[komali2]

I don't understand how "national security concerns" is not a valid risk. Of all the countries in the world, China is 1 of 2 that are actually capable of standing up to US military might, and the only real advantage the US has is a more robust intelligence system via satellites. Satellites that for example can early detect missile launches, track missiles, guide missiles, etc.

If I was a US military adviser I would absolutely be putting full pressure on avoiding any situation that gives the Chinese or the Russians more insight or access to the space program.

I think war and military stuff is stupid and antithesis to the advancement of the human race, but I can see how someone who's job it is to be concerned about that sort of thing is very concerned about that sort of thing.

[794CD01]

When you get to the point where you truly think it's a problem that someone else on the planet could potentially "stand up to you," it's time to reevaluate your own behavior.

[CountSessine]

Why?

As a non-American, I would much rather have the US in that role than any other country in the world. In diplomacy and international relations the United States has conducted itself with fairness and honour, and is generally regarded outside of her borders as an honest broker.

If you want to know what the world would look like without a strong, democratic, law-abiding nation as supreme military power, read up on recent news about the South China Sea and the 11-dash line. Look at the honesty and even-handedness with which America has approached border disputes with it's neighbours, and then look at what Japan, Vietnam, and the Phillipines are up against. In the world view of China's leaders, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

[finid]

> In diplomacy and international relations the United States has conducted itself with fairness and honour, and is generally regarded outside of her borders as an honest broker.

That's an excellent propaganda piece. You deserve a medal for that.

> If you want to know what the world would look like without a strong, democratic, law-abiding nation as supreme military power, read up on recent news about the South China Sea and the 11-dash line.

You can say that because your country has not been invaded by US and the "international community", or the "Coalition of the Willing", to get rid of your government - by all means necessary. Assad of Syria, Saddam and Muammar Gaddafi will no doubt disagree with your characterization of the US as a "law-abiding nation". Ditto for many South American countries.

[digdigdag]

> As a non-American, I would much rather have the US in that role than any other country in the world. In diplomacy and international relations the United States has conducted itself with fairness and honour, and is generally regarded outside of her borders as an honest broker.

The following groups or countries may argue otherwise - Sandinista National Liberation Front - Cubans - Certain Arab countries - Mexico - Pacific Islanders - Certain North African nations - Certain Central African nations - The Cherokee Nation - Certain Far East nations

[794CD01]

In diplomacy and international relations, the US has killed countless civilians, used nuclear weapons, launched unjustified invasions of other countries, deposed democratically elected foreign leaders for opposing American interests, and to this day spies on everyone we possibly can. Maybe you're the one who should do some more reading. Or at least watch a movie.

If you think the US has behaved better than other countries, that's reasonable. But that's not the same as behaving well. And a far cry from behaving well enough to be entrusted with "supreme military power".

[CountSessine]

In diplomacy and international relations, the US has killed countless civilians

The United States has also conducted at least 4 wars since the end of World War II; should America be condemned for not having smart bombs in the Korean war?

, used nuclear weapons

...to end World War II and save countless lives, US and Japanese, by avoiding an invasion of Japan. Just the fact that the US was able to end the horrible incendiary bombing of Japanese cities and force Japan's truculent leaders into immediate surrender argues that the use of nuclear weapons in World War II saved far more lives than it cost.

But historical revisionism wins out against lost memories of the worst war ever fought and only barely won.

, launched unjustified invasions of other countries, deposed democratically elected foreign leaders for opposing American interests

The United States is tremendously powerful, and yet generally acts with restraint. And would the world have been better off if more countries had allied themselves with the Soviet Union?

, and to this day spies on everyone we possibly can.

If American power and influence has created a world so stable and peaceful that there are Polly-Annas who believe that espionage isn't universal and endemic among all nations, then that is a very good thing in my opinion.

But that's not the same as behaving well. And a far cry from behaving well enough to be entrusted with "supreme military power".

Nature and international relations abhors a vacuum; no one 'entrusted' the United States to the role they now occupy. Would you be happier if China filled this vacuum?

[kuschku]

> I would much rather have the US in that role than any other country in the world

You would rather see people like Trump gain the power over that, than a possible future federated Europe?

[CountSessine]

You would rather see people like Trump gain the power over that, than a possible future federated Europe?

I would take Donald Trump or anyone currently involved in Federal US politics over Xi Xinping or Vladimir Putin. Is that what you're asking?

And a federated Europe is now a given. Brexit is an existential challenge for Europe; with federation's most vocal opponent now out and with the fundamental moral hazard of endless Greek bail-outs still an issue, the EU will federate or eventually dissolve.

[knowaveragejoe]

To play devil's advocate, suppose we re-evaluated our own behavior and "stepped down" from that position. It would be great if nobody stepped in to fill that void, but they would without a doubt.

[794CD01]

That hypothetical situation is so far divorced from reality that it's impossible to say anything useful about it. Right now, the US spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined. A world in which those tables were turned would look very little like ours.

[knowaveragejoe]

So then why suggest it's time to "reevaluate one's own behavior"? What would that achieve?

[794CD01]

Hopefully convincing people not to unnecessarily demonize those we should be collaborating with.

[umanwizard]

Why?

Any country in the world would love to be in the position of security that the US occupies. Any one.

Why shouldn't we do everything we can to hold on to that treasure we have?

[794CD01]

You should if you're an ambitious self-interested sociopath. Personally, I'm not, and I don't think my country should be, but hey, agree to disagree.

[fweespeech]

Most of Europe doesn't act like us or behave like us and are pretty "secure" from a national security perspective.

The only power that really matters is economic power and, honestly, military strength doesn't really help with that past the point you are roughly equal to everyone else.

[eternalban]

> I don't understand how "national security concerns" is not a valid risk.

Why did Western leadership adopt the policy of technology transfer to Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party?

If there is a "national security concern" then we can thank the likes of CFR membership and their fellow travelers [1], and continual transfer of American technology to PRC/CCP by successive US administrations and our "allies".

[1]: http://www.cfr.org/china/history-declassified-nixon-china/p7...

http://www.psychedinsanfrancisco.com/wp-content/uploads/2014...

[edit/grammar]

[Retric]

Most countries are happy to spend 1/2 the US's GDP % on national defense. The EU has both a larger economy and a larger population so it could easily support a larger military. But, doing so is basically pointless as for example crushing Iraq had zero benefit to the US and countries that matter have nukes.

[enraged_camel]

>>Of all the countries in the world, China is 1 of 2 that are actually capable of standing up to US military might, and the only real advantage the US has is a more robust intelligence system via satellites.

Umm, no. Modern military power is all about the ability to project that power, and that means aircraft carriers. The USA has 11. China has only 1 (and it's an old, shitty one).

[ceejayoz]

Carriers may be the battleships of WWII.

https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-...

> The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.

[CountSessine]

> The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.

That's a terrifying assessment, and tells us that if there was a war, we don't really know what anyone would be fighting it with. Perhaps the only thing we can feel good about is that if the US has been wasting its military budget on aircraft carriers, China appears to be pretty eager to emulate this mistake.

[foota]

Power projection is more important for their capabilities in smaller conflict, esp against nations with less submarine capability. Many strategists believe carrier groups are at a heavy disadvantage against modern submarines.

[ravenstine]

@komali2 You're kidding, right? China is a world power, for sure, but even they know that the US would kick their assets in every way. They have potentially more foot-power, but the US could get away without ground troops at this point. The GPS satellites, the ones that the US owns and are used by every other nation, could be easily shut off or locked if China started a conflict. Sure, they might try to launch their own, but that takes a lot of time and money, and wouldn't be too difficult to sabotage. The US has like, what, 11 aircraft carriers? Last I read, China had 1 and it was a hand-me-down from Russia. The US, as of this last year, has laser technology to shoot down missiles, and I don't think even Russia has this yet. China owns part of the US's debt in treasury bonds, which only the US can honor; so if they want their money to start building up to a war, the US could basically say no and there'd be little that China could do about it. China will do what they can to stay a world power, but it doesn't make financial sense for them to compete militarily with the US when they can profit from competing with the US economy. While the Chinese economy has waxed and waned, like anything else, they have done exceptionally well being an economical force rather than a militant one. I think this can be shown in the fact that many quality products are being produced by Chinese companies, which wasn't really happening a decade ago. Now they are at a point where they can take advantage of certain foolish decisions that the US has made that have stalled it's scientific research, like dismantling large portions of the space program and putting heavy regulations on stem cell research, to name a few. I am making a prediction here, but I think far more scientific advancements will be coming from China in the decades to come. And I think that's a very good thing.

[serf]

> Of all the countries in the world, China is 1 of 2 that are actually capable of standing up to US military might, and the only real advantage the US has is a more robust intelligence system via satellites.

citation?

From what i've read/heard the Chinese military may be second or third in might, but the drop is so steep so as to not compare to first place holder.

Chomsky sure as hell paints that picture, at least.

[tn13]

Unlike Russia or Islamic Terrorists China has a very clear cut objective of expanding its boundaries. It first captured Tibet then parts of India and now it is claiming South China sea.

China is clearly number 1 and very alive threat to USA and americans would be wise to be skeptical about China at all steps.