3 ms·

Would you then be comfortable with the US stopping all spying on foreign governments while those countries continue? And surrendering all nukes while other coun

Would you then be comfortable with the US stopping all spying on foreign governments while those countries continue? And surrendering all nukes while other countries keep theirs? I'm against spying too, but if everyone else does it I can understand why China would want to also purely to equalize power. Its the same situation as nukes - i dont like them, it would be great if no one had them, but if some already do i fully understand why others would want to get them.

King-Aaron 8y ago
While this is a bit of strawman logic, I'll bite. My answer is this - what we are seeing I feel is a build-up to a massive power shift in the coming decades. As the climate changes and resources undoubtedly become scarce (water, food, etc) something will eventually trigger a conflict between the major nations, which currently people refuse to believe is a possibility. I'd guess the relative economic stability of the last several decades has lead to this. When the curtain inevitably falls, which would you prefer to take the baton. A quasi-democratic nation (US) that has clear pitfalls but at least a large portion of people living in relative freedom of thought, or the nation which has revoked the need to run elections, actively black-bags people for saying the wrong thing about their government, and institutes wide ranging censorship on a variety of important issues? Neither side is perfect, but it must be objectively said that the humanitarian state of affairs in China is dismal. Currently we are seeing the government in China stifling dissent as well as preparing to quash as much possibility of it in the future, while actively probing "the other side" for weaknesses. In any strategic sense, what's going on right now should be concerning. And while the thought of 'picking sides' does honestly suck, I'll throw the question back at you. What would you prefer?
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > What would you prefer? None of the above, as the U.S. is pretty much an oligarchy at this point. There was a study showing that unless you have a sizable sum of money, your priorities simply aren't worth much to lawmakers. Why is there no single payer for example, even as the majority of the population is for it? So to answer your question, I'd much prefer a world where the U.S., China, Russia, India, Brazil and the European Union are roughly on equal footing and then there are a bunch of smaller states that can try different systems, without getting economically strangled by the U.S. the moment their system isn't 100% predatory capitalist like in the U.S. That way, any of these will have to think long and hard before commuting to a significant unilateral action, resulting in a much better equilibrium than we have now.
- zaptheimpaler 8y ago
  I don't think talking about spies or nukes is irrelevant or straw manning - they're pretty similar to hacking in that they are essentially weapons against foreign governments. As a government, it makes sense to try to keep up in the global arms race. Anyways, as to your question - In short: The way I see it, China will not displace the US as a global power anytime soon. It may become a 2nd global power in addition to the US. I think a multipolar world is healthier than a unipolar world for the same reasons competition makes markets better. I think much of the frenzy around China is a US-centric reaction to the them potentially losing its spot as clear #1, but the world is better off without a clear #1. More details: China is absolutely not a democracy the way the US is. I do agree the US treats its OWN people better than China. But I'm not a US citizen - thats not really relevant to me. The US is historically much crueler to foreign enemies than any other country - no one else comes close to how many countries they have invaded, bombed, etc. We have already seen them invade and kill millions in Iraq under scarcity of oil. If things head towards scarcity again, who is to say they wouldn't do the same things again? China by comparison has mostly left other countries alone. I care about how the power balance affects the rest of the world besides US/China. As do 6B others. I absolutely support people’s right to argue for their own benefit, but they must atleast recognize that is what they are doing. Honestly im really tired of seeing a constant default equivocation between “whats good for the US” and “whats good for the world”. Those are often different things.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

King-Aaron 8y ago

While this is a bit of strawman logic, I'll bite. My answer is this - what we are seeing I feel is a build-up to a massive power shift in the coming decades. As the climate changes and resources undoubtedly become scarce (water, food, etc) something will eventually trigger a conflict between the major nations, which currently people refuse to believe is a possibility. I'd guess the relative economic stability of the last several decades has lead to this. When the curtain inevitably falls, which would you prefer to take the baton. A quasi-democratic nation (US) that has clear pitfalls but at least a large portion of people living in relative freedom of thought, or the nation which has revoked the need to run elections, actively black-bags people for saying the wrong thing about their government, and institutes wide ranging censorship on a variety of important issues? Neither side is perfect, but it must be objectively said that the humanitarian state of affairs in China is dismal. Currently we are seeing the government in China stifling dissent as well as preparing to quash as much possibility of it in the future, while actively probing "the other side" for weaknesses. In any strategic sense, what's going on right now should be concerning. And while the thought of 'picking sides' does honestly suck, I'll throw the question back at you. What would you prefer?

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> What would you prefer? None of the above, as the U.S. is pretty much an oligarchy at this point. There was a study showing that unless you have a sizable sum of money, your priorities simply aren't worth much to lawmakers. Why is there no single payer for example, even as the majority of the population is for it? So to answer your question, I'd much prefer a world where the U.S., China, Russia, India, Brazil and the European Union are roughly on equal footing and then there are a bunch of smaller states that can try different systems, without getting economically strangled by the U.S. the moment their system isn't 100% predatory capitalist like in the U.S. That way, any of these will have to think long and hard before commuting to a significant unilateral action, resulting in a much better equilibrium than we have now.
zaptheimpaler 8y ago
I don't think talking about spies or nukes is irrelevant or straw manning - they're pretty similar to hacking in that they are essentially weapons against foreign governments. As a government, it makes sense to try to keep up in the global arms race. Anyways, as to your question - In short: The way I see it, China will not displace the US as a global power anytime soon. It may become a 2nd global power in addition to the US. I think a multipolar world is healthier than a unipolar world for the same reasons competition makes markets better. I think much of the frenzy around China is a US-centric reaction to the them potentially losing its spot as clear #1, but the world is better off without a clear #1. More details: China is absolutely not a democracy the way the US is. I do agree the US treats its OWN people better than China. But I'm not a US citizen - thats not really relevant to me. The US is historically much crueler to foreign enemies than any other country - no one else comes close to how many countries they have invaded, bombed, etc. We have already seen them invade and kill millions in Iraq under scarcity of oil. If things head towards scarcity again, who is to say they wouldn't do the same things again? China by comparison has mostly left other countries alone. I care about how the power balance affects the rest of the world besides US/China. As do 6B others. I absolutely support people’s right to argue for their own benefit, but they must atleast recognize that is what they are doing. Honestly im really tired of seeing a constant default equivocation between “whats good for the US” and “whats good for the world”. Those are often different things.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]