I don't believe a policy of containment is feasible even if the US chose to adopt this approach. The US has many interests, both political and economic, with some of those same allies, and even with China itself. The mythical WWIII that everyone theorizes and postulates upon will probably never become a reality -- at least not insofar as people presently imagine it.

I think that the spirit of trade -- even if it is not "free" trade -- ought to be encouraged between these nations, since it is the only guarantee against a total war. Trade and commerce, not gunboat diplomacy, will keep the war drums at bay. Our best hope is that capitalism, at the very least, will delay the inevitable.

Russia is still there, its only smaller as the USSR and changed that name. The only difference is that they use the word mob now instead of party member. Current leadership should be removed before they grow to strong with all their energy resources. They are equally dangerous as the Chinese gov.

Only difference, it seems like the Chinese are slowly heading towards a revolution. At least I hope they do.

They're already trying to do so, look at the american naval bases in South Eastern Asia.

@eh:
Russia has  tons of energy resources while worldwide supplies shrink and the biggest econ in the world (EU) needs it. That makes them very powerful.

As long as China keeps its infamy low and doesn't get any unlucky casus beli's against it I don't see anyone declaring war without incurring a stability drop

Britain didn't want to play second-fiddle until America came along and it had little other choice.

lol

^ its impossible to stop buying thier goods. your suggesting boycotting walmart. who in thier right minds would do this? yea you have a fear of a world power coming into play but the fear of not having money or goods is much greater. we will not stop buying from china any time soon

ah so promoting the economies of countries that can undercut China would be a way of containing china. like India for example or perhaps african countries.

New York Times: G.E. to share Boeing 787 tech with Chinese

G.E. plans this week to sign a joint-venture agreement under which it will share it most sophisticated airplane electronics, including some of technology from Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, with state-owned Chinese company Avic, The New York Times reported Monday.

    As China strives for leadership in the world's most advanced industries, it sees commercial jetliners -- planes that may someday challenge the best from Boeing and Airbus -- as a top prize.

    And no Western company has been more aggressive in helping China pursue that dream than one of the aviation industry's biggest suppliers of jet engines and airplane technology, General Electric. ...

    For G.E., the pact is a chance to build upon an already well-established business in China, where the company has booming sales of jet engines, mainly to Chinese airlines that are now buying Boeing and Airbus planes. But doing business in China often requires Western multinationals like G.E. to share technology and trade secrets that might eventually enable Chinese companies to beat them at their own game -- by making the same products cheaper, if not better.

The joint venture will supply the Chinese Comac C919, which is challenging Boeing and Airbus in the market for single-aisle jets with more than 100 seats. Analysts generally believe the C919 won't find many customers outside of China, but will provide a base on which to build the country's airliner industry.

G.E. will contribute the same avionics system it supplies to the 787, The Times reported.

Kent L. Statler, an executive vice president for commercial aviation at Rockwell Collins, put it best in the story, saying: "I think you're na

the Chinese are smart, they know that they cant undercut everyone forever, so when western tech companies want a piece of the action in China the Chinese are demanding a transfer of tech as a part of the deal. that way China gets access to technology it cant yet produce. they get access to it, they will study it, and reverse-engineer it. so in future the aim is to produce more advanced tech rather than the cheap low tech stuff they make now.