Second Cold War

[DarthAmerica]

Darth, not tryng to be arguementative but quite a few countries have an 'imperialistic' past and have current ambitions. What they might not have is the population growth, the industrial base and the economy, to really be a big player, to really influence events and compete with other countries.

I live in South East Asia, and as far as I'm concerned, the countries to watch out for, the countries that will really be ''players'' are India and China.

Well you're watching the wrong country. Just ask yourself. Between the Chinese and Turks which has successfully influenced U.S. Military activity? Which is closest and capable of excercising direct influence in regions that directly impact US interest. Which is the US least likely to have leverage on?

Think about it...

-DA

 

[ngatimozart]

Darth, not tryng to be arguementative but quite a few countries have an 'imperialistic' past and have current ambitions. What they might not have - and I'm aware that the timeline you're looking at is at least 25 years from now - is the the industrial base and the economy, to really be a big player, to really influence events.

I live in South East Asia, and as far as I'm concerned, the countries to watch out for, the countries that will really be ''players'' are India and China. Yes, we can say that the Chinese economy is a bubble that will eventually burst or that the vast majority of China's 1 billion can't afford an I Phone or a Blackberry, nonetheless the country is moving at a very rapid pace. In 1945 who would have predicted that Germany, the U.S. and Italy would one day, be allies? who would have predicted, 2 decades ago, that one day the chinese economy would come close to overtaking the U.S. economy and that the chinese military would have mpre power projection cpabilities than many 1st World European countries?

Actually the PRC have a stated aim of replacing the US$ with the Renminbi - Yuan as a global trading currency in the next 25 - 30 years. They realise that in order to do that they have to "float the currency" and that at present there banking and finance systems are not able to handle a floating currency. They are gradually changing the banking and finance systems to bring them into line with a floating currency.

 

[Feanor]

Well you're watching the wrong country. Just ask yourself. Between the Chinese and Turks which has successfully influenced U.S. Military activity? Which is closest and capable of excercising direct influence in regions that directly impact US interest. Which is the US least likely to have leverage on?

Think about it...

-DA

Those are neither sufficient nor necessary factors. You need an ideological basis for the network of global alliances, and influence, that could allow for a Cold War. Again Turkey simply isn't large enough economically, militarily, demographically, or even geographically to serve as the center piece for something like that. Unless you are suggesting that they will rebuild the Ottoman Empire, and from there go on to taking over parts of Africa, Central Asia, and South Eastern Europe....

 

[DarthAmerica]

Those are neither sufficient nor necessary factors. You need an ideological basis for the network of global alliances, and influence, that could allow for a Cold War. Again Turkey simply isn't large enough economically, militarily, demographically, or even geographically to serve as the center piece for something like that. Unless you are suggesting that they will rebuild the Ottoman Empire, and from there go on to taking over parts of Africa, Central Asia, and South Eastern Europe....

I disagree. Please read the definition of a Cold War;

cold war - definition of cold war by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What say you now?

-DA

 

[Feanor]

I say that the definition is arbitrary at best. By second cold war, I believe it makes little sense to talk about a simple non-armed confrontation of interests between two powerful states. Note the following part: which existed between the United States and Soviet Union

This means that to have a second cold war, we would need a return of the Soviet Union. Since a cold war is a confrontation between the Soviet Union and the USA. Or more precisely this is the definition of THE Cold War that actually occurred, not of A cold war as a general classification. I suggest we write a definition before we continue this discussion. I propose the following: a Cold War is a heightened state of hostility between two major powers with an ideological as well as geopolitical and economic interest involved.

I don't disagree that Japan and Turkey are major powers in the future, and won't necessarily get along with the US but I don't think they will become ideological opposition to the US. Certainly not on a regional scale. Perhaps on a local one. Also it isn't about military power. The Soviet Union wasn't a party to the Cold War because it was militarily so powerful. That was a necessary condition, but far from sufficient. What made it an opponent to the US in the Cold War was an ideological confrontation, which involved multiple states.

Do you suggest that Japan will form some sort of regional coalition to oppose US interest in the area? Or do you think Turkey will assemble a regional military-political-economic alliance with a unified anti-US foreign policy vector?

 

[NICO]

I kind of have a problem with the notion of "cold war" with all these posts. Maybe because I am American and just feel the cold war was between 2 superpowers: USA and USSR. They had conflicting ideological, economical and military issues. Huge stockpiles of nukes, enough to destroy the world over numerous times. I am sorry guys but I just don't see in the next 20 or 30 years some kind of new arms race where we are going to build 40 SSBMs or hundreds of B52s, 1000 ICBMs. No one really has the money and I don't think even the inclination.

Ok, so China wants to make the yuan the new world money, sure it hurts USA but enough to start a "cold war"? let along a "hot war"? Maybe we need to come up with something better than "second cold war". It brings back memories that don't IMHO really match what we might see in the 20 or 30 years from now. USA has issues with China but do they amount to a "cold war", I don't think so, I think we need some other word for our relations.

I think the Turkey issue is wrong for a couple of reasons, Turkey is nowhere near to being some kind of "cold war" opponent. Like Feanor stated, Turkey just doesn't "match up" against the even a weakened USA in terms of economy, military, etc...
The other problem I see and I think we can use this for other "conflicts", historically hasn't the biggest threat to Turkey been Russia and vice versa? Not the USA or NATO. Couldn't one argue that if Turkey really did grow a lot bigger RUSSIA would be the counter weight to a resurgent Turkey? How many other countries/conflicts are like that where USA might be more of a bystander?

Again, we shouldn't always look at these conflicts as country XYZ versus USA as I get a feeling from a lot of posts. Lots of "conflicts" or disputes have little or nothing to do with the USA and probably have been around for a heck of long time. As an example and I am not saying this is official Chinese positions but just to show we shouldn't always think it is just about the USA, I have traveled a couple of times now to China and was really surprised when I saw TV shows and discussions (some translated thank god!) where it sure seemed to me India military was talked about for 45 minutes, Taiwan forces was talked for 10 and the last few minutes was about USA military. As an American which always hears how China is the threat, your first inclination is to expect the Chinese to reciprocate but from what I have seen and heard/talked to people, India is the main topic/country to go to war with China not USA versus China.

I think as the examples I have shown with Turkey or China, it isn't always about the USA having to fight everybody else. On the contrary, I think if the USA were smarter, we could be the king maker or use the conflicts to our advantage by "pitting" one country versus the other to further the USA interests. One really easy thing USA could have done in it's interest would have been for Congress to allow the sale of F22s to South Korea, Japan and Australia. Even if USA still stops buying F22s, all our "allies" against China would be equipped with a great fighter which should give some pause to an aggressive China. There are probably many "hard or soft" power tools at the disposal of USA to avoid or mitigate a "second cold war". Sure seems to me Chinese govt is a heck more worried about the potential of the internet to raise trouble with its population. Any Chinese communist govt is probably right to be worried about the internet or new breakthrough technologies like Google/Facebook etc in the long run versus the danger of a USN task force.

Again, lots of countries and not just the BRICs are growing and conflicts could arise but do they all involve the USA? Let's say Brazil or Columbia versus Venezuela? Is it a cold war between them? Relations aren't really hot, conflict could happen but when you think about why, it is mainly because of Hugo Chavez. I mean VZ was a very quiet, nice little country to its neighbors until he showed up, when he leaves, is there still grounds for conflict? Probably not. Does it necessary involve the USA? Maybe, maybe not.

In the end, I don't disagree that tensions and conflicts are on the horizon, just the term "second cold war" doesn't suit the world situation.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Feanor and NICO, are you simply choosing to ignore the definition of Cold War? Also what about current day Iran? Why does a cold war need to involve super powers?

-DA

 

[NICO]

Feanor and NICO, are you simply choosing to ignore the definition of Cold War? Also what about current day Iran? Why does a cold war need to involve super powers?

-DA

I don't want to speak for Feanor but for me Cold War was between USA and USSR, period. There is just too much history/connotation there to just use "cold war" in other situations also I don't think "cold war" is appropriate for what we are facing today.

You say Iran? I don't think it is a cold war between USA vs Iran. Iran govt and USA govt don't see eye to eye but does it match 1950s or 1960 USA/USSR death stare? Not even close. That's why I wouldn't call it a cold war between USA and Iran, tensions yes. I mean, have you seen the words "cold war" used in newspapers, TV or internet saying that? I have seen it a few times in WashPost but it really isn't that frequent compared to USA/USSR or popular everyday usage. I mean, when the cold war was on, everything else wasn't even a close second to USA vs USSR.
USA vs Iran is just one problem among many facing USA today, I wouldn't say it is the main one.

IMO, the "original" cold war was pretty simple. USA vs USSR. It was a two way affair, economically, politically, ideologically and militarily. But definitely today and absolutely in 20 or 30 years, you will have conflicts over religion, ethnicity, over commodities (oil,water, ore...),etc.... likely involving 3 or more players,... I don't think "cold war" the way it was used for 40 years covers all these future tension points. It reduces all these complexities and nuances to us vs them, it just doesn't work for me.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I don't want to speak for Feanor but for me Cold War was between USA and USSR, period. There is just too much history/connotation there to just use "cold war" in other situations also I don't think "cold war" is appropriate for what we are facing today.

You say Iran? I don't think it is a cold war between USA vs Iran. Iran govt and USA govt don't see eye to eye but does it match 1950s or 1960 USA/USSR death stare? Not even close. That's why I wouldn't call it a cold war between USA and Iran, tensions yes. I mean, have you seen the words "cold war" used in newspapers, TV or internet saying that? I have seen it a few times in WashPost but it really isn't that frequent compared to USA/USSR or popular everyday usage. I mean, when the cold war was on, everything else wasn't even a close second to USA vs USSR.
USA vs Iran is just one problem among many facing USA today, I wouldn't say it is the main one.

IMO, the "original" cold war was pretty simple. USA vs USSR. It was a two way affair, economically, politically, ideologically and militarily. But definitely today and absolutely in 20 or 30 years, you will have conflicts over religion, ethnicity, over commodities (oil,water, ore...),etc.... likely involving 3 or more players,... I don't think "cold war" the way it was used for 40 years covers all these future tension points. It reduces all these complexities and nuances to us vs them, it just doesn't work for me.

Well then you're clearly making up your own criteria. That's fine but I just showed you the literal definition. The Turkish issue is a long term problem. More interesting is that it seems you do not appreciate the challenge posed by Iran. You've got to understand that Iran is militarily incapable of stopping the USA. However politically and economically Iran carries enough weight that the US can't use overt military force outside of the most dire circumstances. Thusly the US/Allies and Iran wage economic and proxy war, careful to avoid open war. This defines a Cold War.

-DA

 

[NICO]

To DA:

Funny, while in the shower, the idea I disagree with you about Turkey gave me an ideal to explain why "second cold war" doesn't work for me. In the original cold war, it didn't matter what subject, where or what, USA vs USSR were in conflict. If Soviet adviser showed up in another country, USA was pissed off. If USA lost in chess, USSR was up a point. I guess it was even beyond just simple ideology. Also you knew who played on each team and there were only a few changes during 40 years of cold war. Egypt went from Soviets to USA with Sadat, Iran went rogue on USA, there might be some other ones but you get the point.

What about the future cold war? In your example of Turkey gaining strength, I replied Russia would be a natural and historical counter weight. Ok, let's forget Russia, so Turkey gets stronger and expands (not sure where but I am trying to use your idea) so Turkey threatens I don't know, Syria, Jordan or maybe Saudi Arabia? China gets already more oil from SA than USA, wouldn't China then be interested and well advised to help secure SA? Even if USA didn't buy a drop of SA oil in 20 years from now, I think USA would still come to the defense of SA which means USA and China's interest would line up on at least one point. So hypothetically USA and China could disagree on the yuan or South China Sea and have a lot of tensions "justifying a cold war" but then line up together to defend SA????? I don't think USA and USSR ever lined up together on anything during the real cold war.

Again, "cold war" wouldn't properly describe all the different permutations that we will see. Some countries will be our allies for certain objectives and then we will be adversaries on others. That's not a cold war.

 

[Feanor]

Feanor and NICO, are you simply choosing to ignore the definition of Cold War? Also what about current day Iran? Why does a cold war need to involve super powers?

-DA

Ok did you not bother reading my post? Re-read what I wrote in regards to the definition. It's arbitrary at best, and is a description rather then a definition. I proposed an alternative definition, one that better captures the essential factors that made a period of tensions a cold war.

One of these is that it involved more then just two countries staring off. There were two main actors, but a whole camp of secondary and tertiary actors on each side. Another is that the difference was not simply a difference of interests it was a difference of ideologies.

 

[ngatimozart]

Feanor and NICO, are you simply choosing to ignore the definition of Cold War? Also what about current day Iran? Why does a cold war need to involve super powers?

-DA

I am going to jump in on Nico and Feanors side. After much thought I agree with their definition. There was only truly one Cold War and it was the USA & the West Vs the USSR & the Warsaw Pact. The definition you seem to be holding a firm grasp of is only one of probably many. Myself if I was going to quote a definition I would probably use a more authorative source than a free web dictionary. Methinks that you're being a little inflexible regarding the definition. It is not holy writ. I cannot understand your reasoning for picking on Turkey. What have they done to offend you? Australia and my country have fought a war against Turkey and they were no push overs. In one campaign alone my country suffered 88% casualties and I think the Australian casualty rate would have been about the same. That is why ANZAC means a lot to us. Japan, well aren't they going through enough trouble at the moment with out any more being added? Iran - well personally I think the US should build a bridge and get over it. It was 30 years ago. Is it because of oil, just like Iraq?

Speaking of Iran I note that the president is making another power play and has appointed himself temporary Minister of Oil. The Parliament has sued him and taken him to the High Court alleging abuse of and overstepping his powers. Secondly he is going head to head against the Head Ayatollah who by all accounts controls the real power. But I don't see Iran as a clear and present danger to the US. To Israel maybe but not to the US. Thats another point why has Israel got the US twisted around it's little finger? If any other state do what the Israelis do to the Palestinians the US would be all over them like a rash.

Russia. You know actually the best thing the US and Europe could do would be to invite Russia into NATO. One, it would deal to Russia's suspicions about the missile defence shield and two, if China decided to move north and try and take all those nice resources in Siberia, a Russia that is part of NATO would give it great pause for thought (I know I thieved Tom Clancy's idea). But that solution would be elegant. In effect NATO would extend from the Pacific to the Pacific, i.e., across the top half of the northern hemisphere. It would also give Iran pause to think as well because it would have NATO on two borders not just one.

Japan. Well maybe take Japan into NATO as well, then NATO would be all around China except for the south and west. India is to the west and wary of China. But India also has problems with Pakistan so my thinking is at some stage the US is going to have to make a choice between India and Pakistan.

India. If I was making the choice I would go for India, because it is going to be a super power. Any state that is intent on building and operating 12 SSBNs has got to be classed as one. At the moment Pakistan has a lot of security problems, the main one being who controls the ISI. Secondly how much are the military and ISI penetrated by the militants like the Taliban and others? India doesn't have that problem because they have a firm hand on who does what. It is a lesson they learned from the British and they learned it well.

 

[STURM]

India and China are the 2 countries to watch out for. As it is, both countries have larger armed forces with more power projection capabilities than most 1st world European and Asian countries - the Turks dont are are making no attempt to do so. Also, Turkey simply does not have the economy or the industrial base these 2 countries have, as Feanor pointed out here -

Again Turkey simply isn't large enough economically, militarily, demographically, or even geographically to serve as the center piece for something like that. Unless you are suggesting that they will rebuild the Ottoman Empire, and from there go on to taking over parts of Africa, Central Asia, and South Eastern Europe....

Granted, Turkey will be a major player in the region and will exert major influence in the Middle East [even though it traditional has not had very good relations with the Arabs on account of its Ottoman past] and in the Causus region, which is in its backyard, but a global power that can challenge other powers?The reasons given by DA as to why Turkey in the future might be a 'problem', can also apply to a few other countries, with bigger economies and more resources.

But I don't see Iran as a clear and present danger to the US. To Israel maybe but not to the US. Thats another point why has Israel got the US twisted around it's little finger? If any other state do what the Israelis do to the Palestinians the US would be all over them like a rash.

Personally I don't see Iran as a danger to anyone. Despite its rhetoric Iran has no intention of striking at Israel, which anyhow would lead to national suicide. Iran's main priority is regime survival and protecting it's national interests. There has been so much talk in the mainstream press and by neo-con, right wing groups, as well as By Israel, regarding the threat posed by a nuclear Iran and about the danger that Iran might one day target the West with long range missiles, unfortunatly no one has asked the most obvious question - if unprovoked and un-attacked, why on earth would Iran resort to such measures?? The west's so called friends and ally's, the Gulf states, are spending billions on arms and are much less democratic than Iran, they all conspired and pumped millions into ensuring an Iraqi victory over Iran in the 1980's - yet why are they not seen as a threat to Iran?

In the unlikely event that relations are somewhat mended and the situation turns out for the better, what justification would the U.S. have for still stationing troops in the Middel East? As it is, the presence of western troops on Arab soil is a major rallying cry for most if not all extremist groups.

 

[Feanor]

Granted, Turkey will be a major player in the region and will exert major influence in the Middle East [even though it traditional has not had very good relations with the Arabs on account of its Ottoman past] and in the Causus region, which is in its backyard, but a global power that can challenge other powers?The reasons given by DA as to why Turkey in the future might be a 'problem', can also apply to a few other countries, with bigger economies and more resources.

I would dispute the comment about the Caucus. While Turkey has made significant inroads there, it remains largely a Russian backyard. 2008 was a clear demonstration.

 

[STURM]

I would dispute the comment about the Caucus. While Turkey has made significant inroads there, it remains largely a Russian backyard. 2008 was a clear demonstration.

Fair enough, my mistake, Russia remains the biggest player in the Caucasus region. I would revise my statement to say the the Caucasus is an area of great importance for Turkey as you pointed out, and that Turkey in the future will beyond doubt try to exert more influence there, as will Iran.

Feanor, out of curiosity which country is home to the largest number of Chechians outside of Chechnya, is it Turkey or are there more in Russia itself?

Also, do you know of any unbiased web sites that have info on the current situation in Chechnya? Do you know if there is still an active resistance movement there?

 

[Feanor]

Fair enough, my mistake, Russia remains the biggest player in the Caucasus region. I would revise my statement to say the the Caucasus is an area of great importance for Turkey as you pointed out, and that Turkey in the future will beyond doubt try to exert more influence there, as will Iran.

Feanor, out of curiosity which country is home to the largest number of Chechians outside of Chechnya, is it Turkey or are there more in Russia itself?

Also, do you know of any unbiased web sites that have info on the current situation in Chechnya? Do you know if there is still an active resistance movement there?

Chechnya is in Russia itself, so I'll assume you mean the rest of Russia. I don't know for a fact (try google ) but I suspect that the rest of Russia will have the largest numbers of Chechens outside of Chechnya. At least if Moscow is any indication.

I don't have any websites with unbiased info, and I doubt any exist, but judging by the relative rarity of terrorist attacks in Chechnya I think that there is very little if any resistance left there. There are however terrorist cells acting throughout the Russian North Caucus, and they occasionally stage attacks which can be something simple and stupid like firing a few RPGs at a police station, or as sophisticated and deadly as bombing Moscow subway stations. They are not an insurgency or guerrilla resistance so much as a (stereo-)typical terrorist network, most likely multiple ones.

 

[Tom Bryceland]

I haven’t totally decided where i sit on the issue of " Will there be, or is there a cold war with China and the USA" . But you need to think about this objectively.

The most publicised issue for China is Taiwan, Will it or Wont it Invade. In my opinion this would only happen to save face if Taiwan really started to push for full recognition and formal independence. As far as i can tell, Taiwan is politically stable at the moment and trade between the two countries is flourishing, i would expect this problem to decrease over the short term unless a new Taiwanese PM takes over and tries to stir things up.

I am very surprised that no one here has really talked about the issues that could start a future war, especially with China. Issues such as:-

Massive and uncontrolled Water Pollution on China's rivers. This is getting very serious now; drinking water for 500m+ people is at stake and constantly getting worse. There is a solution, but i will go into this a little later on.

Peak Oil, If the Well's do start to dry up, and the investment is not there to open up new fields, do you think China or any other country for that matter would take up arms to secure a foreign supply? Thinking along the lines of smaller African countries, where they are already building infrastructure.

Food Supply, specifically fish. a stable in the diet of SE Asia, But like everywhere else in the world, overfishing is killing off the stocks, this could be yet another reason for china to go on the offensive.

I think that if China were to go on the offensive to secure supplies, wither its Oil, Gas, Fish, Water, It should be Russia that is worried. Eastern Russia, Siberia could be the answer for them.

Do you really think the US would get involved if its two largest, historical enemies went into a hot war against each other?

I think the USA has nothing to worry about, as i said, taking into account China's power projection capability, the size of their land forces, the limitations of their navy etc, I would suggest they have been gearing up for this over any other scenario.

but....

If China was to embark on such an plan, it would need to do so in the next 10-15 years top. I think China is pretty much at the Peak of their power now. in 5 years time their population growth will finally tail off and start to decline. 2017 would be the ideal year of action for China.

But what really concerns me, and keeps me awake at night is this. China has a plan, China is a Plan. The Central government is stable, Far-sighted and has everything it needs to achieve massive undertakings that no other country in the world can do.

Democracy has the flaw of only ever being able to plan a few short years in advance, as governments change, so does its policies, focus and most importantly allocation of funding. By definition almost, democracies just cannot commit to the far sighted, monumental, strategic planning that China has exhibited constantly over the last 20 years. But what Else does this plan include?

Surely a country that can plan as well as it has, not be blind to the challenges of Water, Food and Oil that it will no doubt encounter in the next few years.

What’s exactly is China's Plan for this?

At least with western democracies, you can be assured that there is no underlying nefarious scheme of world domination, planned at least....



p.s.

Been a lurker here for many years, loved the discussions and finally decided to register.

 

[STURM]

I Surely a country that can plan as well as it has, not be blind to the challenges of Water, Food and Oil that it will no doubt encounter in the next few years.

What’s exactly is China's Plan for this?

Rapid urbanisation, rising populations, dwindling food and water resources are problems faced by many countries at the moment and the problem is set to get worse. And that is exactly why over the past few years it has been rapidly investing in parts of Africa, where its influence is at an all time high. A major advantage of dealing with China, for many countries, is that Chinese aid and diplomatic relationships don't come with any moral or humanitarian baggage attached, like those from the West. In China's case, it has a huge need for oil to meet its national needs - oil that has to be imported through chokepoints, that can be disrupted, in areas that are controled by countries aligned with the U.S. And that is largely why it is building a deep water port in Pakistan and has major influence in places like Myanmmar.

For me at least the greatest potential for a conflict flaring up is the Spratleys. Unlike the case with Taiwan there are no clear defined national waters that are agreed upon by all sides. A minor incident involving a Chinese vessel and that of another claiment could rapidly spiral out of control.

 

[martyn]

But what really concerns me, and keeps me awake at night is this. China has a plan, China is a Plan. The Central government is stable, Far-sighted and has everything it needs to achieve massive undertakings that no other country in the world can do.

Democracy has the flaw of only ever being able to plan a few short years in advance, as governments change, so does its policies, focus and most importantly allocation of funding. By definition almost, democracies just cannot commit to the far sighted, monumental, strategic planning that China has exhibited constantly over the last 20 years. But what Else does this plan include?


At least with western democracies, you can be assured that there is no underlying nefarious scheme of world domination, planned at least....

Not sure I agree with your analysis here Tom.

All states have permanent interests, and so called democracies may change governments, but they rarely change policy in any radical sense. The UK is an island dependent on maritime trade and sea routes, with global economic interests and an Atlanticist perspecitve - it makes no difference who is in government, none of that is going to change.

Any objective analysis of the last few decades would surely indicate that the US is the only state with either the capability or the intent of world domination. I think it's a mistake in any analysis to assume that democracies are somehow benign and short termist whilst authoritarian regimes are malevolent planners. As I said before, I believe that all states have quasi permanent interests which they pursue, or ought to, most of the time.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Chino,

I'm sorry but putting dates on things like this is not how professional defense analysis/threat assessment works. China is a powder keg and will reach the point were domestic unrest ignites over the next 20 years. The results will be a catastrophe and the process is ALREADY in progress and has been for the last 20 years. China in it's current incarnation is not going to last. You'll take care to note the IED attacks there last week. There isn't going to be a "we can all come in and see" moment. You need to be seeing it now or be just as shocked as people were when the Berlin Wall fell or on 9/11/01...

-DA

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!