05-14-2020, 07:44 AM
** 14-May-2020 World View: War between China and Japan
When you're talking about almost 200 countries, you can expect crisis
wars to be occurring somewhere at any point in time. There are
typically 15-20 wars going on in the world at any given time (not all
crisis wars, of course). However, I recall that in 2004, there was a
study by some Swedish academy that the number of wars at that time was
the lowest on record. That would be the end of the Unraveling era,
when wars were suppressed.
Over the centuries, as transportation, communication and weaponry
improve, nations, societies, and identity groups tend to grow, with
the result that crisis wars tend to merge into clusters. For
convenience, I've referred to two different clusters that I call the
WW I timeline and WW II timeline. Most of the nuclear powers (US,
Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China) were on the WW II timeline.
Russia was on the WW I timeline, with the Bolshevik revolution.
A lot of other countries were on the WW II timeline. Just to pick
some at random, you have South Africa, Egypt, Korea, and Australia.
A lot of countries were on the WW I timeline, particularly in the
Mideast with the collapse of the Ottoman empire. WW I was early
enough in the century that some countries have had two crisis wars in
the last century. Iran, Syria are examples. Others have been delayed
into a Fifth Turning, such as Mexico, Tunisia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
and Russia. These Fifth Turning countries are all very interesting
examples to study.
As I said, crisis war clusters tend to merge over the centuries, and
what we're looking at today with WW III is a final merging of the WW I
and WW II timelines.
We can look at the big picture without referring to generational
theory, as I've said before. There were two world wars in the last
century, plus massive additional wars in Asia, the Mideast, Africa,
and pretty much in every region of the world. Furthermore, there have
been massive wars in every continent, in every nation, in every region
of the world in every century for millennia. There is absolutely no
reason why this century should be any different, and several reasons
why this century should be worse.
This leads to the question of how crisis wars start and, in
particular, if the existence of nuclear weapons makes crisis wars less
likely. I've thought a lot about these questions and looked at many
examples, and I haven't been able to find any evidence that nuclear
weapons will make any difference at all.
Let's start with examples of some American non-crisis wars. The
Vietnam war evolved slowly from advisors to heavier involvement after
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The Gulf war occurred after months of
debate following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The Iraq war began
after years of political haranguing over Iraq's WMDs. The point is
that none of these were rash decisions. These occurred only after
lengthy debate and consideration.
A recent example that I've pointed to often because it's so incredibly
fascinating and almost unbelievable is the 2006 war between Israel and
Hezbollah in Lebanon. On July 12, 2006, some members of the Hezbollah
militia in Lebanon crossed the border and abducted two Israeli
soldiers.
Israel's government went into a state of total panic. Israel's Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert called this "an act of war," and within a few
hours, Israel was mobilized for war. Israel launched the war with no
plan and no objective. Each day, Israel lurched from one plan and
objective to the next, as the previous one failed. In the end, the
war was a disaster for both Israel and Lebanon, and accomplished
nothing except the destruction of a lot of Lebanon's infrastructure.
The war fizzled quickly because Lebanon and Hezbollah were in a
generational Awakening era.
It's really a remarkable example. On July 11, 2006, there was no
thought of war. On July 13, 2006, they were at war. The abduction of
Israeli soldiers was apparently a random act by some Hezbollah
fighters, but that random act on July 12, 2006, was all it took to
trigger a war that might have spiraled into much bigger war, if
Lebanon had been in a highly xenophobic and nationalistic Crisis era.
So my view is that crisis wars start from exactly this kind of random
act. If the participants are in a crisis era, with populations in
highly xenophobic and nationalistic moods, then a random act can
quickly spiral into a larger and larger war, with no planning. World
War I began when a high school student decided to assassinate an
Archduke, and it led to the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman
empires.
World War II did not begin with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It didn't
even begin with the Nazi invasion of Poland.
World War II began in 1937 with the Marco Polo Bridge incident.
I've written about this a number of times, but here's a summary.
The Marco Polo Bridge is about 15 km south of Beijing in China, and
was so named because Marco Polo praised the bridge in the 13th
century. In 1937, both Japan and China were deep into generational
Crisis eras, and the Japanese and Chinese people really hated each
other. On July 7, A small group of Japanese soldiers, stationed near
the bridge, took a roll call and found one soldier missing. The
Japanese accused Chinese soldiers, also stationed near the bridge in
the city of Wanping, of abducting the Japanese soldier. A brief clash
was won by the Japanese. The two sides negotiated a settlement, but
both sides brought in reinforcements. Within a month there was
full-scale war, leading to the Japanese "Rape of Nanking" shortly
thereafter.
And, of course, we always have to mention that the Japanese soldier
missed roll call because he went into the woods to pee, and lost his
way back. So it's not so wrong to say that World War II was triggered
because someone unexpectedly had to pee.
One of the major motivations that Japan had in bombing Pearl Harbor
was that the US, while officially neutral, was clearly supporting
China in the Japan-China war, and the purpose of bombing Pearl
Harbor was not to make the US a Japanese colony, but rather
to prevent the US from supporting China.
Today the situation is similar to WW II, with the roles of China and
Japan reversed. I didn't call my book "War between China and the US,"
since that's not the major objective of China. I called it "War
between China and Japan." Once again, the Chinese and Japanese people
are highly xenophobic and nationalistic. Once again, the Chinese and
Japanese people really hate each other. The Chinese want revenge for
WW II -- for Japan's invasion of China, for the comfort women, for the
Rape of Nanking, and for the horrific chemical and biological warfare
atrocities committed on Chinese people by Japan's Unit 731. But this
time, the US will be supporting Japan against China, even though the
US may be officially neutral at first.
There are extremely powerful emotions involved here. Most of these
emotions are exhibited by young people who are indifferent to the
catastrophic consequences of a war, in the same way that young people
in the US support Sanders and are completely indifferent to the
catastrophic consequences of his policies.
So, would these extremely powerful emotions between Chinese and
Japanese people be affected by the fact that China and the US are
nuclear powers? I just don't see how. There could be a trivial
incident today, tomorrow or the next day, with a small clash between
China and Japan that spirals into a war because of the massive
nationalism and xenophobia on both sides. Nuclear weapons would have
nothing to do with it.
When you're talking about almost 200 countries, you can expect crisis
wars to be occurring somewhere at any point in time. There are
typically 15-20 wars going on in the world at any given time (not all
crisis wars, of course). However, I recall that in 2004, there was a
study by some Swedish academy that the number of wars at that time was
the lowest on record. That would be the end of the Unraveling era,
when wars were suppressed.
Over the centuries, as transportation, communication and weaponry
improve, nations, societies, and identity groups tend to grow, with
the result that crisis wars tend to merge into clusters. For
convenience, I've referred to two different clusters that I call the
WW I timeline and WW II timeline. Most of the nuclear powers (US,
Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China) were on the WW II timeline.
Russia was on the WW I timeline, with the Bolshevik revolution.
A lot of other countries were on the WW II timeline. Just to pick
some at random, you have South Africa, Egypt, Korea, and Australia.
A lot of countries were on the WW I timeline, particularly in the
Mideast with the collapse of the Ottoman empire. WW I was early
enough in the century that some countries have had two crisis wars in
the last century. Iran, Syria are examples. Others have been delayed
into a Fifth Turning, such as Mexico, Tunisia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
and Russia. These Fifth Turning countries are all very interesting
examples to study.
As I said, crisis war clusters tend to merge over the centuries, and
what we're looking at today with WW III is a final merging of the WW I
and WW II timelines.
We can look at the big picture without referring to generational
theory, as I've said before. There were two world wars in the last
century, plus massive additional wars in Asia, the Mideast, Africa,
and pretty much in every region of the world. Furthermore, there have
been massive wars in every continent, in every nation, in every region
of the world in every century for millennia. There is absolutely no
reason why this century should be any different, and several reasons
why this century should be worse.
This leads to the question of how crisis wars start and, in
particular, if the existence of nuclear weapons makes crisis wars less
likely. I've thought a lot about these questions and looked at many
examples, and I haven't been able to find any evidence that nuclear
weapons will make any difference at all.
Let's start with examples of some American non-crisis wars. The
Vietnam war evolved slowly from advisors to heavier involvement after
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The Gulf war occurred after months of
debate following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The Iraq war began
after years of political haranguing over Iraq's WMDs. The point is
that none of these were rash decisions. These occurred only after
lengthy debate and consideration.
A recent example that I've pointed to often because it's so incredibly
fascinating and almost unbelievable is the 2006 war between Israel and
Hezbollah in Lebanon. On July 12, 2006, some members of the Hezbollah
militia in Lebanon crossed the border and abducted two Israeli
soldiers.
Israel's government went into a state of total panic. Israel's Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert called this "an act of war," and within a few
hours, Israel was mobilized for war. Israel launched the war with no
plan and no objective. Each day, Israel lurched from one plan and
objective to the next, as the previous one failed. In the end, the
war was a disaster for both Israel and Lebanon, and accomplished
nothing except the destruction of a lot of Lebanon's infrastructure.
The war fizzled quickly because Lebanon and Hezbollah were in a
generational Awakening era.
It's really a remarkable example. On July 11, 2006, there was no
thought of war. On July 13, 2006, they were at war. The abduction of
Israeli soldiers was apparently a random act by some Hezbollah
fighters, but that random act on July 12, 2006, was all it took to
trigger a war that might have spiraled into much bigger war, if
Lebanon had been in a highly xenophobic and nationalistic Crisis era.
So my view is that crisis wars start from exactly this kind of random
act. If the participants are in a crisis era, with populations in
highly xenophobic and nationalistic moods, then a random act can
quickly spiral into a larger and larger war, with no planning. World
War I began when a high school student decided to assassinate an
Archduke, and it led to the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman
empires.
World War II did not begin with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It didn't
even begin with the Nazi invasion of Poland.
World War II began in 1937 with the Marco Polo Bridge incident.
I've written about this a number of times, but here's a summary.
The Marco Polo Bridge is about 15 km south of Beijing in China, and
was so named because Marco Polo praised the bridge in the 13th
century. In 1937, both Japan and China were deep into generational
Crisis eras, and the Japanese and Chinese people really hated each
other. On July 7, A small group of Japanese soldiers, stationed near
the bridge, took a roll call and found one soldier missing. The
Japanese accused Chinese soldiers, also stationed near the bridge in
the city of Wanping, of abducting the Japanese soldier. A brief clash
was won by the Japanese. The two sides negotiated a settlement, but
both sides brought in reinforcements. Within a month there was
full-scale war, leading to the Japanese "Rape of Nanking" shortly
thereafter.
And, of course, we always have to mention that the Japanese soldier
missed roll call because he went into the woods to pee, and lost his
way back. So it's not so wrong to say that World War II was triggered
because someone unexpectedly had to pee.
One of the major motivations that Japan had in bombing Pearl Harbor
was that the US, while officially neutral, was clearly supporting
China in the Japan-China war, and the purpose of bombing Pearl
Harbor was not to make the US a Japanese colony, but rather
to prevent the US from supporting China.
Today the situation is similar to WW II, with the roles of China and
Japan reversed. I didn't call my book "War between China and the US,"
since that's not the major objective of China. I called it "War
between China and Japan." Once again, the Chinese and Japanese people
are highly xenophobic and nationalistic. Once again, the Chinese and
Japanese people really hate each other. The Chinese want revenge for
WW II -- for Japan's invasion of China, for the comfort women, for the
Rape of Nanking, and for the horrific chemical and biological warfare
atrocities committed on Chinese people by Japan's Unit 731. But this
time, the US will be supporting Japan against China, even though the
US may be officially neutral at first.
There are extremely powerful emotions involved here. Most of these
emotions are exhibited by young people who are indifferent to the
catastrophic consequences of a war, in the same way that young people
in the US support Sanders and are completely indifferent to the
catastrophic consequences of his policies.
So, would these extremely powerful emotions between Chinese and
Japanese people be affected by the fact that China and the US are
nuclear powers? I just don't see how. There could be a trivial
incident today, tomorrow or the next day, with a small clash between
China and Japan that spirals into a war because of the massive
nationalism and xenophobia on both sides. Nuclear weapons would have
nothing to do with it.
