China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread
- Thread starter swimmerXC
- Start date
- Status
But with this line of thinking, many coalitions could fail, as game theory dictates (re: Prisoner's Dilemma).
Cooperation and collusion will be ideal, but each party will have an incentive to step away from that cooperation to get that extra bit more that, you assume, the other party won't get as you assume they'll still be abiding by the deals made cooperatively. Unfortunately, all parties think the same thing, and the cooperation and coalition ultimately fails.
No one will risk going along with the collusion if you have, or even simply believe, that at least one other will break the cooperation. Mistrust, fear of being the one left cooperating while everyone else is reneging, and the need to maximize your own utility will not allow any cooperation to last.
It doesn't have to be a zero sum game. I just think "rational thinking" (greed) leads to all parties reneging on any cooperative deal.
In the case of Congo, the two parties will duke this one out in a proxy war.
Maggern
Junior Member
Anarchy is what states make of it, to quote Alexander Wendt. He said the Cold War would end immediately if the US and the Soviet Union just stopped considering each other enemies.
Remember the multipolar situation in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth. The major powers changed allegiance all the time, counterbalancing each other as soon as one party got too powerful. Germany attacked a later ally, Austria-Hungary, while France and Britain attacked their later ally Russia. Some people say the reason the Great War erupted was that the blocks eventually consolidated and became permanent, losing their dynamism. When this happened, it turned into a zero sum game (where all your victories is seen as a loss for the other side), and the path to conflict was underway.
As for the Prisoner's Dilemma it can be solved simply by making sure the parties meet again later. The incentive for cheating is eliminated if you know that it will backlash at yourself the next time you meet. In today's interconnected world it would be hard for the US and China to backstab each other without future consequence.
Remember the multipolar situation in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth. The major powers changed allegiance all the time, counterbalancing each other as soon as one party got too powerful. Germany attacked a later ally, Austria-Hungary, while France and Britain attacked their later ally Russia. Some people say the reason the Great War erupted was that the blocks eventually consolidated and became permanent, losing their dynamism. When this happened, it turned into a zero sum game (where all your victories is seen as a loss for the other side), and the path to conflict was underway.
As for the Prisoner's Dilemma it can be solved simply by making sure the parties meet again later. The incentive for cheating is eliminated if you know that it will backlash at yourself the next time you meet. In today's interconnected world it would be hard for the US and China to backstab each other without future consequence.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Unless you know with a good deal of confidence the system will change or some agent will cease to be a party to the game, the game is effectively infinite horizon and, like Maggern says, "reputation" will disincentivize agents from breaking cooperation.
You are right that game theory only predicts the behavior of rational actors. People are far from that, and are more often guided by beliefs.
But the original point is that geopolitics is not a zero-sum game. It is indeed easier said than done, but how hard it is to foster cooperation wasn't the original question.
You are right that game theory only predicts the behavior of rational actors. People are far from that, and are more often guided by beliefs.
But the original point is that geopolitics is not a zero-sum game. It is indeed easier said than done, but how hard it is to foster cooperation wasn't the original question.
^ All the evidence we're seeing today suggest it is a zero sum game.
From the Georgian war with Russia to Ukraine's NATO membership bid and US's support for it; from who gets the right to buy Azerbaijan's gas and oil to pipeline contracts & construction in Central Asia and Caspian Sea region; from the behind the scenes fight between China and Japan for the final destination of Siberian oil pipelines to the newly created gas cartel.
Every single one of these scenarios there is (or will be) a clear winner and a clear loser. Im not seeing, nor do i expect to see any, win-win situations at all from the way things are going...
The future scramble for resources within the Artic circle looks increasingly like it's going to head down this path as well...unfortunately. It is the sad realistic truth in this world we live in.
From the Georgian war with Russia to Ukraine's NATO membership bid and US's support for it; from who gets the right to buy Azerbaijan's gas and oil to pipeline contracts & construction in Central Asia and Caspian Sea region; from the behind the scenes fight between China and Japan for the final destination of Siberian oil pipelines to the newly created gas cartel.
Every single one of these scenarios there is (or will be) a clear winner and a clear loser. Im not seeing, nor do i expect to see any, win-win situations at all from the way things are going...
The future scramble for resources within the Artic circle looks increasingly like it's going to head down this path as well...unfortunately. It is the sad realistic truth in this world we live in.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Those cherry picked examples don't prove that the game is zero sum. It only shows the choices proposed by the parties were designed with a zero-sum mindset. Either East or West from Azerbaijan is a false dichotomy. Either Japan or China for the Siberian oil pipelines is a false dichotomy.
There are many, many more examples but those were the firsts ones that jumped to my mind. It actually shows the choices parties made putting their interests first...and that's what it's all about really; getting what you want before the other person does because theyre wanting exactly what you want.
If youre so convinced it's not a zero sum game, perhaps you could show some examples? And i mean real examples, where 2 competing parties with conflicting interests actually getting what they both wanted...
If youre so convinced it's not a zero sum game, perhaps you could show some examples? And i mean real examples, where 2 competing parties with conflicting interests actually getting what they both wanted...
Maggern
Junior Member
The point is that a zero sum game is not given in any situation, but rather is the product of the perceived circumstances. If the parties think they can cooperate for mutual gain in a matter, then it simply won't be a zero sum game, no matter what kind of situation it is. If China is allowed to build a mine in Africa, then it won't be loss for the US unless the US decides it is so. Countries don't trade with only one other country. Any investment in a country, construction of infrastructure etc. is never completely reserved for one customer. There is always some kind of benefit for third parties.
Tons of goodies that would be neat for this forum.
Conference Explores China's Naval Development
By wendell minnick
Published: 2 Dec 12:58 EST (17:58 GMT)
Print Print | Print Email
TAIPEI - The fourth annual conference of the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) will be held Dec. 10–11 at the U.S. Naval War College, Newport, R.I.
CMSI was founded at the Naval War College (NWC) in 2006 for the "purpose of bringing a strong and objective research focus to the issue of Chinese maritime development," a CMSI press release said.
Related Topics
This year's theme is "Evolving Maritime Roles for Chinese Aerospace Power," with panels on aerospace development within China's military modernization program; Chinese intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; Chinese naval strategies; and air-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
Moderators include Barney Rubel, NWC; William Martel, Fletcher School, Tufts University; Roy Kamphausen, National Bureau of Asian Research; Bernard Cole, National Defense University; Eric McVadon, a retired U.S. Navy admiral; and Joan Johnson-Freese, NWC.
Previous CMSI conferences have examined Chinese undersea warfare, the connections between Chinese energy and naval strategy, and prospective areas of cooperation between the Chinese and U.S. navies.
This year's conference "evaluates the implications of China's rapid development in the aerospace domain for maritime strategy in the Asia-Pacific region," the news release said. "As part of this effort, the participants, including both leading technical and regional experts, will come together to take a close look at emerging Chinese capabilities - from new satellites to unmanned aerial vehicles to the anti-ship ballistic missile - in considering the aerospace dimension of the Chinese maritime challenge."
This year, 24 papers will be presented, including:
* "Beijing's Aerospace Revolution," by NWC's Andrew Erickson.
* "Chinese EW Aircraft Development and Maritime C4I," by Garth Hekler, Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis.
* "Chinese Helicopter Development: Missions, Roles and Maritime Implications," by Dennis Blasko, CNA Corp.
* "Improvements in China's Airborne ASW Capabilities," by Lyle Goldstein and William Murray (NWC).
* "Anti-Access and China's Air-Launched Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles," by Jing-dong Yuan, Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
* "Chinese Views of Ballistic Missile Defense," by Toshi Yoshihara (NWC).
* "Deterrence and Presence After Beijing's Aerospace Revolution," by Larry Wortzel, a retired U.S. Army officer.
Conference Explores China's Naval Development
By wendell minnick
Published: 2 Dec 12:58 EST (17:58 GMT)
Print Print | Print Email
TAIPEI - The fourth annual conference of the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) will be held Dec. 10–11 at the U.S. Naval War College, Newport, R.I.
CMSI was founded at the Naval War College (NWC) in 2006 for the "purpose of bringing a strong and objective research focus to the issue of Chinese maritime development," a CMSI press release said.
Related Topics
This year's theme is "Evolving Maritime Roles for Chinese Aerospace Power," with panels on aerospace development within China's military modernization program; Chinese intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; Chinese naval strategies; and air-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
Moderators include Barney Rubel, NWC; William Martel, Fletcher School, Tufts University; Roy Kamphausen, National Bureau of Asian Research; Bernard Cole, National Defense University; Eric McVadon, a retired U.S. Navy admiral; and Joan Johnson-Freese, NWC.
Previous CMSI conferences have examined Chinese undersea warfare, the connections between Chinese energy and naval strategy, and prospective areas of cooperation between the Chinese and U.S. navies.
This year's conference "evaluates the implications of China's rapid development in the aerospace domain for maritime strategy in the Asia-Pacific region," the news release said. "As part of this effort, the participants, including both leading technical and regional experts, will come together to take a close look at emerging Chinese capabilities - from new satellites to unmanned aerial vehicles to the anti-ship ballistic missile - in considering the aerospace dimension of the Chinese maritime challenge."
This year, 24 papers will be presented, including:
* "Beijing's Aerospace Revolution," by NWC's Andrew Erickson.
* "Chinese EW Aircraft Development and Maritime C4I," by Garth Hekler, Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis.
* "Chinese Helicopter Development: Missions, Roles and Maritime Implications," by Dennis Blasko, CNA Corp.
* "Improvements in China's Airborne ASW Capabilities," by Lyle Goldstein and William Murray (NWC).
* "Anti-Access and China's Air-Launched Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles," by Jing-dong Yuan, Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
* "Chinese Views of Ballistic Missile Defense," by Toshi Yoshihara (NWC).
* "Deterrence and Presence After Beijing's Aerospace Revolution," by Larry Wortzel, a retired U.S. Army officer.
This remains to be seen . Who knows, maybe in a year or 2, we'll actually get to see the J-11B up against the most advanced F-15 in a joint war game / training exercise . This may occur sooner than we all think.
- Status