Democrats and farm state Republicans indicate they could desert him if Trump fails to bring home an agreement that ends China’s piracy of American technology and finally opens its markets to U.S. products. Americans should be prepared for Mr. Trump’s tariffs to become permanent and to disengage from China, find new markets for agricultural commodities and learn to make or purchase elsewhere those things we import from China. At the center of the impasse is Beijing’s refusal to change its laws to lock in commitments to end forced technology transfers by foreign companies seeking access to Chinese markets, outright theft of American patents and trade secrets, subsidies for exports and industrial policies that target U.S. competitive advantages. Commerce among members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is premised on the notion that trade should be based on comparative advantage to raise incomes and wages among all nations. It requires all nations ? including China ? to conform their domestic laws to lock in commitments to serve that principle. China says it won’t change its laws as a matter of sovereignty and honor. Nonsense. We are engaged in these negotiations because it did not keep its word to change its laws and abide by commitments it made when it signed onto the WTO in 2001. 4 22 Equally disingenuous is the Chinese offer to lock in commitments via regulatory changes ? directives issued by its central government. Beijing has broken commitments to rein in subsidies for high tech-firms. In President Xi Jinping’s mind, China is riding the great arch of history to a place where it makes the rules, and supplicants like the Europeans, Americans and Asian neighbors adhere to its vision.

Scientists just discovered a drug that could save millions of dogs - and humans - from cancer. Veterinarians at Tufts University administered the experimental treatment to Dover, a 7-year old bull mastiff suffering from lymphoma. The cancer had caused him to go blind, and his days were numbered. In desperation, Dover’s owner enrolled him in a clinical trial testing the early-stage therapy. The results were nothing short of miraculous. The treatment restored Dover’s sight overnight. Now, his cancer is in remission. Such innovative research saves and improves animals’ lives - and can lead to treatments for humans down the road. It naturally follows, then, that animal lovers should be among the most enthusiastic supporters of animal research. Unfortunately, our beloved pets - just like humans - are susceptible to a host of dangerous diseases. Many scientists are developing more effective treatments and cures for these diseases. Despite this medical progress, about half of Americans oppose animal testing. Many animal rights organizations want to eliminate animal research altogether. That’s short-sighted. Many cats and dogs who participate in this research have run out of other treatment options. Experimental therapies are their only hope. And they may yield insights that can save millions of other animals from early death. Shutting down animal research would also diminish our chances of discovering cures for human diseases. Human, dog and cat immune systems respond to diseases in similar ways. So treatments that work on pets can save people’s lives too. The California Veterinary Medical Association argues that “nearly every major medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has been achieved by research with animals.”

But if the president’s rational attack upon North Korea were launched against an irrational enemy leadership, the response from Pyongyang could then be an all-out retaliation. By any sensible measure, whether directed at U.S. forces or at U.S. allies in the region, this sort of response could inflict very grave harms. Even if nuclear brinksmanship in Northeast Asia should be played by fully rational adversaries, the rapidly accumulating momentum of events could demand that each “contestant” strive for “escalation dominance.” Significantly, it is in the unpracticed dynamics of any such explosive rivalry that the prospect of an Asian “Armageddon” scenario could pass into reality. This fearful outcome could be the result of an incremental escalation by one or both players, or of any sudden quantum leap in risk-taking destructiveness. The only predictable element of this sobering narrative is the narrative’s boundless unpredictability. Even under the most favorable assumptions of enemy rationality, all relevant decision-makers would have to concern themselves with dense or confused communications, miscalculations, errors in information, unauthorized uses of strategic weapons, mechanical, electrical or computer malfunctions and even various poorly-recognized applications of cyber-defense or cyber-war. One final distinction now needs to be made concerning inadvertent nuclear war and accidental nuclear war. By definition, an accidental nuclear war would be inadvertent; reciprocally, however, an inadvertent nuclear war need not be accidental. Instead, it could be the unwitting result of assorted adversarial misjudgments or miscalculations.

Ultimately, any presidential focus on North Korea would require detail. In extraordinary circumstances, should Kim Jong-un’s command/control/intelligence processes display (1) unacceptably high risks of mechanical/electrical/computer failure; (2) indecipherable pre-delegations of nuclear launch authority; and/or (3) unpredictable/unreliable “launch-on-warning procedures,” a rational American president could experience a need to “preempt.” Here, the probable costs to the United States and its affected allies could be more-or-less overwhelming. What might actually be expected after a Trump-ordered preemption against North Korea? When all significant factors are taken into account, Pyongyang, would expectedly target American military forces in the region and/or certain high-value South Korean armaments and personnel. Plainly, this is not the expectation of a US president avowedly “in love” with his North Korean counterpart. There is more. In all plausible scenarios, each side would have to pay close attention to the anticipated wishes of Russia and China. In this connection, does President Trump reasonably believe that China would plan to support him in any still-upcoming nuclear crisis with North Korea? At a minimum, Mr. Trump’s ongoing and potentially catastrophic trade war with China would suggest a starkly negative reply. If Donald Trump’s initial defensive first strike against North Korea were less than massive, a rational adversary in Pyongyang would likely take steps to ensure that its own selected reprisal was limited.

In the former Soviet Union, the masses were given greatly inferior medical care, with extensive queuing - while their socialist masters were given timely and somewhat better care. For those who had something really serious, Western doctors were the solution. Remember Fidel Castro using Spanish doctors despite all of the bragging about the Cuban medical system. The Canadians, whose medical care is rationed by queuing, go to the United States for more timely and better treatments (90 percent of the Canadians live within 150 miles of the United States). The British have a national health care system that rations by queuing and form of treatment. There is a parallel private health care system for those who wish to pay for better and more timely treatments. The United States has a government-operated socialist health care system for veterans that has been plagued by cost overruns and poor treatment for decades, despite both Democrats and Republicans claiming they are going to clean up the mess - which never happens. How is extending a VA type system to everyone going to make things better? The bottom line is that slavery destroys basic human liberty and was only economically viable in pre-industrial societies. Modern forms of slavery - whether we dress them up and put lipstick on them by calling them “democratic socialism” or whatever - require ever-increasing levels of coercion. If more members of the press were better schooled in history and thus understood that socialism is just a variant of slavery, many those spouting socialist platitudes would be exposed for what they really are.

Bernie Sanders and many of the other Democratic candidates for president have stated that “health care is a basic human right.” Where did this human right come from? Unlike passive rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press and so forth, the “right” to free health care, education, transportation, etc. imposes a non-negligible cost on others. The person or persons designated to work to pay the taxes to provide “free” health care for someone else, most often only submits as a result of coercion (we are going to seize your property and/or put you in jail if you do not pay up). We are told that all of the “free” stuff being promised will be paid for by someone else who will have to pay a mere 70 percent in taxes. We are expected to ignore all of the evidence from around the world that people will go to great lengths ? through either legal or illegal actions ? to avoid paying such high rates. And that such high rates always result in less, not more, revenue for government over the long run. People everywhere object to becoming tax slaves. The Nordic countries are often given as the example of the world that Bernie Sanders and his fellow candidates wish to create. They overlook the fact that these small homogenous countries have lower per capita incomes than the United States. The Swedes also are less socialistic than many places in the United States with their universal voucher system for schools and their largely private pension system. There is an almost unlimited demand for medical care, unlike for most goods and services. Therefore, demand must be rationed by price, form of treatment or queuing - there are no other options, - and the socialists have no answer for this problem.

There are some plagues that mankind seems to be incapable of fully destroying. One of these plagues is slavery, which has existed since man moved from being a hunter-gatherer to agriculture. Slavery is the condition where an individual is deprived of much of the product he or she produces and often all or much of their property. The ancient Greeks held slaves. The Romans held slaves. The Chinese held slaves. The Ottoman Turks held slaves. Serfdom, a less restricted form of slavery, existed in Europe from the fall of Rome until it was finally abolished in Russia in 1861. The harsher forms of slavery existed in Europe and most of the rest of the world until the 19th century ? when it was peacefully abolished in many countries, such as England, or through violent clashes, such as the U.S. Civil War. By 1900, most of the “civilized” world had abolished slavery and serfdom. But then a more lethal variant emerged under the more benign names of socialism, fascism and communism. The implementation of these ideologies resulted in governments causing the deaths of somewhere between 100 and 200 million of their own citizens in the 20th century. As in the 19th century, the peasants revolted, and late in the 20th century, those living in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union rose up and tossed off their yokes. The peoples of the world had the opportunity to see the economic destruction, loss of personal liberty, and sheer misery that the various forms of slavery caused (including those called socialism or communism); yet, here we are, three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with allegedly serious politicians calling for the re-imposition of socialism as if history had not happened.

Americans have taken freedom of the seas for granted when they think about ships and seas, particularly in the years following the end of World War II, when despite the tension between the superpowers nothing much happened in either the Atlantic or Pacific that America didn’t want to happen. That’s changing. The People’s Republic of China recently launched its first home-built aircraft carrier. No more hand-me-downs from the old Soviet Union or the Russia that succeeded it. Aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons. They’re floating islands bristling with weapons of mass destruction, to project power far beyond the shores of a homeland. Together with Beijing’s plan to increase the size of its combat navy to more than 400 ships, and the man-made islands created in the South China Sea to wage war, foreshadows a coming crisis that threatens everybody’s freedom to sail one of the world’s busiest sea lanes. Seth Cropsey, who was undersecretary of the Navy in the administrations of George H.W. Bush, cites the testimony of Adm. Phil Davidson, the chief of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Adm. Davidson said, China “is no longer a rising [naval] power but an arrived great power and peer competitor.” It has undertaken “a rapid military modernization over the last three decades and is approaching parity in a number of critical areas.” Adm. Davidson had told the U.S. Senate that he reckons there is “no guarantee” the United States would win a military conflict with the People’s Republic of China. This frightening view is one that many defense policy makers share. The possibility of conflict with China or other seagoing powers dictates the absolute necessity of a robust shipbuilding and repair industry together with a robust and capable Merchant Marine.

Taiwan has dropped the fiction that its Kuomintang Party will one day return to the mainland and overthrow the Communists. Many Taiwanese no longer consider Taiwan to be Chinese at all; they want to declare independence from China, That is unacceptable to Beijing, which threatens that a declaration of Taiwanese independence will effectively cross a red line requiring military action to bring Taiwan back into the fold. At the present time, a majority of people both on the mainland and on Taiwan favor the status quo. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) views Taiwan as a rogue province that will eventually see the light while the Taiwanese still call themselves the Republic of China; but time marches on. An increasing percentage of young people of all ethnic backgrounds born on Taiwan view themselves as Taiwanese and ague that Taiwan has only been ruled by China for about two centuries in its recorded history. A declaration of Taiwanese independence would put the United States into a quandary. Red China remains an often-repressive autocracy and Taiwan is a free ? if rowdy ? democracy. Any U.S. president who allows Mainland China to overrun Taiwan would be accused of Munich-like appeasement even though we have no formal bilateral defense treaty with Taiwan. The United States has a very real national interest in working toward a peaceful compromise. Without American help, Taiwan would go under through sheer numbers alone; but as previously discussed, sovereignty issues in that region have led to very nasty past conflicts. A U.S.-China war would be disastrous to the world’s economy ? not just ours and China’s. Taiwan will not accept Hong Kong-like status because Hong Kong was forced to accept a Beijing-appointed executive branch.

China and the United States have very few reasons to go to war. The ideological differences of the Cold War are over and the two nations share no common borders to dispute. But both are now superpowers, and each has global interests that have the potential to cause military confrontation. We have economic differences, and China is to blame for most of them due to its predatory trade practices and cavalier attitude toward intellectual property. However, neither of these is likely to result in a shooting war. The primary cause for conflict in East Asia and the Pacific Rim has always been issues of sovereignty, and there are two such problems that could cause a Sino-American conflict: Freedom of navigation (FON) in the South China Sea and Taiwan. China’s claim to territorial sovereignty over areas of the South China Sea blatantly violates international agreements on freedom of the sea, and its claims do not impact the United States alone. The Philippines, Japan and Vietnam all dispute islands and shoals that China claims as its own. Our aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea to ensure FON against Chinese claims of sovereignty have a very real possibility of causing a shooting incident either by accident or by provocation. If that happens, we will be on the side of the angels and international law. It is unlikely that such an incident will result in a major regional conflict, at least in the near term. Taiwan is another matter entirely. During the Cold War before President Nixon’s opening to China, Taiwan was an easy issue for the United States. The Red Chinese were godless Communists and the Nationalists on Taiwan were the good guys who were still considered to be the legitimate government of China by the United States. Things are different and far more complicated today.