Many in the world will agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
If I was overseas, I would view much of American history with great admiration, but make my decisions based upon American actions since WWII and place more emphasis on the more recent events. It would then be prudent to reach the same conclusion as JMA.
Prudent for sure, wrong quite probably. Misjudgement of the US and what it can or will do has led to most of our wars...
I doubt that will change in the near future.
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.
Ask not for whom the booth tolls...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
You said "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... ". From the context it seems you meant the US overcoming embarrassment but now you say the nation does not but some in the nation do. I get it now...no, I don't.
Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...
Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.
Quote:
Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land.
Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns. ;)
Quote:
They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too.
For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere. I doubt that will change in the next twenty to thirty years.
Quote:
I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital. The various history books I read superficially make that clear.
Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...
Et Tu? :D
Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?
Quote:
Everybody had better support them, or they will hear that midnight knock. We will have to disagree again.
Works for me...
Quote:
Now that is some rhetorical technique. Just argue that the world is going to go the way you say, fairly rapidly, and when it does boy will the ground be cut out from under me.
Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF. :wry:
Quote:
... I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree....
Noted. We often disagree. Time will tell.
The Department of Lakes, Rivers and Oceans knows where there are none...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Yes Ken and the Chinese will have realised that they must not provoke the US until they have reached the military level to back it up.
Quite astute of you and the esteemed Asian gentlemen...:D
Quote:
I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to...
I'm sure your advice for them is as well received as it by us here...
Quote:
The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.
Mmmm. Loser? Quite doubtful. Self destruct -- almost certainly.
Quote:
I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).
Heh. Not likely. They do need to learn Spanish, though. You need a map refresher...:D