View Poll Results: In the broadest of terms, which of the following most closely describes your geopolitical expectations for the post-US world order?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • A truly multipolar reorientation of geopolitics with few or no globally dominant “great powers.”

    9 23.08%
  • A division of the world into “spheres of influence” dominated by authoritarian powers (China, Russia, Iran, for example)

    9 23.08%
  • The US will remain globally dominant thanks to King Dollar and its sheer size, even if politically or militarily weaker relative to its turn of the century peak.

    12 30.77%
  • The EU will pull itself together, emerge from the US’ shadow, neutralize Russian interests on its doorstep, and Europe will once again carry the torch of the liberal/western world order.

    3 7.69%
  • Other (please explain)

    6 15.38%
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 226

Thread: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

  1. #161

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    If Trump is re-elected again, there is no way back for the US to maintain its superpower status in the long-term. The social fabric is tearing apart and soon they will be dealing with conflicts at home that pose greater risk to the stability of the country than any other war abroad. I believe that despite the Coronavirus China will remain powerful so the EU have to decide how they deal with both the US and China and how to adjust to the new world order.

  2. #162

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by brave_warrior View Post
    If Trump is re-elected again, there is no way back for the US to maintain its superpower status in the long-term. The social fabric is tearing apart and soon they will be dealing with conflicts at home that pose greater risk to the stability of the country than any other war abroad. I believe that despite the Coronavirus China will remain powerful so the EU have to decide how they deal with both the US and China and how to adjust to the new world order.
    US losing its status as superpower begun long before Trump considered career in politics. US was viewed negatively around the world at the height of Obama's administration, and seeds of identity politics have been sown in that time, if not earlier.
    Trump's election reflects the will of "silent majority" that got a bit fatigued by constant disregard for its interests from both neoliberal and neconservative establishments.
    Nor is being superpower is necessarily a good thing. America's LARP as "world's policeman" doesn't pay for itself - all the crazy amounts of money thrown at parasitic military-industrial complex and militaries of America's puppets/allies is largely taken out of taxpayer's pocket.
    From taxpayer's perspective, it would be much better to have more money then having that warm fuzzy feeling that US is bombing some poor foreign country for great sin of ditching petrodollar (and hastily made-up "war crimes" that American media tends to shed crocodile tears over when it needs "regime change" somewhere).

  3. #163
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    The Obama administration had emphatically pushed the TPP as a free trade pact between the United States and major Asia-Pacific economies, in which China was pointedly not included. As President Obama put it, “The TPP would let America, not China, lead the way on global trade.” It was supposed to pressure China to improve its intellectual property protection and market access should it want to join. Despite compromises that Asia-Pacific countries need to make to U.S. corporations (regarding intellectual property protection issues, for example), many Asian countries were enthusiastic about the TPP, which would have meant a further opening of the U.S. market to them.

    When anti-trade politics in the U.S. killed American participation in the TPP, the original participating countries went ahead and launched the renamed CPTPP in 2018. Without the participation of the U.S. as a huge export market, however, the trade pact has become less significant. The hope is still that the United States will change its mind (again) and rejoin the agreement.

    With the launch of RCEP this week, the incoming Biden administration faces a dilemma for its trade agenda with Asia. Some suppose that anti-trade sentiment in the U.S. will make the revival of U.S. participation in any major free trade pact politically infeasible, at least in the early days of the Biden administration. The incoming administration will need to tackle a lot of urgent domestic issues, such as fighting the coronavirus pandemic and containing its economic fallout. But now that RCEP has become a reality, with the potential of expanding and deepening further in the future, Washington’s leadership in writing trade rules in Asia could be lost forever. As most U.S. companies have no choice but to participate in the Asia-Pacific market, an RCEP without the U.S. means these companies will have to relocate more of their operations to RCEP countries to take advantage of the lower tariffs within the bloc. This, in the end, will cost American jobs.
    https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/afte...ejoin-the-tpp/
    The lasting damage of populist protectionism from Trumpists and so-called progressives is already bearing fruit. Now, even if the US manages to rejoin TPP, it will no longer be a proactive step aimed at isolating communist China, but rather a reactionary one aimed at counter-balancing Beijing's efforts to build a quasi-Warsaw Pact within its sphere of influence. While the RCEP is more limited in scope than originally envisioned, and may in fact facilitate manufacturing jobs to flow to lower cost countries neighboring China, the latter now has the definitive advantage on trade relations in the region. This will make EU-US efforts to use sanctions and other mechanisms to punish the regime for human rights and trade abuses that much more difficult, and help Beijing shore up its export markets impacted by efforts to shift supply chains to other countries. Any hope that the RCEP will compel Beijing to open up and liberalize is as naive as any in the last 30 years. China has continued its trade war against RCEP member Australia unabated, and has already indicated the trend toward free trade and multilateralism will not be reciprocated:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/27/busin...hnk/index.html
    https://www.reuters.com/article/chin...-idUSKBN2600B5

  4. #164
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by DNI
    As Director of National Intelligence, I am entrusted with access to more intelligence than any member of the U.S. government other than the president. I oversee the intelligence agencies, and my office produces the President’s Daily Brief detailing the threats facing the country. If I could communicate one thing to the American people from this unique vantage point, it is that the People’s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom world-wide since World War II.

    The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically. Many of China’s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-i...-1-11607019599
    Too little, too late.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/iasc-prod/u.../pdf/sapch.pdf



  5. #165

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Why are you quoting a Trump nominee, who's nomination was widely criticized even by Republicans?

  6. #166
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Why are you quoting a Trump nominee, who's nomination was widely criticized even by Republicans?
    Why are you suggesting his nomination is related to the content of the article?

  7. #167
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,502

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Why are you suggesting his nomination is related to the content of the article?
    Trump nominee says that the CCP is bad, therefore the CCP must actually be good.

  8. #168

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Why are you suggesting his nomination is related to the content of the article?
    Because the article has little merit on the basis of his incompetence. John Raitcliffe was widely panned by both sides of the isle. He's a Trumpist, not a serious policy wonk.

  9. #169
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Because the article has little merit on the basis of his incompetence. John Raitcliffe was widely panned by both sides of the isle. He's a Trumpist, not a serious policy wonk.
    The consensus of the defense and intel communities is that Beijing and related phenomena are the most significant national security threat facing the US. You haven’t presented anything that would suggest JR lacks the competence to concur with that consensus, let alone any substantive problems with the article or its content.

  10. #170
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,793

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by brave_warrior View Post
    If Trump is re-elected again, there is no way back for the US to maintain its superpower status in the long-term. The social fabric is tearing apart and soon they will be dealing with conflicts at home that pose greater risk to the stability of the country than any other war abroad. I believe that despite the Coronavirus China will remain powerful so the EU have to decide how they deal with both the US and China and how to adjust to the new world order.
    I disagree strongly.

    Yes the US has social unrest but so does pretty much every society on earth. The US has mechanisms and self-examination to address this: unfortunately rioting and acrimonious public debate are part of the process but it is what it is.

    China has huge scale censorship, an apparent continuous ethnic cleansing program, and organ harvesting for religious dissidents: when protests manifest they don't have a public debate, they send in the riot police and the tanks. I think racism is strong there too (as it is everywhere unfortunately), its just not expressed freely because nothing is expressed feely in China. Its one thing to talk about structural racism in US policing (and to their credit the US does talk about it) but its nothing on the scale of Great Han Chauvinism.

    This difference in approach is demonstrated by the response to COVID 19. China responded by lying about the pandemic in the first instance, and then harsh diktats that seem to have been effective. The inherent lack of central direction in the US system has led to widespread infection: if there is long term hidden consequences the US will wear them but the powerful and flexible system remains in place.

    The US enjoys a technological and trade advantage over China that is currently insurmountable: the US is not "one step from the precipice" and several Trump/Trumpista terms would serve to reduce the margin in the areas the presidency affects, not eradicate or reverse it. For example the US/Australia alliance is unshaken, and we have posters demonstrating to extent to which the Turkish establishment is trimming its sails to accommodate the incoming Biden team: US influence soft and hard remains the single biggest factor in pretty much every international arena.

    No one is trimming their sails to suit the whims of changing Chinese leadership because it doesn't change: only by rigidly imposed political repression is a façade of unity maintained.

    A society pouring so much energy into disciplining itself can achieve amazing focussed goals but wide ranging powerful growth seems to flourish more organically when you plough a wide field and let it grow where it is strong. We can criticise the US for a lot of things but the current President is the grandson of an immigrant pimp, and his replacement is a very average Joe so it is at least somewhat participatory.

    Other posters have persuasively argued that the US manages its demographic profile better than China because (despite all the criticism of its border policy and racism) it actually encourages and is attractive to foreign immigration. Emigrants have some opportunity there and the world sends their kids to school there.

    China is better known for smuggling its children and assets out of the country to places like the US Canada and Australia. Its still a place that's better to get away from than into.

    The US established economic primacy during WWI: it was incredibly isolationist in the 1920's but it still dominated the world economy (EG exporting the Great Depression: thanks Obama). Since 1920 the US faced rivalry to its dominance from the British and French Empires, the Japanese Empire and the Nazi state, and the post WWII "communist" empires of the Soviets and Red China. It has eaten them all alive except China, which converted to a semi-capitalist state in substantial measure coupled to the US market to survive and prosper.

    The British Empire was fricking dismembered while in full alliance with the US: France slapped down repeatedly (eg Suez), the Nazis used to keep the reds in line and the reds used to scare Europe. The methods of the US are rarely subtle and often clumsy but they have not been existentially threatened aside from the universal threat of nuclear fire in over a century. Pretty much all of the competition died of heart attacks from just trying to remain in second place behind the US. China prospers by pulling the US wagon. If it started pulling against the wagon I think the wheels would not fall off, the US would just find another horse.

    The EU is barely a state. Brexit has shown how loose the bonds there are: this also means the EU many be flexible enough to survive US rivalry but its not stiff enough to fight it.
    Last edited by Cyclops; December 07, 2020 at 04:09 PM.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  11. #171

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    The consensus of the defense and intel communities is that Beijing and related phenomena are the most significant national security threat facing the US.
    Indeed. And their consensus stems from years of experience and work in the field, as well as existing empirical data. This puff piece is simply political punditry, highlighting points where United States abdicated its global responsibilities to China.

    You haven’t presented anything that would suggest JR lacks the competence to concur with that consensus, let alone any substantive problems with the article or its content.
    The man has zero relevant experience and has contradicted the intelligence community multiple times. By contrast, his direct predecessor is a veteran and served on the Intelligence committee, and the man before him spent decades as a public servant in the defense sector.

    In comparison John Ratcliffe is a clear political appointment meant to advance Trump’s political agenda rather than the duties of the DNI office. Bringing up the Chinese Universal Soldier program in what is supposed to be a serious discussion piece is evident of the amateurism and the type of character Trump looks for in his appointments.

  12. #172
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Indeed. And their consensus stems from years of experience and work in the field, as well as existing empirical data. This puff piece is simply political punditry, highlighting points where United States abdicated its global responsibilities to China.


    The man has zero relevant experience and has contradicted the intelligence community multiple times. By contrast, his direct predecessor is a veteran and served on the Intelligence committee, and the man before him spent decades as a public servant in the defense sector.

    In comparison John Ratcliffe is a clear political appointment meant to advance Trump’s political agenda rather than the duties of the DNI office. Bringing up the Chinese Universal Soldier program in what is supposed to be a serious discussion piece is evident of the amateurism and the type of character Trump looks for in his appointments.
    Again, your dislike of the article’s author does not reflect on the points raised. You don’t seem to dispute the consensus of the intel and defense communities reiterated therein, nor have you indicated how that is relevant to “responsibilities” you claim were ceded by the US to China.

  13. #173

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Again, your dislike of the article’s author does not reflect on the points raised. You don’t seem to dispute the consensus of the intel and defense communities reiterated therein, nor have you indicated how that is relevant to “responsibilities” you claim were ceded by the US to China.
    An article written by a partisan hack and a largely unqualified Director of National Intelligence cannot serve as a useful starting point for any discourse. Though you are welcome to argue the qualifications of said author, which you have so far refused to do.

  14. #174
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    An article written by a partisan hack and a largely unqualified Director of National Intelligence cannot serve as a useful starting point for any discourse. Though you are welcome to argue the qualifications of said author, which you have so far refused to do.
    Your attempts to dismiss the article by attacking the credibility of the author without addressing its content doesn’t mean the credibility of said author must therefore be established as the basis of discussion about the article.

  15. #175
    antaeus's Avatar Simplism
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,381

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Because the article has little merit on the basis of his incompetence. John Raitcliffe was widely panned by both sides of the isle. He's a Trumpist, not a serious policy wonk.
    Stepping back for a second...

    Why does a presidential appointee have to be anything other than that? All they have to be is the person the President thinks will advance the President's positions. It is after all, a Presidential appointment. You may disagree with him, his appointment, or his positions. But he wasn't appointed to progress your, or the Democrat party's view of international relations theory.

    I always wonder at people criticising a President's appointments as if the president is making a mistake. No. The person was appointed for the President's reasons - which are in the President's opinion, in the best interests of the country.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  16. #176

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Your attempts to dismiss the article by attacking the credibility of the author without addressing its content doesn’t mean the credibility of said author must therefore be established as the basis of discussion about the article.
    Thank you for proving my point. You can't defend the author, nor did you even address the actual content that I did bring up. The nonsensical and ludicrous rambling about Chinese biological testing. I'll let Jean Claude know.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Stepping back for a second...

    Why does a presidential appointee have to be anything other than that? All they have to be is the person the President thinks will advance the President's positions. It is after all, a Presidential appointment. You may disagree with him, his appointment, or his positions. But he wasn't appointed to progress your, or the Democrat party's view of international relations theory.

    I always wonder at people criticising a President's appointments as if the president is making a mistake. No. The person was appointed for the President's reasons - which are in the President's opinion, in the best interests of the country.
    It depends on the the subject matter in question. National security is a fairly broad issue that enjoys bi-partisan support. While there is the general accepted consensus that any appointee will act in the interest of the nation, rather than narrow political interests of any single person, coalition, or party, this is especially relevant to national defense. John Raitcliffe and his predecessor, Dan Coats, were attacked for their political allegiance to Donald Trump, but also, for their lack of qualifications compared to their predecessors.

    John Negroponte, the first DNI, server three decades in the Foreign Service, and two more as an Ambassador for United States to hotspots like Honduras and Mexico.
    Mike Mcconnell, the second DNI, served almost three decades as an Intelligence Officer, and a vice-Admiral. Included was a stint as Director of NSA.
    Dennis Blair, the third DNI, was a Navy Admiral in command of a battlegroup, commander of the Pacific Command, worked in the Joint Chief of Staffs, and the National Security Council.
    James Clapper, the fourth DNI, was also a career officer in the military for decades, commanding a signal intelligence detachment, worked as Director of the DIA, and had a stint in the private sector working for government contractors specializing in military intelligence.

    By contrast, Trump's appointtees were Dan Coats, a Senator who had a stint in the Intelligence Committee, and John Ratcliffe, a member of the House. At least Coats was a veteran and perhaps Ratcliffe cycled through several relevant committee assignments, but I think a man who wants to talk about wind turbines and soldier injections in relation to a real power competition with China, cannot be taken seriously. It's an op-ed designed to stir discussion among peons and reactionaries, not a serious argument for a policy change. Not only does this, in my opinion, demonstrate why Ratcliffe is unsuitable for a very important job, but it also demonstrates why choosing this article as a point of discussion is a silly exercise.

    Look at this selection for instance,

    "The union leader contacts his congresswoman and indicates that his members won’t support her re-election without a change in position. He tells himself he’s protecting his members, but in that moment he’s doing China’s bidding, and the congresswoman is being influenced by China, whether she realizes it or not."

    This is amateur hour.

  17. #177
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Thank you for proving my point. You can't defend the author, nor did you even address the actual content that I did bring up. The nonsensical and ludicrous rambling about Chinese biological testing. I'll let Jean Claude know.



    It depends on the the subject matter in question. National security is a fairly broad issue that enjoys bi-partisan support. While there is the general accepted consensus that any appointee will act in the interest of the nation, rather than narrow political interests of any single person, coalition, or party, this is especially relevant to national defense. John Raitcliffe and his predecessor, Dan Coats, were attacked for their political allegiance to Donald Trump, but also, for their lack of qualifications compared to their predecessors.

    John Negroponte, the first DNI, server three decades in the Foreign Service, and two more as an Ambassador for United States to hotspots like Honduras and Mexico.
    Mike Mcconnell, the second DNI, served almost three decades as an Intelligence Officer, and a vice-Admiral. Included was a stint as Director of NSA.
    Dennis Blair, the third DNI, was a Navy Admiral in command of a battlegroup, commander of the Pacific Command, worked in the Joint Chief of Staffs, and the National Security Council.
    James Clapper, the fourth DNI, was also a career officer in the military for decades, commanding a signal intelligence detachment, worked as Director of the DIA, and had a stint in the private sector working for government contractors specializing in military intelligence.

    By contrast, Trump's appointtees were Dan Coats, a Senator who had a stint in the Intelligence Committee, and John Ratcliffe, a member of the House. At least Coats was a veteran and perhaps Ratcliffe cycled through several relevant committee assignments, but I think a man who wants to talk about wind turbines and soldier injections in relation to a real power competition with China, cannot be taken seriously. It's an op-ed designed to stir discussion among peons and reactionaries, not a serious argument for a policy change. Not only does this, in my opinion, demonstrate why Ratcliffe is unsuitable for a very important job, but it also demonstrates why choosing this article as a point of discussion is a silly exercise.

    Look at this selection for instance,

    "The union leader contacts his congresswoman and indicates that his members won’t support her re-election without a change in position. He tells himself he’s protecting his members, but in that moment he’s doing China’s bidding, and the congresswoman is being influenced by China, whether she realizes it or not."

    This is amateur hour.
    More bloviating non sequiturs. China’s interest in human genetic and biological enhancement for military purposes has been an ongoing concern. For your protests to be at all meaningful, you would need to demonstrate that the DNI’s claims are, at a minimum, uniquely out of step with the existing defense and intel consensus on the China threat in a way that would render his personal background a relevant factor in the veracity of the article’s content. Until then, your facile attempts to dismiss the assessment by attacking the credibility of the author are pointless.

    Indeed, the PLA’s medical institutions have emerged as major centers for research in gene editing and other new frontiers of military medicine and biotechnology.

    In 2016, an AMMS doctoral researcher published a dissertation, “Research on the Evaluation of Human Performance Enhancement Technology,” which characterized CRISPR-Cas as one of three primary technologies that might boost troops’ combat effectiveness.

    https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201...iotech/159167/
    While the potential leveraging of CRISPR to increase human capabilities on the future battlefield remains only a hypothetical possibility at the present, there are indications that Chinese military researchers are starting to explore its potential. Of course, genetic engineering has numerous military applications in materials science, such as those that can involve maritime and aerospace applications. However, at a time when the Central Military Commission (CMC) Science and Technology Commission is also supporting research in human performance enhancement and “new concept” biotechnology, the potential intersections of these interests merit concern and consideration. For instance, a doctoral dissertation titled “Evaluation and Research on Human Performance Enhancement Technology,” published in 2016, envisions CRISPR as one of three primary “human performance enhancement technologies” (人效能增强技术, ren xiaoneng zengqiang jishu) that can be utilized to boost personnel combat effectiveness. The researcher argues that because CRISPR holds such “great potential” as a “disruptive” technology, China must “seize the initiative.”

    https://jamestown.org/program/chinas...itary-affairs/

  18. #178

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    More bloviating non sequiturs.
    Not at all. An author's credibility is integral to any argument or paper he/she wants to write. We don't just let anyone be published. Hence why James Ratcliffe is free to publish political vomit on WSJ, and not on STRATFOR, Foreign Affairs or RAND.

    China’s interest in human genetic and biological enhancement for military purposes has been an ongoing concern. For your protests to be at all meaningful, you would need to demonstrate that the DNI’s claims are, at a minimum, uniquely out of step with the existing defense and intel consensus on the China threat in a way that would render his personal background a relevant factor in the veracity of the article’s content. Until then, your facile attempts to dismiss the assessment by attacking the credibility of the author are pointless.
    There is almost no parallel between this,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratcliffe
    U.S. intelligence shows that China has even conducted human testing on members of the People’s Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities.
    And the articles in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Defense One
    Meanwhile, China has been leading the world in the number of trials of the CRISPR gene-editing technology in humans. Over a dozen clinical trials are known to have been undertaken, and some of these activities have provoked global controversy. It’s not clear whether Chinese scientist He Jiankui, may have received approval or even funding from the government for editing embryos that became the world’s first genetically modified humans. The news provoked serious concerns and backlash around the world and in China, where new legislation has been introduced to increase oversight over such research. However, there are reasons to be skeptical that China will overcome its history and track record of activities that are at best ethically questionable, or at worst cruel and unusual, in healthcare and medical sciences.
    Certainly, the PRC is not alone in recognizing the potential of biotechnology on the future battlefield, but the ways in which Chinese research is seeking to integrate developments among industry, academic institutions, and military-oriented programs—including through research collaborations and the procurement of dual-purpose commercial technologies—may prove striking. In particular, China is at the forefront of today’s breakthroughs in CRISPR-Cas, a new technique for gene editing that has demonstrated unique potential and precision despite its current limitations.
    Aside from that, congratulations. You can use Google. On the other hand, here's the 2020 Pentagon report on China. Here's the FAS report on China. And here's the RAND report on China.

    Suffice to say, the "existing defense and intel consensus" does not consider China's biological research to be a threat worth mentioning. The DNI is completely off base with his criticisms and is bringing up fringe or irrelevant theories that will not affect the balance of power in the future, on a time scale that the defense establishment is largely concerned with.

  19. #179
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Not at all. An author's credibility is integral to any argument or paper he/she wants to write. We don't just let anyone be published. Hence why James Ratcliffe is free to publish political vomit on WSJ, and not on STRATFOR, Foreign Affairs or RAND.
    Another non sequitur. Public officials write op eds all the time. That’s not even a reflection on the author’s credibility, much less the content of the article.
    There is almost no parallel between this,

    And the articles in question.
    There’s no point in misrepresenting the articles when they were directly quoted already; both co-authored by a senior researcher at CNAS and a USN commander, respectively.
    Indeed, the PLA’s medical institutions have emerged as major centers for research in gene editing and other new frontiers of military medicine and biotechnology.

    In 2016, an AMMS doctoral researcher published a dissertation, “Research on the Evaluation of Human Performance Enhancement Technology,” which characterized CRISPR-Cas as one of three primary technologies that might boost troops’ combat effectiveness.

    https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201...iotech/159167/
    Quote Originally Posted by DNI
    U.S. intelligence shows that China has even conducted human testing on members of the People’s Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities.
    While the potential leveraging of CRISPR to increase human capabilities on the future battlefield remains only a hypothetical possibility at the present, there are indications that Chinese military researchers are starting to explore its potential. Of course, genetic engineering has numerous military applications in materials science, such as those that can involve maritime and aerospace applications. However, at a time when the Central Military Commission (CMC) Science and Technology Commission is also supporting research in human performance enhancement and “new concept” biotechnology, the potential intersections of these interests merit concern and consideration. For instance, a doctoral dissertation titled “Evaluation and Research on Human Performance Enhancement Technology,” published in 2016, envisions CRISPR as one of three primary “human performance enhancement technologies” (人效能增强技术, ren xiaoneng zengqiang jishu) that can be utilized to boost personnel combat effectiveness. The researcher argues that because CRISPR holds such “great potential” as a “disruptive” technology, China must “seize the initiative.”

    https://jamestown.org/program/chinas...itary-affairs/
    Not only are there parallels in the subject matter, the sources in question made parallel observations.
    Aside from that, congratulations. You can use Google.
    You should try it some time. Maybe then you can learn at least the bare minimum about a subject before you make claims about it.
    On the other hand, here's the 2020 Pentagon report on China. Here's the FAS report on China. And here's the RAND report on China.

    Suffice to say, the "existing defense and intel consensus" does not consider China's biological research to be a threat worth mentioning. The DNI is completely off base with his criticisms and is bringing up fringe or irrelevant theories that will not affect the balance of power in the future, on a time scale that the defense establishment is largely concerned with.
    Feel free to point out which and where of those reports contradicts the DNI’s assessment. If anything, you’re the one contradicting existing US intel as well as the cited experts by counter-claiming that the notion of Chinese biological research and testing in the interest of boosting personnel combat effectiveness is “nonsensical and ludicrous.”

  20. #180

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Another non sequitur. Public officials write op eds all the time. That’s not even a reflection on the author’s credibility, much less the content of the article.

    There’s no point in misrepresenting the articles when they were directly quoted already; both co-authored by a senior researcher at CNAS and a USN commander, respectively.

    Not only are there parallels in the subject matter, the sources in question made parallel observations.
    Take your own advice. The selections in question that you quoted.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Meanwhile, China has been leading the world in the number of trials of the CRISPR gene-editing technology in humans. Over a dozen clinical trials are known to have been undertaken, and some of these activities have provoked global controversy. It’s not clear whether Chinese scientist He Jiankui, may have received approval or even funding from the government for editing embryos that became the world’s first genetically modified humans. The news provoked serious concerns and backlash around the world and in China, where new legislation has been introduced to increase oversight over such research. However, there are reasons to be skeptical that China will overcome its history and track record of activities that are at best ethically questionable, or at worst cruel and unusual, in healthcare and medical sciences.

    But it is striking how many of China’s CRISPR trials are taking place at the PLA General Hospital, including to fight cancer. Indeed, the PLA’s medical institutions have emerged as major centers for research in gene editing and other new frontiers of military medicine and biotechnology. The PLA’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences, or AMMS, which China touts as its “cradle of training for military medical talent,” was recently placed directly under the purview of the Academy of Military Science, which itself has been transformed to concentrate on scientific and technological innovation. This change could indicate a closer integration of medical science with military research.

    In 2016, an AMMS doctoral researcher published a dissertation, “Research on the Evaluation of Human Performance Enhancement Technology,” which characterized CRISPR-Cas as one of three primary technologies that might boost troops’ combat effectiveness. The supporting research looked at the effectiveness of the drug Modafinil, which has applications in cognitive enhancement; and at transcranial magnetic stimulation, a type of brain stimulation, while also contending that the “great potential” of CRISPR-Cas as a “military deterrence technology in which China should “grasp the initiative” in development.


    In other words, it is a published paper that's exploratory in nature, and none of the "gene-editing" nonsense Ratcliffe or the scientists in question are drawing the attention to, has actually happened, or even planned to happen by the Chinese government. These are hypothetical developments, hence why they are not listed in any major report that deals with China.

    Or take the other article's quote, which you again you took out of context.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    At the most basic level, “CRISPR” is a tool for gene editing that possesses immense potential for precise and efficient modifications. [10] Chinese scientists across academic institutions and commercial enterprises have been at the forefront of experimentation with this technique from the start, including the company BGI (formerly known as “Beijing Genomics Inc.”), which also manages China’s National Genebank. [11] PRC research in CRISPR has rapidly progressed into clinical trials that involve the application of these gene editing techniques to animals and to humans, including because some of the regulatory requirements for medical research in China have been less strict and demanding. [12] For instance, there are currently at least fourteen trials of CRISPR underway across Chinese hospitals, which are primarily exploring its potential to treat cancer. [13] Strikingly, PLA medical institutions, particularly the PLA General Hospital and also the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, are involved in five of the trials known to be underway at present. [14]

    To date, the use of CRISPR in animals has been a very prominent element of Chinese research. [15] For example, the use of gene-edited animals to grow human-like organs for use in transplants may prove not only lucrative but also medically promising, given continued shortages of organs (Bloomberg, August 10). The creation of highly muscular dogs for use in policing illustrates the potential for gene-edited animals to contribute to state coercion (MIT Review, October 19, 2015). Meanwhile, BGI has attempted to market cloned or gene-edited animals, including ‘micro-pigs’ as pets, and another company, Beijing Xinuo Valley Biotechnology Co. Ltd. (北京希诺谷生物科技有限公司) has cloned a number of dogs as pets and for policing (Netease S&T, August 22). Chinese researchers have leveraged gene editing of animals to optimize their use as models for human diseases or characteristics, such as the study of intelligence. For instance, Mu-Ming Pu (蒲慕明), who has been a leader in designing the “China Brain Plan,” has pursued cloning and genetic alteration of macaque monkeys at the Institute of Neuroscience (ION) in Shanghai to “customize” them for specific research requirements. [16] For instance, by rendering the gene BMAL1 (which is linked to the circadian sleep rhythm) inoperable with CRISPR, the ION team has sought to create and study circadian disorders, such as sleep disorders and depression. [17]

    Although CRISPR has numerous exciting, clearly beneficial applications, particularly in medicine and agriculture, other aspects of Chinese research in CRISPR raise ethical or security concerns. [18] Infamously, the first humans to be subject to genetic engineering were also born in China as a result of the research of He Jianqui, who removed the gene CCR5 to give twin babies immunity to HIV. [19] However, some scientists speculate that He may have removed the gene to boost the babies’ cognitive power, which is believed to be an added bonus of that modification. (MIT Review, February 21). This breach of ethics has been condemned by the scientific community within China and worldwide, while also prompting the development of a new law on human gene editing. [20] Meanwhile, there appear to be relevant synergies among military, academic, and commercial research directions. BGI’s collaboration with researchers at the PLA’s National University of Defense Technology (NUDT)—as evident across co-authored publications, including the design of tools for the use of CRISPR—is hardly unexpected but nonetheless noteworthy. [21] For instance, one former professor who remains affiliated with NUDT also holds a position with BGI as a specially-appointed professor concentrating on research in bioinformatics (which leverages supercomputing for the processing of large-scale genetic information).

    While the potential leveraging of CRISPR to increase human capabilities on the future battlefield remains only a hypothetical possibility at the present, there are indications that Chinese military researchers are starting to explore its potential. Of course, genetic engineering has numerous military applications in materials science, such as those that can involve maritime and aerospace applications. However, at a time when the Central Military Commission (CMC) Science and Technology Commission is also supporting research in human performance enhancement and “new concept” biotechnology, the potential intersections of these interests merit concern and consideration. For instance, a doctoral dissertation titled “Evaluation and Research on Human Performance Enhancement Technology,” published in 2016, envisions CRISPR as one of three primary “human performance enhancement technologies” (人效能增强技术, ren xiaoneng zengqiang jishu) that can be utilized to boost personnel combat effectiveness. The researcher argues that because CRISPR holds such “great potential” as a “disruptive” technology, China must “seize the initiative.”


    Despite the alarmist language, all major powers invest into CRISPR, and the fact that China is heavily invested in the field isn't out of norm. Also, the said scientist, He Jianqui, was denounced within days by the Chinese government. In short, the original Ratcliffe claim,

    U.S. intelligence shows that China has even conducted human testing on members of the People’s Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities.
    Has absolutely no parallels to the articles in question and do not support his allegation in any way. Presumably, Ratcliffe has access to information none of us have, including the large scientific community. Considering his record so far, it is likely as distorted as your narrative of the entire issue in question.

    You should try it some time. Maybe then you can learn at least the bare minimum about a subject before you make claims about it.
    Try what? Actually reading relevant informaiton on China? Following the China watcher community, and credible defense think tanks like RAND, STRATFOR, CSIS, and the Pentagon? Here's a hint, when you're defending a DNI who's underqualified, frantically googling fringe genetic research in an attempt to defend an alarmist article by said DNI, and mis-interpreting the articles you did find, you are in no position to lecture me about making claims. Especially when you're the one who brought up a fairly awful article that has no relevant information on the great power competition between United States and China. And yes, that is the accepted terminology used in the field to describe this topic.

    Feel free to point out which and where of those reports contradicts the DNI’s assessment. If anything, you’re the one contradicting existing US intel as well as the cited experts by counter-claiming that the notion of Chinese biological research and testing in the interest of boosting personnel combat effectiveness is “nonsensical and ludicrous.”
    The said articles do not support DNI's claims, nor do the articles themselves justify DNI's decision to include hysteria over China's genetic research in his article. In fact, the articles themselves are proof that the DNI doesn't know what he is talking about and the aforementioned hysteria is hardly justified.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •