Game of Thrones: China Ups Military Budget 11 Percent
show comments
  • Mrs. Davis

    we should at least explore the possibility of naval and other arms limitation agreements.

    Yes, it worked out so well the last time we used them to restrain an emerging eastern power.

  • Anthony

    “Tensions in US-China relationship cannot be wished away, but managing and limiting competition could enhance the security of all countries in the region….”

    China’s behavior (Beijing continues to up the ante in Asia) some theorists posit as natural response to structure of the international system. Further, cooperation takes place in a world that is competitive at its core and no amount of cooperation can eliminate the dominating logic of “security competition” – a competition that appears to be one of China’s motivators.

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    “One possible avenue for US diplomacy with China: we should at least explore the possibility of naval and other arms limitation agreements.”
    I think this is Blue Model Status Quo thinking. The Libertarian Red White & Blue thinking is that the feedback of competition drives progress with improvements in Quality, Service, and Price. We should not be seeking to reduce competition but rather to use the feedback of that competition to grow, improve, and become stronger. The US shouldn’t fear the ever changing power levels of other nations; we should welcome it instead as a challenge upon which we can thrive. Our proper response isn’t to negotiate arms limitation treaties, but to develop new weapons, logistical systems, and training methods. We should seek progress over stagnation, and recognize that China is that most wonderful of all things, a competitor that we can use to make ourselves better. Let’s hope we don’t waste this opportunity to grow stronger, on an arms limitation treaty that attempts to prevent change, in an ever changing world.
    America should always position itself to take advantage of its strengths, creativity, innovation, and adaptation. Maintaining the status quo with limiting treaties does not work for America.

  • Kris

    One of my regular reads is a blog called Via Meadia. I seem to recall it making disparaging comments about the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and praising the American ability to thrive in a setting of innovation and competition.

  • Tom Chambers

    Prof. Mead might have in mind the Washington Naval Limitations Treaty of 1922, which was supported by England and France because after WW1 they couldn’t afford a warship-building race. That sounds rather like us today. The Washington Treaty was rather useful for about 12 years. But what it mostly accomplished was enforcement of the status quo in relative force strength. Will China settle for that today? I doubt it.

  • Jim.

    If China can keep up its spending increases in defense, it will surpass our spending before 2020.

    If we’re going to be turning our backs on the energy resources of the Middle East, China’s likely to pick them up… at that point they’d be foolish not to put together a carrier strike group or two, for much the same reason we have them.

    Sorry guys, no matter what the coddled Europeans think of defense (and no matter how much of that stupidity drifts across the Atlantic), the fact is that to defend the Maritime System and our place in it, we need to spend on blue-water navies.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.