4 ms·

I don't think it's going to be a cold war like the last one. With the amount of globalization and how much U.S and China rely on each other economically (China

I don't think it's going to be a cold war like the last one. With the amount of globalization and how much U.S and China rely on each other economically (China is becoming the biggest market for many American companies, and America is still the biggest importer of Chinese goods), it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship. A lot of the hostile postures are methods for each government to redirect its population's attention toward external problems instead of focusing on internal ones. For Americans, instead of really acknowledging weakness in our society, a simple blame like "The Chinese are stealing everything from us , including tech and jobs" is very attractive for a populist politician. For the Chinese, vilifying the U.S government as a global bully fuels nationalism internally and distract the people away from issues such as social inequality and government corruption. But in the end, both countries' leaders totally realize they absolutely need each other, so this "frenemy" relationship will continue for quite a while.

opendais 12y ago
Fair enough. :) I'd be happy to be wrong, it just seems like it is getting more public.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
chris_mahan 12y ago
Sort of like two parents who deep down despise each other yet act normal, for the sake of the children, but who don't realize that the children know exactly what's going on and wish their parents would either forgive each other and love again or just divorce and move on.
coldtea 12y ago
>I don't think it's going to be a cold war like the last one. With the amount of globalization and how much U.S and China rely on each other economically (China is becoming the biggest market for many American companies, and America is still the biggest importer of Chinese goods), it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship. There were saying exactly the same thing for European powers just before World War I started. The same things almost to the letter, actually: "The economic interdependence between industrial countries meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved." From this boom for one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion , but there were many other sources with similar thinking. The thing is, relying on each other means almost nothing. It's a temporary situation, and it can change in a heartbeat when the two countries get to compete for the same resources and/or third markets. And also as the relationship between who is the supplier of "cheap labor" and who is the "market", with the affluent middle class, changes.
mpyne 12y ago
> it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship. It benefits China greatly to have a "hostile" relationship, at least as far as using networked computing to carry it out. Computers and cyber-attacks bring a lot for China that are asymmetrically not as advantageous for much of the rest of the world. - They are much more covert means of conducting espionage (either industrial or political, take your pick). Obviously NSA finds this useful too, but even if we assume NSA had an industrial espionage program as advanced as China's, what does China have for the U.S. to steal, relative to what the U.S. has for China? This question repeats itself for every other country in the West. - Attribution of cyberattacks is difficult, which adds to the deniability aspect. If literally all that China has to worry about is a loss of face, then they can proverbially cry all the way to the bank. No one is going to be nuking or invading China for an over-active spy program. - Because of the economic ties you mention, it is difficult for victim nations to take effective deterrence measures to convince China to change their behavior, since many measures that might cause China to feel a pinch would hurt the parties imposing sanctions just as much. Moreover, "eye for an eye" is taken off the table by the asymmetric nature of the threat, and passive defense is taken away by the interconnected nature of the Internet. Sure, the U.S. and its critical industries can do better as far as defense, but so far it's been a case of "the bomber will always get through". So looking at the situation from China's perspective, you'd almost have to ask why they would ever stop. Western norms and morals are not necessarily their norms and morals and in any event the deterrence/coercion framework is simply not there. There's no good reason for China to stop covert methods (even if there are good reasons to avoid being overtly hostile).

opendais 12y ago

Fair enough. :) I'd be happy to be wrong, it just seems like it is getting more public.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

chris_mahan 12y ago

Sort of like two parents who deep down despise each other yet act normal, for the sake of the children, but who don't realize that the children know exactly what's going on and wish their parents would either forgive each other and love again or just divorce and move on.

coldtea 12y ago

>I don't think it's going to be a cold war like the last one. With the amount of globalization and how much U.S and China rely on each other economically (China is becoming the biggest market for many American companies, and America is still the biggest importer of Chinese goods), it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship. There were saying exactly the same thing for European powers just before World War I started. The same things almost to the letter, actually: "The economic interdependence between industrial countries meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved." From this boom for one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion , but there were many other sources with similar thinking. The thing is, relying on each other means almost nothing. It's a temporary situation, and it can change in a heartbeat when the two countries get to compete for the same resources and/or third markets. And also as the relationship between who is the supplier of "cheap labor" and who is the "market", with the affluent middle class, changes.

mpyne 12y ago

> it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship. It benefits China greatly to have a "hostile" relationship, at least as far as using networked computing to carry it out. Computers and cyber-attacks bring a lot for China that are asymmetrically not as advantageous for much of the rest of the world. - They are much more covert means of conducting espionage (either industrial or political, take your pick). Obviously NSA finds this useful too, but even if we assume NSA had an industrial espionage program as advanced as China's, what does China have for the U.S. to steal, relative to what the U.S. has for China? This question repeats itself for every other country in the West. - Attribution of cyberattacks is difficult, which adds to the deniability aspect. If literally all that China has to worry about is a loss of face, then they can proverbially cry all the way to the bank. No one is going to be nuking or invading China for an over-active spy program. - Because of the economic ties you mention, it is difficult for victim nations to take effective deterrence measures to convince China to change their behavior, since many measures that might cause China to feel a pinch would hurt the parties imposing sanctions just as much. Moreover, "eye for an eye" is taken off the table by the asymmetric nature of the threat, and passive defense is taken away by the interconnected nature of the Internet. Sure, the U.S. and its critical industries can do better as far as defense, but so far it's been a case of "the bomber will always get through". So looking at the situation from China's perspective, you'd almost have to ask why they would ever stop. Western norms and morals are not necessarily their norms and morals and in any event the deterrence/coercion framework is simply not there. There's no good reason for China to stop covert methods (even if there are good reasons to avoid being overtly hostile).