WW3
 

troubled time ahead, or simply sabre rattling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...U-S-China.html

my thoughts exactly.

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.c...cheek-for-now/

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

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

Let us hope it is only sabre rattling.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

I think we are in agreement here. :yep:

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.

interesting response, platapus, thanks:up:

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.