The US is still at a Cold War-like Standoff with the Communist nations

I didn't say that there was ambiguity; it seems fairly clear to me, but I wanted to define my terms first (I'm new.) "the communist nations" definitely includes Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. I think that saying that the US is in a Cold-War like standoff with these nations is clearly incorrect. "China has become an economic powerhouse in the world. The population is booming and the jobs are appearing like a wildfire." I agree with this, but I don't think this is entirely a good thing. The One Child Policy, while being phased out, showed that China didn't really want, or need, the rapid population growth. Overpopulation can lead to pollution, and we're already seeing economical segregation rapidly increasing in China, as the rich hold the wealth, and everyone else is without the kind of funds they possess, and live in slum-like areas, or rurally, without money to get enough human rights. China are more likely to be focusing on water, pollution, etc. rather than challenging the US, because nuclear war is incredibly unlikely. A tiny fraction of many nation's nuclear prowess would lead to nuclear war. "With wealth, comes militarism." I don't necessarily agree. The modern-day is different from the past. Like it or not, human rights, population, technology and pacifism are all on the rise. So we can't draw conclusions from the past (I may be wrong but that's what I think you're doing.) because militarism used to be in almost every nation. I agree that China has been aggressive to some level, and spent money on nukes. However, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The US and China are economic rivals, so of course China wouldn't want the US to have more nukes. Russia has made some deals with China militarily. That doesn't mean they're united at all; I don't see China and Russia "uniting against a common enemy", really. The differences are too numerous, and the US disagreements are really the only thing they have in common. The need for a long-range missile is to defend against a long-range missile. Just because it's capable of targeting the US, doesn't mean it will. Every nation has some need for self-defence, I think, because nuclear war is only an absolutely terrible idea if the opponent can fight back with nukes (on a nationalistic level, of course there are many ethical reasons against it too.) Will the US expand their missile program against China? I don't think so. The US still thinks, whether correct or not, Russia is its most prominent enemy. Trump and Clinton are debating Russian foreign policy more than the Chinese, and the Russian conflict in Iraq and the Ukraine is more widely protested than the Chinese conquest of the South China Sea. The US is spending more and more on defence because of a few factors; 1. Inflation. As money is worth less, more must be spent. 2. Global nuclear power inflation. Most of the nationalists inside the US don't want to fall behind on a nuclear level, and the US is a democracy. The presidency doesn't decide everything- the people have more say than we might think. 3. Nationalism. 4. The ACTUAL CONFLICT THEY ARE IN with ISIS. I don't agree that they've been at war since 9/11, but the West is fighting ISIS and ISIS is getting more desperate (i.e; they are developing nuclear programs. One nuke is dangerous. Incredibly dangerous.) @Cyber warfare; I never said China had good relations with the US, but 42% isn't a standoff. It just isn't, however you look at it. And China not intervening against the hackers is most likely a nationalistic move. If you are A, the leader of a group who are, say, teenagers who think they're tough, and B's group is a rival gang, and one of your members hacks into the social media of B, say, then are you going to stop them, even if you have an agreement with team B? Sure, it isn't particularly ethical. But that's what it boils down to, except that it's more like the entire argument is just on social media. "Now, to the controversial topic of North Korea. North Korea is definitely a childish country looking to impose fear on the democratic nations. They have recently been performing missile tests and building their nuclear arsenal. The threat of North Korea is not as significant as the situation with China. However, they have continually threatened US allies such as South Korea and Japan and US intervention has been needed to protect democracy in the East." I agree. I don't think this means we have any sort of standoffwith North Korea. South Korea resents Japan too; I don't think a resentment of a US-allied nation causes much standoff TBH. And North Korea will most likely not be sponsored by China if a war starts? I'm pretty sure China don't need their cities nuked and the worst destroyed because North Korea wanted South Korean land. That might just be me but I think that's basic common sense.