U.S. Maneuvers Could Spark a War

The Beer Baron

Naval power? No, air power? No. And that whihc they have is nowhere near as sophisticated- yet. They are, afaik, working on a new tank which apparently will be equal to, if not better than, the russian T-90 or the M1a2 abrams. And they'll have lots of them.
That's their advantage; billions of people and cheap manufacturing capabilities. It's like the USSR in WWII, once they crank up their production they can hammer **** together in prison camps and send 'em to the front line, throwing more ppl to the fray, making more tanks, fighting back and you'll never beat them, they'll just keep coming. that's the biggest population on earth- only one way to win and that's by biological or nuclear attacks- and that's basically signing ones death warrent. Still, would it really come to that?

China has made no secret of its intentions towards Taiwan, Taiwan views itself as a nation in its own right- China doesn't share that view, they see it as a "rogue state" and one which they will have to inevitibly reel in. China's smart however, it knows that any attack on China would invoke the wrath of the US and slit their own throat economically and tactically they're not going to go in guns a blazing. They, instead are allegedly opting for a more lateral approach, if the mountain won't come to Mohommad and all that. One being the toppling of the government by Chinese agents or through political means, other plans of attack include communications infrastructure, energy, production facilities, etc, etc through sabotage rather than by missile strike.

China too, to my knowledge, has also embarked on its own training operations, it already has its own "Invade Taiwan" plans- they see Taiwan as theirs, the US sees Taiwan as a nice little earner and another country to pull out of the "we protect freedom and democracy" hat. Good ole Taiwan, our best buddies, if China ever did anything we sure as hell...

If China done anything...
Well China inevitibly will, surely... it wants to, it really really does.

The US would also want to hit China hard, not just a slap on the wrist either, because they're scared. Highest population, fastest growing economy. Sure the red rapidly running from China's political fabric, and much to its benifit, China, in a few years, shall begin to shed its Maoist ways, shed Communism totally yet retain its totalitarian nature- it shall prosper more, it shall become ever more sophisticated in electronics, communications, air power, space power...
This is the nightmare scenario the Neocon types are frightened of, a burgeoning super power far greater than the US, true its economy is largely based on US investment, but then a lot of American money is in China too, more and more of it. To the American mindset, letting China regain Taiwan would never fly, particularly in this age- fast fwd a decade though, with China's economy and military capabilities growing. Now they just march in and annex Taiwan- would America be so quick to retalliate?

This is what those paranoid men in their offices and cubicles in the Pentagon and in Langley Virginia are mulling over- the next cold war- the possibility of war with China or indeed any significant power- sure blowing Afghanistan and Iraq to smithereens is hardly a test of the most powerful military force on earth- but look how much of a dent it made in the budget? Look at how scattered American forces are and how much pre-po stock the war in iraq cost them and their troops still don't have even proper boots or water canteens. It's a case of who's got the most to loose- China, with its rigid regieme and billions of people, or America, with its tenuous political see-sawing, who now have to go to war against a people who make up a sizeable portion of their own population and instill the draft to do so...

Ah.... idle speculation, I love it.

vorbis

china is still miles away from matching america's technology. and even if they did they still wouldn't risk war with the us.

Victor

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
China has made no secret of its intentions towards Taiwan, Taiwan views itself as a nation in its own right

One nation - two states.

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
"rogue state"

Rogue province - they deny it is a state.

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Naval power? No, air power? No. And that whihc they have is nowhere near as sophisticated- yet. They are, afaik, working on a new tank which apparently will be equal to, if not better than, the russian T-90 or the M1a2 abrams.

Of course a Molotov Cocktail (or the current parts supply system ) can take out an M1A2. In any case the Americans don't have enough tanks (or anything short of nukes) to win a war in China.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Imagine that Nazi Germany had won WW2 and that the United States had not entered the war against Germany. Suppose that the new Nazi Europe demanded that we come under its evil regime. Would it then be wrong for the US to carry out manoevres to protect us? Of course not.

Democracy should be defended from evil dictatorships dominated by war-criminals that make Abu Ghraib look like a holiday camp.

What was that phrase, "sabre rattling". in the game of GO (wei chi in china ?) one of the things you don't do is to build up near an enemies strong points - since the enemy will build up reinforcements there too which means when you do want to attack later you have removed all your advantages. China has had a long history of rebel states within the empire which have been been recovered, I don't know about the present regime but previously the empire of 5,000 years took a long term view - not like the politicians of the west who rarely seem to plan beyond the next election. They waited for Hong Kong and Maco, they'll wait for Formosa.

As for US involvement in WWII , the russians defeated germany. the US made a profit. - have a read of Fatherland some time to see one vision of US acceptance of a Nazi europe.

Here's an interesting thought, how many of the "evil dictatorships" were helped by the US, how many of the regiems came in to being because of US intervention especially in latin america.

Hobbes

Originally posted by vorbis
china is still miles away from matching america's technology. and even if they did they still wouldn't risk war with the us.

Nuclear capable. Able to put a man in space. Plans to have a base on the moon before the US.

Americas technology isn't that all great. Bare in mind that the US outsources a lot of it as well.

ionapaul

Originally posted by Hobbes
Able to put a man in space. Plans to have a base on the moon before the US.

So Chinese technology has finally caught up with....Soviet Russia 1961! If the Soviets or the US had made a moon base a top priority in the 70s, I am sure it would have been done by now (and bankrupted the Ruskies even sooner). I have no doubt that China can become a superpower in time, but not anytime soon.

Batbat

I dont think America would start a war with China, mainly because there is too much money to be made there, also because like most bullies they wont war on a country that has some chance of defending itself, but who knows with lunatics like warmonger Bush in power.

Lets hope we dont get 4 more years of that c*cksucker

BUMP!

Getting a bit silly here (hypothesising about a war that I hope I have the privilege of NEVER seeing) but everyone here seems to believe that if there was a war then America would be the ones taking the fight to the Chinese. No amount of tanks would be sufficient to kill that amount of Chinese - and dont worry about the technology part - with that manpower they could beat them off with sticks!!
Anyway, the point is, what if the chinese somehow developed the means to get sufficient troops onto american soil? (Beer Baoron's point) The american is a very offensive army but their ability to protect their own shores from a large scale attack has never been tested.....


Hey, we could all be speaking chinese or mandarin in the next ten years!!! Dont see it happening though - with their resources they could build up sufficient armaments in terms of months - not years but they are enjoying their prosperity too much to risk it for a war.

ionapaul

Originally posted by BUMP!
No amount of tanks would be sufficient to kill that amount of Chinese - and dont worry about the technology part - with that manpower they could beat them off with sticks!!

For a bit of historical perspective, a handful (relatively speaking) of Spaniards on horseback with a few cannon and some badass diseases conquered two massive, well populated and militaristic native American empires. Technology matters today as well...

MeatProduct

Originally posted by ionapaul
For a bit of historical perspective, a handful (relatively speaking) of Spaniards on horseback with a few cannon and some badass diseases conquered two massive, well populated and militaristic native American empires. Technology matters today as well...

True, but I don't think the Chinese hail Bush as their long lost godhead.

Nick

Edit: Corrected typeo.

bonkey

Originally posted by ionapaul
Technology matters today as well...

And it will tomorrow, and the day after.....

and if one looks at the rate of progress being attained by the Chinese, combined with established traits of the Chinese (e.g. the ability to really work towards a long-term vision, where long doesn't mean "second term of office"), one will see why all of the insistence of "but the US could kick their ass today" is entirely meaningless.

The Chinese have no reason to want a war - or even bad relations - with the US, seeing as they're already taking the US to the cleaners. The US doesn't want bad relations with China either, cause it wants to stop being taken to the cleaners and instead get a proper return on investment on having spent so much on trying to get at these emerging markets.

My best guess - somewhere in the next decade, the US will discover that China isn't going to conform its economy to the US-serving model that the US wants it to, and relations will become far more strained. This will possibly be what drives the next economic disaster, given that I see it happening in about the same timeframe as a boom/bust cycle could take from here.

But war? Nah....neither side wants war with the other. Beating the crap out of small nations is great for using up old stock, giving you excuses to buy new toys, pump up the national economy through expenditure in arms manufacturing etc.....but you do not want to pick on a nation so large that you couldn't possibly try and subdue its people, who are so populous that if you were to send your entire national population to war, you'd still be outnumbered in the region of 8 to 1.

jc

ionapaul

You're right in that China is really screwing the US currently with regard to their economic relations - the corporations who pushed so hard for China to be let into the WTO a few years ago now realise that it is a one way relationship - all take take take from China. In California's famous and amazingly fertile Central Valley (much MUCH more food grown here each year than in the EU I think, enough food to feed all America and more) farmers are going out of business as garlic is cheaper to grow, pick, wash, and bag from China than it is to buy freshly picked and still covered in soil in Gilroy, 'garlic capital of the world'. It is pretty sad. I was in California a few months ago and a family friend told me how she had to burn her fruit tree farm down (to replant organic veggies I think, real money earner at the mo) as over 1 million acres in China was recently planted with those particular trees (can't remember which) and there was no way to compete, paying for employees benefits and so on.

Still, it will be many many decades before China can challenge the US (or the rest of NATO) with regard to missile or military technology. As I witnessed firsthand while in college over there, the US not only fosters very strong science graduate schools, but they 'recruit' the best in the world with scholarships and such opportunities (let me point out I am not a scientist, nor was I one of those recruited for my intellectual abilities!). I have never met so many highly educated, brilliant and frankly intimidating minds as the time I spent in college over there. And almost all wanted to stay on in the States after college, maybe lured by the 'almighty dollar', I don't know!

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Hobbes
Nuclear capable. Able to put a man in space. Plans to have a base on the moon before the US.

Americas technology isn't that all great. Bare in mind that the US outsources a lot of it as well.

The chinese have developed their own mobile phone system. And the Russians still send people into space using a modified 1950's rocket. Yes technology can beat armies, but it can suppress a population as has been proven time and time again.

Historically China has been inward looking, wait till they realise just how much money can be made out of us barbarians..

monument

Originally posted by Batbat
I dont think America would start a war with China, mainly because there is too much money to be made there

For some from the US, for others China will, and are, losing them money, jobs etc

TomF

This snippet from the Los Angeles Times newspaper describes where those aircraft carriers are going to be during the exercise, and I don't get the impression that many are crowded in between mainland China and Formosa.

"The U.S. exercise, dubbed Summer Pulse 2004, involves seven aircraft-carrier strike groups, 50 warships, 600 aircraft and 150,000 troops around the globe. It has been described as one of the biggest military exercises ever staged.

A U.S. military official on Monday said Summer Pulse was aimed at increasing preparedness for any global crisis, not specifically the China-Taiwan issue. The official said only one aircraft carrier was scheduled to be located in the western Pacific Ocean.

'In terms of striking distance from China, the USS Kitty Hawk is the only ship currently operating in that area of responsibility,' said Capt. Tom Van Leunen, a spokesman for U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va. He said the Kitty Hawk was stationed in Japan. 'And I can't say how close that ship will get to the coast of Taiwan.'

The aircraft carriers George Washington, John C. Stennis, John F. Kennedy, Enterprise, Harry S. Truman and Ronald Reagan would also participate in the exercise, according to a Pentagon news release.

Three of the ships will be in the Atlantic Ocean, one in the Persian Gulf and three in the Pacific, including one off Hawaii and one off San Diego."

ionapaul

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
The chinese have developed their own mobile phone system. And the Russians still send people into space using a modified 1950's rocket. Yes technology can beat armies, but it can suppress a population as has been proven time and time again.

Did you mean 'can' or 'can't' suppress a population? History has shown many examples of long term domination by one small group over a much bigger population. The British did not leave India because their armies were defeated by the much larger population. A smaller group better trained, motivated, and with superior technology have often kept much larger groups until firm control. I think large populations matter even less today, with modern technology allowing soldiers to see in the dark and be better protected. Occupying, rather than conquering, a hostile land is a different story - as we see each night on the news. Still, because of better protection the numbers of killed to injured are historically extremely low.

daveg

Some official info on Summer Pulse - http://www.cffc.navy.mil/dodrelease.htm

It seems strange to me that most of you talk about a war between the US and Chine you talk about tanks/aircraft etc etc. The glaring fact is that China posses 400 Nuclear weapons while the US holds 10,500 source. Imo if the US and China did go to war it would be very short and there would not be amny people left on earth to witness the aftermath.

Some info on US mini nukes - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2780521.stm

Big Ears

Originally posted by ionapaul
For a bit of historical perspective, a handful (relatively speaking) of Spaniards on horseback with a few cannon and some badass diseases conquered two massive, well populated and militaristic native American empires. Technology matters today as well...

yes but they did have short term alliances with lots of smaller tribes to help defeat the large/Massive tribes .

MeatProduct

I'm sure I'll get severly ravaged for saying this but sure I'll say it anyway. One has to wonder why the US would send out so much of its naval force. That's it's just an exercise is of course utter rubbish. There is a reason behind it. It costs a lot to send out all those ships and it's not like they can afford it at this time. So there must be a fairly good reason for doing so. The reason I would like to put forward is this:

The US admin is expecting something to happen soon, something big. I know this is very general but I'm thinking some sort of natural disaster like a tidal wave(s) (possibly man-made). If ships are far out at sea they stand a better chance of surviving such a disaster. The ships of the other countries that are docked would be destroyed and the US would be left with a giant advantage.

Just a thought folks, I don't think this would happen, just want to point out that there is without a doubt some reason for the US admin sending out all these ships other than what we are being told.

Nick

Hobbes

Originally posted by MeatProduct

The US admin is expecting something to happen soon,

November elections. Control the military vote.

ionapaul

Originally posted by Big Ears
yes but they did have short term alliances with lots of smaller tribes to help defeat the large/Massive tribes .

In the battle of Cajamarca in 1532 the Spaniards under Pizarro, with 168 Spaniards and horses, defeated the Incas under Atahuallpa, with approximately 80,000 soldiers. The British often defeated much larger armies of poorly trained and armed opponents. Likewise Alexander the Great (damn you Colin Farrell!) defeated massive Persian armies by using better tactics and superior weapons. I believe that in a convential battle today the differences resulting from superior training and technology would be even more apparent. Obviously the US and its NATO allies could wipe out the major Chinese populations centres from the air, target the military HQs and concentrations, destroy China's weapon making factories, and sink the Chinese fleet with relative ease if they needed to. Occupying China would probably be an impossibility.

bonkey

Originally posted by ionapaul
I believe that in a convential battle today

And thats the whole thing, isn't it.

The points people are making are :

1) It wouldn't be (or wouldn't remain) conventional were it to happen today.
2) If we're not talking about a war today, then basing your arguments on the state of affairs as they stand today is misleading.

Oh - and as for your "science" points...you are aware, I'm sure, of the growing concern within the US scientific community about various moves made by the current administration which are seriously hampering the continuation of US supremacy in the scientific fields? In fact, many scientists have stated that should this appraoch continue, they expect the US to lose widespread scientific "dominance" within the next decade.

Again, lets not look at whats to come purely by looking at how the past brought us to today. Lets also look at whats changing before trying to talk about what tomorrow might bring.

jc

jc

LegacyUser

Originally posted by ionapaul
In the battle of Cajamarca in 1532 the Spaniards under Pizarro, with 168 Spaniards and horses, defeated the Incas under Atahuallpa, with approximately 80,000 soldiers.

it wasnt a battle, they murdered atahuallpa and loads of his mates after inviting him for a chat, then killed the other thousands who were running around in fear of the horses thed never set eyes on before

gaelic cowboy

Interesting how no one mentions china's neighbours Russia and India neither could idly sit by and let Taiwan be swamped the balance of power would be tipped by then. A combined Japanese, Taiwan, US, South Korea alliance can easily stop them also with India loking nervously on it's quite likely the worlds only billion person democracy would really have to chip in they have fought in the past and they cannot sit on the sidelines. The asian states would be only needed to play a holding action this would allow them to risk it all safe in the knowledge that NATO UN US UK EU etc etc etc would be on the way. Any escalation of the conflict would not be the end of the world as 400 nuke couldn't possibly stand up to the combined amount of the Superpowers

Typedef

Hello.

China is a nuclear power, with ICBMs.

What course of logic leads one to the conclusion that one nuclear power would 'ever' risk a conflict with another nuclear power?

Land five nuclear devices onto major populated areas on your opponents side and you effectively 'win', whatever that means.

Sure, the Chinese may not posess the dreaded 'Satan' MIRV[1] devices the Russians do, but, even still, conflict is unthinkable, since nuclear tipped ICBMs introduce the concept of MAD, aka, Mutually assured destruction.

MAD was the premise of the entire cold war!


Chinese ICBMs expected in 2010 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-41.htm


These guys are what the START and START II treaties are about.
[1] Tasty : http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-36m.htm

Sand

I agree to an extent Type - Nulear conflict is highly unlikely. However its not impossible that a game of brinkmanship, involving conventional war with both sides afraid or unwilling to introduce nukes because they know they would be annialated in the counter attack could emerge.

A war over Taiwan for example - The US would not nuke China over Taiwan, and China is not going to risk being literally turned into a giant glass bowl ( the Chinese have around 20 nukes with able to reach the western US - the US has hundreds able to hit China ). Both sides will threaten ( indeed some US analysts argue that the US should act "crazy" so that its rivals and enemies cannot confidently say the US would never nuke them) but it would remain conventional to my mind.

I just love the way people are casting China as getting involved outside its borders to a great extent. Its certainly possible - the Chinese are quite nationalistic ( the ordinary Chinese thought their leadership was far too lenient with the Americans who landed in China after being rammed by one of their aircraft for example ), and its not beyond the realms of possiblity that they might start exerting rights over their Asian neighbours. Escpecially because of their second problem.....

China is engaged in one of the greatest social upheavals in human history. Its leadership is attempting to retain control of the state whilst liberalising its economy. They will fail, without a doubt. The problem will be who will replace them - civil war is not impossible, neither is a politician or general harnessing nationalism to unite the people, as happened in the Balkans. Despite that I think Chinas concerns will be trying to manage and contain the fall out from the collapse of the communist party - i.e. internal.

As for whod win....its nearly as bad as my dad would beat your dad. Wed all lose if the two biggest economies in the world went to war.

The US admin is expecting something to happen soon, something big. I know this is very general but I'm thinking some sort of natural disaster like a tidal wave(s) (possibly man-made). If ships are far out at sea they stand a better chance of surviving such a disaster. The ships of the other countries that are docked would be destroyed and the US would be left with a giant advantage.

Post of the year tbh. Im nearly tempted to use this for my sig.

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by Typedef
Hello.

China is a nuclear power, with ICBMs.

What course of logic leads one to the conclusion that one nuclear power would 'ever' risk a conflict with another nuclear power?

Land five nuclear devices onto major populated areas on your opponents side and you effectively 'win', whatever that means.

Sure, the Chinese may not posess the dreaded 'Satan' MIRV[1] devices the Russians do, but, even still, conflict is unthinkable, since nuclear tipped ICBMs introduce the concept of MAD, aka, Mutually assured destruction.

MAD was the premise of the entire cold war!


Chinese ICBMs expected in 2010 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-41.htm


These guys are what the START and START II treaties are about.
[1] Tasty : http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-36m.htm

What are you on about one can easy evisage a siuation of nuclear war happening. Otherwise nobody should have them at all what is the point in having them if you dont have the balls to use them. By your logic any country could go to war safe in the knowledge no one will use nuke's as it might kill millions of people. Hello it's war and as Gen Douglas MacArthur said "In war there is no substitute for victory."
If victory means the death of 100's of million's then thats there look out were not talking about napoleonic times when everyone marched to an alloted time and place and blew seven shades of the proverbial out of each other it time to get dirty. BTW this does not mean I agree war is good or bad just todays all too terrible reality personally I would love to never see another war but that is fantasy.

ionapaul

Originally posted by bonkey
Again, lets not look at whats to come purely by looking at how the past brought us to today. Lets also look at whats changing before trying to talk about what tomorrow might bring.

Of course you are correct. The past cannot always accurately predict the future (just ask anyone who invests in stocks!), and at the same time we cannot ignore the lessons the past has taught us, so many events seem cyclical.
The US will lose the scientific 'edge' when they are no longer the largest economy in the world, and the biggest money is no longer to be made there. Until then (20 years time...50?) I have no doubt they will remain in absolute terms technologically superior to the rest of the world.

BUMP!

technologically superior to the rest of the world

Possibly exaggerated with the timescale. If war was looming (or the possibility of such) then other countries would just up their defence spending. Take world war 2 - the germans were decimated after ww1 but still were the first to develop the rocket engine(fortunately too late).

The chinese are already experts at reverse engineering electronic devices(down to even silicone level), have several FAB and assembly houses, boast many of the world's finest designers and have plenty of resources at their disposal. Technology speaking the chinese are well capable of spitting out masses of highly advanced military equipment in severely reduced timescales - if the situation should warrant.

gaelic cowboy

At the minute China can not afford to piss off the rest of the world just cos it's having huge growth doesn't mean it can take on the world. By that measurement Ireland should be a major player in Europe yeah thats right don't think so. China in the main right now make's and sells cheap product's that cost more in other first world countries. How can we be expected to buy them if they start acting the maggot. Unfortunately for China and Asia as a whole just cos the US has a huge deficit is down to them buying dollars to ensure the US can buy it's cheap products anything done to upset this will greatly affect them too. China will in any case be bypassed by India in another few years as it is an actual functioning democracy and it is very much trying to become a global millitary and economic powerhouse. I suspect that all lot of the china talk these days is rubbish remember how everyone got it wrong about the russian economy. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out a lot of china's economic data is lie's presented to Beijing by provincial functionaries afraid to tell the truth. It is very easy to build a showcase city like shanghai is at the minute on the bone of oppressed peasants.