This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is The US-China Rivalry More Dangerous Than The Cold War?
Submitted by Zachary Zeck via The Diplomat,
The prominent realist international relations scholar John Mearsheimer says there is a greater possibility of the U.S. and China going to war in the future than there was of a Soviet-NATO general war during the Cold War.
Mearsheimer made the comments at a lunch hosted by the Center for the National Interest in Washington, DC on Monday. The lunch was held to discuss Mearsheimer’s recent article in The National Interest on U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East. However, much of the conversation during the Q&A session focused on U.S. policy towards Asia amid China’s rise, a topic that Mearsheimer addresses in greater length in the updated edition of his classic treatise, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, which is due out this April.
In contrast to the Middle East, which he characterizes as posing little threat to the United States, Mearsheimer said that the U.S. will face a tremendous challenge in Asia should China continue to rise economically. The University of Chicago professor said that in such a scenario it is inevitable that the U.S. and China will engage in an intense strategic competition, much like the Soviet-American rivalry during the Cold War.
While stressing that he didn’t believe a shooting war between the U.S. and China is inevitable, Mearsheimer said that he believes a U.S.-China Cold War will be much less stable than the previous American-Soviet one. His reasoning was based on geography and its interaction with nuclear weapons.
Specifically, the center of gravity of the U.S.-Soviet competition was the central European landmass. This created a rather stable situation as, according to Mearsheimer, anyone that war gamed a NATO-Warsaw conflict over Central Europe understood that it would quickly turn nuclear. This gave both sides a powerful incentive to avoid a general conflict in Central Europe as a nuclear war would make it very likely that both the U.S. and Soviet Union would be “vaporized.”
The U.S.-China strategic rivalry lacks this singular center of gravity. Instead, Mearsheimer identified four potential hotspots over which he believes the U.S. and China might find themselves at war: the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas. Besides featuring more hotspots than the U.S.-Soviet conflict, Mearsheimer implied that he felt that decision-makers in Beijing and Washington might be more confident that they could engage in a shooting war over one of these areas without it escalating to the nuclear threshold.
For instance, he singled out the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, of which he said there was a very real possibility that Japan and China could find themselves in a shooting war sometime in the next five years. Should a shooting war break out between China and Japan in the East China Sea, Mearsheimer said he believes the U.S. will have two options: first, to act as an umpire in trying to separate the two sides and return to the status quo ante; second, to enter the conflict on the side of Japan.
Mearsheimer said that he thinks it’s more likely the U.S. would opt for the second option because a failure to do so would weaken U.S. credibility in the eyes of its Asian allies. In particular, he believes that America trying to act as a mediator would badly undermine Japanese and South Korean policymakers’ faith in America’s extended deterrence. Since the U.S. does not want Japan or South Korea to build their own nuclear weapons, Washington would be hesitant to not come out decisively on the side of the Japanese in any war between Tokyo and Beijing.
Mearsheimer did add that the U.S. is in the early stages of dealing with a rising China, and the full threat would not materialize for at least another ten years. He also stressed that his arguments assumed that China will be able to maintain rapid economic growth. Were China’s growth rates to streamline or even turn negative, then the U.S. would remain the preponderant power in the world and actually see its relative power grow through 2050.
In characteristically blunt fashion, Mearsheimer said that he hopes that China’s economy falters or collapses, as this would eliminate a potentially immense security threat for the United States and its allies. Indeed, Mearsheimer said he was flabbergasted by Americans and people in allied states who profess wanting to see China continue to grow economically. He reminded the audience that at the peak of its power the Soviet Union possessed a much smaller GDP than the United States. Given that China has a population size over four times larger than America’s, should it reach a GDP per capita that is comparable to Taiwan or Hong Kong today, it will be a greater potential threat to the United States than anything America has previously dealt with.
»
- 20933 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
China's economy is one big bubble. As for corruption, it's Tammany Hall to the power of 10.
China is going down soon. 25 trillion dollar credit bubbles are not known for deflating gently.
Hhmmmm... "Is The US-China Rivalry More Dangerous Than The Cold War?"
....well, certainly the Military Industrial Complex(and any POTUS that's afraid he may not get re-elected) would have us believe so.
Next stupid question, please...
Better to compare and contrast the cold war to this article's accompanying ad for TAMIFLU.
Isn't society better off giving pharmaceuticals to Oliver Twist-like waifs than suffering aches, and chills?
Sorry stopped reading when the article says that the Soviet-USA cold war was primarily in the European zone which gave it "stability" as opposed to a new cold war with China with FOUR hot spots. Look at a fucking map. The four hotspots are in a relatively small geographic area, therefore being ONE hotspot. As opposed to Cold War I..which included Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Middle East, Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, Angola (Africa), and probably a few others forgotten, a TRULY global cold war.
Author. Total. Fucking. Idiot.
You got that right...
Author. Total. Fucking. Idiot.
The only reason for the author's shooting war is access to resources. China (having $24 Trillion dollars in domestic debt) needs $1 Trillion per year to pay the interest. Total Global wealth is about $200 Trillion (give or take). China "needs" access to international markets.
Any limited "shooting war" will close access to those same international markets. Hence, for China, it is all or nothing.
China can't take over the whole world. Given time, it's citizens will enforce democratic principles and China will be a strategic, global partner/player.
"In characteristically blunt fashion, Mearsheimer said that he hopes that China’s economy falters or collapses"
Really?
Is nuclear weapon nation like Chine a less threat with a collapsed economy?
OT but anyone see this CUNT
http://media.smh.com.au/featured/us-congressman-threatens-tv-reporter-51...
If that were you or I, such behavior would result in a near death beatdown, years of prosecution, and financial ruin.
Not so long ago Japan was taking over the economic world and we all had to study Japanese. Now its China whose fundamentals suck bigtime in a centrally managed economy. I think I'll hold off from studying Mandarin and just stay fluid and diversified, anything can happen in the clusterfuck thats going on out there now.
The U.S.-China strategic rivalry lacks this singular center of gravity. Instead, Mearsheimer identified four potential hotspots over which he believes the U.S. and China might find themselves at war: the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas. Besides featuring more hotspots than the U.S.-Soviet conflict, Mearsheimer implied that he felt that decision-makers in Beijing and Washington might be more confident that they could engage in a shooting war over one of these areas without it escalating to the nuclear threshold.
Therefore look to China moving forward on any front but these. These four spots will be used as a distraction, while they expand into Africa/S America and elsewhere.
The crux of the matter is that Pax Americana big stick and USD hegemony are now unacceptable to humanity, as that benevolent beacon of hope was extinguished since Nov. 1963.
Its been Machiavellically downhill since then inspite of the apparent joyride for some. We have disdained moral hazard like never before. Consequences now.
The End never justifes the Means. Mutti has just said it openly to the USA/NSA cabal.
The world will now revert to a new political and economic paradigm; and no force on earth will stop that.
US AMerica has an immense positive side, its youth and energy and abiity to cut and run from failed constructs. Innovation and drive and a young educated population.
But the accumulated hubris of the upper echelons of society now weighs like the legacy of Mordor's ring on all of humanity. Time is running out for an American Frodo to dispose off the ring of hubris and hegemonical dystopia.
Just read History. Its our best moving finger about the future.
we had the opportunity to solve this problem after the Korean war but truman passed. dont worry.... obumbler will concede everthing to china before he leaves office. we need to set up russia nd china for a fight and sit ont he sidelines. china has a focused global strategy that they execute. securing resources and establishing footholds. we have morons in congress and the state department that get promoted for incompetence and negligence. until the empty suit is impeached or finishes his golf vacation we dont count.
DOD trying to justify increase in the military indutrial budget. ussa takes what trenton beijing peking makes... money flows poverty grows socialism creeps ... and the pentagon desk heroes want war.... just a little war agianst some easy mark... NOT CHINA more medals more medals more promotions and a cozy job a carlyle or the like... beltway madness. obumbler used the war hero as a prop... why do these people subject themselves to this guy sho shits in the face of heroes... lowers their pension and denies them proper care... go figure...
do not over estimate chinese military strategy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZHtx8GkwU
lol
Mearsheimer identified FOUR potential hotspots over which he believes the U.S. and China might find themselves at war:
am i wrong or these are just 3?