Since the end of the Cold War 16 years ago, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been running an experiment with U.S. grand strategy. The theory to be tested has been this: Very good intentions, plus very great power, plus action can transform both international politics and the domestic politics of other states in ways that are advantageous to the United States, and at costs it can afford. The evidence is in: The experiment has failed. Transformation is unachievable, and costs are high.Of course, there's 3-word problem with this approach:
The United States needs now to test a different grand strategy: It should conceive its security interests narrowly, use its military power stingily, pursue its enemies quietly but persistently, share responsibilities and costs more equitably, watch and wait more patiently. Let’s do this for 16 years and see if the outcomes aren’t better.
"We live in an age of marvels. Despite that, we feel a sense of impending doom.... That's still true... We could still go to space. We could still mine the asteroids. We could still take part in developing mankind's vast future. Indeed, it is easier to do now than it would have been when I wrote these essays. The unrelenting enmity of the Soviet Union has been replaced by other threats, some of them severe, but none comparable to 26,000 nuclear warheads. We have computers and the Internet. There is free exchange of ideas throughout most of the world, and the information revolution relentlessly expands that area. We still face the threat of famine, but it is not as acute as it was in the times when these essays were written. Communications, transportation, electronics, rocket technology - it's all better now. We can still go to the planets.posted by mikelieman at 8:06 AM on April 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
We still live in an age of marvels, and it's still true that the only limit to growth is nerve.
You'll care when gas goes over $10. Wonder if they'll have to modify the machines and signs like they did 30 years ago.That won't affect me that much. Plus how selfish is it to want the Chinese people to remain poor so they don't compete with you for finite resources? I would say it's pretty selfish. The problem with the Chinese government is their government style, not the fact that the Chinese are lifting people out of poverty.
Isn't that what the Chinese govt. holding US T-bills is all about?When you loan someone money, you transfer wealth to them. Wealth comes out of China, and then China lends it back to the U.S. government.
Things like California's tree crops. As the yuan strengthens the Chinese will be able to buy more of our stuff for the same dollar amount the farmer gets. That's a sucking sound as far as domestic prices go -- we'll have less domestic supply of almonds here, and OUR price will respond upwards in response.Wow, we might some of those jobs back? Sounds horrible... Unlike the idiots running the U.S, the Chinese understand the point of keeping their people employed and upwardly mobile. They want the currency and the labor cheap so they can continue to sell it to the U.S.
« Older New York to L.A.... | Michael Hansmeyer: Computation... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by aramaic at 7:07 AM on April 26, 2011 [23 favorites]