5 ms·

Going forward this will be a critical test of US status in the region and set a precedent for the incoming administration on dealing with China. So far, the US

Going forward this will be a critical test of US status in the region and set a precedent for the incoming administration on dealing with China. So far, the US has been unwilling to engage China directly, only using proxy countries to apply pressure, ex. THAAD. It has been highly effective and unless China takes direct action that harms American naval & airforce assets, it's unwilling to engage in a downright skirmish that results in economic loss. Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end. The Chinese leadership must know fully well that they cannot match the US militarily. Also given Xi's failing grades on foreign diplomacy, it's suffice to conclude that these grandiose rhetorics are entirely aimed at it's own population, who are reaching a boiling point that will ultimately put into uncertainty the survivability of Xi's powerbase and the entire party itself. Xi made too many enemies so he's looking for ways to survive by fighting fire with fire and creating more enemies from within. An internal dialogue fueling crisis with the US is a perfect propaganda tool and the fear of war, the fear of losing your properties, belongings, material possessions you've spent time on...history has shown is highly effective in controlling the populace.

noir_lord 10y ago
> Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end The US would win a conventional war but it would be bloody and expensive in both life and material. Neither side wants that, China wants to get to a point where it's strong enough that fighting the US would be incredibly expensive and the US wants to maintain a position where it's strong enough to deter China from doing whatever China wants to do, it's a strange world when the US's largest trading partner is in a cold war style stand off.
- woofyman 10y ago
  How can 2 nuclear powers fight a conventional war?
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    Theoretically by not pushing the other one so hard that they'd go nuclear but it would be tap dancing on a cliff edge the whole way. The 'traditional' way for nuclear powers to fight a 'war' is via Proxy wars (Vietnam, middle eastern wars etc).
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  It's tough to say who will win. After all, the Soviet Union pretty much won WW2 with an enormous human sacrifice as much as the US likes to downplay it. I agree two sides will do everything possible to avoid direct conflict just like the Cold War.
  - zip1234 10y ago
    The US has an ocean between them and China. US power projection would be tested and probably ultimately fail due to unbelievable expense of such a war but China would not win unless you call not losing a win. Soviet Union could take their land army straight to Germany but China has no way to project power to US.
    - hguant 10y ago
      > US power projection would be tested and probably ultimately fail due to unbelievable expense I think you're wrong here. The US has been investing in power projection for 80 some odd years now, and is leaps and bounds ahead of any other nation. Yes it would be expensive...but we've been paying a premium for quite a long time to have this capability. Additionally, the supply chain is drastically shortened because of the sheer number of US or allied bases in the area - Japan, South Korea, the Philippines (though that one has become a bit questionable).
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    It depends on what the condition is for "win", the US couldn't likely invade and hold China but end China as a military threat absolutely, it would be a war of attrition but the US could wipe out the Chinese military and most of their industrial capacity (a lot of it is on the coast after all).
- sleepingeights 10y ago
  The US has never entered into a conventional war with another power close to their own. It is a 100% uncertainty if the US would win, even with the US' more expensive wartoys that are still unproven. Just a cursory glance at US' military history the past century reveals the US has only engaged against powers that were greatly diminished (European Theater, Russia, JP), or in and against countries in regions that were relatively far less equipped and primitive in weaponry (Asia, Africa, Middle East, etc).
linkregister 10y ago
I think this viewpoint unrealistically diminishes the Chinese position. 1. Beating the U.S. militarily in a conventional war is completely unnecessary. The overt Chinese military goal is to defend the nine-dash line and little more. Their anti-ship and anti-air missiles more than accomplish this. Several U.S. Navy admirals have stated on record that the U.S. doesn't have a mitigation for that defense. 2. The Chinese Communist Party's survival depends far more on economic factors than foreign affairs/international issues. According to various Western reports in China (The Economist, NPR, BBC), most of the populous is uninterested in the fact there is no credible opposition. Most of the population is interested in exploiting new opportunities/safeguarding their wealth. I acknowledge that Western sources could be missing a lot. 3. The Chinese diplomatic efforts are likely to effectively exploit the imminent U.S. pivot to a more isolationist posture. The TPP (despite its many warts, including unconscionable IP/legal rules) was the primary vehicle for countering Chinese trade efforts. I think we can expect to see more effective diplomacy in the realm of trade from China in the coming years. Already inroads are being made in the Philippines.
gozur88 10y ago
There's no reason for the US to bring the conflict to the military arena. China's economy is heavily dependent on the US and Europe. The average Zhang San is not going to appreciate losing his job and the government knows it.

noir_lord 10y ago

> Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end The US would win a conventional war but it would be bloody and expensive in both life and material. Neither side wants that, China wants to get to a point where it's strong enough that fighting the US would be incredibly expensive and the US wants to maintain a position where it's strong enough to deter China from doing whatever China wants to do, it's a strange world when the US's largest trading partner is in a cold war style stand off.

woofyman 10y ago
How can 2 nuclear powers fight a conventional war?
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Theoretically by not pushing the other one so hard that they'd go nuclear but it would be tap dancing on a cliff edge the whole way. The 'traditional' way for nuclear powers to fight a 'war' is via Proxy wars (Vietnam, middle eastern wars etc).
brilliantcode 10y ago
It's tough to say who will win. After all, the Soviet Union pretty much won WW2 with an enormous human sacrifice as much as the US likes to downplay it. I agree two sides will do everything possible to avoid direct conflict just like the Cold War.
- zip1234 10y ago
  The US has an ocean between them and China. US power projection would be tested and probably ultimately fail due to unbelievable expense of such a war but China would not win unless you call not losing a win. Soviet Union could take their land army straight to Germany but China has no way to project power to US.
  - hguant 10y ago
    > US power projection would be tested and probably ultimately fail due to unbelievable expense I think you're wrong here. The US has been investing in power projection for 80 some odd years now, and is leaps and bounds ahead of any other nation. Yes it would be expensive...but we've been paying a premium for quite a long time to have this capability. Additionally, the supply chain is drastically shortened because of the sheer number of US or allied bases in the area - Japan, South Korea, the Philippines (though that one has become a bit questionable).
- noir_lord 10y ago
  It depends on what the condition is for "win", the US couldn't likely invade and hold China but end China as a military threat absolutely, it would be a war of attrition but the US could wipe out the Chinese military and most of their industrial capacity (a lot of it is on the coast after all).
sleepingeights 10y ago
The US has never entered into a conventional war with another power close to their own. It is a 100% uncertainty if the US would win, even with the US' more expensive wartoys that are still unproven. Just a cursory glance at US' military history the past century reveals the US has only engaged against powers that were greatly diminished (European Theater, Russia, JP), or in and against countries in regions that were relatively far less equipped and primitive in weaponry (Asia, Africa, Middle East, etc).

linkregister 10y ago

I think this viewpoint unrealistically diminishes the Chinese position. 1. Beating the U.S. militarily in a conventional war is completely unnecessary. The overt Chinese military goal is to defend the nine-dash line and little more. Their anti-ship and anti-air missiles more than accomplish this. Several U.S. Navy admirals have stated on record that the U.S. doesn't have a mitigation for that defense. 2. The Chinese Communist Party's survival depends far more on economic factors than foreign affairs/international issues. According to various Western reports in China (The Economist, NPR, BBC), most of the populous is uninterested in the fact there is no credible opposition. Most of the population is interested in exploiting new opportunities/safeguarding their wealth. I acknowledge that Western sources could be missing a lot. 3. The Chinese diplomatic efforts are likely to effectively exploit the imminent U.S. pivot to a more isolationist posture. The TPP (despite its many warts, including unconscionable IP/legal rules) was the primary vehicle for countering Chinese trade efforts. I think we can expect to see more effective diplomacy in the realm of trade from China in the coming years. Already inroads are being made in the Philippines.

gozur88 10y ago

There's no reason for the US to bring the conflict to the military arena. China's economy is heavily dependent on the US and Europe. The average Zhang San is not going to appreciate losing his job and the government knows it.