Scary conversations with my flatmate
Jan. 13th, 2006 04:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tree_and_leafA strange geo-political discussion with two Americans
Yesterday two of my flatemates (both Americans) and I somehow got on the subject of What Should We Do about Iran and their bombmaking facilities. We agreed: we're not sure, but a full on invasion would be a very bad idea, on military grounds if nothing else... The Kerry Voting Republican and I have a mutual friend who is half Iranian and goes over there fairly regularly; his theory is that the population is more pro-western than any other in the Middle East except for Israel, and that the regime is likely to break down under its own weight/ the burden of popular dislike relatively soon. The question is, how would the Iranians getting the bomb change things? The Neo-Con flatmate thinks targeted raids on bombmaking facilities are the way to go; I don't think that's practical (the CIA network in Iraq is shot, if you can believe that story in the Guardian last week, and 'precision bombing' is more difficult than people seem to think. It could turn into a great way to alienate a basically friendly population.)
Then we got on to China.
I said I thought that, economically, China was likely to be the biggest threat in the next half century; if it does end up dominating world trade, we could be in for interesting times (in the sense of the Discworld curse...) and it wasn't clear how the west would deal with that.
Neo Con flatmate: well, it'll be OK if the Republicans get elected again next time.
Tree and Leaf, slightly baffled: Why?
Kerry-Voting-Republican: Hey, I was reading in one of the Catholic newsletters that the Chinese are talking about letting the National Catholic Church resume it's links with the Vatican...
NCF, ignoring this: Well, they'll keep increasing military spending.
T&L: I'm not sure how that will help the balance of trade. Anyway, I don't think the US could fight China and win.
NCF: Sure, not conventionally. We'd have to nuke them (said in an utterly matter-of-fact tone of voice).
T&L, once she had got her breath back: But... China has the bomb too. They'd have time to retaliate.
NCF: Oh, but we have ABMs.
At this point, for some reason, KVR started whistling the Soviet National Anthem, and then decided that he should read NCF the lyrics, and then played it. NCF insisted that he could not 'appreciate the musical qualities of it' because of its bad associations. But he went off to bed whistling it.
You know, I got a surprising kick out of hearing a Neo-Con do that? I'm not a Communist, but the incongruity greatly appealed to me.
Yesterday two of my flatemates (both Americans) and I somehow got on the subject of What Should We Do about Iran and their bombmaking facilities. We agreed: we're not sure, but a full on invasion would be a very bad idea, on military grounds if nothing else... The Kerry Voting Republican and I have a mutual friend who is half Iranian and goes over there fairly regularly; his theory is that the population is more pro-western than any other in the Middle East except for Israel, and that the regime is likely to break down under its own weight/ the burden of popular dislike relatively soon. The question is, how would the Iranians getting the bomb change things? The Neo-Con flatmate thinks targeted raids on bombmaking facilities are the way to go; I don't think that's practical (the CIA network in Iraq is shot, if you can believe that story in the Guardian last week, and 'precision bombing' is more difficult than people seem to think. It could turn into a great way to alienate a basically friendly population.)
Then we got on to China.
I said I thought that, economically, China was likely to be the biggest threat in the next half century; if it does end up dominating world trade, we could be in for interesting times (in the sense of the Discworld curse...) and it wasn't clear how the west would deal with that.
Neo Con flatmate: well, it'll be OK if the Republicans get elected again next time.
Tree and Leaf, slightly baffled: Why?
Kerry-Voting-Republican: Hey, I was reading in one of the Catholic newsletters that the Chinese are talking about letting the National Catholic Church resume it's links with the Vatican...
NCF, ignoring this: Well, they'll keep increasing military spending.
T&L: I'm not sure how that will help the balance of trade. Anyway, I don't think the US could fight China and win.
NCF: Sure, not conventionally. We'd have to nuke them (said in an utterly matter-of-fact tone of voice).
T&L, once she had got her breath back: But... China has the bomb too. They'd have time to retaliate.
NCF: Oh, but we have ABMs.
At this point, for some reason, KVR started whistling the Soviet National Anthem, and then decided that he should read NCF the lyrics, and then played it. NCF insisted that he could not 'appreciate the musical qualities of it' because of its bad associations. But he went off to bed whistling it.
You know, I got a surprising kick out of hearing a Neo-Con do that? I'm not a Communist, but the incongruity greatly appealed to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-13 11:33 pm (UTC)I'm not an economist, but I suspect it's not the people as such, but the fact that it's much easier to respond to the current needs of the market if you are starting from scratch, rather than with what you have inherited. The question is, of course, if China will go on from boom to dominance. It might not.
As far as beating China goes, I think it depends on what sort of war you are fighting. I don't think, for instance, that the US could successfully invade and hold down China, superior technology or not. And I'm sceptical about bombing as a means of persuasion (didn't work in WWII).
I think pretty much everyone, left, right or centre, is agreed that doing nothing about Iran is not an option.