Generational Dynamics World View

[Warren Dew]

(12-23-2016, 05:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2016, 02:43 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: >   In the SCO schema, which John stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as
>   an alternate outcome to his pet crystal ball, Russia provides the
>   long range nuclear fire power whereas the PRC provide short to
>   medium range nuclear firepower. Russia provides the global heavy
>   bomber force although the updated Tu-16s of the PLAAF will over
>   time add to this. Naturally the PRC provides the millions of
>   cannon fodder troops. In the SCO Axis model, the Allies would face
>   a nearly unwinnable war. The Fourth Reich (which I believe the SCO
>   to be) may end up conquering the Earth (and beyond)

It's totally incomprehensible how you keep pushing this bizarre SCO
theory.  No country is going to go to war with the US because it
belongs to a political group like the SCO.  Why on earth would
Kazakhstan go to war with the US?  For that matter, why would Russia?

The Chinese people have this "China Dream," where they completely
replace the US as the principal superpower in the world, with Chinese
navies controlling the seas from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian ocean
to Africa and the Mideast.  It's a dream that's completely emotional,
erotic, nationalistic, self-delusional, irrational, unrealistic,
inappropriate, and disastrous.

Is it only Chinese that have that delusional dream, or do the US and Russia have similar delusional dreams?  If the latter, can you describe the US and Russian versions?  If the former, why only Chinese?  Do you think their skin color or eye shape makes their thinking alien?

I know a lot of Chinese people, and none of them have that dream.  Granted, a few leaders of the Chinese military would like to do that.  And if it's limited to the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, it would hardly be replacing the US as the principal superpower, since it wouldn't even touch the Atlantic or Europe; it would be limited to regional power.  Even then, China has been careful not to move except when the US has abandoned the field, for example by keeping their (our) carriers in home port rather than patrolling the seas, including the western Pacific.

Now, it's possible that the Chinese rationally thought that was a reasonable strategy in the context of Obama's multipolar world view:  the stable numbers of poles are in the form (2^n)-1, and if the US occupies one pole, three is the largest number that is realistic.  In that world, the three poles would presumably be the Americas, Eurafrica, and Australiasia, based on geographical barriers.  The US would presumably dominate the Americas, China would vie with India for Australiasia, but let's not forget Eurafrica, control of which would be contested between the EU and Russia.  And a war between the EU and Russia is exactly what your own theory predicts, since the previous crisis war in the area was also between a German dominated Western Europe and Russia in the east.

So how sure are you that the US will side with Russia against the EU?  And under Trump, why wouldn't the US try to guide the world to a unipolar solution, with the US as the only global pole?  Especially when playing appropriate balance of power politics, we can get them to use their nukes against each other, instead of against us?  If the US uses the approach of Victorian England, we have a good chance of staying out of the primary fighting, and stepping in to pick up the pieces afterwards.