46 Ronald L.Tammen and Jacek Kugler The key question from a parity perspective is not whether China will be the dominant nation in world politics by the end of the century,but whether a dominant China would openly challenge the existing international regimes or join and lead the pre-existing international community.History provides examples of each.22 The British were overtaken by the United States,but transferred the mantle of world leadership peacefully early in the 20th century and have maintained a cooperative stance ever since.On the other hand,the UK,when overtaken by Germany early in the 20th century,was forced to wage two World Wars to decide dominance over the world hierarchy.Only after the precursor to the EU shifted political attitudes did Germany overtake Britain in peace.The key to stability is the challenger's satisfaction with the status quo. China:Satisfied or Dissatisfied? The weight of our theoretical and policy argument falls squarely on one question:Is China now and will it be in the future a satisfied nation? If so,the probability of war between China and any regional or global competitors falls precipitously.Therefore,how do we test for satisfaction and its corollary dissatisfaction?In the following paragraphs we propose several preliminary cuts at how to frame an answer. First,given our predisposition to scientific inquiry,we will look at the role of territorial disputes that are strongly associated with dissatisfaction and war.23 Is there a territorial dispute between the United States and China? The United States and China have engaged in conflictual activities with territorial implications in three circumstances:Korea,Vietnam and Taiwan.24 Korea produced a direct engagement on the battlefield. Vietnam was fought indirectly via surrogates.Taiwan has been episodic, involving a show of force with US naval forces from time to time.At this stage,Taiwan,seen by China as part of its core territory,represents the most 22 Realists-particularly Mearsheimer(2004)-argue,following the logic of the tragedy of the great powers,that a conflict between the US and China is all but inevitable. 23 john A.Vasquez.The War Puzzle.(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1993) Paul R.Hensel,'Charting a Course to Conflict:Territorial Issues and Interstate Conflict, 1816-1992',Conflict Management and Peace Science Vol.15,No.1 (1996).pp.43-73; Paul Huth.Standing Your Ground (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1996); Michelle Benson,The Ties that Bind:Status Quo Preferences,Democracy and Conflict,PhD Dissertation.Claremont Graduate University,1999. 24 Not including activities associated with World War II. Chinese Journal of International Politics,Vol.1,2006,35-55The key question from a parity perspective is not whether China will be the dominant nation in world politics by the end of the century, but whether a dominant China would openly challenge the existing international regimes or join and lead the pre-existing international community. History provides examples of each.22 The British were overtaken by the United States, but transferred the mantle of world leadership peacefully early in the 20th century and have maintained a cooperative stance ever since. On the other hand, the UK, when overtaken by Germany early in the 20th century, was forced to wage two World Wars to decide dominance over the world hierarchy. Only after the precursor to the EU shifted political attitudes did Germany overtake Britain in peace. The key to stability is the challenger’s satisfaction with the status quo. China: Satisfied or Dissatisfied? The weight of our theoretical and policy argument falls squarely on one question: Is China now and will it be in the future a satisfied nation? If so, the probability of war between China and any regional or global competitors falls precipitously. Therefore, how do we test for satisfaction and its corollary dissatisfaction? In the following paragraphs we propose several preliminary cuts at how to frame an answer. First, given our predisposition to scientific inquiry, we will look at the role of territorial disputes that are strongly associated with dissatisfaction and war.23 Is there a territorial dispute between the United States and China? The United States and China have engaged in conflictual activities with territorial implications in three circumstances: Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan.24 Korea produced a direct engagement on the battlefield. Vietnam was fought indirectly via surrogates. Taiwan has been episodic, involving a show of force with US naval forces from time to time. At this stage, Taiwan, seen by China as part of its core territory, represents the most 22 Realists—particularly Mearsheimer (2004)—argue, following the logic of the tragedy of the great powers, that a conflict between the US and China is all but inevitable. 23 John A. Vasquez, The War Puzzle, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Paul R. Hensel, ‘Charting a Course to Conflict: Territorial Issues and Interstate Conflict, 1816–1992’, Conflict Management and Peace Science Vol. 15, No. 1 (1996), pp. 43–73; Paul Huth, Standing Your Ground (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996); Michelle Benson, The Ties that Bind: Status Quo Preferences, Democracy and Conflict, PhD Dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 1999. 24 Not including activities associated with World War II. 46 Ronald L. Tammen and Jacek Kugler Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2006, 35–55