General Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that after a certain test in China was close to the "Sputnik moment", some people could not watch it!
CNN host and current affairs commentator Fareed Zakaria published an opinion article in the Washington Post that the media reported that China's test of supersonic weapons is not an "artificial satellite moment" and that Americans should not let the 'Cold War paranoia' of the United States become more serious.
Screenshot of related reports
He begins the article by writing: "Have we witnessed the 'Sputnik moment' again? The Financial Times reported that China test-fired a supersonic missile this summer, but China denied it. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, likened the test to a key event during the Cold War [the successful launch of the first artificial satellite]: "I don't know if this was a rather 'Sputnik moment,'" he said, "but I think it's very close to it." "
In response to General Millikin's remarks, Zakaria said: "Millie should get rid of the dust from his history books." China's tests have nothing in common with Sputnik's launches; and claims that Chinese tests and satellite launches have in common have fueled a dangerous paranoia that has recently grown in Washington. "
Zakaria
He went on to mention the situation at that time. "Recall that on October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first sputnik to orbit the Earth.' The United States and the (then) Soviet Union had been planning to launch satellites into space for years, and the fact that Moscow was the first to send (satellites) into space had a huge shock to the Americans. After the Soviet Union had conducted several powerful nuclear tests, Sputnik (the successful launch) sent a signal that in the next (frontier of science), that is, space, the Soviet Union was ahead. "
Seeing this, I am reminded of a movie I saw more than a decade ago, "October Sky" The film tells the story of an American high school student, and the "October" here is worth October 1957.
Movie "October Sky"
Zakaria went on to write about why he didn't think he could compare the so-called tests of China reported in the media with the successful launch of satellites by the Soviet Union in October 1957. He wrote: "Sputnik [the successful launch] was a revolutionary event in the [U.S.-Soviet] space race. But supersonic missiles are old news. Supersonic missiles fly five times or faster than the speed of sound. Beginning in 1959, the United States and the Soviet Union deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of more than 20 times the speed of sound. Even Germany's V-2 rockets (first launched against Paris in the final stages of World War II) flew at nearly supersonic speeds. Cameron Tracy, a Stanford scientist and expert on the subject, points out that supersonic weapons are neither faster nor more stealthy than ICBMs. Oh, and by the way, according to the Financial Times, China's missiles are about 24 miles away from their (intended) targets. "
Cameron Tracy
In other words, he thought, there was nothing to be fussed about! First, there is already this thing; second, it is not quite far from the goal!
To make his point more convincing, he went on to write: "As author and journalist Fred Kaplan has pointed out, this test may be China's attempt to make america's vast missile defense system ineffective." But as he points out, the system is an expensive white elephant, and despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it so far, three of the last six tests have gone unpunished. Perhaps that's why the Pentagon hasn't tested the system since March 2019. Even if the system had perfect targets, it could still become useless with small, asymmetric measures such as simply firing two missiles at the same time. "
This Zakaria is really not polite at all! In English, "white elephant" means "something expensive and useless" and "cumbersome". To put it in layman's terms, this so-called missile defense system is a money-burning machine that is useless at all.
White elephant
Then he sighed! He wrote: "Alas, do not expect science and facts to have a great influence in this discussion. That's because there's now a bipartisan consensus in Washington that we're dangerously approaching a new Cold War. For the Pentagon, this is an opportunity: Raising fear of a large and tech-savvy enemy is a sure way to secure huge new budgets that can be used to counter the enemy's every move, whether it's real or imagined. "
Amazing! This Zakaria is amazing! This is really a heaven-breaking opportunity!
Then, Zakaria said, it's not just the United States. "This sentiment is beyond the scope of Washington," he said. Foreign Affairs magazine published an article by scholar and prominent realist John Millsheimer who slammed American policymakers for engaging with China over the past 40 years. He predicted that our active encouragement of peer competitors would lead to a new Cold War that could turn into a heated, even nuclear, war. "
This Millsheimer has always been this view, and it is not surprising to write at this time. But it depends on what level of publication published his article! Diplomacy is the most influential publication of its kind!
Obviously, Zakaria is definitely not a fan of Millsheimer! He went on to write: "But the logic of realism has left you at this point. Kenneth Waltz, a high priest of realism, predicted that once the Cold War was over, Japan would be freed from the shackles of relying on the United States for security and nuclear weapons. Mearsheimer declared that with the end of the Cold War, NATO would collapse and Europe would become a cockfourse for belligerents, just as it had been before the Cold War. He believes that many European countries, mainly Germany, may acquire nuclear weapons. None of these predictions have been realized. Indeed, in the decades following the Cold War, the EU has grown stronger and stronger. The Japanese military remains steadfast not to possess nuclear weapons. "
Kenneth Waltz
Why does Zakaria mention Millsheimer, structural realism Kenneth Waltz, their predictions? He replied: "I propose this to point out that Mearsheimer is concerned with only one of the forces that motivate the state in the international system: power politics. But there are other incentives, such as economic interdependence. Today's world – including China – is completely surrounded by a complex global economic system in which, if any country dares to wage war, the aggressors are almost as badly hurt as the victims. Almost no land has been forcibly taken away since 1945 (the most notable exception is Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014). This is tantamount to making a declaration that they respect (existing) borders, which is almost unprecedented. In addition, nuclear deterrence increases the risk and makes countries more cautious about waging a major power war. "
After writing so much, Zakaria abruptly braked and quickly ended the text with the following text: "The task of American foreign policy is to recognize that traditional power politics can indeed prevent China (he uses here the word 'isms' that begin with the word 'expansion'), and at the same time to recognize that interdependence may also inhibit China in various ways (the word 'isms' that he uses here at the beginning of the word 'expansion'). The United States should work to deploy both tools. This approach is certainly much more complicated than scaremongering and chest-thumping, but it is this approach that has the potential to keep the world peaceful and prosperous. "
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="22" > conclusion</h1>
From the last paragraph, it can be seen that although this Zakaria believes that the tests that some people in the United States have tested China (Quan and believe in foreign media reports) are alarmist, and many Americans are beating their chests, he is still biased against China! Do you see that? He also thinks that China is engaged in that kind of doctrine!
Anyway, he's still a man of understanding! In fact, many people have expressed similar views. However, his article is the latest response to Millikin's statement as a well-known American current affairs commentator after General Millie made the relevant statement!
Zakaria is an expert on international issues in the American press, having served as executive editor of the quarterly Diplomacy, editor-in-chief of the international edition of Newsweek, and now host of CNN's "Faried Zakaria Global Public Affairs Forum." The influence in the United States is extraordinary! (End)