6 ms·

I think that you're right -- the Chinese administration is ruthless, but also pragmatic. I think when they look at the USA, they see a country at war with itsel

by exelius 11y ago

I think that you're right -- the Chinese administration is ruthless, but also pragmatic. I think when they look at the USA, they see a country at war with itself. There's no need to destroy us since we do such a good job of it ourselves. Also, the USA has a pretty huge advantage geographically over every other country in the world: our borders consist of oceans we can easily defend with our navy and allied countries who are strong both militarily and economically. We also have access to all of the factors of production of an army (steel, oil, etc.) domestically and the industry necessary to process them. Geographically, we're very protected as well: attack from the north and you have 2000 miles of Canadian tundra too extreme to march an army across that can be littered with radar and anti-aircraft stations. Attack from the south and you have to cross rugged, mountainous terrain in Mexico. Even against a weakened USA, victory would be very difficult. War against the US is therefore pointless from the Chinese perspective: a war of the scale a US-China war would likely just rekindle the machinery of American industry while inflicting heavy losses on China. The Chinese government (and people) have a long-term mindset: war would be an impatient choice because China's dominance is all but assured anyway. I don't think American politicians are as pragmatic; and I expect our war hawks to turn their attention to China (likely when China eventually tries to retake Taiwan). From a realpolitik point of view, I actually think that a major war with China is probably the best chance the US has to maintain global dominance over the next 50 years. But that war would need to happen soon, while the US still has a clear technological advantage over China -- in 10 years that advantage will be all but gone. It's looking like the US plans to use Japan as its proxy for fighting China. Japan recently authorized its military to operate in defense of its allies; a first step into removing the post-WWII restrictions placed on the Japanese military. They plan to continue that process; with US support. China sees this as unacceptable -- and is ramping up its military as a result. I think we'll see a China-Japan war in the South China Sea before we see a China-US war. But I think we'll also see China engage in the type of limited incursions / occupations like the Russians did in Georgia and Ukraine, and they won't stop until someone starts fighting back.

ende 11y ago
China's development is already beginning to slow. It is not headed towards global dominance, it was merely catching up with the rest of the developed world. China will likely continue to enjoy a modernizing economy and growing middle class, but in terms of growth it looks to be headed the same way as Japan.
- exelius 11y ago
  I would agree with you except for the fact that the Chinese economy will be large enough to support a military equalling or surpassing that of the US. That's basically what the article is saying: economic ascendancy often results in a military build-up, and when it does, conflict often follows. China is spending heavily on their military to exert their will, and given current trends will be able to overtake the US on military spending in the next decade or two. Whether that results in conflict is largely up to the US, in my mind. Also, post-WWII Japan was more or less a vassal state of the US, so we kept their military ambitions in check. We don't have any US military bases in China, so we can't do that there.
  - ende 11y ago
    Again, it remains to be seen whether the Chinese economy meets the expectations of earlier forecasts. I think a more realistic view is that the Chinese economy assumes a role in the region comparable to Germany's in Europe. Military ascendency is not just a simple product of economic ascendency however. Geography plays a large role, as well as military history and institutional knowledge. For example, one does not simply build a blue water navy. China is practically starting from scratch when it comes to naval tradition, and when combined with geography will likely never pose a serious challenge to US naval primacy in the Pacific - regardless of comparative economic might. Even at the height of its power the USSR never posed a serious threat to that primacy. Bounded to its own regional theatre, the Chinese military will likely continue to be structured around anti-area access denial strategies. However, increasing economic co-dependence is likely to make this entire topic moot. Call me an optimist but I predict the extent of US-China naval engagement 20 years from now to consist of joint security exercises and disaster relief missions.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> But I think we'll also see China engage in the type of limited incursions / occupations like the Russians did in Georgia and Ukraine, and they won't stop until someone starts fighting back. They've already started, with their claims in the South China Sea, and occupying and building up islands. True, there hasn't been any shooting, which is better than Russia. But the process looks the same.
- exelius 11y ago
  While China gets all the flak for this in the US media, they were actually kind of late to the game on the Spratly Islands. Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan have all been reclaiming islands in the same area on a smaller scale. China is just staking its claim alongside the rest, and while China is by far the biggest user of dredging to reclaim islands, they weren't the first. Russia invaded the undisputed, occupied territory of a sovereign nation (twice!) on trumped up reasons of "protecting ethnic Russians" -- as if "ethnic Russian" was a real thing. The Spratly Islands are the very definition of disputed territory; they're claimed by half a dozen countries and have no meaningful settlements on them. I'm not saying that China has a claim to them, but their claim is no less valid than Japan's or Vietnam's. Now, when they invade Taiwan, we can say they're like Russia. But they have not flexed their military might because they're not yet a modern military. That will change over the next 10-20 years; and when you have a strong military, you tend to come up with ways to make use of it to achieve your strategic goals (again, this was a central theme of the original article). Source for Spratly info: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/wha...
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Which came first: China's huge territorial claim in the South China Sea, or Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan reclaiming islands in the area?
    - exelius 11y ago
      China never would have resorted to dredging if they had been able to occupy an island big enough to put an airport on. But all of the islands of that size were already occupied by one of the other countries, so China decided to build one rather than take one by force. The alternative is to abandon their claim on the islands entirely, which would be stupid because nobody else really has a better claim on a bunch of barren, uninhabited islands. Honestly, this is one of those types of disputes where nobody has a clearly better claim than anyone else, so the nation with the biggest navy wins (the US did this all over the South Pacific, so we can't act all high and mighty). But there's nothing inherently important about those islands other than they grant territorial waters, so whoever has the biggest navy in the region will control them. Very different than what happened in Georgia or Ukraine (or Iraq, or Afghanistan...) The US media usually portrays this as 100% Chinese aggression, when the truth is that every country that claims the islands is doing the exact same thing (albeit on a smaller scale).

by exelius 11y ago

ende 11y ago

China's development is already beginning to slow. It is not headed towards global dominance, it was merely catching up with the rest of the developed world. China will likely continue to enjoy a modernizing economy and growing middle class, but in terms of growth it looks to be headed the same way as Japan.

exelius 11y ago
I would agree with you except for the fact that the Chinese economy will be large enough to support a military equalling or surpassing that of the US. That's basically what the article is saying: economic ascendancy often results in a military build-up, and when it does, conflict often follows. China is spending heavily on their military to exert their will, and given current trends will be able to overtake the US on military spending in the next decade or two. Whether that results in conflict is largely up to the US, in my mind. Also, post-WWII Japan was more or less a vassal state of the US, so we kept their military ambitions in check. We don't have any US military bases in China, so we can't do that there.
- ende 11y ago
  Again, it remains to be seen whether the Chinese economy meets the expectations of earlier forecasts. I think a more realistic view is that the Chinese economy assumes a role in the region comparable to Germany's in Europe. Military ascendency is not just a simple product of economic ascendency however. Geography plays a large role, as well as military history and institutional knowledge. For example, one does not simply build a blue water navy. China is practically starting from scratch when it comes to naval tradition, and when combined with geography will likely never pose a serious challenge to US naval primacy in the Pacific - regardless of comparative economic might. Even at the height of its power the USSR never posed a serious threat to that primacy. Bounded to its own regional theatre, the Chinese military will likely continue to be structured around anti-area access denial strategies. However, increasing economic co-dependence is likely to make this entire topic moot. Call me an optimist but I predict the extent of US-China naval engagement 20 years from now to consist of joint security exercises and disaster relief missions.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> But I think we'll also see China engage in the type of limited incursions / occupations like the Russians did in Georgia and Ukraine, and they won't stop until someone starts fighting back. They've already started, with their claims in the South China Sea, and occupying and building up islands. True, there hasn't been any shooting, which is better than Russia. But the process looks the same.

exelius 11y ago
While China gets all the flak for this in the US media, they were actually kind of late to the game on the Spratly Islands. Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan have all been reclaiming islands in the same area on a smaller scale. China is just staking its claim alongside the rest, and while China is by far the biggest user of dredging to reclaim islands, they weren't the first. Russia invaded the undisputed, occupied territory of a sovereign nation (twice!) on trumped up reasons of "protecting ethnic Russians" -- as if "ethnic Russian" was a real thing. The Spratly Islands are the very definition of disputed territory; they're claimed by half a dozen countries and have no meaningful settlements on them. I'm not saying that China has a claim to them, but their claim is no less valid than Japan's or Vietnam's. Now, when they invade Taiwan, we can say they're like Russia. But they have not flexed their military might because they're not yet a modern military. That will change over the next 10-20 years; and when you have a strong military, you tend to come up with ways to make use of it to achieve your strategic goals (again, this was a central theme of the original article). Source for Spratly info: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/wha...
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Which came first: China's huge territorial claim in the South China Sea, or Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan reclaiming islands in the area?
  - exelius 11y ago
    China never would have resorted to dredging if they had been able to occupy an island big enough to put an airport on. But all of the islands of that size were already occupied by one of the other countries, so China decided to build one rather than take one by force. The alternative is to abandon their claim on the islands entirely, which would be stupid because nobody else really has a better claim on a bunch of barren, uninhabited islands. Honestly, this is one of those types of disputes where nobody has a clearly better claim than anyone else, so the nation with the biggest navy wins (the US did this all over the South Pacific, so we can't act all high and mighty). But there's nothing inherently important about those islands other than they grant territorial waters, so whoever has the biggest navy in the region will control them. Very different than what happened in Georgia or Ukraine (or Iraq, or Afghanistan...) The US media usually portrays this as 100% Chinese aggression, when the truth is that every country that claims the islands is doing the exact same thing (albeit on a smaller scale).