Asian allies figure US would lose war with China.

[gosub]

This is not good

 

[Streathamite]

Don't blame Japan at all for this:

Remembering that WW2 in the pacific was motivated by a demand for natural resources and the exponential growth in demands from China in recent years - the one thing China's neighbours can't do is sit around twiddling their thumbs especially with countries within the EU also courting China as a partner such as with Gallilao.

I damn well do! at the time of WWII japan had been occupying c.25-30% of china, had done so for half a decade and had wreaked scarcely imaginable horrors on the prostrate, civil war-torn giant.
The SOLE cause of the far eastern end of WWII was japanese imperial designs on territories then owned or effectively controlled by Britain or America, and the insane Japanese fantasy of the 'greater asia co-prosperity sphere'. In 1941, China was out for the count

 

[gosub]

I damn well do! at the time of WWII japan had been occupying c.25-30% of china, had done so for half a decade and had wreaked scarcely imaginable horrors on the prostrate, civil war-torn giant.
The SOLE cause of the far eastern end of WWII was japanese imperial designs on territories then owned or effectively controlled by Britain or America, and the insane Japanese fantasy of the 'greater asia co-prosperity sphere'. In 1941, China was out for the count

With cut & paste anybody can mix and match sentences to come up with entirely diifferent argument that bears no relation to origninal context. What I didn't blame them for was the current stance as outlined at the begining of the thread

 

[oi2002]

Nah, the Yanks would stuff the Peoples Army if they ever got them on the battlefield.

Iraq's main lesson isn't that Yanks are no good at war fighting. In both Iraq wars the US military has fought set piece 3rd generation battles almost perfectly. No army in the world can face the US in bi-directional conventional battle without being annihilated.

It's precisely for this reason that all the 4GW guys predict no enemy is likely to be dumb enough to offer such a battle and so terrorist war will become the normal means of fighting the worlds hegemon.

However this does not mean that the US will fall out of love with its military. Iraq will lead to a re-instatement of the Powell doctrine and the merits of overwhelming force. America will plan to fight it's wars in the high calorie style of Desert Storm rather than Rummie's anemic War-Lite. After the Iraq debacle no one in the Pentagon is going to suggest another attempted occupation unless a real existential threat emerges and the adversary is even punier than Iraq post-Stormin Normin.

But it's true Dubya greatly diminished US prestige by going to Baghdad in a fit of PNAC hubris. The suprising limits of US power and its frail military stamina as a society have been revealed. Worse; DC's institutional incompetence is exposed in all its bungeling human frailty.

What the Yanks are evidentally crap at is nation building and fighting terrorists. The first is incredibly difficult and most Yanks knew it wasn't their bag. The second requires a great deal of finesse, skillful diplomacy and cautious guile, America may get better at it with time.

 

[bugsy7]

Nah, the Yanks would stuff the Peoples Army if they ever got them on the battlefield.

Iraq's main lesson isn't that Yanks are no good at war fighting. In both Iraq wars the US military has fought set piece 3rd generation battles almost perfectly. No army in the world can face the US in bi-directional conventional battle without being annihilated.

It's precisely for this reason that all the 4GW guys predict no enemy is likely to be dumb enough to offer such a battle and so terrorist war will become the normal means of fighting the worlds hegemon.

However this does not mean that the US will fall out of love with its military. Iraq will lead to a re-instatement of the Powell doctrine and the merits of overwhelming force. America will plan to fight it's wars in the high calorie style of Desert Storm rather than Rummie's anemic War-Lite. After the Iraq debacle no one in the Pentagon is going to suggest another attempted occupation unless a real existential threat emerges and the adversary is even punier than Iraq post-Stormin Normin.

But it's true Dubya greatly diminished US prestige by going to Baghdad in a fit of PNAC hubris. The suprising limits of US power and its frail military stamina as a society have been revealed. Worse; DC's institutional incompetence is exposed in all its bungeling human frailty.

What the Yanks are evidentally crap at is nation building and fighting terrorists. The first is incredibly difficult and most Yanks knew it wasn't their bag. The second requires a great deal of finesse, skillful diplomacy and cautious guile, America may get better at it with time.

I'd go so far as to say that Septic prowess in set-piece battles is debatable at best. They've only been up against rag-tag retreating armies and have never faced a force of comparable size to the Chinese Army. However, having said that, I don't think the Chinese would even contemplate the prospect; instead, they'd move on very swiftly to guerrilla warfare - something the Septics are, demonstrably, fucking useless at combatting.
Swings and roundabouts, innit?

MsG

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Wouldn't most of the obvious scenarios, Taiwan etc, imply naval rather than land warfare?

In which case, those big fat US carriers would make appealing targets.

 

[N_igma]

Seems the Japanese guy was saying something like that.

Yes and that's what worries me if a war does happen. In WW2 America had to resort to the A-bomb because the Japenese simply would not surrender because they valued honor and life more than anything else.

What worries me is that if America did go to war and did end up using nuclear weapons China could retaliate. Though doubt it will happen.

And there's no chance America could win, they can't even defeat a few freedom fighters in Iraq, nevermind the largest army in the world.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

In which case, those big fat US carriers would make appealing targets.

Big fat targets perhaps, but they do tend to be herded about by some rather nifty little boats, as well as the large supply of barrage ballons and sopwiths they can launch...

*Goes back to reading "The Blue Max" by Jack D. Hunter*

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure, but it's not like the Chinese won't see them coming. It's not going to be like WW2 where they're hard to locate. What do the US do if the Chinese simply paste them with nuclear missiles? Nuke Bejing in return?

I also seem to recall a wargame just before the invasion of Iraq where the opposing force commander managed to sink a bunch of carriers simply by using lots and lots of small boats firing anti-ship missiles and swarming them.

 

[dylanredefined]

And I bet they learned that lesson .I doubt the peoples republic armed forces would relish a fight with america .Also with chinas one child policy how
many casualties could they take ?Without country getting very upset .Their
forces are conscript and things have changed a lot in china since the korean war
human waves .
The population have more consumer goods .The society may be
a dictatorship ,but,could the leaders inspire there people in a struggle against
America ?

 

[MikeMcc]

Sure, but it's not like the Chinese won't see them coming. It's not going to be like WW2 where they're hard to locate. What do the US do if the Chinese simply paste them with nuclear missiles? Nuke Bejing in return?

I also seem to recall a wargame just before the invasion of Iraq where the opposing force commander managed to sink a bunch of carriers simply by using lots and lots of small boats firing anti-ship missiles and swarming them.

In response to your first comment - yes. Thats always been the Spams avowed response to the use of nukes.

As far as the Chinese use of force is concerned, it's extremely unlikely. Nuclear weapon use would be very detrimental to them and they simply don't have the firepower to go against a full carrier group. Meanwhile the US could be very capable of mounting a blockage of the sea routes using their submarine force.

If the Chinese felt the need to cripple the US there are economic means that would be far more effective given how many systems are reliant on parts from places like Taiwan, South Korea and China itself (for instance, over 60% of DRAM production is located in South Korea).

 

[Jessiedog]

This is not good

What's your point?

Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

If the Chinese felt the need to cripple the US there are economic means that would be far more effective given how many systems are reliant on parts from places like Taiwan, South Korea and China itself (for instance, over 60% of DRAM production is located in South Korea).

I agree that China could deal a heavy economic blow to the US (tho' not withouthout cutting of its own nose and half the face of the rest of the global economy). But how Korea and Taiwan (both essentially staunch allies of the US,) would factor into this as proxies of China escapes me.

Woof

 

[Rentonite]

It is so tiresome to again see the facts and logic get "bent" by Emotional political positions.
China is an Emerging nation, they are only a generation away from object poverty. That is good.
They have had most favored nation tradeing status for only twenty years or so, thats just a tick of the clock.
the Chinese are building infrastructure as fast as they can.
With modern technology Most everyone there knows what is going on.
China and the U.S are linked, have been for over a hundred years.
The attitude that somehow China is good and The U.S. is bad seems to color some posters logic.
thats ok, it is silly but ok.
This argument reminds me of children claiming "My Dad can beat up your Dad"
Or, "If Superman had to fight Batman"......


If Superman Had to fight Batman My money would be on Spiderman...

 

[MikeMcc]

I agree that China could deal a heavy economic blow to the US (tho' not withouthout cutting of its own nose and half the face of the rest of the global economy). But how Korea and Taiwan (both essentially staunch allies of the US,) would factor into this as proxies of China escapes me.

Woof

Because both communities are heavily overshadowed by the PRC, no doubt also heavily infiltrated as well. It would be relatively easy to disrupt key sectors through subversion, sabotage, economic sanctions, etc. It would be relatively easy to disable targets such as water treatment works, electrical sub-stations. Just a few people in the key factories would be capable of disrupting production for weeks or even months.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

In response to your first comment - yes. Thats always been the Spams avowed response to the use of nukes.

As far as the Chinese use of force is concerned, it's extremely unlikely. Nuclear weapon use would be very detrimental to them and they simply don't have the firepower to go against a full carrier group. Meanwhile the US could be very capable of mounting a blockage of the sea routes using their submarine force.

If the Chinese felt the need to cripple the US there are economic means that would be far more effective given how many systems are reliant on parts from places like Taiwan, South Korea and China itself (for instance, over 60% of DRAM production is located in South Korea).

With regard to the first point, I think they might think twice, because then they'd be initiating a full scale nuclear exchange against their own cities.

I agree with the last point though. Not least through ownership of a large and growing chunk of the US's helplessly spiralling national debt.

 

[Jessiedog]

Because both communities are heavily overshadowed by the PRC, no doubt also heavily infiltrated as well. It would be relatively easy to disrupt key sectors through subversion, sabotage, economic sanctions, etc. It would be relatively easy to disable targets such as water treatment works, electrical sub-stations. Just a few people in the key factories would be capable of disrupting production for weeks or even months.

Well sure. Although I would see the US overshadowing Korea to a greater extent than China does.

But, in the event that relations between the US and China deteriorate to that extent, we're likely looking at a war scenario anyway and, as i've made clear over time, I just cannot see relations collapsing to this extent. It is simply not in anyones interests to allow such a scenario.

'T'ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

All China really needs to do is to stop shipping garments to the west. The US and EU economies would go into an immediate tailspin. China, however, before doing this, is likely to also consider the fate of its 100 million domestic textile/garment factory workers.

China's economy is so intimately intertwined with the global trading scene, and plays such an important role in the world's economy that even mild trade ructions would (and do) create deep uncertainty and, potentially, instability. The chances of anybody wanting to really get into a full-on trade war with China are next to zero - and China certainly wants and needs global trade.



Woof

 

[oi2002]

China's economy is so intimately intertwined with the global trading scene, and plays such an important role in the world's economy that even mild trade ructions would (and do) create deep uncertainty and, potentially, instability. The chances of anybody wanting to really get into a full-on trade war with China are next to zero - and China certainly wants and needs global trade.

If the world was a rational place the US going to war with China would be very unlikely. Unfortunately countries do really dumb things all the time, just look back at how WWI started.

China has a long history of idiotic despots going back to Shang and unfortunately the institutionally failing US is very likely to be led by another reckless, pampered, frat boy like Dubya at some point in the future. With this in mind a confrontation over Taiwan at some point is not unlikely.

China will be immensely more powerful in a decades time and that can lead to hubris and a desire to confront the world hegemon. This early 21st century paper from Brookings PDF looks at China's options on Taiwan:

My conclusions suggest strongly, however, that China could not take Taiwan, even if
U.S. combat forces did not intervene in a conflict. Nor will China be able to invade Taiwan for at
least a decade, if not much longer. As such, Washington need not abandon its policy of strategic
ambiguity. China should be deterred from attempting an invasion by the military impracticalities
of the scenario, regardless of U.S. policy.

On the US side China is the only power that can be pumped up into a credible threat to justify Pentagon procurement policies and ensure a steady flow of pork to their industry chums. This tends to create a momentum towards war.

Fred Kaplan in this PDF takes a look at US options in a war with China and has some rather worrying statements:

Like the nations involved in World War I, and unlike the rogue states everyone has been concentrating on, the United States and China in the twenty-first century would have the capacity to keep fighting even if one or the other lost a big battle or a missile exchange. This has far-reaching implications. "Ending a war with China," Vickers says, "may mean effecting some form of regime change, because we don't want to leave some wounded, angry regime in place." Another analyst, this one inside the Pentagon, told me, "Ending a war with China will force us to substantially reduce their military capacity, thus threatening their energy sources and the Communist Party's grip on power. The world will not be the same afterward. It's a very dangerous road to travel on."
...
At the moment the challenges posed by a rising China may seem slight, even nonexistent. The U.S. Navy's warships have a collective "full-load displacement" of 2.86 million tons; the rest of the world's warships combined add up to only 3.04 million tons. The Chinese navy's warships have a full-load displacement of only 263,064 tons. The United States deploys twenty-four of the world's thirty-four aircraft carriers; the Chinese deploy none (a principal reason why they couldn't mount a rescue effort after the tsunami). The statistics go on. But as Robert Work, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, points out, at the start of the twenty-seven-year Peloponnesian War, Athens had a great advantage over Sparta, which had no navy—but Sparta eventually emerged the victor.

China has committed itself to significant military spending, but its navy and air force will not be able to match ours for some decades. The Chinese are therefore not going to do us the favor of engaging in conventional air and naval battles, like those fought in the Pacific during World War II. The Battle of the Philippine Sea, in late June of 1944, and the Battle of Leyte Gulf and the Surigao Strait, in October of 1944, were the last great sea battles in American history, and are very likely to remain so. Instead the Chinese will approach us asymmetrically, as terrorists do. In Iraq the insurgents have shown us the low end of asymmetry, with car bombs. But the Chinese are poised to show us the high end of the art. That is the threat.

Bernie will like this:

The effect of a single Chinese cruise missile's hitting a U.S. carrier, even if it did not sink the ship, would be politically and psychologically catastrophic, akin to al-Qaeda's attacks on the Twin Towers. China is focusing on missiles and submarines as a way to humiliate us in specific encounters. Their long-range-missile program should deeply concern U.S. policymakers.

This puts the strategic balance nicely:

I have noted that China has not and probably cannot successfully challenge the United States in the naval and air global commons, and that the United States has not and probably cannot successfully challenge China inland. Nevertheless, some geographically related problems do exist. Neither the United States nor China is self-sufficient in essential resources. It is sometimes said that the traditional rivalries for resources that has led to so much warfare have been lessened by globalization of trade, information, and communication. The effect of globalization on strategic stability is limited in my view. There is only limited trust in the proposition that adversaries will not misuse the global economy.
...
However important and beneficial this interdependence may be from an economic point of view, it is not likely to be a significant factor for strategic stability. Famously, economists before World War I sounded clear warnings that Europe had become economically interdependent to an extent that war there would ruin Europe. The war was fought nevertheless, Europe was duly ruined, and the ensuing political consequences haunted Europe to the end of World War II. Other cases exist. Modern war has been an economic disaster.
...
My tentative conclusion is that, given realistic leadership, stability should hold between the United States and China so long as four conditions are met:

1. China continues not to challenge the United States on the high seas.
2. The United States accepts that China, and indeed other Asian powers, will grow relative to the United States in relative influence and power.
3. The Taiwan situation can be managed.
4. Leaders in both countries do not turn their publics against the other.

The nuclear balance is notably absent. Nuclear weapons help deter war but the details of the balance are, in my opinion, not terribly important.

 

[Idris2002]

Points 1 and 3 there are plausible.

But I think it's less likely that the US will tolerate a relative decline in its position, and (for that reason) also likely that elites in both the US and the PRC will resort to nationalist mobilisation of the masses against the opposing power.

'We will all go together when we go'.

 

[Ae589]

Chinese government was one of the largest contributers to the Clinton election fund

Foreign governments can contribute to election funds??!!

 

[Streathamite]

With cut & paste anybody can mix and match sentences to come up with entirely diifferent argument that bears no relation to origninal context. What I didn't blame them for was the current stance as outlined at the begining of the thread

I was referring to your dubious contention that competition for scarce natural resources in any way caused WWII (asian section). cos it didn't.

 

[gosub]

I was referring to your dubious contention that competition for scarce natural resources in any way caused WWII (asian section). cos it didn't.

Warping what I said is one thing trying to rewrite history is another
1/3 way down in addition China Daily had an article earlier this year complaining about current Japanese secondary schhool textbooks complaining about the omition of the brutality even that article includes "According to the book, Japan's 1931 occupation of China's northeastern provinces, which were rich in natural resources, was nothing to be blamed for. The text book does not mention Japan's history of aggression and its crime but says "the Manchukuo (a puppet regime created by the Japanese) witnessed economic growth and significant personnel inflow."

Was actually surprized when tried googling "pearl harbour motive" most top links were about drawing parrelels with whats going on in Iraq, at the time I was more reminded of Absyinia

 

[PrinceToad]

The biggest threat of war involving the USA and China probably comes from not from Taiwan or the Pacific, but from central Asia, as the situation there is potentially more fluid. The position will become more tense later in the century as US leaders realize that their demise is imminent if they do not do something. The first world war started (arguably) in large part as the German military felt that if the war came later they would not stand a chance of victory. The war in Iraq, and the increasing US interest in Central Asia is, again arguably, connected with the threat from China, as it is working towards ensuring that the US controls the world's oil supplies. Try reading Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard, if I have that title right.

 

[pbman]

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare.

"When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.

As a result, Asian allies of the United States are quietly preparing to bolster their militaries independent of Washington.



...That can't be good for the ego.

We would just need to shut down the shipping lanes, and the war is won.

And that we can do pretty easy.

Anyways, they need to sell theirtrinkets more than we need to buy them.

If war came, their economy would be devistated.

 

[Jessiedog]

China would just need to shut down the shipping lanes, and the war is won.

And that they can do pretty easy.

Anyways, they need to sell their trinkets to us almost as much as we need to buy them.

If war came, our economy would be devistated.

I've tinkered with your quote a wee bit peebs. It's now about the most eloquent analysis you've ever writ.





Woof