Well said. America might posture but in time the Chinese economic power will simply tower over even USA. This will be enough to calm down animated USA and like a old man will retire on the rocking chair and live on it's past. I don't think there will be war. USA has never had a war with a equal.
The war devastated Britain, what was left was a shadow of its former self, colonies were given up, British power was at an end, regardless of whether America was better or not, especially since America had surpassed Britain, long before. America is not going to be devastated, nor is it going to be a former shadow of itself. It will just not be the sole power in the world. Which leads me to my question.
Just like UK accepted it was time to slowly give up the throne so will US although expect lot of posturing. The real battle will be fought on the economic front. As long as China keeps moving forward on the economic front the staggering impetus of that will sober USA and everybody east or west will slowly get pulled into Chinese economic gravitas ...
Just my two pennies ....
The UK faced the real task of taking on a power even greater than Nazi Germany, far greater, in Soviet Russia, had they NOT handed the reigns to America.
So the question is, had there not been a real threat of the Soviet Union, would the UK be so willing, if you will, to give up that title as the leader of the West to the Americans, even having been reduced to a pitiful state.
The main point is not the power gradient of one versus the other under during those 2 different situations or timelines. The smart way to go would it have been for china to continue same as before, don't make enemies, make friends, continue building up the economy and the military and then, most likely everything comes their way by default and maybe a confrontation can even be avoided because of economic reasons or other reasons even outside of china's control.
Xe is impatient, he wants to achieve his goals NOW, even that china is not fully prepared to take on US militarily, something that could be very different in 15 years as an example. He is taking a big risk and yes, it does matter when the confrontation happens, its like winning or losing, big difference.
How others perceive China is also very important and this situation made a big difference on that.
Look at Japan 5 years ago and look at Japan now, who gave Japan the reasons for those changes? Changes that are not good for China. Same story at play.
There is the smart way to do things (China's former policy) and the foolish, very risky way of doing things (Xe's present policy).
Everything comes our way by default. Answer me this, would the Americans simply LET everything to come together for us?
In the end I don't think it will go much further than it has, unless you think America will risk a nuclear war, over its allies, as long as China doesn't actually send troops to anyone's capital. Obvious I'm not saying it will get nuclear if it happens, but the possibility exists and America needs to and has accounted for it.
I guess if you think America will go full force into China now, rather than later, that would make sense, but I guess we differ on that.
So let me ask you a direct question, what would the Americans do NOW that can DEFINITIVELY change how China will progress in the areas I listed. If they can't, we can still do what you said later, just from a different starting point.
Side note, Japan hasn't really changed, because it didn't become stronger by doing this, it just moved side ways. It didn't increase their overall government budget, just how much they are spending on military, they just put funds from somewhere to somewhere else, a lateral move, if there ever was any.
I think they do get it. I mean the Chinese leadership. Compared to their power and GDP they have have been rather shy and mute on the world scene. On the whole China has presented a very retiring and meek giant. A Panda if you will rather than a roaring tiger. The reality is whatever China does the mere fact that it is rising like colossus out of water is sending shock waves across the world and the "tiger on the hill" is nervous.
So unless China goes back to where it was inthe 1980s and the colossus sinks back in the water she will attract unwarrented attention and issues will be made out of non issues. Do you recal Colin Powel doing the "method acting" in UN before the Iraq war with the stupid test tube to show the world in a dramatic way that Iraq had chemical weapons when there were non.
Sometimes being who you are can attract the wrong type of attention ....
My point exactly, America will always find an excuse to do this that and the other thing, because we are not innocent in this world and to advance we need to do some shady things.
The people here are arguing that by doing nothing(what they don't mention is, to do that we be bending to their will, look at the claims map of SCS again) , we will automatically get to where we are with no interference from the US and possible help.
This can only happen if the US is willing to simply let us take the throne, because they have to be a good boy during the entirety of our rise, which is still a few decades away.
So why shouldn't China cash in now, and since we be in conflict either way, why let the Americans dictate the initiative, why not take somethings, and make it easier for the future, set the ground work. We would need to start somewhere regardless.
