> The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. What evidence do you have for that, as opposed to this alternative hypothesis:

> The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. What evidence do you have for that, as opposed to this alternative hypothesis: 1. The Chinese have a bit of a thing about uninvited guests. C.f. world history from the industrial revolution until 1975, or go back a bit further to that Ghengis ratbag. 2. If any ininvited guests turn up in China in the next 30 years, they are, objectively, very likely to be Americans. Because a) who else can? b) go ask the Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis, Phillipinos, pause for breath, Nicaraguans, Yemenis, Iranians, Indonesians, Somalians, Cambodians, ..., whose army it usually is that turns up in someone else's country. 3. Pfaffing around in their local seas is relatively cheap for the Chinese, and it provokes Americans to burn lots of money in order to "maintain primacy". Meanwhile, the Chinese get to save their money and build submarines. > At least until China democratizes Because, of course, external threats from the world hegemon are just the kind of setting where people have always been willing to give more open and democratic ways of life a try.