6 ms·

This seems like a dangerous opportunity for a China-U.S. confrontation.

by epall 16y ago

alexgartrell 16y ago
I think it'd take a lot more than a trillion bucks to make China and the US get into any kind of bullets and bombs dispute. A war with China would cost a LOT more than a trillion bucks. If China underbids us and we're unable to leverage state power or anything of that nature, I'm sure we'll just lick our wounds and give up. Anything else would be really, really stupid.
- baguasquirrel 16y ago
  Nations, like people, make stupid mistakes sometimes. Look at the defining wars of the previous century.
sdurkin 16y ago
Interesting you should mention this. Chinese mining companies have been quietly performing exploratory studies in the north for the past few years. It was the Chinese activity that actually tipped us off that there could be significant copper and lithium deposits. The Afghan people have repelled every major imperial power including Alexander the Great, the Persian Saffavids, Ghengis Khan, the Moghul Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the United Soviet Socialist Republics. As a result, Afghanistan is one of the last remaining pieces of land on the planet that has never been properly surveyed, mapped, or mined. The ground is untouched. The nation borders China, which has an almost insatiable appetite for minerals. The United States has over one hundred thousand troops present. It is a recipe for a disaster of the highest order.
- rikthevik 16y ago
  Here we go, folks! Afghanistan, your smoking craters are about to get a lot bigger and a lot smokier.
- alexgartrell 16y ago
  Don't you feel like Mutually Assured Destruction rules out a war between China and everyone else? The worst thing that could happen would be Chinese aid to Taliban fighters, or equivalent. China is not going to roll tanks against NATO, because everyone is making waaayyyyy too much money trading with everyone else. It is a member of the WTO and is the world's second largest trading power behind the US with a total international trade of US$2.21 trillion – US$1.20 trillion in exports (#1) and US$1.01 trillion in imports (#2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Republic_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Republic_of_China There's just way too much to lose over a trillion bucks (especially since they have 1.6 trillion in US Securities)
  - angstrom 16y ago
    More like "Welcome to the G21" for Afghanistan. This could give them the initial footing needed to reestablish their economy.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      Reestablish? This would provide enough economic input into the country over the next 5 decades that it could easily establish its own culture into one modelled on the UAE. Dubai is a prime example of a cash-cow city that is now predominantly self-sustaining its countries economy without complete dependency on the regions natural resources. From the minerals described, it would actually give Afghanistan the potential to be a haven for technology manufacture, which can easily be stepped into full out tech-based economy.
      - jarek 16y ago
        Dubai self-sustaining would be quite the news to Abu Dhabi.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    With China and the US MAD applies to virtually any movement. Traditional warfare is out of the question, nuclear weapons are so prevalent in their armed forces that it would quite literally be a world ending conflict (at least from the non-aquatic species over view, as even a minor nuclear conflict is considered capable of seriously disrupting modern civilization). However non-traditional warfare like the Cold War is similarly completely out of the question. The Cold War dragged on for so long because the USA and USSR were economically independent of each other, they both had mega-quantities of resources and production in their respective regions of control. They couldn't fight outright, but they had enough resources to supply everyone else to do the fighting. Yet the US-Chinese economies are so intrinsically connected that a war would cause immediate trade embargoes between the countries and would cause an all-out collapse of the respective economies. US desperately relies on Chinese manufacturing for everything from what we wipe our arses with to our knives, computers and even a large part of our ship production (civilian and military production both reside squarely within China's region of control). Similarly China relies wholly on US and European dollars to even have a sustainable economy. We're not talking $1 trillion in cold hard cash likes some uber-lottery, we're talking a likely payout over the next 50-100+ years. It would be more advantageous for China and the US to team up to extract the resources than to even think about arguing over them.
- pasbesoin 16y ago
  I need to read the parent article, but IIRC, the Chinese recently closed a multi-billion dollar deal for a copper mine in Afghanistan. Just one of many projects they are pursuing. I wonder how much of the U.S.'s war expenses are going to more or less clear the way for Chinese commercial (/state) interests. But I'm not privy to the inside information needed for an informed analysis. And from another perspective, the war's been fought with money borrowed from China (directly or indirectly), so maybe in a way they're just getting what they paid for (except, the U.S. is still on the hook for repayment).
  - sdurkin 16y ago
    Excellent points. Knowing the probable future of actions of the Chinese, there's a strategy the United States can play here. The brief is this: 1. The most dangerous threat to the United States is not the continued rise of China. 2 .The most dangerous threats to American security are non-state actors, particularly terrorist and insurgent networks. 3. It is only a matter of time before these non-state actors develop or steal a nuclear device. 4. The most powerful and organized non-state actors are terrorist networks in Islamic regions. 5.These networks currently target the United States, our dependent nations in Europe, and our outpost in Israel. 6. These networks cannot be destroyed using existing United States and allied intelligence assets. 7. Therefore, the logical alternative is to retarget Islamic anger against a rival nation. 8. Islamic anger is stoked primarily by the United States military presence in the Near East and Central Asia. 9. The United States military positions in this region are overextended and unsustainable. 10. Military actors tend to follow commercial interests. 11. Therefor, the proper strategy is for the United States to execute a controlled retreat to fallback positions within these regions, while simultaneously encouraging Chinese investment. As we stand down, the Chinese will rush to fill the breach. We can continue to hold the non-negotiable assets in the Near East, while allowing China to take Central Asia. Simultaneously, the United States launches a concerted psyops campaign across the Muslim world portraying Chinese atrocities against their Islamic subjects in Xinjiang. The end result is that Muslim anger is partially redirected against China, thus lessening the danger to United States interests, and giving the People's Republic a strong incentive to join us as equal partners in the fight against global terrorism.
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
Perhaps, but I think China is alot more low-heat than other (former) industrialized communist countries. They'd much rather tap Africa's copper and lithium mines with no strife or conflict than try to work with the resurgent Taliban. They figure, let the US quell the beast, then go in and make deals with whatever Afghani government is in power at the moment the US leaves. China doesn't nation-build, it makes deals; which makes it a bit of an aloof superpower.
- adbge 16y ago
  You bring up a good point. China would never dare a direct confrontation with NATO (or even the US) because of mutually assured destruction. Instead we could potentially see a China-backed Taliban. The Taliban (on the world stage) is relatively innocuous currently compared to what they could become if they had the backing of China. Of course, aiding an unstable militant group would be risky but, if there's enough money involved, it could happen. (It's not like the CIA hasn't tried the same thing numerous times in the past.) I think worst case scenario is that we could see a completely Taliban-operated Afghanistan that is heavily backed by China, enough so that China has a controlling interest (so to speak) in Afghanistan's affairs. If Afghanistan were to become a pseudo-vassal state, we could see a US backed Iraq or Israel come into some kind of confrontation with the state, although at that scale we get back to problems presented by nuclear war.

This seems like a dangerous opportunity for a China-U.S. confrontation.

by epall 16y ago

This seems like a dangerous opportunity for a China-U.S. confrontation.

I think it'd take a lot more than a trillion bucks to make China and the US get into any kind of bullets and bombs dispute. A war with China would cost a LOT more than a trillion bucks. If China underbids us and we're unable to leverage state power or anything of that nature, I'm sure we'll just lick our wounds and give up. Anything else would be really, really stupid.

baguasquirrel 16y ago
Nations, like people, make stupid mistakes sometimes. Look at the defining wars of the previous century.

sdurkin 16y ago

Interesting you should mention this. Chinese mining companies have been quietly performing exploratory studies in the north for the past few years. It was the Chinese activity that actually tipped us off that there could be significant copper and lithium deposits. The Afghan people have repelled every major imperial power including Alexander the Great, the Persian Saffavids, Ghengis Khan, the Moghul Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the United Soviet Socialist Republics. As a result, Afghanistan is one of the last remaining pieces of land on the planet that has never been properly surveyed, mapped, or mined. The ground is untouched. The nation borders China, which has an almost insatiable appetite for minerals. The United States has over one hundred thousand troops present. It is a recipe for a disaster of the highest order.

rikthevik 16y ago
Here we go, folks! Afghanistan, your smoking craters are about to get a lot bigger and a lot smokier.
alexgartrell 16y ago
Don't you feel like Mutually Assured Destruction rules out a war between China and everyone else? The worst thing that could happen would be Chinese aid to Taliban fighters, or equivalent. China is not going to roll tanks against NATO, because everyone is making waaayyyyy too much money trading with everyone else. It is a member of the WTO and is the world's second largest trading power behind the US with a total international trade of US$2.21 trillion – US$1.20 trillion in exports (#1) and US$1.01 trillion in imports (#2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Republic_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Republic_of_China There's just way too much to lose over a trillion bucks (especially since they have 1.6 trillion in US Securities)
- angstrom 16y ago
  More like "Welcome to the G21" for Afghanistan. This could give them the initial footing needed to reestablish their economy.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Reestablish? This would provide enough economic input into the country over the next 5 decades that it could easily establish its own culture into one modelled on the UAE. Dubai is a prime example of a cash-cow city that is now predominantly self-sustaining its countries economy without complete dependency on the regions natural resources. From the minerals described, it would actually give Afghanistan the potential to be a haven for technology manufacture, which can easily be stepped into full out tech-based economy.
    - jarek 16y ago
      Dubai self-sustaining would be quite the news to Abu Dhabi.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  With China and the US MAD applies to virtually any movement. Traditional warfare is out of the question, nuclear weapons are so prevalent in their armed forces that it would quite literally be a world ending conflict (at least from the non-aquatic species over view, as even a minor nuclear conflict is considered capable of seriously disrupting modern civilization). However non-traditional warfare like the Cold War is similarly completely out of the question. The Cold War dragged on for so long because the USA and USSR were economically independent of each other, they both had mega-quantities of resources and production in their respective regions of control. They couldn't fight outright, but they had enough resources to supply everyone else to do the fighting. Yet the US-Chinese economies are so intrinsically connected that a war would cause immediate trade embargoes between the countries and would cause an all-out collapse of the respective economies. US desperately relies on Chinese manufacturing for everything from what we wipe our arses with to our knives, computers and even a large part of our ship production (civilian and military production both reside squarely within China's region of control). Similarly China relies wholly on US and European dollars to even have a sustainable economy. We're not talking $1 trillion in cold hard cash likes some uber-lottery, we're talking a likely payout over the next 50-100+ years. It would be more advantageous for China and the US to team up to extract the resources than to even think about arguing over them.
pasbesoin 16y ago
I need to read the parent article, but IIRC, the Chinese recently closed a multi-billion dollar deal for a copper mine in Afghanistan. Just one of many projects they are pursuing. I wonder how much of the U.S.'s war expenses are going to more or less clear the way for Chinese commercial (/state) interests. But I'm not privy to the inside information needed for an informed analysis. And from another perspective, the war's been fought with money borrowed from China (directly or indirectly), so maybe in a way they're just getting what they paid for (except, the U.S. is still on the hook for repayment).
- sdurkin 16y ago
  Excellent points. Knowing the probable future of actions of the Chinese, there's a strategy the United States can play here. The brief is this: 1. The most dangerous threat to the United States is not the continued rise of China. 2 .The most dangerous threats to American security are non-state actors, particularly terrorist and insurgent networks. 3. It is only a matter of time before these non-state actors develop or steal a nuclear device. 4. The most powerful and organized non-state actors are terrorist networks in Islamic regions. 5.These networks currently target the United States, our dependent nations in Europe, and our outpost in Israel. 6. These networks cannot be destroyed using existing United States and allied intelligence assets. 7. Therefore, the logical alternative is to retarget Islamic anger against a rival nation. 8. Islamic anger is stoked primarily by the United States military presence in the Near East and Central Asia. 9. The United States military positions in this region are overextended and unsustainable. 10. Military actors tend to follow commercial interests. 11. Therefor, the proper strategy is for the United States to execute a controlled retreat to fallback positions within these regions, while simultaneously encouraging Chinese investment. As we stand down, the Chinese will rush to fill the breach. We can continue to hold the non-negotiable assets in the Near East, while allowing China to take Central Asia. Simultaneously, the United States launches a concerted psyops campaign across the Muslim world portraying Chinese atrocities against their Islamic subjects in Xinjiang. The end result is that Muslim anger is partially redirected against China, thus lessening the danger to United States interests, and giving the People's Republic a strong incentive to join us as equal partners in the fight against global terrorism.

muhfuhkuh 16y ago

Perhaps, but I think China is alot more low-heat than other (former) industrialized communist countries. They'd much rather tap Africa's copper and lithium mines with no strife or conflict than try to work with the resurgent Taliban. They figure, let the US quell the beast, then go in and make deals with whatever Afghani government is in power at the moment the US leaves. China doesn't nation-build, it makes deals; which makes it a bit of an aloof superpower.

adbge 16y ago
You bring up a good point. China would never dare a direct confrontation with NATO (or even the US) because of mutually assured destruction. Instead we could potentially see a China-backed Taliban. The Taliban (on the world stage) is relatively innocuous currently compared to what they could become if they had the backing of China. Of course, aiding an unstable militant group would be risky but, if there's enough money involved, it could happen. (It's not like the CIA hasn't tried the same thing numerous times in the past.) I think worst case scenario is that we could see a completely Taliban-operated Afghanistan that is heavily backed by China, enough so that China has a controlling interest (so to speak) in Afghanistan's affairs. If Afghanistan were to become a pseudo-vassal state, we could see a US backed Iraq or Israel come into some kind of confrontation with the state, although at that scale we get back to problems presented by nuclear war.