No. What ensures a catastrophic conflict is America's psychotic messianism, not my language. If anything, my proposals ensure peace because the only thing Americans hold dearer than their nauseating self-righteousness is their primal desire to keep breathing.
I don't care what the US public thinks, they're the most heavily propagandized population on the planet. They think whatever their masters tell them to think. That "under 50%" number is nothing more than a thermostat setting that US elites can manipulate at will. China is not going to sit around reading polls, it's going to take steps much like I outlined to ensure its security by being too powerful to threaten.
Ultimately, it's a deeper and simpler issue than any opinion poll can get at. China has suffered the US's presence in its natural dominion and interference in its affairs since the PRC was founded because it couldn't do anything about it. Now those days are fast drawing to a close and the US confronts a very stark choice:
- America can know its place in this new world and voluntarily withdraw to the eastern Pacific.
- America can wage a war against China that it's certain to lose.
There is no option 3.
That's good. I like the posts you write here and I wouldn't want China's nuclear buildup to cause you personal discomfort.
That's a logically untenable position. Nuclear weapons by their very nature threaten other countries, that's why they exist.
People travelled the world quite extensively long before America existed, that isn't going to change. The death of the post WWII order doesn't mean the end of peace, quite the contrary. Instead of the fraying and unstable "peace" we have today with America trying to keep all the plates in the air like an exhausted juggler, we'll have a durable peace based on each great power respecting the others' core interests and red lines.
