https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2020-09-12/doc-iivhuipp3929906.shtml
美媒：二战军费能变海量就业 与中国的新冷战却不行
美媒：二战军费能变海量就业 与中国的新冷战却不行
506
（观察者网马力译自2020年6月11日美国TomDispatch网站）
原导语：今年真是多事之秋，我们可以从历史角度来梳理一下。就在发表本文的2020年6月，我们正在同时经历1918年“西班牙大流感”、1930年代“大萧条”、黑人民权领袖马丁·路德·金1968年遭暗杀之后爆发的大规模游行示威和骚乱，以及反越战抗议示威等一系列历史事件的重演（只不过这一次战争的对象并非万里之外的越南人，而是美国自己土地上的有色族裔）。对了，如果上述这些还不足以让美利坚这艘“泰坦尼克号”沉没的话（这艘大船其实在过去几个月里已经撞过好几次冰山了），我还可以再加上一件，那就是迈克尔·T·克莱尔在今天这篇文章里提到的：像美苏冷战那样绑架全世界的一场新冷战正在揭开大幕，上一次冷战以苏联在1991年的崩溃画上了句号。
美国罕布什尔学院和平与世界安全研究项目教授、能源地缘政治专家迈克尔·T·克莱尔2020年6月11日在有“美国主流媒体的真正解药”之称的TomDispatch网站刊发评论文章：《我们与中国之间的新冷战以及这场新冷战对美国人的影响》
特朗普政府（也就是这艘“泰坦尼克号”的船长）对中国的敌意正在经济、政治和军事等各领域不断升级。不过这一次，我实在无法下注，我真地已经说不好在这场新冷战中最后走向崩溃的是美国还是中国。
事实上，除了像上面那样从历史角度看美国当前所面临的问题，我们还有另外一个角度，那就是气候变化。其灾难性影响虽然不是近在眼前，但毫无疑问我们是无法逃避的。人类对气候变化及其对地球环境的影响一直是心知肚明的。可以想象一下，2100年，中国北部人口稠密的平原地区将不再适宜人类居住，而美国东部的飓风、西部的山火、西南部的旱灾和中西部的水灾将更加频繁地光顾这个国家。也许，以人类历史上大国兴衰的传统视角来看待这个世界已经有些过时了，只是人们还没有完全意识到这一点。下面，我们还是回到迈克尔·T·克莱尔的这篇文章吧。作者认为，一场美中新冷战并非当下我们真正所需。
我们与中国之间的新冷战以及这场新冷战对美国人的影响
[文/迈克尔·T·克莱尔]美国的时事评论员和政客们大多已经得出结论，我们与中国之间的新冷战（也就是在不爆发军事冲突的情况下两国所陷入的一种带有严重敌意的竞争状态）已经开始了。《纽约时报》5月15日刊登了一篇题为《严重分歧预示美中两国正在滑向新冷战》（Rift Threatens U.S.Cold War Against China）的文章，作者在文中例举了两国围绕贸易、科技以及新冠病毒扩散责任等问题所展开的多轮激烈交锋。而北京最近推出的香港国安法使得局势更趋紧张。特朗普总统随即发出威胁，宣称将取消对香港的特殊相关待遇，同时还将出台相应制裁措施。与此同时，国会里的那些民主党人和共和党人也开始齐心协力地研究该如何对中国实施严厉制裁。
对于任何一个还记得上一场冷战的人来说，当前局势的发展看起来熟悉得甚至让人感到有些诡异。当前的情况让我想起二战结束后不久美苏两国合作关系的破裂，当时俄国人对东欧的政策开始变得越来越强硬，美苏两国展开了舆论上的互相攻击，互不信任的情绪开始不断滋长。华盛顿最终下定决心，美国必须在全球范围内对苏联进行遏制并最终将其击败。2020年的今天，那段历史似乎正在重演。虽然当前美中两国在贸易、科学和教育等领域仍然保持着合作关系，但双方似乎都有意切断那些尚存的关系并在广泛的领域里将敌意进一步升级。
华盛顿目前正在商讨的一些惩罚中国的措施的确不会很快对普通美国民众的生活产生什么影响。事实上，那些威胁言论最终可能只会被人们视为毫无新意的情绪宣泄。例如，来自俄克拉荷马州的共和党议员Jim Inhofe和来自罗得岛州的民主党议员Jack Reed在参议院军事委员会上提出了规模高达数十亿美元的“太平洋威慑倡议”（Pacific Deterrence Initiative），他们希望借此巩固美国在亚洲的军事存在。他们曾公开表示，这一举动将“向中国共产党发出一个强烈信号，即美国人民有决心捍卫美国在印太地区的利益”。
这对我们来说真是太简单了。作为美国纳税人，我们在这场新冷战的“第一炮”中只需向国会致敬即可。国会自会负责把大笔美元转到军火分包商的账户上，这样美国就可以把“捍卫自身国家利益”的信号传递到太平洋那一边的北京。而到那时，我们就可以开心地挥舞星条旗了！
不过，如果新冷战真的爆发，人们未必还能笑得出来。美苏冷战的历史告诉我们，即便热战不会爆发，对华敌意的升级也将使我们付出代价。也许现在我们的确应该好好思考一下，那样一个被新冷战定义的未来世界对你我这些普通美国人到底意味着什么。
疲软的经济复苏
对于大多数美国人来说，发动对华冷战很可能并不如经济复苏来得重要。任何妨碍经济复苏的事情（包括对华冷战在内）都不会受到人们的欢迎。
与美苏冷战时代不同，当时华盛顿和莫斯科之间少有经济往来，如今美中两国已经在经济关系中互相捆绑，这种经济关系对双方的净财富增长作出了贡献，而美国的农业、飞机制造业等以出口为导向的产业也从中获得了大量利益。
当然，美中之间的这种关系也让许多美国蓝领工人失去了工作，一些美国科技企业的知识产权也因此遭到了损害。特朗普在2016年之所以能够当选，他在上述问题上的煽动言论也发挥了作用。当选之后，特朗普便开始致力于美中经济关系的脱钩，他认为脱离中国的美国只会变得更好。为此，他对中国进口商品加征了关税，而且还出台了多项措施以阻止中国公司继续使用美国技术。
特朗普和他的盟友们指责中国滥用国际贸易规则，而且认为对中国输美商品加征关税（其实这种关税最终是由美国进口商和美国消费者承担的）是遏制中国经济上升势头的最佳手段，诸位读者完全可以就特朗普的上述两种做法展开自由辩论。问题在于，就在特朗普发动对华贸易战之后，不但中国的经济增速下降了，而且美国自身的经济增速也出现了下降。
2019年年底，人们当时其实已经意识到，不断提高的关税和两国间恶化的贸易关系正在让全球经济付出代价。就在经济专家们指出改善美中贸易关系、缓和关税战有助于刺激美国经济在疫情中复苏的同时，特朗普和以国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥、白宫贸易顾问彼得·纳瓦罗为首的那些鹰派盟友们却认为此刻正是强化反华措施的最佳时机。总统本人也已经发出暗示，他将对中国商品加征更高的关税并采取措施加速两国经济的脱钩进程。特朗普5月中旬对福克斯商业新闻记者Maria Bartiromo表示：“我们还有许多事情没有做，我们可以切断两国之间的一切关系”。
切断一切关系意味着什么？一些政策制定者认为美中脱钩有助于刺激美国经济增长，因为那些在中国设厂的美国企业届时将把工厂搬回美国或搬到美国盟友那里。考虑到当前美国民众十分渴望工作机会，上述观点其实忽视了两个方面的问题：首先，那些在中国生产的跨国公司会把生产线迁往墨西哥、泰国、越南等低成本国家；其次，即便有公司把生产线迁回美国，这也需要多年才能完成，而且毫无疑问，最终那些回到美国的工厂只会采购更多的工业机器人而不是雇佣更多的美国工人。
我的基本观点是，从经济角度来讲，美中冷战升级必将破坏美国经济从疫情中复苏的势头，降低数百万美国人获得就业机会的可能性。
增加军费开支而不是刺激经济复苏
在当前国家债务规模急剧膨胀、国内经济复苏急需大规模投资的情况下，一场新冷战意味着军费开支必然会大幅增长。到6月底，除非国会能够追加拨款，否则2.2万亿美元的疫情紧急援助资金将全部耗尽，而届时仍会有数百万失业在家的美国人和大量小企业主在困境中挣扎。
民主党人虽然在众议院提出了再追加3万亿美元紧急援助资金的方案（援助对象包括一些深陷困境的州、城市，此外该方案还包括向美国公民直接发放现金），但白宫官员和许多共和党人却认为，向美国公民发放现金将导致联邦债务规模膨胀到无法维持的水平（他们在为大公司和有钱人减税时却并没有这样的困扰）。因此，在国会通过经济刺激计划的可能性已经很小。到了7月，很可能会有数百万美国人无力支付房租等日常刚性开支。
不过，在增加军费开支这个问题上，共和党人却并没有表现出任何顾虑。例如，来自阿肯色州的Tom Cotton参议员就提出了规模高达430亿美元的“抵制中国扩张作战行动法案”（Forging Operational Resistance to Chinese Expansion Act）。其缩写FORCE（意为“武力”——观察者网注）真是个相当不错的词。Tom Cotton参议员指出，提出该法案的目的就在于“阻止中国共产党将美国势力逐出西太平洋，阻止中国通过武力实现大陆与台湾的统一”。
该法案包括（但不限于）用39亿美元再追加采购一艘弗吉尼亚级攻击型核潜艇（五角大楼在其2021年度预算案中已经写入了用47亿美元采购一艘此型号潜艇的内容），用30亿美元再追加采购多架F35战机（F35战机是有史以来最为昂贵的武器系统之一，而且五角大楼在其2021年度预算案中也已经写入了用46亿美元采购48架F35战机的内容）。
其实，民主党也在极力证明自己的反华立场。因此，“抵制中国扩张作战行动法案”或某种程度上更加温和的“太平洋威慑倡议”在国会中获得通过的可能性是非常大的。事实上，共和党之所以反对追加3万亿美元疫情紧急援助资金，很可能就是出于增加军费开支的考虑。军费开支的增加是否能够像二战时期把美国拖出“大萧条”泥潭那样在今天也发挥刺激经济的作用呢？
“抵制中国扩张作战行动法案”或该法案的某种变体的确能够把资金注入经济体系。不过当今美国的军工复合体（military-industrial complex）与80年前相比已经发生了巨大变化。80年前，美国需要招募数百万工人进入工厂马力全开地每月生产出上千辆坦克或上千架飞机以击败纳粹德国。而今天的军事装备从硬件角度来讲已经极度复杂，花费在一架战机、一辆坦克或一艘战舰上的资金大部分都会被用来购买制造过程中所需要的某种特殊材料或计算机软件系统，而不会用来给大量工人支付工资。因此，用数十亿美元采购新的潜艇或F35战机为美国带来的就业机会是非常有限的。其实，把同样数额的资金用于医疗产业或初等教育所带来的就业机会很可能会比采购武器多很多倍。
征兵问题
下面要提到的内容是这个国家里每一个年轻男性或女性（以及他们的父母、祖父母等）都应该引起注意的：征兵。与美苏冷战时代不同，对于今天的美国年轻人来说，在军中服役不再是一种义务。当然，他们可能出于爱国主义、个人经济状况等原因选择参军。
虽然自“911事件”以来美国一直处于战争状态，但军方通过在经济和教育等方面出台鼓励政策，保证了兵源的充足，并且成功避免了公众对征兵的抗议。军方之所以能够做到这一点，原因在于，与此前的朝鲜战争、越南战争以及美苏对抗时代在欧洲的大规模军事部署相比，近些年的战争并不需要大量美军士兵同时投入到某一战斗行动当中去。
一场与中国之间的全面冷战就完全是另外一种情况了，即便把五角大楼从阿富汗和伊拉克的撤军行动考虑在内也是如此。为了对中国进行现代意义上的军事“遏制”，大规模军事部署是不可避免的。此外，我们还需要考虑到届时可能进行军事冒险的俄罗斯领导人普京。美国当前的“全志愿兵”制度能够应付这种局面吗？如果我们与北京之间的局势骤然紧张，美国现在的兵役制度显然是无法应对的。
要记住：在某一时刻，美国的征兵制度一定会暴露出问题。截至目前，国防部在恢复义务兵役制方面尚未有任何动作。这样做是需要获得国会批准的，而且毫无疑问将引发严重的政治分歧，而这种分歧正是当前美国政府的高级官员们在竭力避免的。
此外，作为美国领导人最为重要的政策指导，2018版《国防战略报告》已经明确指出，美国必须认识到美国将与其他“大国竞争者”之间出现持续多年的严重对立，这种史诗级的斗争需要美国对其战争能力进行全面的动员（the full mobilization of America‘s war-making capabilities）。这份报告还指出，“（我们与中国和俄罗斯之间的）长期战略竞争需要构成国家力量的多种要素实现有机融合（the seamless integration of multiple elements of national power）”。这份报告并没有特别提到征兵问题，不过考虑到美国已将目光聚焦在不断崛起的中国和鲁莽、不计后果的俄罗斯身上，征兵制度改革问题迟早会被提上议事日程。
压迫与歧视
与美苏冷战相似，眼下这场新冷战使得美国社会弥漫着压迫、歧视和包容性缺失的气氛。这一次，被针对的对象包括华裔美国人、中国留学生、中国在美研究人员以及被认为与中国政府有关的非华裔、非中国籍的其他人员。
令人遗憾的是，上述情况已经开始变为现实了。联邦调查局和国家安全委员会的官员们已经接到命令向那些最为杰出的常春藤联盟高校的校长发出警告：不可以录取有可能在美国收集科学技术信息并在回国后与政府学术机构分享此类信息的学生，也不可以继续保留符合这一描述的在读中国留学生的学籍。截至目前，已经有30位中国教授的赴美签证遭到了拒签（虽然他们一直与美国学术机构保持着长期合作关系）。此外，还出现了更加极端的情况：由于曾经从一所中国大学那里获得过一笔未进行申报的收入，哈佛大学化学系系主任Charles Lieber已于今年1月被捕。
许多美国学术机构都批评这种做法是对学术自由的粗暴干涉。然而，一些政府官员却坚持认为，上述做法是新冷战的必要组成部分（a necessary component of the new Cold War）。虽然美国官员认为那些做法只是针对中国政府以及与之有关系的人员（无论那种关系多么牵强），许多华裔美国人却已经越来越强烈地感到自己也受到了怀疑。只是因为自己的华裔身份，他们感到美国社会对自己的质疑和敌意正在不断增加。“华裔的确感到自己也成了被针对的对象，这对他们的感情造成了伤害”，一位杰出的华裔商界精英Charlie Woo说。
美苏冷战的历史经验告诉我们，美国社会当前弥漫的这种压迫和包容性缺失的气氛只会在学术界制造更多紧张空气、损害学术自由，而美国社会已经十分复杂难解的种族矛盾也会因此更趋恶化。
爆发热战的风险
不要忘记，冷战转化为热战的可能性是永远存在的。当我们回顾历史，会发现美苏两国曾长期处于一种非战争的僵持状态，两国都担心任何形式的直接冲突都有可能引发一场核大战，届时整个地球都将沦为焦土。事实上，双方都曾被卷入某种血腥的代理人战争。此外，美苏两国也曾多次接近爆发直接冲突的边缘。最为大众所熟知的是1962年古巴导弹危机。当时莫斯科在古巴部署了带有核弹头的弹道导弹系统，美国为了消除这一近在眼前的威胁差一点就发动了战争。而且如果战争真地爆发，很有可能就是一场核战争。在最后关头，肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫两位领导人通过协商避免了那种灾难性的结果。
不难设想，随着美中敌意的不断升级，两国之间也有可能发生代理人战争以及类似古巴导弹危机那样的事件。无论如何引发，朝鲜半岛上发生的任何一次冲突都有可能很快发展成为一场代理人战争。当然，最危险的情况还是美中两军之间的直接冲突，这样一种冲突在中国东海和南海海域都是有可能发生的。
目前，两国军舰经常在上述水域相遇，它们经常在互相射击距离之内，甚至还曾险些发生相撞事故。美国海军坚称自己正在国际水域执行“航行自由行动”，而中方则认为美国军舰侵犯了中国的领海。此外，中国炮艇曾主动接近美国军舰，意在迫使其改变航向以避免冲突的发生。随着此类事件的不断发生以及紧张形势的升级，带来人员伤亡的严重冲突的可能性将大大增加，这将成为两国全面军事对抗的导火索。有一点是确定无疑的，对华冷战的升级必将增加发生军事冲突的风险。
没有人能够确定这场新冷战什么时候会对普通美国人带来直接影响，随着两国之间紧张关系和敌意的不断加剧，大家最终必将会感受到其严重的负面影响。如果你只是赞成已经采取的那些孤立和惩罚北京的举措，那么还不必太过紧张。但是如果你认为美国应该发动一场对中国的全面冷战，那么请一定三思而行。
U.S. media: World War II military expenditure can change massive employment, but China’s new cold war cannot
U.S. media: World War II military expenditure can change massive employment, but China’s new cold war cannot
506
(Observer network horse power translated from the United States TomDispatch website on June 11, 2020)
Original lead: This year is really eventful. We can sort it out from a historical perspective. As of June 2020 when this article was published, we are simultaneously experiencing the "Spanish Flu" of 1918, the "Great Depression" of the 1930s, and the mass demonstrations that broke out after the assassination of the black civil rights leader Martin Luther King in 1968. The riots and the recurrence of a series of historical events such as anti-Vietnam War protests and demonstrations (except that the target of this war is not the Vietnamese who are thousands of miles away, but the colored ethnic groups on the United States' own land). By the way, if the above is not enough to sink the American "Titanic" (this big ship has actually hit the iceberg several times in the past few months), I can add one more, then This is what Michael T. Claire mentioned in today's article: A new Cold War that kidnap the world like the US-Soviet Cold War is kicking off. The last Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
On June 11, 2020, Michael T. Claire, a professor of the Peace and World Security Research Program at Hampshire College and an expert in energy geopolitics, published a commentary on the TomDispatch website, which is known as "the real antidote to mainstream American media": " The new cold war between us and China and the impact of this new cold war on Americans
The hostility of the Trump administration (that is, the captain of the "Titanic") towards China is escalating in economic, political, and military fields. But this time, I really can't bet. I really can't say whether it is the United States or China that will eventually collapse in this new cold war.
In fact, in addition to looking at the current problems facing the United States from a historical perspective as above, we have another perspective, and that is climate change. Although its disastrous impact is not imminent, there is no doubt that we cannot escape it. Mankind has always been well aware of climate change and its impact on the earth's environment. It can be imagined that in 2100, the densely populated plains of northern China will no longer be suitable for human habitation, while hurricanes in the eastern United States, wildfires in the west, droughts in the southwest, and floods in the Midwest will visit this country more frequently. Perhaps, looking at the world from the traditional perspective of the rise and fall of great powers in human history is a bit outdated, but people have not fully realized this. Next, let's return to this article by Michael T. Claire. The author believes that a new US-China Cold War is not what we really need right now.
The new cold war between us and China and the impact of this new cold war on Americans
[Text/Michael T. Claire] Most current affairs commentators and politicians in the United States have concluded that the new cold war between us and China (that is, a belt in which the two countries are caught in the absence of a military conflict) A state of severely hostile competition) has begun. "The New York Times" published an article on May 15 entitled "Rift Threatens USCold War Against China" (Rift Threatens USCold War Against China). , Science and technology, and the spread of the new crown virus. The Hong Kong National Security Law recently introduced by Beijing has made the situation even more tense. President Trump immediately issued a threat, declaring that the special treatment for Hong Kong would be cancelled, and corresponding sanctions would be introduced. At the same time, those Democrats and Republicans in Congress also began to work together to study how to impose severe sanctions on China.
For anyone who still remembers the last Cold War, the development of the current situation looks familiar and even strange. The current situation reminds me of the breakdown of the cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union shortly after the end of World War II. At that time, the Russians’ policies towards Eastern Europe began to become tougher and tougher. The United States and the Soviet Union began to attack each other in public opinion, distrusting each other. Emotions began to grow. Washington finally made up its mind that the United States must contain the Soviet Union on a global scale and ultimately defeat it. Today in 2020, that period of history seems to be repeating itself. Although the United States and China still maintain cooperative relations in the fields of trade, science, and education, both sides seem to intend to cut off those remaining relations and further escalate their hostility in a wide range of areas.
Some measures that Washington is currently discussing to punish China will indeed not have any impact on the lives of ordinary Americans anytime soon. In fact, those threatening remarks may eventually be regarded as uninspired emotional vents. For example, Republican Congressman Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma and Democratic Congressman Jack Reed from Rhode Island proposed the multi-billion-dollar Pacific Deterrence Initiative on the Senate Armed Services Committee. They Hope to consolidate the US military presence in Asia. They have publicly stated that this move will "send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that the American people are determined to defend American interests in the Indo-Pacific region."
This is so easy for us. As American taxpayers, we only need to pay tribute to Congress in the "first shot" of this new Cold War. Congress will be responsible for transferring large sums of U.S. dollars to the accounts of arms subcontractors, so that the United States can transmit the signal of "defending its own national interests" to Beijing on the Pacific side. And by then, we can wave the Stars and Stripes happily!
However, if the new Cold War really breaks out, people may not be able to laugh. The history of the US-Soviet Cold War tells us that even if the hot war does not break out, the escalation of hostility towards China will cost us. Maybe now we should really think about what such a future world defined by the new Cold War means to ordinary Americans like you and me.
Weak economic recovery
For most Americans, starting a cold war with China is probably not as important as economic recovery. Anything that hinders economic recovery (including the Cold War against China) will not be welcomed by people.
Unlike the US-Soviet Cold War era, when Washington and Moscow had little economic exchanges, the US and China are now tied to each other in an economic relationship. This economic relationship has contributed to the growth of both sides’ net wealth. Export-oriented industries such as the aircraft manufacturing industry have also benefited from it.
Of course, this relationship between the United States and China has also caused many American blue-collar workers to lose their jobs, and the intellectual property rights of some American technology companies have also been damaged. Trump was elected in 2016 because of his inciting remarks on the above issues. After being elected, Trump began to work on the decoupling of US-China economic relations. He believes that the United States without China will only get better. To this end, he imposed additional tariffs on Chinese imports, and also introduced a number of measures to prevent Chinese companies from continuing to use American technology.
Trump and his allies accuse China of abusing international trade rules, and believe that imposing tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the United States (in fact, such tariffs are ultimately borne by American importers and American consumers) is to curb China's economic growth. The best way is for you readers to start a free debate on Trump's above two approaches. The problem is that just after Trump launched a trade war with China, not only did China's economic growth decline, but the United States' own economic growth also declined.
At the end of 2019, people actually realized that increasing tariffs and deteriorating trade relations between the two countries were costing the global economy. While economic experts pointed out that improving U.S.-China trade relations and easing the tariff war would help stimulate the U.S. economy to recover from the epidemic, Trump and his team led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro Those hawkish allies believe that this is the best time to strengthen anti-China measures. The president himself has also hinted that he will impose higher tariffs on Chinese goods and take measures to accelerate the decoupling process of the two countries' economies. Trump told Fox Business News reporter Maria Bartiromo in mid-May: "We still have a lot to do. We can cut off all relations between the two countries."
What does it mean to cut everything? Some policy makers believe that the decoupling of the United States and China will help stimulate US economic growth, because those American companies that set up factories in China will then move their factories back to the United States or move to American allies. Considering that the American people are very eager for job opportunities, the above view actually ignores two aspects: first, those multinational companies that produce in China will move their production lines to low-cost countries such as Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam; second, even if there are companies Moving the production line back to the United States will take many years to complete, and there is no doubt that in the end those factories that return to the United States will only purchase more industrial robots instead of hiring more American workers.
My basic view is that from an economic point of view, the escalation of the US-China Cold War will surely undermine the momentum of the US economy's recovery from the epidemic and reduce the chances of millions of Americans getting jobs.
increase military spending instead of stimulating economic recovery
In the current situation where the scale of national debt is rapidly expanding and the domestic economic recovery is in urgent need of large-scale investment, a new cold war means that military expenditure will inevitably increase substantially. By the end of June, unless Congress can allocate additional funding, the US$2.2 trillion in emergency aid funds for the epidemic will be exhausted, and there will still be millions of unemployed Americans and a large number of small business owners struggling.
Although the Democrats proposed an additional $3 trillion in emergency aid funds in the House of Representatives (the aid targets include some troubled states and cities, and the program also includes direct cash distribution to American citizens), the White House officials and many Republicans People believe that issuing cash to U.S. citizens will cause the federal debt to expand to an unsustainable level (they have no such trouble when cutting taxes for large companies and wealthy people). Therefore, it is very unlikely that the economic stimulus plan will be passed in Congress. By July, millions of Americans are likely to be unable to pay daily rigid expenses such as rent.
However, the Republicans did not show any concerns about increasing military spending. For example, Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas proposed the "Forging Operational Resistance to Chinese Expansion Act" with a scale of 43 billion US dollars. The acronym FORCE (meaning "force"-Observer Net Note) is really a pretty good word. Senator Tom Cotton pointed out that the purpose of proposing the bill is to "prevent the Chinese Communist Party from expelling American power from the Western Pacific and prevent China from achieving the unification of the mainland and Taiwan through force."
The bill includes (but is not limited to) using 3.9 billion U.S. dollars to purchase an additional Virginia-class attack nuclear submarine (the Pentagon has already included in its 2021 budget for the purchase of a submarine of this type with 4.7 billion U.S. dollars). $3 billion to purchase additional F35 fighters (F35 fighters are one of the most expensive weapon systems in history, and the Pentagon has also included the purchase of 48 F35 fighters for $4.6 billion in its 2021 budget) .
In fact, the Democratic Party is also trying its best to prove its anti-China stance. Therefore, it is very likely that the "Resistance to China's Expansion Operations Act" or the somewhat more moderate "Pacific Deterrence Initiative" will be passed in Congress. In fact, the reason why the Republican Party opposes the additional US$3 trillion in emergency aid funds for the epidemic is likely to be out of consideration of increasing military spending. Can the increase in military spending be able to stimulate the economy today, just as it dragged the United States out of the quagmire of the "Great Depression" during World War II?
The "Boycott of China’s Expansion of Operations Act" or some variant of this bill can indeed inject funds into the economic system. However, the military-industrial complex in the United States today has undergone tremendous changes compared to 80 years ago. Eighty years ago, the United States needed to recruit millions of workers into factories to produce thousands of tanks or thousands of planes every month to defeat Nazi Germany. Today’s military equipment is extremely complex in terms of hardware. Most of the funds spent on a fighter plane, a tank or a battleship will be used to purchase a certain special material or computer software required in the manufacturing process. The system is not used to pay wages to a large number of workers. Therefore, using billions of dollars to purchase new submarines or F35 fighters will bring very limited employment opportunities to the United States. In fact, using the same amount of funds in the medical industry or elementary education will bring about many times more employment opportunities than purchasing weapons.
Conscription problem
The content to be mentioned below is what every young man or woman (and their parents, grandparents, etc.) in this country should pay attention to: conscription. Unlike the US-Soviet Cold War era, serving in the military is no longer an obligation for young Americans today. Of course, they may choose to join the army for reasons such as patriotism and personal economic conditions.
Although the United States has been in a state of war since the “911 Incident”, the military has ensured a sufficient supply of troops by introducing economic and educational incentives, and successfully avoided public protests against conscription. The reason why the military is able to do this is that, compared with the previous large-scale military deployments in Europe during the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the US-Soviet confrontation, the wars of recent years did not require a large number of US soldiers to invest at the same time. Go during a certain combat operation.
A full-scale cold war with China is a completely different situation, even taking into account the Pentagon’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. In order to carry out military "containment" in the modern sense of China, large-scale military deployment is inevitable. In addition, we also need to take into account the Russian leader Putin who may take military risks by then. Can the current "all-volunteer" system in the United States cope with this situation? If the situation between us and Beijing suddenly becomes tense, the current US military service system will obviously be unable to cope.
Remember: at a certain moment, the American conscription system will definitely expose problems. So far, the Ministry of National Defense has not taken any action to restore the compulsory military service system. To do so requires the approval of Congress, and it will undoubtedly lead to serious political differences, which are what the current senior officials of the US government are trying to avoid.
In addition, as the most important policy guidance of U.S. leaders, the 2018 edition of the National Defense Strategy Report has clearly pointed out that the U.S. must recognize that there will be serious confrontations between the U.S. and other "big power competitors" that will continue for many years. The struggle requires the United States to fully mobilize its war capabilities (the full mobi
美媒：二战军费能变海量就业 与中国的新冷战却不行
美媒：二战军费能变海量就业 与中国的新冷战却不行
506
（观察者网马力译自2020年6月11日美国TomDispatch网站）
原导语：今年真是多事之秋，我们可以从历史角度来梳理一下。就在发表本文的2020年6月，我们正在同时经历1918年“西班牙大流感”、1930年代“大萧条”、黑人民权领袖马丁·路德·金1968年遭暗杀之后爆发的大规模游行示威和骚乱，以及反越战抗议示威等一系列历史事件的重演（只不过这一次战争的对象并非万里之外的越南人，而是美国自己土地上的有色族裔）。对了，如果上述这些还不足以让美利坚这艘“泰坦尼克号”沉没的话（这艘大船其实在过去几个月里已经撞过好几次冰山了），我还可以再加上一件，那就是迈克尔·T·克莱尔在今天这篇文章里提到的：像美苏冷战那样绑架全世界的一场新冷战正在揭开大幕，上一次冷战以苏联在1991年的崩溃画上了句号。
美国罕布什尔学院和平与世界安全研究项目教授、能源地缘政治专家迈克尔·T·克莱尔2020年6月11日在有“美国主流媒体的真正解药”之称的TomDispatch网站刊发评论文章：《我们与中国之间的新冷战以及这场新冷战对美国人的影响》
特朗普政府（也就是这艘“泰坦尼克号”的船长）对中国的敌意正在经济、政治和军事等各领域不断升级。不过这一次，我实在无法下注，我真地已经说不好在这场新冷战中最后走向崩溃的是美国还是中国。
事实上，除了像上面那样从历史角度看美国当前所面临的问题，我们还有另外一个角度，那就是气候变化。其灾难性影响虽然不是近在眼前，但毫无疑问我们是无法逃避的。人类对气候变化及其对地球环境的影响一直是心知肚明的。可以想象一下，2100年，中国北部人口稠密的平原地区将不再适宜人类居住，而美国东部的飓风、西部的山火、西南部的旱灾和中西部的水灾将更加频繁地光顾这个国家。也许，以人类历史上大国兴衰的传统视角来看待这个世界已经有些过时了，只是人们还没有完全意识到这一点。下面，我们还是回到迈克尔·T·克莱尔的这篇文章吧。作者认为，一场美中新冷战并非当下我们真正所需。
我们与中国之间的新冷战以及这场新冷战对美国人的影响
[文/迈克尔·T·克莱尔]美国的时事评论员和政客们大多已经得出结论，我们与中国之间的新冷战（也就是在不爆发军事冲突的情况下两国所陷入的一种带有严重敌意的竞争状态）已经开始了。《纽约时报》5月15日刊登了一篇题为《严重分歧预示美中两国正在滑向新冷战》（Rift Threatens U.S.Cold War Against China）的文章，作者在文中例举了两国围绕贸易、科技以及新冠病毒扩散责任等问题所展开的多轮激烈交锋。而北京最近推出的香港国安法使得局势更趋紧张。特朗普总统随即发出威胁，宣称将取消对香港的特殊相关待遇，同时还将出台相应制裁措施。与此同时，国会里的那些民主党人和共和党人也开始齐心协力地研究该如何对中国实施严厉制裁。
对于任何一个还记得上一场冷战的人来说，当前局势的发展看起来熟悉得甚至让人感到有些诡异。当前的情况让我想起二战结束后不久美苏两国合作关系的破裂，当时俄国人对东欧的政策开始变得越来越强硬，美苏两国展开了舆论上的互相攻击，互不信任的情绪开始不断滋长。华盛顿最终下定决心，美国必须在全球范围内对苏联进行遏制并最终将其击败。2020年的今天，那段历史似乎正在重演。虽然当前美中两国在贸易、科学和教育等领域仍然保持着合作关系，但双方似乎都有意切断那些尚存的关系并在广泛的领域里将敌意进一步升级。
华盛顿目前正在商讨的一些惩罚中国的措施的确不会很快对普通美国民众的生活产生什么影响。事实上，那些威胁言论最终可能只会被人们视为毫无新意的情绪宣泄。例如，来自俄克拉荷马州的共和党议员Jim Inhofe和来自罗得岛州的民主党议员Jack Reed在参议院军事委员会上提出了规模高达数十亿美元的“太平洋威慑倡议”（Pacific Deterrence Initiative），他们希望借此巩固美国在亚洲的军事存在。他们曾公开表示，这一举动将“向中国共产党发出一个强烈信号，即美国人民有决心捍卫美国在印太地区的利益”。
这对我们来说真是太简单了。作为美国纳税人，我们在这场新冷战的“第一炮”中只需向国会致敬即可。国会自会负责把大笔美元转到军火分包商的账户上，这样美国就可以把“捍卫自身国家利益”的信号传递到太平洋那一边的北京。而到那时，我们就可以开心地挥舞星条旗了！
不过，如果新冷战真的爆发，人们未必还能笑得出来。美苏冷战的历史告诉我们，即便热战不会爆发，对华敌意的升级也将使我们付出代价。也许现在我们的确应该好好思考一下，那样一个被新冷战定义的未来世界对你我这些普通美国人到底意味着什么。
疲软的经济复苏
对于大多数美国人来说，发动对华冷战很可能并不如经济复苏来得重要。任何妨碍经济复苏的事情（包括对华冷战在内）都不会受到人们的欢迎。
与美苏冷战时代不同，当时华盛顿和莫斯科之间少有经济往来，如今美中两国已经在经济关系中互相捆绑，这种经济关系对双方的净财富增长作出了贡献，而美国的农业、飞机制造业等以出口为导向的产业也从中获得了大量利益。
当然，美中之间的这种关系也让许多美国蓝领工人失去了工作，一些美国科技企业的知识产权也因此遭到了损害。特朗普在2016年之所以能够当选，他在上述问题上的煽动言论也发挥了作用。当选之后，特朗普便开始致力于美中经济关系的脱钩，他认为脱离中国的美国只会变得更好。为此，他对中国进口商品加征了关税，而且还出台了多项措施以阻止中国公司继续使用美国技术。
特朗普和他的盟友们指责中国滥用国际贸易规则，而且认为对中国输美商品加征关税（其实这种关税最终是由美国进口商和美国消费者承担的）是遏制中国经济上升势头的最佳手段，诸位读者完全可以就特朗普的上述两种做法展开自由辩论。问题在于，就在特朗普发动对华贸易战之后，不但中国的经济增速下降了，而且美国自身的经济增速也出现了下降。
2019年年底，人们当时其实已经意识到，不断提高的关税和两国间恶化的贸易关系正在让全球经济付出代价。就在经济专家们指出改善美中贸易关系、缓和关税战有助于刺激美国经济在疫情中复苏的同时，特朗普和以国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥、白宫贸易顾问彼得·纳瓦罗为首的那些鹰派盟友们却认为此刻正是强化反华措施的最佳时机。总统本人也已经发出暗示，他将对中国商品加征更高的关税并采取措施加速两国经济的脱钩进程。特朗普5月中旬对福克斯商业新闻记者Maria Bartiromo表示：“我们还有许多事情没有做，我们可以切断两国之间的一切关系”。
切断一切关系意味着什么？一些政策制定者认为美中脱钩有助于刺激美国经济增长，因为那些在中国设厂的美国企业届时将把工厂搬回美国或搬到美国盟友那里。考虑到当前美国民众十分渴望工作机会，上述观点其实忽视了两个方面的问题：首先，那些在中国生产的跨国公司会把生产线迁往墨西哥、泰国、越南等低成本国家；其次，即便有公司把生产线迁回美国，这也需要多年才能完成，而且毫无疑问，最终那些回到美国的工厂只会采购更多的工业机器人而不是雇佣更多的美国工人。
我的基本观点是，从经济角度来讲，美中冷战升级必将破坏美国经济从疫情中复苏的势头，降低数百万美国人获得就业机会的可能性。
增加军费开支而不是刺激经济复苏
在当前国家债务规模急剧膨胀、国内经济复苏急需大规模投资的情况下，一场新冷战意味着军费开支必然会大幅增长。到6月底，除非国会能够追加拨款，否则2.2万亿美元的疫情紧急援助资金将全部耗尽，而届时仍会有数百万失业在家的美国人和大量小企业主在困境中挣扎。
民主党人虽然在众议院提出了再追加3万亿美元紧急援助资金的方案（援助对象包括一些深陷困境的州、城市，此外该方案还包括向美国公民直接发放现金），但白宫官员和许多共和党人却认为，向美国公民发放现金将导致联邦债务规模膨胀到无法维持的水平（他们在为大公司和有钱人减税时却并没有这样的困扰）。因此，在国会通过经济刺激计划的可能性已经很小。到了7月，很可能会有数百万美国人无力支付房租等日常刚性开支。
不过，在增加军费开支这个问题上，共和党人却并没有表现出任何顾虑。例如，来自阿肯色州的Tom Cotton参议员就提出了规模高达430亿美元的“抵制中国扩张作战行动法案”（Forging Operational Resistance to Chinese Expansion Act）。其缩写FORCE（意为“武力”——观察者网注）真是个相当不错的词。Tom Cotton参议员指出，提出该法案的目的就在于“阻止中国共产党将美国势力逐出西太平洋，阻止中国通过武力实现大陆与台湾的统一”。
该法案包括（但不限于）用39亿美元再追加采购一艘弗吉尼亚级攻击型核潜艇（五角大楼在其2021年度预算案中已经写入了用47亿美元采购一艘此型号潜艇的内容），用30亿美元再追加采购多架F35战机（F35战机是有史以来最为昂贵的武器系统之一，而且五角大楼在其2021年度预算案中也已经写入了用46亿美元采购48架F35战机的内容）。
其实，民主党也在极力证明自己的反华立场。因此，“抵制中国扩张作战行动法案”或某种程度上更加温和的“太平洋威慑倡议”在国会中获得通过的可能性是非常大的。事实上，共和党之所以反对追加3万亿美元疫情紧急援助资金，很可能就是出于增加军费开支的考虑。军费开支的增加是否能够像二战时期把美国拖出“大萧条”泥潭那样在今天也发挥刺激经济的作用呢？
“抵制中国扩张作战行动法案”或该法案的某种变体的确能够把资金注入经济体系。不过当今美国的军工复合体（military-industrial complex）与80年前相比已经发生了巨大变化。80年前，美国需要招募数百万工人进入工厂马力全开地每月生产出上千辆坦克或上千架飞机以击败纳粹德国。而今天的军事装备从硬件角度来讲已经极度复杂，花费在一架战机、一辆坦克或一艘战舰上的资金大部分都会被用来购买制造过程中所需要的某种特殊材料或计算机软件系统，而不会用来给大量工人支付工资。因此，用数十亿美元采购新的潜艇或F35战机为美国带来的就业机会是非常有限的。其实，把同样数额的资金用于医疗产业或初等教育所带来的就业机会很可能会比采购武器多很多倍。
征兵问题
下面要提到的内容是这个国家里每一个年轻男性或女性（以及他们的父母、祖父母等）都应该引起注意的：征兵。与美苏冷战时代不同，对于今天的美国年轻人来说，在军中服役不再是一种义务。当然，他们可能出于爱国主义、个人经济状况等原因选择参军。
虽然自“911事件”以来美国一直处于战争状态，但军方通过在经济和教育等方面出台鼓励政策，保证了兵源的充足，并且成功避免了公众对征兵的抗议。军方之所以能够做到这一点，原因在于，与此前的朝鲜战争、越南战争以及美苏对抗时代在欧洲的大规模军事部署相比，近些年的战争并不需要大量美军士兵同时投入到某一战斗行动当中去。
一场与中国之间的全面冷战就完全是另外一种情况了，即便把五角大楼从阿富汗和伊拉克的撤军行动考虑在内也是如此。为了对中国进行现代意义上的军事“遏制”，大规模军事部署是不可避免的。此外，我们还需要考虑到届时可能进行军事冒险的俄罗斯领导人普京。美国当前的“全志愿兵”制度能够应付这种局面吗？如果我们与北京之间的局势骤然紧张，美国现在的兵役制度显然是无法应对的。
要记住：在某一时刻，美国的征兵制度一定会暴露出问题。截至目前，国防部在恢复义务兵役制方面尚未有任何动作。这样做是需要获得国会批准的，而且毫无疑问将引发严重的政治分歧，而这种分歧正是当前美国政府的高级官员们在竭力避免的。
此外，作为美国领导人最为重要的政策指导，2018版《国防战略报告》已经明确指出，美国必须认识到美国将与其他“大国竞争者”之间出现持续多年的严重对立，这种史诗级的斗争需要美国对其战争能力进行全面的动员（the full mobilization of America‘s war-making capabilities）。这份报告还指出，“（我们与中国和俄罗斯之间的）长期战略竞争需要构成国家力量的多种要素实现有机融合（the seamless integration of multiple elements of national power）”。这份报告并没有特别提到征兵问题，不过考虑到美国已将目光聚焦在不断崛起的中国和鲁莽、不计后果的俄罗斯身上，征兵制度改革问题迟早会被提上议事日程。
压迫与歧视
与美苏冷战相似，眼下这场新冷战使得美国社会弥漫着压迫、歧视和包容性缺失的气氛。这一次，被针对的对象包括华裔美国人、中国留学生、中国在美研究人员以及被认为与中国政府有关的非华裔、非中国籍的其他人员。
令人遗憾的是，上述情况已经开始变为现实了。联邦调查局和国家安全委员会的官员们已经接到命令向那些最为杰出的常春藤联盟高校的校长发出警告：不可以录取有可能在美国收集科学技术信息并在回国后与政府学术机构分享此类信息的学生，也不可以继续保留符合这一描述的在读中国留学生的学籍。截至目前，已经有30位中国教授的赴美签证遭到了拒签（虽然他们一直与美国学术机构保持着长期合作关系）。此外，还出现了更加极端的情况：由于曾经从一所中国大学那里获得过一笔未进行申报的收入，哈佛大学化学系系主任Charles Lieber已于今年1月被捕。
许多美国学术机构都批评这种做法是对学术自由的粗暴干涉。然而，一些政府官员却坚持认为，上述做法是新冷战的必要组成部分（a necessary component of the new Cold War）。虽然美国官员认为那些做法只是针对中国政府以及与之有关系的人员（无论那种关系多么牵强），许多华裔美国人却已经越来越强烈地感到自己也受到了怀疑。只是因为自己的华裔身份，他们感到美国社会对自己的质疑和敌意正在不断增加。“华裔的确感到自己也成了被针对的对象，这对他们的感情造成了伤害”，一位杰出的华裔商界精英Charlie Woo说。
美苏冷战的历史经验告诉我们，美国社会当前弥漫的这种压迫和包容性缺失的气氛只会在学术界制造更多紧张空气、损害学术自由，而美国社会已经十分复杂难解的种族矛盾也会因此更趋恶化。
爆发热战的风险
不要忘记，冷战转化为热战的可能性是永远存在的。当我们回顾历史，会发现美苏两国曾长期处于一种非战争的僵持状态，两国都担心任何形式的直接冲突都有可能引发一场核大战，届时整个地球都将沦为焦土。事实上，双方都曾被卷入某种血腥的代理人战争。此外，美苏两国也曾多次接近爆发直接冲突的边缘。最为大众所熟知的是1962年古巴导弹危机。当时莫斯科在古巴部署了带有核弹头的弹道导弹系统，美国为了消除这一近在眼前的威胁差一点就发动了战争。而且如果战争真地爆发，很有可能就是一场核战争。在最后关头，肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫两位领导人通过协商避免了那种灾难性的结果。
不难设想，随着美中敌意的不断升级，两国之间也有可能发生代理人战争以及类似古巴导弹危机那样的事件。无论如何引发，朝鲜半岛上发生的任何一次冲突都有可能很快发展成为一场代理人战争。当然，最危险的情况还是美中两军之间的直接冲突，这样一种冲突在中国东海和南海海域都是有可能发生的。
目前，两国军舰经常在上述水域相遇，它们经常在互相射击距离之内，甚至还曾险些发生相撞事故。美国海军坚称自己正在国际水域执行“航行自由行动”，而中方则认为美国军舰侵犯了中国的领海。此外，中国炮艇曾主动接近美国军舰，意在迫使其改变航向以避免冲突的发生。随着此类事件的不断发生以及紧张形势的升级，带来人员伤亡的严重冲突的可能性将大大增加，这将成为两国全面军事对抗的导火索。有一点是确定无疑的，对华冷战的升级必将增加发生军事冲突的风险。
没有人能够确定这场新冷战什么时候会对普通美国人带来直接影响，随着两国之间紧张关系和敌意的不断加剧，大家最终必将会感受到其严重的负面影响。如果你只是赞成已经采取的那些孤立和惩罚北京的举措，那么还不必太过紧张。但是如果你认为美国应该发动一场对中国的全面冷战，那么请一定三思而行。
U.S. media: World War II military expenditure can change massive employment, but China’s new cold war cannot
U.S. media: World War II military expenditure can change massive employment, but China’s new cold war cannot
506
(Observer network horse power translated from the United States TomDispatch website on June 11, 2020)
Original lead: This year is really eventful. We can sort it out from a historical perspective. As of June 2020 when this article was published, we are simultaneously experiencing the "Spanish Flu" of 1918, the "Great Depression" of the 1930s, and the mass demonstrations that broke out after the assassination of the black civil rights leader Martin Luther King in 1968. The riots and the recurrence of a series of historical events such as anti-Vietnam War protests and demonstrations (except that the target of this war is not the Vietnamese who are thousands of miles away, but the colored ethnic groups on the United States' own land). By the way, if the above is not enough to sink the American "Titanic" (this big ship has actually hit the iceberg several times in the past few months), I can add one more, then This is what Michael T. Claire mentioned in today's article: A new Cold War that kidnap the world like the US-Soviet Cold War is kicking off. The last Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
On June 11, 2020, Michael T. Claire, a professor of the Peace and World Security Research Program at Hampshire College and an expert in energy geopolitics, published a commentary on the TomDispatch website, which is known as "the real antidote to mainstream American media": " The new cold war between us and China and the impact of this new cold war on Americans
The hostility of the Trump administration (that is, the captain of the "Titanic") towards China is escalating in economic, political, and military fields. But this time, I really can't bet. I really can't say whether it is the United States or China that will eventually collapse in this new cold war.
In fact, in addition to looking at the current problems facing the United States from a historical perspective as above, we have another perspective, and that is climate change. Although its disastrous impact is not imminent, there is no doubt that we cannot escape it. Mankind has always been well aware of climate change and its impact on the earth's environment. It can be imagined that in 2100, the densely populated plains of northern China will no longer be suitable for human habitation, while hurricanes in the eastern United States, wildfires in the west, droughts in the southwest, and floods in the Midwest will visit this country more frequently. Perhaps, looking at the world from the traditional perspective of the rise and fall of great powers in human history is a bit outdated, but people have not fully realized this. Next, let's return to this article by Michael T. Claire. The author believes that a new US-China Cold War is not what we really need right now.
The new cold war between us and China and the impact of this new cold war on Americans
[Text/Michael T. Claire] Most current affairs commentators and politicians in the United States have concluded that the new cold war between us and China (that is, a belt in which the two countries are caught in the absence of a military conflict) A state of severely hostile competition) has begun. "The New York Times" published an article on May 15 entitled "Rift Threatens USCold War Against China" (Rift Threatens USCold War Against China). , Science and technology, and the spread of the new crown virus. The Hong Kong National Security Law recently introduced by Beijing has made the situation even more tense. President Trump immediately issued a threat, declaring that the special treatment for Hong Kong would be cancelled, and corresponding sanctions would be introduced. At the same time, those Democrats and Republicans in Congress also began to work together to study how to impose severe sanctions on China.
For anyone who still remembers the last Cold War, the development of the current situation looks familiar and even strange. The current situation reminds me of the breakdown of the cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union shortly after the end of World War II. At that time, the Russians’ policies towards Eastern Europe began to become tougher and tougher. The United States and the Soviet Union began to attack each other in public opinion, distrusting each other. Emotions began to grow. Washington finally made up its mind that the United States must contain the Soviet Union on a global scale and ultimately defeat it. Today in 2020, that period of history seems to be repeating itself. Although the United States and China still maintain cooperative relations in the fields of trade, science, and education, both sides seem to intend to cut off those remaining relations and further escalate their hostility in a wide range of areas.
Some measures that Washington is currently discussing to punish China will indeed not have any impact on the lives of ordinary Americans anytime soon. In fact, those threatening remarks may eventually be regarded as uninspired emotional vents. For example, Republican Congressman Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma and Democratic Congressman Jack Reed from Rhode Island proposed the multi-billion-dollar Pacific Deterrence Initiative on the Senate Armed Services Committee. They Hope to consolidate the US military presence in Asia. They have publicly stated that this move will "send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that the American people are determined to defend American interests in the Indo-Pacific region."
This is so easy for us. As American taxpayers, we only need to pay tribute to Congress in the "first shot" of this new Cold War. Congress will be responsible for transferring large sums of U.S. dollars to the accounts of arms subcontractors, so that the United States can transmit the signal of "defending its own national interests" to Beijing on the Pacific side. And by then, we can wave the Stars and Stripes happily!
However, if the new Cold War really breaks out, people may not be able to laugh. The history of the US-Soviet Cold War tells us that even if the hot war does not break out, the escalation of hostility towards China will cost us. Maybe now we should really think about what such a future world defined by the new Cold War means to ordinary Americans like you and me.
Weak economic recovery
For most Americans, starting a cold war with China is probably not as important as economic recovery. Anything that hinders economic recovery (including the Cold War against China) will not be welcomed by people.
Unlike the US-Soviet Cold War era, when Washington and Moscow had little economic exchanges, the US and China are now tied to each other in an economic relationship. This economic relationship has contributed to the growth of both sides’ net wealth. Export-oriented industries such as the aircraft manufacturing industry have also benefited from it.
Of course, this relationship between the United States and China has also caused many American blue-collar workers to lose their jobs, and the intellectual property rights of some American technology companies have also been damaged. Trump was elected in 2016 because of his inciting remarks on the above issues. After being elected, Trump began to work on the decoupling of US-China economic relations. He believes that the United States without China will only get better. To this end, he imposed additional tariffs on Chinese imports, and also introduced a number of measures to prevent Chinese companies from continuing to use American technology.
Trump and his allies accuse China of abusing international trade rules, and believe that imposing tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the United States (in fact, such tariffs are ultimately borne by American importers and American consumers) is to curb China's economic growth. The best way is for you readers to start a free debate on Trump's above two approaches. The problem is that just after Trump launched a trade war with China, not only did China's economic growth decline, but the United States' own economic growth also declined.
At the end of 2019, people actually realized that increasing tariffs and deteriorating trade relations between the two countries were costing the global economy. While economic experts pointed out that improving U.S.-China trade relations and easing the tariff war would help stimulate the U.S. economy to recover from the epidemic, Trump and his team led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro Those hawkish allies believe that this is the best time to strengthen anti-China measures. The president himself has also hinted that he will impose higher tariffs on Chinese goods and take measures to accelerate the decoupling process of the two countries' economies. Trump told Fox Business News reporter Maria Bartiromo in mid-May: "We still have a lot to do. We can cut off all relations between the two countries."
What does it mean to cut everything? Some policy makers believe that the decoupling of the United States and China will help stimulate US economic growth, because those American companies that set up factories in China will then move their factories back to the United States or move to American allies. Considering that the American people are very eager for job opportunities, the above view actually ignores two aspects: first, those multinational companies that produce in China will move their production lines to low-cost countries such as Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam; second, even if there are companies Moving the production line back to the United States will take many years to complete, and there is no doubt that in the end those factories that return to the United States will only purchase more industrial robots instead of hiring more American workers.
My basic view is that from an economic point of view, the escalation of the US-China Cold War will surely undermine the momentum of the US economy's recovery from the epidemic and reduce the chances of millions of Americans getting jobs.
increase military spending instead of stimulating economic recovery
In the current situation where the scale of national debt is rapidly expanding and the domestic economic recovery is in urgent need of large-scale investment, a new cold war means that military expenditure will inevitably increase substantially. By the end of June, unless Congress can allocate additional funding, the US$2.2 trillion in emergency aid funds for the epidemic will be exhausted, and there will still be millions of unemployed Americans and a large number of small business owners struggling.
Although the Democrats proposed an additional $3 trillion in emergency aid funds in the House of Representatives (the aid targets include some troubled states and cities, and the program also includes direct cash distribution to American citizens), the White House officials and many Republicans People believe that issuing cash to U.S. citizens will cause the federal debt to expand to an unsustainable level (they have no such trouble when cutting taxes for large companies and wealthy people). Therefore, it is very unlikely that the economic stimulus plan will be passed in Congress. By July, millions of Americans are likely to be unable to pay daily rigid expenses such as rent.
However, the Republicans did not show any concerns about increasing military spending. For example, Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas proposed the "Forging Operational Resistance to Chinese Expansion Act" with a scale of 43 billion US dollars. The acronym FORCE (meaning "force"-Observer Net Note) is really a pretty good word. Senator Tom Cotton pointed out that the purpose of proposing the bill is to "prevent the Chinese Communist Party from expelling American power from the Western Pacific and prevent China from achieving the unification of the mainland and Taiwan through force."
The bill includes (but is not limited to) using 3.9 billion U.S. dollars to purchase an additional Virginia-class attack nuclear submarine (the Pentagon has already included in its 2021 budget for the purchase of a submarine of this type with 4.7 billion U.S. dollars). $3 billion to purchase additional F35 fighters (F35 fighters are one of the most expensive weapon systems in history, and the Pentagon has also included the purchase of 48 F35 fighters for $4.6 billion in its 2021 budget) .
In fact, the Democratic Party is also trying its best to prove its anti-China stance. Therefore, it is very likely that the "Resistance to China's Expansion Operations Act" or the somewhat more moderate "Pacific Deterrence Initiative" will be passed in Congress. In fact, the reason why the Republican Party opposes the additional US$3 trillion in emergency aid funds for the epidemic is likely to be out of consideration of increasing military spending. Can the increase in military spending be able to stimulate the economy today, just as it dragged the United States out of the quagmire of the "Great Depression" during World War II?
The "Boycott of China’s Expansion of Operations Act" or some variant of this bill can indeed inject funds into the economic system. However, the military-industrial complex in the United States today has undergone tremendous changes compared to 80 years ago. Eighty years ago, the United States needed to recruit millions of workers into factories to produce thousands of tanks or thousands of planes every month to defeat Nazi Germany. Today’s military equipment is extremely complex in terms of hardware. Most of the funds spent on a fighter plane, a tank or a battleship will be used to purchase a certain special material or computer software required in the manufacturing process. The system is not used to pay wages to a large number of workers. Therefore, using billions of dollars to purchase new submarines or F35 fighters will bring very limited employment opportunities to the United States. In fact, using the same amount of funds in the medical industry or elementary education will bring about many times more employment opportunities than purchasing weapons.
Conscription problem
The content to be mentioned below is what every young man or woman (and their parents, grandparents, etc.) in this country should pay attention to: conscription. Unlike the US-Soviet Cold War era, serving in the military is no longer an obligation for young Americans today. Of course, they may choose to join the army for reasons such as patriotism and personal economic conditions.
Although the United States has been in a state of war since the “911 Incident”, the military has ensured a sufficient supply of troops by introducing economic and educational incentives, and successfully avoided public protests against conscription. The reason why the military is able to do this is that, compared with the previous large-scale military deployments in Europe during the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the US-Soviet confrontation, the wars of recent years did not require a large number of US soldiers to invest at the same time. Go during a certain combat operation.
A full-scale cold war with China is a completely different situation, even taking into account the Pentagon’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. In order to carry out military "containment" in the modern sense of China, large-scale military deployment is inevitable. In addition, we also need to take into account the Russian leader Putin who may take military risks by then. Can the current "all-volunteer" system in the United States cope with this situation? If the situation between us and Beijing suddenly becomes tense, the current US military service system will obviously be unable to cope.
Remember: at a certain moment, the American conscription system will definitely expose problems. So far, the Ministry of National Defense has not taken any action to restore the compulsory military service system. To do so requires the approval of Congress, and it will undoubtedly lead to serious political differences, which are what the current senior officials of the US government are trying to avoid.
In addition, as the most important policy guidance of U.S. leaders, the 2018 edition of the National Defense Strategy Report has clearly pointed out that the U.S. must recognize that there will be serious confrontations between the U.S. and other "big power competitors" that will continue for many years. The struggle requires the United States to fully mobilize its war capabilities (the full mobi
