17 ms·

> If the US has "lost" Asia as a partner, can it maintain its supply chain dependence? The US hasn't lost Asia as a partner and it's not going to in an absolut

> If the US has "lost" Asia as a partner, can it maintain its supply chain dependence? The US hasn't lost Asia as a partner and it's not going to in an absolute manner. The US is losing its hegemony over Asia, which it has had since WW2. Those are two very different things. Can the US keep Asia as a partner? Yes, mostly, through accepting that it will have to be less of a dominant hegemony in Asia and more of an at-the-table partner with the other nations in Asia that are not very willing to capitulate to China (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Vietnam, India, etc). For example the US is intentionally flooding Vietnam with trade right now to build it up and working with them militarily to improve their positioning vs China. US imports from Vietnam are now equal to 23% of their economy; US imports from Vietnam will have increased by about 21% in 2020 (despite the pandemic). That will rapidly improve Vietnam in the same way it did China; in the next 20-30 years Vietnam will become a middle income nation comparable to Thailand or Malaysia. They're a quasi perma enemy of China, which is why they're so happy to be a strategic partner with the US (and why next to Israel the people of Vietnam like the US more than any other nation, accoring to Pew Research). The US can maintain supply chains with countries like Vietnam quite easily. The US will pull some of its dependency away from China and relocate it to other nations (whether Vietnam, India, Mexico, or similar). The US can also simply increasingly accept its real context in Asia and cede more ground to China in exchange for maintaining trade with them (the EU is showing that it's happy to follow that path for example, it's plausible the US will partially capitulate in a similar manner). The US and China may continue to be quasi-enemies and competitors for global positioning, that trade with eachother, for a long time (and who knows what comes after Xi). For their own self-defense, both South Korea and Japan should acquire nuclear weapons (if I were them); I wouldn't count on a receding US military superpower to come to the rescue, nor would I count on the thrashing-about-in-agony US population to take a self-interest in what China does in Asia (the growing stance in the US against foreign military adventurism will only increase by the year, as the US population demands an ever-increasing re-focus onto their well-being).

beerandt 6y ago
>The US can also simply increasingly accept its real context This could also mean US food production capabilities. There's an insane amount of agricultural (and other) land being purchased by China controlled interests, both in the US and worldwide. Reliance on domestic food production is obviously something they're very concerned about, especially with the history of agricultural disease outbreaks. I suspect the seizure of Chinese owned/controlled property under US jurisdiction (or areas of influence) would be a significant blow, with respect to that. (As archaic as starving the enemy might be- we're talking about war.) As much as I hesitate to suggest a new govt database: We need a system tracking all foreign ownership of US land. Including owned by companies with Chinese stakeholders. An incredibly difficult task, given the majority of US land records are kept at the county level. It might actually be easier to track it based on crop production, commodity trading, exports, or financial transactions, all of which all at least have some extant system for national data collection, but this is way over my head.
beerandt 6y ago
>South Korea and Japan should acquire nuclear weapons Ideally yes. Would love that. But almost never-never-never gonna happen. Culturally, Japan does a much better job than most in teaching (and learning from) war history. Hiroshimaa and Nagasaki are still quite fresh in their minds. They're not Germany; Japan still identifies as, acknowledges being, and is deeply ashamed that they are the same nation/people that bombed Pearl Harbor and fought in WW2. The power plant meltdowns also don't help, but is probably less culturally entrenched. Only chance of changing that is maybe one-day for parity with N Korean capabilities, or an imminent major war with China. It'd be... historically & culturally interesting, if Japan accepted US nukes or technology as assistance in a wartime emergency. Could potentially create one hell of a bond between allies, if played right. Or a whole lot of hate, if Japan's public opinion isn't won over first. As for South Korea, and in the context of North Korea: As long as N Korea is N Korea, I don't know if we want to just drop nukes into the equation, as is, unless we're talking about US-controlled weapons-sharing. With the downside of being a less effective threat due to direct US involvement, and culpability. What would be ideal is: Somehow make Korean reunification happen, under a democratic government that inherits NK's nuke program. And then advances it with US blessings and/or assistance (either openly or modeled on something like the Israeli program). Japan won't like it, but it also might be enough to encourge them to overcome their aversion, Hiroshima/Nagasaki be damned. It would require overcoming a constitutional ban, so not easy. But they make an increasing number of exceptions for weapons constitutionally limited to "defensive capabilities," which somehow now includes two aircraft carriers with F-35Bs. And which China already hates.

beerandt 6y ago

>The US can also simply increasingly accept its real context This could also mean US food production capabilities. There's an insane amount of agricultural (and other) land being purchased by China controlled interests, both in the US and worldwide. Reliance on domestic food production is obviously something they're very concerned about, especially with the history of agricultural disease outbreaks. I suspect the seizure of Chinese owned/controlled property under US jurisdiction (or areas of influence) would be a significant blow, with respect to that. (As archaic as starving the enemy might be- we're talking about war.) As much as I hesitate to suggest a new govt database: We need a system tracking all foreign ownership of US land. Including owned by companies with Chinese stakeholders. An incredibly difficult task, given the majority of US land records are kept at the county level. It might actually be easier to track it based on crop production, commodity trading, exports, or financial transactions, all of which all at least have some extant system for national data collection, but this is way over my head.

beerandt 6y ago

>South Korea and Japan should acquire nuclear weapons Ideally yes. Would love that. But almost never-never-never gonna happen. Culturally, Japan does a much better job than most in teaching (and learning from) war history. Hiroshimaa and Nagasaki are still quite fresh in their minds. They're not Germany; Japan still identifies as, acknowledges being, and is deeply ashamed that they are the same nation/people that bombed Pearl Harbor and fought in WW2. The power plant meltdowns also don't help, but is probably less culturally entrenched. Only chance of changing that is maybe one-day for parity with N Korean capabilities, or an imminent major war with China. It'd be... historically & culturally interesting, if Japan accepted US nukes or technology as assistance in a wartime emergency. Could potentially create one hell of a bond between allies, if played right. Or a whole lot of hate, if Japan's public opinion isn't won over first. As for South Korea, and in the context of North Korea: As long as N Korea is N Korea, I don't know if we want to just drop nukes into the equation, as is, unless we're talking about US-controlled weapons-sharing. With the downside of being a less effective threat due to direct US involvement, and culpability. What would be ideal is: Somehow make Korean reunification happen, under a democratic government that inherits NK's nuke program. And then advances it with US blessings and/or assistance (either openly or modeled on something like the Israeli program). Japan won't like it, but it also might be enough to encourge them to overcome their aversion, Hiroshima/Nagasaki be damned. It would require overcoming a constitutional ban, so not easy. But they make an increasing number of exceptions for weapons constitutionally limited to "defensive capabilities," which somehow now includes two aircraft carriers with F-35Bs. And which China already hates.