12-24-2017, 07:49 PM
(12-24-2017, 06:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > It may start with a preemptive strike by the US, but it's unlikely
> to be a nuclear strike; noises are finally starting to come out of
> DC about sensible, limited conventional strikes designed to reduce
> North Korean capabilities without eliminating them.
> I can't see this starting the crisis war unless the US uses
> nuclear weapons first, or the US occupies North Korea.
That's 1990s Unraveling era thinking, when the mood is anti-war. In
2010s Crisis era thinking, attitudes are completely different, and
xenophobia and nationalism are high, and the mood is military
confrontation.
The first strike will absolutely NOT be nuclear. But xenophobia and
nationalism are extremely high in China, against the US, Japan, South
Korea, Vietnam and India.
Furthermore, there's a historical irony. After World War II, the
United States took on the role of Policeman of the World, and in doing
so, signed some sort of mutual defense treaty with many countries:
Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, the Marshall
Islands, the ANZUS agreement with Australia and New Zealand, a special
treaty with Iceland, and the NATO agreement with all of Europe. The
purpose was to discourage attacks on any of these allies that would
otherwise have the risk of spiraling into World War III.
So today, all of those countries, actually have an obligation to
defend the US in a war with China. Even if they stay neutral, any
incident could trigger a larger war. Furthermore, the extreme
xenophobia in China makes it more likely that the Chinese will
interpret the mutual defense treaties in a way that will cause them to
attack those countries.
Finally, with the US distracted in Asia, countries in the Mideast and
elsewhere will feel free to launch their own attacks on their own
enemies.
