Report Card for Donald Trump

[Mikebert]

(01-26-2017, 02:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 04:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Seriously, detail me the scenario that leads directly from something like Taiwan to either country launching their missiles at the other in the full knowledge of a corresponding attack on their own facilities and populations, and explain to me why it would be the only outcome.

The issue is simple. What is the point of engaging in a military conflict in which you cannot win?  Suppose Trump decided to blockcade these islands.  Can you show a path where he can win?  I don't see it, and if I see this, so do the Chinese.  They can keep pushing until Trump gives up, after all, is he going to end civilization over some fucking islands in the South China Sea?  The US considers the Carribean an American lake--what's the difference?

And this is the problem.  In the old days such issues would be resolved by all-out great power coalition wars (read Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).  You can't do that now, an all-out conflict would go nuclear. So the great powers resorted to a minuet, with proxy wars to make their point.  Most of the great powers, (except for the strongest two) got a clue and pulled out, seeing it was a fools game.  Does China want to play this game?  No!  They want what I would want, sure things--like the Spratley's.  (The islands no, the principle, yes).

I literally just finished rereading Paul Kennedy.  You might want to read it again.  The middle powers tried desperately to hold on to their status, they dropped out because they could no longer compete.

You keep referencing an escalation to nuclear weapons, but you don't explain why one would occur.  Flashpoints in the region are Taiwan, the SCS, Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the Korean Penisula, issues of trade, all overlying the root issues of "fear, honor, and interest", per Thucydides.  All of those things are visibly factors in US/China tensions, and tensions between China and many of its neighbors.  What would those sorts of conflicts look like?  Nuclear launches within minutes/days of first contact?  I don't think so.

I was referring to Kennedy's thesis that the rise and fall of the great powers were settled with great power coalition wars (GPCW) in which the side with the military potential won. Many years later, I saw that the GPCW wars that decided things were M&T's Global Wars.  The very concept of a GPCW is that each side throws in everything (including the kitchen sink) to win.  A great power war that does not go nuclear cannot end, because both sides will remain able to carry.  If this ability were to be threatened (i.e. one side stood ready to conquer the other) the losing side would come under tremendous pressure to go nuclear.  Since nobody wants a nuclear war, it makes no sense for great powers to actually go to war with each other.  They will prefer to use proxies, like Vietnam and Korea when policymakers could not think in anything other than military terms, or more subtle strategies like cyber warfare and interfering in another great powers election.

Trump wants to clamp down on free trade and globalization.  How would YOU do that?  Maybe a clever strategy would be to buddy up with Russia, who do not export goods than compete with US manufacturers, and become cold with China in the hope that you can get them to do something that sufficiently provocative to justify a trade war in response.  Such a war would crater our economy in the short term.  If we can blame it on China and point out that a recession (even a serious one) is preferable to a nuclear war, maybe Trump's base won't abandon him.