Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The US doesn't do Judo, Putin does Judo.

The US sets up football lines of scrimmage.

The US plays Chess and the Chinese play Go.

Do you expect the next US administration to "not put itself in direct opposition to China's most urgent needs" or to consciously avoid a "hegemonic transition World War"? And, if not, how do we get such an administration in place by 2012?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 at 06:41:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How would China benefit from a hegemonic war?

It's likely the US nuke capability would be the last thing to go in any decline.

You can lose all of the toy soldiers and submarines and planes, but if you still have more nukes than anyone else, you're a playa - even if half of them won't work on demand.

I think a buy out of some sort is more likely. The Chinese are relatively smart, unlike the US political class, which is almost terminally stupid, so the Chinese are unlikely to start a war they can't win within taking heavy damage.

So I wouldn't be surprised to see conquest by osmosis, with China buying up the remains of the US corporations and introducing Chinese working practices to them, possibly with a figurehead or puppet president - in much the same way that Bush is a Saudi puppet, only rather more so.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 at 07:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, it's for the Chinese to avoid a hegemonic war. As the Chinese understand the importance of losing face they might be able to get what they want while allowing the US elite to believe they're still hegemonic, but it's up to them to try because the US will not.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 at 07:33:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... has to be done from bottom up ... in the US, its not possible for it to happen from the top down.

To the extent that there is a mandarin class in the US that could both look that far ahead and then implement it, they work for corporations and have not loyalty to the US as such. Since corporate interest requires throwing the long term interests of the nation under the bus, that is precisely what they would be looking to do.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 at 12:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To the extent that there is a mandarin class in the US that could both look that far ahead and then implement it, they work for corporations and have not loyalty to the US as such.

I was afraid you would say just that.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... which then implies that it has to be done via coalition politics.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series