Originally Posted by Sam I Am

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I cannot agree with Tristan and Roadbuilder enough (and I believe Rick joins us on this): China is going to be a BIG problem.

Add me to the list .. and add India to the list of 'problems'. And yes, I know about iltant Islam, so add that too.

Somehow, I suspect that India, Israel, and Militant Islam will end up pretty much cancelling each other out. (Think nukes.)

And with Europe far enough gone in decline to be only a short term problem, that leaves China as the real problem, though I did post a possible solution above, that I believe should hold through at least the next 1T, if not the entire next saeculum.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I cannot agree with Tristan and Roadbuilder enough (and I believe Rick joins us on this): China is going to be a BIG problem.

We may have to reach an understanding with China based on some formula of the 'Asia for Asians, America for Americans' sort. We'd not only have to cut all ties with Taiwan, but also get out of South Korea, Japan, and Micronesia, and leave Australia and New Zealand to their fate. In return, they would get out of the Panama Canal Zone, and recognize our position in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Eastern Pacific. The alternative may well be a 4T war which, with at least a third of our population severely disaffected from their country, we could very easily lose. (Think 4T type consequences of defeat. :shock: )

I agree that acknowledging spheres of influence might be the most expedient strategy, at least in the short run. This might work best if other Eurasian powers create a countervailing alliance(s).

Zbigniew Brzezinski included a map in The Grand Chessboard which depicted the spheres on influnce of a China as a regional and as a world power.

In the case of being a world power the line was drawn out to sea between Australia and Indonesia. The fate of Australia and New Zealand may be that of membership in the Anglosphere.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I cannot agree with Tristan and Roadbuilder enough (and I believe Rick joins us on this): China is going to be a BIG problem.

We may have to reach an understanding with China based on some formula of the 'Asia for Asians, America for Americans' sort. We'd not only have to cut all ties with Taiwan, but also get out of South Korea, Japan, and Micronesia, and leave Australia and New Zealand to their fate. In return, they would get out of the Panama Canal Zone, and recognize our position in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Eastern Pacific. The alternative may well be a 4T war which, with at least a third of our population severely disaffected from their country, we could very easily lose. (Think 4T type consequences of defeat. :shock: )

I doubt we, or they, will make such an agreement. Think Japan and America on a collision course after WW1.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I cannot agree with Tristan and Roadbuilder enough (and I believe Rick joins us on this): China is going to be a BIG problem.

We may have to reach an understanding with China based on some formula of the 'Asia for Asians, America for Americans' sort. We'd not only have to cut all ties with Taiwan, but also get out of South Korea, Japan, and Micronesia, and leave Australia and New Zealand to their fate. In return, they would get out of the Panama Canal Zone, and recognize our position in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Eastern Pacific. The alternative may well be a 4T war which, with at least a third of our population severely disaffected from their country, we could very easily lose. (Think 4T type consequences of defeat. :shock: )

I doubt we, or they, will make such an agreement. Think Japan and America on a collision course after WW1.

Somehow, I doubt that we'd win that one, unless you would call fighting them to a standstill on our very shores a victory. Especially if war comes in the 2020s, when China will have had time aplenty to turn potential superpower strength into an actual blue-water capacity commensurate with the continental and green-water capabilities I expect them to have by 2010. China already has the economic strength, and the will. The only thing they need now is the time.

Samuel Huntington wrote of China regaining its role as hegemon of East Asia. In fact, I recently read an article about Thailand becoming increasingly orientated towards China.

On the other hand I have been reading about the tensions between China & Japan and Korea & Japan. I understand that the Chinese and Koreans have retained a grudge based on what the Japanese did to their countries during the early 20th century.

A military alliance & economic partnership between Japan and India were concieved in The Coming War With Japan.

Another that comes to mind would be between Japan and Russia. I understand that their relationship has been conflictual, but I can imagine a mutual fear of China drawing them into an alliance.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Samuel Huntington wrote of China regaining its role as hegemon of East Asia. In fact, I recently read an article about Thailand becoming increasingly orientated towards China.

A military alliance & economic partnership between Japan and India were concieved in The Coming War With Japan.

Another that comes to mind would be between Japan and Russia. I understand that their relationship has been conflictual, but I can imagine a mutual fear of China drawing them into an alliance.

I recently spent a couple of years teaching in Thailand and most of that time I was teaching Chinese Thais in Bangkok. The Chinese are assimilated there but completely dominate the business community, while also owing allegiance to the home town of their ancestors back on the South China Coast. In fact, the absence of a developed civil/legal culture in this part of the world is largely made up for by the existence of organizations (like triads), based on ancient homeland connections. The lions share of the development in China in the last years has been driven by those operating in the Special Economic Zones, which means largely the Overseas Chinese.

I recommend a great book written a few years back called 'Lords of the Rim,' (read it in on the plane/bus and everybody will ask about Middle Earth rather than the Middle Kingdom, which shows how 3T we are). The author, Stearling Seagraves, was born in China and was a journalist for many years in this part of the world. It's about the Overseas Chinese and their growing wealth and influence. Realize they have been alienated from the Mandarins in Beijing for thousands of years.

Personally, I think Huntington is full of crap and needs to do a bit of field research. His Hegelian method is as dead as Marxism. I was teaching at the Ministry of Industry and Energy in Spain back before the Euro unification in 1992, and back then I was naive enough to bring in and try to discuss all the books about Japanese economic domination of the planet that were coming out. My students, all middle aged bureaucrats, thought the books were silly and I a dupe for believing the policy wonks and journos whose job it was to market such speculation. China has, ahem, problems...even more than Japan.

Once, before I spent the last few years in Asia, I doubted the continuation of 'globalization.' I suspected a reassertion of national interest. I believed all those arguments based on the ebb and flow of world trade. Now after spending a couple years with Asian teenagers (and also teaching their twenty- five year old newbie businessman elder brothers), I do not. We've gone too far now. The kids EVERYWHERE are...different, but alright.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

We may have to reach an understanding with China based on some formula of the 'Asia for Asians, America for Americans' sort. We'd not only have to cut all ties with Taiwan, but also get out of South Korea, Japan, and Micronesia, and leave Australia and New Zealand to their fate. In return, they would get out of the Panama Canal Zone, and recognize our position in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Eastern Pacific. The alternative may well be a 4T war which, with at least a third of our population severely disaffected from their country, we could very easily lose. (Think 4T type consequences of defeat. :shock: )

Solving the China problem is fairly simple, however it comes with a high price tag.

If China was a Liberal Democratic nation, it would be natural ally of the USA (like Taiwan is], an Free Democratic China would be a major asset to the United States of America. Countries that aren't muslim and are even mildly democratic in East and South East Asia are natural US allies. Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Phillipines are all friendly to the USA and/or are strong allies.

The USA and her allies have to promote dissent groups in China and bring about regime change to turn China into a liberal democratic nation. That most likely means putting economic boycotts aganist the Chinese, which would hurt our economy deeply. For example we owe huge debts to the Chinese and buy a lot of goods from them, however on the other hand China's economy would be deeply damaged if we put a trade boycott aganist them.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Solving the China problem is fairly simple, however it comes with a high price tag.

If China was a Liberal Democratic nation, it would be natural ally of the USA (like Taiwan is], an Free Democratic China would be a major asset to the United States of America. Countries that aren't muslim and are even mildly democratic in East and South East Asia are natural US allies. Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Phillipines are all friendly to the USA and/or are strong allies.

The USA and her allies have to promote dissent groups in China and bring about regime change to turn China into a liberal democratic nation. That most likely means putting economic boycotts aganist the Chinese, which would hurt our economy deeply. For example we owe huge debts to the Chinese and buy a lot of goods from them, however on the other hand China's economy would be deeply damaged if we put a trade boycott aganist them.

Yes, those billion and a half would be "an asset," I suppose. Do you really think Thailand, Taiwan, etc. are 'democratic' in any meaningful way. America tends to deal best with countries that have a strong man (or men) in charge. Now, if you mean liberal in an economic sense, than I suppose that might be true. But the resentment that would come from our efforts to 'promote dissent groups,' would so outweigh any other affect that it wouldn't be worthwhile.

Tristan, read up on the lovely people the US supported against the Commies. The West has no credibility as a moral force there. With the Chinese its all self-interest and negotiation.

[quote="lexpat"]

Originally Posted by Tristan

Solving the China problem is fairly simple, however it comes with a high price tag.

If China was a Liberal Democratic nation, it would be natural ally of the USA (like Taiwan is], an Free Democratic China would be a major asset to the United States of America. Countries that aren't muslim and are even mildly democratic in East and South East Asia are natural US allies. Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Phillipines are all friendly to the USA and/or are strong allies.

The USA and her allies have to promote dissent groups in China and bring about regime change to turn China into a liberal democratic nation. That most likely means putting economic boycotts aganist the Chinese, which would hurt our economy deeply. For example we owe huge debts to the Chinese and buy a lot of goods from them, however on the other hand China's economy would be deeply damaged if we put a trade boycott aganist them.

Yes, those billion and a half would be "an asset," I suppose. Do you really think Thailand, Taiwan, etc. are 'democratic' in any meaningful way?America, historically, has tended to deal most comfortably with countries that have a strong man (or men) in charge, one who promotes the interests of our corporations while making the place look all nice and free. Now, if you mean liberal in an economic sense, then I suppose that might be true.

Tristan, read up on all the lovely people the US supported against the Commies. The West has no credibility as a moral force there.

Taiwan is still a ticking time bomb:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_2510039.htm

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Taiwan is still a ticking time bomb:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_2510039.htm

This isn't the only time bomb either.

We may be laden with budget deficits, current account deficits, even sleep deficits, but at least we have a Time Bomb surplus. :shock:

Conclusion: in the next twenty years, China is certain to contest militarily for the world's remaining oil with what has been the prime customer for its manufacturing output. That would be America

From http://www.energybulletin.net/4205.html

China's plan to defeat America:
http://www.energybulletin.net/4301.html

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

China's plan to defeat America:
http://www.energybulletin.net/4301.html

As I've said, we are on a collision course with China in much that same way we were with Japan one cycle ago.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

China's plan to defeat America:
http://www.energybulletin.net/4301.html

As I've said, we are on a collision course with China in much that same way we were with Japan one cycle ago.

If we fight a war against North Korea anytime soon, the major war against China could happen sooner than I thought. That is a very frightening thought. :shock:

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

China's plan to defeat America:
http://www.energybulletin.net/4301.html

As I've said, we are on a collision course with China in much that same way we were with Japan one cycle ago.

If we fight a war against North Korea anytime soon, the major war against China could happen sooner than I thought. That is a very frightening thought. :shock:

Agreed.

We know that China has enormous influence over Kim, though surely not total. When he last refused the "Six Party" talks, it is my understanding that Beijing just turned off their fuel pipeline for three days and Kim suddenly got inspired to talk. They could be helping much more than they are which means that they want Kim there and in some way approve of what he's doing. Now how far that goes and how it exactly fits in with their overall plans, I don't know. But he plays into them somehow.

Do you have any ideas?

The Bush Administration must realize this, or at least do so on some level. I must not be the only one who can see this. I am not like Kathaksung and have special insights into the dealings of nations and intelligence agencies. :wink:

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

China's plan to defeat America:
http://www.energybulletin.net/4301.html

As I've said, we are on a collision course with China in much that same way we were with Japan one cycle ago.

If we fight a war against North Korea anytime soon, the major war against China could happen sooner than I thought. That is a very frightening thought. :shock:

Agreed.

We know that China has enormous influence over Kim, though surely not total. When he last refused the "Six Party" talks, it is my understanding that Beijing just turned off their fuel pipeline for three days and Kim suddenly got inspired to talk. They could be helping much more than they are which means that they want Kim there and in some way approve of what he's doing. Now how far that goes and how it exactly fits in with their overall plans, I don't know. But he plays into them somehow.

Do you have any ideas?

The Bush Administration must realize this, or at least do so on some level. I must not be the only one who can see this. I am not like Kathaksung and have special insights into the dealings of nations and intelligence agencies. :wink:

I have no idea what's on China's mind. Maybe China wants to fight the US for control of the world. Or maybe, they are not interested in anything beyond the mainland. I recall China telling Kim to STFU a couple of years back after Kim went on a rant saying how he desires to nuke LA, and that he has the capability. But if Kim goes out of control, will China back the US, or NK?

Keep in mind that the fairly friendly relationship between the US and China is sustained only by the mutual economic assistance of both nations to each other. The US exports jobs to China, keeping the Chinese labor force employed and benefitting from US investments in the nation. In turn, the Chinese allow US companies to operate sweat shops in China, and China keeps the US dollar afloat by buying shares of the greenbacks.

It is not difficult to imagine what could go wrong. Labor unrest could break out in the US to keep jobs at home in a dwindling job market. Or, a panic could happen in which China and other nations sell shares of the greenback. When the economic bond is broken, I don't see anything that can keep relations between the two nations from deteriorating to the point of a major war.

I'm very certain that the US military can see this clearly. I just hope that our leaders know what they are doing.

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

I just hope that our leaders know what they are doing.

:lol: :shock: :cry:

Then don't forget Taiwan!. With the Chinese trying to control the last major sources of oil, I see my vision of a war between the West and an Arab-Chinese Coalition becoming more likely (and biotech and nanotech are advancing rapidly...mammaloids, anyone?)

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Then don't forget Taiwan!. With the Chinese trying to control the last major sources of oil, I see my vision of a war between the West and an Arab-Chinese Coalition becoming more likely... (snip)

And with China II an obviously Stage 3 Civilization, while the West is a Stage 4/6 Civilization, we can pretty well guess who would win that one. :cry:

Dazed & Confused

Mr. Tucker Carlson on his Unfiltered program on PBS interviewed Mr. Thomas P. M. Barnett of The Pentagon's New Map authorship. The latter has an article in a new number of Esquire magazine in which he gives us the advice to make nice with the Medes and the Celestials if our adventures in Eurasia are to have any chance of success. This includes throwing Taiwan to the wolves and make a deal with the Ayatollahs as these states are realities that we must deal with no matter how imperfect their rulers.

I wonder how the Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal utopians will deal with such reality or Mr. New Maps?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Dazed & Confused

Mr. Tucker Carlson on his Unfiltered program on PBS interviewed Mr. Thomas P. M. Barnett of The Pentagon's New Map authorship. The latter has an article in a new number of Esquire magazine in which he gives us the advice to make nice with the Medes and the Celestials if our adventures in Eurasia are to have any chance of success. This includes throwing Taiwan to the wolves and make a deal with the Ayatollahs as these states are realities that we must deal with no matter how imperfect their rulers.

I wonder how the Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal utopians will deal with such reality or Mr. New Maps?

I read that interview in Esquire, it's good. I feel like I should comment as the site's #1 fan of Dr. T.P.M. Barnett.

He does indeed propose making nice with Iran - "coopt the mullahs" is his catchphrase. He has this complaint about Rice and Rumsfeld of the current administration: "why do we play bad cop-bad cop with Iran - we need to offer them something." Barnett suggests nothing less than letting them have the bomb :!: in exchange for their recognition of Israel. Then let M.A.D. stabilize the Middle East and wait for reform to fix Iran while she develops economic ties with her big Asian partners.

As for China-Taiwan, there's no "throwing to the wolves" to happen. There's never going to be an invasion of the island from the mainland - Taiwan is the most defensible spot on the planet and China has no navy to speak of and is devoting her national energies to domestic economy - there's no way she's going to be a military peer of the U.S.A., no matter how many hard drives are stolen from our labs or how many of our spy planes are brought down. The Cold War is over! Defending "capitalist" Taiwan from "communist" PRC is last century's battle - let it go!

I highly recommend reading the interview, and if you buy the issue of Esquire you will be rewarded with some fabulous pictures of Scarlett Johansen.

Thanks Steve. I'm very busy here in Hanoi (and may be moving to China soon), so I've lurked without comment. But it's good to read some reasonable stuff. China wants markets and influence and security, not war and overseas empires. The world is not a game of Risk.

Problems with China over oil:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?...ectID=10010884

One possible scenario for China to deal with us: after collapsing our economy in the manner described at length throughout the forum, China then launches a cyber-attack which disables all of our computer systems - those related to control of our nuclear arsenal in particular. Then, before the damage can be repaired, they launch a full-scale thermonuclear counter-value strike on us. Over 100 million are killed outright, while our retaliatory strike is short-circuited (and thus effectively prevented) by the compu-problems referred to above. Millions more die in the weeks and months to follow, while lethal concentrations of fallout spread over Canada, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico. Whatever's left of the United States afterwards is protected from conventional attack only by the high residual radiation levels. However, this does not necessarily protect us from further missile-borne WMD attacks. Whether the congratulatory response of the rest of the world to the attack is genuine or inspired by fear is impossible to determine with any real exactitude.