themselves into the good graces of a president who is very concerned about his personal and family wealth. >> "after words" airs every weekend and can be found on our website. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i am the senior fellow at the hoover institution and a senior fellow and codirector at the center for international security cooperation here at stanford. we are delighted that both institutions have come together to cohost this book event with graham allison and neil ferguson to discuss the

book. it's available for purchase outside and he will stay & f you copies so you can't escape the trap of the bookstore outside. now, graham allison, he is director of harvard center and the douglas dylan professor of government and founding dean of harvard school of government. like legions of students, i vividly remember my first time walking into the kennedy school for my first form event back in 1986. it was an intoxicating place where you could feel the brainpower working in the policy being changed in the room. bram allison has been behind this magic for a very long time.

setting a standard of policy since the time he was about ten years old back in 1986. he is the ultimate triple threat serving in a number of distinguished positions in academia, government and private sector. he serves as special advisor to the secretary of defense unders president reagan. he has been a trusted advisor to seven secretaries of defense, both democrat and republican. he currently serves on the advisory board of the secretary of state and the director of the central intelligence agency. he has the sole distinction of been awarded the department of defense highest civilian award, the public service medal. as many of you know he has written extensively about nuclear weapons, terrorism and decision-making.

his first book, essence of decision, explaining the cuban missile crisis is one of the most influential books in political science. it has become required reading for the vast majority of political science students today. now, that is saying something. if you are a political scientist, you know there have been so many articles and books written about the cuban missile crisis. there's even an article about why we should stop writing articles about the cuban missile crisis. his book has stood the test of time. that book has sold more than 450,000 copies which makes you the tom clancy of our field. he has written some other influential books, the grand master insight on china and

the world and a book called nuclear terrorism, the ultimate preventable catastrophe now in its third printing and selected by one of the most notable books of the year when it came out. this book is no different. just for fun i typed in best-selling political science book on amazon.com and the three authors at the top were al franken, graham allison. there is only one weakness in his illustrious career. he never saw the light as neil ferguson did to move from harvard to stanford, but i'm here to take to say it's not too late for you. joining him in conversation today is his much smarter colleague who moved to california, neil ferguson who

is a colleague of mine and a senior fellow at the hoover institutio institution. he is also a senior fellow at the center for european studies at harvard and a visiting professor in beijing. he is one of the world's leading economic historians and widely followed political commentator and terrific author. he has sold 450,000 book. he's a prolific author. kissinger, the latest 1923 1923 - 1926, a highly awarded book, civilization the west and the rest, the ascent of money, financial history of the world, you can see he picks very niche topics at hand how britain made the world and the rise and fall of the empire.

before coming to stanford he was professor of history at harvard for 11 years and before that he taught at nyu, oxford and the london school of economics. he's won a number of awards and perhaps is the only person i know who can say he's one international emmy for his pbs series and the award for best documentary from the new york international film festival for his feature length film kissinger. he was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by time magazine and in 2017 he received a first from the hoover institution which was to get every single fellow interested in international security affairs together for the first of what has become a series that has proven to provided illuminating and fascinating conversation. you are about to see why when you hear them talk about

graham allison's book. please join me in welcoming them. [applause] >> you can see the introductions are better here than they are at harvard. think you amy. so one thing she didn't mention is that we have also been co-authors. we published an article on applied history last year arguing that the president of the united states needed the council of historical advisors, this one specifically. we are not in an adversarial relationship. indeed the book that we are going to talk about is a book that i watched evolve while i was at harvard and have to congratulate you, you got the timing just right. if you aren't worried now about the possibility of conflict between china and the united states, when you leave

this room, i guarantee you will be. let me begin with a quotation from the book. when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, alarm bells should sound, danger had been china and the u.s. are currently on a collision course for war unless both parties take difficult and painful actions to avert it. and, were between the united states and china is not just pop possible but much more widely than recognize. war is more likely than not. i've got to ask you to set out your case, assuming most the people in the room have bought the book but not yet read it. [laughter] persuade us that war is more likely than not between the united states and china.

>> thank you very much for participating in this event. i think everyone here for organizing, especially amy. it's a great honor and opportunity for me to be here at stanford. i did spend one very happy year here in my advanced studies back in the 70s when i thought i can't possibly come here because i wouldn't get any work done. it's too nice and there's too many other things to do. it's a pleasure to be here. thank you for the introduction. so, not for this group but for general audiences, the concept

that there could be a war between great powers is inconceivable. seven decades without war, war between great powers. [inaudible] is not anything to do with the h century. there haven't been for a long time and any historical study will recognize how silly that is. the proposition about the long piece is a powerful proposition so the notion that peace is either a natural condition of mankind or that for whatever reason we are now better angels and have become so powerful or so wise or in any case, war between great powers is obsolete, i don't believe it.

that's the premise. now in the case of u.s. and china, i think every day there is noise and news about what's happening in this relationship. either north korea's testing missiles or china becomes the number one trading partner of germany where there's a new collision in the south china sea or whatever. is there some way to look beneath the surface of this daily noise and news to see something of the structure or substructure of what's driving these events, and i came upon the idea that the insight basically helped illuminate what's happening today in china. namely a rising power is threatening to displace another power. that storyline is as old as

history itself so the founder of history as we know. [inaudible] he said, it was the rise and the fear that made the war inevitable. >> he identified the dynamic in which a rising power feels stronger and deserve a little more weight. the current arrangement set in place before i was bigger and stronger are confining. maybe i can even remember some abuses, and the ruling power thanks they are trying to upset the situation that has

provided the environment so this dynamic between the rising power in the ruling power exhausts trust so they are misinterpreted by the other. if i tried to be benign you suspect to have an ulterior motive and vice versa. similarly we create vulnerability to the impact of external actions or events in which something happens and one thing triggers a reaction and then a cascade at the end of which is an outcome no one would have imagined. the dynamic here is not that in the rising ruling power of relationship one part party decides this is a good idea. that's not the proposition. the proposition is rather the arrangements are great because they provided a long time of

peace and allowed to grow rich and, the u.s. constructed, in the aftermath of world war ii, and economic and security order which has provided for longer peace and greater prosperity than china ever saw and 5000 years. they should be extremely grateful and they should actually participate in this order. they say who wrote these roles and where were we when the rules were written and are the rules fair and should they be adjusted maybe i should have more say when we say sit in your place, you should be happy and grateful. what was happening in korea was happening between the u.s. and britain or imagine ireland

was becoming threatening to the two parties, the british and americans with the damage said let's not disturb relations between two big states. but solve this problem. with the u.s. and china, as we watch what happens in north korea, the chinese, actually, as you know very well. [inaudible] from a chinese perspective in beijing, the problem in korea is only that we are there. there would be no problem in korea if the americans were not in korea. we would solve this problem in a second. from the american perspective, the idea that we the minute, we don't belong there, 40000

americans died there, we help build a society there and it's a very successful democracy on the 13th largest market economy in the world, were not walking away from that and saying adios, thank you very much, we are proud of this and we should be proud of this. they said well so the problem is you china, you should solve this problem. where the one that's creating a problem. so i think as you've written neil brilliantly about world war i, if you go back, a good chapter in the book, i do not believe you can study world war i too much. it's totally dumbfounding. i think the answer after the war when people say how do we this happen and he said if we only knew, he has the right

answer. how could the assassination in syria ava, the archduke knows the guy in vienna and they told him he should go there. the guy that assassinates him is from, if you were writing a movie you wouldn't be able to make this up. that in turn burns down the whole house of europe. it's crazy. did anybody want the war they got? no. they would have liked to have to swish them because of the way they were behaving, but actually as you pointed out would it would allow them to do that without having a great war but one thing led to the other and by the end everybody had lost the thing they care about most. i do think it's so startling and irrelevant as we try to think about china. there's nobody who wants a war

with china. i don't know of a single person who doesn't think that would be crazy. i think there's no one that thanks the war with the u.s. is a good idea. war would be catastrophic. but, at the end of world war i, what had happened and what each party care most about wilpon they were trying to hold together and empire and the emperor was gone. the kaiser is trying to back his buddy in vienna. he's gone. the french were back in the russians. the society never recovered in britain is turned into a debtor so if you had given

these people a chance for a do over, not a single one would've made the choices he did. i think a situation where nobody wants war in which everybody knows war would be nuts doesn't mean that war can't happen. >> your analogy here would be the rivalry between germany which many historians have seen essential to the outbreak of that war in this case, britain, in 1914 was the incumbent power as the united states today, they were both heavily independent economically and nevertheless that came with consequences. >> because of this rivalry, and my reading of it and i think it's consistent with your own history of it, they

had each become entangled with other parties about who they would otherwise not have been entangled with. he would've understood exactly how weak the hungarians were and not about to let them drag him into something. he would've never left the alliance with russia lapse, but you got a kaiser who didn't know what he was doing trying to run the german hand, and they begin to make these mistakes. similarly, the british have been very careful for 400 years not to get to entangled with any other party on the continent. fearful of germany, they have succumbed, i guess maybe we should have more relationships with the russians, even though they were very right about the russians, they thought the russians were threatening their empire in india.

in the book, i should explain, he gives you 16 cases of an incumbent power feeling threatened by a rising power and this is the political science part, the argument in 12 out of 15 results in conflict. i'd like to talk more about that analogy and then i'd like to get onto the contemporary parallel in which small rogue regime. [inaudible] >> it's worth pointing out, you may not have read the peloponnesian war but china's leaders sure have. raise your hand if you've read all or parts of it. >> that's good.

let me make the shout out because i like this very much. you can go right now when you're done and download for free on to your kindle that and only read the first 100 pages, book one and it will knock your socks off. i guarantee it, for free. i hope you like the other book two but you have to pay for it. >> it's not downloadable for free yet. i'm sure somebody's working on it. let's briefly talk about this. one of the most remarkable things for me is that this has become something that china's leaders refer to. he himself referred to this in a speech in seattle, remind me if i've got that wrong, and we heard just the other day that the chinese investors in the

united states referred to it. it may seem arcane if you're not into agent history but it doesn't seem arcane in beijing, that's for sure. just one? the, who is athens in this analogy because i'm not quite sure. i think this is certainly not. [inaudible] it's not like this is exactly like that and next to his our mutual colleague and founder, ernest mae would point out that when you get attracted to an analogy, be careful, always take a page of paper and draw a line down the middle of the page and write similar at the top of one column in different at the top of the other column. if you can't make three bullet points under each, taken aspirin and consultant historian. these are not exactly right.

in fact, in the spartan case, as you know very well, sparta had been the ruler of greece for 100 years. that was the normal circumstance. the persians had come and had a big war and that's what we call the iranians now. they had built a fleet so their navy, their people were professional and worked all time whereas the other guys were soldiers and lo and behold if your professional you can do a little bit better than a pickup game. they produced a impressive navy and created an alliance structure. together athens and sparta then defeated the persians. whereupon there was something that has happened a few other times, but there was this explosion of creative energy, just unbelievable so one of

the opinions in this, i was just in silicone valley with people in the tech world. what do these guys invent. they invented drama. history. philosophy, socrates, aristotle, democracy, architecture look at the parthenon. can you find a better building in california? excuse me. from sparta, people looking up thing these people are totally out of control. every day they get up and they invent crazy new things. sparta was marshall society. it was essentially a seal team six.

when kids are four years old check out the prospect and the other ones you kill him and then you brought him up and the males have to live in barracks until her 25 years old and they can't get married until the 30, they were all the time marching around getting ready to fight people and lo and behold they were very good at it. that's what they do. but the idea of drama and history and philosophy and architecture, this all seemed very threatening to the spartans. so they said, look, the way things are are the way things are supposed to be. so after the war with the persians, the athenians wanted to billback their wall to protect them from invasions from people like the spartans. they said no, you cannot have the wall because we need to discipline you and be able to march there. they disobeyed us, the incumbent power and built this

wall. why would they build this wall? probably because they didn't want to obey us. so it started from there and if you said what's the similarities between the u.s. and china, i think there are obviously extreme differences in both cases, but from an american perspective, the international order that we have helped build and provide and manage over seven decades has actually worked very well if we put it in broad historical terms, i would give it high marks in many areas. from a chinese perspective, that was then and they think china was a great power now and things should be adjusted and particularly in the asian arena, they wonder why is the u.s. navy the arbiter of events in the south china sea. they look up every day and they see here's the u.s. navy and it's patrolling their borders and when there's a dispute about the island or

someone wants to build an island, we have an opinion and we think our opinion should dominate because were the dominant navy. i say great. we been there since the battle of midway. we provided the environment in which things have been so calm and peaceful that we you been able to develop as you have otherwise what would happen between you and india were you in japan but they look and say maybe, even in the best of case cases, the academic related people would say i agree with you, you have a point, but that was then and this is now so it's time for you to leave. so in that sense. >> when you read it you can't help but feeling they were a lot like americans. the nature of the case first compelled us to. [inaudible] wouldn't really want this empire and its law based. i don't think they have a

distinctly american policy to them so in that case the analogy is not quite perfect but will come back to what i think is the best analogy which is the germany written pre-1914 analogy. before we do that, can we talk about your cases when things turned out well. if there's one thing this book can tell us, it's how to avoid a version of 1914 between the united states and china. :

>> >> and then finally with the open case he merging in the cold war period as the ally in europe. in each of these cases there is a lot to learn most of the u.s. is relative to britain and the cold war. but the british had to problems like germany was more proximate and direct an old lady groups out of the hemisphere. most americans will find this very uncomfortable

because teddy roosevelt is one of my heroes wiedmaier him but i tell the story of america as we are emerging of what would be the american century and he was extremely confident so with 1897a37 year-old named roosevelt arrived in washington at the time there is only the secretary of the navy assistant secretary and that was it. for 15 years he was reeling about the consolidation in our hemisphere particularly by cuba the also the british and the navy and the german navy so what happened in the decade after he arrived in washington? there is a chapter about it but there

was is an explosion we took that as nuclear war from spain in which a puerto rico and we took on. that is how they became our territories. one of the canals with the -- with the panama canal so we go from the lead to the pacific. we created a new country called the panama they gave is the contract for the canal. we staged a coup. also venezuela where their british and the germans would settle the manner and they didn't even have any discretion. we did in the war with each of them and then they decided to leave then also

with alaska is a delicious tale it went to bearer's boiling -- exploring and the maid river through the national forest that is the largest national forest is part of the territory that we stole. he said this is like 100 years and a guy who took teddy roosevelt camping in yosemite said this should be a national park. this is 100 yosemite it is america. he said this is canada. do we began. so we threatened war with canada and we took it.

so low that was with roosevelt and don't remember the llord doctrines but this is our hemisphere. but if another nation misbehaves as we find that we will send the marines to change the government and their after every year to change the government somewhere so should any successor be inspired by roosevelt for sure we will fighters on a very desperate map. >> but what was more outrageous so tight -- china is circumspect as we appear

in the u.s. media but nothing with that aggressive assertion of what the united states participated in. >> this from the great british tradition as the prime minister to be in it in this situation

>>

>> actually united states could have taken canada and was interested but he looked at that more than once her go so did the british. but they noticed what was vital and what we could adjust to they tolerated behavior that otherwise was crude and of reasonable and not fair but nevertheless they help the americans to see that american and british interest were quite a wind with that cultural similarity so therefore the u.s. is the natural supply allied for britain. even at the beginning of the war so then with the u.s.

entered the war and then to be aligned with britain and then became even thicker with that naval conference americans agreed to hire of feel better with the brits. so where those interests are vital and in other areas if i am not powerful enough and it can adjust lit is to different cultures but that

knowledge was elaborate a little bit also in terms of vital interest and not having a general nuclear war. and of mutual assured destruction and to do the best so as a say in the book we are siamese twins but imagine you wake up one day we still have our hair and our arms but the backbone and respiratory system some a matter how evil or mischievous i.m. you keep thinking he deserves to be strangled but if i did that

is suicide that is not an idea so for that to provide the second the economy not just as they work but highly economically interdependent. and those and we could not get loans. so not everybody agrees with that proposition with that current pattern of energy of greenhouse gas emissions so now your great great great grandchildren that does not make any sense.

there is no way they could do anything to solve that problem if china is not cooperative. so least three big areas where you can imagine some alignment. >> so i will open this up to a the audience after i ask you one more question. so you all are persuading me to be destined for war because mutual destruction and economic independence so let's look closely at a plausible scenario in which the united states and china could end up in conflict.

what is unfolding in north korea has that potential to be a cause of conflict. give us that scenario looking ahead nobody in the summer of 1914 expected to always be at war over such arcane questions. and despite that common interest. and that is most urgent but with the cuban missile crisis over 13 days that

they almost attack the missiles in cuba but even the nuclear war and those nuclear-tipped missiles in cuba am president jfk said this will not happen and then was prepared to attack the missiles in cuba and completed in such a way. and then to think one in three chance of nuclear war. but this happened over 13 days but over the next 13 months maybe and to acquire

that ability but also president trumpeted says that mine will crash into yours if you reach that point. and most will not quite remember. but secretary perry and i am going through this exercise the first time. but then meet and bill would

have attacked north korea. to prevent north korea for that plutonium after a few more steps to become a nuclear weapon states. how could you possibly live in the world like that state like north korea we should prevent it if we can then we should. >> for sure hour south korea ally would have a heart attack. antiviolence. >> and maybe that would turgor a response and looking back he was right.

and that would provoke the second korean war that i am not sure this is a good idea . but making some very hard choices i'll stick with the view that i held at the time with the police department but at any case the arsenal of 20 horrors' 25 weapons. and to south korea. the same country has medium-range missiles and it

already goes through those bases. but on the one hand now we have donald trump so he heard about this for the first time in his life he became president-elect. that is what he said. yvette with president obama he said there was a real crisis brewing here in north korea so there is a possibility to attack the american homeland. i have never heard this of my life. it is impossiblimpossibl e. it is unbelievable if you haven't been steady at. that there is a little country called north korea. but it is the fact.

so within one hour he treated. and i am telling you and maybe obama let this happen. that i will not allow a the usa to be told of nuclear weapons. so trump's said to him you can solve the problem if not that i can but they will not like it and he served them chocolate cake. [laughter] he excused himself and announced relaunch 50 cruise missiles against syria us

just to underline the point. so absolutely. >> and they can do a lot worse than that. but the way to do that that this step to. so maybe they only use the artillery. >> still a lot of people so if they do that then we be cooler heads of taken to say we're on a dangerous road to say wait a minute we better

destroy all the rockets said the missiles that he has now preemptively. before he attacks our base and japan so if we succeed in getting all the targets are be able to identify all those targets? probably not so we beat he responds by a opium with south korea or japan. and colin powell told his counterpart if it ever explodes into the territories within the same hour and can we do that?

you bet that they are not part of the story so to destroy that many targets? will the chinese a bite? because at the end of the story you have a unified korea under the of military alliance of the united states. and then they say that is unacceptable. we already fought a war with you over this the last time. go back and read about world war i. and in 1915 they came to the

rescue at the very last minute. approaching the border with china. and macarthur was stunned we ask the chinese said they entered the war at the 38th parallel. so china has demonstrated said to have a government would they do that again? maybe with these new conditions but then they would ask us because then we both go to hell together. >> so to create a distinctive silence in their room i just want to add a little vignette of a

commencement at harvard dean acheson does the address and with the course of the foreign policy remarks to say that it is not about to break out of bed three days later it begins so just be where it can happen faster than we can expect for girl you are probably not taking too much about this scenario that to say there is a precedent and i can assure you basis of the conversations over the last few weeks this is a plausible scenario with the u.s. and chinese decision makers thises is sponsored

also by a the hoover institution matches is on leave from the a hoover fellow with the national security advisor. it is its entirety in the hands of president trump. [laughter] so now i will open to questions on the floor. a microphone will come to you. we don't need your whole life story or i will just cut you off. the gentleman right there in the blue shirt. >> i am convinced i will

have to read the book but i have a metaphor to present so based on the assumption of the to hands clapping but it seems to me it could only be one hand because as you mentioned the culture is so different and i see the u.s. making these aggressive moves and ioc china countering soviet is the one hand clapping and?. >> bad is a good question. >> each one could be a long discussion so i apologize but if i look at the situation are not clapping in the south china sea that they believe it is much

theirs was their lake as teddy roosevelt thought the caribbean was our lake and to act as the overseer but that is not the way things have been but the chinese are not happy to have a number of violence in the south china sea and they used to be a few extra and they're not happy to have those islands divided the way they have been and the filipinos and they think all of these look-alike line. and in there is nobody on that opposition of that at this point the chinese seem

to be keen to go along with that idea that united states and china can work together. now i say this with some authority on this subject over the weekend that at this point the trump strategy to say this is your problem deal with it seems to be going quite well. so far it is the most successful but the problem is what if china doesn't deliver for the administration? at that point it is say redline situation because they have

to except the north korea program is ongoing but that is when it gets dangerous and the chinese will respond >> ina visiting fellow. so with that equation to make it worse you might recall that the president was already hailed as the new driver of liberalism so we have seen of the debacle so you can already sense

europe saying we need to start working with the chinese and the germans. and whether it works or not if there are any indications with a major push toward europe. and then with two separate segments they have a lot of cash and are big players so then to a distance europe from the united states so what if we have to do

something with that two-party conflict. >> so with that lucidity and dynamics. so that third-party action so who is that a relatively stronger power? because they let themselves because china is the dominant trading partner and prepared to squeeze them and you can see that right across into

counterbalance china and as the europeans look at the picture what is happening to the economic balance of power? with the largest economy in the world if you just had to pick one so many people would disagree with that i am sure but cia and the imf boss believes that purchasing power parity is the best way for the economy. sova liz the biggest trading partner with germany? china. who is a source of power for most places? germany.

so the chinese and the development banks have four times the capital but yes for those political purposes so low this is exacerbated i have been on the rollout for this book and that the ruling power just like the climate irina and i have not been able to find one of

those in to be the global leader that is like the greenhouse gases that is a very important accord that they're investing money with the champion of liberal is breathtaking as a big economy. so if the contender leaves the field. >> this is the importance of the edgar player so to lapse

into the to player framework it is the alliance and the relationship so what really matters is how others will respond to that. with those key american allies in with the comfortable direction in that relationship because the reality of the situation i don't want to say this out loud that manzi gramm went on television to have a speech about it.

but the trouble with proposition in is in order to prevent north korea from san francisco in to take a course of action and then the president says so where is the biggest threat to be in the short run? connection with the japanese relationship and then to look at that carefully laid a. >> can we haven't even mentioned russia. i now want to be impartial

to any part of the ruth - - room. >>. >> other countries introduce india into the picture. >> sova japan is the third largest economy and though world. and those is in the east china sea with those forces i would bet on japan. and over time currently that is as strong treaty. so one of the reasons why it is different is that there

are strong actors of the region. so if those spartan cases is the touchstone is the relationships that adapts and adjust and can end up becoming the reason of the two parties. and india i am prejudiced it is a great book so we just to the questions. so this is my colleague as investor of india.

i call him with malice aforethought i ask the question. he says young man did not use india and china the same sentence. the india is not a real country. and just to be united slaves' not betting on india at. >> is like the tortoise and the hair. but that has happened but it did is fascinating because it isn't quite clear how

that will play that back in the time of the bush administration that is a quasi a containment strategy >> then save the bird containment. so every two years since the great financial crisis that incremental of growth is the total gdp of india. >> so i take some questions.

>> kreme part of the history department what are your thoughts on to contextualized with a history of china to perceive itself as the original primary power through the mid-19th century. >> that is a great question. lobby for donald trump had this loaded make america great again but it was make china agreed again. that is in the nation of the great chinese people from the chinese perspective and all chinese will tell you this story that china was

great for ever. it was the dominant power in the world. italy included the area in which it could see. but then there was the to midyears that exploited them and then to dominate them and then we get big and strong and get ourselves and the chinese with the narrative is at the top of the universe. said is a higher archivolt dominance and somewhat lower on of of purebred it is

notified place that is not china's place. and then to talk to people that basically we are restoring we are just restoring ourselves and would have been otherwise. they're all miserably pour. so to that industrial pollution as pointed out and with per capita income begins to grow so that we have a lot of miserable poor people with a bigger gdp. so what? so they don't have

that market economy. but still for that purpose of where it ought to be at the top of the pyramid. i like this and a question privilege -- very much but it is true that there is this story of the period from the 1840's that they are reverting to that story. so it is a completely different force but to see one that providential exception. with a history of the cold war.

end with that ideological -- ideological component that is very much intact even the slogan of like america. >> if you could just get a microphone?. >> i am just curious to know in the polls away from the international order of conflict retrieve u.s. and china?. >> so that's the idea and that power to maintain some

level of order to which the rising power would adapt and adjust defense on that underlying correlation if i of the ruling power can be enhanced by relationships with others and with what we're trying to accomplish together. so those various domains but not surprising at. >> host: they said your lead in the financial liberalization. and the chinese like to be respected. and then to be doing the

very same thing. >> we are really trying hour best but the jingles are interrupting as. so the gentleman from the red shirt?. >> i am a freshman. i am wondering if you talk about the past 70 years with the international order looks like over chinese international order?. >> that is a great question. but it is one of the most contemplated. and i come from north carolina and i know somewhere in the constitution or somewhere it says usa means no. one.

[laughter] did i have no doubt who the good guy is. these other ones i have doubts about. [laughter] >> so what that may assured that from time to time some people don't notice. >> generally the chinese do not articulate a vision of a babble of look-alike although on the contrary we are preoccupied with our domestic problems so there is a deliberate avoidance of this scenario even a whole series of chinese that expand china's influence with the large-scale chinese investment for countries

that our global in the scope with financial innovation. but the fascinating thing for me is that it continues to be relatively quiet and understated. but when dray breaks down they always insist they entitled to be a war power so probably that contributed to the rise of the german antagonism. they learn from history. one reason i was interested is we were living in the united states where there was no attempt of that historical knowledge and it

had been going on for many years. so if you talk to senior officials in beijing that they have reading assignments and your book is the latest one so can you confirm or deny it is read by members of the chinese government?. >> i had dinner last week in new york as part of the rollout a high level financial person said that he was pulled aside to say would you think about this new book? and he said it is an unpublished and told next week in the united states

and he said i got my copy last week. is already circulating but now with the copyright. >> maybe they are reading the galleys that are widely circulated. >> this is amazing how i first heard of him reading this everybody was asked to read top field. that was that the heighth of the financial crisis reading a short history of europe. it is not like mark zuckerberg what that matters. now a couple more questions.

>> aim interested of the timeframe because there was a study commissioned by the u.s. army that title is thinking through the unthinkable that it seems there is the great discrepancy between the military capacity of u.s. and china so with an earlier border of tenures would be an advantage to america of that could maybe lead to war and that would take place with china to strike it so hard that would set back their development for another 15 years rather than just waiting.

can you comment on the timeframe? may be in terms of military capacity it to be war between china and america?. >> there is an excellent study that i cite in trying to do the military balance there is no question when they spend more than the next five combined so they are invested in a big way with a strongly superior china if you look at those events in the region is a very different picture that basically the chinese can play from the land and

america plays from the sea sea, if i have to operate in the south china sea all you have to do is build missiles that can destroy a billion dollar areas. the chinese are not required to play asymmetrical. so the thesis is not because i'm a bigger and stronger but is a good time to go to war. the note dave decides this is a good idea let's go to war. so now i am big enough and strong enough so there are a couple of cases like that.

the most recent cases in this structural dynamics of third-party actions of some other place having an impact on this interaction and the number three a case, i believe 100 percent that if the leader of china could say do this he would. the relationship between the two is very stressed never have the chinese people then willing to except him to come and visit. i just spoke to a chinese colleague recently how you talk to him? he said we cannot even go see him.

they can talk to his ambassador to beijing if we need to communicate messages but it is a very stressful relationships of the third party could take action to end up in this cascade. i think the of military balance is relevant with the vulnerability to war with these entanglements of the third-party. >> but what i have heard recently with the original korean war is that they were dragged into war in korea and has thus certain official status but when you tell that story then you

realize you are entering a fought terrain because they were made fun of by stalin so with that policy. >> so we have time for one more question. i will allow a faculty member to ask was question. >> a freshman of one of my students. >> fire from the political science department. it was great when donald trump said this will not happen. does that put you into the red line problem? the yet it is remarkably inconsistent backing down on the torture issue now would

is not obsolete he could say i want to talk to kim jong moon so he is worried about redlines but on the other hand, he is inconsistent. >>. >> eight is best to end on the up note but certainly give been the nature of the campaign that is the source of every problem to flip-flop is preferable that there is no set strategy that there is continuity and

they said they were thrilled but they said we know that we're just one tweet to weigh -- away so that notion if it is consistent if it would be continued or not there is a lot of uncertainty. but in trying to decipher i would say there is a very strong national security issue and i do think tiller said will be very strong. and they will think through those consequences but at the same time what about about: weld so? are what

about launching a nuclear weapon against san francisco? if you ask them they say what? absolutely not. what risk would you take to prevent that? they said no rest digest don't want that to happen for corelli's they are consistent so i think it is this role i stand for a great america that is strong political will not allow him to do this. and it will try and i will solve this problem so of that trade continues down the track we will see not just incredible threat that

we will have to see where that leaves and as we study that cuban missile crisis we think would you want that one out of three chance? to have nuclear missiles in cuba? the soviet union could kill you. so that is a big deal. so once jack kennedy and bobby kennedy said what the hell are we doing? how did we get into this situation and? so if i end on a positive note that this national security team says

we could go down this path to find ourselves in a war with china. we would become very inventive and then there is more than one solution to this problem. >> eight yes. [applause] >> i speak for everybody never has it been so enjoyable. distant -- "destined for war" is available for purchase outside. [applause]

. . .... .... .... .... >> lisa jewel is going t