[adventured]

The US inherited its superpower role by default, due to the destruction that occurred in WW2. It was the last power standing and had the resources to expand into the vacuum left behind. It didn't seek that status out, it was dropped in the US lap. Nobody would have defined the US as a global superpower in 1930. The US had to be pulled out of its shell for WW2 (a shell a sizable percentage of the population would like to return to now). The reason the US positioned its large troop contingent in Europe and formed NATO, was due to WW2 and the cold war that followed, trying to hold off the Soviet Union from further annexation of Europe. The politicians in DC are now interested in preserving that superpower status of course, long after the death of the USSR.

China is aggressively seeking that superpower global positioning, at a time of peace between great nations. They're not inheriting a position of power by default, they're strategically trying to acquire it - a very different context. They have a multi-decade plan to build military bases all over the planet, to enable global power projection. They've openly stated that it's their destiny to become the global power - it's a wide-spread cultural belief that has been written about ad nauseam for two decades - supplanting the United States.

[eudora]

Even if superpower status was dropped in the US' lap post-ww2, I think it's hard to argue they've worked extremely hard to maintain sole superpower status from the cold war onwards.

All the assets you say China is planning to build (military bases, economic control and political clout) have been very, very forcefully acquired by the US.

[growlist]

What's your point? That China's current behaviour is somehow 'worse' than US Realpolitik? Obviously I'm happy the cold war went the way it did, but let's not pretend the US didn't have to break eggs to make its omelette.

[adventured]

The US broke a lot of eggs post 1950, that's pretty well been written about ad nauseam as well - it's universally understood.

The point is, acquiring the power that China wants, at a time of peace, while other great powers exist, requires an entirely different effort than having superpower status dropped into your lap by the default of everyone else having been blown up. China has to take that power away from other existing powerful nations, with economies that are essentially all at or near all-time highs in terms of output. If China is serious about becoming the global power, they have to go through the US and EU to do it in one manner or another. That sets up a very large global clash of cultures, clashes regarding beliefs in governance, notions about individual liberty, democracy, etc. etc. The US and Western Europe were far more aligned in ideology in the post WW2 era than what China & the EU are today. China and the EU are near polar opposites, with the EU being liberal and China being hyper regressive and authoritarian. The point is, that clash isn't going to go well, the US was welcomed into Europe due to its protector status in and after WW2 and because of its ideological and historical kinship with Europe. America in 1945 was a cousin to Europe, consisting of large parts of Europeans and European culture; China is an entirely foreign element, with very little shared in any regard.

[eudora]

I don't think it's a zero sum game. Just because country A becomes more powerful doesn't mean country B must be less powerful.

Countries rise in power together all the time.

Look at Asia and Europe in the last couple decades.

Also I think you exaggerate the differences between the West and China. The US these days is by no means a beacon of liberty and fairness. And China is no Taliban-level opressor. Yes, there's quite a lot of poor behaviour on their part but I see it as roughly the same order of magnitude as most non-european countries.

The Chinese people are idealogicially pretty damn similar to the rest of us, that is, they're human.

As for their government, on the global stage they're being far more cooperative and rational than the US is these days, even if they're being pushy in their neighbourhood.

Also, come to think of it, it's the US declaring illegal wars recently with hundreds of thousands dead and you know, causing ISIS. What did China do that compared to that?

[eudora]

That said, there's the legitimately terrifying oppression of the Uyghurs, and the filtering of any information the government doesn't find supportive enough of their regime

[Nasrudith]

The pitch black comedy in retrospect is the US was dashing eggs all over other people's counters while the USSR had a heart attack while frantically trying to pretend it was an almighty chef who would render them obsolete. All of its sins were completely unnecessary and created problems for the future.

[tempodox]

> (a shell a sizable percentage of the population would like to return to now)

That “now” has been lasting for at least as long as since 1981, according to the lyrics of “B Movie” from Gil Scott-Heron's album “Reflections” (1981):

http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/Gil_Scott-Heron:B_Movie

[YorkshireSeason]

Aside: the US also had to be dragged into WW I, see e.g. [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_...

[slededit]

The politicians were against isolationism at that time. However even with your explanation it doesn't explain the fact they destroyed Vietnam in order to prevent the spread of communism. There is no rational world where the country was a threat to the US homeland - even if allied to the USSR. It was however a threat to US global power.