All of that is true but China knows they can no longer remain a backwards country and what they lose by invading Taiwan is far more than they gain. Invade they save face but take a huge hit with the rest, well, with much of the rest of the world.you need to stop right there. because the thing that the CCP has to gain by taking Taiwan is survival.
this is the problem with libertarians - they tend to assume that around the world everyone shares their value set; that people will not willingly give up nationalism, pride, realpolitik, power and so forth for money. The Chinese government (and, more importantly, her people) consider the continued existence of an independent Taiwan to be a consant humiliation forced upon them by the Imperialist West. It is a sore, a wound that does not staunch, a fester in the mind. They look at Taiwan similarly to how Arabs look at Israel. What we would consider to be a rational balancing of interests does not come into play.
They aren't going to be able to go backwards.The #1 goal for China is not wealth. Wealth is just a means to an end. The primary Goal for the PRC is regional hegemony. The primary goal of the CCP, however, is to maintain domestic power. Its' ruling legitimacy is founded upon two things: economic growth, and nationalism. economic growth is sitting on a bubble, which constrained US consumer spending will probably pop. In response, the CCP will have no option but to clamp down domestically and seek to clamp down abroad. They will need to rely near solely on Nationalism, and taking Taiwan would be the greatest possible victory for Chinese Nationalism that they could enact.
Perhaps we will but my position is across the board cuts.if we could ever balance our budgets, that debt becomes a weapon for us. as long as we do not, however, that sword is pointed at our throats, and the Chinese can nick us or shove it in at any time they wish.
and it turns out we would not rather build battleships. instead we are going to protect social spending and give up on building battleships (that is, after all, the point of this thread). Unfortunately, no one in our higher levels of government seems able to understand or willing to articulate that since global trade depends on a modicum of global security, and since that global security is provided for by the US military, trying to "reduce the deficit" by dramatically slashing military spending is the equivalent of eating seed corn.
We do not have to "be there" to be there.and they can't. because we are there.
you can't score geopolitics statically any more accurately than you can score fiscal policy statically. when the US draws down, the rules and weights on the board changes, and everyone else shifts to maximize upon that.
Pirates? We have to be 15 trillion in debt because of pirates?indeed. there are no somali pirates, wahhabi terrorists, or twelfth imam extremists in the region. everyone loves America and the invasion of Western Culture into their lands via the oil trade. No one would ever see trade with the West to be a degradation and a cancer within the Ummah and Islam.
Also, it's worth noting that China does not buy oil, has not been buying oil in exponentially increasing amounts, does not have a million Chinese extracting oil in East Africa, and does not believe in a mercantilist economic system in which raw resources are shunted from client states to China.
It's also worth noting that throughout human history and across the world, whenever nations have gone to war with each other (as is exceedingly likely to occur following US drawdown), there has never ever ever been a disruption of trade as a result of that war. nope never ever.
BEIJING: China, the world’s largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011, keeping volumes steady at some 460,000 barrels per day (bpd), two sources told Reuters.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
They may not BUT the people of China have seen how much better it is and aren't going back.see earlier piece on how it's interesting that you think their highest priority is more wealth for their individual citizens.
A launching point in the same way that Dallas was a launching point for presidential assassations. We have been fighting Afghanistan for 10 years while the head of Al Queda has been in Pakistan.not true - the Taliban served as a launching point for AQ. and 10 years later the region has the possibility to become more stable. if we are allowed to finish the job. otherwise, yes, half-efforts are often worse than no efforts at all.
We do not have to have boots all over the world to let it be known that we will protect our interests.that doesn't make sense. right now the rest of the world engages in relatively free global trade because the US underwrites it. we do this because A) we believe in it and B) our economy is dependent upon it, and we make alot of money off of it.
remove the underwriting, and free global trade collapses. the world has not entered into Kant's paradise, it remains a self-centered ugly place full of brutal autocracies who would much rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.