4 ms·

I would like to see some analysis of what a nuclearized Japan, or Australia, would do. China has emerged as the single greatest threat to democracy, human right

I would like to see some analysis of what a nuclearized Japan, or Australia, would do. China has emerged as the single greatest threat to democracy, human rights, prosperity, and peace around the world. They can only do this because a foreign investment. If companies like Apple etc. did not make their products in China, Then perhaps I could see a future of China rising peacefully. Otherwise they are a grave in mortal threat to the world

perardi 6y ago
Aren’t they, in a sense, nuclearized, as they live under our security aegis?
- graeme 6y ago
  Yes and no. This was a big debate during the cold war. If the Russians invaded Europe, would America really nuke Russian and risk total destruction? Many strategists considered this to be not a credible threat, on its own. This was part of the reason the US deployed so many conventional troops to Europe during the cold war. These troops couldn’t stop the russians, but their presence would force the US to act if the Russians invaded. Hence, the US might actually irrationally nuke Russia. Hence, Russia would be deterred from invading. This also partly explains the US presence in Japan and Korea. Apart from power projection, it is a tangible expression of US committment to potentially irrationally deploy nukes to defend those countries. However, recent US actions have greatly called into question the US’s commitment to this strategic nuclear umbrella. Hence those countries may be more interested in a deterrent they control. Also of note: the US withdrew troops from Taiwan in 1979 when it switched diplomatic recognition to communist China. This switch was done to play China against the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force
jl6 6y ago
Democracy and human rights - sure. Prosperity and peace? I think China actually has a good track record there. Actions you might perceive as un-peaceful (building islands, modernizing military) could also be interpreted as defensive. The world could achieve great peace and prosperity under a “Pax Sinica”, at the cost of individual liberty. That IMHO is the bigger threat: that authoritarianism will sneak in under the cover of prosperity - a Faustian bargain that too many will be willing to accept.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  How is it defensive to build island military bases in places where there were barely any islands, in the international waters, in the most lucrative trade routes in the world? How is it defensive to encroach Kashmir and provoke a conflict with India? Dispute borders with Vietnam and Bhutan?
  - tim333 6y ago
    They are defending the nine dash line which has been sacred Chinese territory since someone sketched it.
sudosysgen 6y ago
To note, Japan is in practice a one-party state. The LDP has only ever not been in power very briefly, and even then they conserved bureaucratic power.

perardi 6y ago

Aren’t they, in a sense, nuclearized, as they live under our security aegis?

graeme 6y ago
Yes and no. This was a big debate during the cold war. If the Russians invaded Europe, would America really nuke Russian and risk total destruction? Many strategists considered this to be not a credible threat, on its own. This was part of the reason the US deployed so many conventional troops to Europe during the cold war. These troops couldn’t stop the russians, but their presence would force the US to act if the Russians invaded. Hence, the US might actually irrationally nuke Russia. Hence, Russia would be deterred from invading. This also partly explains the US presence in Japan and Korea. Apart from power projection, it is a tangible expression of US committment to potentially irrationally deploy nukes to defend those countries. However, recent US actions have greatly called into question the US’s commitment to this strategic nuclear umbrella. Hence those countries may be more interested in a deterrent they control. Also of note: the US withdrew troops from Taiwan in 1979 when it switched diplomatic recognition to communist China. This switch was done to play China against the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force

jl6 6y ago

Democracy and human rights - sure. Prosperity and peace? I think China actually has a good track record there. Actions you might perceive as un-peaceful (building islands, modernizing military) could also be interpreted as defensive. The world could achieve great peace and prosperity under a “Pax Sinica”, at the cost of individual liberty. That IMHO is the bigger threat: that authoritarianism will sneak in under the cover of prosperity - a Faustian bargain that too many will be willing to accept.

systemvoltage 6y ago
How is it defensive to build island military bases in places where there were barely any islands, in the international waters, in the most lucrative trade routes in the world? How is it defensive to encroach Kashmir and provoke a conflict with India? Dispute borders with Vietnam and Bhutan?
- tim333 6y ago
  They are defending the nine dash line which has been sacred Chinese territory since someone sketched it.

sudosysgen 6y ago

To note, Japan is in practice a one-party state. The LDP has only ever not been in power very briefly, and even then they conserved bureaucratic power.