Bullshit. This article does not have any arguments. I don't even understand what the supposed objective of this "total war" might be? Total annihilation? Can't

Bullshit. This article does not have any arguments. I don't even understand what the supposed objective of this "total war" might be? Total annihilation? Can't do that without MAD consequences. Occupying Iowa? Be my guest... In terms of evidence, it just lists rather generic aspects of China's economic success. Of course they build network equipment and power plants. Because that's what you do as an industrialised country. Finland built 3G without feeling the urge to start "total war". Colonialism was a distinct period of history. It's not some step every country goes through. That's why it mostly happened at around the same time, and then stopped when it became obvious that it was morally and economically bankrupt. The British turned an island's worth of forest into ships at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and all they got for it was a good long drink and three or four cricket teams to lose against. Economic value today is being generated almost exclusively in manufacturing, service, and creative endeavours. Possession of territory has become almost worthless, or at least far less valuable than it did when people still thought wars were a good idea. You want to be Switzerland, not Equatorial Guinea or Venezuela (two of the resource-richest countries on earth). You also can't gain anything by conquering some foreign lands and oppressing the locals. The US profits far more from prosperous Europe than it ever did from its various impoverished protectorates in Middle and South America. Turns out selling iPhones and Tiger King is far more lucrative than all the bananas a government you own could ever cheaply send your way. You want Mexico to become Canada, not Canada to become Mexico (and Mexico today is closer to Canada than it is to the 1980s Mexico of your stereotypes, anyway). The article even recognises as much when it mentions that China's ascent is fuelled by selling their products all over the world. Than what imbecilic Chinese imitation of an alt-right incel would be as moronic as this author, and think it's a good idea to start a war with those customers? As to hostility, it might be worthwhile to consider the perspective from outside the US if you happen to be wearing a confederate flag face-mask right now: the US has spent the 20th century invading/bombing/regime-changing dozens of countries. China, which has been at least a regional power for quite a while, has not used its military outside its borders even once in the last 40 years. Even before that, Tibet remains the only offensive use, 70 years ago. The only reason for war-mongering chest-beating idiocy such as this article is the current kakistocracy's inability to come up with any ideas beside xenophobia. The British phantom pain of losing an Empire has become an often-mocked phenomenon. But it's funny because the British have style even in their greatest loss. I shudder at the thought of what the American Id will destroy, thrashing in fits of infantile rage as it is staring into the abyss, still in possession of remnants of its power but no longer capable to muster the civic spirit to use it responsibly.