Let me try:

The clear and future threat that China poses to the US over the next 2-3 decades is one of control, whereby China as an equal, or greater, superpower, would wield the same, or greater, power within what it perceives as its "sphere of influence" as the US does in the Western hemisphere / Western world. This does not mean that China will invade all the countries around it with its military but rather that all the countries around it (apart from cuba-like countries (but in reverse, i.e. countries that are pro american (Japan, Australia))) will do what they are told. While the US control may be less visible to some the Chinese control would probably be more blunt at times. Regardless, China would use both a carrot and a stick similar to how the US does its business. ALL of that would culminate in a move to force the US out of the Asian continent entirely, and create 2 global axis (we already have something like that) which the US will refuse, and therefore they are trying to find out in the current period how to stop this Chinese rise.

do you agree with this assessment?

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 16 2023 10:22am

US also mostly take the decision because of... USSR advance...

----

China is increasing its military. Russia is going nuclear more than ever. North Korea & Iran are increasing their capacities.
I see no reason why these authoritarian nightmare regimes would have a big red button while the nearby freeworld countries would have not.

This is a question of immediate response in case of invasion or attack: USA impersonate it more or less, but growing threats means necessary evolution (unfortunately).

US would NOT be "fucked"; it will still have a role to play, with submarines to complete deterrence(s), in conventional war, and in intelligence (which is becoming more and more important).
Same than Europe, btw as reminder France and UK have nuclear deterrence, US still have its bases (a bit less thos).

May add the major economic relationship which would only getting consolidated.

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Feb 16 2023 10:23am

you are endorsing nuclear proliferation. this is not a negative, just a statement of fact. its a bit like a secret. its too much for 1, just right for 2, and too much for 3, let alone 30. I dont have the answer to this view but it certainly means we will live in dangerous times, which is a belief held by certain individuals (me included).



I think what hamster was trying to tell you was that if Japan had nuclear weapons they would say goodbye to the US and they would forge their own path, without the US, which would infringe on US interests.

feel free to correct me.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 16 2023 10:28am

90% agree.

If, in the future , a personality who is much less hawkish or hard as Xi takes over. Then the blunt part will be minimized and more carrot than stick.
If we consider Taiwan as a country than perhaps that will be the only country it will " invade".
The Chinese want to control sea route to ensure their energy security.
But whether will they do something similar like the United States whereby they intervene directly or indirectly in domestic politics or " Regime" Change is yet to be seen, there is no guarantees that they will not. But as of now, they are non interventionist. They don't need to be blunt to surrounding countries to ask them to do what they are being told. As a matter of fact, they are trying not to follow the foreign policy that the USA is currently employing in their sphere of influence.

I am not sure if I answered correctly.

well to be sure the playbook adopted by the US in say, Italy, (where the US has repeatedly undermined fair elections) would also be used in China in say, Taiwan, as it is being done currently in Australia.

No, you answered that as expected, and I agree. they dont need to use a big stick most of the time because their carrots taste so good.

In Ireland, in conflict with the english, an element took up arms. a branch thought that they could win via talking, i.e. by getting elected, and they went to the military wing to convince them. this is what they said:

its ok to have the gun in 1 hand, and a government endorsement of our position in the other hand. i.e. we dont have to do it by force of arms, we dont have to fight each other, we all want the same thing, we can do it peacefully via the political process, and if we also have a gun, well thats ok too.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 16 2023 10:37am

yes, Meanwhile doesn't understand, if you read what he writes is always about ideologue " free world " Authoritarian " etc etc etc.

If Japan / Taiwan have that sort of capabilities. They will sit down and do more trade and be less antagonistic towards China. As a matter of fact both countries aren't exactly antagonistic towards China.
Just look at the previous Taiwan President and his relationship with China. It was pretty darn good.

Abe on the other hand was a bit more aggressive but the relationship wasn't that bad.
A lot of this confrontation in recent years is to keep inline with United States Foreign policy towards up and coming China.

And you, are you endorsing Iran & North korea ? Again the same: Down your pants or Get deterrence.
Your choice.



That I perfectly understand the argument, and my answer was that Japan and South Korea would definitely count on the rest of the free world support and not isolate themselves with their nukes.
Things have changed since 80 years... Like EU: as reminder France and UK have nuclear deterrence and US still have their bases + major economic relationship.

This is NATO countries anyway. Btw next trigger would be: Taiwan to join NATO



It would arrange you if it was that, right ?

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Feb 16 2023 10:41am

This is similar to what you posted the other day. You are taking words from my post, jumping to an assumption and responding without fully taking in what i said. I will say it again, but I will bold the relevant parts:

"you are endorsing nuclear proliferation.this is not a negative, just a statement of fact. its a bit like a secret. its too much for 1, just right for 2, and too much for 3, let alone 30. I dont have the answer to this view but it certainly means we will live in dangerous times."

This is not an endorsement of rogue dangerous states but rather a reflection that the more people that have nuclear weapons, the closer we will be to a nuclear war.

I will find the other post from the other day and repost it when i get a minute.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 16 2023 10:42am

law of stronger > of the law of weaker . natural law are the best.

Once agains (seems you have reading issues): It is the immediate, sovereign, deterrence question because threats are growing.
Unfortunately some countries do not have the privilege to wait passively. I will not oppose Japan, South Korea, to have nuclear-nuclear submarines (that's a nice example).
It could even be a nice advantage in NATO collaboration.