zlacker

[parent] [thread] 14 comments
1. joejer+(OP)[view] [source] 2019-03-07 04:50:55
The US is going to be in a hot war with China within 10-15 years. The only way to avoid this is to crush the Chinese economy through trade wars, forcible containment of Chinese expansion (e.g. Huawei ban, undermine belt and road), and covert ops - and that may not work. China is clearly an enemy of the US and is on the cusp of becoming an existential threat. Forget about breaking up big tech, is it time to start thinking about breaking up China?

This is clearly an extreme position, but how extreme do you think it will be in 5 years?

replies(6): >>ackbar+g >>baybal+e2 >>themod+E2 >>ummonk+g6 >>epheme+78 >>threat+kk
2. ackbar+g[view] [source] 2019-03-07 04:54:06
>>joejer+(OP)
Why can't we live in peace bro
replies(2): >>joejer+s >>chongl+H
◧◩
3. joejer+s[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 04:57:30
>>ackbar+g
Because while you’re living in peace, the other guy will come for you in the night. It’s unfortunate but that’s how it’s been throughout human history. The only societies which have enjoyed peace are those that have the overwhelming means to destroy their enemies.
replies(2): >>ackbar+A >>ummonk+y6
◧◩◪
4. ackbar+A[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 04:59:39
>>joejer+s
I guess that's why we are trying so hard to have those overwhelming means (I'm Chinese)
replies(1): >>joejer+41
◧◩
5. chongl+H[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 05:01:30
>>ackbar+g
Because China is ruled by a dictator who sees the writing on the wall.

Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount.

◧◩◪◨
6. joejer+41[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 05:07:32
>>ackbar+A
Yeah, I understand your position. It’s too bad, and quite scary that geopolitics may force us to pick sides one day.
7. baybal+e2[view] [source] 2019-03-07 05:25:04
>>joejer+(OP)
What you say is crazy.

To begin with, even if US is to completely ban the entire trade with China, it will be just a prick to an elephant...

Surely, the rest of the world will eagerly buy iToys, and stuff like cheap clothing – China is safe in that scenario. Not so much for US, biggest US exports to China are unsellable anywhere else. Surely, soybeans can be sold as animal feed, but it will saturate the market few times over.

replies(1): >>joejer+53
8. themod+E2[view] [source] 2019-03-07 05:29:49
>>joejer+(OP)
If China is smart they will chase, or continue to chase, stability at this time. People still look at China and see massive volatility, and a warlike stance is very premature considering their military capacity in areas like logistics.

IMO they'll place their bets on regional hot spots and boundary-keeping, while continuing to turn their economic partners into colonial-style resources. A tight game but one with a lot of potential for easy wins for China that can close some important geopolitical gaps. I think 10-20 years is a possibility for open conflict around boundaries, but in 5 years, no way. It's a cliche but I really think they are much too wise for that. Maybe it comes from wallet-feels but it looks like wisdom. To be Chinese right now, and an advocate for war, also means advocating for your own restricted rights to be restricted even further. The smart money is on China looking for economic safety and potential rebounds.

In that time period the US must absolutely continue to 1) diversify in all areas from society and culture to technology theory, 2) rebuild important partnerships that have recently been sabotaged and 3) leverage its renewed cultural signage as political influence within China.

The US has the qualitative advantage in education and technology and we can easily keep that edge sharp enough to cause massive fears within our enemy before conflict ever breaks out.

The west also desperately needs open cultural dialogue-technology (basically: a new vocabulary) regarding nuclear exchange and its meaning and potential. I remember watching an "educated" person expressing nuclear war fears on a C-SPAN broadcast panel in October of 2008 and that prediction was censored by C-SPAN after the recording of the show was posted online. It was just gone. This is unacceptable, both the instant leap to "nuclear war" dialogue after a big financial event, and the censorship. Such black and white extremes clearly illustrate a lack of refinement and education on the topic, and this is nearly endemic in its small but significant way. Embrace the fear, wrap it in more educated terms that put problems and solutions in a more realistic perspective, and move past it.

◧◩
9. joejer+53[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 05:35:14
>>baybal+e2
The Chinese economy is more fragile than you think. You’re about to launch another massive stimulus program to prop up your slowing economy, which will only inflate the bubble further.

Xi’s base of power is also not as stable as it seems. There’s grumbling within the party about him over reaching and the slowing economy is giving his opponents ammunition. If things continue on the current path, you may start to see open opposition to Xi’s policies, which will lead to questions about Xi’s leadership.

replies(1): >>baybal+96
◧◩◪
10. baybal+96[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 06:27:56
>>joejer+53
China is not only Xi alone, and having somebody less tremendously incompetent replace him, will only play to China's gain
replies(1): >>joejer+b7
11. ummonk+g6[view] [source] 2019-03-07 06:30:37
>>joejer+(OP)
Could you expand on what would be the cause of this war? China hasn't started a war in 40 years (since its failed invasion of Vietnam), and appears to have no intention of doing so any time soon.

What makes it an "enemy" of the US?

◧◩◪
12. ummonk+y6[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 06:34:11
>>joejer+s
China has an ICBM arsenal that can hit the US and is developing a healthy conventional military as well. Therefore, given that they have overwhelming means to destroy us, as long as our leadership doesn't go completely crazy we won't try to come for them in the night and will be able to continue to live in peace.
◧◩◪◨
13. joejer+b7[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 06:46:12
>>baybal+96
You’re probably right
14. epheme+78[view] [source] 2019-03-07 07:01:26
>>joejer+(OP)
Could you clarify what you mean by existential threat?
15. threat+kk[view] [source] 2019-03-07 10:03:52
>>joejer+(OP)
I think if China engages in military conflict with the US it will be in the style of death by a thousand pinpricks, each not warranting a heavy deployment.
[go to top]