02-26-2017, 11:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-26-2017, 03:37 PM by Cynic Hero '86.)
Your entire argument Regarding the Alignments of Russia and China are based on the alignments of the late 1960s when Maoist China was considered an aggressive rogue state and the USSR was a generally respected rival and when there was even hope for a long-term condominium between the US and USSR. Nowadays Russia is far more of a "rogue" power than China currently is. And as warren dew has already mentioned, Russia has already invaded and annexed populated territories. Also regarding the size of Russian, US and Chinese Nuclear arsenals. I have yet to see an article from you that shows the actual accepted size of the arsenals regarding known sources. Almost all sources say that Russia and the US have the largest nuclear arsenals. Yet John X's articles on the military balance keep implying that China has taken the No.1 spot in nuclear arsenal size, when a simple google search on the subject shows Russia and the US having the largest Nuclear arsenals in the world with everyone else's arsenals being much smaller than either of the two. Also the hostility Both of aforementioned countries have toward the US is due to the ideological Gulf and clash between the governments of China and Russia on one end and the democratic globalist ideology of the US on the other, not due to any ethnic hostility.
Also Regarding US diplomacy, you keep implying that neocon orthodoxy in which US policy should be based on regime change and on keeping international trade routes open as a fundamental precept of policy should be continued and expanded, yet you conveniently omit the fact that policy along these lines is ALREADY in place and has been for the past 20 years. If these concepts are so good, then why has the world geopolitical situation been gradually declining during the 20 to 25 years that this policy has been in place? Also you recommend that the US support free trade mentioning that the smoot-hawley tariff set the stage for the collapse of democracy in germany and Japan, leaded ultimately to WW2. Yet the policy currently in place IS a "no more smoot-hawleys" policy yet the international situation has been slowly drifting to a global war for several decades now. Therefore a solution could be a return to a global tariff regime that characterized the last 4T and 1T, thus stabilizing the geopolitical order since the current "free trade" era has shown a manifest deterioration with regards to global peace.
Also Regarding US diplomacy, you keep implying that neocon orthodoxy in which US policy should be based on regime change and on keeping international trade routes open as a fundamental precept of policy should be continued and expanded, yet you conveniently omit the fact that policy along these lines is ALREADY in place and has been for the past 20 years. If these concepts are so good, then why has the world geopolitical situation been gradually declining during the 20 to 25 years that this policy has been in place? Also you recommend that the US support free trade mentioning that the smoot-hawley tariff set the stage for the collapse of democracy in germany and Japan, leaded ultimately to WW2. Yet the policy currently in place IS a "no more smoot-hawleys" policy yet the international situation has been slowly drifting to a global war for several decades now. Therefore a solution could be a return to a global tariff regime that characterized the last 4T and 1T, thus stabilizing the geopolitical order since the current "free trade" era has shown a manifest deterioration with regards to global peace.
