Second Cold War

[DarthAmerica]

I live in China and it's already becoming a "powder keg". There are bombs going off sometimes, attacks on police stations, riots, property destruction, abuse of power and position, political corruption, dissatisfaction at the basic social level over the wealth gap, gender inequality, marriage laws, education policy, job opportunities for graduates, lack of marriageable women for young men, especially poorer ones, pollution, overcrowding and so on....and these are the ones I can think of immediately. It'll be these things which destroy China, and it'll happen from within, not without. China is a powder keg of many languages and 56 differnt ethnicities, all dominated by the Han majority and ruled, absolutely, by the communist Party and it's 80 million members, none of whom are elected by the people they rule..and, police brutality can be added, i witnessed such things last night and a police shooting which, to me, was completely unjustified!

Here's another thing to consider in addition to the huge economic imbalance between inland and coastal China. What happens when ~1.4 billion people start to get too old to work? Who's going to bear the cost burden of that? Social unrest is going to be the dominant theme in the PRC for some time and while it may appear that the J-20s and DF-21s are coming the reality is that the PRC is going to have it's hands too full managing social and demographic issues to be more than a passing global security concern.

-DA

 

[ngatimozart]

Here's another thing to consider in addition to the huge economic imbalance between inland and coastal China. What happens when ~1.4 billion people start to get too old to work? Who's going to bear the cost burden of that? Social unrest is going to be the dominant theme in the PRC for some time and while it may appear that the J-20s and DF-21s are coming the reality is that the PRC is going to have it's hands too full managing social and demographic issues to be more than a passing global security concern.

-DA

They'll deal with it in a totally different way to us in the west will have to as us baby boomers reach retirement. The only thing that has basically changed in China is Deng Xou Pengs Economic reforms. Note economic not political. The party will not tolerate any opposition and this has not changed. One just has to look at Falun Gong. The party still tries very hard to control what the population are told. The recent controversy over the reporting of the high speed train crash is evident of that, plus Googles issues with internet content censorship in China. However it appears that the party may be having difficulty adjusting to a burgeoning wealthy middle class who have higher expectations and youth who are tech savvy with instant communication. In recent times the PRC has been more open and in the last few months even the PLA has had press briefings and started a website.

Having said that the party is still very much in control and they have the wherewithal of dealing with problems in a Chinese way. Maos' rapid industrialisation call in the late 1950s lead to a famine which is estimated to have killed 20 million. The Cultural Revolution (Mao again) in the late 1960's would have accounted for a few million more. They also have more ready cash than the US and most of us in the west. For example US defence spending was US$700 billion* in 2010 excluding all security spending and Chinas was US160 billion* in 2010 inclusive of the publicly stated budget and funds known to have been spent. There is also all that surplus cash in China with a budget surplus running in double figures while the rest of us are struggling to get into the black. The US debt crisis has created a very national large security issue for it and that problem is not going to go away in the short term. The same in Europe.

I view the present Chinese government as another dynasty much like the previous imperial dynasties. The only difference being that the transfer of power is not hereditary, but in all aspects they are much the same. This modern dynasty has been far more efficient and ruthless than previous dynasties in imposing its will upon all the population. In Chinese history and culture emperors rule because they have a mandate from heaven. Once they lose that mandate they cease to rule and the dynasty falls. China is also known as the Middle Kingdom because it is between heaven and the lessor peoples on earth. That is traditional Chinese world view and I don't think much has changed since 1949 to alter that.

So in answer China will deal with the social and demographic issues of inequality between the hinterland and coastal economies in the same way it has dealt with such issues since 1949. By the carrot and the very big stick.

* Source US warns China expanding its naval power | Navy News at DefenseTalk

 

[exported_kiwi]

Here's another thing to consider in addition to the huge economic imbalance between inland and coastal China. What happens when ~1.4 billion people start to get too old to work? Who's going to bear the cost burden of that? Social unrest is going to be the dominant theme in the PRC for some time and while it may appear that the J-20s and DF-21s are coming the reality is that the PRC is going to have it's hands too full managing social and demographic issues to be more than a passing global security concern.

-DA

The demographic is what is most worrying the Chinese gov't right now, because the one child policy has left the population too depelted in terms of growing kids and the traditional preference for male children has lead to a gender imblance which is going to cause either a whole lot of homosexuality, frustration, or mail order brides to be imported into China. The over 60 population in China is now approximately 200million and growing as the oldies live longer.

 

[exported_kiwi]

They'll deal with it in a totally different way to us in the west will have to as us baby boomers reach retirement. The only thing that has basically changed in China is Deng Xou Pengs Economic reforms. Note economic not political. The party will not tolerate any opposition and this has not changed. One just has to look at Falun Gong. The party still tries very hard to control what the population are told. The recent controversy over the reporting of the high speed train crash is evident of that, plus Googles issues with internet content censorship in China. However it appears that the party may be having difficulty adjusting to a burgeoning wealthy middle class who have higher expectations and youth who are tech savvy with instant communication. In recent times the PRC has been more open and in the last few months even the PLA has had press briefings and started a website.

Having said that the party is still very much in control and they have the wherewithal of dealing with problems in a Chinese way. Maos' rapid industrialisation call in the late 1950s lead to a famine which is estimated to have killed 20 million. The Cultural Revolution (Mao again) in the late 1960's would have accounted for a few million more. They also have more ready cash than the US and most of us in the west. For example US defence spending was US$700 billion* in 2010 excluding all security spending and Chinas was US160 billion* in 2010 inclusive of the publicly stated budget and funds known to have been spent. There is also all that surplus cash in China with a budget surplus running in double figures while the rest of us are struggling to get into the black. The US debt crisis has created a very national large security issue for it and that problem is not going to go away in the short term. The same in Europe.

I view the present Chinese government as another dynasty much like the previous imperial dynasties. The only difference being that the transfer of power is not hereditary, but in all aspects they are much the same. This modern dynasty has been far more efficient and ruthless than previous dynasties in imposing its will upon all the population. In Chinese history and culture emperors rule because they have a mandate from heaven. Once they lose that mandate they cease to rule and the dynasty falls. China is also known as the Middle Kingdom because it is between heaven and the lessor peoples on earth. That is traditional Chinese world view and I don't think much has changed since 1949 to alter that.

So in answer China will deal with the social and demographic issues of inequality between the hinterland and coastal economies in the same way it has dealt with such issues since 1949. By the carrot and the very big stick.

* Source US warns China expanding its naval power | Navy News at DefenseTalk

"China is also known as the Middle Kingdom because it is between heaven and the lessor peoples on earth. That is traditional Chinese world view and I don't think much has changed since 1949 to alter that."

You';re right, this thinking hasn't changed in China and they view their rise asboth natural and manifest destiny. The funny thing about being in the middle though is, there are boundaries. China will learn that simple truth one day, hopefully peacefully, but knowing this current crop of "little emperors", I doubt it.

 

[Kalasag]

I think the US should (and eventually will) transfer their foreign investments and production centers to ASEAN countries. From what I know, there is an increasing number of industries being transferred to Vietnam. And aside from ASEAN countries, I've been seeing lots of T-shirts made in Bangladesh.

Should the United States and its allies (especially Japan and ANZAC) decide to ultimately transfer a significant bulk of investment and industries to ASEAN, this would spell trouble for China. The Chinese will not like a progressive Thailand or Vietnam with an improved military to its south, nor does it like a stronger Philippine military. But what it will not want is a unified ASEAN with strong military ties to the US Bloc, and if the United States does back the ASEAN member states economically, then eventually it will be able to pay for improving its military to protect its own interests. China's increasing economic power will ultimately forge the unity of the ASEAN as a formal economic bloc like the EU and enable the combined economy to match China's. But unlike the EU, ASEAN should go one step further and improve coordination between the military of member states.

This is going to take time if this is to happen. No one can shift a huge number of factories from China to ASEAN overnight. ASEAN's internal problems, border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia, the South China Sea dilemma, Myanmar's political state and their close connection to China and Indonesia's bid to become a regional superpower will prove a challenge to unity. Not to mention the cultural differences and wide economic gap (which will prove a burden for an advanced economy like Singapore or a regional economic power like Indonesia) between the states.

 

[Kalasag]

That ignores the history of the Ottoman Empire, current Turkish growth and future Turkish ambitions. They are certainly on a more solid foundation than China over the long term.

-DA

I disagree with this. The Turkish economy is dependent mainly on the financial market. A significant part is based on industries in urban areas. Other than that, their country is poor when it comes to natural resources and their agricultural capabilities limited. Their economy is too tied to the west to be a surefire threat.

I'd be more suspicious of the Arabs. We will never know for sure right now what the outcome of the Arab Spring will be. But this just might be a trigger for a Pan-Arabic nation. With the size comparable to the former Ottoman Empire, the ability to sustain itself, large amounts of the world's resources, a presence in the world's financial markets and a common religion and culture to bind them, this new nation may become the world's next superpower. Assuming this happens, Iran might soften its stance against the US and Israel and increase its connections with China/Russia. Turkey will still be a part of NATO. While the threat is less likely to happen, it is an exponentially bigger threat.

 

[swerve]

A pan-Arab nation is extremely unlikely. They don't really speak one language, they don't have religious unity (see suppression of Shias in Bahrain & Saudi Arabia, for example), & nations such as Morocco, Oman, & Egypt look back to long periods of independent existence.

The Saudis et al don't want to give up their oil money to more numerous but poorer by Egyptians & others, & nobody else would agree to a unified state in which the oil-rich minority didn't put their wealth into the common treasury.

Total non-starter.

The USA & other rich western countries are investing in ASEAN. But, like investment in China, this is commercial. It is not state-directed, but the product of many individual decisions by private firms. There is thus no possibility of a planned transfer of investment. Money will move if it's profitable.

 

[Kalasag]

A pan-Arab nation is extremely unlikely. They don't really speak one language, they don't have religious unity (see suppression of Shias in Bahrain & Saudi Arabia, for example), & nations such as Morocco, Oman, & Egypt look back to long periods of independent existence.

The Saudis et al don't want to give up their oil money to more numerous but poorer by Egyptians & others, & nobody else would agree to a unified state in which the oil-rich minority didn't put their wealth into the common treasury.

Total non-starter.

The USA & other rich western countries are investing in ASEAN. But, like investment in China, this is commercial. It is not state-directed, but the product of many individual decisions by private firms. There is thus no possibility of a planned transfer of investment. Money will move if it's profitable.

Yes, I agree. It is extremely unlikely. But the reported presence of Al-Queda in Yemen and Libya makes my imagination go wild. Plus, I was expressing my opinion in the context that this scenario is just as plausible if not more likely to happen then Turkey screwing the West. And while they really don't share one first language, any form of Arabic will still pass as the lingua franca for the whole region. And another point is that the Arabic federation (take note on my change of stance) will most likely be headed by an Egyptian-Saudi hegemony regardless of whether what the member states would have agreed to just like in the EU (France, Germany and GB to a lesser extent) or ASEAN (Indonesia and Singapore).

It's crazy what a merged Arab world will do to the world not just militarily but economically as well. Here's a glimpse of what each member state could offer.

Oil (Iraq, SA, Libya, Tunisia, Kuwait, UAE, etc)
Phospate and Uranium (Jordan)
Phosphorous (Morocco)
Precious metals (Oman)
Natural gas (Qatar, SA, Yemen, etc)
Agriculture (Libya, Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon, Egypt)
Finance (Bahrain, UAE, Egypt)

Not to mention Egypt controls the important Suez canal and has the most developed technological industries in the Arab world. Tunisia brings a lot of Western flavor in the mix and it's progressive stance on renewable energy maybe replicated throughout the Arab world. The truth is, SA needs this to reduce its reliance on oil exports. Improvement on the security situation will bring tourists and investors and more foreign currency in. Well honestly, I'm hoping the Arab World isn't as progressive as it could be and do this, or all hell breaks loose. Imagine all the possibilities with an integrated Arabic economy. They'd have a load of cash and oil to push their agenda. They'd have to carry some baggage: Syria, Somalia and Yemen namely, but even Yemen can be exploited for its natural gas and Somalia for its livestock. Mauritania and Comoros are pretty insignificant.

And on ASEAN, it should go find itself a real use as a world organization, compete with China take the initiative and go offer sweeter deals to US/EU and other international companies (including China). And the West could change its economic policy towards China and ASEAN, offering trade agreements to ASEAN member states which give foreign companies investing there more incentives to invest there. Of course it would be good for ASEAN if lets say both the US and China took a more active approach in improving the security conditions in ASEAN states.

 

[STURM]

It's crazy what a merged Arab world will do to the world not just militarily but economically as well. .

Well honestly, I'm hoping the Arab World isn't as progressive as it could be and do this, or all hell breaks loose. Imagine all the possibilities with an integrated Arabic economy. They'd have a load of cash and oil to push their agenda. They'd have to carry some baggage: Syria, Somalia and Yemen namely, but even Yemen can be exploited for its natural gas and Somalia for its livestock. Mauritania and Comoros are pretty insignificant..

Extremely unlikely in the near future as they can't agree on anything and all have different agendas or are in different camps. What they have in common is that no one wants to annoy the Saudis and the Gulf states as they have cash and lots of it. At an Arab League summit some years ago, Gadaffi gave a speech in which he criticised the Arabs for doing nothing but enriching themselves, scheming against one another and talking but not achieving anything with regards to the Palestine/Israel problem. It was frustration with the Arabs that led him to begin cultivating the Africans.

When discussing the Arabs and Arab unity, I think we tend to forget that most, if not all countries were created by Western powers to meet their own ends - all were created out of artificial borders, and the result is many of the problems faced today.

IBut what it will not want is a unified ASEAN with strong military ties to the US Bloc, and if the United States does back the ASEAN member states economically, then eventually it will be able to pay for improving its military to protect its own interests.

And on ASEAN, it should go find itself a real use as a world organization, compete with China take the initiative and go offer sweeter deals to US/EU and other international companies (including China). And the West could change its economic policy towards China and ASEAN, offering trade agreements to ASEAN member states which give foreign companies investing there more incentives to invest there. Of course it would be good for ASEAN if lets say both the US and China took a more active approach in improving the security conditions in ASEAN states.

For a start, no ASEAN country is remotely interested in turning ASEAN into a military bloc, for a number of reasons namely -

1. ASEAN was founded as a trade, cultural and economic grouping.

2. ASEAN countries are involved in a number of longstanding territorial disputes or claims with no solution in sight.

Malaysia/Indonesia [Ambalat] Malaysia/Philippines [Sabah]
Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam [Spratleys]

Whilst the possibility of an all out war is very remore the possibility of clashes at sea is not.

3. ASEAN countries have very different foreign policies with regards to engaging China and also on trade, tariffs, etc. All ASEAN countries, though some may not publicly say so, welcome the continued U.S. military presence in the region as an insurance against any future attempts by the PRC to establish hegomony.

4. ASEAN countries, despite economic cooperation and common stands on numerous issues, still share a military mistrust of one another. In short, ASEAN still has a long way to go before it can be transformed into something like the EU.

II'd be more suspicious of the Arabs. We will never know for sure right now what the outcome of the Arab Spring will be.

One outcome of the Arab Spring is that some Arabs countries will be more vocal in calling for a fair settlement of the Arab/Israeli dispute, and this has already happened. Just like the dictators it has been supporting for decades, the Arab Spring caught the West by surprise and it is till deciding how to deal with it. Remember the same countries that were critical of how Gadaffi and his goons were using force on Libyans and even participated in military action were noticebly silent about ''friendly'', ''subserviant'' Bahrain and about Syria.

Assuming this happens, Iran might soften its stance against the US and Israel and increase its connections with China/Russia. Turkey will still be a part of NATO. While the threat is less likely to happen, it is an exponentially bigger threat.

But will the West ''soften its stance'' towards Iran and realise that the Mullahs don't go to bed dreaming every night about atttacking Israel or launching a WMN missile at Europe and that Iran too has legitimate interests that it has to watch out for? Lets look at things from an Iranian perspective for a change rather than from a Western lens [which is mostly the case] - Iran cooperated with Washington in the 'War on Terror'' and it also cooperated during the invasion of Iraq when it reportedly agreed to any U.S. pilots downed on its side of the border could be rescued by U.S SAR teams.

If I was the Iranian leadership and I was faced with a nuclear armed Israel that had unconditional U.S. support, faced a whole string of Sunni Arabs states who actively aided Saddam during the 8 year war [and was still hostile or pursuing policies that were not in my interests] and had a Western military presence in neighbouring countries and in the Gulf, I would want nukes, most definitely. Anyway, I strongly believe that is inevitable that relations at some point between both countries will improve as there is a lot to gain.

 

[exported_kiwi]

I think the US should (and eventually will) transfer their foreign investments and production centers to ASEAN countries. From what I know, there is an increasing number of industries being transferred to Vietnam. And aside from ASEAN countries, I've been seeing lots of T-shirts made in Bangladesh.

Should the United States and its allies (especially Japan and ANZAC) decide to ultimately transfer a significant bulk of investment and industries to ASEAN, this would spell trouble for China. The Chinese will not like a progressive Thailand or Vietnam with an improved military to its south, nor does it like a stronger Philippine military. But what it will not want is a unified ASEAN with strong military ties to the US Bloc, and if the United States does back the ASEAN member states economically, then eventually it will be able to pay for improving its military to protect its own interests. China's increasing economic power will ultimately forge the unity of the ASEAN as a formal economic bloc like the EU and enable the combined economy to match China's. But unlike the EU, ASEAN should go one step further and improve coordination between the military of member states.

This is going to take time if this is to happen. No one can shift a huge number of factories from China to ASEAN overnight. ASEAN's internal problems, border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia, the South China Sea dilemma, Myanmar's political state and their close connection to China and Indonesia's bid to become a regional superpower will prove a challenge to unity. Not to mention the cultural differences and wide economic gap (which will prove a burden for an advanced economy like Singapore or a regional economic power like Indonesia) between the states.

I can't see ASEAN military cooperation happening given the disputes between members in the South China Sea, and in other parts of the littoral Asian area.China continues to talk peace but prepare for conflict, this is visible even to a blind person living in China, and the rhetoric certainly leans that way as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

Extremely unlikely in the near future as they can't agree on anything and all have different agendas or are in different camps. What they have in common is that no one wants to annoy the Saudis and the Gulf states as they have cash and lots of it. At an Arab League summit some years ago, Gadaffi gave a speech in which he criticised the Arabs for doing nothing but enriching themselves, scheming against one another and talking but not achieving anything with regards to the Palestine/Israel problem. It was frustration with the Arabs that led him to begin cultivating the Africans.

When discussing the Arabs and Arab unity, I think we tend to forget that most, if not all countries were created by Western powers to meet their own ends - all were created out of artificial borders, and the result is many of the problems faced today.

Back in the 1960's Nasser of Egypt, Syria and I think maybe Iraq formed a single pan Arab country for a while but that soon fell apart after defeat in the Six Day War. You are right in that most of the modern Middle Easter states are results of France and Britain splitting the spoils of their defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Lines were drawn on maps delineating areas of influence and control without thought given to ethnic, cultural, historical, national or religious contexts. For example Saudi Arabia is the fiefdom of the Bin Al Saud family because they supported the British in Palestine. Iraq and Iran are artificial constructs. Iran should actually be Persia because it has such a long Persian history and covers a large area of the old Persian empire. Iraq is home to Babylon.

For a start, no ASEAN country is remotely interested in turning ASEAN into a military bloc, for a number of reasons namely -

1. ASEAN was founded as a trade, cultural and economic grouping.

2. ASEAN countries are involved in a number of longstanding territorial disputes or claims with no solution in sight.

Malaysia/Indonesia [Ambalat] Malaysia/Philippines [Sabah]
Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam [Spratleys]

Whilst the possibility of an all out war is very remore the possibility of clashes at sea is not.

3. ASEAN countries have very different foreign policies with regards to engaging China and also on trade, tariffs, etc. All ASEAN countries, though some may not publicly say so, welcome the continued U.S. military presence in the region as an insurance against any future attempts by the PRC to establish hegomony.

4. ASEAN countries, despite economic cooperation and common stands on numerous issues, still share a military mistrust of one another. In short, ASEAN still has a long way to go before it can be transformed into something like the EU.



One outcome of the Arab Spring is that some Arabs countries will be more vocal in calling for a fair settlement of the Arab/Israeli dispute, and this has already happened. Just like the dictators it has been supporting for decades, the Arab Spring caught the West by surprise and it is till deciding how to deal with it. Remember the same countries that were critical of how Gadaffi and his goons were using force on Libyans and even participated in military action were noticebly silent about ''friendly'', ''subserviant'' Bahrain and about Syria.



But will the West ''soften its stance'' towards Iran and realise that the Mullahs don't go to bed dreaming every night about atttacking Israel or launching a WMN missile at Europe and that Iran too has legitimate interests that it has to watch out for? Lets look at things from an Iranian perspective for a change rather than from a Western lens [which is mostly the case] - Iran cooperated with Washington in the 'War on Terror'' and it also cooperated during the invasion of Iraq when it reportedly agreed to any U.S. pilots downed on its side of the border could be rescued by U.S SAR teams.

If I was the Iranian leadership and I was faced with a nuclear armed Israel that had unconditional U.S. support, faced a whole string of Sunni Arabs states who actively aided Saddam during the 8 year war [and was still hostile or pursuing policies that were not in my interests] and had a Western military presence in neighbouring countries and in the Gulf, I would want nukes, most definitely. Anyway, I strongly believe that is inevitable that relations at some point between both countries will improve as there is a lot to gain.

I think the big problem in the Middle East is Israel not Iran. You are right in saying that we should also look at the world through an Iranian lens besides the stock standard western lens. The second problem is the US has difficulties in coming to terms in dealing with countries that have caused it "grief". One thinks of the continued embargo of Cuba and how long it took the US to face up to Vietnam. It is 32 years since the Iranian revolution (52 since Cuban) and I think is time that the US stopped harbouring grudges and dealt openly and face to face with Tehran (and Havana).

I am against nuclear proliferation and it is something that is happening regardless of treaties and bans. Once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back in and any competent physicist could manufacture a nuke if given time and resources. States should be actively discouraged from following that path, however if they interpret the security situation such as to dictate that path is necessary for them to follow they will.

Israel needs to pull its head in and sort out the issues it has with the Palestinians around the negotiating table not by explosives, use of arms, playing hard ball and arrogance. I accept that they have a situation where some states are still a clear and present danger to them, but that does not excuse the way they treat the Palestinians. Israel was founded upon the premise of a homeland for displaced peoples who had suffered an unspeakable horror at the hands of the Nazis. Therefore, of all peoples in this world, they should be the ones who understand the most of what it is like to be at the receiving end of state sponsored persecution. Hearts and minds - if Israel is really serious about peace it needs to start at home and deal fairly and honestly with the Palestinians. By doing so it will have a good chance of winning the hearts and minds, over time, and show the Arab world that it can be a good reliable, trustworthy and friendly neighbour. It will not be easy and will take time, bit IMHO that is the only way that Israel is going to secure peace, security and stability for itself. This is where the US does need to play hardball and stand up to Israel. If the Israeli situation is sorted then the main source of the tension in the Middle East is dealt to. There are others and the Sunni / Shia divisions within Islam would be the next bone of contention. Like all forms of sectarianism that is harder to deal to especially when it has been ingrained over hundreds of years.

One thing about western nations and western culture is this inherent arrogance that our way is the best and only way of doing things. For the last 500 years we have done everything possible to impose our values, culture, religion and world view upon non western cultures and nations, saying it is our way only or else. I think Europe may be changing its attitude ever so slowly, but the US still is heading down this path, which is unfortunate because it does have a lot to offer the world. The peoples of the Middle East and Asia (and the Pacific) do not think like us, nor is their world view the same as ours in the west and that is something that we in our arrogance forget, or more likely do not understand.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Back in the 1960's Nasser of Egypt, Syria and I think maybe Iraq formed a single pan Arab country for a while but that soon fell apart after defeat in the Six Day War. You are right in that most of the modern Middle Easter states are results of France and Britain splitting the spoils of their defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Lines were drawn on maps delineating areas of influence and control without thought given to ethnic, cultural, historical, national or religious contexts. For example Saudi Arabia is the fiefdom of the Bin Al Saud family because they supported the British in Palestine. Iraq and Iran are artificial constructs. Iran should actually be Persia because it has such a long Persian history and covers a large area of the old Persian empire. Iraq is home to Babylon.



I think the big problem in the Middle East is Israel not Iran. You are right in saying that we should also look at the world through an Iranian lens besides the stock standard western lens. The second problem is the US has difficulties in coming to terms in dealing with countries that have caused it "grief". One thinks of the continued embargo of Cuba and how long it took the US to face up to Vietnam. It is 32 years since the Iranian revolution (52 since Cuban) and I think is time that the US stopped harbouring grudges and dealt openly and face to face with Tehran (and Havana).

I am against nuclear proliferation and it is something that is happening regardless of treaties and bans. Once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back in and any competent physicist could manufacture a nuke if given time and resources. States should be actively discouraged from following that path, however if they interpret the security situation such as to dictate that path is necessary for them to follow they will.

Israel needs to pull its head in and sort out the issues it has with the Palestinians around the negotiating table not by explosives, use of arms, playing hard ball and arrogance. I accept that they have a situation where some states are still a clear and present danger to them, but that does not excuse the way they treat the Palestinians. Israel was founded upon the premise of a homeland for displaced peoples who had suffered an unspeakable horror at the hands of the Nazis. Therefore, of all peoples in this world, they should be the ones who understand the most of what it is like to be at the receiving end of state sponsored persecution. Hearts and minds - if Israel is really serious about peace it needs to start at home and deal fairly and honestly with the Palestinians. By doing so it will have a good chance of winning the hearts and minds, over time, and show the Arab world that it can be a good reliable, trustworthy and friendly neighbour. It will not be easy and will take time, bit IMHO that is the only way that Israel is going to secure peace, security and stability for itself. This is where the US does need to play hardball and stand up to Israel. If the Israeli situation is sorted then the main source of the tension in the Middle East is dealt to. There are others and the Sunni / Shia divisions within Islam would be the next bone of contention. Like all forms of sectarianism that is harder to deal to especially when it has been ingrained over hundreds of years.

One thing about western nations and western culture is this inherent arrogance that our way is the best and only way of doing things. For the last 500 years we have done everything possible to impose our values, culture, religion and world view upon non western cultures and nations, saying it is our way only or else. I think Europe may be changing its attitude ever so slowly, but the US still is heading down this path, which is unfortunate because it does have a lot to offer the world. The peoples of the Middle East and Asia (and the Pacific) do not think like us, nor is their world view the same as ours in the west and that is something that we in our arrogance forget, or more likely do not understand.

Kia ora mate! You forgot to add Jordan to the list of "created" states in the ME. It was known as Transjordan previously and it had the best military force in the ME at the time known as the Arab Legion, British trained, equipped, supplied and led.

WRT Israel/ Palestine, yeah, it'd be nice if that sticky little problem could be solved but one can hardly single out the Israelis for the troubles there. Do you recall ever, an Israeli suicide bomber boarding a school bus and murdering a bunch of innocent little kids on the way to school? The Israeli's have merely retaliated and one can hardly blame them, given the Arab penchant for Israels destruction....starting in 1948.
I'd much prefer they all worked out that apart from some pretty small differences, they're basically the same but hatred runs deep in that part of the world.....and I don't see any clue that it'll stop in our lifetimes, sadly, for all concerned.

 

[STURM]

China continues to talk peace but prepare for conflict, this is visible even to a blind person living in China, and the rhetoric certainly leans that way as well.

To be fair to China, its main rival or competitor, India which is a nuclear power and has fought a war with China, is armed to the tooth and is making great efforts to modernise it's military. China is surrounded by states that are either 'friend's of the U.S., or a strategic partners of the U.S. and the U..S. does have a military presence in the region - in China's backyard. The question we should ask is whether China's current military modernisation drive is perfectly natural for a country that will soon be the biggest economic power in the world, and has legitimate concerns and interests to watch out for or is it really ''preparing for conflict'' as you suggest?

Back in the 1960's Nasser of Egypt, Syria and I think maybe Iraq formed a single pan Arab country for a while but that soon fell apart after defeat in the Six Day War. You are right in that most of the modern Middle Easter states are results of France and Britain splitting the spoils of their defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Lines were drawn on maps delineating areas of influence and control without thought given to ethnic, cultural, historical, national or religious contexts.

Robert Fisk mentions in this video a proposed plan put forward in the aftermath of WW1 for a unified Arab nation, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b42FJwydOCY"]Fisk lashes out at West in Middle East - YouTube[/nomedia]

Do you recall ever, an Israeli suicide bomber boarding a school bus and murdering a bunch of innocent little kids on the way to school?

Why would there be an Israeli suicide bomber when Israel, unlike Hamas and Hazbollah, has jets, gunships, armour and frigates to help achieve its political and military objectives? There have been cases though of deranged or trigger happy Israeli settlers gunning down people.

The Israeli's have merely retaliated and one can hardly blame them, given the Arab penchant for Israels destruction.....

Not my intention to derail this thread but what ''penchant'' are you referring to?? Calls for Israel's destruction by Arab is not an issue anymore, and is not on the list of ''to do things''. The Arab League, led by Saudi, has made it very clear that the only issue preventing a peace treaty and formal ties is Israel's continued occupation of Arab land. The problem has been made worse by the building of settlements and as you know, despite a public call by Obama to cease building so that peace talks could resume, Netanyahu did the opposite. Also, the main agenda of all Arab regimes is regime survival, making money and trying their best to stay in the West's good books, not preparing for a future war with Israel.

Certain countries have not recognised Israel simply because to do so would imply that there is approval for Israel's continued occupation of Arab land, which is violation of international law, and its continued building of settlements on land it does not own and is ilegally occupying - not because they still have dreams of Israel's destruction. Even Hamas, which at one time was courted by Israel as an alternative to the ineffective and corrupt Fatah [which Israel conveniantly does not mention], has publicly maintained that it is more than willing to recognise Israel in return for a permanent solution to the longstanding dispute. BTW, a plan put forward by Saudi around 2002 and agreed upon by all Arab countries, that would have led to full recognition and relations with Israel, in return for a settlement of the dispute, and a demilitarised Palestinian state, was rejected by Israel.

With regards to the Israel/Palestine problem, all the parties involved are equally responsible and all have blood on their hands. The Arabs have to get their house in order instead of bickering and convince Uncle Sam to keep applying pressure on Israel to agree on a settlement. As for Israel, it has to decide if it wants peace Or land - it can't have BOTH......

I am against nuclear proliferation and it is something that is happening regardless of treaties and bans. Once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back in and any competent physicist could manufacture a nuke if given time and resources. States should be actively discouraged from following that path, however if they interpret the security situation such as to dictate that path is necessary for them to follow they will.

Agreed but it stinks of double standards and hypocrisy when some countries are allowed by the ''big powers'' to have a nuclear weapons capability and some are not. If I was Iran's senior leadership, I'd throw the ball back in Washington's court and take the initiative by proposing to the Security Council that the Middle East, with the cooperation and agreement of all countries is declared a ''nuclear free zone''. I would then allow full access to all Iranian facilities at short notice, if Israel did the same. The problem here is that behind the scenes, Israel and the U.S. would then insist that an Israeli nuclear capability is needed given that it faces threats. The question that should arise then but which no mainstream, establishment newspaper has asked is who or which country would wish to target Israel with WMDs as this would lead to massive Israeli and U.S. retaliation that would be devastating. Another stumbling block would the great reluctance of the Gulf states agreeing to any joint initiative that would make the Iranians [whom they view with great historical mistrust and as heretics] look good and all are more than contend for Israel to remain as a counterweight to Iran.

Wishful thinking on my part but if the Israelis and Palestinians could sign a peace deal that would benefit both parties and if the West could come to some sort of agreement with Iran, this could in turn lead to a draw down of Western military presence in the Middle East, which in turn would solve a lot of problems and the various 'jihadist' or extremist groups would have much less of an excuse to wage 'war' on the West.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...oid-asking-the-one-real-question-2348438.html

 

[Ananda]

I view the present Chinese government as another dynasty much like the previous imperial dynasties. The only difference being that the transfer of power is not hereditary, but in all aspects they are much the same. This modern dynasty has been far more efficient and ruthless than previous dynasties in imposing its will upon all the population. In Chinese history and culture emperors rule because they have a mandate from heaven. Once they lose that mandate they cease to rule and the dynasty falls. China is also known as the Middle Kingdom because it is between heaven and the lessor peoples on earth. That is traditional Chinese world view and I don't think much has changed since 1949 to alter that.

This's a view that's basically many non Chinese even some overseas Chinese seems to forgot. China is China, is always was China and will always be China.
China in here is the connotation as middle Kingdom. In sense this is the longgest surviving ancient culture there is.

There's never been a democracy in China, because China always rule by dynasty to dynasty. Aisin Goro Pu Yie was only the last Emperor in Tittle. Sun Yat Sen was the next Emperor, that followby Chiang Kai Sek and then Gun Chan Dang (Communist/Mao) Dynasty until present time.

The communist act as Imperial apparatus just like their predecessors thousands years ago. Thus you right, China will act differently on their social conditions, just like multiple dynasty acted long time ago. An old chinese thinking (if I'm put it correctly): Dynasty may come and go, but China will always be China.

Understand this, then perhaps we can begin to understand how they're reacting.

 

[tonyget]

The problems America facing is even worse. Now adays how many American youth are interested in STEM(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) ? How many local students want to study engineering not Law/Med/Finance? How many Phds doing research work are not foreigner ? The US leading position in technology is completely rely on foreign intellectual, a large percent of them are chinese and indians, and the recent trend is more and more go back to their home country after graduation instead of stay in the US. "China keep producing engineerings while we keep producing lawyers" is the view of many American engineerings, and many people work in STEM field believe that the US will eventually lose technological dominant.

 

[ngatimozart]

The problems America facing is even worse. Now adays how many American youth are interested in STEM(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) ? How many local students want to study engineering not Law/Med/Finance? How many Phds doing research work are not foreigner ? The US leading position in technology is completely rely on foreign intellectual, a large percent of them are chinese and indians, and the recent trend is more and more go back to their home country after graduation instead of stay in the US. "China keep producing engineerings while we keep producing lawyers" is the view of many American engineerings, and many people work in STEM field believe that the US will eventually lose technological dominant.

That's a problem not restricted to the US. Here in NZ everyone studies law, business, economics and accountancy followed by IT and graphic design. Sciences is way down the list and now a lot of non Kiwis studying engineering, sciences, math and then returning to their home countries, which is fair enough because they're paying for it. Secondly most of the Kiwis that do study the sciences, engineering and math (plus medicine) now go overseas because of large student debt and the opportunities and money are a lot better.

IMHO law, economics etc., attracts lot of students because that is seen as a way of making big money and gaining social status. However people don't realise that big money can be made in the sciences and technology as well if that's what you want. It is how you apply yourself and take advantage of opportunities.

 

[Kalasag]

That's a problem not restricted to the US. Here in NZ everyone studies law, business, economics and accountancy followed by IT and graphic design. Sciences is way down the list and now a lot of non Kiwis studying engineering, sciences, math and then returning to their home countries, which is fair enough because they're paying for it. Secondly most of the Kiwis that do study the sciences, engineering and math (plus medicine) now go overseas because of large student debt and the opportunities and money are a lot better.

IMHO law, economics etc., attracts lot of students because that is seen as a way of making big money and gaining social status. However people don't realise that big money can be made in the sciences and technology as well if that's what you want. It is how you apply yourself and take advantage of opportunities.

That's sad to hear. I used to live in Palmerston North, where my father was taking up master's degree in engineering at Massey University. We were one of the non Kiwis you said that returned back to their home country. Honestly, I think the problem lies in the very limited job opportunities for S&T courses. The milk industry is getting more automated by the day. Being a country that has a relatively small population, I wouldn't expect it to be a heavily industrialized country, but come to think of it, the quality of life is still great there, fresh air and clean water.

 

[swerve]

Back in the 1960's Nasser of Egypt, Syria and I think maybe Iraq formed a single pan Arab country for a while.

Mostly in name. There was little real unification. The two armies were never really merged, for example.

Iraq was never a member, & it ended years before the 6 day war. Declared 1958, ended 1961 when Syria seceded.

There were a few other meaningless supposed unions between Arab states from the 1950s to the 1970s. They all foundered on the same rock: how do you merge dictatorships? One dictator has to cede power - and they never did.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I think the USA will see the following major military challengers going forward.

Near Term- Russia and possibly Iran

Long Term- Japan, Mexico and possibly Turkey

Notice I didn't mention China or India. I also omitted what I considered nuisance threats such as N Korea and similar irritants. Way too numerous and unpredictable and when they occur they represent non existential threats.

Regards,
DA

Remember what I said. It's coming...

-DA

 

[Kirkzzy]

Remember what I said. It's coming...

-DA

Enough with Japan please.

Population decline worsening | The Japan Times Online

2. Population of Japan 1870-2100

It has been covered, and it is nearly impossible for them to go against the US in the first half of this century atm, second half we will wait and see... but even if they tried to by then they would be a shadow of their former self... With an ageing population they have better things to deal with.

Your other theories on potential adversaries however are at least worth discussing.