12-25-2016, 08:16 AM
(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > When did Russia threaten the US? China repeatedly threatens war
> with the US, over Taiwan and over the South China Sea, but not
> Russia.
(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > China has rattled sabers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, but
> had never threatened war with the US. In fact, their artificial
> island activities in the South China Sea only started after the US
> had abandoned its prior regular traversals of the area with
> carrier battle groups due to the sequester, leaving a power
> vacuum.
> Meanwhile, Russia has actually invaded two nations friendly to the
> US, Georgia and Ukraine. Notice how China has not invaded Taiwan.
> Russia has also done saber rattling, and in some cases that saber
> rattling has been explicitly nuclear.
- In 2005, China passed an "Anti-Secession Law" that required
China to take military action against Taiwan if Taiwan takes any
formal steps towards independence. Even simply talking about
independence could trigger the Anti-Secession Law.
- The US has a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. This was put into
place decades ago to guarantee that China would not invade Taiwan,
since doing so would automatically trigger war with the US.
- The Anti-Secession Law is threatening invasion anyway, and
statements by Chinese officials almost on a daily basis reinforce that
threat.
- Therefore, China is threatening war with the US almost on a daily
basis.
One could make a similar argument for the Senkaku Islands, and for the
South China Sea. These are all very real threats of war with the US.
The comparison with Russia, Crimea, South Ossetia and Abkhazia is very
interesting to me. Russia invaded those regions and annexed them, but
there was never a hint of war from either side. By contrast, a
Chinese invasion of Taiwan would lead to war within six hours.
(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > Non-crisis wars are fought on rational considerations, such as by
> counting numbers of missiles.
> Crisis wars are like sex. They're driven by raw emotion, DNA and
> hormones, and are often completely inappropriate and irrational.
> From a purely rational point of view, the South never had a chance
> of beating the North, and Japan never had a chance of defeating
> America. And yet those wars went forward. Go figure.
(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The South thought they were likely to be able to secede
> peacefully; essentially their miscalculation was in failing to
> realize that the North would fight the war like a crisis war.
> Japan miscalculated similarly with respect to the US.
> My understanding of your own theory is that this kind of
> miscalculation is exactly what causes crisis wars: people lose
> direct memory of the previous crisis war and aren't careful enough
> not to get into another one. Am I wrong? Are you saying people
> actually become insane about starting wars? That makes your
> theory a lot less credible, in my opinion.
You've answered your own question. The South and Japan made
miscalculations based on totally self-delusional considerations,
involving xenophobia and nationalism. This is similar to the erotic
self-delusion that occurs when someone believes that an affair won't
harm his or her marriage.
(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)
(12-23-2016, 05:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > 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.
(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > 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?
These days, when someone encounters an argument or view that he
doesn't like, it's typical to dive into the sewer and respond to the
argument by saying that the person making it must be racist,
misogynistic, homophobic, deplorable, a hater, a tea-bagger, sexist,
or any of the other assortment of personal attacks that typically come
from the left. I don't know if diving into the sewer in that way
helps you in discussions with other people, but it certainly won't
help you with me.
If you've been following what I've been writing for any period of
time, then you know that I talk about an increase in nationalism,
xenophobia and racism on a worldwide basis during this generational
Crisis era. I've given numerous examples of delusional views held by
politicians in many countries, including America, Europe and the
Mideast. Just a couple of days ago I characterized a statement by the
US State Dept. spokesman as "particularly laughable and moronic." In
the last couple of years, I've written frequently about the delusional
views of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin, as well as by Chinese
officials. This is the same kind of self-delusion that led Japan to
attack Pearl Harbor and the South to attack Fort Sumter.
(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > 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.
You can google the words "China Dream" and see that I'm not making
this up, despite what your Chinese friends are telling you.
When you say "China has been careful not to move," I have no idea what
you're talking about. China has been "moving" to heavily militarize
the South China Sea, which the US has not "abandoned," despite the
fact that these military "moves" have been declared illegal by the UN
Tribunal in the Hague. China is clearly preparing for war in the
South China Sea, and that means war with the US.
(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > 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.
No, that's completely wrong. I have never "predicted" war between the
EU and Russia. However, it's quite possible that individual European
nations will be split and fight among themselves and with Russia or
the US, just as they did in WW II.
(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > 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.
This is all fatuous political nonsense.
