And good fucking luck "crippling" the strength of a nation who's population comprises 17% of the world's population, and who is basically a stand-in for "overseas manufacturing" due the sheer ubiquity of it.
the point of overseas interventions isn't usually to win, it's to make the other guy lose or spend more. our military is finally moving in the direction of attritability - it took those last 12 interventions to learn, i guess - but we should be able to more effectively bleed china dry. she can have as large a population as she wants, she can be the world's factor for cheap garbage, the concern is ensuring she can't have an advanced economy.
i'm not saying this will come without some level of pain for America. the nineties clinton "end of history" types were buffoons to think china was anything but a malignancy on the international order and should have cut her out from the start. but it's too late for that now, the cancer has spread and this means global economic chemo. it will hurt, but it's massively less bad than what our people would experience in the alternative situation.
You do raise an interesting thought experiment. A word that has passed the US by. It is so difficult to fathom. The Chinese people seem to be producing wonders as evidenced by this recent interview with Asianomoetry[1]: https://youtu.be/pE3KKUKXcTM?t=2019
They took an old node and managed to squeeze more out of it than any of the western firms could do. This is some serious talent and skill. Its also making me think the sanctions are backfiring in some regard.
However the Chinese system is on shaky ground. Their demographics are horrendous and immigration to plug the gaps is not likely. Furthermore can their system really tolerate failure and embarrassment? This is one aspect where the USSR really fell short and the US shines. Accepting Failure is tolerated, its part of the US culture whereas the USSR was obsessed with saving face. China seems to really understand rapid iteration well though. They studied and learned from the mistakes of the USSR.
>i'm not saying this will come without some level of pain for America. the nineties clinton "end of history" types were buffoons to think china was anything but a malignancy on the international order and should have cut her out from the start. but it's too late for that now, the cancer has spread and this means global economic chemo. it will hurt, but it's massively less bad than what our people would experience in the alternative situation.
Is it really even possible to keep the 17.7% of the world population from aspiring to be at the top while trying to preserve the wealth of 4% of the worlds population? That dam was going to break regardless of whatever the neoliberals did in the 90s.
Hell the global south are the majority and they are kept from reaching to the top quintile. Its just seems inevitable.
they can aspire all they want. the issue is when they attempt to do so to the detriment of Americans. there are some scarce resources that will only ever be enjoyed by the people in that top quintile. it is both the practical and moral obligation of the U.S. government to ensure we, not they, remain in that top quintile and secure scarce resources for our own people before any others. the global south may contain the majority of sets of hands, but the west continues to control the lion's share of human capital, wealth, and military equipment. we ought to continue using those to maintain them.
there's no issue with the wealth of everyone growing as the world improves. but we must continue to secure those critical scarce resources for our own first, and that requires that even if the south grows in wealth, we exert all available power and influence to ensure we grow faster.
second place sucks. since there will always be a second place, it's our job to avoid it at all costs.
As we act now? No I strongly suspect not, because standard American foreign policy of the last roughly eighty years has been swinging our massive dick around and screwing over every other nation on planet Earth, economically, financially, militarily, or some combination of the three.
Let me posit an opposing question: What right does America, one fucking country, in one part of the world, that isn't particularly large, have to basically dictate world geopolitic as we have for decades at this point? What right does America have to say China cannot have an "advanced economy"? Who appointed us? Who elected us? Most importantly, who are we accountable to and who must be justify those kinds of statements to? Or is it literally just down to the fact that we have the biggest bombs on the planet? I don't know, genuinely, what the consequences are of a world that is not headed by the United States, but to get really honest here, the US is not doing a great job in that regard anyway. Would I want North Korea at the helm? Obviously not. But I don't ascribe even remotely that level of hostility to the state of China.
And to continue to be blunt, ARE Americans doing so well as your question presupposes? Because I kinda think we're getting screwed in a lot of ways, and I grant, not as hard as people elsewhere in many cases, but also uniquely hard to other people of other developed nations in specific ways. I, personally, would much prefer that instead of lighting trillions of defense dollars on fire year over year to continue inflating the aforementioned massive dick that we wave around the world all the time, be put instead towards fixing... hell, any of the major problems America actually HAS. And like, take your pick. Healthcare, Infrastructure, Education, Poverty, just to name the four biggest that immediately come to mind. Hell maybe we just give up new tanks for one year and make sure everyone in Flint, Michigan can have WATER without any goddamn lead in it.
I am exhausted of the narrative that the world, the whole WORLD, will topple over dead if America isn't in charge. America has BEEN in charge, defacto, since the end of World War 2. LOOK AROUND!!!
we are accountable to the American people. and yes, a huge chunk of influence is due to us having the biggest bombs. other parts are due to continual largesse, from the Marshall plan post-wwii to the continued support of the IMF and World Bank today.
i agree Americans aren't doing as well as we could be. my question is not whether America at the head of the world is doing a perfect job, it's whether specifically Americans will do better under a different system. the chinese one freaking sucks. it's anti-liberty. mainland chinese have no rights to free speech, to bear arms, to equal protection and due process. there is only the party.
flint's water has been clean for four years btw. we spend the balance of our budget on non-military matters. defense is less than one-quarter of our spend. perhaps you should examine why we are lighting so much money on fire, primarily to provide outsized levels of healthcare to people who choose to live poorly and to subsidize the old people who already own most of the wealth in the country. perhaps instead, we means-test social security. surely we can wait until boomers have spent down the value of their million-dollar homes before we start cutting them checks each month.
the world, the whole world, is a hell of a lot better than it was post-wwii. America has led the world, and most importantly, ourselves, to an age of prosperity that has never before existed. if we want to keep our wealth, our liberty, our way of life, it is essential we use any means necessary to keep any other nation from ever surpassing us in power.
Ha! How many civilians have been killed in the last 50 years by the american military vs the Chinese?
here are some civilian deaths within china:
- land reform killed 1-4.7 million
- campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries killed 712k-2mm
- three-anti and five-anti campaigns killed at least 100k
- sufan movement killed ~53k
- anti-rightist campaign killed 550k-2mm
- '59 tibetan uprising killed 87k
- violence in the great chinese famine killed 2.5mm
- socialist education movement killed 77k
- guanxi massacre killed 100-150k
- inner mongolia incident killed 15-100k
- yangjiang massacre killed 3.5k
- daoxian massacre killed 9k
- ruijin massacre killed 1k
- zhao jianmin spy case killed 17k
- shadian incident killed 1.6k
- tiananmen square protests & massacre killed 200-10k
that's just a sample. this doesn't show the ongoing genocides, the economic colonization of SE asia and africa, the abuses of chinese-supported states (DPRK, burmese junta, naval intervention in libya, etc.)
objectively the American system seems to work out much better and is based on vastly superior principles.
all that aside, I am an American and place the interests of my people ahead of those of foreigners. as such, I will support a world order led by the government most likely to maximize our welfare and very nearly any means needed to preserve that.
> all that aside, I am an American and place the interests of my people ahead of those of foreigners. as such, I will support a world order led by the government most likely to maximize our welfare and very nearly any means needed to preserve that.
The last sentence you said explained what you said above, it also explained many other *Amerikkans* minds
Interestingly, even the most loyal and fervent American imperialists have to find some ridiculous moral excuses.
Despise your hypocrisy, but appreciate your honesty.
China is the powerhouse it is today because it was essentially funded by US greed.
It's actually pretty funny (if I look at it like a movie script rather than real life - which is a coping mechanism) watching the US tying itself into pretzel shapes around things like free speech and general values of "freedom" that it's espoused for it's couple of centuries because it's chickens (bats?) have come home to roost, and they're shitting everywhere making people unhealthy.