China-Japan future flashpoint?

[mr friendly guy]

I think this is what makes China that much more abominable than the communist past. At least they had an interest in furthering the interest of the common man. China has no such pretenses except for naked power. The only good thing is that the genocides backed by China so far have not been as dangerous as those the west has backed, so they got that going for them (as of now).

Firstly, trade with say African nations will improve the interest of the average Chinese citizen, and not just the big Chinese corporations. Clearly the distribution of new gained wealth is not equal, but to the poorer workers the gain isn't zero. Despite China's critics saying that most of the poverty reduction occurred in the 1980s and insinuating that its stopped.

The benefit to Africa is in stronger infrastructure (a common thing traded for with China). Infrastructure is important to economic development. What the African nations do with the better infrastructure is up to them. Although I would argue that the benefits to the "common man" most probably isn't zero, so they get something out of trade as well. In fact there are commentators, of which Dambisa Moyo is arguably the most vocal who argue in favour of China trade with Africa as beneficial to those African countries.

[Thanas]

Firstly, trade with say African nations will improve the interest of the average Chinese citizen, and not just the big Chinese corporations. Clearly the distribution of new gained wealth is not equal, but to the poorer workers the gain isn't zero. Despite China's critics saying that most of the poverty reduction occurred in the 1980s and insinuating that its stopped.

There are large parts of Chinese society the Government has in effect written off or does not care for. The dirt-poor farmers in the north for example, or the travelling workers.

The benefit to Africa is in stronger infrastructure (a common thing traded for with China). Infrastructure is important to economic development. What the African nations do with the better infrastructure is up to them. Although I would argue that the benefits to the "common man" most probably isn't zero, so they get something out of trade as well. In fact there are commentators, of which Dambisa Moyo is arguably the most vocal who argue in favour of China trade with Africa as beneficial to those African countries.

Yes, I am sure those exist. Just make sure to also point out how much China also is fuelling war in the region, for example breaking a weapons embargo to Sudan in 2008 in order to fuel the genocide in Darfur. They are a lot like Russia in that regard - whatever sells, will be sold, no matter to whom or what the guys intend to do with it. Some call that to be supportive of genocide, I simply call it being shitheads.

[K. A. Pital]

There are large parts of Chinese society the Government has in effect written off or does not care for. The dirt-poor farmers in the north for example, or the travelling workers.

Uh... I'm not sure how you can infer that from the actual events. The equalization between Northern and Southern China has been on the agenda for the last five-year plan at the very least. And it is not as if North-Eastern China is some sort of hellhole. When entering NE China from Russia you can see that the difference in how things are organized is startling. And Russia's average GDP per capita at the time of my life in China was thrice the Chinese one. It is simply a matter of fact that things will get better in the North now - it is well-connected with a through-DPRK freight link to South Korea coming very soon and ambitious economic projects in Xinjiang finally being executed after several years of delays.

Just make sure to also point out how much China also is fuelling war in the region, for example breaking a weapons embargo to Sudan in 2008 in order to fuel the genocide in Darfur. They are a lot like Russia in that regard - whatever sells, will be sold, no matter to whom or what the guys intend to do with it. Some call that to be supportive of genocide, I simply call it being shitheads.

They are a lot like America too, which for example sold weapons at the same time as Sukharto's forces were halving the population of East Timor (but in America's case they were also directly abetting the actions by blocking political measures through the UN). I'm not sure that there's a nation which truly is above it. Germany keeps selling those weapons to Saudi Arabia and truth about the House of Saud be damned. I'd say Chinese are "shitheads" in the very same way all other arms traders are.

I would like to hold China to a higher standard though and I wish they'd actually do stuff like the USSR did: demand of their Arab and African clients to introduce some semblance of progressive measures at least. On the other hand, such actions would only provoke more ire from the West.

[mr friendly guy]

There are large parts of Chinese society the Government has in effect written off or does not care for. The dirt-poor farmers in the north for example, or the travelling workers.

1. Considering poverty continues to drop (according to Western sources like Gallup who survey the people themselves) that's quite a rush to judgement.

2. If you are referring to migrant workers, that's simply bizarre unless you consider "does not care for" as defined as "not giving enough benefits as you would like them to have." Even China bashing BBC has interviewed migrant workers who have it rough who are happy that they get to work in one of China's bigger cities because they get more money, which in turn improves their standard of living.

Yes, I am sure those exist. Just make sure to also point out how much China also is fuelling war in the region, for example breaking a weapons embargo to Sudan in 2008 in order to fuel the genocide in Darfur. They are a lot like Russia in that regard - whatever sells, will be sold, no matter to whom or what the guys intend to do with it. Some call that to be supportive of genocide, I simply call it being shitheads.

So they are doing the same as some Western nations then. Actually scratch that. Some Western nations actually get their hands dirty and hence are even more morally culpable.

In that regards I don't agree with doing it. However we both know criticism of China in Africa consists of much more minor things, like not insisting on good governance with their deals.

[Thanas]

There is a difference between selling to states who do bad things and selling to states that are actively engaged in genocide while also breaking a UN embargo.

[K. A. Pital]

There is a difference between selling to states who do bad things and selling to states that are actively engaged in genocide while also breaking a UN embargo.

Between 1975 and 1980, when the violence in East Timor was at its climax, the United States furnished approximately $340 million in weaponry to the Indonesian government. US military aid and arms sales to Indonesia increased from 1974 and continued through to the Bush and Clinton years until it was stopped in 1999.

Britain, Canada, Japan, and other nations supported Indonesia during the occupation of East Timor. Britain abstained from all of the UN General Assembly resolutions relating to East Timor, and sold arms throughout the occupation. In 1978 Indonesia purchased eight BAE Hawk jet trainers, which were used during the "encirclement and annihilation" campaign. Britain sold dozens of additional jets to Indonesia in the 1990s.[204] Canada abstained from early General Assembly resolutions about East Timor, and opposed three. The Canadian government regularly sold weapons to Indonesia during the occupation, and in the 1990s approved over CDN$400 million in exports for spare weapons parts.[205] Japan voted against all eight General Assembly resolutions regarding East Timor.[206]

The Indian government also supported Indonesia, likening the occupation to its own seizure of Goa in 1961.[207] Some analysts remarked that Indonesia's delayed action also prevented peaceful transfer of East Timor to it, similar to the manner in which the French transferred Pondicherry to India in 1962.[208]

Member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), consistently voted against the General Assembly resolutions calling for self-determination in East Timor.

Just a small reminder that all, and by all I literally mean all, nations are prone to the very same bloodthirsty mentality. When it is an ally executing the genocide, it is very well acceptable to sell arms. It is perhaps even worse than simply "see no evil" attitude, since political support of a certain nation in the UN implies complicity, though I heard China also shielded Sudan in the UN - not sure how true that is.

[Thanas]

Just a small reminder that all, and by all I literally mean all, nations are prone to the very same bloodthirsty mentality. When it is an ally executing the genocide, it is very well acceptable to sell arms. It is perhaps even worse than simply "see no evil" attitude, since political support of a certain nation in the UN implies complicity,

True, but you would be hard pressed to find a contravention of embargoes since the cold war ended.

though I heard China also shielded Sudan in the UN - not sure how true that is.

They freaking vetoed sanctions. That is the definition of aiding and abetting.

[K. A. Pital]

True, but you would be hard pressed to find a contravention of embargoes since the cold war ended.

I find it kind of preposterous that Saudi Arabia is not under such an embargo while Iran is. And that Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest arms buyers from the West, too. That aside, European and American powers and superpowers had their own years of "aiding and abetting". China can become just another cruel master in a long row of cruel masters. But it is untrue that China cannot improve in more ways than just economy.

Cold war does not excuse people from either the First or the Second World, just as China's quest for minerals in Africa which its industries need to feed a billion people and keep them clothed and sheltered... does not excuse its support of Sudan. That's holding everyone to the same standard in my opinion. "Cold war" and previously "white man's burden" have been easy cop-outs for America and Europe in the past. China has to face its challenges and improve its standing.

[Thanas]

I can agree with that.

[energiewende]

While history doesn't have to rhyme, this situation is closer to the German example than the US example. US is a British off-shoot with many of the same cultural landmarks, institutions, and ideological aspirations. If the rise of America was an existential threat to the power of the British state, it was not an existential threat to the survival of the 'British way'. There was therefore no strong incentive to fight the US by, for instance, repudiating all foreign debts and rushing to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. PRC is an ostensibly communist dictatorship mixed with a lot of elements of what can best be described as antiquated (in the literal sense) God-Emperor worship. It has very few ideas or aspirations in common with the US, other than base desire for wealth and power common to all of humanity.
.

Nice hypothesis. Unfortunately runs into the problem of reality. Being or not being a threat to the "British way" in a cultural sense doesn't make the relevant nation states less or more likely to conflict. Geopolitical goals outweigh that. For example the US and Britain in 1812 and in the Suez Crisis.

Also going the other way, since you believe cultural factors play a bigger part than geopolitical goals, I can say culturally the PRC isn't interested in forcing its institutions onto others no matter how much Western propaganda makes out. The evidence. Because they are willing to do deals with anyone really. Including those the West considers good (Western nations naturally) and bad (I trust you can name them). When they do business deals with African nations they don't have the same strings the Western governments insist on such as good governance etc. That's not to say that is a good or bad thing on the part of the PRC, only that culturally they are more interested in doing business than forcing some cultural change on others (outside of geopolitical context). Thus by that logic China isn't a threat to "The American way of life" because they aren't interested in forcing their way of life, eg culture, political system onto others.

If you believe that states are just computer programs playing a huge game of Risk then there are two (at least, but the most important ones) moves that it is hard to explain BritainBot not making:

- Declaring war on the USA in 1862. There was political will to do it and the French wanted to come along. The US could have been strangled in the cot.

- Declaring war on either the USA or the USSR in 1918. Britain possessed the world's most powerful army and the world's most powerful navy. Japan would've joined against the USA and probably the French against the USSR. There is a real possibility here, with ruthless diplomacy and total commitment, to simply conquer the entire world. It was also known that the window of opportunity would close in a few years (as in fact it did) and probably never re-open.

The fact is that British society has never been inclined to unpromptedly launch epic wars whose result is either world conquest or total destruction. Sometimes it joined and prosecuted them, but only if it felt there was something more at stake than its score in some game. Hence Britain was wlling to bankrupt itself fighting against Germany's Wagnerian conquer-or-die bids for greatness, but in the face of US's peaceful rise Britain was much more willing to slide into a quiet but comfortable retirement.

With PRC, US won't be willing to do that. PRC's ideology is subjection to the universal state, and only that. Nuclear weapons probably save us; otherwise, the US should have declared war on the PRC about 5-10 years ago.

[Kane Starkiller]

- Declaring war on the USA in 1862. There was political will to do it and the French wanted to come along. The US could have been strangled in the cot.

I don't see how Britain would be guaranteed to win that war. Union had something like 70% of the population and economy of the British isles. How would entry into the war affect British dealings with the Russian Empire? If France entered the war that would leave Prussia unchecked in Europe.

- Declaring war on either the USA or the USSR in 1918. Britain possessed the world's most powerful army and the world's most powerful navy. Japan would've joined against the USA and probably the French against the USSR. There is a real possibility here, with ruthless diplomacy and total commitment, to simply conquer the entire world. It was also known that the window of opportunity would close in a few years (as in fact it did) and probably never re-open.

If declaring war on US in 1862 was a risky move with an unsure outcome then this is sheer insanity. After loosing over 800,000 people in war against the Germans on battlefields 300km from London they should attack a country with twice the population and GDP of the British Isles located 5000km away?

[energiewende]

The British Empire, France and the CSA would have had a very large margin of superiority over the USA. In 1918, the RN (and IJN) would defeat the USN, and while the US could eventually outbuild the British Isles alone, this would take a decade or more in which time the US would have been shut out of the rest of the world. Unless defeated elsewhere, Britain's position would already be unassailable.

Of course neither of them were guaranteed wins, but the alternative is guaranteed eventual (relative) decline. mr friendly guy is arguing that states always try to preserve their relative positions. Since these were not just the only, but actually quite good opportunities for Britain to retain its status for another century, it should have taken them. My claim is that states are driven by what could crudely be called long term ideological factors and these are not always strongly opposed to that particular state losing its relative position in the world. From Britain's perspective in both situations, fighting two extremely costly and somewhat uncertain wars to maintain its status as the single most powerful country were not worth it. Germany's position in 1914 and 1939, on the other hand, was weaker than Britain's in both 1862 and 1918, and yet they launched their great gambles quite willingly; Germany operated with a different 'long term ideology' than Britain did.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Germany operated with a different 'long term ideology' than Britain did

You mean "kill white people" instead of "kill brown people"? I guess in your MY TRIBE FUCK YEAH world (I assume you are British), Germany was in the wrong because they arrived late at the colonialism game and all the good low-risk places had already been flagged by others.

[energiewende]

Germany was much more willing to risk casualties and control of its homeland than Britain, in order to acquire territory and power.

I'm not going to discuss the morality of British and German foreign policy in this thread.

[Thanas]

- Declaring war on the USA in 1862. There was political will to do it and the French wanted to come along. The US could have been strangled in the cot.

I don't see how Britain would be guaranteed to win that war. Union had something like 70% of the population and economy of the British isles. How would entry into the war affect British dealings with the Russian Empire? If France entered the war that would leave Prussia unchecked in Europe.

Prussia is in no position to get involved in such a scenario. The army reforms are not done yet, Austria is still a competitor in northern Germany and Schleswig-Holstein has not been annexed yet.

Meanwhile, the union Navy was not strong enough to oppose the British. If they wanted to intervene on behalf of the CSA, they would have most likely been successful.

- Declaring war on either the USA or the USSR in 1918. Britain possessed the world's most powerful army and the world's most powerful navy. Japan would've joined against the USA and probably the French against the USSR. There is a real possibility here, with ruthless diplomacy and total commitment, to simply conquer the entire world. It was also known that the window of opportunity would close in a few years (as in fact it did) and probably never re-open.

If declaring war on US in 1862 was a risky move with an unsure outcome then this is sheer insanity. After loosing over 800,000 people in war against the Germans on battlefields 300km from London they should attack a country with twice the population and GDP of the British Isles located 5000km away?

Agreed.

Germany was much more willing to risk casualties and control of its homeland than Britain, in order to acquire territory and power.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

The fact is that British society has never been inclined to unpromptedly launch epic wars whose result is either world conquest or total destruction.

Napoleonic wars? Seven years war? You have quite a rosy view of Britain.

Sometimes it joined and prosecuted them, but only if it felt there was something more at stake than its score in some game. Hence Britain was wlling to bankrupt itself fighting against Germany's Wagnerian conquer-or-die bids for greatness

Which "Wagnerian conquer or die bids" would that be? Note you said plural, I require you to cite more than one such gamble.

[Borgholio]

- Declaring war on the USA in 1862. There was political will to do it and the French wanted to come along. The US could have been strangled in the cot.

I fail to grasp how this is even a possibility.

1. Britain was outraged over the Trent Affair in 1861 but going to war with the US would have cut off major food imports and lead to famine. It also would not have been a slam-dunk war, as the US military was far superior to what it was in 1812. In the end, diplomats were given a chance to work things out and they did by the middle of 1862.

2. France and Britain were not at very good terms at that time. They would not have formed a military alliance unless both were threatened...which they were not. Neither nation was directly or deliberately threatened by the US and they knew it. They were more worried about each other at the time.

[mr friendly guy]

If you believe that states are just computer programs playing a huge game of Risk then there are two (at least, but the most important ones) moves that it is hard to explain BritainBot not making:

Well since I don't believe states behave just like computer programs playing the world wide equivalent of Risk... I guess I win then. Thanks for playing.

- Declaring war on the USA in 1862. There was political will to do it and the French wanted to come along. The US could have been strangled in the cot.

Repeat after me. Harry Turtledove writes highly speculative fiction.

- Declaring war on either the USA or the USSR in 1918. Britain possessed the world's most powerful army and the world's most powerful navy. Japan would've joined against the USA and probably the French against the USSR. There is a real possibility here, with ruthless diplomacy and total commitment, to simply conquer the entire world. It was also known that the window of opportunity would close in a few years (as in fact it did) and probably never re-open.

1. The USSR was not formed until 1922. Bit hard to attack a country that doesn't exist.
2. The British had already lost some of their appetite for Imperialistic wars by then. Witness the public response in London to the British invasion of Tibet a bit more than a decade ago. Also note they had just fought WW I.
3. I am going to ask you to provide evidence of your claims about Japan wanting to attack the US in 1918 rather than just you stating it. If I took you at your word I would be forced to believe the USSR was around four years before it formed.

The fact is that British society has never been inclined to unpromptedly launch epic wars whose result is either world conquest or total destruction. Sometimes it joined and prosecuted them, but only if it felt there was something more at stake than its score in some game. Hence Britain was wlling to bankrupt itself fighting against Germany's Wagnerian conquer-or-die bids for greatness, but in the face of US's peaceful rise Britain was much more willing to slide into a quiet but comfortable retirement.

I love you handwave away Britain's involvement in such "epic wars" by the word "unpromptedly," at the same time admitting they have participated in such wars. This is just rhetorical bullshit on the highest order.

With PRC, US won't be willing to do that. PRC's ideology is subjection to the universal state, and only that. Nuclear weapons probably save us; otherwise, the US should have declared war on the PRC about 5-10 years ago.

Seriously PRC's ideology is subjection? What does that mean? Oh you meant subjugation. In which case you get another I would ask you to prove that, but for you authorial fiat clearly outweighs evidence, so I am most probably wasting my time.

Your entire spiel makes no attempts to refute the point - that geopolitical interests outweigh cultural factors in deciding a conflict. Oh wait. You just assumed that its automatically it is a nation's number one interest to be top dog and must always try to maintain that status irregardless to the consequences. Thus when they don't conflict, its because of "cultural factors". I guess that urge to be top dog drives the other 100 + countries which aren't the top dog, right?

Of course neither of them were guaranteed wins, but the alternative is guaranteed eventual (relative) decline. mr friendly guy is arguing that states always try to preserve their relative positions. .

Now I know you didn't read what I wrote. Since I kind of argued that for all we know, China's rise (ie becomes the bigger economy vs the US) could be similar to the US own rise (have a bigger economy than the British Empire); that is with no conflict as one state attempts to preserve its relative position. In which case it blatantly contradicts the supposed claim I made about states always trying to preserve their relative position.

[Simon_Jester]

If you believe that states are just computer programs playing a huge game of Risk then there are two (at least, but the most important ones) moves that it is hard to explain BritainBot not making:

- Declaring war on the USA in 1862. There was political will to do it and the French wanted to come along. The US could have been strangled in the cot.

More than a little questionable- the US still had more resources to defend itself with than in 1776. The 'best' the UK/French alliance could have accomplished was to create an independent CSA. This would have been loathesome to many British politicians (who were anti-slavery), and the resulting Confederate state wouldn't have been a real match for the US in the long run.

I think, at most, it would have simply spread the historical 20th century division of Europe into opposed polarized blocs so that it would now affect North America as well, a la Turtledove.

- Declaring war on either the USA or the USSR in 1918.

Britain DID fight the Soviets in 1918-19, didn't you know? So did the US. It didn't go anywhere because there was basically no possibility of committing anywhere near the massive number of troops it would have required to turn the White Russians into a victorious force capable of defeating the Reds.

The catch is that there was no political will favoring such a war, and even if there had been, Britain was economically and demographically exhausted from the fighting in Europe; the US wasn't. There's a reason that as soon as the war was properly ended at Versailles, Britain started pushing for a massive naval disarmament treaty; they couldn't even afford to keep up an arms race, let alone several more years of total war.

With PRC, US won't be willing to do that. PRC's ideology is subjection to the universal state, and only that.

Citation needed.

I always thought the PRC's ideology was development of the home country by means of glorious communist revolution backyard steel mills oh wait letting big companies manufacture stuff here is working better let's try that instead.

The British Empire, France and the CSA would have had a very large margin of superiority over the USA. In 1918, the RN (and IJN) would defeat the USN, and while the US could eventually outbuild the British Isles alone, this would take a decade or more in which time the US would have been shut out of the rest of the world. Unless defeated elsewhere, Britain's position would already be unassailable.

This is not a foregone proposition; the Royal Navy consisted of a lot of aging and badly overworked ships, with a moderate line of battle of new ones capable of actually fighting effectively against the US's Standard battleships.

There is, again, a reason the British sought a disarmament treaty rather than pursue an arms race postwar.

Of course neither of them were guaranteed wins, but the alternative is guaranteed eventual (relative) decline. mr friendly guy is arguing that states always try to preserve their relative positions. Since these were not just the only, but actually quite good opportunities for Britain to retain its status for another century, it should have taken them. My claim is that states are driven by what could crudely be called long term ideological factors and these are not always strongly opposed to that particular state losing its relative position in the world.

Now this much is true- but it's also important to factor in the role of strategic exhaustion; counting battleships is a game for the ignorant.

[mr friendly guy]

Is there any evidence that in 1862 Britain saw the US in the same way that the US sees China now from an economic perspective? That is the US sees China as a country that could potentially overtake them in terms of GDP. In fact one third of Americans erroneously think China already has a larger economy. Is there any Briton who in those days worry that the US would surpass them economically?

In fact what little I know of, the UK in fact failed to see America's potential. I will now elaborate.

Depending on your source, the US surpassed Britain as the economic power in the mid 1860s or early 1870s. Historian Arnold Toynbee reminiscing about his younger days had this to say about Queen Victoria's jubilee celebration almost three decades later in 1897. "Well here we are on top of the world, and we have arrived at this peak to stay there forever."

This was an example given by Liam Byrne in his book about why Britain should trade/invest more with China. He argued that the British totally failed to see the American juggernaut for what it was, and if it had realised America's potentially, the British would have invested/ traded more with the US. You can see then that he will argue for the UK investing / trading more with China because this time, they can see China's potential.

The point I am trying to make, AFAIK the British failed to see / take seriously America's potential even after it had surpassed them economically decades later, yet alone in 1862 when it was on the verge of surpassing them.

Hence energiewende's conundrum about why the British didn't nip the US in the bud in 1862 when they were a threat to Britain supremacy is a non starter. While there are undoubtedly many reasons why it was impractical, another reason is simply that they didn't see the American as an "economic threat" to their standing the same way some people see China as a threat to US standing now. Hence even if you believe your country must always be the top dog, they wouldn't try to suppress the US because they underestimated them.

[Simon_Jester]

Energiewende only ever thinks about these things in terms of economic statistics like GDP- but GDP is a 20th century concept!

[To his credit he did not explicitly reference GDP, but see below]

The entire idea of trying to measure the 'strength' of a country in terms of its ability to produce fundamental goods, or of adding up the prices of all goods created in that country, simply didn't exist in the 19th century. Not without reason; it would have looked like a useless measure to any historically literate person in or around 1850. India no doubt had, collectively, a higher GDP than Britain in 1725 (how not, when they had something like 25 times the population and the Industrial Revolution hadn't even begun)... but by 1825 Britain had come to totally dominate India by a combination of superior technology, and ability to present a unified political front.

GDP only matters in a world where money can buy anything, and all wealth is fungible, such that the wealth of a million people making ten dollars a day can be tapped meaningfully to balance out the wealth of a hundred thousand people making a hundred dollars a day. 19th century British policymakers didn't live in such a world.

[K. A. Pital]

You meant Energiewende thinks the world is equal to a game of Hearts of Iron. Well, at least not Starcraft. Britain needing more minerals and all that.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not that simple; it's that he can only understand what countries are doing in favor of a handful of economic indicators. Therefore GDP is his measure of 'strength' and he cannot grasp the idea that a given country might not even have considered using GDP as a metric, because:

1) The very concept of GDP is anachronistic when we talk about 1860s policymaking, and in general any Briton measuring relative national strength in 1862 would never have seriously considered saying the US and Britain were anywhere near coequal, and...
2) Not only do people NOT act that way (which he acknowledged) but even ruthless "optimize my nation's relative power" thinkers probably wouldn't act that way (which he didn't acknowledge).

But neither of these arguments matters to energiewende. As far as I can tell everything he knows about human behavior and how societies work comes from that economics textbook he swallowed when he was seven.

[Kane Starkiller]

While there was no GDP as a measurement back in 1862 nations did notice the size of the population and the physical output of the economy which translated directly into the size and equipment of the military of any nation. So it's not that British never noticed or realized that US is a rapidly rising country but simply that they had bigger fish to fry in the form of Russians, French and later Germans.
The fact was that those powers were much closer to British isles and were a more direct threat to British Empire than the US which was on the other side of the ocean. Expending huge amount of resources to try and cut down a growing distant power while the situation right at your doorstep remains unresolved would be completely irrational.

Countries don't want to be "the most powerful nation on Earth". If you take US for example first thing the US wanted to do is secure the hinterland of the initial Atlantic coast cities hence expanding to the Mississippi. They wanted to secure the mouth to the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river system hence the purchase of New Orleans and, because French needed the money and expanded the offer, the territory up to the Rockies. They didn't want a European power threatening them from the south so they pressured Spain into ceding Florida. They feared a large Mexican population (which east Texas could support) would threaten New Orleans hence the annexation of Texas. They wanted a strong pacific presence and a definite resloution to Texas so they started Mexican American war. They wanted to eliminate the chance of Cuba being used as a way to blockade the entry to Mexcian Gulf so they started a war with Spain. They wanted to eliminate all approaches to North America by extracontinental powers so they bought Alaska and annexed Hawaii.
When it was all done the combination of the largest amount of arable land in the world, huge navigable river system, large number of ports and distance from any competing power made US the most powerful country in the world, a most fortuitous state of affairs for US but not something any country would go to war for specifically.

For UK during the 19th century ensuring that no single power dominates continental Europe, fighting Russian influence in Persia and maintaining secure lines of communication to India were the primary goals. Engaging in a gigantic long term blocade of the continental US for the privilege of being numero uno in economic size would be completely irrational regardless of the culture and societal values the British posessed or any cultural affinities British and Americans shared. (Which is not to say that there weren't any.)

German Empire, on the other hand, was a power that felt it was under siege the moment it unified in 1871. With France on its western border, Russian Empire on the eastern border and British to the north threatening to suffocate its ocean trade Germans couldn't take much comfort in the fact that their economy was on the trajectory to exceed that of the British Isles. They pretty much felt that time is against them and that over the long term they won't be able to cope with the continent sized Rusian Empire or British and French which both had large overseas holdings.
After WW1 and loosing any overseas colonies and even portions of home territory the mood in many power circles of Germany turned into pretty much desperation and ultimately fanaticism as shown in Hitler. They were fully aware of the gambles they were comitting in WW2 but were convinced that Germanies days are numbered squeezed as it was by the huge imperial powers in Europe and they went for all or nothing.

France got trounced by German Empire in 1871 and since then French were worried that they have no hope of balancing the Germans and that it is only a matter of time before Germans dominate them.

Russians were worried by the rising Germany and the possibility that British could support the Germans in a potential war to deal with their advesary in the Great Game.

British, for their part, did notice the German economic growth and increasing power and the way they dealt with the French in 1871. When Germans decided to build a large navy of their own that was all the evidence they needed to conclude that Germany is on course to dominate the European continent and building a navy that can cut off Britain from its empire.

That was the situation in the early 20th century and the reason any spark could ignite a world war. Which eventually it did.

US, for its part, went from having an economy and population roughly equal to that of British Isles and a population 27% larger in 1870 to having the economy that was 2.3 times larger and a population that was 2.1 times larger. In fact in 1913 US economy was becoming comparable to that of German, French and British economy combined not counting their colonies. This combined with US physical isolation meant that there was no real interest in joining any kind of war or otherwise rocking the boat as the US considered that time is working for it in direct contrast to Imperial Germany.


So how does all these historical events compare to current Chinese-Japanese standoff? During the 1990s and 2000s China was relatively weak compared to Japan but also had an economy that grew at 10%-15%. So the China saw time as working for it: each year its position with regards to other countries in the region enhanced. Thus there was no reason to rock the boat and so China was relatively quiet. Recently Chinese economic growth slowed down to roughly 7%-8%, Japan started remilitarizing more rapidly, North Korea became a joke allowing South Korea to redirect more funds from land army to its navy. If the Chinese economic growth slows further then there is a possibility that China will no longer see time as working for it and might consider itself getting boxed in by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Phillipines and India all supported by US. That could create tensions.
However I don't think that situation is anywhere near as tense as the one in WW1 Europe. These countries are not as close to each other, there are seas and Himalayas sepearating them and reducing risks of invasion etc.

[K. A. Pital]

Why would China consider itself "boxed in"? Economic growth does not equal to greater military capabilities directly. Faster growth may rely on the civilian and often foreign-controlled enterprises (as it was with China before the last decade). This decade China is growing slower, but unlike the last decade, the Chinese state is rich and not cash-strapped: it can embark on ambitious programs that include building weapons in greater quantity and with greater quality than ever. So every new year of slow growth actually gives the Chinese state the time to build up its military.

[mr friendly guy]

So how does all these historical events compare to current Chinese-Japanese standoff? During the 1990s and 2000s China was relatively weak compared to Japan but also had an economy that grew at 10%-15%. So the China saw time as working for it: each year its position with regards to other countries in the region enhanced. Thus there was no reason to rock the boat and so China was relatively quiet. Recently Chinese economic growth slowed down to roughly 7%-8%, Japan started remilitarizing more rapidly, North Korea became a joke allowing South Korea to redirect more funds from land army to its navy. If the Chinese economic growth slows further then there is a possibility that China will no longer see time as working for it and might consider itself getting boxed in by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Phillipines and India all supported by US. That could create tensions..

To elaborate in more detail..

According to the IMF predictions for 2013* the combined nominal GDP is about 8.719 trillion USD. China is expected to be 8.939 trillion (although I wouldn't be surprise if the final number is a bit above 9 trillion)**. So already China's GDP nominal is larger than all those countries slightly. Moreover its still growing at a higher rate than any of those countries. The best of them is the Phillipines at 6.8% less than the now released figures of 7.7% from China. Moreover the Phillipines has a tiny economy, so most of the increase in GDP from China's neighbours are from the bigger economies of India and Japan, and their growth has been sluggish.

So at the present "time is still working for China," especially when its rivals (assuming all of them team up as unlikely as that sounds) have been hit with even worse slow down. India in particular, while Abenomics seems to have run into problems in Japan.

* - the IMF tends to publish the GDP from previous years in April of the next year, so we only have predictions at the moment

** - the reasons being a) the predicted GDP growth rate they listed is lower than the final one (now available) and b) I find the IMF tends to under predict the appreciation of the RMB.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... selgr.aspx (IMF data section)

However I don't think that situation is anywhere near as tense as the one in WW1 Europe.

Agreed.