It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by The Vagabond
The basic question is one of how we care to see loss of life divided among the global population if the only criterion was nationality. In other words, would the world be better off with a weaker China or a weaker America? [Edited by Don W]
It's hard to say that any one thing really benefits all the world. Ironically, China would be quite a bit worse off if America were excessively weakened or destroyed.
I'm not so sure we'd be missed in the Middle East or Africa, but if we were, you could rest assured that the Europeans would take up a large part of what we've been doing, both in positive and negative ways.
America could deal with a weaker China, but probably not a billion people lighter. So really when it comes down to the specific numbers you gave: either China is destroyed or else China is crippled and America is destroyed I'd say feel free to flip a coin because I'm gonna be more than a tad unhappy either way.
I don't see a universal moral answer and given those specifics I don't see a viable selfish answer either really. At the simpler question however, whether we value foreigners over our own kind in a vacuum . . I'm not gonna pretend to be anything I'm not. In a simple choice between I win they lose or they win I lose, I'm gonna choose to win. Serves me right though if I die and am reincarnated as one of them. [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by donwhite
Do you say this because the US is the primary market for the remarkable Chinese manufacturing growth since 1977? That the US is the “only” market for their great productivity? That China and the US are symbiotic? That Wal-Mart is the distribution agency for the PLA?
Well, yes and no. I’m satisfied the EU would not undertake to rearm itself for any reason that now suggests itself.
Co-operation not domination is the EU mantra. The EU has not been tested defense of the homeland-wise.
posted by The Vagabond
There aren't too many nations that can match the US for population and per capita wealth. If we go about the math in the crude way, the result is that to replace US markets with European ones means [China] cutting prices in half and doubling production. Not necessarily last and least, there's the simple question of whether or not other nations will shop China the way Americans do.
We're a materialistic, individualistic, ruthlessly capitalist society. Europeans probably believe they've out-grown imperial oppression and may not realize they still reap the benefits when the US does it. If somebody doesn't prop up the kleptocracy in this or that obscure 3rd world nation there will be a revolution there, the land will be appropriated and redistributed and they'll start growing food for their starving children instead of tea for fat white people.
That will be bad for the boys at Lipton or whoever's brand it is that the Brits drink, and there will be rich people nagging at the government which they paid to put in power. Next thing you know, it'll be send in the Marines: the Royal Marines that is. The average European will be shocked. The masters of corporatism however will just see it to be business as usual. I think my point has to do with a contrast between the above . . You are right in regards to European civility where strategic matters are concerned. [Edited by Don W]