This is the kind of thinking that lead to Vietnam, Iraq, and all sorts of other disastrous American military actions. Who says we gotta do anything militarily in Taiwan or Ukraine? You and John Bolton I guess. Sometimes you shouldn't do what ya don't gotta do. — T Clark

In many ways I agree with you and believe that the US shouldn't be so willing to go to war with any country just because we can and that we should try to rely more on diplomacy. However there is also a problem with this way of thinking.

In the beginning of World War II, Britain bent over backwards in order to try to make peace with Hitler and the Germans and they failed miserably in such efforts. Also at the time the people in the US were of the mindset that they were not really ready for another world war since the memory of the first world war was still fresh in their minds. Because of this, the Britain and her allies where not ready and able to fight for awhile and it might have cost us the war (or perhaps made it more costly) if we didn't finally change our minds and be willing to accept the cost of going to war and be willing to fight.

Also because of this the US and her allies have created something of along the lines of a "Hitler doctrine". Basically it is a doctrine that states that if we allow any other country (that is against us of course) to start expanding and/or seize power in a country and do nothing while they are doing this that the long term cost when it comes that we have to eventually fight them will be more than if we nip the problem in the bud in the first place. Of course the problem with such thinking is that it makes us vulnerable by constantly having to ready in nearly every area of the world, having to constantly be melding in other countries we hardly have any interest in, as well as almost always be at a state of war some where in the world and making it difficult to be ready to fight in other places because of this constant fighting and the resources/money all these wars cost us.

It should be obvious that following the "Hitler doctrine" does as much or more harm than good since we are constantly have to fight or meddle in countries in which we may not need to, but the one good thing about the doctrine is that it gives anyone that opposes the US and her allies pause when they think of doing anything against us because they know we will react to anything they do. Unfortunately, when other countries also follow something similar to their own "Hitler doctrine" and/or are just really against the US aggressive military behavior it is a given that it sets up us and this other country for an eventual crash course where we will have to settle our differences through either conflict or other means, and as far as I know there are not that many ways to settle such difference other than conflict other than perhaps "proxy wars" where both sides support other countries and let them do most of the fighting.

Also it is ironic that with the "Hitler doctrine" a super power doesn't necessarily win all or even most of the wars they fight. A super power just keep enough countries that "might" go to war or engage in aggressive behavior to think twice about doing it and/or not do as much of it as if they they were unopposed. The tactic is basically to keep any country or Axis of countries from getting too big for us to handle and the hope is by stalling them while trying to get bigger, it will buy us enough time for us to do something before they get to bigger -sort of like in WWII we were able to ramp up military manufacturing before Japan and Germany could become too much of a threat.

Whether you agree with the "Hitler doctrine" or not just realize it is part of the reason that US and her allies are so aggressive as well as willing to "Pre-emptively" strike (ie fight a country before they really attack us or our allies) those who really have no desire to fight the us.

None or very little. — Caldwell

Would you mind explaining your reasoning for this since it is obvious that China seeks to expand it's economic and military power and the US instead wishes to do everything in it's power to limit the ability of any country that is seeking to becoming a country that can rival it?

I already explained how and why the US military and her allies follow something along the lines of the "Hitler doctrine" where they very aggressively (or even over aggressively) seek to hinder the expansion of power of ANY country that might be a threat to them. One might think the US might turn a blind eye to many of China's actions in order to avoid any conflict, but I can assure you that it won't be long before the we start doing "tic for tat" with any and everything China is trying to do, of course that is if we have not already crossed that line.

Depends on how willing America is to fight for what scraps of Empire she can continue to exploit. If the US regime is smart, there will be no hot conflict. If they're morons - and there is little to rule this out - they might be. — StreetlightX

There may not be a "hot" conflict, but it is almost given there is going to be a kind of new "Cold war" between the US and China. And yes as I explained in the above, it is all but a given that US and her allies WILL have to respond to anything they see as aggression just because that is what the US military does.

It does kind of sound stupid that we have to constantly puff up our chest/rattle our sabers every time China or some other country does something we don't like (and the US and her allies often expect THEM to look the other way if WE do something they don't really like), but this is the post WWII world we live in which if you think about it isn't all that different the colonial era that came before it except of course of the problem with so many countries having and able to use nukes if things are not really going their way.

What are the chances?

None.

China is the largest investor in the US economy. — Shawn

That might be a reason for China to give pause for starting conflict but I'm unsure what kind of issue that would cause for the US.

If someone invest in your country and/or deposits money in some of your banks and then decides to go to war with you, such investment and money is just seized/frozen by the government until a more "friendly" government comes into power and the money can be return. Of course that is "IF" that ever happens. I don't really know what happens to frozen accounts in the US that are never going to be turned over to anyone other than perhaps turn over to some government agency like they do with drug smugglers.

That is what happen to Saddam's bank account in the US as well as any other country that goes to war with us. I'm pretty sure that in other countries they do the same, except that assets are not just frozen but instead turn over to the state or taken by whatever powers that be.

This is of course one of the reasons one has to be careful when buying investment or putting money in banks in countries that are not that friendly with your own, at the drop of a hat they can be taken from you and there is little to nothing you can really do about it.

High and tight. — Manuel

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I think it is likely I agree with it. :)

I don't think it is a given that all these wars we have been fighting in the middle east have been worth it but I also know that the US and her allies have to be pro-active (or perhaps overly pro-active) with nearly ever threat they perceive to exit. We may not have to go so far as to have to try to catch bird in the sky kind of proactive (ie. we don't use valuable resources in places that have little to no security interest to us), but we are DEFINATELY aggressive enough to make countries that really not our allies (as well as some that are) feel.... uncomfortable with our near neo-imperialism enough to sometime believe we are not so much always the good guys but someone that is barely tolerated considering the alternative.

Of course I explain some of the rational in a recent post as to why the US behaves in such a way.

The Taiwan issue is extremely delicate. I fear some mistake could trigger a nuclear war, which is not at all some crazy imagining of mine. — Manuel

The powers that be in China either can't or don't want to look impotent in standing up to the West and the US and her allies are not willing to look the other way for too long with China's posturing for trying to stand up to the US and become a super power on equal footing.

What is it that they say about when an unmovable object meets a irresistible force? IMHO, we are seeing a similar situation play out between the US an China lately.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I think it is likely I agree with it. — dclements

It's a secret :rofl:

uncomfortable with our near neo-imperialism enough to sometime believe we are not so much always the good guys but someone that is barely tolerated considering the alternative. — dclements

If Europe had its own separate army from NATO, then things might be a little different. The US would still have BY far the biggest army in the world but, they'd have to deal with Europe somehow or consider them in some manner.

The only "threats" to the US vision is China, Russia and Iran, because they don't do what they're told. Granted China and Russia have nukes, so, it's a dangerous game to play.

The powers that be in China either can't or don't want to look impotent in standing up to the West and the US and her allies are not willing to look the other way for too long with China's posturing for trying to stand up to the US and become a super power on equal footing.

What is it that they say about when an unmovable object meets a irresistible force? IMHO, we are seeing a similar situation play out between the US an China lately. — dclements

China is surrounded by hostile power: Japan, Korea, Taiwan all have considerable US support.

I forgot who said it, but if you look at a map of China, the only way they can expand with least cost to them is precisely towards the South China Sea, but Taiwan is blocking them. And there's the whole re-unification issue, which is sensitive to China.

But I agree, it's too silly to be playing military exercise games. The stakes are too high.

Also it is ironic that with the "Hitler doctrine" a super power doesn't necessarily win all or even most of the wars they fight. A super power just keep enough countries that "might" go to war or engage in aggressive behavior to think twice about doing it and/or not do as much of it as if they they were unopposed. The tactic is basically to keep any country or Axis of countries from getting too big for us to handle and the hope is by stalling them while trying to get bigger, it will buy us enough time for us to do something before they get to bigger -sort of like in WWII we were able to ramp up military manufacturing before Japan and Germany could become too much of a threat. — dclements

I agree with much of what you say, although not with the doctrine you describe above. The world has changed. We're not the only big fish in the pond anymore. There are more and more of them and there will continue to be more and more and more.

Back to the beginning. China is not acting like Germany in the 1930s. It is acting like the US has since the Monroe Doctrine. Throwing it's weight around. Interfering with other country's legitimate national interests.

World War II was worth what it cost, I guess. I suspect the Korean War was not, although I don't know enough to to say definitely. As for Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, the Bay of Pigs - I was alive for those. They were definitely not worth it. They were not in the US national interest. They hurt us more than helped.

Also, there are nuclear weapons now. That changes everything.

Almost zero. Both sides have too much to lose.

I already explained how and why the US military and her allies follow something along the lines of the "Hitler doctrine" where they very aggressively (or even over aggressively) seek to hinder the expansion of power of ANY country that might be a threat to them. — dclements

This is hard to prove since the two countries that have made serious bids at rivaling U.S. power have had governments Americans consider (with good reason) "evil".

Would you mind explaining your reasoning for this since it is obvious that China seeks to expand it's economic and military power and the US instead wishes to do everything in it's power to limit the ability of any country that is seeking to becoming a country that can rival it? — dclements

And from that impression, you concluded there's going to be an attack?

Thanks, Streetlight, It helps to focus upon who the aggressor is.

Almost zero. Both sides have too much to lose. — RogueAI

The same could be said about the US and the former USSR during the Cold war when both sides where were ready to use nukes (or at least more ready to use them than today) if things for some reason went horribly wrong for one of us, but that didn't prevent either side from playing the high-stakes brinkmanship that was played or engaging in proxy wars with sometimes even using US (or USSR if you count Afghanistan) troops.

I think you are also discounting the issue for either the US or for China of the issue of what happens when either side looks impotent when dealing with either any aggression or believed aggression on on the effects that might have. When one is supposedly the big kid on the playground (or in high school) it isn't enough to stand up and fight when one directly challenges you, you have to do something when there is even a rumor that someone wants to start a fight with you. It may sound silly to compare the US and China to the behavior of teenage kids but the mentality one has when one is either a super power or an up and coming superpower isn't all that different -one has to be constantly be beating one's chest, take no lip from others, and act like they are better than everyone else all the time in order to prevent others from thinking they can do the same.

That China will be fighting a war sometimes soon appears probable: it is flexing its military muscles and displaying a desire for dominance over its neighbours. But whether the US will take part in this war cannot be predicted.

China is surrounded by hostile power: Japan, Korea, Taiwan all have considerable US support.

I forgot who said it, but if you look at a map of China, the only way they can expand with least cost to them is precisely towards the South China Sea, but Taiwan is blocking them. And there's the whole re-unification issue, which is sensitive to China.

But I agree, it's too silly to be playing military exercise games. The stakes are too high. — Manuel

That didn't stop the US and former USSR from doing what they did during the cold war. If one has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, isn't an isolationist, BUT DOESN'T want to use their military unless they are up against a much weaker opponent then it really isn't that much different than not having much of a military at all.

What do you think it says if we are ready to go to war in the middle east at the drop of a hat with countries that really DON'T have an army and who can only fight asymmetric wars with us, and then back down (or even be perceived as backing down) when faced when a country that has a conventional that almost rivals our own? It is one thing to be a warmongering country when your a super power but it is another thing to be a warmongering country who is unwilling to stand up to those who are almost on an equal footing than you.

It may be just my opinion, but it seems it would send a message to the world that we are ready to mess up any country who couldn't stand up to us but those that could we are merely as has been superpower no longer who are too cowardly to deal with any REAL potential rival. And that would signal for any potential rivals to the US that we are likely weaker than we once were and that all they need is a military that might give us trouble and they can thumb their noses at us as well.

I agree with much of what you say, although not with the doctrine you describe above. The world has changed. We're not the only big fish in the pond anymore. There are more and more of them and there will continue to be more and more and more. — T Clark

It isn't a matter of if you agree with the "Hitler doctrine" but it is a matter of IF the US military industrial complex believes and follows it. You and me are hardly more than outside observers to the dilemma facing the China/US issue such whether you think the Hitler doctrine is a good idea or not is pretty much is a moot issue. You just have to understand what the powers in the US who are dealing with China are thinking and why their mindset in tis issue is important.

Also IF we really are no longer the big fish in the pond any more than it is even more of an issue than before. It means that the US has been asleep at the switch and let other problems pop up while being to focused on the so called "war on terrorism"/wars in the middle east and allowed other countries/other problems to fly under the radar and become real threats to us. We may have to more "diplomatic" with some of these countries that are either rivals to us or about to become rivals to us, but I don't think it is an option for the US and her allies to let them know that we have become a toothless tiger who can no longer stand up to any potential aggression. Once that happens we more or less are not the super power that we once were.

Back to the beginning. China is not acting like Germany in the 1930s. It is acting like the US has since the Monroe Doctrine. Throwing it's weight around. Interfering with other country's legitimate national interests.

World War II was worth what it cost, I guess. I suspect the Korean War was not, although I don't know enough to to say definitely. As for Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, the Bay of Pigs - I was alive for those. They were definitely not worth it. They were not in the US national interest. They hurt us more than helped.

Also, there are nuclear weapons now. That changes everything. — T Clark

You have misread some of what my posts have said. It is all but a GIVEN that ANY OTHER country that also acts like the US but isn't the US is a potential threat to the US and her allies. Yes, it is unfair for the US to have an attitude of do as we say not as we do when it comes to other countries, but when you have military bases around the world and spend more money on your military than the entire world combined you kind of think you are entitled to do some things that others can not.

i don't know for sure but I believe since the beginning of the cold war the US has spent more money on our military then the entire net value of EVERYTHING in the US and everything that is owned by US corporations. That is a dizzying sum of money and I don't think it is an amount that most people can wrap their hands around.

I don't know what the real costs of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, the Bay of Pigs and/or other actions the US has made since World War II were worth it because I don't know what would of happened IF we didn't do these things. Part of the issue is that we spend an Ungodly amount of money to prevent other countries from wanting to go to war, but when they DO go to war and somehow threaten our "security interest" it is almost a given now that we have to do something since we have supposedly the "world police" and we have to go answer a call (at least a call that is in our interest or on our beat) and let the supposedly "bad guys" know that they can't get away with whatever they are doing. It is hard to evaluate what the true cost would be if we were not so "proactive"/aggressive with all the other countries in the world (as well as evaluate the true cost are because we are so aggressive) because we don't know what other world leaders would do IF we were not this way.

It is kind of stupid/messed up that the US is this way, but on the other hand the world is already a screwed up place to being with. Probably the only reason other countries still ally and tolerate our behavior is that sometimes it is better to deal with the devil you know than deal with one you really don't.

And from that impression, you concluded there's going to be an attack? — Caldwell

I concluded that something is going to happen, with the least of these being a sort of cold war between the two. At the very least China is going to keep on posturing like they are able and willing to fight a war with the US over Taiwan and from time to time China will do some kind of military action in order to try to probe the US and her allies for any sign of weakness.

How scary/dangerous can such non-combat conflicts be you may ask? Well all you have to do is look back at the US blockade of Cuba to understand how bad such tic for tat actions can become even if no real military actions are involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis





I could be wrong but I believe the Russian subs that were at the blockade came VERY close to firing their nuclear weapons in retaliation to the action of the US warships at that time. In fact it was one of those times in history we almost has a limited exchange (or perhaps even a full exchange) of nuclear weapons between the US and the former USSR.

This is hard to prove since the two countries that have made serious bids at rivaling U.S. power have had governments Americans consider (with good reason) "evil". — RogueAI

There is saying I once hear that goes along the lines "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Is the US an aggressor, horrible even to it's own people, and spends WAY TOO MUCH MONEY on it's military instead of on social programs/infrastructure/etc., and often acts like a bad cop when dealing with world problems? You bet. But what would world look like without the US constantly trying flex it's superpower muscle while constantly creating problems in the rest of the world. Could their be many other countries also flexing their muscles and many other unmonitored wars were one side tries to commit genocidal warfare on another side like in Africa and Eastern Europe? Do you think it would be better or worse than it is now? IMHO I'm not really sure which it would be and it is likely I'm even much more aware of how horrible the US and has been than you know.

Many of these countries that either are or have tried to rival the US may not seem all that bad when they are unable to expand because of the US but try to imagine what some of them didn't have to worry about any intervention from the US and her allies. While it would be impossible for many of them to get as big as the US it is likely the bigger they got, the more invincible their leaders and military would think they are - and the more likely they would also spend more money on the military and less and less on their people. The only other examples of what one of these countries would look like is the former USSR and England before world war II, I could be wrong but neither of these super powers were much nicer to other countries than the US.

If power corrupts than absolute power corrupts absolutely. This may be true of the US and it's military industrial complex but I'm afraid that it is also true of any other country/military that somehow has enough power to really rival it.

If this for some reason is either a small country merely defending itself from the US (like in Vietnam) or a coalition of smaller countries trying to defend itself from the influence of the US and her allies, then it is plausible that such countries may be less of the bad guys than we are, but then it is almost a given that such countries are not really a rival to the US. I guess in a nutshell it is hard for a country or superpower to get as big as the US without being a bit corrupt/"evil" in when dong so.

Which country, America or China has the greatest history of imperial expansion. Which country has the other surrounded with military installations and nuclear weapons? Which of the two countries, has more than nine hundred military installations around the world?
— boagie

These are the right questions. — StreetlightX

It isn't just about what one country HAS DONE in the past it is as important or even more important as to WHAT THEY CAN AND WILL DO if there is little to no hindrance to a or any countries desire to grab other countries and expand as much as they can. Do you really think that China would stop at just taking Taiwan if there was little to no hindrance in taking it and no resistance in the next country they wish to take?

The US use to be a somewhat friendly/backwater/isolationist country before world war one and world war two but after the wars and the power the military industrial complex got so big, things changed. Now we have become sort of the not so nice cop that has to patrol the streets of the world and who often gets into trouble while trying to do so.

China may seem not all that bad right now much like the US didn't seem all that bad before WWI and WWII, but how are you sure they would remain "nice" if they started getting a taste of expansion and their military complex started getting much much bigger? I can't be sure but I believe that they would start becoming less and less friendly to some of their neighbors (such as Japan whom they haven't forgiven for what their soldiers did in WWII), and it is likely they would start using their military and/or police for resolving internal/external issues much as the US has been doing in the last several decades. Having the former USSR as a super power rival wasn't really pretty and I'm betting if China manages to become more of a super power rival to the US, I'm betting it is not gonna be any more pretty then what happened when we had to deal with the former USSR.

As far as I know the former USSR didn't have any real plans for expansion (ie they hoped that the world would come to their senses and realize the benefits of a socialist economy vs a capitalist one and we would all peacefully be united under the banner of socialism ) but they did make efforts to "convince" other countries (through military and/or political means) to become so called "buffer states" to make it so Western powers had to go through them before being able to just march into Russia itself. Also they may of had few countries for economic/military reasons and not because they could act like buffer states.

I guess what I'm saying is that the former USSR wasn't all that excited about expansion, partly because of ideology, and perhaps partly due to their knowledge of how much trouble invaders had when trying to take over their own country. Of course if there was a situation where a country either didn't or couldn't resist their occupation they would likely take advantage of it as any superpower would likely do by either invading it or backing a political group and using them like a puppet government (just as the US has done with a few countries).

While the former USSR hoped to more or less eventually conquer through ideology, political means, and propaganda (with perhaps a military conflict here or there), I don't think they were that excited about having to mainly resort to military means or at least not so much with the Western powers standing in their way.

I don't know if the same can be said of China. I know China for decades now has been trying and very successfully been using economic means to gain various advantages over other countries while at the same time doing their best not to look that threating to the West. However the fact that they no longer are relying on just economic, political means but also starting to flex their military muscles in front of the West is marks a definite change in their policies/tactics in influencing the world.

By either becoming more aggressive, or merely allowing the outside to perceive them as more aggressive what are they trying and hope to achieve? Is it that they have a real reason for doing so or do they just no longer care how West power and other outsiders perceive them?

I don't think any rival state would dream of starting a war with the US.

A nuclear war could break out. Everybody loses.

I hope the Chinese love their children too.

"… In Europe and America there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mister Krushchev said, "We will bury you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?
There is no monopoly on common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
… There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president?
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mister Reagan says, "We will protect you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
But what might save us, me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too"

Sung by Sting

Everybody does. It's the profit makers that differ.

Everybody does. It's the profit makers that differ. — Manuel

I guess it's up to "everybody" to put their foot down. If they don't, do they get to say "There is nothing I could do!" ?

People disagree about objective facts now, so it's not possible to include "everybody" on a single political cause. Society can surely feel (and in some places is) quite isolated, but I suppose there's something anyone can do. Whether this something amounts to anything, who knows?

People disagree about objective facts now, so it's not possible to include "everybody" on a single political cause. — Manuel

I was just playing off your statement that "everybody does." If we can't rally around loving the children, then I'm going to take more time off.

This is a side note, but an anecdote is the guy who pretends to slave away, 9-5, all for his children. Then buys a brand new F-350 and a boat. I guess we could stretch and say "Yeah, it's all about spending quality time with the kids." Hmmmm. Okay. If we are going to differ on what is in the best interest of the children, fine. But if we can't agree that nukes aren't good for them, then we are down to the philosophical nut: "I'd rather me and my kids die by nuke for their freedom to be like me, than to forego immediate gratification for a world above water with some fish left to fish." What to do, what to do?

Sure. It's just that some parents think kids should have guns is a sign of love.

I talk about nukes with some frequency, people say "oh that's so horrible nothings going to happen because of it" and it stays this way.

I guess in a nutshell it is hard for a country or superpower to get as big as the US without being a bit corrupt/"evil" in when dong so. — dclements

The EU is not that far behind the U.S., economically. If the EU suddenly transformed into one large country with a government similar to Germany's, and started spending a lot of money on its military, and it's economy grew by 1/3 (to rival ours) do you think Americans would feel threatened by it? I don't.

Also, while I have a lot of problems with America, I wouldn't trade its government for China's. Would you?

That China will be fighting a war sometimes soon appears probable: it is flexing its military muscles and displaying a desire for dominance over its neighbours. But whether the US will take part in this war cannot be predicted. — Olivier5

The US has basically told Taiwan that we will not protect them if they try to provoke a war with China (which is very unlikely that they would want to do anyways), however IF China starts using military force against them or tries to invade them that we will come to their aid.

After looking into why China wants Taiwan so badly (and the US is so interested in them not having and controlling it), I found article about how global production of semiconductors is heavily based in Taiwan and US/Europe economies (because of everything built that is dependent on them) would heavily damaged by no longer being able to use such chips for manufacturing of their own electronic devices.

While there is always the remote possibility the US wouldn't intervene do to our resources being stretched too thin during another crisis that is even more problematic then China (or for that matter Russia) starting a war or wars and trying to invade other countries, my guess it is very very doubtful that under any circumstances would the US and her allies would want to sit on their hands when any of our allies are being either attacked or invaded when their the are multiple strategic risks involved in doing so.

If you have a reason (other than the US would be scare to fight China) please explain what it is. .

I don't think any rival state would dream of starting a war with the US.

A nuclear war could break out. Everybody loses. — Manuel

China has flat out state that the WILL start a war with Taiwan and any country helping them if either
A) Taiwan tries to declare itself an independent country from China
B) Taiwan actively seeks military help from any other country (such as the US) in potentially defending
them from China.
C) If Taiwan continues to act like a rogue province and China's patience runs out on waiting for Taiwan to China's authority over them.

One might think that this is just rhetoric or sabre ratting on China's part, but during the Korean war China didn't hesitate to send the people's volunteer army (PVA) into North Korean in order stop the US from taking over the country when things were not going their way.

When one is a superpower such as the US, Russia, or China one can't back back down just because the other side has nuclear capability as well. The issue of nukes does make things more complicated, but the people in power don't get into power if the the thought of nuclear brinkmanship scares them. Or at least they don't get into power in a country that is considered a super power at least.

China and Russia aren't superpowers right now. They're just regional powers. China has ambitions and the means to become a superpower, but it's not quite there yet.

IOW, this isn't the 1950s.

The EU is not that far behind the U.S., economically. If the EU suddenly transformed into one large country with a government similar to Germany's, and started spending a lot of money on its military, and it's economy grew by 1/3 (to rival ours) do you think Americans would feel threatened by it? I don't. — RogueAI

The EU politically more divided then well more than any place else in the world with each country only interested in what is in it for them if they are in and threatening to leave the moment being in the union is a nuisance for them. As far as I can tell the EU is just a few powerful groups in Europe willing to work together when it suits them, but there isn't even enough unity between them to consider them a coalition of any kind. For the EU to be able to come together as if they were one country is hard to imagine any time in the near future. Maybe in a few hundred years there might be enough political and other changes that allow all the different cultures and ideologies to be able to work as one, but by then it would have to be a different Europe than the one that exists today.

Also, while I have a lot of problems with America, I wouldn't trade its government for China's. Would you? — RogueAI

I don't really know that much about China but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live there. As to whether I would rather live in a country controlled through plutocracy or one controlled though totalitarianism, I would have to say that is one heck of a choice.