There have been several eloquent letters vigorously supporting a "response" (which is to say, an arms buildup) to the Chinese military modernization. I haven't seen any of them try to refute the idea that this will lead to a new arms race, so I have to ask: In whose interest is this?

The fact that China is right now racing to arm up is unrefuted. That it will lead to a new arms race it may be. That it must or should lead to one, I don't believe at all. I think America is more than sufficiently armed at the moment, and the "response" I suggested had nothing to do with matching China's unilateral arms race. In fact, our "response" must be primarily diplomatic, trade-oriented, and finance-oriented, though as Busy Body and I have pointed out, the latter two fronts have already been secured by the Chinese. But no Cold War? You've got to be kidding me. China is arming up, so says the Economist; they are in direct competition with us and our allies, though for resources and military sway; and though they've been reaping our dollars (until now, when China and Japan have stopped supporting the dollar, as I mentioned and backed up earlier), their economy is also in direct competition with ours, and is destroying ours.

China's diplomacy and military alliances in the region have borne it fruit (though I do believe India will not be an ally of China's for the foreseeable future, Russia will be, and North Korea, and many of the Islamic countries nearby).

Again, I believe that those who see the Chinese as hamstrung by our mutual economic ties have mistaken the Chinese for us. We are the ones who defer to trade as if nothing else mattered. China borders 19 countries, and is surrounded by nuclear and heavily militarized powers, many of whom have armies of a million people or more. It should be obvious that peaceful mercantilism or free-market capitalism means less to them than military security.

(The refutation of the No Cold War writer started in the same paragraph as my clarification for the other letter writer, but the "No Cold War? You're kidding me" comments were directed at a different person. Hope there is no confusion.)

Clarification II

(The refutation of the No Cold War writer started in the same paragraph as my clarification for the other letter writer, but the "No Cold War? You're kidding me" comments were directed at a different person. Hope there is no confusion.)

-- sonofa

Dear Sonofa Bitch:

China has been modernizing its army for about two decades now. While that's apparently news to you, it's been common knowledge for most of the rest of us, and has gone pretty much been hand-in-glove with the modernization and liberalization of its economy. Other than the author of this silly Salon article, I don't think you'll find too many people that equate this with China being in a state of Cold War with its primary trading partner. We are in competition with China. But that's not the same as aiming nukes at one another or using Third World proxies to fight for control of ideological territory and/or resources.

While it's apparently news to you, China has drastically stepped up the modernization of its armed forces over the last few years. That's why I mentioned that the Economist has begun sounding the alarm about it over the last couple of years.

using Third World proxies to fight for control of ideological territory and/or resources.

Is exactly what's happening between the US and Iran, China's new ally.

I doubt the two sides here debating China's relative "threat" to U.S. interests are going to agree; but I'll bet there's one thing every LW in this thread CAN agree on. As of the moment I write this, only 19--19!-- letters have been posted. I didn't care for the analysis in the article, but at least it was about an interesting, substantive, and terribly important subject; and all of 19 people (or actually fewer, since there were several multiple posts) cared to respond. And if only it had been a Cary Tennis column about lesbian incest leading to adult munchausen by proxy syndrome, there'd have been 100 responses for sure! Good grief!

It is so unfortunate that the US policy is being driven by an ignorant pushy woman of indifferent intelligence, apart from some apparent and outdated book knowledge.

Rice was the woman who said "they did not say where and they did not say when" in regard to the 9/11 bombing. The rest of us expect leaders to find out, but Rice expected to be told by bombers when and where they were going to bomb.

I am amazed!

Now of course she is using her outdated Soviet theories to apply to China which will only lead to disaster because China will be bow to a coalition of Australia, Japan, South Korea and India or anyone else.

Someone should send Rice, and Bush, back to school.

David, true. I've no idea why the strange Cary Tennis thread took off, or why the Nina Burleigh essay has become a Jerry Springer show. The issue of the exchange rates, the trade imbalance, and the dollar selloff are just not sexy.

For decades, the US dollar has been the world's reserve currency. Over 50% of all the world's transactions are done in US dollars. dcmeserve and I disagreed over whether the Chinese would cause the dollar to crash. We didn't know, until I googled a bit, that part of what I predicted would come true has come true: China's change from pegging their currency to the Dollar, to pegging it to a basket of currencies, was a prelude to stopping their support of the dollar through their purchase of Treasury Bonds. Japan has seemingly reacted to China's pegging the Yuan to the basket of currencies by selling off 10 billion dollars' worth of Treasury Bonds.

dcmeserve's prediction, on the other hand, has also come true: others have stepped in to bolster the dollar's value. I'm betting that this cannot be sustained, if Japan continues selling off Treasury Bonds as it has last year. Also, I expect that this selloff will not remain at a constant level, but will become a flood, within the next couple of years, and the dollar will cease to be the world's reserve currency. When housing falls and the domestic economy suffers, and the dollar is too weak to buy foreign products, people will notice, and articles explaining why will draw bigger audiences. Deng Xiaoping put China's current economic policies into effect two decades ago, and their effects are hitting us right now.