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

[Armoredpriapism]

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.

From what I've been hearing on CSPAN and American media the government and its electorate is beginning to see China as nothing but a national enemy. China used to be a "friend" who Americans felt they were propping up because, eventually if the US made China rich enough America would have a big ole market willing to buy expensive American goods. More importantly, China was the magical place that made expensive things cheaper. Now there's serious talk of tarrifs of Chinese goods as well as the use of military responses to cyber attacks. China is getting richer but it won't need to buy American if it simply steals the blueprints for American goods, and this is throwing off the only reason America has supported the Chinese rise. So if this continues I could see military action to destory infrastructure or economic capability in the future, as, aside for America's trillion dollar debt, America has no use for China anymore.
On a side note, what happens legally if a state of war is enacted between two countries who legally owe each other something? If China were to ever attack US troops, over Taiwan, or what-have-you, and in response the US declared war (even if it didn't mean it to be on a large scale) might a condition for peace be absolution of the debt? If that's reasonable it might give the US an incentive.

 

[STURM]

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.

Yes and unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China is not interested at all in exporting its ideology. The same can be said of the Taliban.

From what I've been hearing on CSPAN and American media the government and its electorate is beginning to see China as nothing but a national enemy..

That doesn't say much. Remember all the talk in the mainstream/establishment media about Saddams WMDs, his links to AQ [despite being the head of a secular regime, the kind that was hated by AQ] and his involvement in 9/11? People just haven't gotten use to the fact that China, which only 2 decades ago was a non-player in global affairs, is set to become the world's largest economy and will have a military, which though can't openly challenge American military dominance, can cause a whole lof of mischief and trouble for America in the Asia Pacific if the balloon goes up. American diplomatic influence, already weakened by the Arab Spring in the Middle East, already faces stiff competition from China in places like Africa and South America.

At lot of the analysis seen in the U.S. press is also very American centric and see things almost entrirely from an American perspective or lens, irrespective of the fact China also has strategic interests and concerns to watch out for. Even now, we are constantly reminded that Iran, led by its President [who is a nutter] and mad mullahs, is a 'threat' and is just waiting and praying for the day when it can launch nuclear missiles at the free world. Yet no one has asked why Iran would want to do this if not attacked first, either by Israel or by the U.S. with the full support of subserviant Sunni Gulf states led by Saudi.

China used to be a "friend" who Americans felt they were propping up because, eventually if the US made China rich enough America would have a big ole market willing to buy expensive American goods.

It goes beyond that. Bear in mind that from the 1930's up to the 1950's, there was a very strong China lobby in the U.S., with Chang Kai Sheik and ''Madam'' enjoying a lot of support and influence. Following Chinese aggression in the late 1930's, China was the beneficiery of large amounts of U.S. aid, attracted a lot of sympathy from the U.S. political elite and public and following the outbreak of war with Japan, its position became more important to U.S interests. And then there was the Cold War and China's break with the Soviet Union.

If you're interested about the relationship between the 2 countries prior to WW2, try a get a copy of ''Stilwell and the China Experience'' by Barbara Tuchman.

 

[Beatmaster]

From what I've been hearing on CSPAN and American media the government and its electorate is beginning to see China as nothing but a national enemy. China used to be a "friend" who Americans felt they were propping up because, eventually if the US made China rich enough America would have a big ole market willing to buy expensive American goods. More importantly, China was the magical place that made expensive things cheaper. Now there's serious talk of tarrifs of Chinese goods as well as the use of military responses to cyber attacks. China is getting richer but it won't need to buy American if it simply steals the blueprints for American goods, and this is throwing off the only reason America has supported the Chinese rise. So if this continues I could see military action to destory infrastructure or economic capability in the future, as, aside for America's trillion dollar debt, America has no use for China anymore.
On a side note, what happens legally if a state of war is enacted between two countries who legally owe each other something? If China were to ever attack US troops, over Taiwan, or what-have-you, and in response the US declared war (even if it didn't mean it to be on a large scale) might a condition for peace be absolution of the debt? If that's reasonable it might give the US an incentive.

So what are you saying? Thats China aint good enough anymore to the US economy?
Perhaps you can see it the way around, perhaps the US aint the solid partner for the world anymore as more and more nations are turning to China as a trade partner and economic centre of activity.
Keep in mind that all the sabre rattle is just rumors and such.
China has to go a very long way and they will have to change stuff around but eventually China would be able to surpass the US both economic and perhaps even military.
That does not have to mean that this is bad, fact remains China has by far the biggest population and thus a economic giant you cannot rule that out its that simple.
The future of the US, EU and China are linked to eachother in such degree that no matter how the US feels about China (Or vice versa) they both have to deal with it.
Yes the US and the west invested massive in China, however China on her end has invested massive in the west and you are talking about billions and billions of dollars on both sides.
On a military side, Yes rumors and newpapers say that China is conducting cyber attacks and that they did steal blueprints, however do you think that the US is clean in that regard?
Simple said China is becoming a gaint, just like Russia ones did, just like the EU did and just like the US did you can see this both negative as positive, but for america to say you just wrote is just ridicilous.
And for the US going on a path of war for whatever reason and destroy infrastructure and such....naah i do not see that happen ..as for both the US and China the aftermath of such a war would be very very costly not to mention the damage to the world economy.
This would be unacceptable for China, the US but more importantly the world itself.

 

[Belesari]

Not every war between nuclear powers need be nuclear. If the US and China go to war in SE asia and the pacific i dont think either would have reason to use nukes unless one side or the other used them first or their home territory was breached.

Nukes would hurt both countries but i think realisticly china would be hurt more.

Economicly the US Might be in alot better condition. As the consumer in the relationship we can just buy elsewhere or produce it domesticly.

There are increasing calls for the PLA to enforce chinese ownership of the spratleys and others by force even if it means war.

So its not so unlikely.

So what are you saying? Thats China aint good enough anymore to the US economy?
Perhaps you can see it the way around, perhaps the US aint the solid partner for the world anymore as more and more nations are turning to China as a trade partner and economic centre of activity.
Keep in mind that all the sabre rattle is just rumors and such.
China has to go a very long way and they will have to change stuff around but eventually China would be able to surpass the US both economic and perhaps even military.
That does not have to mean that this is bad, fact remains China has by far the biggest population and thus a economic giant you cannot rule that out its that simple.
The future of the US, EU and China are linked to eachother in such degree that no matter how the US feels about China (Or vice versa) they both have to deal with it.
Yes the US and the west invested massive in China, however China on her end has invested massive in the west and you are talking about billions and billions of dollars on both sides.
On a military side, Yes rumors and newpapers say that China is conducting cyber attacks and that they did steal blueprints, however do you think that the US is clean in that regard?
Simple said China is becoming a gaint, just like Russia ones did, just like the EU did and just like the US did you can see this both negative as positive, but for america to say you just wrote is just ridicilous.
And for the US going on a path of war for whatever reason and destroy infrastructure and such....naah i do not see that happen ..as for both the US and China the aftermath of such a war would be very very costly not to mention the damage to the world economy.
This would be unacceptable for China, the US but more importantly the world itself.

 

[Armoredpriapism]

I agree with Belesari's opening statement.
On another note: this thread is about whether a war is possible in the future, not the logic of the American electorate (as if there's logic behind our public opinion ^^). The reason I brought up the American-street view of China is because that sways votes, sways public spending, and political leaders who want to seem strong on defense know they need to seem strong against the public's perceived enemy. So my worry is that if the public sentiment continues to deepen that China has "betrayed" America then every congressman, senator, or presidential hopeful who successfully runs on being strong on defense (which in America is a very important political talking point) will have to have run on a platform that says China is the bad guy.
I'm not saying it's going to happen but the thread is about if and how a world war could start, and the two countries that the whole world has stakes in will be America and China. So yikes!

That doesn't say much. Remember all the talk in the mainstream/establishment media about Saddams WMDs, his links to AQ [despite being the head of a secular regime, the kind that was hated by AQ] and his involvement in 9/11? People just haven't gotten use to the fact that China, which only 2 decades ago was a non-player in global affairs, is set to become the world's largest economy and will have a military, which though can't openly challenge American military dominance, can cause a whole lof of mischief and trouble for America in the Asia Pacific if the balloon goes up. American diplomatic influence, already weakened by the Arab Spring in the Middle East, already faces stiff competition from China in places like Africa and South America.

Also, the fact that the American public, which despite international prejudaces is very anti war (we don't like dying or killing, either, much less spending billions "over there", though we do love seeing expensive things blow up) was so easily convinced into invading Iraq should be seen as a warning. The greatest defense against an American army is the American people, so public perception is very important. If Americans could be convinced into a war against a weak nation like Saddam's, which wasn't a threat and had no bearing on American life, I'll bet a country like China, which Americans no longer seem to trust, and which is much more threatening than Iraq, could be fought without much protest. Sad to say.

 

[STURM]

Not every war between nuclear powers need be nuclear. If the US and China go to war in SE asia and the pacific i dont think either would have reason to use nukes unless one side or the other used them first or their home territory was breached.

What if one side suffered such serious lossess to the extent that it was unable to continue conventional ops beyong prin pick attacks and the other side didn't back down - would there be a threat to use nukes? Or would both parties de-escalate due to the knowledge that both have nukes? We can't say for the simple reason that it has never happened

Also, the fact that the American public, which despite international prejudaces is very anti war (we don't like dying or killing, either, much less spending billions "over there", though we do love seeing expensive things blow up) was so easily convinced into invading Iraq should be seen as a warning. .

Yes but the invasion of Iraq came barely 2 years after 9/11, when it was easier to ''sell' politically to the American public. The question is whether the American public would go along with a skirmish or full fledged hostilities with China, over Taiwan or some other issue, in the knowledge that though America's interests may be threatened, China did not initiate any attack on American soil or military forces.

 

[ngatimozart]

What if one side suffered such serious lossess to the extent that it was unable to continue conventional ops and the other side didn't back down - would there be a threat to use nukes? Or would both parties de-escalate due to the knowledge that both have nukes? We can't say for the simple reason that it has never happened



Yes but the invasion of Iraq came barely 2 years after 9/11, when it was easier to ''sell' politically to the American public. The question is whether the American public would go along with a skirmish or full fledged hostilities with China, over Taiwan or some other issue.

IIRC isn't there a US law about the defence of Taiwan? I remember reading somewhere that there was some law that the US had to ensure Taiwan was capable of defending it self from the PRC and the US would have to support Taiwan militarily if Taiwan was attacked by the PRC. I may be wrong so clarification would be appreciated.

 

[STURM]

IIRC isn't there a US law about the defence of Taiwan? I remember reading somewhere that there was some law that the US had to ensure Taiwan was capable of defending it self from the PRC and the US would have to support Taiwan militarily if Taiwan was attacked by the PRC. I may be wrong so clarification would be appreciated.

I'm a bit hazy on the details too but yes if I'm not mistaken there is a law which commits America to providing Taiwan with the means to defend itself. During the Bush administration, the U.S. government publicly mentioned that it would defend Taiwan in event of an invasion from China.

You might find this 2009 article interesting.

The Jamestown Foundation: The Future of U.S.-Taiwan Defense Cooperation

The Mutual Defence Treaty.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/mutual01.htm

 

[Armoredpriapism]

Yes there is the Taiwan Relations Act put in place by the US Congress. Before invading Taiwan I would expect the Chinese to engage in some sort of statemanship or brinksmanship to get that law changed, but unless that happens the US has already drawn a line in the ocean... It was one of the conditions of formalizing relations with China (and look what that brought the Chinese) that Taiwan was to be protected.

What if one side suffered such serious lossess to the extent that it was unable to continue conventional ops beyong prin pick attacks and the other side didn't back down - would there be a threat to use nukes? Or would both parties de-escalate due to the knowledge that both have nukes? We can't say for the simple reason that it has never happened

I would expect that neither side would make a push that might trigger total war. Likely there would be an assault of some kind that would either be pushed back or not. If the initial invasion of Taiwan were a rounding success, China would claim Taiwan as its territory and threaten to use its deterrent force to defend "its soil" but the US would call its bluff. There might be a nuke or two used near a CVN group to show that the Chinese meant business but whether that would detur the US could go either way. The ICBM interceptors in Alaska might remind China that the US could threaten a first strike, too, and possibily even get away with it, so I don't know if China would be so brazen.
The short n' sweet is, there would be no US troops on Chinese mainland soil, nor Chinese troops in Japan or Hawaii, and there would likely not be division-scale engagements fought to the bitter end.

 

[STURM]

Yes Before invading Taiwan I would expect the Chinese to engage in some sort of statemanship or brinksmanship to get that law changed,

I would expect that neither side would make a push that might trigger total war. Likely there would be an assault of some kind that would either be pushed back or not. If the initial invasion of Taiwan were a rounding success, China

War between the U.S. and China, whether over Taiwan or over the South China Sea is very unlikely. Whilst China has showed a willingness in the past to use military means to achieve political objectives - the 1979 clash with Vietnam, the clash with Vietnam in the Paracels, etc, - it has no desire for a war with the U.S. as this would be counter productive to China's rise as a leading economic power in the world and it's rivalry with India for energy resources.

The main challenge facing America now is not so much a war with China but in how to adjust to the new reality of this century, with a strong, resurgent China that is building new alliances in many countries and offering cash to go along with it, with no moral or human rights lectures attached. In ''Moonson'' Robert Kaplan talks about possible greater cooperation or even an alliance between China, India and the U.S. in the Indian Ocean. The whole premise of his book is that in terms of importance, the Indian Ocean has overtaken the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and is also a place wherere there is more possibility of conflict and instability. He also talks about how any void left by a weaken America, which has seen its influenced weakened following the Arab Spring, Afghanistan, Iraq and possible future defence cuts due to the economy, will be gradually filled by India and China over the coming decades.

The short n' sweet is, there would be no US troops on Chinese mainland soil, nor Chinese troops in Japan or Hawaii, and there would likely not be division-scale engagements fought to the bitter end.

The possibility of any armed intervention on land in the coming years will be very slim, following the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fact that America's main area of interest now is the Pacific Rim, where emphasis will be placed on naval and air assets.

 

[rip]

War between the U.S. and China, whether over Taiwan or over the South China Sea is very unlikely. Whilst China has showed a willingness in the past to use military means to achieve political objectives - the 1979 clash with Vietnam, the clash with Vietnam in the Paracels, etc, - it has no desire for a war with the U.S. as this would be counter productive to China's rise as a leading economic power in the world and it's rivalry with India for energy resources.

The main challenge facing America now is not so much a war with China but in how to adjust to the new reality of this century, with a strong, resurgent China that is building new alliances in many countries and offering cash to go along with it, with no moral or human rights lectures attached. In ''Moonson'' Robert Kaplan talks about possible greater cooperation or even an alliance between China, India and the U.S. in the Indian Ocean. The whole premise of his book is that in terms of importance, the Indian Ocean has overtaken the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and is also a place wherere there is more possibility of conflict and instability. He also talks about how any void left by a weaken America, which has seen its influenced weakened following the Arab Spring, Afghanistan, Iraq and possible future defence cuts due to the economy, will be gradually filled by India and China over the coming decades.



The possibility of any armed intervention on land in the coming years will be very slim, following the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fact that America's main area of interest now is the Pacific Rim, where emphasis will be placed on naval and air assets.

There has been a lot of speculation about nuclear war and when and under what circumstances a country might resort to it. I must say, most of it has not been very well thought out. Leaving aside the cases where the leadership of a country could be called street rat crazy or just plain irrational. (Feel free to put in the country of your choice in this space.) Rational leaders however think differently and they will only use nuclear weapons under two very specific conditions. The first is if nuclear weapons have been used against them or possibly their allies or they believe they are about to be launched at them. The second is when the leadership believes that they will lose the sovereignty of their country by having it completely overrun so as they then could not recover their sovereignty (national death).

There has been a lot of speculation about a war between the US and China. I do not want to encourage this idea but since so many people think it is a real possibility I too will use it as an example even though I think it is as unlikely to happen as it would be stupid.

If the US and China had a full blown conventional war for some great reason,(once again put in your own personal favorite) it would be first fought at sea, in the air and in cyberspace. Since the resources of both countries are vast it would go on for a while until one side did achieve dominance. Dominance means in this case, they would have the ability to attack the mainland of the other country with ground forces and occupy some part of it.

In the worst case, if the side that failed to win dominance in the first phase of war still fought on when it lost the ability to attack, for whatever issue which started the war, and did not then negotiate a graceful compromise, the dominate side might invade the other at some important but not vital point. The US might choose if it came up on top in the first phase to invade Hainan Island or if The Chines had the advantage they may try to invade Hawaii. Even if ether one succeeded in going that far, neither side would still resort to nuclear war. Though it is unlikely the humiliated government would survive in power at that point.

Why for two reasons. One is the nature of nuclear war itself. Just a few weapons falling on populated areas would kill many millions of people and have devastating consequences lasting for decades afterwards. Would any but the very most vital of nation interest be worth such a high price?

Second; I cannot think of any situation where the US would want to occupy mainland China. It would be imposable for it to control it. Likewise China could never control the main land of the US. Even if they could defeat all of its’ armies and even though it has four times the population of the US, the US is larger in size than China and for every person in the US there are three guns held in privet ownership and not government hands and many of them know how to use them. What a nightmare it would be if either side did win unconditional victory and tried to croupy the other.

So what would happen? First the issue that started the war would be resolved. There would be some additional concisions and reparations from the losing side. But both countries would still exist as independent countries with minor modifications.

 

[STURM]

The biggest challenge facing the U.S. in a time where it has lost a lot of influence in the Middle East, is over extended militarily, facing an economic slowdown, etc, is coming to terms and learning to readjust and dealing with a resurgent China that will soon be the worlds largest economy, not the threat of war with China. In recent years China has also been investing billions and forging new alliances with various countries to secure its energy needs and it has one advantage over the U.S. - the aid it offers comes with no strings attached and no lectures about democracy and human rights. As Robert Kaplan mentions in his book, in the coming years the USN will increasingly come into contact witjh the PLAN in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, which have been American lakes since 1945. In alliance with India and other countries, America and China will either cooperate at sea or will be rivals, only time will tell.....

 

[rip]

The biggest challenge facing the U.S. in a time where it has lost a lot of influence in the Middle East, is over extended militarily, facing an economic slowdown, etc, is coming to terms and learning to readjust and dealing with a resurgent China that will soon be the worlds largest economy, not the threat of war with China. In recent years China has also been investing billions and forging new alliances with various countries to secure its energy needs and it has one advantage over the U.S. - the aid it offers comes with no strings attached and no lectures about democracy and human rights. As Robert Kaplan mentions in his book, in the coming years the USN will increasingly come into contact witjh the PLAN in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, which have been American lakes since 1945. In alliance with India and other countries, America and China will either cooperate at sea or will be rivals, only time will tell.....

I am afraid that you are stating an untruth. China does give aid, this I will grant you, but that aid always comes with strings attached. The strings are just not published and open to public view, the gifts mostly go secretly or sometimes not so secretly, to the people who are in power to benefit them. People who, not unsurprisingly don’t care to be preached at about the need for democracy, human rights, or transparency for their country, because they don’t practice it.

What China is betting on to extend its influence is on just two things, the corruption of the elites of poor countries and the gullibility of their naïve people. The policy will work for only short time. In fact it is already beginning to unravel in Africa. The US on the other hand, choses to side with the interests of the majority of people within a country, if those people appreciate it at the time or not. In the end all Big Men, Autocrats, revolutionary leader, and the like regardless of their title, will be pushed over and kicked out by the people that they have exploited for their own benefit. No one stays stupid forever even poor African’s and that what once China thought was a benefit to its prestige will instead become a mark against it.

People, leaders, governments come and they go. In the long run it is better to build bridges with people to have a lasting effect. The US has been playing this game for a long time. It knows what it is doing. This is shown by the fact that the American people are much better thought of in the world than is the American government.

As too the inevitable change to the world’s international power structure that you are correctly seeing to now occur. The question is not as you seem to think can the US adjust to that fact that it can’t always have its own way. Well as a matter of fact, it has never always had its own way. If it had always gotten its own way, the world would be a lot richer, heather, happier and more peaceful than it is now. The question is can the emerging new world powers,not just China, understand the limits of conventional power in shaping the world of today. I say this because many of the thinking of these new powers’ don’t understand that this is no longer the 17th century and all of the ancient classics about power and its abilities have changed forever no matter how much military, economic, or political power you have.

 

[STURM]

I am afraid that you are stating an untruth. China does give aid, this I will grant you, but that aid always comes with strings attached. The strings are just not published and open to public view, the gifts mostly go secretly or sometimes not so secretly, to the people who are in power to benefit them. People who, not unsurprisingly don’t care to be preached at about the need for democracy, human rights, or transparency for their country, because they don’t practice it.

It's highly irrelevant whether or not the whether the recipients of Chinese aid are worthy of it or whether they are liberal democrats, I'm not even sure why you mentioned it. I mentioned it as an example of how China is rapidly filling any void left by the U.S. in many countries. Also, just because any particular leader is not in the mood to receive lectures from U.S. officials does not necessarily indicate he's opposed to democracy or human rights. I can give a few examples of non-democratic countries that have been the beneficiaries of U.S. aid, e.g. Egypt which under Mubarak was the largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel.....................

The US on the other hand, chooses to side with the interests of the majority of people within a country, if those people appreciate it at the time or not.

And that's why the U.S. has cultivated and supported a list of dictators in the Middle East for decades against the wishes of the people who actually live there?? Are you going to say next that the people who participated in the Arab Spring and who toppled leaders they never voted for were only showing their appreciation to the U.S for having long term interest at heart? And here I was under the mistaken impression that countries will indulge in realpolitik and do what is best for their long term interest regardless of the morals involved and whether it contradicts all they stand for.....

I The US has been playing this game for a long time. It knows what it is doing.

Really? Just because it has been playing the game for long does in no way indicate that it is infallible or that all the policies adopted over the years by the State Department have been sound. BTW, China has been involved in intrigue, diplomacy and foreign relations for centuries, long before the U.S.A. even existed.

The question is not as you seem to think can the US adjust to that fact that it can’t always have its own way. Well as a matter of fact, it has never always had its own way.

You can spin it anyway you like but the plain fact is that the geo-political enviroment is rapidly changing in ways most of us could never have imagined and not only the U.S. but other countries have to learn how to deal with it. Not only the U.S. but also the countries along the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Rim will be faced with new challenges that will effect their security and economic relationships. And as China and India [both economic powerhouses and with the world largest populations] are actually in the ''neighbourhood'', unlike the U.S., many countries whilst still seeing the U.S. military presence as the main guarantee for regional stability, will be increasingly tied to China and India. Also bear in mind that unlike during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was a land power, China in the coming years will be a naval power. If the current trends in the world economy and ship building programmes are anything to go by and are maintained, the PLAN will be larger than the USN in a few decades.

If it had always gotten its own way, the world would be a lot richer, heather, happier and more peaceful than it is no.

So you're claiming that if the whole world would only listen to America, there would be no strife and all the economies in the world would be sound???? And to who's advantage??

Has the world benefited because the USN since 1945 has keep the world's oceans and sea lanes safe for navigation for everyone, ensuring peace and stability - yes.
Has the presence of the U.S. military in the Pacific Rim enabled many countries to in the region to concentrate on economic development rather than military hardware - yes.
Has U.S. development aid to numerous countries made a profound difference to the well being of these countries - yes.
But would the world have been a better place if only we had all listened to Uncle Sam - NO...............................................

 

[rip]

It's highly irrelevant whether or not the whether the recipients of Chinese aid are worthy of it or whether they are liberal democrats, I'm not even sure why you mentioned it. I mentioned it as an example of how China is rapidly filling any void left by the U.S. in many countries. Also, just because any particular leader is not in the mood to receive lectures from U.S. officials does not necessarily indicate he's opposed to democracy or human rights. I can give a few examples of non-democratic countries that have been the beneficiaries of U.S. aid, e.g. Egypt which under Mubarak was the largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel.....................



And that's why the U.S. has cultivated and supported a list of dictators in the Middle East for decades against the wishes of the people who actually live there?? Are you going to say next that the people who participated in the Arab Spring and who toppled leaders they never voted for were only showing their appreciation to the U.S for having long term interest at heart? And here I was under the mistaken impression that countries will indulge in realpolitik and do what is best for their long term interest regardless of the morals involved and whether it contradicts all they stand for.....



Really? Just because it has been playing the game for long does in no way indicate that it is infallible or that all the policies adopted over the years by the State Department have been sound. BTW, China has been involved in intrigue, diplomacy and foreign relations for centuries, long before the U.S.A. even existed.



You can spin it anyway you like but the plain fact is that the geo-political enviroment is rapidly changing in ways most of us could never have imagined and not only the U.S. but other countries have to learn how to deal with it. Not only the U.S. but also the countries along the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Rim will be faced with new challenges that will effect their security and economic relationships. And as China and India [both economic powerhouses and with the world largest populations] are actually in the ''neighbourhood'', unlike the U.S., many countries whilst still seeing the U.S. military presence as the main guarantee for regional stability, will be increasingly tied to China and India. Also bear in mind that unlike during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was a land power, China in the coming years will be a naval power. If the current trends in the world economy and ship building programmes are anything to go by and are maintained, the PLAN will be larger than the USN in a few decades.



So you're claiming that if the whole world would only listen to America, there would be no strife and all the economies in the world would be sound???? And to who's advantage??

Has the world benefited because the USN since 1945 has keep the world's oceans and sea lanes safe for navigation for everyone, ensuring peace and stability - yes.
Has the presence of the U.S. military in the Pacific Rim enabled many countries to in the region to concentrate on economic development rather than military hardware - yes.
Has U.S. development aid to numerous countries made a profound difference to the well being of these countries - yes.
But would the world have been a better place if only we had all listened to Uncle Sam - NO...............................................

I am so glad that you have responded in the way that you have because it illustrates my point if you realize it or not.

To start off with your first comment.

“It's highly irrelevant whether or not the whether the recipients of Chinese aid are worthy of it or whether they are liberal democrats, I'm not even sure why you mentioned it. The plain fact is that China is rapidly filling any void left by the U.S. in many countries.”

It is relevant. The U.S. has and continues to promote projects for the benefit to the world in many areas including ones beyond its own selfish interests and far more than China ever has or is ever likely to do. It just prefers to do it through nongovernment agencies and this tradition precedes World War II and its role as an international political player that it has played after it. It is our time tested experience that more good is done for more people when as much government is bypassed as is possible, both our government and theirs. Only a very littler research on your part would verify this truth.

As to your second comment.

“And that's why the U.S. has cultivated and supported a list of dictators in the Middle East for decades?? Are you going to say next that the people who participated in the Arab Spring and who toppled leaders they never voted for were only showing their appreciation to the U.S for having long term interest at heart? And here I was under the mistaken impression that countries will indulge in realpolitik and do what is best for their long term interest regardless of the morals involved and whether it contradicts all they stand for.....”

Has the U.S. supported one kind of evil over another even worse kind evil in the past? Yes we have but we live in the real world. Sometimes there is just no really good guy’s for us to support, when the only option was to us one evil to counter balance a greater evil. I am somewhat confused in exactly what kind of purity test would be required and just how few could then pass it to then meet your standards whatever they may be.

Your third comment.

“Really? China has been involved in diplomacy and foreign relations for centuries, long before the U.S.A. existed.”

How illuminative it is that you must go to the ancient past to justify a failed system of international political order and the mindset that it represents. It is true that the Chinese civilization is much older than that of the U.S. but a little known fact is that the U.S. political system is the oldest continuous system of political order for any country of size in the world today. It governmental system is even older than that of the British, though many of the British governmental intuitions are older. If China, whose history is that of cruel empire, ruthless conquest, savage despotism, to be then only to be followed by decay and the decline, then only to be conquered is the model you want to follow once again, why would you expect that this tragic pattern would ever change if your ideas on the nature of what proper governance should be and what kind of world political order to encourage has not change?

As to your comment four it requires no rebuttal because of its lack of relevant content.

As To your Comment five.

“So you're claiming that if the whole world would only listen to America, there would be no strife and all the economies in the world would be sound???? And to who's advantage?

Has the world benefited because the USN since 1945 has keep the world's oceans and sea lanes safe for navigation for everyone, ensuring peace and stability - yes.
Has the presence of the U.S. military in the Pacific Rim enabled countries to in the region to concentrate on economic development rather than military hardware - yes.
Has U.S. development aid to numerous countries made a profound difference to the well being of these countries - yes.
But would the world have been a better place if only we had all listened to Uncle Sam - NO............................................... “

The things you list are important but they miss the main point, not only of the U.S. but all of the members of the victorious alliance that ended World War II and their combined policy. After the carnage of WW II and the new reality of Nuclear weapons it was realized that if the world, all of us together, continued to do things as we have always done them in the past it could mean that the human race could easily destroy its self. What had to be different what is it that had to change?

What had to be changed was the historical pattern that successful countries or existing empires that wanted to stay on top, did so by keeping other people down. The historical normal pattern was that the powerful ones actively worked to keep potential competitors weak, poor, hunger and divided. That was the believe system then in use. Read You history it is all there and it always ends in the same way.

The goal of the victorious alliance was to create a world system that allowed new powers to come into existence, for them to grow prosperous and wealthy and thus eliminate at least one of the reasons that cause so much misery and conflict in the past.

You may not see these policies in the same light as I have presented them. You may think that the U.S. has endeavored to keep other people down, powerless, and weak for its own benefit even though all of the available evidence is to the contrary. If so is that because of the inadequacy our actions, which I admit are often imperfect, or is it that you are only capable of seeing the world in only one way and that way is very old and obsolete.

 

[STURM]

It is relevant. The U.S. has and continues to promote projects for the benefit to the world in many areas including ones beyond its own selfish interests and far more than China ever has or is ever likely to do. It just prefers to do it through nongovernment agencies and this tradition precedes World War II and its role as an international political player that it has played after it.

I made a plain and simple fact, that China is rapidly building alliances in many countries and is doing it better than Western countries and why this is so. I see no point in comparing the virtues of U.S. aid vs Chinese aid and explaining the moralities, or the lack of it, involved. Irrespective of how the aid is provided, the fact is that it is working, China is meeting its objectives.

How illuminative it is that you must go to the ancient past to justify a failed system of international political order and the mindset that it represents.

I did not go to the ancient past to justify anything, and certainly not any political system. My statement was in response to you claiming or insinuating that just because the U.S. has been doing for so long, that is has been doing it right or that only the U.S. has been doing it for so long.

As to your comment four it requires no rebuttal because of its lack of relevant content.

As to whether or not it is relevant, look up the title of this thread. Half the stuff you have written about isn't in my opinion relevant either. I was only reinforcing my earlier statements that the geopolitical situation is undergoing a rapid change and countries will have to develop new responses and policies to meet this challenge.

You may not see these policies in the same light as I have presented them. You may think that the U.S. has endeavored to keep other people down, powerless, and weak for its own benefit even though all of the available evidence is to the contrary. If so is that because of the inadequacy our actions, which I admit are often imperfect, or is it that you are only capable of seeing the world in only one way and that way is very old and obsolete.

I never stated that U.S. policy has been aimed at keeping ''people down'' or ''powerless'' for its own interests. It was in response to you claiming that things would be much better if only the rest of the world had followed the American way......... Which not only is totally wrong and simplistic but also self serving.

If it had always gotten its own way, the world would be a lot richer, heather, happier and more peaceful than it is no.

 

[Bonza]

Guys, you've both been around long enough to know you need to tone it down re the politics... you're regular contributors and I appreciate the issue is an emotive one but please, I'm sure you can realise from a moderation perspective this is veering far into politics and into places where the thread becomes a powderkeg for flaming/trolling. Please bear that in mind when posting. Thanks to both of you.

 

[STURM]

Guys, you've both been around long enough to know you need to tone it down re the politics... you're regular contributors and I appreciate the issue is an emotive one but please, I'm sure you can realise from a moderation perspective this is veering far into politics and into places where the thread becomes a powderkeg for flaming/trolling. Please bear that in mind when posting. Thanks to both of you.

Understood. Sorry for that.

 

[rip]

Guys, you've both been around long enough to know you need to tone it down re the politics... you're regular contributors and I appreciate the issue is an emotive one but please, I'm sure you can realise from a moderation perspective this is veering far into politics and into places where the thread becomes a powderkeg for flaming/trolling. Please bear that in mind when posting. Thanks to both of you.

Hostility helps no one. But forgive me if I feel misunderstood.


The question as stated “Is some form of world war still possible in this day and age?” I think it has been answered. As long as people stay the way they are and we continue to have competing political entities that strive to divide us, and that we live in a world that fails to come to a consensus on which direction we together wish to pursue, and doing so always under the pressure of a world which wants all of the benefits of a high standard of living while facing the realities of a growing world population we will face this very real danger.

My desire is not to upset anyone but I want to focus on the core issues that are holding back the world and all of its peoples. A conversation that consists of just cataloging all the unsatisfied wants and the various anxieties that people have about fulfilling those as yet unmet wants, I suggest do not in themselves provide any answers. Matching up possible list of antagonists to fight the next war do not help ether.

At this time in human history there are too many differences existing among the world’s many peoples for any kind of united world government to work so that is not at this time a possible solution no matter in what form it could be perceived or by what method it would be achieved.

That leaves only one possibility that still allows progress with the vital cooperation necessary to continue the previously unparalleled world progress it has seen over the last fifty years while preserving the differences in nationality and culture that people will fight to maintain if the feel they are threatened. That one thing is some kind of agreement on how nations, states, and peoples conduct themselves within the world. That is, what kind of world order we will or will not have?

My personal frustration quite honestly is, that many people do not recognizes that the current the world order, however imperfectly, was deliberately designed to produce a change from those of historical norms of the past and why they were. I an further frustrated in the failure of some to recognized that these changes have benefited many people in the world, including many people that had no part in creating this new world order system. But above all I am most frustrated by the desire of some of those who have benefited from this new world older and now wish to go back to the old rules because they think that the prerogatives that came to the most powerful under the old system are now theirs by right to enjoy.

I am not saying that the current system cannot be improved or that the main players in controlling it will not in the course of time on changes based upon the true success and hard work of their societies. What I am saying is that going back to the historical norms, the ones that Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and Niccolò Machiavelli once so skillfully represented would lead the world once again to an unprecedented disaster that the human race may never recover.

The discussion would be far more profitable not by highlighting the frictions we are just begging to see caused in large part from the current system success but in how the world order could be most successfully modified to adapt to and accommodate the new major powers that are now coming on line without changing it primary goals.

 

[tonyget]

My personal frustration quite honestly is, that many people do not recognizes that the current the world order, however imperfectly, was deliberately designed to produce a change from those of historical norms of the past and why they were.

I can understand that from an american perspective, maintain current world order (game rule made by the US) is the only answer to the future.

But, histoy told us that no great power lasts forever, don't you know that ?