Sun Tzu Theory Essay

Hess argues that the threat of the USSR and Communism “left the US no choice but to stand up to the challenge posed by Vietnam”. Direct confrontation was impossible as the USSR was a nuclear power, therefore the only choice available was “a policy of containment”; previous success in Korea gives validity to this view. Hess states Vietnam was the centre of the “Domino Theory”, that a communist Vietnam “would inexorably lead to the collapse of other non-communist states”. All communist states were believed to be puppets of the USSR so an increase in Soviet allies would tip the global power balance against the US.

This caused American and Communist Chinese forces to fight each other during the Korean War, which began in 1949. Communist threats against Taiwan in the 1950's drove the U.S. and the Chinese Communists to the brink of nuclear war. The U.S. went to war in Vietnam in part to prevent the expansion of Chinese Communism. For the United States, China today is neither an outright enemy, nor a trusted friend. Today tensions exist because of the kind of government China has, and the actions it takes.

The US has been known to diverge from its once-isolationist state, engaging in international affairs like World War I and several other events alike. It’s therefore no surprise that the US intervened in the Vietnam War during the 1960’s. At the time, President Lyndon B. Johnson put forth new ideas, plans and tactics to help and protect the South Vietnamese and surrounding countries from communist influence. However, the United States’ initial goals and plans didn’t always go the way they had expected. Indeed, Johnson’s Vietnam policies failed because of his unreasonable military strategies and his inefficient political actions.

The Vietnam War was the longest of the 20th century spanning over 30 years from 1945 to 1975,; it complex nature mingled the problems of colonialism, nationalism, communism and power struggles of the great powers. It is also a major war since the American failure ended the policy of containment of communism worldwide, that was started at the end of the Second World War. Following that containment policy and it impacts on the war and the world in general, we come to the question that was it actually all about the change of balance of powers and get the US out of China or a new balance of powers against Russians?

The American War was a test given to Vietnamese people to test their loyalty to the government. Before that nearly ten centuries under Chinese rule this country has never fallen apart. This clearly proves that warfare can be overcome by trust among the people and the strength of them working

The history of recent years in the Indochina conflict has been an eventful one. It will exhibit to the eyes of the future student some of the most remarkable instances of a ruthlessness and indifference to common humanity. Moreover, it will, I believe, demonstrate that North Vietnam has, for a long time, steadily pursued a communist regime which was deliberately designed to produce a subjugation of other countries by the threat of communism.

Iirc, I was taught that after South Vietnam's loss, Vietnam's military strength was insane (war veterans+logistics from South Vietnam) and might invade Cambodia and Laos to make a united Indochina, which would be bad for China (no "South America" for them, and they already had USSR to the north, Japan to the east, they didn't want to be isolated with an Indochina to the south). Therefor, they made Cambodia a militaristic state that oppose Vietnam, but their version soon became a terroristic state that killed their own people and even launched a full invasion to Vietnam (some said that China urged them to attack because Vietnam would sooner or later invade Cambodia). Then Vietnam won that war also and actually invaded Cambodia so China had to

When it comes to the political profile, seven different countries have competing maritime claims (mostly over the Spratly and Paracel Islands), some of which become even more complicated as some overlap with other nations’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). Despite the “intraregional distrust, deeply rooted historical issues, and rapidly increasing military spending” in the region surrounding the South China Sea, one expert argues that “not only has the conflict not escalated into a serious military conflict; it has, in fact, been mitigated… in fact, a more stable peace has developed.” (Costlow, 2012, p.6).

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

Over the years, the world has seen many wars, out of which a lot took place when there was shift in power balance. World War l was thought to be the end of all wars, and then a few years later, World War ll took place. The question that rises today is whether hegemonic war is likely to happen again with the rise of new global powers. Jack Levy describes hegemonic war as one in which the decisive victory of at least one side is both a reasonable possibility and one that would be likely to result in the leadership of dominance by a single state over the system, or at least in the overthrow of an existing leadership of hegemony.” (364-365)The two most probable actors that could get involved in a hegemonic war today are China and the USA. We shall use the realist lens to analyze the likelihood of another hegemonic war

In his recent work, Dr. Michael D. Swaine has offered harsh critiques of Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich for supporting the limitation of China 's pursue of territorial dispute over neighboring regions. Swaine, however, underestimates China 's ambition for power; overlooks its rapid increase of economical and militarily strength; and generalizes that China is willing to stabilize and that this stabilization would not develop into further chaos.

From an international relations perspective, the Taiwan Strait, one of the most likely conflict zones in the Asia-Pacific region, has been dubbed the “Balkan Peninsula of the East.” The status of Taiwan has been one of the most intricate issues in international relations arena for the past decades. The Taiwan question is essentially an extension of the “two Chinas” problem, which creates a dilemma for accommodating

Theories are used in many fields of science, but in no field are they more prevalent than Political Science. These theories are often used and researched upon to try and attempt to discern how states interact with one another. Offensive Realism, a new branch of realist political theory, is brought forth in John Mearsheimer’s book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. This theory focuses on the key aspects of realism, while adding a twist as to why war is an option. In his book, Mearsheimer explains the history of great powers, and predicts that China, the world’s current rising great power, will not gain hegemony in Asia peacefully. With the rise of China, he asserts the US will form coalitions with multiple states throughout Asia, to contain their growing power. This rise in power, and subsequent reactions by the US, are based on his theory Offensive Realism, which is used to predict China’s future actions. The rise of powers, and the reactions of other powers, is historically analyzed, beginning in the late 18th century, all the way to modern times. These analyzes each attempt to support his overall claim that China will rise through non-peaceful means, and shows significant support with historical examples. While the theory often meets an exception when the usual non-European power, Japan, is mentioned, Mearsheimer’s theory introduces a solid new aspect to the realm of Political Science, and presents enough evidence and information to be considered integral to

“The South China Sea is the main time link between the Pacific and Indian oceans, giving it enormous trade and military value” (Rappler). There is a current conflict over a territory occurring in the South China Sea. There are multiple countries trying to militarize and attain the area. This is causing a lot of tension similar to Alsace Lorraine and the Balkan region leading up to World War One. The geographical resources that are in the sea make it very desirable. Land disputes during World War One in the Balkans and Alsace Lorraine, and those disputes that are forming in the South China Sea could have been prevented with negotiation and de-militarization.

Nowadays, the conflict of territory solving in the world causes many complicated problems among countries, as well as tensions in foreign policies. One of these conflicts is the dispute in South China Sea between China and six neighbor ASEAN countries. With the intervention of the United States, the issue turns to be more serious as it attracts a lot of concerns from international community. This research tries to find a clear way of understanding the South China Sea conflict, specifically about the effort of China and Vietnam to gain the control over the two groups of islands: Paracel and Spratly. The hypothesis intends to express the possibility about Vietnam’s victory in this conflict with the help of the United States.