[verdverm]

> in the long run decoupling will be better for their respective countries.

That's populism seeping into the mind. Globle trade and collaboration have raised many people from poverty. It's how China and the US got to where they are today.

Decoupling increases the likelihood of confrontation. The US did similar to this with Japan just before WW2

[bluGill]

True, but what can you do. China is not showing signs today of being a good long term partner, so the US feels forced to escalate, and in return China does more. 15 years ago I thought that China would improve, but with Xi in power I no longer do. Only time will tell, but things are not looking: in the worst cases coupling would be even worse.

[verdverm]

Coupling means the cost of war is much hirer, especially for the people's daily lives

Coupling has a big impact on deterrence and not going to war in the first place. If you want war, then advocate for the regressive isolationist polices. If you don't want war, then look for places where we can collaborate, like climate change and trade

[liuliu]

Yes. But also the U.S. sees no way to influence the faction of China to the ways of the U.S. influence traditionally worked in China (unlike how China can influence the U.S. politics). So the cooperation game quickly becomes a game of one benefactor. It is a bad situation we are in but the U.S. cannot solely determines the outcome. China must have some structural changes to convince otherwise influence is possible.

[xgl5k]

US and USSR were decoupled in the Cold War; US and China will probably be decoupled in Cold War II.