Yeah, and PRC officials won't care about billions of USD that their families keep in US...
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
vesicles
Colonel
They do! Everyone does! that has been my point.
That's why war between the US and China is even less likely that an open war between the US and the former Soviets.
During the Cold War, the Soviets was very much isolated. Without much economic integration (let alone personal interests of key govn't personnel), the consideration for a potential war was more of a political decision.
The economic and political situation between the US and China is so much more complex now. Hyper-extensive economic integration between the two nations, as well as personal investments of key govn't personnel from both nations. That's why a talk of war between the US and China is unrealistic at the moment.
Is it possible? It is, especially given the current political climate. But most likely scenario is that both nations are forced to get into a quick fight to calm down domestic audience. A pre-meditated war, where one of the nations is actively preparing for, is unlikely.
You should read the Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer. I don't necessarily agree with everything he wrote in that book but one thing I certainly do agree with: economics does NOT in fact trump perceived national interests, which encompass far more than economics.
The classical Neorealist vs. Neoliberal (IR disciplines) debate here. And constructivists say that everything is just in your head. Yours and Trumps. You want to fight, construct your identity around the perceived threat of a rival - and then you get to fight for real. On the other hand, you can chose to sing kumbaya - and hope that your rival does so as well. It then comes down to game-theory of who wakes up first and backstabs the other.
As structuralists would put it; you can construct your own world-view, but in the end, you need food on your table and protection for your life and that of your family. The question is whether the accessible resources on the world are enough for two top-dogs. Physically, it sure should be, but whether suspicion about the other one wanting more of the cake will lead to a clash or not is the key question here.
And here, we come back to the constructivist view: Trump (or is it Bannon?) creates his own culture of anarchy (to cite Alexander Wendt). When the God Emperor sees China as an eyesore that needs to be removed off the map of the earth in its current form, then it will be attempted and nothing will stop him from trying that.
As structuralists would put it; you can construct your own world-view, but in the end, you need food on your table and protection for your life and that of your family. The question is whether the accessible resources on the world are enough for two top-dogs. Physically, it sure should be, but whether suspicion about the other one wanting more of the cake will lead to a clash or not is the key question here.
And here, we come back to the constructivist view: Trump (or is it Bannon?) creates his own culture of anarchy (to cite Alexander Wendt). When the God Emperor sees China as an eyesore that needs to be removed off the map of the earth in its current form, then it will be attempted and nothing will stop him from trying that.
vesicles
Colonel
I'm not saying economics is the only factor in determining a nation's willingness to go to war. I'm simply saying that with extensive economic integration, the situation becomes more complex.
And I did acknowledge in the end that the US and China could go to war even with their economic integration.
My idea is a spectrum with extreme war frenetics at one end and extreme pacifist at the other end. Having two nations' economies integrated so much simply moves them along the spectrum slightly toward the pacifist end. Not saying it would avoid the war.
solarz
Brigadier
With any other POTUS, I would agree with you. However, with Trump, it is pretty obvious that he is the businessman first, and president second. There is no way that Trump will risk endangering his own business assets for the sake of nebulous "national interests".
Blackstone
Brigadier
I think Trump is a populist with non-racially based nativist views. He's a blend of President Andrew Jackson and Dennis Kearney, without the racial bigotry. He's not an isolationist, and would take unilateral actions to protect American interests all over the world.
Trump is a patriot with strong nationalist believes, so there's little doubt he puts America's national interests high on a pedestal. He probably agrees with the old saying "what's good for General Motors is good for America," and that applies to his own business empire too.
There was a time I'd agree with the notion Trump is a businessman first and President second, but after his speech last night to a joint session of Congress, I now see a President first and businessman second.
solarz
Brigadier
Actions speak louder than words.
Blackstone
Brigadier
You underestimate Trump at your own peril. There's little indication Trump has personal enmity towards China, so his drive to neuter it is interest driven. He sees a strong, wealthy, and fully reemerged China as a threat to American primacy, so he'll do what he can to prevent it. And guess what? Trump is right! China is the biggest threat the US has ever faced, bigger than the Soviet Union, bigger than Nazi Germany, bigger than imperial Germany, and bigger than imperial Japan. The man-love for Putin/Russia is probably Trump's clumsy effort to imitate Richard Nixon and peal Russia away from China, so it could join a containment coalition. So far, it's an epic Trump fail, but he gets an 'A' for effort.
I'd support him if I thought it was possible to peacefully contain China, but that train left the station a decade ago, and I think power sharing is the next best option.