Scan barcode
auspea's review against another edition
5.0
Although I found it somewhat fatalistic I thought that Allison presented a pragmatic approach to this complex geopolitical problem. Very interesting and informative.
cozm's review against another edition
4.0
"My opinion is this problem is much closer to us than most think."
"We've seen aggressive actions earlier than we anticipated, whether it be on the Indian border or whether it be in Hong Kong or whether it be against the Uyghurs. We've seen things that I don't think we expected, and that's why I continue to talk about a sense of urgency. We ought to be prepared today." -Admiral John Aquilino (top US admiral) 24 March 2021
"China has an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That's not going to happen on my watch." -Joe Biden 25 March 2021
"I am calling on China that it must face the reality of the existence of the Republic of China (Taiwan); it must respect the commitment of the 23 million people of Taiwan to freedom and democracy; it must handle cross-strait differences peacefully, on a basis of equality,” -President Tsai Ing-wen 1 January 2019
“Anyone who attempts to split any region from China will perish, with their bodies smashed and bones ground to powder” -Xi Jinping 14 October 2019
"Put all minds and energy on preparing for war." -Xi Jinping 14 October 2020
"We will fight the war if we need to fight the war. And if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day we will defend ourselves to the very last day.” -Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu 7 April 2021
"We've seen aggressive actions earlier than we anticipated, whether it be on the Indian border or whether it be in Hong Kong or whether it be against the Uyghurs. We've seen things that I don't think we expected, and that's why I continue to talk about a sense of urgency. We ought to be prepared today." -Admiral John Aquilino (top US admiral) 24 March 2021
"China has an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That's not going to happen on my watch." -Joe Biden 25 March 2021
"I am calling on China that it must face the reality of the existence of the Republic of China (Taiwan); it must respect the commitment of the 23 million people of Taiwan to freedom and democracy; it must handle cross-strait differences peacefully, on a basis of equality,” -President Tsai Ing-wen 1 January 2019
“Anyone who attempts to split any region from China will perish, with their bodies smashed and bones ground to powder” -Xi Jinping 14 October 2019
"Put all minds and energy on preparing for war." -Xi Jinping 14 October 2020
"We will fight the war if we need to fight the war. And if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day we will defend ourselves to the very last day.” -Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu 7 April 2021
theatregay's review against another edition
1.0
This is a very cool concept and I was beyond excited to read it. It assumes that its audience is primarily from the United States, so provides little information on the country's government and history. In comparison, there are large amounts of background information on the Chinese government and history. Without providing the evidence to support their US-bias I find it difficult to trust the author's conclusions.
The US bias implies that if war were to break out between the US and China, it would be because of the actions of the Chinese government. The wide variety of assumptions and unwarranted leaps which the author indulges in means that any conclusions which are drawn are heavily biased in the US's favour.
The US bias implies that if war were to break out between the US and China, it would be because of the actions of the Chinese government. The wide variety of assumptions and unwarranted leaps which the author indulges in means that any conclusions which are drawn are heavily biased in the US's favour.
craigbruney's review against another edition
4.0
Offers no easy solutions, but does an excellent job showing the lack of any clear US strategy towards a rising China for the past quarter century and the potentially very scary consequences of continuing without any actual strategy.
akira70000's review against another edition
2.0
To start on a good note, I think the first two chapters were fine, where Allison just explained some basic metrics of how to compare China and the US and how, by some of these metrics, China has surpassed or is projected to surpass the US. Nice and informative. But then it deteriorated quickly.
The first big problem I see is that it is extremely difficult to reason from this historical point of view. Allison does some what feels like a sorta-kinda Marxist Grundisse-esque analysis and tries to tie it together into a modern hypothesis what he calls 'applied history': He looks at a bunch of historical cases where a parvenu nation 'intimidated' the ruling nation and they both fell into the uncatchily named Thucydides Trap: "when one great power threatens to displace another, war is almost always the result". This is obviously not really a scientific claim (he doesn't maintain that, which is good) by most standards so I'd expect him to argue his way around it in a more convincing fashion. Yet it really felt from the start just like one big assertion, why this meta-narrative should be true. I feel as we've all learned from Guns, Germs, and Steel, for these extremely all-encompassing, multi-epochal, multi-cultural claims, you need multi-multi-much evidence, as the saying goes. Which he didn't really provide but lavishes in monocausal argumentation of history. Even without rock solid empirical evidence, you can still run simulations, have a game theoretical stab (that goes beyond "oh, game of chicken") at it or look at some statistical evaluations.
The latter part of the book felt even worse. At this point, his more American-imperialist face showed. He cites Kissinger maybe 10 times and it seems they are best buddies. I don't know about you but I don't really feel that Kissinger can unhesitatingly be cited 10x without any qualifier that he is one of the most controversial geopolitical strategist ever. People are extremely torn about his ideas (let alone his Nobel Prize). I'm not even saying I disagree with Kissinger (ok, I do disagree with him) but it's good practice to at least mention it in a book that takes a lot of evidence from the experiences of a single person. He goes relying in the chapter on culture on Huntington's Clash of Civilization which seems academically speaking even more outlandish and in need of qualification (which he kinda dismisses in one sentence "it has been controversial but I basically believe the theory"). Even more towards the end almost starts really belittling China and it's system whenever he compares it with the American system. Here I'm unironically not sure, what is the right answer but it seems unprofessional the call Chinese leaders ideologue and US leaders pragmatists. Really, I'm not even agreeing with China but using partisan vocabulary and just appealing to my 'intuitive' Western values seems shoddy argumentation. Maybe it doesn't even need to be reasoned about in a philosophical discourse but just some sort of statement of how he feels about the political systems without letting it bleed into the whole narrative and choice of words.
It's also the part of the book where it read a bit like "7 Habits" by S. Covey, where he has like "These 5 tips will help you in a war with China" and "Just check out the following 12 clues for piece". I mean, I don't know.
Ah, he also said something like "The US may follow Europe down the drain", which is a bit, ... I don't know, joke's on you?
The first big problem I see is that it is extremely difficult to reason from this historical point of view. Allison does some what feels like a sorta-kinda Marxist Grundisse-esque analysis and tries to tie it together into a modern hypothesis what he calls 'applied history': He looks at a bunch of historical cases where a parvenu nation 'intimidated' the ruling nation and they both fell into the uncatchily named Thucydides Trap: "when one great power threatens to displace another, war is almost always the result". This is obviously not really a scientific claim (he doesn't maintain that, which is good) by most standards so I'd expect him to argue his way around it in a more convincing fashion. Yet it really felt from the start just like one big assertion, why this meta-narrative should be true. I feel as we've all learned from Guns, Germs, and Steel, for these extremely all-encompassing, multi-epochal, multi-cultural claims, you need multi-multi-much evidence, as the saying goes. Which he didn't really provide but lavishes in monocausal argumentation of history. Even without rock solid empirical evidence, you can still run simulations, have a game theoretical stab (that goes beyond "oh, game of chicken") at it or look at some statistical evaluations.
The latter part of the book felt even worse. At this point, his more American-imperialist face showed. He cites Kissinger maybe 10 times and it seems they are best buddies. I don't know about you but I don't really feel that Kissinger can unhesitatingly be cited 10x without any qualifier that he is one of the most controversial geopolitical strategist ever. People are extremely torn about his ideas (let alone his Nobel Prize). I'm not even saying I disagree with Kissinger (ok, I do disagree with him) but it's good practice to at least mention it in a book that takes a lot of evidence from the experiences of a single person. He goes relying in the chapter on culture on Huntington's Clash of Civilization which seems academically speaking even more outlandish and in need of qualification (which he kinda dismisses in one sentence "it has been controversial but I basically believe the theory"). Even more towards the end almost starts really belittling China and it's system whenever he compares it with the American system. Here I'm unironically not sure, what is the right answer but it seems unprofessional the call Chinese leaders ideologue and US leaders pragmatists. Really, I'm not even agreeing with China but using partisan vocabulary and just appealing to my 'intuitive' Western values seems shoddy argumentation. Maybe it doesn't even need to be reasoned about in a philosophical discourse but just some sort of statement of how he feels about the political systems without letting it bleed into the whole narrative and choice of words.
It's also the part of the book where it read a bit like "7 Habits" by S. Covey, where he has like "These 5 tips will help you in a war with China" and "Just check out the following 12 clues for piece". I mean, I don't know.
Ah, he also said something like "The US may follow Europe down the drain", which is a bit, ... I don't know, joke's on you?
quintusmarcus's review against another edition
5.0
Stunning book that lays out the many unfortunately easy ways the the US and China could blunder into open war. There is a way out, but Americans aren't going to like it- basically, we need to ask ourselves, what is most strategically critical to us? Is it really attempting to dominate the Chinese in the South China Sea? Is there room for us to negotiate some give and take? Excellent, essential book. Highly recommended!
domnorton's review against another edition
4.0
Will the United States and China be able to avoid war? This the the question Allison aims to analyse in “Destined for War”. And, despite the book feeling somewhat lightweight at only 240 pages, it succeeds.
It does this by doing three things: (1) utilising case studies, such as the Peloponnesian War, to help the reader understand the dynamics at play in Thucydidian conditions, (2) putting China in context by offering an analysis of who the Chinese are, and what they (and Xi) want, (3) bringing the US into the equation by considering how the relationship may develop, including points of tensions (“what if China acted like the United States did in the early 20th century?”), and (4) concluding with an attempt to find “clues” as to how war can be avoided.
Overall, this is a valuable book for anyone wanting to understand how a rising China will disrupt the post-WWII order.
It does this by doing three things: (1) utilising case studies, such as the Peloponnesian War, to help the reader understand the dynamics at play in Thucydidian conditions, (2) putting China in context by offering an analysis of who the Chinese are, and what they (and Xi) want, (3) bringing the US into the equation by considering how the relationship may develop, including points of tensions (“what if China acted like the United States did in the early 20th century?”), and (4) concluding with an attempt to find “clues” as to how war can be avoided.
Overall, this is a valuable book for anyone wanting to understand how a rising China will disrupt the post-WWII order.
ariol's review against another edition
3.0
Decent book going through history and examining cases in which an established power was challenged by a rising power, whether it lead to war, and drawing comparisons to America and China.
More...