USA, secession, and China

[Skybird]

Recently there were two interesting articles at the Mises Institute that philosophised about how an upbreaking splitting America into a blue-Democrats and an orange-legion America and China would militarily compare.

While the financial GDP-related calculations speak a clear language, both articles however ignore two variables I see as relevant: the much bigger operation playground of the US forces, which practically cover the entire globe, so any forces numerical strength must be seen in relation to this huge playing field, and the demography- and age-driven war index by Gunnar Heinsohn - relevant enough that he was asked to teach it - and did so - at NATO defence college in Rome for years and years ("war demographics"). One should also not forget the bigger vulnerability of the civil society in the liberal-federalist US, compared to the "command society" in centralist-autocratic China.

However.

https://mises.org/wire/no-chinese-wont-invade-america-if-secessionists-succeed

https://mises.org/wire/when-it-comes-national-defense-bigger-isnt-always-better

[Jimbuna]

Brings to mind that bloody awful film Red Dawn 2 (2012) where North Korea invades the US. The script originally had the invasion led by Beijing with help from Pyongyang.

[Sonicfire1981]

Are you sure the orange states of america will adhere to democratic principles? I doubt it, *but* before a heated discussion breaks out again, I think a segregation is highly impropable. A constant state of unrest and a rise in domestic terrorism however is likely and will also greatly affect the US foreign policy power, be it military or otherwise.

[u crank]

Are you sure the orange states of america will adhere to democratic principles? I doubt it, *but* before a heated discussion breaks out again, I think a segregation is highly impropable. A constant state of unrest and a rise in domestic terrorism however is likely and will also greatly affect the US foreign policy power, be it military or otherwise.

Have no fear. Once Antifa and BLM move into these 'orange states of america' you will only have mostly peaceful domestic terrorism. That's the best kind isn't it? CNN likes that kind.

[Catfish]

Playing the arsonist hidden as the devil's advocate once more?

[u crank]

Playing the arsonist hidden as the devil's advocate once more?

What do you call this then...Are you sure the orange states of america will adhere to democratic principles? I doubt it,

It is a statement not backed up by any facts. Perhaps you missed it.

[Sonicfire1981]

What do you call this then...Are you sure the orange states of america will adhere to democratic principles? I doubt it,

It is a statement not backed up by any facts. Perhaps you missed it.

I have a comeback to this, but it would lead off topic. No response unless the thread-starter explicitly allows this.
In the meantime I also contributed to the topic itself. Maybe you want to focus on that.

[u crank]

I have a comeback to this, but it would lead off topic. No response unless the thread-starter explicitly allows this.

Your contribution to the topic was to suggest that the red (orange) states in America do not adhere to democratic principles. You then state "that constant state of unrest and a rise in domestic terrorism" in the same paragraph somewhat inferring that only one side in America is prone to this kind of activity. Could you clear that up. Who are these domestic terrorists of whom you speak?

In the meantime I also contributed to the topic itself. Maybe you want to focus on that.


Your contribution is duly noted. What you seem to be suggesting is that you can make an observation about American politics and a somewhat slanderous one at that in this thead then believe that it can't be commented on because it is off topic. That's not how it works.

If you are willing to edit your original post I will be happy to do the same.

[3catcircus]

Are you sure the orange states of america will adhere to democratic principles? I doubt it, *but* before a heated discussion breaks out again, I think a segregation is highly impropable. A constant state of unrest and a rise in domestic terrorism however is likely and will also greatly affect the US foreign policy power, be it military or otherwise.

Here's the problem with your logic:

You make the assumption that people in "orange" states would be lawless maniacs when the exact opposite is closer to the truth.

The majority of those "orange" people are typically lower to upper middle class, believe that law and order is important to a free society, and adhere to the principles in the Constitution. These are the people who can survive and thrive without actually having a working government because they are law-abiding, and who can live off the land if need be.

The strange thing you'll never understand is that a hillbilly outlaw in the Ozarks who illegally grows weed is much more law abiding than many cityfolk - and it's because of the strong tradition of having a nuclear family and a self,-sufficient attitude prevalent amongst people living in "flyover" country. But people like you who don't live in the US never see the reality because you're fed lies that blm and antifa are peaceful movements intent on ending "racist" attitudes in the midwest and the south and that places like NY and LA are shining bastions rather than the cesspools they actually are.

In fact - you are much safer in just about any small town anywhere in the midwest and the south - regardless of your background - than in most large cities. Again - strong family values, a strong belief in constitutional principles, and the ability to take responsibility for your own wellbeing and that is you're neighbors.

Contrast that with large cities and in "blue" states that are all run by Dems - they're all filthy sh!tholes full of lawless maniacs with no job prospects beyond minimum wage because of an endless cycle of broken homes, no appreciation for the value of a good education, and the reliance on the government to subsidize them. The *only* people who have a good quality of life in these places are the wealthy who can afford walled compounds, security guards, and a vast police force (that the overly-educated and overly-entitled children of the wealthy join antifa to attack).

Bottom-line: you kick out all of the "blue" people from "orange" states and the only places there will be unrest will be "blue" states. The problem is the "blue" people flee "blue" states to go to "orange" states but don't leave their "blue" thinking, and have started to ruin wherever they move to, like a plague of cockroaches. We've even got a saying for it: "Don't California my Texas."

[Skybird]

The topic starter was hinting at the potential military strength when comparing a united One-America or divided two Americas, with the potential military strength of China. The articles, amongst others, focus on how the GDP as a variable expressing productivity, can be interpreted for that.

Do not make this another inner-American rumble. The splitting of the USA into blue and orange states of America, two economies and two nations, that would be, is just a thought experiment, a premisse. The conclusion is that from this perspective even two different Americas still would have more productivity, each of them individually, than China, and seen that way would at least be of equal (orange) and even superior (blue) potential military strength, if measuring that in GDP productivity.

I see the relativization I mentioned earlier, as relevant, however. The US military may be big, but is overstretched, imo. Cina amasses its military might in a much smaller, local region - it concentrates and focusses what it has, the US scatters it all across the globe. Since a war would be fought not offshore of Los Angeles, but under the umbrella of Chinese mainland and with their much shorter logistical supply lines, I stil tend to think that China would by now win any such war, probbaly. even mroe so since their is a cyberwar necessarily included that could interrupot civil society and economy in the US mucz easier than American caber attacks yould disurpot Chinese civil society. The political systems are different, and in case of war the Chinese have an advantage there. Their population is not as rebellious as the American, but is used to obey. Also, it is more used to hardmanship and gettign along in primitive conditions.

[Sonicfire1981]

Certainly interesting to see where they'd stand in terms of economic strength, even if separated. I wonder, though, if a real segregation wouldn't remove most of foreign investors and make stock markets plummet.
I could also not help but find the idea of a chinese invasion into US Territory a bit outdated as a scenario. Wars "today" seem to have changed greatly.

[3catcircus]

The topic starter was hinting at the potential military strength when comparing a united One-America or divided two Americas, with the potential military strength of China. The articles, amongst others, focus on how the GDP as a variable expressing productivity, can be interpreted for that.

Do not make this another inner-American rumble. The splitting of the USA into blue and orange states of America, two economies and two nations, that would be, is just a thought experiment, a premisse. The conclusion is that from this perspective even two different Americas still would have more productivity, each of them individually, than China, and seen that way would at least be of equal (orange) and even superior (blue) potential military strength, if measuring that in GDP productivity.

I see the relativization I mentioned earlier, as relevant, however. The US military may be big, but is overstretched, imo. Cina amasses its military might in a much smaller, local region - it concentrates and focusses what it has, the US scatters it all across the globe. Since a war would be fought not offshore of Los Angeles, but under the umbrella of Chinese mainland and with their much shorter logistical supply lines, I stil tend to think that China would by now win any such war, probbaly. even mroe so since their is a cyberwar necessarily included that could interrupot civil society and economy in the US mucz easier than American caber attacks yould disurpot Chinese civil society. The political systems are different, and in case of war the Chinese have an advantage there. Their population is not as rebellious as the American, but is used to obey. Also, it is more used to hardmanship and gettign along in primitive conditions.

Fair enough. China has an advantage to start with - the US has always been slow to get up to speed. But, given a choice of fighting "orange" or "blue," they would most likely prefer to fight "blue" states.

This is what no one really understands - "orange" states are really nothing more than how *every* state was in the US up until the 1960s. Lots of citizens who are armed (many of them veterans) who have a solid work ethic, aren't afraid of getting their hands dirty, can fend for themselves, and generally just want to be left alone. Lose electricity? Crank up the generator or break out the oil lanterns and fire up the woodstove. They know how to grow and preserve their own food, know how to slaughter livestock, and have no issues making their own tools. The people most dangerous to an invader are hillbillies with access to a machine shop and a welding rig.

A "blue" states America will be largely unable to fend for themselves - strict gun control limiting arms to only a military. Probably unarmed police forces. Many who wouldn't know the business end of farming equipment, have never despatched a live animal and turned it into food, and who would have difficulty without internet and social media to distract them. Run a lathe, drill press, or metal brake? Forget it.

[Skybird]

The statistics of one of the article shows that a "blue" collection of states has a significantly higher GDP than an orange colleciton of states.Look it up, I think its in the first link.




We could play out many different scenarios, of course, but just as one of many potential thought experiments, let’s assume the United States devolves into only two new countries: the Blue States of America (BSA) and the Red States of America (RSA).
These two new countries are composed of the following states:
Red (27 states): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Blue (23 states, plus DC): California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.
As American leftists are often happy to point out, blue America—at least in the aggregate—is richer than red America. This is largely due to the presence of a large number of big, productive cities in the blue states. As a result, the BSA contains most of the USA's current $21 trillion GDP: $12.3 trillion. The BSA contains 170 million residents, for an overall per capita GDP of $73,000.
In the RSA, these numbers are smaller. In the 27 states, total GDP is $8.9 trillion, spread out over a population of 158 million. The GDP per capita is $56,000.



And


let's compare China with the status quo USA.
As a single unit, the US economy can support an enormous military machine. All combined (according to the World Bank), the USA produces a national gross domestic product of approximately $21.4 trillion. This is compared to China's $23.4 trillion GDP. In both cases, that’s an enormous amount of production. But perhaps more telling is the GDP per capita in each country. China’s per capita GDP is only $16,800, while the United States’s is nearly quadruple that: $63,000.1 (https://mises.org/wire/no-chinese-wont-invade-america-if-secessionists-succeed#footnote1_bbx83p0) But here’s the rub for China: The US produces its gargantuan GDP with only 328 million people. China, meanwhile, requires more than 1.3 billion people to produce a similar output.
This means, on a per person basis, the American economy is far more productive than China’s.
As shown by political scientist Michael Beckley (https://mises.org/wire/when-it-comes-national-defense-bigger-isnt-always-better), this wealth advantage gives the United States an enormous advantage in terms of available military resources. Yes, a billion people can produce a very large GDP, but those billion people have to be fed and housed using a sizable portion of that GDP. In the United States, on the other hand, most of the population lives so far above subsistence, and produces so much more than is necessary to meet basic needs, that military defensive capability far outstrips that of much larger countries. This reality is partly reflected in per capita GDP.
It is important to not ignore the military benefits of surplus wealth, as opposed to sheer aggregate size. Political scientists and historians have developed a number of ways (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402391003603581) to measure "military effectiveness." But many of these methods tend to overestimate the military prowess of large—yet relatively poor—states. These methods that favor size often cannot explain why smaller states like Britain have so often defeated larger states like China, as occurred repeatedly during the nineteenth century.

[Sonicfire1981]

Do not make this another inner-American rumble.

...

[3catcircus]

The statistics of one of the article shows that a "blue" collection of states has a significantly higher GDP than an orange colleciton of states.Look it up, I think its in the first link.






And

That may be true - but it is due to the concentration of capital in NY and CA. Even though GDP might be higher, cost of living is huge in comparison.

Don't mistake this for actual productivity or ability to make war against China. I refer you to the "hillbillies with a machine shop" they can crank out firearms and perform reloads. There are many local manufacturers who can crank out AR-15s and it is easy to make AK-47/AKM/AK-74s.

[Skybird]

In a regional war with china offshore its own coast you need not so much AK-15 made in an Americna village, , but stealth fighters, cruise missiles, drones, submarines, missile cruisers, and capable cyberwar hackers and system specialists.

We do not talk about a Chinese invasion of the American mainland, but the realistic war scenario. And that means Taiwasn, South Chinese Sea, the Far East shipping lines and harbours. ;) And all domestic targets in China and the US that can be reached by cyberwar.



So, keep your AK-15 as a hobby. But do not take it as a serious option while sitting in the middle of Vermont.

[3catcircus]

In a regional war with china offshore its own coast you need not so much AK-15 made in an Americna village, , but stealth fighters, cruise missiles, drones, submarines, missile cruisers, and capable cyberwar hackers and system specialists.

We do not talk about a Chinese invasion of the American mainland, but the realistic war scenario. And that means Taiwasn, South Chinese Sea, the Far East shipping lines and harbours. ;) And all domestic targets in China and the US that can be reached by cyberwar.



So, keep your AK-15 as a hobby. But do not take it as a serious option while sitting in the middle of Vermont.
Pretty much all shooting wars end up on the ground. That having been said, who do you think actually builds F-35s and ships and missiles?

Hints: the F35 facilities are in Texas. Warships are built in Pascagoula and Bath. Missiles are built in New Mexico. These are not shining centers of capitalism akin to Wall St. These are gritty industrisl towns employing lower to upper middle class blue and white collar employees. Bath Maine is just as backwoods as Pascagoula Mississippi...

[u crank]

We do not talk about a Chinese invasion of the American mainland, but the realistic war scenario. And that means Taiwasn, South Chinese Sea, the Far East shipping lines and harbours. ;) And all domestic targets in China and the US that can be reached by cyberwar.


If China instigates a war that involves the USA one would expect that the first move by the Americans would be to expel Chinese citizens for US soil. That would include business types, tech workers and students. Chinese owned business interests could be siezed as well. Of course the CCP would do the same thing. In the larger picture trade between the two countries would most likely be severely restricted. If that happens then millions of Chinese workers could be unemployed. The US would have to get by without cheap Chinese goods but the CCP would have to contend with millions of unemployed workers. A possible tinder box of unrest.

But in reality the Chinese plan to win against America does not involve a shooting war with Red or Blue America. In fact I don't think they plan to fire a shot. All that is required is for them to have the right people (friendly to China) in government, big tech, Wall Street and media and the rest will be easy. One could say that their plan is already well under way and the recent change in administration in Washington is a cause for the CCP to smile.:D

[Skybird]

Pretty much all shooting wars end up on the ground. That having been said, who do you think actually builds F-35s and ships and missiles?

Hints: the F35 facilities are in Texas. Warships are built in Pascagoula and Bath. Missiles are built in New Mexico. These are not shining centers of capitalism akin to Wall St. These are gritty industrisl towns employing lower to upper middle class blue and white collar employees. Bath Maine is just as backwoods as Pascagoula Mississippi...
And who has more money to pay for all that?



Thats what the GDP argument is about. Affordability.



I losted those pints as exmapel sonyl becasue somebod yssrated to argue wioth AK-15s as an argument, as if the Chinese would invade America. Why would they...? The future battlefield is eocnomy, cyberspace, China-close waters and artifical islands, logistic suply lines if one can reach it: Chinese isntallations on the mainland.



There will be no groudn ivnasions, not in the US and not in continental China. This war will NOT be decided by putting boots on enemy ground.

[mapuc]

I think you may have forgot the most important question.

WHEN !! Will the use of nuclear happens in a war between these two countries.

From the beginning ? After some days/weeks ? Never ?

Markus

[Skybird]

If China instigates a war that involves the USA one would expect that the first move by the Americans would be to expel Chinese citizens for US soil. That would include business types, tech workers and students. Chinese owned business interests could be siezed as well. Of course the CCP would do the same thing. In the larger picture trade between the two countries would most likely be severely restricted. If that happens then millions of Chinese workers could be unemployed. The US would have to get by without cheap Chinese goods but the CCP would have to contend with millions of unemployed workers. A possible tinder box of unrest.

But in reality the Chinese plan to win against America does not involve a shooting war with Red or Blue America. In fact I don't think they plan to fire a shot. All that is required is for them to have the right people (friendly to China) in government, big tech, Wall Street and media and the rest will be easy. One could say that their plan is already well under way and the recent change in administration in Washington is a cause for the CCP to smile.:D
I am not so certain that there will be no shooting war. See the Austrialian-Chinese confronation, and China's manozuvering rtegarding Taiwan, their bullying of all other neighbourign state's fishing fleets with the enormous coast guard armada of theirs, the militarization of the South chiense sea they claim all for itself. They are ready and willing to use force. Assuming different is irresponsible. Hope is no strategy.

And Biden seems to be anything but a kind lamb when it comes to Russia or China. He is just not as clumsy as his predecessor - who in end result triggered economic poltical event chains that have made China stronger, not weaker, and that supported Russian interests instead of confronting them.

The productivty argument of the Mises articles must be baöanced agaiunst some other variables, however, ands as I said, the Heinsohn War Index is for me a relevant one, becasue it is so substantially supported by historical empiry.

https://think-beyondtheobvious.com/stelters-lektuere/aktueller-war-index-von-gunnar-heinsohn/

Surprisingly, both he US and China hadindices in 2017 below 1: 0.99 to 0.96. The surprise here to me was China. The quesiton is whether the leaders in Bejing ar really aware of that, since autoritarian regimes tend to overestamte their own aggressive potency. Who does not understand the war index, cannot make competent political deciisons. You can explain poratcially all milutary conflicts and their outcomes the US were engaged in since WWII, and why it did nto win them. Demography is a power that no military leader can afford to ignore. Its not just the total numbers of people, but the age structure of societies. Afghanistan (both the US and Russia), Iraq, Vietnam: the numbers of the war index give valid explanations.


Mind you, the numbers of the war indix are descriptive only. Projecting their likely develop mnent into the future cna generate well-founded hypothesis. The biggest valdit yof these I see when it comes to quesitons of whether it is a good idea to attack anothe rpeople that is defending its own soil and property. In Afghjnbaistan, Vietnam and Iraq this proved, int he end, to be bad ideas, and the war index numbers for these countries in those times perfectly illustrate that. I see the war index as an additional description for the external aggressiveness of a society, its tendency to attack in an attenmpt to qoncquer and subjugate others, but alspo for its youth energy that is willing to endure big challenge and suffewring to emerge victorious when being attacked. The Vietcong has lost every major engagement, and sitll won the war, beside its enormous losses. Iraq is not what Bush wnated it to be. Afghanistan is a strategic defeat, too, there are no lasting results reflecting what was annoucned as goal of transformig Afgjhan istan: it justs lides back into what it was before. Many of the contemporary wars in africa get explained in their udnerlying "energetics" this way, too, its societies involved with very high demographic war indices.

Seen this way, there should not be a war between the uS(or two US' :) ), and China. But the risk is that demographic energy gets overturned by bad leadership, or mishaps accidenally triggering a war, or neighbours of china being bullied too much by them, or Bejing ticking out over Taiwan, and I wonder whether Xi maybe also shows signs of mental insanity, at least megalomania. Mental shortcuts causing sparks that set it all ablaze - that is the risk here. Xi is not just the most powerful Chinese leader since centuries - I think he is also extremely dangerous.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Here's the problem with your logic:

Proceeds to throw out strawmen.

If the red states are so self-reliant, why do they take in more federal dollars than what they spend in federal taxes? What states take in less?

https://apnews.com/article/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

[3catcircus]

Proceeds to throw out strawmen.

If the red states are so self-reliant, why do they take in more federal dollars than what they spend in federal taxes? What states take in less?

https://apnews.com/article/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

Indeed. Red states do a better job of squeezing the feds.

[Sonicfire1981]

Indeed. Red states do a better job of squeezing the feds.

And that's a good thing. Quite the likable kind.

[Rockstar]

If China instigates a war that involves the USA one would expect that the first move by the Americans would be to expel Chinese citizens for US soil. That would include business types, tech workers and students. Chinese owned business interests could be siezed as well. Of course the CCP would do the same thing. In the larger picture trade between the two countries would most likely be severely restricted. If that happens then millions of Chinese workers could be unemployed. The US would have to get by without cheap Chinese goods but the CCP would have to contend with millions of unemployed workers. A possible tinder box of unrest.

But in reality the Chinese plan to win against America does not involve a shooting war with Red or Blue America. In fact I don't think they plan to fire a shot. All that is required is for them to have the right people (friendly to China) in government, big tech, Wall Street and media and the rest will be easy. One could say that their plan is already well under way and the recent change in administration in Washington is a cause for the CCP to smile.:D

Oh I wouldn't be too sure just because there's a new administration on the hill things will swing in mainland China's favor. The U.S. has always agreed with a one China policy. Take a closer look at the wording of the U.S. position from the Nixon administration in 1972 it definitely left our options open. lol

"the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."

Anyway the only administration that was politically openly hostile to Taiwan officials was Obama. Today it appears Biden and others may carry on with the Trump administrations direction and position with Taiwan.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/01/28/2003751328

When Biden administration nominee for secretary of state Antony Blinken testified at his congressional confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, in addition to expressing a positive view of Taiwan, Blinken revealed that he received Tsai when she was a Democratic Progressive Party candidate running for president in 2015 and after Tsai was elected president, in his capacity as deputy US secretary of state. He said he had several conversations with Tsai.

“I want to see that process through to conclusion if it hasn’t been completed, to make sure that we’re acting pursuant to the mandate in the [Taiwan Assurance] act that looks at creating more space for contacts,” he added.

Hsiao’s invitation to Biden’s inauguration, taken together with Blinken’s language at the confirmation hearing, indicates that the Biden administration is willing to adopt a large chunk of the Trump administration’s Taiwan policy.
I guess from a U.S. perspective conflict with China as soon as possible is preferable to one in later years after China had time to build its capabilities. I believe Japan, U.K. and Germany are all sending warships to the region. Lets see if we can light this fuse and convince Taiwan to hold a referendum for independence this summer. Wouldnt that be a hoot. :yeah::o