well said. What about strategic elements that China controls, and certain chip technology? The latter can be produced domestically, after a time, and a delay, but the natural elements must be sourced elsewhere, like in Africa, and Russia and China are outmaneuvering us there, as well.
I would say that the US has moved far away from isolationism since WWII. National security has always been a priority and practically all US presidents have been internationally engaged until the Trump Administration. All of the international organizations have been built by the US. The US heads the largest security alliance from Europe to the Pacific Rim. Supporters call it the Established World Order; critics call it the American Hegemony. Regardless, it exists. Benefits to Americans is the development of the highest of technology and the highest of living standards, if one understood how it is organized and how to navigate it. The Allies have allowed the US to develop the largest military with the highest of technologies, while keeping theirs small and for defensive purposes. The US and NATO were designed to combat the Soviet Union, a military equal, and win, even in a nuclear scenario. China has now accessed (stole) many of these technologies, and the rise of Xi and their military in 2012 was not foreseen.
Given that Americans have benefited both technologically and economically for nearly a century, should the US give up to China because it has become inconvenient? What should this mean to our allies who have given up some of their own economic and military potential to support this world order?
Strategic patience with a potential second Trump Administration: on Trump’s first term, he tried to dismantle NATO and WTO. He cancelled TTP and the Iran Nuclear Deal. When he decides to talk tough with China, it would be interesting on how he handles the new AUKUS Alliance. Should Trump damage this, the US might have to tackle China alone. How confrontational is this current administration to China? So far, there are Filipino fishing boats demonstrating the extent of the 9-Dash line. The US Coast Guard and Navy is supporting Philippine resupply of an island outpost despite Chinese Coast Guard opposition. There is also a similar security agreement in place with Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, and Palau for the defense of their respective EEC’s. Costco in Japan is selling Starlink kits to its citizens. This is not to mention Taiwan’s upcoming election which has the potential of being stolen. It appears to be a plethora of flashpoints in the SCS, as it is, even without Taiwan. Does one risk the potential of losing all Pacific Rim Allies on an uncertain election? Or does one precipitate a war now given the pieces that are in place, to remove an aspiring military who has acquired pieces, but has yet to implement, the highest military technologies?
"Do we start WWIII now just in case WWIII will start in the future"?
Uh, no, we don't preemptively start WWIII against another nuclear power. I think many Americans are spoiled by the US escaping both world wars relatively unscathed. But a WWIII of the US vs China would be more akin to WWI between the European powers, where even the winners suffered grievious loss.
The US doesn't "have to" go to war with China. Push comes to shove, both Japan and India face a more existential threat from China. The US has the luxury to engage or disengage.
well said. What about strategic elements that China controls, and certain chip technology? The latter can be produced domestically, after a time, and a delay, but the natural elements must be sourced elsewhere, like in Africa, and Russia and China are outmaneuvering us there, as well.
I would say that the US has moved far away from isolationism since WWII. National security has always been a priority and practically all US presidents have been internationally engaged until the Trump Administration. All of the international organizations have been built by the US. The US heads the largest security alliance from Europe to the Pacific Rim. Supporters call it the Established World Order; critics call it the American Hegemony. Regardless, it exists. Benefits to Americans is the development of the highest of technology and the highest of living standards, if one understood how it is organized and how to navigate it. The Allies have allowed the US to develop the largest military with the highest of technologies, while keeping theirs small and for defensive purposes. The US and NATO were designed to combat the Soviet Union, a military equal, and win, even in a nuclear scenario. China has now accessed (stole) many of these technologies, and the rise of Xi and their military in 2012 was not foreseen.
Given that Americans have benefited both technologically and economically for nearly a century, should the US give up to China because it has become inconvenient? What should this mean to our allies who have given up some of their own economic and military potential to support this world order?
Strategic patience with a potential second Trump Administration: on Trump’s first term, he tried to dismantle NATO and WTO. He cancelled TTP and the Iran Nuclear Deal. When he decides to talk tough with China, it would be interesting on how he handles the new AUKUS Alliance. Should Trump damage this, the US might have to tackle China alone. How confrontational is this current administration to China? So far, there are Filipino fishing boats demonstrating the extent of the 9-Dash line. The US Coast Guard and Navy is supporting Philippine resupply of an island outpost despite Chinese Coast Guard opposition. There is also a similar security agreement in place with Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, and Palau for the defense of their respective EEC’s. Costco in Japan is selling Starlink kits to its citizens. This is not to mention Taiwan’s upcoming election which has the potential of being stolen. It appears to be a plethora of flashpoints in the SCS, as it is, even without Taiwan. Does one risk the potential of losing all Pacific Rim Allies on an uncertain election? Or does one precipitate a war now given the pieces that are in place, to remove an aspiring military who has acquired pieces, but has yet to implement, the highest military technologies?
"Do we start WWIII now just in case WWIII will start in the future"?
Uh, no, we don't preemptively start WWIII against another nuclear power. I think many Americans are spoiled by the US escaping both world wars relatively unscathed. But a WWIII of the US vs China would be more akin to WWI between the European powers, where even the winners suffered grievious loss.
The US doesn't "have to" go to war with China. Push comes to shove, both Japan and India face a more existential threat from China. The US has the luxury to engage or disengage.
Some of us don’t have bluesky yet 😔 the Republicans are in the early stages. I expect escalating extremity in their proposals.