The United States triumphs because we have the ability, the power, and the technology. We lose Los Angeles, San Diego, San Franciso, and part of Seattle to Chinese missles. China loses Tiawan for good, Bejing, and several other coastal cities. U.S. Naval forces occupy the Tiawan Strait and aid the island in its final move for independence. During the conflict, Tibet declares independence with the support of India.
China falls apart and surrenders. The U.S. re-takes Hong Kong and governs with the assistance of the British. The U.S. re-builds its Pacific Coastal cities. Chinese dissidents rebel against communism and demand a democratic government.
- Actually that's not what happens at all. It does sound pleasant, especially the obliteration of Los Angeles. But the Sino-American War of 2117 refers to a rather gloomier forecast at present. Which you would know if you had glanced at the article--Why didn't you?
- I'm tempted to delete this gobbledy-gook, but I guess on a discussion board it does no less harm than it does good--which is another way of saying, no harm. Turtle Fan 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- When I googled "Sino-American War", this article is actually the 5th or 6th after several blogs and pundit-types. The anonymous individual may have thought we were of that stripe.
- No harm leaving it. TR 21:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- No I suppose not.
- I'm a bit curious as to how America will "retake" Hong Kong, since that implies it was taken once before. I would hope the US would resist the temptation to return to the bad old days of extracontinental imperialism, but if it did, it would be taking Hong Kong.
- I don't know why the Indians would care enough to support returning those nasty Lamaists to Lhasa. Their region seems disrupted enough by hedgehog theocracies as it is. And with China no longer a rival for the dominant power in interior Asia, they probably won't give a shit. Turtle Fan 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly because the government-in-exile is in India. If the Lama is restored, then the Tibetans have no reason to remain in India. ML4E 22:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- If they don't want him, they could just give him the boot. Turtle Fan 02:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- They haven't so they support him, contrary to your opinion of what they should do on the matter. ML4E 03:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I won't claim to know about Indo-Tibetan GIE relations (even if I inadvertantly pretended to do just that) so perhaps you could enlighten me: The Indians will support the Lamaists so that said Lamaists can leave, but they don't want the Lamaists to leave because they support them? Turtle Fan 04:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Inversion[]
This story never has interested me much--never did get around to reading it--so perhaps it took me longer to make this connection than it should have, but now it's been made: The Opium War was all about the British reversing a trade deficit with China. The British couldn't get enough of Chinese products, but prior to the importation of an addictive drug the Chinese had no interest in British crap. So China was benefiting from an enormous transfer of wealth at the expense of the dominant Western nation--The more things change.
As an aside, I once had a professor--Chinese, no less--put about as friendly a face on the whole torrid affair as I could see anyone doing: She said that the British were actively promoting the tea culture that's now such a cliche as a hedge against alcoholism: If you're drinking lots of tea, you've got no time for gin. They were buying tea from China and needed to balance the trade sheet or they'd be forced to choose between economic ruin and moral ruin. Under that theory they were doing the responsible thing, since a government has a much higher obligation to protect its own people from dangers (in this case substance abuse) than other people from the same dangers. Always had a hard time with that, especially since they were in Sri Lanka soon enough. Never bothered trying to confirm or deny the interpretation through independent research, however.
Anyway, while it's not said so explicitly I've got a funny feeling this war is not about reversing a trade deficit but padding a trade surplus. The whole "AHH!! The Chinese will eat us alive!!" doom and gloom forecasts depend on the idea that current trade deficits will allow China to get rich while America gets poor. If America finds a way to reverse that in the interim I doubt the Chinese would be in anything close to the shape they're in in this story.
Of course I doubt they will be even if current trends continue for the next 108 years (which they won't) but my exasperation with Sinophobia is another matter altogether. Turtle Fan 04:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Update[]
This page is locked, and needs improvement for proper linking.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 06:11, July 6, 2020 (UTC)