and India have even cheaper labour cost. As wages for the middle class go up so does the cost of living.

As for the cost of building infestructure and the red tape completely true which is something many people have been trying to address. Considering alot of projects demand up to and sometimes OVER a 2 year enviromental impact study because of government redtape.....add to that the still low cost of chinese labour and the higher cost of american...

Add to all of this China continues to heavily subsidise its industry and they can do so because of the massive amount of money we pay them along with the other reasons mentioned.

That said China does seem to have a bumpy future ahead of it. We will see.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only differential between production in China and the US is the exchange rate?

I think the reason you can't compete with Chinese products is because they have lower land prices, much cheaper labour costs and can build infrastructure at a fraction of the cost and with far less red tape than in the US.

Remember between 2004 and 2008 the yuan strengthened by 20% against the dollar but the US deficit continued to grow unhindered.

The root of Americas problems are and remain firmly on home soil.

 

[Sampanviking]

By happy coincidence, you may enjoy an article published on ATOL today and which deals specifically with many of the issues you raise and relates to the Solyndra failure.

Asia Times Online :: The right kind of mistake

First, the Chinese government's massive emphasis on this technology area has created some of the world's best-educated scientists and engineers in the field of clean technology who hail from China's universities.

Second, the streamlined regulatory environment in China means new clean technology ventures can get to scale faster than they otherwise could in more heavily regulated Western markets. As was seen during protests by Chinese residents of Haining this year over potential pollution related to production of solar panels by Jinko Solar Holding, these streamlined regulations are not always well received and may, in some cases, prove to be politically untenable even in China. Regardless, the overall emphasis on green technology industries in China means the government looks to stay out of the way, acting as a regulatory body only where absolutely needed.

Third, American companies looking into China are being greeted with much more, and much less expensive, capital than what they have been able to find in North America. A more educated and less expensive work force, minimal government interference, and access to more (and less expensive) money are a combination few entrepreneurs are going to be willing to pass up.

 

[Belesari]

Yea im not saying we shouldn't invest in solar industries and others just that its VERY complicated here.

Not only do you have the base political argument-completely free enterprise vs government suplimented free enterprise-which at its most basic form has nothing to do with reality but is about principles (as if that matters when the Huns come over the plains :roll ) which is...complicated.

Then their is the politicans saying, "OK build it here and such so i can say 'look at the jobs i created vote for me!' and i will pull strings to get the money".

Where i live in Tennessee we gave GM tens of millions to build a plant in one city. They built it then after a year shut it down.- bad decission.

Another one here in Tennessee is a Massive Solar factory like the second biggest construction site east of the missisiphi. It is going to be used to build Alot of new solar panels. But labor is cheap here so its pretty good plus Tennessee using money we saved up not barrowed has bought and helped build the land.

Basicly we need to be wiser in our choices and let the politics control less of our decissions.

China has a focused plan................we have a bad case of ADHD.

By happy coincidence, you may enjoy an article published on ATOL today and which deals specifically with many of the issues you raise and relates to the Solyndra failure.

Asia Times Online :: The right kind of mistake

 

[Armoredpriapism]

That ADHD metaphor is a very good one. I've got myself a heaping pile of ADD and America now reminds me of how I'd run the country if I controlled it all ^^
But that aside, even if America spent a trillion dollars over the next decade on solor to really make it effective, that's a trillion dollars it doesn't have to spend the decade after that on oil. China is thinking where it'll be 20 years from now; America is thinking where it'll be 4 years from now, every year.

 

[Sampanviking]

I think that what is being discussed is still competition rather than warfare.
I do not even think that there is an ideological clash either between the models, except that the US should stop being so ideological about itself and rediscover pragmatism.

Maybe the unfettered free market delivered the goods fifty years ago, but it is looking questionable today.

You could also argue that the subsidies (ie soft loans and credit guarantees) that the Chinese government extends to some strategic industries are dwarfed by the size of the subsidy (bail out and QE) that the US extends to its banks and other financial institutions.