Generational Dynamics World View

[Warren Dew]

Quote:Today, China is developing multiple weapons systems whose only
purpose is to attack American cities, military bases and aircraft
carriers.  This is not because China fears a preemptive attack
by the US.  It's because China is planning a preemptive attack
on the US.

China is playing catch up to the American and Russian weapon systems whose only purpose is to attack Chinese cities, military bases, and installations.  It's only paranoia that could lead one believe that has to be preparation for a preemptive attack.  Far more likely is that they want parity with the US - and with Russia - in order to establish an approximately equal balance of power between the three.

Now, it may well be that the US should not accept that parity.  But then we should be discussing what the US should accept and what the US would be able to enforce, rather than discussing outlandish scenarios that can only distort our analysis of what appropriate US actions might be.

Quote:Furthermore, China is not building artificial islands and military
bases in the South China Sea because China fears a preemptive
attack by Vietnam and the Philippines.  It's because China is
planning a preemptive attack on Vietnam and the Philippines --
as well as Japan, Taiwan and India.  These attacks would all take
place at the time and place of China's choosing.

China is building artificial islands and military bases in the South China Sea because they want to control the resources of the South China Sea, namely fish and oil, and because the US for half a decade left a power vacuum permitting them to do so.  The islands are extremely poorly placed if China wants to use them against Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, or India, evidence that they have nothing to do with plans for preemptive attack.

Quote:Amusingly, the thing that's really screwing up China's plans is
ballistic missiles development by the North Koreans.  First, a random
attack by NK could screw up China's timetable.  Second, and more
important, NK's actions are giving the US an excuse to implement
missile defense systems, which China hates.  A THAAD system in South
Korea would not be able to defend against ICBMs from China targeting
the US, but THAAD's sophisticated radar systems would give the US
early warning to defend against them.  China really hates that.

China hates the idea of American ABM systems in South Korea for the same reason Russia hates the idea of American ABM systems in Poland - the ABM systems reduce the effectiveness of their nuclear deterrent, even if the direct intent of those systems is against North Korea and Iran, respectively.

To China's credit, they are at least, finally, putting real pressure on North Korea in the form of the coal embargo.  It would be nice if Russia did something similar with Iran.

Quote:

(02-25-2017, 07:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   What I'm saying is that a weak communist government could have
>   come to power in France, which would then have acted as a Soviet
>   puppet.

That view is contradicted by the page linked above.  Churchill's view
was that historically, in the case of a European war, Britain always
aligned itself with the second-strongest power.  So Britain could have
aligned itself with Germany only if Germany were weaker than France.

The scenario where Russia and France align themselves with the
intention of invading Germany strikes me as very far-fetched.  I'm not
saying it's impossible, but I don't see how Russia would align itself
with a weak France.  I don't believe Russia would have aligned itself
with France unless France were strong -- stronger than Germany.

Churchill's view backs up my scenario, since in my scenario Germany would have been the second strongest continental power behind Russia.  I don't see how Russia would have refused an alliance with France if that put the alliance ahead of Germany in power, but we can agree to differ on that.

Quote:

(02-26-2017, 09:00 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   So if Russia abandons Iran for cooperation with Turkey and other
>   Sunni states, what does that do to your alignment theory?

Currently, Russia is supposedly allied with Syria, Turkey, Iran,
Israel, Egypt, and others to a greater or lesser extent.  These
political alignments can change on a day to day basis, and have
little influence on the decisions to be made when Russia
is "forced to choose" sides when faced with an existential crisis
in the form of a generational crisis war that threatens the
country and its way of life.

Fair point, though I question whether the point at which the choice will need to be made will be as clear cut as you seem to be implying.