Search results

Think of it this way: historically if nations don't get the resources they need, they get it through force before going for trade. This has been a rather common thread throughout history, even in the 'tradetopia' that some call the Bronze Age or the age of colonial empires that put the first two...

True, but we still need China to be 'on board' no matter what, however. Sorry for snapping at any of you, my happy tabletop game night went sour and I'm just pissed.

That isn't the case, I'm afraid. History is filled with idiots with more ideology than sense forcing a suboptimal play, or have you forgotten the Black Hand going out and assassinating a crown prince of a nation just for their nationalism... which sparked off WW1 and thus WW2? The real problem...

History tells us otherwise, I'm afraid. All it takes is one or multiple idiots to push things into a suboptimal play which is nuclear war. So you ignore the geopolitical reality? Damn, I've got no words.

Thing is, that would only cause the situation we're trying to avoid. China has practically no trust in the rest of the planet. Other than keeping them in a key position of the economic order will only ensure that we'll be at war, I'm afraid. Then there is the horrifying domino effect that Putin...

Not really, having no real alternative trade routes that avoid China is sadly the only carrot we've got. It has to be through China or China will pull something out of old games like SSI's People's General.

Cutting China out of the world markets like that would give it the idea of China using force to gain whatever resources it needs. Thus, the sane, pragmatic, cold geopolitical calculus is to keep China in the world trade system at all costs or you'll simply risk a nuclear third world war.