Interesting Article

[ChezDaJez]

They're not allowed invade Taiwan. Our Navy takes care of that. Sure, they have subs. But I'd bet USN knows exactly where each of those subs are at any given time.

You betcha. Their few nuc subs are so noisy they make my daughter's stereo sound quiet. The diesels, on the other hand, could present a slight problem.

Chez

[TSCofield]

Turn about is fair play with the Chinese economy though. The US is the major importer of Chinese goods and the loss of such a market would have a crippling affect on the Chinese economy. While there is a strong nationalist sentiment in the country there is also a very strong pragmatist segment (read capitalist) of the country that would go absolutely nuts if the got into a shooting war with their major monetary supplier. The Chinese economy isn't like the US, it cannot easily tolerate a major efflux of capital. There is no middle class equivalent in China, although that is growing. That means that the majority of the money the fuels their economy comes from external source. If China got into a shooting war with the US over Taiwan I am willing to bet that it would quickly escalate and they would lose most of their monetary support from Europe as well. It would be a disaster for them and they know it.

The other thing is the idea that the US would fight this battle in a vacuum. China's army is huge but they would be facing the US and Taiwan and probably Japan. The rest of the Pacific region would be on board as well. If North Korea tried something they would end up with South Korea against them as well. That is essentially three world class industrial countries against a nation that is finally starting to get to the late 20th century in its capacity.

China will be a problem in 15-20 years. Right now it is a potential threat but not something that (I think) will be a major problem, at least not in this part of the century

[ChezDaJez]

Politics is an "art of compromise", and unfortunately i think Chinese are right, if they will be able to present the whole thing as too expensive for US and EU, nobody is going to lift a pinky to defend Taiwan. Especially if they present it as Hong-Kong type unification.

The difference is that Hong Kong's reunification with the mainland was gauranteed by a treaty between the UK and China when the UK first leased it. Hong Kong's citizens had little say in the matter.

There is no such agreement concerning Taiwan and I hardly think the Taiwanese will go willingly back into the fold. The US will stand by its obligation but we certainly would not fight a land war in China. That would be stupid. We couldn't win one without resorting to nucs. But the Chinese military also does not have the capability of directly attacking any US territory.

So, the battleground would be in and around Taiwan. And this is where it gets bad because of the logisitics problems that would confront the US trying to keep any friendly forces supplied over such a long distance and still repel an invasion from China. China would also have similar problems supplying troops in Taiwan but obviously not to the same degree due to the miniscule distance involved. But China currently does not have enough sea or airlift capability to keep a division supplied let alone the number required to successfully capture Taiwan.

If the Chinese did resort to military action, Taiwan would be devastated and we would not be able to stop the invasion if the Chinese really chose to do so. China's air force and navy would cease to exist in very short order, of that I am sure. In the end, it would become a standoff with neither being able to force the other out, especially if we are still embroiled in Iraq.

The economics of such a move would be equally stupid for the Chinese. Many of the markets China is counting on to increase her growing prosperity would dry up plus the Chinese would have no way of moving their goods (at least not by sea) to those markets that still chose to trade as I am sure that we would be successful in interdicting the movement of those goods.

The unknown element here would actually be Russia. What would they do? Who would they support either militarily or politically, or would they choose to sit on the sidelines and watch? If Russia chose to intervene with the US and allowed use of their bases, its curtains for the Chinese. And while Russia wouldn't exactly be jumping for joy to help us, they most certainly recognize that China represents their most significant threat militarily, politically and economically.

If Russia chose to side with China, even if just politically, it would mean a return to the cold war status quo for sure. If they chose to intervene militarily, well, it sure wouldn't be good for us and would certainly tip the conflict towards China.

Chez

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

Ishihara is xenophobe and he says all kind of stupid things. He was recently sued by the union of French teachers for claiming that you can't count in French. He also claimed to quote that "Old women are the worst evil and malignant being that the civilization have produced".

The Chinese ownership of US Treasury bonds is just a way for the Chinese ensure employment within China. The US borrows money in its own currency so it isn't a big problem, the US can either devalue the dollar or refuse to honour the debt (like Argentina just did).

There is no chance that China can win a war with the US:
1. They can barely feed themselves
2. They don't have enough resources to fuel their own industry
3. They don't have any ability to project power (no significant navy, no useful foreign bases)
4. They don't have any real allies (excepting Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea)

The US just needs to blockade the Chinese ports if it comes to that, their only outlets then become Russia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Pakistan and Burma. I think the other bordering countries are pretty hostile to the Chinese. There is no infrastructure to handle a blockade in China if it comes to it.

Uh..huh... and what happens when you go to Walmart and find empty shelves where the Chinese made goods used to be? A blockade cuts both ways...

War scenarios run aground on the simple question... "why?" What does China have to gain in a war with the United States? What would we gain from such a war?

In any case, in another two decades the Chinese will own a controlling interest in the United States if we don't get our budget under control and keep running massive deficits sustained by Chinese investment.

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: marky

thats bull$%^

china would get its commie butt kicked and every true american knows it!



oo a star wars emoty[8D]

LOL! Verry Graphical..

[sfbaytf]

Interesting responses. Since I’m the one who originally posted this I guess I should throw in my .02 cents. What I took away from the article was the following: “They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare” and “I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives”-[which can be a disadvantage when fighting a low intensity conflict which tends to be brutal and dirty by its very nature.]

IMHO the Asian way of thinking is indirect and obtuse as opposed to the western way, which tends to be straightforward and direct. Taiwan, the balance of trade, debates about conventional warfare capabilities while important to the Chinese strategy may indeed be peripheral. If I were in the Chinese shoes I would like to keep the Americans debating these issues to keep them focused on them while I put my main emphasis on where the Americans have demonstrated known weakness-low tech insurgency warfare.

In the past few months articles have been written about how Chinese diplomats have been making inroads in South East Asia with “soft diplomacy” capitalizing on the growing discontent with US foreign policy. In many parts of South East Asia there are large Muslim communities that could easily be used as proxies against the west.

Imagine a situation whereby a large insurgency or civil discontent was ignited in the Indonesian region at a time when the US was going through a economic slowdown – with the Chinese holding a large part of the US debt followed by saber rattling by China regarding Taiwan.

Like many who have already posted I don’t think China has any interest in engaging in direct military conflict with the West-its not in their history, nor is it their nature. That does not however mean they would not eventually be willing to challenge the West by other indirect means. Some have posted that China will not be a threat to the west for decades. In Western culture where we have been conditioned to think in short terms and have a youth oriented culture, it may perhaps be wise to keep in mind that in the east they tend to value age and wisdom and think long term.

This has begun to show up in Iraq. After 3 years the American public is demanding results. 3 years or decades for that matter is nothing to the inhabitants of regions that have been in existence for thousands of years….

[Veldor]

You are all forgetting 3 much more important facts:

1. We have the Neutron Bomb to vaporize all the enemy ground forces.
2. We have the Star Wars Defense Systems all my tax dollars went towards to vaporize just about anything else.
3. We have all the technology gained from the Roswell crash that no one is at liberty to divulge (except ex-air force personnel who then die mysteriously).

Given the above, clearly the biggest threat would be attack from within. We could re-open our "Japanese Relocation Centers" from WWII and just put the Chinese Americans in there now.

But no, the real threat from China will be in its ability to launch "cyber warfare" against the US. We are a decade behind the Chinese in how our Government and Major Financial Systems are Monitored and Protected. Right now the Chinese use this sophistication only against their own citizens who might try to promote democracy or whatever, but I do believe the US government has finally begun to realize that we may need a new offensive/defensive branch to the armed forces... The cyber one.

Betcha we see exactly that in just a little over a decade, if not sooner...

[Cmdrcain]

I think some are being ridiculous...

Lets go through some:

Bonds and Debt: USA would cancel what China holds, China would lose billions of investments, China also would likely lose many avenues of other banks, I cannot see British, and other banks dealing with China, perhaps the French Banks would.. Those nations allowing China to deal with banks might get cut out of US markets, I think most western nations would pull plug on China doing any financial transactions...Even Freeze Chinese investments and Assets that could mean China having Trillions of Investments taken or frozen.

The Chinese currency would no longer likely be traded on world market its value falling to zero.

Taiwan is not just a economy of interest to USA, any Chinese move threatens also other western nations economies ties into Taiwans goods.

Now as to a pure Conventional war...

China would lose it, They have the numbers in an army but really do they ACTUALLY have like 500 million with ARMS? Enough Ammo to Truly arm and support 500 million? Even If they could, where could they go? Even getting into Taiwan isn't that simple, their "Lifting" power isn't there especially with Taiwans defenses and US Navy capable of taking out any air or Naval transports, the few China has.

So they have 500 Million,not all likely Really with each having a Gun and plenty of ammo... And inability to move them, The USA is NOT going to attempt to invade China.

USA can bomb out and likely render all Chinese ports unuseable, we could probably mine all their best ports, destroy their docks, shipyards, etc..

Without Ports China has hardly any way to IMPORT oil! They would run out of oil fast enough in a sustained war, the USA has its own domestic productions and war rationing would go right into effect.

So China starts a war, their unable really make use of their huge land forces, They fast lose their Navy, their Ports rendered useless, oil ut off, other things cut off...can China actually feed all their billions from own domestic prouction?

I'd also point out that theres the possiability of NATO getting into it, I think that China wouldn't simply invade Taiwan, that they would at same time
likely hit any US assets in range to prevent quick US response, any attack on US forces invokes NATO which Russia is in a sense now a part so Russia Might end up in the land war vs China.. or at least holding Neutral. Rest of NATO would have to support USA.

If no first attack on USA then it is possiable no Nato involvement, but I somehow cannot see China just attacking Taiwan and not hitting Us assets in Japan, Diego Garcia, etc...

So Any chinese move that hits US assets would likely invoke Nato.

And invoke other defense treatys with like Australia.

Any war started by China simply would be runious
to China.. If china uses Nukes then USa will massive respond, we would nuke every major port out of existence, peking aka Beijing , etc wiped out,
The Idea that USA worrys too much about lives is something misleading, the USA is the ONE and ONLY Nation that HAS USED NUKES IN WAR.

Why?

To Save US and Allied Lives.

If it means saving USA lives we WILL NUKE CHINA.

[:@][:@][:@]


Pure and simple... USA will do what it must to ensure US lives.

I can say that without a doubt, if especially China nukes US itself we would enmass respond... China as a nation would cease to be, it would be hit with H-Bombs not simply tac nukes..

I think that japanese official simply doesn't really know americans.

As to russia, their not necessary on chinas side, they have had numerous border actions, for sure Russia on Chinas side would be trouble however
their Military isn't what it used to be.

Russia would lose all its Pacific Ports if it directly involved self , The worry with Russia would be they would have ability to hit Alaska, Cutting off our Oil suplies from Alaska.

However I think Russia would play it careful, most likely stay neutral while bolstering their border with China.

After war, China would be devasted, with starvation, turmoil, the world economy suffer etc...

Btw I am annoyed with the idea that Americans would worry about their "toys" made in far east... it
isn't like US isn't capable to build our own steros, vcrs etc, hell a bunch of things were US inventions... the one reason US products don't sell as well is simply Price.

I would expect a war would change wages etc and if a depression occurs drop wages and prices down to where US industry would have a resurgence.

I'd point out a war with China could leave China devasted, their industrys devasted, their ports bombed out, their ability to produce and sell like now being nil, USA likely unharmed unless China uses Nukes... would have industrys revive... European Industrys also be intact and expanding..

Nukes would change things world wide for sure...

Cannot say either USa might not first use Nukes at tac level..

[Veldor]

Interesting recent New York Post article on the Chinese Cyber Warfare Division (Which also concurs that China cannot win a traditional war with the US and lays this out as their alternative strategy)...

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed083005a.cfm

Interestingly enough, at last count there were over 50,000 Chinese employed just in "deffensive" monitoring of Internet usage of their citizens alone (No one knows the number employed in the more "offensive" positions so far as I know)

The closest thing we have, the Joint Task Force—Global Network Operations (JTF-GNO) , has 255 positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Task ... Operations

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: Veldor


But no, the real threat from China will be in its ability to launch "cyber warfare" against the US. We are a decade behind the Chinese in how our Government and Major Financial Systems are Monitored and Protected. Right now the Chinese use this sophistication only against their own citizens who might try to promote democracy or whatever, but I do believe the US government has finally begun to realize that we may need a new offensive/defensive branch to the armed forces... The cyber one.
Betcha we see exactly that in just a little over a decade, if not sooner...

That assumes that we simply don't cut China out of our Internet linkages,
that wouldn't prevent inside USA cyber terrorists but we could isolate China at any sign of them employing cyber terrorism.

Why think the US refuses allow international control of internet? We would lose our ability to control who uses internet, "delete china" and cut all links, cut any links to europe etc if they don't cut theirs to china, we could isolate internet if necessary to just USA ISP's and drop all linkage to anything outside USA.

Fact is within my ISP's spam blocking I block all chinese/asian based domains, I get too much spam crap from such domains so I domain block them.

[sfbaytf]

I agree it is very interesting why these statements were made and why they appeared in the press. Perhaps it was just a slow news day.

[Veldor]

That assumes that we simply don't cut China out of our Internet linkages,
that wouldn't prevent inside USA cyber terrorists but we could isolate China at any sign of them employing cyber terrorism.

Why think the US refuses allow international control of internet? We would lose our ability to control who uses internet, "delete china" and cut all links, cut any links to europe etc if they don't cut theirs to china, we could isolate internet if necessary to just USA ISP's and drop all linkage to anything outside USA.

Fact is within my ISP's spam blocking I block all chinese/asian based domains, I get too much spam crap from such domains so I domain block them.

It's not nearly as easy as you propose, and if the attack were done pre-emptively and correctly, it wouldn't matter.

The infamous Solar Sunrise attack of 1998 compromised information on thousands of Defense Department computers during a period where the Pentagon was preparing for a possible strike in Iraq. The government had to answer for that, and its the only real reason the JTF-GNO was even created. The real problem with the US is that we require Pearl Harbors in order to make any major changes. Look at all the changes after 911. Solar Sunrise just wasn't known to or understood enough by the public to warrant bigger result. But its only a matter of time before a much larger "Cyber Pearl Harbor" attack happens. And the Chinese, for one, are already setup to do precisely that if they so choose.

Our own capabilities in these regards are 99.9999% classified. Even Area 51 doesn't suffer that extent of severe classification anymore and thats kind of scary to me. Virtually the only public piece of information known (beyond info on the JTF-GNO itself) is that only the President or the Secretary of Defense can authorize an Offensive Hacking or DOS Attack against a foreign entity.

The targets are vast:
For Military alone, attempt to deny an enemy use of is own computer networks in wartime, change critical information (preferably without the enemy even realizing), or trick the enemy entirely into thinking something has happened, or is happening that is not, etc. etc. Then there are the financial, political, or purely economic targets and effects. A powerful, and more importantly, CHEAP new kind of weapon.

Air Force Deputy Director for Information Warfare Col. Chris "Bulldog" Glaze was quoted as saying "I've got to tell you we spend more time on the computer network attack business than we do on computer network defense because so many people at very high levels are interested in developing the policy for
it"

How do you defeat a country so reliant on advanced technology? Not by shooting at it with bullets thats for sure. Thank God some in our government have taken note of that, though more funding needs to be provided for defense and not just the "cool new cyber weapons". Guess the warmongers in Washington love having fancy new weapons more than anything else. [:D]

Anyway, if there ever is a war between the US and China... this is the kind of stuff thats going to end up being most important...

Warfare has evolved a lot in the last century. Even Naval Power could be near to completely obsolete given certain changes and enhancements to Air Power and Operations. And ultimately, with the amount of computers and technology involved, the real winners will be those who can weild the type of weapons that nearly literally "virtually destroy" an enemy unit rather than necessarily physically destroying it.

One somewhat radical Sci-Fi example would be akin to how knocking out the Droid Control Ship in Star Wars Episode I rendered the entire droid army utterly useless...

And, of course, as bad as the effects could be now.. Imagine how much worse in 10 years when we start using unmanned drone aircraft exclusively for delerving death to the enemy.....

[RBWhite]

This thread all of a sudden brought back the memory of the early 60's Classic SciFi movie.

"BATTLE BENEATH THE EARTH"

The way things are going in China today, Ecologically they will wipe themselves out.

I really don't think the Communist state in it's present form will be around in 10 - 15 years. It's no longer to their advantage. IMHO.

[SemperAugustus]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Uh..huh... and what happens when you go to Walmart and find empty shelves where the Chinese made goods used to be? A blockade cuts both ways...

War scenarios run aground on the simple question... "why?" What does China have to gain in a war with the United States? What would we gain from such a war?

There are more suppliers than the Chinese. The Chinese are basically using imported raw materials and refining them with imported machines. What will happen with a blockade is that the Wal Mart prices will go up a bit as they shift suppliers to e.g. Vietnam or like.

That said a war is completely pointless, unless the Chinese somehow want to emulate the Argentines with a war to build popularity. The problem with dictatorships is that they don't have checks and balances, so what might be bad for the country could be good for the communist party.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Uh..huh... and what happens when you go to Walmart and find empty shelves where the Chinese made goods used to be? A blockade cuts both ways...

The same that usually happens when supplies are interupted. The market will adjust and adapt. Capitalists would see the opportunity and make the appropriate investments to fill the needs of the marketplace.

War scenarios run aground on the simple question... "why?" What does China have to gain in a war with the United States? What would we gain from such a war?

They stand to gain a nice economy and to regain what they consider to be their territory back. I can hardly blame them for the second view as I'm sure if alaska suddenly decided to be it's own country, we wouldn't look to kindly at such a situation either.

[/quote]

[SemperAugustus]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
They stand to gain a nice economy and to regain what they consider to be their territory back. I can hardly blame them for the second view as I'm sure if alaska suddenly decided to be it's own country, we wouldn't look to kindly at such a situation either.

Taiwan has never been a part of Communist China. What is to prevent the Chinese from using the same excuse on e.g. Mongolia which was a part of Qing China until 1911 or so? Using Chinese Communist logic the UK should be able to legitimately invade Australia, New Zealand and Canada...

[ladner]

I find the bravado and jingoism of my fellow countrymen to be quite amusing, but it is certainly misplaced. The United States is a paper tiger of a 'super-power', we are world's largest debtor nation, which makes one wonder how we can be a superpower. With regards to the debts we owe the key phrase is shooting war. If you are China why would you give up your most powerful weapon, the debt and economic leverage, the US already faces a soon to be fiscal crisis when the baby-boomer generation retires mainly due to demographics the generation that I am part of there are just not enough of us, so who is going to fund the massive entitlement programs?

GM's woes are analagous to what is going to happen to the US with regard to the massive entitlement programs. Also what do you think the effect is going to be on the tax base of loosing 30,000+ high-paying jobs?

For the record I am conservative, and in the truest sense I believe there is very little in the nature of man and how man acts that has done before. Technology may change many things, but trade, governance, and foreign policy are arts that have long standing historical precedents to look at, and it is my belief as a true conservative that these prior successful models are worth looking at. I remember how in the 1990's the 'New Economy' was being trumpted, I am know of the opinion that it is bunk and we have given up too much by entering these so called 'free-trade' agreements.

Speaking of the past I think much can be learned from it, I think the United States is now much like British Empire in the period from the late 1880's to the early 1900's. As food for thought, and this mainly directed to my fellow country men to ponder.

Professor Peter Cain, at the time a research professor of Modern History at Sheffield Hallam university wrote the following excerpt as part of an article for Recent Findings of Research in Economic and Social History issue 29, Autumn of 1999:

Whatever its effect on overall rates of growth, free trade, in combination
with heavy foreign investment, certainly helped to change the shape of the
British economy in the late nineteenth century. In 1900, a particularly acute
commentator known only by his pseudonym, Ritortus, argued that the long
run effect of unilateral free trade had been to increase competition for British
agriculture and industry, lower profits and stimulate capital exports. He was
aware that this regime had yielded great benefits. British capital, pouring into
foreign railways and other industries overseas, had helped to reduce
agricultural commodity prices, shifting the terms of trade in Britain's favor
and raising national income. Dividends and interest payments on foreign
investments had also increased greatly and these returns were realized by
importing cheap foreign produce freely. Furthermore, Ritortus recognised that
this unilateral free trade-foreign investment system had provided a strong
boost to Britain's commercial and financial sector. Nonetheless, he was
concerned that it had subjected domestic agriculture to ruinous competition
and that, as Europe and America industrialized behind protective barriers,
British industry was beginning to face equally exacting competition. He had
two main objections to maintaining this system. First although it had been
successful over the previous generations, he believed that the threat it posed to
industrial survival would undermine the rate of economic growth in the
foreseeable future. Secondly, he thought that Britain's political influence
would be diminished as she became increasingly dependent on foreign
supplies of food and vital industrial equipment, an outcome that would be
extremely dangerous in the event of war. He therefore advocated both
agricultural and industrial protection [15].


If one looks back Britain went from being the world's super power to lesser power in less than the span of fifty years from the time that Ritortus voiced his concerns, and the cycle of devestating competetion and capital flight ruined her industry. This begs the question how much time does America have?

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Uh..huh... and what happens when you go to Walmart and find empty shelves where the Chinese made goods used to be? A blockade cuts both ways...

The same that usually happens when supplies are interupted. The market will adjust and adapt. Capitalists would see the opportunity and make the appropriate investments to fill the needs of the marketplace.

War scenarios run aground on the simple question... "why?" What does China have to gain in a war with the United States? What would we gain from such a war?

They stand to gain a nice economy and to regain what they consider to be their territory back. I can hardly blame them for the second view as I'm sure if alaska suddenly decided to be it's own country, we wouldn't look to kindly at such a situation either.

[/quote]

Well, you have found the solution to our economic stagnation... we pick a fight with China and Walmart starts buying domestically again, employment soars, and happy days are here again. World War II cured the Great Depression didn't it?

I agree that China would get a nice economic tidbit in seizing Taiwan, but would that seizure be worth a devastating war? And after the invasion and resulting distruction... would the prize still be worth as much? Hong Kong in ruins with all the businesses running for their lives wouldn't have been much of a prize either. I suspect there will be some kind of negotiated unification at some point and that it won't be done with an invasion.

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: ladner

debt and economic leverage, the US already faces a soon to be fiscal crisis when the baby-boomer generation retires mainly due to demographics the generation that I am part of there are just not enough of us, so who is going to fund the massive entitlement programs?

The problem is the Parents of the Boomers , when In control did not while they controled things politically ensure the Soc Sec funds were kept untouchable.

As it is the Govt's borrowing by cashing in a ways back, high interest bonds to borrow the money like
Reagan's spending and replacing with IOU's and in cases lower interest bonds took away from the fund alot of money that would have covered boomers.

Bad faith and bad use of all the monies boomers have paid in... Boomers pay in MORE then their parents did is the fault of past administrations..

Boomers yet are entitled to the monies, the push now is with boomers to be cut in what they should get nevermind that boomers have paid in the MOST of any generation so it comes to where did the monies go?

Some can be pointed at the Boomers Parents generation robbing them by while still running things, expanding on what THEY would get when they retired because of all the Boomers Cash coming in... so you have the Boomers parents generation getting greedy.

Theres no easy answer due to such misuse by boomers parents generation, other then for the Govt to pick up the tab, and to pay that means cutting other areas or inflating USA by "printing money"

Hyper Inflation Part II maybe coming..

[VicKevlar]

Alrighty kids......this type of topic belong over at Vinny and Doggie's. Head on over there with it....

Locking up.