WW3

[sidslotm]

troubled time ahead, or simply sabre rattling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2066380/Will-World-War-III-U-S-China.html

[CaptainMattJ.]

my thoughts exactly.

[joegrundman]

this article here provides a little overview of what went on on Obama's recent tour of Asia and Australia and the degree to which this was a carefully constructed and successfully executed diplomatic offensive against China.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/11/19/softly-softly-beijing-turns-other-cheek-for-now/

the gist is that it has been a serious setback for Beijing.

[Platapus]

Michael Auslin, like many other Americans, is infuriated by the brutishness with which the dragon is now flexing its military muscles

That, I believe is the perfect definition of hypocrisy. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Let us hope it is only sabre rattling.

China will be more capable in military terms in the future though.

[joegrundman]

yes, of course it's hypocritical, but in this sort of game, that doesn't matter.

To illustrate what I mean:

If the US parks its butt on China's doorstep and defines any attempt by China to remove the US butt from that position as "aggression" - then that is what it is.

It is a dangerous time for China right now. While China may be the rising power, and the US the declining power, it is currently the case that

a: US power is still at present far greater than Chinese power (and the US military has been battle-hardened over the last 10 years while the Chinese have not fired a shot in war in any current soldiers' lifetime)
b: the US is in financial difficulties, with China the main creditor
c: the US political system is simultaneously grinding to a halt in terms of normal functionality and has become "seduced by militarism" as Andrew Bacevich describes it.
d: sooner or later, assuming no significant change to the current trajectories of the US and China, Chinese military capability will increase while US will have to relatively decline, which means of course that the balance of power will proceed to become less favourable for the US with every passing year.

China has to play very carefully right now, and must respond to the US diplomatic offensive that i referred to in the above post with great restraint, and accept that there are always bumps, even on a generally upward curve.

Any precipitate action on China's behalf risks getting into something big with the increasingly unpredictable, yet very dangerous, United States.

[Platapus]

China is too busy making money to want to go to war. Globally linked economies are a great way to reduce the threat of war.

This is one of the reasons I want the US to have economic treaties with countries like Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

Capitalism is a good path to democracy albeit a slow path at times. Whether you are a socialist or a fascist or anywhere in between, everyone likes to make money and buy stuff. :up:.

About the only thing that unites all of humanity is the desire of parents to have their kids have a better life.

[MH]

Capitalism is a good path to democracy albeit a slow path at times. Whether you are a socialist or a fascist or anywhere in between, everyone likes to make money and buy stuff. :up:.
.

Isn't that called American imperialism in those places?
The other side is aware of the above that's why they spread antagonism toward west.

[Platapus]

Isn't that called American imperialism in those places?


Uh.. er... no...no...uh..hmmm....well...yes. :oops:

[joegrundman]

China is too busy making money to want to go to war. Globally linked economies are a great way to reduce the threat of war.

This is one of the reasons I want the US to have economic treaties with countries like Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

Capitalism is a good path to democracy albeit a slow path at times. Whether you are a socialist or a fascist or anywhere in between, everyone likes to make money and buy stuff. :up:.

About the only thing that unites all of humanity is the desire of parents to have their kids have a better life.

with your first two statements, i agree. Certainly, i think falling into any major conflict-scenario is utterly opposed to China's interests right now. I'm not sure that the same is true of the US though.

with regard to your third statement: apart from the uncertain link between capitalism and democracy, if you were to look at things from China's point of view, which is to say that above all else you wish for China to gain top-ranking economic and political power, and at the same time looking at the condition of American democracy today, would you recommend that China adopts American-style democracy?

[Skybird]

Strange, too general statement, in Nazigermany capitalism lead to a strengthening not of democracy, but fascism. ;) But i agree on your line about hypocrisy.

---

However, a war between these two would predominanantly be a cyberwar and a naval war.

In the cyber-arena, I am certain that China does not let us know what it is capable of, but I am sure it is capable of more than we know. I do not rule out that it could if not knock out the US homeland then at least do signficant damage to civilian and critical infrastructure: traffic, energy, hospitals, industry, communication.

In the naval arena, the closer to China the battles take place, the more the balance shifts in China's favour: missiles, submarines, and simply: numbers. I do not naturally assume anymore that the US navy can hold it's ground in the regions of most likely disputes.

China may not like but can take high losses in lives. America can not. And China probably would fight from a position of numerical superiority - with more and more modern, advanced technology. And while the American army currently may be " battle-hardened", it is also battle-weary, and certainly the US society is also. Not to mention that a war like that costs money. Say, which country is set up better, financially? The one has debts equalling its yearly GDP and loosing global trust, the other does not know where to invest its surplus, and is seen as one of the rising currencies?

[Oberon]

China can't afford to go to war right now, I believe the current plan calls for action against Taiwan between 2018-2020, after that well, anyone is game. However I don't think China would project beyond the South China Sea. Certainly no invasions of Japan or anything like that. Vietnam and the environs and perhaps India, it's possible...but I doubt the PRC will go island hopping like the IJN did. I don't think the PRC would have the blue-water ability for that kind of projection eastwards, even by 2020.

[Platapus]

with your first two statements, i agree. Certainly, i think falling into any major conflict-scenario is utterly opposed to China's interests right now. I'm not sure that the same is true of the US though.

I think we are in agreement here. :yep:

would you recommend that China adopts American-style democracy?

Absolutely not. I would recommend a Chinese style democracy. One that would fit their culture and political environment. That is sorta the basis for my dissertation, which I should be writing instead of posting here. Democracies can and are implemented differently between countries. There are very few democratic countries in the world. Most of the countries a mix of democracy and something else.

The US is a mixture of democracy and multi-level representative republicanism. It works for us.....sorta..kinda.. can't tell from this congress.. well jury is still out on that one.

China, according to their Constitution, defines themselves as a Democratic Dictatorship. Now that's an interesting combination. :hmmm: But if you look at how the Chinese government is run, you see multi-level congresses often not cooperating with each other.

I don't believe that China would ever move to a US model of democracy, nor do I believe they should. But with the proper economic influence, I truly believe that time is on the side of some sort of representative-type government in China. Probably won't happen in my lifetime, but then China concept of time is a lot longer than occidental concepts of time.

I remember Henry Kissinger writing about a conversation with Zhou Enlai, Foreign Policy adviser to Mao Zedong in the early 1970's.

Both Kissinger and Enlai were students of history and both shared interest in 18th century European history. Kissinger asked Enlai what he thought of the successes of the French Revolution (1790s). Reportedly Enlai replied, with complete seriousness, that it was too early to tell.

That is one thing that Americans need to understand about the Chinese. the concept of past and future are different. The Chinese tend to think in terms of many decades or even centuries. Americans and other occidentals tend to think in terms of years. To many Americans 10 years is a long time. Many Chinese don't think so.

It is my opinion that change will come to China but it will come at the Chinese pace not the US pace. Some form of democracy will emerge to the Chinese, but it won't be the same form of democracy as in the US.

Some may consider that a failure, others a success.

[joegrundman]

interesting response, platapus, thanks:up:

[Takeda Shingen]

China will not go to war with it's best customer. It's as simple as that; for the Chinese it always comes down to money. The editorial is full of hoopla.

[Oberon]

China will not go to war with it's best customer. It's as simple as that; for the Chinese it always comes down to money. The editorial is full of hoopla.

It's from the Daily Fail :03: Don't get me wrong, Max Hastings has written some good stuff in his time...but he really shouldn't try future predicting and stick to writing about WWII.

Besides, to be honest wouldn't it be WWIV? We're already in WWIII with the 'War on Terror' (TM).

[Platapus]

Old Chucky Dudley Warner once wrote, in 1870, "so true is it that politics makes strange bedfellows".

It is my opinion that economics makes strange bedfellows also. :know:

It is amazing how political, social, and cultural differences between countries can be overlooked when considering profit.

And I don't think this is a bad thing.

[Ducimus]

China may not like but can take high losses in lives. America can not. And China probably would fight from a position of numerical superiority - with more and more modern, advanced technology. And while the American army currently may be " battle-hardened", it is also battle-weary, and certainly the US society is also. Not to mention that a war like that costs money. Say, which country is set up better, financially? The one has debts equalling its yearly GDP and loosing global trust, the other does not know where to invest its surplus, and is seen as one of the rising currencies?

On top of that, assuming China would go to war with it's best customer - China, i'm willing to bet, has far greater manufacturing capability then the US does now. Hell, i'll go as far as to say, they have all the manufacturing capability that the US used to have - and that capability was one of the reasons we were successful in WW2.

That said, If we were to go to war with China, id further wager that it wouldn't be for some time - after they've had a decade or three of playing "build up" and "catch up". At which point, give our current circumstances which will only get worse during that time period, I think the only way we'd win that open war with China is if the entire country mobilized like it did in WW2. At which point, said war would either make us (as WW2 did), or break us.

[Tchocky]

It is amazing how political, social, and cultural differences between countries can be overlooked when considering profit.

And I don't think this is a bad thing.

For all the talk of possible war between China and the US, it pays to consider that the US Navy is probably one of China's greatest economic assets - regarding trade route security.

[Betonov]

If you ask me, a war between China and Russia is more likely. All those raw materials in Siberia, mmmmmmmm :Kaleun_Salivating:

Plus, China is in active trade with the US, like you said, her best customer, while Russia is more of a competitor, trying to break into the market. Especially with energy, Russia has a lot of it and China will soon need it. But Russians won't sell cheap
Plus they share a land border.

[MH]

It is my opinion that change will come to China but it will come at the Chinese pace not the US pace. Some form of democracy will emerge to the Chinese, but it won't be the same form of democracy as in the US.

Some may consider that a failure, others a success.

Someday Chinese may rule the galaxy ... for now the games go on.
I think that American politics is directed by future perspective its just it may be matter of perspective weather its good one or bad.
On another hand USA as a democracy must look at its domestic problems while realising its plans as strategies.

[Randomizer]

Unfortunately Max Hastings is long past his "Best Before" date and this essay is just fear-mongering jingoism. There will be no Sino-American shooting war unless the USA wants one and is prepared to start it.

That is not to say there will be all sweetness and light in their relations of course. The real danger lies in the perpetual US election cycle and the political needs of domestic politics for a foreign enemy to focus hyperbole in Congress, the Senate and the media.

Should America decide that it requires continued hegemony in Asia and within what the PRC considers its security sphere, there are certainly potential areas for conflict but none of these are really vital to America's security as they are for China's. The problem is that they be perceived as essential to America's self-image as the Guardian of Freedom and Democracy so U.S. paranoia, rhetoric and propaganda will determine what future crisis' go hot.

[nikimcbee]

everyone likes to make money and buy stuff. :up:.

except the occupy crowd.:doh:

http://assets.fundoofun.com/video_pics/resize/video_capital_one_cash_rewards_card_with_jimmy_fal lon_baby_funny_new_2011_tv_commercial_1320131133.j pg

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2011/10/image001.png

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsfgwisKHi1qgdpsfo5_250.gif

[mapuc]

I remember a report on China, some years ago on swedish tv and they said that as the country grows so does it's need for resources to

Some one hade post some pictures of their claim from others countries, such as Japan, Australia a.s.o

If there's gonna be a war between USA and China it will be indirectly.

China goes to was against some neighbor over some resources and that's how USA could get involved.

Markus

[yubba]

So if china get's all war like, who's going to buy thier crappy stuff, look what happen to us.

[sidslotm]

China is the new kid on the block, and being new wants to make it's mark. Power, the most intoxicating of all mans desires drives this bull, and the bears can only look on.

[Karle94]

If you ask me, a war between China and Russia is more likely. All those raw materials in Siberia, mmmmmmmm :Kaleun_Salivating:

Plus, China is in active trade with the US, like you said, her best customer, while Russia is more of a competitor, trying to break into the market. Especially with energy, Russia has a lot of it and China will soon need it. But Russians won't sell cheap
Plus they share a land border.

I believe you are correct. The Russians and the Chinese has been at each others througts since the 60`s. The Russians had more plans for attacking China that the US. China then saw Russia as a bigger threat than the US. Russia and China had many border clashes that the US and USSR never had. If there`s a war between China and Russia, and China is the aggressor and Russia is doing poorly, I do believe that the US will indirectly support Russia.

[TLAM Strike]

The Russians and the Chinese has been at each others througts since the 60`s.
They have been at each others throat since Genghis rode west. :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

They have been at each others throat since Genghis rode west. :O:

Except that Genghis was Mongolian; an entirely seperate ethnic and cultural group from the Chinese. :O:

[TLAM Strike]

Except that Genghis was Mongolian; an entirely seperate ethnic and cultural group from the Chinese. :O:
The point is that the "Horde of Asians riding west" is the constant fear of Russia. The Mongolians were the dominate group back then, the Han Chinese are now. :03:

[Takeda Shingen]

The point is that the "Horde of Asians riding west" is the constant fear of Russia. The Mongolians were the dominate group back then, the Han Chinese are now. :03:

But they weren't Chinese, which is the real point. If you were to point to tensions with the Dynastic rulers over trade and land, you would have made a better analogy. However, the Mongols were just as much a threat to the Chinese as they were the Russians; going as far to build The Wall to keep them out. What you argued was like blaming the tension between Palestinians and Israelis on the Crusades. The crusaders were indeed common enemies to both groups, but the two have their very own reasons for hating each other.

[nikimcbee]

If China were the aggressor, do you think they'd pull a "lebensraum" and try to annex part of Siberia?

Didn't Tom Clancy do a novel about this anyway?

If China really wanted to hurt the US, all they would need to do is a trade embargo. Block all exports to the US. Not a naval blockade:haha:, but block ships leaving their ports. How long could Walmart hold out?

[nikimcbee]

I was under the impression China-Russia were playing nicely together?:06:

[Takeda Shingen]

The fact that we are now citing Tom Clancy demonstrates the implausibility of a conflict anytime in the forseeable future.

[mapuc]

I believe you are correct. The Russians and the Chinese has been at each others througts since the 60`s. The Russians had more plans for attacking China that the US. China then saw Russia as a bigger threat than the US. Russia and China had many border clashes that the US and USSR never had. If there`s a war between China and Russia, and China is the aggressor and Russia is doing poorly, I do believe that the US will indirectly support Russia.

Not so long ago, I red a book from Tom Clancy The name of the book was (in danish-bjørnen og Dragen) in english The bear and the Dragon.

Markus

[Platapus]

The fact that we are now citing Tom Clancy demonstrates the implausibility of a conflict anytime in the forseeable future.

Are you proposing the creation of a new Internets Tubes rule?

The Tom Clancy Rule - any citation of Tom Clancy books as an explanation for actual foreign policy analysis immediately removes all credibility of the poster.

:know:

[nikimcbee]

Are you proposing the creation of a new Internets Tubes rule?

The Tom Clancy Rule - any citation of Tom Clancy books as an explanation for actual foreign policy analysis immediately removes all credibility of the poster.

:know:

The book was so exciting, I don't remember anything from it, other than the PRC and Russia have at each other.:dead:

[Takeda Shingen]

Are you proposing the creation of a new Internets Tubes rule?

The Tom Clancy Rule - any citation of Tom Clancy books as an explanation for actual foreign policy analysis immediately removes all credibility of the poster.

:know:

Beautiful. Let the engraving begin. :up:

[Gerald]

I would recommend a visit to the country, to see which major restrictions there are, among others ... Internet usage across the country do have a built-iron ride, certainly nothing new .. but it takes encrypted sources for it to float on, :arrgh!:

[mapuc]

The book was so exciting, I don't remember anything from it, other than the PRC and Russia have at each other.:dead:

US came to Russia with lots of equiptment and lots of soldiers and they helped the russians to beat the hell out of the chinese(but you remember that or?)

Markus

[Jimbuna]

The book was so exciting, I don't remember anything from it, other than the PRC and Russia have at each other.:dead:

Probably the book...The Bear and the Dragon:

http://triviana.com/books/beardrag.htm

[nikimcbee]

Probably the book...The Bear and the Dragon:

http://triviana.com/books/beardrag.htm



In other words, Jack Ryan has become a moron.
Thankfully, both for the fictional world Clancy has developed, and for his readers, there are other characters in ''The Bear and the Dragon'' who are not morons, and many of them are fighting the good fight.

:haha:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

In other words, Jack Ryan has become a moron.
Thankfully, both for the fictional world Clancy has developed, and for his readers, there are other characters in ''The Bear and the Dragon'' who are not morons, and many of them are fighting the good fight. Surprise, surprise... President of the United States is a moron...

:O:

[Betonov]

Surprise, surprise... President of the United States is a moron...

:O:

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Douglas Adams