(01-24-2017, 03:24 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Could you expand on the bolded part? Thanks
Trump has voiced a desire to put things like "One China" on the table. He spoke to Tsai. He's talked about sending more and more advanced weapons to Taiwan. Even the islands/reefs in the SCS are a flashpoint. Territorial issues are a sensitive subject for China, especially where Western powers are involved. This sort of saber-rattling/button-pushing, even if it is just a negotiating tactic, could provoke a much larger reaction than anticipated, especially if it took place during a time of deteriorating economic relations and slowing growth in the two economics, as could result from pursuit of his trade policies. The PRC is not a democracy, but that doesn't mean it is devoid of internal politics or public pressure. It would not be out of the question for tit for tat gambits by either power escalating rapidly.
China's rising civic generation has a severe sex imbalance as well, in a manner not unprecedented in Chinese history. This has traditionally be correlated with violence and unrest, which can be channeled but not necessarily suppressed. They have about reached the end of the growth model they have been following for the past 30+ years, and the rising hysteria in the US about Putin's Russia this past couple of years could just as easily become a rising hysteria about China given the right circumstances. Both powers could perceive themselves as acting defensively and the other as being unreasonably aggressive. Look at the lead-up to WWI.
I am familiar with WW I. But in 1914 policymakers believed that it was not possible for full-scale great power warfare to lead to the end of civilization despite works like The War in the Air. The policymakers were right, all-out war did not lead to Armageddon. In fact another one 25 years later did not either. But nuclear weapons have change that. I read The War in the Air more than 30 years ago. It was a masterful attempt to show how with the technology of 1907, it would be possible to wreak tremendous damage, if one kept at it long enough. As events showed, nobody was willing to keep at it long enough to destroy civilization either in WW I or WW II. Today it takes no effort at all to destroy civilization, just order an all-out first strike with our strategic forces and we are all dead or wish we were.
Today's leaders grew up with the prospect of nuclear war hanging over them. I do not think 1914 is a relevant analogy.