01-28-2017, 12:03 PM
God Damn You, B&N WiFi! You cut out exactly while I was posting my response!
*sigh*
And again...
To be sure. I have traveled a fair bit, even to China, and I have seen plenty of the one sort of anti-Americanism to which you refer, and very little of the other. The British enjoyed a similar prestige during their imperial heyday, and yet their moment ended eventually, even as ours will, be it in this crisis or another. The allusion to their "place in the sun" was in reference to a previous iteration of this attitude, though in reference to the "British Question" rather than the American one.
We are in agreement thus far.
This is where we diverge. Russia's relations with India have long had more to do with export markets (particularly for arms) than any real alliance structure, and indeed Russia has recently boosted arrangements with Pakistan in order to balance against India's rapprochement with the US, as well as to deal with the threat posed by the Taliban to its own position in Central Asia. It never intervened in any of the previous Indo-Pakistani conflicts, AFAIK, and I don't see why it would now. China is relatively cool to India, both because of their border disputes, but more because it views its emerging relationship with the US as an attempt at encirclement by the latter. I also don't see why it would use its relatively limited nuclear arsenal to strike at US forces in the Western Pacific when it has been building up its conventional forces to do the same thing, cheaper, with less risk of escalation, and with the ability to keep their own strategic weapons in reserve. Things COULD escalate to a nuclar conflict, but probably not as an opening gambit. YMMV, of course.
I can easily imagine all of those conflicts, as well as an escalation between Russia and the Ukraine. What I don't see are the formal alliances, a la fin de siecle Europe, that would pull all of those conflicts into one.
I mean, there's NATO, and US security commitments in Asia, but I don't really see how that would pull Russia in on our side.
Agreed, as far as it goes, but I don't agree that all of those countries are in 4T right now. China, the US, India-Pakistan, Israel? Sure. Russia, Turkey, Iran? Not so much.
*sigh*
And again...
Quote:I agree with your analysis here. There's a point that I've made in
the past but not recently that really America is really one of the
least hated countries in the world. If you listen to the news media
and you hear almost every politician blame America for almost
everything, and particularly now when the international media have
gone hysterically ballistic over Trump, you would think that in fact
America is the most hated nation in the world. But that hatred is all
fatuous political nonsense. I remember thinking this years ago when
there was widespread anti-American rioting in Pakistan over the Afghan
war and drone strikes in FATA. It was clear that these anti-American
rioters did not wish any harm to America -- they simply wanted America
to leave. That kind of anti-Americanism is very different from hating
America.
To be sure. I have traveled a fair bit, even to China, and I have seen plenty of the one sort of anti-Americanism to which you refer, and very little of the other. The British enjoyed a similar prestige during their imperial heyday, and yet their moment ended eventually, even as ours will, be it in this crisis or another. The allusion to their "place in the sun" was in reference to a previous iteration of this attitude, though in reference to the "British Question" rather than the American one.
Quote:So I agree with you that Xi Jinping is not going to get out of bed one
morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll push the Red Button today to
launch missiles and destroy 50 American cities. That'll be fun."
But that's not how it's going to go. The fact is that China has
developed all these missile systems capable of attacking American
cities, military bases and aircraft carriers. Those aren't just going
to sit there forever. They're going to get used. So the only issue
is the scenario.
We are in agreement thus far.
Quote:So here's a perfectly plausible scenario: A border war between India
and Pakistan begins to escalate. China comes in on Pakistan's side,
and Russia comes in on India's side. At first it's only for support
-- supplying weapons and logistics, for example -- but sooner or later
Russian and Chinese forces start shooting at each other. Pakistan's
blood brothers in Saudi Arabia come to their aid, while Iran starts
helping out with India. The US stays out of it as long as it can, and
calls for peace, but is really on India's side. China wants to send
warships to the India Ocean to support Pakistan, but they're blocked
by American warships. China decides that it has to "solve the America
problem once and for all," and launches its battery of nuclear
missiles to clear out the warships blocking China's ships, and on
American cities as well. By that time, the US is shooting back, and
everyone is starting to use nuclear weapons.
This is where we diverge. Russia's relations with India have long had more to do with export markets (particularly for arms) than any real alliance structure, and indeed Russia has recently boosted arrangements with Pakistan in order to balance against India's rapprochement with the US, as well as to deal with the threat posed by the Taliban to its own position in Central Asia. It never intervened in any of the previous Indo-Pakistani conflicts, AFAIK, and I don't see why it would now. China is relatively cool to India, both because of their border disputes, but more because it views its emerging relationship with the US as an attempt at encirclement by the latter. I also don't see why it would use its relatively limited nuclear arsenal to strike at US forces in the Western Pacific when it has been building up its conventional forces to do the same thing, cheaper, with less risk of escalation, and with the ability to keep their own strategic weapons in reserve. Things COULD escalate to a nuclar conflict, but probably not as an opening gambit. YMMV, of course.
Quote:That's just one scenario. You could imagine another scenario where
the Syrian war expands to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, pulling
in Pakistan and India, etc. Or maybe it'll be Turkey vs Greece. Or
maybe it'll be Israel vs the Arabs. It could even start with an
escalating border dispute between Colombia and Venezuela.
I can easily imagine all of those conflicts, as well as an escalation between Russia and the Ukraine. What I don't see are the formal alliances, a la fin de siecle Europe, that would pull all of those conflicts into one.
I mean, there's NATO, and US security commitments in Asia, but I don't really see how that would pull Russia in on our side.
Quote:The thing that distinguishes generational Crisis eras from other eras
is that in other eras the public mood is against war, because the
survivors of the last Crisis war are still around, while in a Crisis
era the public mood becomes highly nationalistic and favors wars.
That's why small wars in Unraveling eras don't escalate, while small
wars in Crisis eras lead to the tit-for-tat setting of escalating red
lines leads to a Regeneracy and a full-scale generational crisis war
-- in this case a world war.
Agreed, as far as it goes, but I don't agree that all of those countries are in 4T right now. China, the US, India-Pakistan, Israel? Sure. Russia, Turkey, Iran? Not so much.
