they wouldnāt actually take over the US the way nations used to conquer and replace the culture of other countries.
I do think this is much less likely now than it was in the past.
Though at first glance, the āwouldnātā feels a bit strong. (Though I think I know much less about both geopolitics and forecasting than you do.)
Do you mean something like āConditional on a hot war between China and the US with military actions on at least one of those countriesā mainland territories (not just e.g. sea battles), and conditional on China clearly winning, the chance China would actually then administer the US as an annexed territory is <x%ā? Or were you thinking about not just annexation but also a massive shift in US ācultureā towards Chinese ācultureā?
And roughly what x did you have in mind? E.g., 50%? 1%?
Iād be comfortable with 1% - Iād take a bet at 100:1 conditional on land warfare in China or the US with a clear victor, they winner still would at the most extreme, restore a modified modern national government controlled by citizens that had heavy restrictions on what it was allowed to do, following the post-WWII model in Japan and Germany. (Iād take the bet, but in that case, I wouldnāt expect both parties to survive to collect on the bet, whichever way it ends.)
Thatās because the post-WWII international system is built with structures that almost entirely prevent wars of conquest, and while I donāt see that system as being strong, I also donāt think the weaknesses are ones leading to those norms breaking down.
But maybe, despite sticking to my earlier claim, the post-WWII replacement of Japanās emperor with a democracy is exactly the class of case we should be discussing as an example relevant to the more general question of whether civilizations are conquered rather than collapse. And the same logic would apply to Iraq, and other nations the US āhelpedā along the road to democracy, since they were at least occasionallyāthough by no means alwaysāfailing states. And Iraq was near collapse because of conflict with Iran and sanctions, not because of internal decay. (Iām less knowledgeable about the stability of Japanese culture pre-WWII.)
I do think this is much less likely now than it was in the past.
Though at first glance, the āwouldnātā feels a bit strong. (Though I think I know much less about both geopolitics and forecasting than you do.)
Do you mean something like āConditional on a hot war between China and the US with military actions on at least one of those countriesā mainland territories (not just e.g. sea battles), and conditional on China clearly winning, the chance China would actually then administer the US as an annexed territory is <x%ā? Or were you thinking about not just annexation but also a massive shift in US ācultureā towards Chinese ācultureā?
And roughly what x did you have in mind? E.g., 50%? 1%?
Iād be comfortable with 1% - Iād take a bet at 100:1 conditional on land warfare in China or the US with a clear victor, they winner still would at the most extreme, restore a modified modern national government controlled by citizens that had heavy restrictions on what it was allowed to do, following the post-WWII model in Japan and Germany. (Iād take the bet, but in that case, I wouldnāt expect both parties to survive to collect on the bet, whichever way it ends.)
Thatās because the post-WWII international system is built with structures that almost entirely prevent wars of conquest, and while I donāt see that system as being strong, I also donāt think the weaknesses are ones leading to those norms breaking down.
But maybe, despite sticking to my earlier claim, the post-WWII replacement of Japanās emperor with a democracy is exactly the class of case we should be discussing as an example relevant to the more general question of whether civilizations are conquered rather than collapse. And the same logic would apply to Iraq, and other nations the US āhelpedā along the road to democracy, since they were at least occasionallyāthough by no means alwaysāfailing states. And Iraq was near collapse because of conflict with Iran and sanctions, not because of internal decay. (Iām less knowledgeable about the stability of Japanese culture pre-WWII.)
Interesting, thanks for the response :)