4 ms·

Asia is headed towards war - it almost seems inevitable. Xi has publicly committed to not leaving Taiwan invasion to the next generation. China is focused on b

by jeswin 5y ago

Asia is headed towards war - it almost seems inevitable. Xi has publicly committed to not leaving Taiwan invasion to the next generation. China is focused on building an industrial base that complements its military power while generating cash, and internet software startups aren't going to help. For the rest of Asia, they'd do well to militarize; for Japan and Australia to consider getting nuclear weapons or hosting them, and for India to rapidly increase stockpiles.

deltasixeight 5y ago
War is unlikely. Globalization of all economies means everybody loses in a war. The devastation will harm everyone in a significant way. The most likely outcome is just perpetual political squabbling and the continuous feeling that war is omnipresent but realistically will never occur. China likely plans to dominate the US from a prestige standpoint. Better GDP, higher technology, that kind of thing and they already have the momentum for it.
- I-M-S 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
cyberpunk 5y ago
Can you elaborate on why you think it seems inevitable? From my armchair, I can't see a benefit to China for kicking off a superpower war; they're already pulling ahead in STEM, their economy is fairly safe and not really that dependant on exports, quality of life is improving massively, infra is improving.. ?
- jeswin 5y ago
  I don't mean imminent war, but that it's headed there. From articles in Chinese news sites, it seems Xi wants to attach reunification to his legacy. The thing with dictatorships is that ultimately it will depend on what one person wants to achieve. Xi is of course not going to risk a war that he won't win easily. So there's enough time for the rest of the world to reverse the wholesale shift of industrial capacity into China. Taiwan had nuclear program in the 70s which would have prevented war and invasion. That was nipped under pressure from everyone else, so I imho defending a democratic nation must be a shared responsibility.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    At this point, China could probably achieve reunification, even just de facto reunification, through economic control. No need for open combat, which would threaten economic stability.
paxys 5y ago
This is stupid. China is the last country in the world to want war, considering its 100% export-driven economy.
dotcommand 5y ago
> For the rest of Asia, they'd do well to militarize; for Japan and Australia to consider getting nuclear weapons or hosting them, The idea that we'd ever let Japan have a nuke is ludicrous. Do you really think we'd let a country we nuked twice have such weapons? There is a reason why we are still occupying Japan 75+ years after ww2. And no, it isn't to "protect" japan. > and for India to rapidly increase stockpiles. I don't think china would mind one bit. After all, it wasn't china that sanctioned india when they developed nukes... http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9805/13/india.us/ http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9805/13/india.us/ If there is a war in asia, it will be a war for liberation - not from china, but from the west. It's so funny how we truly deluded ourselves into thinking we are the good guys in asia and not the murderous colonial powers that we truly are. We really need to start seeing the world as it is rather than the disneyfied nonsense you read on "news". Or we are in for a rude awakening.
- jeswin 5y ago
  > The idea that we'd ever let Japan have a nuke is ludicrous. Do you really think we'd let a country we nuked twice have such weapons? Not ludicrous at all - Trump was open to Japan and Korea acquiring nukes. [1] > After all, it wasn't china that sanctioned india when they developed nukes... That was at a time when India's wasn't clearly aligned to the US. Subsequently it was the US which drafted the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) exemption for India. > If there is a war in asia, it will be a war for liberation - not from china, but from the west. What liberation? People hold favorable views of the West (compared to China) in East Asia, South East Asia, or India. Many of them are now in disputes with China, which often involve violence. The situation is different in West Asia - but it's always been that way. > It's so funny how we truly deluded ourselves into thinking we are the good guys in asia and not the murderous colonial powers that we truly are. Modern western influence is largely positive compared to the alternatives. 1: https://www.ft.com/content/c927017c-f398-11e5-9afe-dd2472ea263d https://www.ft.com/content/c927017c-f398-11e5-9afe-dd2472ea2...
  - dotcommand 5y ago
    > Not ludicrous at all - Trump was open to Japan and Korea acquiring nukes. [1] Don't link to paywalls. Who is talking about Trump? I'm talking about the US. Also, Trump was open to a lot of things. Including Mexico paying for the wall. > That was at a time when India's wasn't clearly aligned to the US. Subsequently it was the US which drafted the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) exemption for India. Countries like india, china, russia are never "clearly aligned" with anyone. They are too big for that. > What liberation? People hold favorable views of the West (compared to China) in East Asia, South East Asia, or India. That's because we are the dominant occupying power with dominant propaganda and wealth. The leaders of these "subjugated" nations could easily turn the propaganda against the US. Look how quickly our propaganda was able to turn the sentiment against china. How easily do you think Japan, Korea, Philippines, etc could turn their nations sentiment against the US. > Many of them are now in disputes with China, which often involve violence. What disputes, violence? The only real dispute seems to be with the US and the west ( aka china's and asia's former european colonizers ). That's another danger, that asians, africans, etc are going to pick up on. > The situation is different in West Asia - but it's always been that way. What violence? Is it china that invaded afghanistan, iraq and sanctioned iran? > Modern western influence is largely positive compared to the alternatives. No. It hasn't been. Not for the aborigines. Not for the natives. Not for the africans. Not for the indians. Etc. That's the point. It's actually modern chinese influence has even been more positive. Considering the wealth of japan, korea and much of asia has been due to trade with china. And that's why we are "pivoting to asia" - a place we do not belong. A place, btw, we caused the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people. But we shall see how history pans out.

by jeswin 5y ago

deltasixeight 5y ago

War is unlikely. Globalization of all economies means everybody loses in a war. The devastation will harm everyone in a significant way. The most likely outcome is just perpetual political squabbling and the continuous feeling that war is omnipresent but realistically will never occur. China likely plans to dominate the US from a prestige standpoint. Better GDP, higher technology, that kind of thing and they already have the momentum for it.

I-M-S 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

cyberpunk 5y ago

Can you elaborate on why you think it seems inevitable? From my armchair, I can't see a benefit to China for kicking off a superpower war; they're already pulling ahead in STEM, their economy is fairly safe and not really that dependant on exports, quality of life is improving massively, infra is improving.. ?

jeswin 5y ago
I don't mean imminent war, but that it's headed there. From articles in Chinese news sites, it seems Xi wants to attach reunification to his legacy. The thing with dictatorships is that ultimately it will depend on what one person wants to achieve. Xi is of course not going to risk a war that he won't win easily. So there's enough time for the rest of the world to reverse the wholesale shift of industrial capacity into China. Taiwan had nuclear program in the 70s which would have prevented war and invasion. That was nipped under pressure from everyone else, so I imho defending a democratic nation must be a shared responsibility.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  At this point, China could probably achieve reunification, even just de facto reunification, through economic control. No need for open combat, which would threaten economic stability.

paxys 5y ago

This is stupid. China is the last country in the world to want war, considering its 100% export-driven economy.

dotcommand 5y ago

> For the rest of Asia, they'd do well to militarize; for Japan and Australia to consider getting nuclear weapons or hosting them, The idea that we'd ever let Japan have a nuke is ludicrous. Do you really think we'd let a country we nuked twice have such weapons? There is a reason why we are still occupying Japan 75+ years after ww2. And no, it isn't to "protect" japan. > and for India to rapidly increase stockpiles. I don't think china would mind one bit. After all, it wasn't china that sanctioned india when they developed nukes... http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9805/13/india.us/ http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9805/13/india.us/ If there is a war in asia, it will be a war for liberation - not from china, but from the west. It's so funny how we truly deluded ourselves into thinking we are the good guys in asia and not the murderous colonial powers that we truly are. We really need to start seeing the world as it is rather than the disneyfied nonsense you read on "news". Or we are in for a rude awakening.

jeswin 5y ago
> The idea that we'd ever let Japan have a nuke is ludicrous. Do you really think we'd let a country we nuked twice have such weapons? Not ludicrous at all - Trump was open to Japan and Korea acquiring nukes. [1] > After all, it wasn't china that sanctioned india when they developed nukes... That was at a time when India's wasn't clearly aligned to the US. Subsequently it was the US which drafted the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) exemption for India. > If there is a war in asia, it will be a war for liberation - not from china, but from the west. What liberation? People hold favorable views of the West (compared to China) in East Asia, South East Asia, or India. Many of them are now in disputes with China, which often involve violence. The situation is different in West Asia - but it's always been that way. > It's so funny how we truly deluded ourselves into thinking we are the good guys in asia and not the murderous colonial powers that we truly are. Modern western influence is largely positive compared to the alternatives. 1: https://www.ft.com/content/c927017c-f398-11e5-9afe-dd2472ea263d https://www.ft.com/content/c927017c-f398-11e5-9afe-dd2472ea2...
- dotcommand 5y ago
  > Not ludicrous at all - Trump was open to Japan and Korea acquiring nukes. [1] Don't link to paywalls. Who is talking about Trump? I'm talking about the US. Also, Trump was open to a lot of things. Including Mexico paying for the wall. > That was at a time when India's wasn't clearly aligned to the US. Subsequently it was the US which drafted the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) exemption for India. Countries like india, china, russia are never "clearly aligned" with anyone. They are too big for that. > What liberation? People hold favorable views of the West (compared to China) in East Asia, South East Asia, or India. That's because we are the dominant occupying power with dominant propaganda and wealth. The leaders of these "subjugated" nations could easily turn the propaganda against the US. Look how quickly our propaganda was able to turn the sentiment against china. How easily do you think Japan, Korea, Philippines, etc could turn their nations sentiment against the US. > Many of them are now in disputes with China, which often involve violence. What disputes, violence? The only real dispute seems to be with the US and the west ( aka china's and asia's former european colonizers ). That's another danger, that asians, africans, etc are going to pick up on. > The situation is different in West Asia - but it's always been that way. What violence? Is it china that invaded afghanistan, iraq and sanctioned iran? > Modern western influence is largely positive compared to the alternatives. No. It hasn't been. Not for the aborigines. Not for the natives. Not for the africans. Not for the indians. Etc. That's the point. It's actually modern chinese influence has even been more positive. Considering the wealth of japan, korea and much of asia has been due to trade with china. And that's why we are "pivoting to asia" - a place we do not belong. A place, btw, we caused the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people. But we shall see how history pans out.