China Draws Sabre

[Foolmewunz]

Seriously, I believe if the US goes to war with China, then it goes to war alone. China is not Iraq, or Afghanistan...it won't be some little botique war where pilots can fly around dropping bombs on peasants with contempt. And it certainly won't be a boating excursion for the US Navy surface fleet (who will finally learn why Aircraft Carriers are obsolete against A-Team Militaries). Japan and Korea know this - and they know that China is not going away when it's over. For this reason, I think they'll deny the US the use of bases from which to launch attacks and make sure China knows they are staying out of the fight.

Seriously, there is a lot of contemptuous ideas floated by a lot of Americans concerning China's military strength, and I think it's time we start to get rid of these ideas before someone supports doing something extremely stupid. Every year China's Military Power significantly increases as they plow money into it that's generated by the world's largest economy. In 2008, the question was asked of China and it's economy "Can they decouple from the US economy so that they don't face recession or...depression as a result of US economic woes?" Nowadays, the question is asked, as "If China's economy Tanks, can the world withstand such a downturn?" And remember - that's the same economy that's funding China's military.

I used to be one of those Bidness-oriented Free-Market Fundies who thought there was never a chance China could catch up to America as long as they were led by the Communist Party. Jesus, was I freakin' wrong! Not only is the Communist Party of China not what I thought it was (I figured they were a bunch of Soviet-era Bolsheviks), China has recently completed an infrastructure build-out that is unparalleled in Human History. With the exception of Japan (~1865-1920 era), the world has never seen a country progress so far, so fast. As a result people are still in the habit of thinking of China as some second-rate economic and military power. It ain't.

In 1865, Japan was known a fuedal society that exported nothing but bad opera and cheap fans. By 1920, Japan was plying the Medeteranian with tremendous battleships during the Paris Peace talks. Nevertheless, people in the west refused to change their initial summation of Japanese capabilities or ambition....until it was almost too late. Lucky for us, Japan's economy was relatively small compared to the US economy and this limited their ability to wage war. China doesn't have that problem: it's economy is pretty freakin' big.

Just some things to think about.

I think I'm pretty aware (moreso than other forumites) of the actual situation in China. (I've lived in Taiwan and Hong Kong and have spent thousands upon thousands of hours in China.)

My problem is with your underlying concept that this will or could lead to a shooting war. I won't say "it can't", but I'm pretty certain about "it won't". Look at my earlier posts in the thread. This is all just global realpolitik. China's extending its reach into the South China Sea. Big deal. The USA has to answer rhetoric with rhetoric, but no one's cancelled any meetings, any oil leases or exploration agreements, recalled their ambassador, etc... They're posturing for home consumption in the media, in both China and the USA.

My impression is that the US and China are actually much closer together on questions of the area than are China (or USA) and Viet Nam. In real terms both would settle for a solid Chinese (stationary) position and solid US (mobile) position. Being highly unlikely that any of the other countries in the area are going to give either of them access, it comes down to the Philippines inviting the US back into Subic or Richards. They're already making noises about doing both. (The Philippines pushed the USN and USAF out as sort of payback for all the support of Marcos and his cronies. Yeah, it's deeper than that but that's the nub of the situation.)

And always remember the home media consumption. Does anyone know who flew to Itu Aba after meeting with the Chinese Premier in January? Gee, what a coincidence! The new separatist president of Taiwan flies to their own outpost in the South China Sea, and a couple of weeks later the confirmation comes out that the Chinese have armed the Spratlys!

When it comes to China, think local impact of news. Then think regional and then global. The "pissing off the Americans in an election year" is just a bonus. (Take a gander at the map. China is saying, "Okay, you've got an outpost... we've got missiles aimed right at it." Taiwan would not have the time to react if a Spratly missile was targeted on Itu Aba. It's a hundred km away - closer than any viable target in the Philippines.)

 

[Toontown]

Every year China's Military Power significantly increases as they plow money into it that's generated by the world's largest economy.

,,,,

I used to be one of those Bidness-oriented Free-Market Fundies who thought there was never a chance China could catch up to America as long as they were led by the Communist Party. Jesus, was I freakin' wrong!

You're even more wrong now than you were then. China's GNP is currently roughly 60% of the US economy, and slowing. Which doesn't even make China look good, considering that China has 4 times the population of the US, and is already choking in it's own fumes.

The rest of your assertions are subjective opinions, but this one is mathematically wrong.

BTW, China tanks if it loses it's highly China-favorable US trade.

 

[Garrette]

I think I'm pretty aware (moreso than other forumites) of the actual situation in China. (I've lived in Taiwan and Hong Kong and have spent thousands upon thousands of hours in China.)

My problem is with your underlying concept that this will or could lead to a shooting war. I won't say "it can't", but I'm pretty certain about "it won't". Look at my earlier posts in the thread. This is all just global realpolitik. China's extending its reach into the South China Sea. Big deal. The USA has to answer rhetoric with rhetoric, but no one's cancelled any meetings, any oil leases or exploration agreements, recalled their ambassador, etc... They're posturing for home consumption in the media, in both China and the USA.

My impression is that the US and China are actually much closer together on questions of the area than are China (or USA) and Viet Nam. In real terms both would settle for a solid Chinese (stationary) position and solid US (mobile) position. Being highly unlikely that any of the other countries in the area are going to give either of them access, it comes down to the Philippines inviting the US back into Subic or Richards. They're already making noises about doing both. (The Philippines pushed the USN and USAF out as sort of payback for all the support of Marcos and his cronies. Yeah, it's deeper than that but that's the nub of the situation.)

And always remember the home media consumption. Does anyone know who flew to Itu Aba after meeting with the Chinese Premier in January? Gee, what a coincidence! The new separatist president of Taiwan flies to their own outpost in the South China Sea, and a couple of weeks later the confirmation comes out that the Chinese have armed the Spratlys!

When it comes to China, think local impact of news. Then think regional and then global. The "pissing off the Americans in an election year" is just a bonus. (Take a gander at the map. China is saying, "Okay, you've got an outpost... we've got missiles aimed right at it." Taiwan would not have the time to react if a Spratly missile was targeted on Itu Aba. It's a hundred km away - closer than any viable target in the Philippines.)

This, with caveats. I think a shooting war between the US and China is highly unlikely, but I probably think it is more likely than most here besides Jules Galen. The pre-WWI analogy is highly flawed (more solid international organizations now, more economic linkages now, etc.), but it is not entirely without use (declining power in face of rising power, string of alliances, etc.).

I also think that even if a shooting war starts, the likelihood of it going nuclear are exceedingly slim (if Pakistan and India can go all fisticuffs without using nukes, then surely China and the US can).

My impression (and my personal stance, really) is that the US generally wants to share power in the Asia-Pacific region and be friendly with China. The question is how to handle it politically. Dump Taiwan outright and go all Chinaphile? That not only screws Taiwan but sends a bad message to other allies who may already be wondering about our level of commitment, not just in the Asia-Pacific but also in Europe. The best option is the hardest both practically and as a political-sell to the public in the US: commit both to the security of Taiwan and to deeper ties and power-sharing with China getting China and Taiwan to demilitarize their relationship (the bit of the Chinese coastland across from Taiwan has, I think, the world's highest concentration of missiles). The unspoken nasty bit is that such a course will ultimately lead to a PRC absorption of the ROC in the long run, perhaps in the Hong Kong vein.

Back to my previous comment: the claiming of the Spratley's by building assets there is less about overt power projection and military threat then it is about who will enforce Freedom of the Seas. Prestige in the long run goes hand in hand with saying you're the country that protects the commerce.

 

[Jules Galen]

This, with caveats. I think a shooting war between the US and China is highly unlikely, but I probably think it is more likely than most here besides Jules Galen. The pre-WWI analogy is highly flawed (more solid international organizations now, more economic linkages now, etc.), but it is not entirely without use (declining power in face of rising power, string of alliances, etc.).

I also think that even if a shooting war starts, the likelihood of it going nuclear are exceedingly slim (if Pakistan and India can go all fisticuffs without using nukes, then surely China and the US can).

My impression (and my personal stance, really) is that the US generally wants to share power in the Asia-Pacific region and be friendly with China. The question is how to handle it politically. Dump Taiwan outright and go all Chinaphile? That not only screws Taiwan but sends a bad message to other allies who may already be wondering about our level of commitment, not just in the Asia-Pacific but also in Europe. The best option is the hardest both practically and as a political-sell to the public in the US: commit both to the security of Taiwan and to deeper ties and power-sharing with China getting China and Taiwan to demilitarize their relationship (the bit of the Chinese coastland across from Taiwan has, I think, the world's highest concentration of missiles). The unspoken nasty bit is that such a course will ultimately lead to a PRC absorption of the ROC in the long run, perhaps in the Hong Kong vein. Back to my previous comment: the claiming of the Spratley's by building assets there is less about overt power projection and military threat then it is about who will enforce Freedom of the Seas. Prestige in the long run goes hand in hand with saying you're the country that protects the commerce.

I think this is inevitable regardless of what the current leaders of the ROC want - or regardless of what the US wants. But...it doesn't have to be done violently or with great disruption as proven by the annexation of Hong Kong and Macao. There is no reason why Taiwan can't eventually become a Special Administrative Region of China and enjoy the same lifestyle it enjoys today.

No more than Mississippi or Alabama could have remained separate from the Continental United States post Civil War, Taiwan will eventually be absorbed by China. Now...lots of people may not like this, but it's going to happen anyways - whether we like it or not. So, why not work for a solution that best benefits everyone?

 

[3point14]

Isn't this how one wins territory in peacetime? Place a military base there and dare anyone to attack you?

The US did it in Turkey, Russia did it in Cuba and, before that, I have no doubt that the English and the Portugese did it all over the world.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Turkey? what's that got to do with the situation?
Turkey is a Nato ally

 

[Jules Galen]

Turkey? what's that got to do with the situation?
Turkey is a Nato ally

He's referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the events that led up to it.

 

[Garrette]

I think this is inevitable regardless of what the current leaders of the ROC want - or regardless of what the US wants. But...it doesn't have to be done violently or with great disruption as proven by the annexation of Hong Kong and Macao. There is no reason why Taiwan can't eventually become a Special Administrative Region of China and enjoy the same lifestyle it enjoys today.

No more than Mississippi or Alabama could have remained separate from the Continental United States post Civil War, Taiwan will eventually be absorbed by China. Now...lots of people may not like this, but it's going to happen anyways - whether we like it or not. So, why not work for a solution that best benefits everyone?

Except that I don't care to speak in absolutes, I pretty much agree.

 

[Jules Galen]

Except that I don't care to speak in absolutes, I pretty much agree.

I agree. I should have qualified a lot of what I wrote.

 

[Jules Galen]

You're even more wrong now than you were then. China's GNP is currently roughly 60% of the US economy, and slowing. Which doesn't even make China look good, considering that China has 4 times the population of the US, and is already choking in it's own fumes.

The rest of your assertions are subjective opinions, but this one is mathematically wrong.

BTW, China tanks if it loses it's highly China-favorable US trade.

So...you think I have been deluded by pro-Chinese Propaganda?

 

[Andy_Ross]

If it quacks...

 

[Jules Galen]

If it quacks...

So, what if I told you that the CIA and other government organizations also believe China has the world's largest economy? Have they also been deluded by pro-China Propaganda?

 

[The Atheist]

Isn't this how one wins territory in peacetime? Place a military base there and dare anyone to attack you?

The US did it in Turkey, Russia did it in Cuba and, before that, I have no doubt that the English and the Portugese did it all over the world.

We have an even better, much more recent example: Ukraine/Crimea.

The Russians came, the Russians took, and I haven't seen anyone doing much about it.

China must feel fairly comfortable that their nation-expanding won't cause any kind of war.

 

[Beerina]

Well just think, if Trump gets in as President, he plans to build up the Military presence in South East Asia so that these guys will realise their place under the US Empire and start behaving. I mean really, send large numbers of troops into this zone and telling China to do as they are told or else... what could possibly go wrong.....

I am fine with a US empire, as you see it, compared to a Chinese one. More accurately, keeping the high seas open for trade and enforcing international standards, such as you can't make an island then claim fishing or military buffer zones.

 

[dudalb]

Where did you get the idea millions of Chinese would die in a war?

Something called Nuclear Weapons....

 

[Jules Galen]

Something called Nuclear Weapons....

But...that wouldn't be a on-sided affair, would it? What about the millions of Americans that would die? I mean, do we expect China to hang back and not fire their Nukes at the US after millions of Chinese have been nuked by the US?

Seriously...I don't think it would come to nukes.

Furthermore, I don't think the US and China are going to get into a shooting war. However, there is the possibility that China could enter into a proxy war with the US in the future and this could be bad if the US decided to send troops. The last two major proxy wars were Afghanistan (1980s) and Vietnam - both of which went very bad for the party who actually sent in troops.

Now...Syria might be considered a Proxy War by some, but I don't think the US is really pushing the issue else Russia would have met a lot more resistance than it has. I mean, it's not like the US has been supplying the rebels with any effective SAM systems, or anything (which could make Russia miserable).

 

[The Atheist]

I am fine with a US empire, as you see it, compared to a Chinese one.

I admire your honesty.

 

[Delvo]

Several of the comments about this missile battery make it looks as if people have mixed up this island with a different group of islands that were in the news months ago. This is Woody Island, which has a population of over 1400 Chinese people, governed by Chinese government, served by Chinese police, living according to Chinese customs, and speaking & writing Chinese to each other. Many of them don't live there at all times, and for those who don't, the other locations they come from and go back to are other parts of China. There's nothing about this that in any way resembles anybody trying to grab & claim & "win" new land from someone else.

The uninhabited ones you're thinking of were the Senkaku Islands.

Also, these are anti-aircraft missiles, not anti-ship missiles.

 

[Garrette]

Several of the comments about this missile battery make it looks as if people have mixed up this island with a different group of islands that were in the news months ago. This is Woody Island, which has a population of over 1400 Chinese people, governed by Chinese government, served by Chinese police, living according to Chinese customs, and speaking & writing Chinese to each other. Many of them don't live there at all times, and for those who don't, the other locations they come from and go back to are other parts of China. There's nothing about this that in any way resembles anybody trying to grab & claim & "win" new land from someone else.

The uninhabited ones you're thinking of were the Senkaku Islands.

Also, these are anti-aircraft missiles, not anti-ship missiles.

The individual island, no, but the larger chain of which it is a part is the goal, and that larger chain is disputed (the Paracels).

 

[3point14]

We have an even better, much more recent example: Ukraine/Crimea.

The Russians came, the Russians took, and I haven't seen anyone doing much about it.

China must feel fairly comfortable that their nation-expanding won't cause any kind of war.

Thank you. I have no idea why I didn't think of that.