5 ms·
This is definitely a realistic take . Many people don't agree with you and prefer to see china as the enemy though. I would say that the view point is a little
by Herval_freire 4y ago
This is definitely a realistic take . Many people don't agree with you and prefer to see china as the enemy though.
I would say that the view point is a little biased as it doesn't mention all three possibilities.
1. US world empire
2. Equal international relations between china and the US
3. Chinese world empire
3 Is the thing not mentioned in your passage. Like the US, china itself is not some morally idealistic state, when given an opportunity for dominance they will take it.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI don't think it is really accurate to think of these as "options", which implies the possibility of choice between them. There is and always has been one possibility: A global balance determined by real world economic and military power. This is the way it always has been and always will be. I dont think this is a cynical take, but simple realism. Counties take what they can get and dont ceed more power than they have to.
- Herval_freire 4y agoThe scenario you declare here is basically option 2. Some sort of cold war stalemate between two super powers. The US doesn't want this. China wants more then a stalemate. You are right, none of these are options by choice, they are only possible outcomes.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI agree, but think I am making an even broader point. Im not just desccribing a cold war stalemate, but the fundamental power relation between nation states going back 5,000+ years.
- Herval_freire 4y agoHistory is littered with empires. Nothing is ever stable. Both situations of multitudes of nation states and a single monolithic empire don't have staying power.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoyep, but they behave the same way. They try to grow, profit, and compete until they fail and disapear.