When a rapidly rising power rivals an established ruling power, trouble ensues. In 11 of 15 cases in which this has occurred in the past 500 years, the result was war. The great Greek historian Thucydides identified these structural stresses as the primary cause of the war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece. In his oft-quoted insight, "It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this inspired in Sparta that made war inevitable."
There are two great tragedies in life: one is to fail to achieve one's grandest ambitions, and the other one is to succeed.
One of the three big factors that count against war in the relationship between China and the U.S. are, first, nuclear weapons and even a condition of mutual assured destruction. Secondly, one's got two economies that have become so deeply interlaced that a war between the U.S. and China would leave Wal-Marts empty and Chinese factories producing for nothing. Thirdly, climate - if between the two of us, we keep doing what we're doing, we can create a climate in which our grandchildren won't be able to live.
When we succeeded in winning the Cold War, escaping a nuclear Armageddon that could have killed us all, the U.S. inevitably had a serious problem about an encore: what now for our place in the world?
The best simpleminded test of expertise in a particular area is an ability to win money in a series of bets on future occurrences in that area.
Terrorism is really the only existential threat to America as we know it - as a free country that plays a leading role in the world.
And I hope that we can learn the lessons of the past in looking at the current challenge that China poses to a ruling America.
For interests that are vital to the U.S. - that is, essential for our survival and wellbeing - the U.S. should be prepared to use military force - including unilaterally, if necessary.
I think the election of Trump was an expression of what happens in ruling powers as they become alarmed.
The absence of a focal enemy, which is what the Cold War had provided; the complexity of the developments that are occurring that mean that the world is just extremely complicated - lots of different and competing stories and strands; the continuing reality of megaterrorism; and the dysfunctionality of our politics that has neglected the foundations of the U.S. role in the world; have altogether left us somewhat confused.
The fact that there are now many entities that may have some loose affiliation with a former core Al Qaeda - or who have decided to fashion themselves as an affiliate or follower in the Al Qaeda jihadist tradition - as well as groups that are just inspired by the concept that they could also be the perpetrators of mass killing, means that there is a spectrum of threats.
Putin needs to understand and feel in his gut that if the Chechens get a nuclear bomb, they're going to Moscow first, they're not coming to New York.
I think we should be organized in something called an Alliance Against Nuclear Terrorism. In the same way that NATO was the great alliance of the Cold War and served a great purpose then, we need now, in the war on terrorism, a new alliance, the mission of which would be to minimize the risk of nuclear terrorist attacks, and the members would agree to sign on to the gold standard.
If the Britain and France had done what they were obliged to do under the treaty and sent troops to enforce the treaty when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, the German general staff would have turned Hitler out. And one would not have had a cause for war, and you wouldn't have had World War II.
