In the article, Graham Allison wrote that there is a possibility that China and the US may head to war. China is increasing rapidly, especially though their economy, which confronts the US's power and creates a security dilemma. Allison stated that in the past, of the 16 countries that a rising power has confront a ruling power, 12 of the cases resulted in war, while the other four ended peacefully. But with China's economy threatening US's position as the top country in the world, it would less likely for tensions to be reduced between them. There is a possibility that they can avoid the Thucydides trap, by having talks every week with very focused attention on decreasing the tensions between the two countries.
However, I disagree with the author's claim that the US and China would most likely go to war or in anyways result in physical confrontation. Although China has indeed been moving forward in their economy and establishing a strong international presence, the country would not want to risk their own country's relation and ties with the US, because the US has more structural power. The US has huge control over intergovernmental institutions, control of finance, multinational corporations, legitimating ideas, and the military force. China may be rising, but it still relies severely on the US, and wouldn't afford to lose the power it has build up to go to the war with the country that they heavily depend upon.
This relates back to the US's structural power. The US has been the top in power, due to its high positions in the Security Council (the power of veto), NATO, and its controls over the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). With both the US and China in the Security Council, if both countries ever come close to war, they would be able to negotiate. Since several cases of past top countries going to war did not have an effective organization that behaves as a collective security like the UN.
I was surprised at the that in the 16 cases presented, a huge majority of the countries went to war. Despite of previous atrocities and mass number of loss, countries continue to go to war, rather than focusing on resolving tensions. I find it interesting as well that the author declared the US and the Soviet Union's escalation of tension after World War 2, not resulting in a war. It may be true that the US and Soviet Union didn't officially declare war or physically fought against each other, but the countries have involved themselves in proxy wars, in which they fight amongst each other. For example, the Vietnam War and Korean War.
I think the author underestimated US's true powers in both hard, soft, and smart power, and only focused on China's economic power. The author did not think consider that China has been relying severely on US's power, and the US would devastate the country if China were ever to think of trying to challenge the US.
However, I disagree with the author's claim that the US and China would most likely go to war or in anyways result in physical confrontation. Although China has indeed been moving forward in their economy and establishing a strong international presence, the country would not want to risk their own country's relation and ties with the US, because the US has more structural power. The US has huge control over intergovernmental institutions, control of finance, multinational corporations, legitimating ideas, and the military force. China may be rising, but it still relies severely on the US, and wouldn't afford to lose the power it has build up to go to the war with the country that they heavily depend upon.
This relates back to the US's structural power. The US has been the top in power, due to its high positions in the Security Council (the power of veto), NATO, and its controls over the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). With both the US and China in the Security Council, if both countries ever come close to war, they would be able to negotiate. Since several cases of past top countries going to war did not have an effective organization that behaves as a collective security like the UN.
I was surprised at the that in the 16 cases presented, a huge majority of the countries went to war. Despite of previous atrocities and mass number of loss, countries continue to go to war, rather than focusing on resolving tensions. I find it interesting as well that the author declared the US and the Soviet Union's escalation of tension after World War 2, not resulting in a war. It may be true that the US and Soviet Union didn't officially declare war or physically fought against each other, but the countries have involved themselves in proxy wars, in which they fight amongst each other. For example, the Vietnam War and Korean War.
I think the author underestimated US's true powers in both hard, soft, and smart power, and only focused on China's economic power. The author did not think consider that China has been relying severely on US's power, and the US would devastate the country if China were ever to think of trying to challenge the US.