In the West at least, the history of Civilization can be read in terms of the history of power, including both weapons and the ability to marshal superior forces. In this view, some of the great inventions were 1) the mounted knight, 2) The feudal fortress, 3) the light cavalry of Genghis Khan, 4) The nation-state 5) gunpowder and artillery 6) The incorporation of non-human energy into industry and agriculture (OK ... this one is not military, but is about power nevertheless), 7) many 20th century innovations (tank, air power, aircraft carrier etc.) 8) Precision guided weapons directed with the aid of space-based platforms ... etc.

If a colony of humans elected to avoid all of this, they would be swiftly conquered, unless under the protection of another power in the world ... which begs the question. --------- Regards, James

We need economic prosperity to finance military power in the country. Military power is not sustainable without the corresponding level of economic power. On the other hand, economic power is depending on stability and harmonious state of a country. To achieve this state, life needs to have certain orders so that people could progress together. Perhaps the sequence could be:

Life in order -> Economic Power -> Military Power

I would like to explore the impact of Chinese philosophy on the military prospects of China. It is my view, as a Westerner (and student of Chinese martial arts and associated "philosophies," i.e. Daoism and some Buddhism), that China has never been an aggressive power ... always focused internally on the giant nation itself. Of course there is the famous internally-focused assertions of the Dào Dé Jīng, such as "Governing a large country is like frying a small fish," and the heavy dose of yin strategies in Sun Tzu, but I would go further and note that the whole Chinese (and Eastern) project of internal development through meditation provides a different foundation than the externally-oriented philosophies of the West which have resulted in the impulse for expansion. ----------Regards, James

Perhaps, we could refer to the "Great Learning" chapter under LiJi. It is one of the important books of Confucianism. The following phrase summarises the goal of the rulers of the countries as well as their scholars:

"Cultivate oneself, regulate the family, put country in order, and bring peace to the world."

"修身、齐家、治国、平天下"

In order to achieve this, the persons needs to enhance their knowledge power, cultural power, moral power and then expanded into political power, economic power and military power at country's level. I would think military power is one of the tools to put country in order and to maintain harmonious state with neighbouring countries.

Abstract from "Great Learning":

"The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things. Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy. From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides. It cannot be, when the root is neglected, that what should spring from it will be well ordered. It never has been the case that what was of great importance has been slightly cared for, and, at the same time, that what was of slight importance has been greatly cared for."

Thank you for you comment, Anthony Yeong. I am not very familiar with Confucianism, but this is consistent with my thesis originating from Daoism and Buddhism. The emphasis on development from within (cultivation) is very different from the main threads of Western culture. Lacking this perspective (overall), citizens in Western culture may be forced to work out many of their internal issues by projecting these outward onto external leaders, groups, enemies etc. It is my basic hypothesis that this has made Western Civilization a more aggressive and expansive force in the world. Perhaps ... though I am not sure about this ... the internal focus of Eastern philosophy led to more authoritarian control of nations guided by these philosophies-----------Regards, James

Thanks for the interesing discussion, James. In order to have a more complete understanding of Chinese philosophy, I strongly recommend to have a more in-depth research on Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. These three schools of philosophy though competing but complementing are the roots of Chinese philosophy.

In regards to the differences between Western Civilization and Chinese Civilization in the area of invasion or expansion forces, perhaps we could look into few aspects:

1. Geography

2. Culture

3. Religion

4. Philosophy

In ancient China Civilization, China is also know as "Central Plain". To the ancient Chnese, the country seems to be borderless with large piece of inner land. Central Plain is the "world" to them. Beyond the Central Plain, the people are considered as uncivilized. It is not beneficial to occupy those areas beyond Central Plain. They also lack of chances to travel by sea to explore other lands. As for Western Civilization, there were many countries separated by the sea. With the limited lands, the rulers are forced to expand externally and they have more chances to explore by the sea.

Agriculture is the main source of resources for ancient China. People are basically self sustain and sufficient by farming. Stability is an important factor for agriculture. The farming skills have been on from generations to generations.

Maritime trading in Western Civilization has created a more exploring and risk taking culture.

Strictly speaking, ancient China does not have a religion by themsleves. Confucianism and Taoism are considered as philosophy rather than religion. India has introduced Buddhism to China but the religion itself has been very much neutralised and adjusted by Chinese philosophy and culture. Ancient Chinese does not have a mission to spread their religion as compared to Western Civilization. For Western Civilization, the conflcts between church and the Kings, conflicts between Catholic and Protestants, conflicts between Christian and Muslim have resulted in many invasion wars. I am not sure is there a such a thing as "just war" in Buddhism. Has there been war fight against other countries in the name of Buddhism?

Lastly, Chinese philosophy has been greatly inspired by I-Ching, widely considered as the basic guide of wisdom. Many problems are solved by the solutions generated by inner wisdom through I-Ching. In fact, I-Ching is considered as the number one wisdom book in Chinese Philosophy. The origin of Confucianism and Taoism could be traced back to I-Ching. Most of the problems are resolved by compromising or neutralization approach which is the balance of Ying-Yang in I-Ching. As for Western Civilization, it is very much influenced by ancient Greek philosophy. Ultimate truth, logic and reasoning are the important factors in Greek philosophy. The Greek scholars need to defense and argue their philosophy through confrontational approach.

I am not suggesting which civilization is superior or inferior. Looking into several factors, different civilizations have different ways of solving problems in order to survive.

Cheers,

Anthony

Thank you, Anthony. It seems we are in substantial agreement, that it is not natural within Chinese tradition and philosophy for it to be in an aggressive, expansive mode.

After the implosion of the USSR, the U.S. military-industrial-financial powers began searching for a new enemy, primarily to justify continuation of the tremendous military budget. For years, China was built up through propaganda to fill this need of a new enemy. Then, of course, the Islamic Jihad was found, and China was no longer the focus. Military spending increased substantially as the U.S. became involved in numerous new wars.

Now that Al Qaeda has been demolished, and Bin Laden apparently killed (that is, if he was even still alive in 2011), the Big Business that is related to military spending is looking for a new "fearsome enemy." It appears that next on the list will be Iran.

Meanwhile, the U.S. grand strategy --- what's really going on behind the propaganda and regional conflicts --- appears to be continued control over the sea lanes, especially those relating to oil traveling from the Middle East to Asia. At the present time, the U.S. still has the major strategic advantage that it can cut off a very substantial amount of the supply of oil to China. In response to this it appears that China is trying to build up its own naval forces to be able to secure its most vital supply lines for oil and other commodities. This will be a long-term process, as the current superiority of U.S. Naval forces is quite significant.

Like you, I am not suggesting which civilization is superior or inferior. I am completely a patriotic American; however, one of the great things about America is that we are free to question the direction being followed by our government. In this case, the strategic imperative of maintaining control of Middle East oil (through amendable or "client" governments), as well as the sea lanes of the world militarily, is at the very core of American policy, and does not appear likely to change soon. If it were to change, the hegemony of the US dollar in global finance would soon fall, and the economy of the U.S., which is based upon exporting dollars, would be radically impacted.

I do happen to believe that this will happen, sooner or later, regardless of what the U.S. government wishes. History teaches that military superiority of a particular nation does not last forever, and the seeds of America's future vulnerability are unfortunately already being put in place by our export of manufacturing capability under the system of dollar hegemony.

Somewhere in the next few decades, therefore, it is likely that a balance point will be reached which starts a chain of events that will fundamentally reconstruct the American economy --- at the very least. History has shown that great powers at the beginning of decline can be very dangerous. I do think more and more Americans are realizing that it would be beneficial to change the course of events before they reach this point---primarily by reducing government and letting free-market forces once again gain control, rather than the current military-based economy. I think it is ironic that America has reached a situation with similarities to that faced by Deng Xiaoping a few decades ago. --------------Regards, James

I think that you can feel less free without rules than with rules. I think we need a minimum order. And we live in a balance looking for that freedom, that of the average.

Freedom within a controlled environment.