Realism vs Idealism ... in International Relations
This thread seems to me (not a criticism, just saying) a good example showing the two international relations "schools" in action: Realism in international relations and Idealism in international relations.
Perhaps, the instincts for the two schools are basic to the human male: one sleeps with $luts; one marries madonnas. Of course, in the first case, neither party should expect a long-term relationship (generally, "Pretty Woman" is a fairy tale). And similarly, the "Realistic School" does not include long-term cooperation or alliance as a general rule in its playbook. Since the "Idealistic School" looks to long-term cooperation or alliance as a desired end, the end of an alliance will be looked at quite differently by the two parties if one is focused on "realism" and the other on "idealism".
Regards
Mike
"Talk to your Tax preparer..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
...Better to throw the dice and decide that way.
That can be quite true, barring an existential threat. :wry:
Quote:
One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.
Wrong. You can do that and others will join you. Probably cost all of you in the long run...
Many others will be smarter. For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact... :D
We disagree. How very odd...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
I think you are wrong.
Could be. It happens. Rarely... :D
Quote:
It has everything to do with Pacific strategy and international relations. On the international relations front...
All true. Also true is that it would not be the first time or probably the last if it did occur. We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... :wry:
Quote:
As far as Pacific strategy goes...Very good for the PLAN, very bad for the USN.
The 'Pacific Strategy' is a chameleon (or, more correctly, chimeric) but it, too, revolves mostly around US domestic politics. As for the good and bad, it could superficially appear to be as you write. In actuality and in the long term, just the opposite is more likely to be true. ;)
I suspect the Chinese know that and thus, while they'll bluster and some there will press for confrontation, as a nation, fortunately, they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.
The prob is not the Pacific lake, it's the crisis center on the Potomac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Geography is a tough thing and the configuration of the world can't be changed.
True. It's noteworthy that no one else has been able come anywhere close to our ability to use that to an advantage. No one, though the Chinese are working on that. I doubt they will succeed in your lifetime. No other nation will be able to afford to try, barring a European Union -- also unlikely in your lifetime. ;)
Quote:
We very well may get over the embarrassment, it is hard to embarrass somebody with no shame...
Again, let me remind you that nations are not people; they don't get embarrassed or get shamed -- only some of the people within the nation may be embarrassed. That, as is said, is their problem... :wry:
Quote:
.. but that hole in the barrier of islands won't be so easy to overcome. Politics, internal, external, our or theirs, the map won't look so good for the USN hence the Japanese and everybody else.
I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.
Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive. :rolleyes:
Quote:
As an additional surprise for you, I think you are wrong also when you say this about Red China "they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys."...Totalitarian police states have proven to be mostly quite poor at figuring the best long term course of action. Maybe the ChiComs will be different, I would guess not.
I suggest that most nations, even the very democratic ones and certainly including the US and most of the rest of the so-called western world have problems determining the best long term courses of action. As Niels Bohr said "Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future." Actually, that's probably an old Confucian adage -- from China. Errors by the Chinese because they are communist and a totalitarian state aren't really the potential problem; that they are Chinese and have some very significant problems of their own which are not attributable to their governance and which they try to conceal from outsiders are the factors that will force them to a pragmatic solution and because they are totalitarian at this time, everyone in the country will at least on the surface support what is done. If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian fairly rapidly, that won't change my prediction about the possible future -- but it hamstrings yours. ;)
OTOH and regrettably, our politicians have shown a complete willingness to disregard obvious consequences for short term political gain and our electorate is too fragmented to force the issue. That's true today. A couple of years may make a difference but I'm skeptical. As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.