If that's what you jump to, you might want to introspect on that. They're not savages for being xenophobic, that just makes them human like the rest of us.

If it were in China’s “nature”

That paragraph is a commentary on power relations and geography. It's not in "China's nature", but if they decided to invade in a world that looked like ours today but without the US, there would realistically be nobody to stop them. Perhaps North Korean nukes would be enough of a deterrent actually, but shy of that there would be no realistic opposing force.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

If that’s what you jump to, you might want to introspect on that. They’re not savages for being xenophobic, that just makes them human like the rest of us.

You are the one saying that they are xenophobic, and I reject your racist, orientalist, essentialist claim. Yours is an idealist position, not a materialist one, yet you’re the one trying to argue that communism as idealist.

It’s not in “China’s nature”, but if they decided to invade in a world that looked like ours today but without the US, there would realistically be nobody to stop them.

You say, “if they decided.” What’s the point of this hypothetical? You’re doing a lot of mental gymnastics to construct a straw man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc

[–] m_f@midwest.social -1 points 1 hour ago

Materially, they're xenophobic, like the rest of humanity. Claiming that they're uniquely not xenophobic is racist in its own way.

They've decided before. So has Japan. But you're missing the point here. It's not about likelihood of it happening, it's about what's possible today vs possible in a changed world.

I'll try stating it another way. If the US got busy with a civil war for the next few years and I was in a leadership position of say Korea or Japan, I would be pushing for a nuclear program posthaste, because that's the only real deterrent.