7 ms·

China is likely to be our major rival (and God forbid, possible adversary) and they're arming quickly.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine. On the last 60 years, China don't tend to get involved in international conflicts either. Vietnam, Tibet, Korea - that's about it.
- rayiner 7y ago
  It’s only recently that China had had the economic power to challenge the US in the international stage.
  - azinman2 7y ago
    And it's making such statements with the artificial islands that they're building, the increasing military spending, the stealing of military secrets by hacking subcontractors, demonstrating their anti-sat missiles, etc. And that's just military. With their new one belt, one road initiative, they're trying to split the world into countries that use all Chinese tech w/Chinese standards, trading with china to build infrastructure by Chinese laborers.
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      The US has done more or less the same.
      - azinman2 7y ago
        Is this whataboutism? I don't understand your point. The GP said "I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine."
        kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        The point is that the populist alarmism over China is the same as 1984 sheeple being told who to hate by BB. The US has a few dozen military bases outside US territory but somehow China making moves to expand its influence over its economic sphere is a matter of grave concern. So much of the anti-China rhetoric is the same as the anti-Japan rhetoric from 30 years ago. It's mostly veiled racism and a search for an enemy to hate to solidify the domestic group identity.
      - adventured 7y ago
        > The US has done more or less the same. Far less in fact. The US hasn't done most of those things. Which artificial islands did the US build in eg the Gulf of Mexico to steal all of Mexico's gulf territorial waters? It didn't. Instead, the US has maintained a fair split of the gulf with Mexico, despite being a superpower that could take it all anytime it wants to. The US could take most of the water territory in the Caribbean if it wanted to, any time it wanted to. Where are the vast number of examples of the US getting its military tech directly - via hacking - from cloning it from the USSR, Russia, Britain, Germany and France. Is that where the US got the F22, by stealing it from Russia? Is that where the US got the B2, by stealing it from France? Is that where the US got its 20 year lead in drone tech (eg Global Hawk 25 years ago), by stealing it all from Germany? Or how about the innovations in carrier technology over decades, that was stolen from which country, Spain? Italy? Japan? None of that happened. When did the US send a large army of labor into Africa to extract resources there? It didn't. What the US has done for Africa, is push hundreds of billions of dollars in aid into the continent and save millions of lives with programs like PEPFAR. And its cure (thanks Pharmasset) for Hepatitis C will save millions more over time (see: Egypt).
        rayiner 7y ago
        The fact that you're being down-voted for offering a fact-laden response to a glib and fact-free swipe at the U.S. is ... disconcerting.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Instead of building islands they bought, leased, and bullied their way to airbases and islands across the world post WW2. Geography meant building was not necessary. Hacking? Not sure, there was certainly significant US commercial spying in the early post-war years. They licensed many military techs and broke the terms of licensing, often providing nothing whatsoever in return. Just one example: The Miles M54 and Power Jet's engines, which after very little time and development became the Bell X-1. None at all of the promised data and tech was provided in return. There are others, sometimes by even more dubious means.
    - lambdasquirrel 7y ago
      If you were the leader of a country that would find itself in the crosshairs of another that was quite aggressive in the world stage, starting wars unilaterally, what would you do? If a particular fickle leader were to block the Strait of Malacca, what do you think would happen to China's economy? See this is the problem with adventurism and brinksmanship. It forces people to do whatever it takes, just as due diligence.
      - azinman2 7y ago
        China's ambition is not purely reactionary. If that were the case, then all countries would be acting similarly.
        vkou 7y ago
        If there were Chinese military bases in Vancouver, Havana, and all across Mexico, with docking rights in Halifax, the United States would not be acting all that much differently from how China is acting today. Actually, now that I think of it, it would probably act by loudly contemplating the possibility of regime change in its neighbors.
      - lacampbell 7y ago
        If you were the leader of a country that would find itself in the crosshairs of another that was quite aggressive in the world stage, starting wars unilaterally, what would you do? I would probably try and cosy up to my immediate neighbours, not antagonise them.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- SkyMarshal 7y ago
  China does not have much of an expansionist history, but the Communist Party does. CCP has only controlled China for 70yrs, during which time China lacked the ability to get involved in international conflicts beyond its own borders. As it becomes a great power it clearly has an agenda of extracting raw materials in Africa, selling manufactured goods across Eurasia and the rest of the world, and linking the supply chain from Africa <-> China <-> Europe more closely. It will likely guard those interests with force once it's able to. Same as the US. Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
  - MockObject 7y ago
    > Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. Exactly the opposite. If I don't like America doing it, I like even less China doing it.
kemiller2002 7y ago
What is really scary is the question about how prepared they need to be. Seriously, how many parts come from China? Everyone talks about how they "might" have put kill switches in our hardware etc., but it's a really scary thought we might go to war with them and that this is true. IIRC Clinton made the change allowing U.S. contractors to get military parts from foreign nations which means they've had 20+ years to infiltrate our equipment. If all they need to do is flip a switch to disable significant portions of the fleet, that puts the U.S. at a severe (understated) disadvantage. Their sabotage doesn't even have to be something major to cause real problems either.
liability 7y ago
Even if the USN decisively won a war with China, the likely outcome would for all practical intents and purposes still resemble a loss. The cost of war between two nuclear super powers is so high that anybody who suggests trying to win one shouldn't be taken seriously.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Just the loss of Chinese production would be an enormous hit to the economy, no need for nuclear weapons even.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  France was Germany's largest trading partner before the Great War. The cost was immense, but that didn't stop the war. The Nazis had a great alliance with the Communists in the USSR, but that did not stop them from committing suicide by attacking the USSR. Parties like the CCP that have no concern for human rights tend to get the countries they control into trajectories that unavoidably lead to conflict. Even countries that, logically speaking, would be much better as allies, or at least cooperating.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- munificent 7y ago
  Every war since the Industrial Age began is a loss for the world in terms of cost. Spending money to make things that blow up other things you spent money to make, often with people inside, is a clear net negative for humanity. The goal of war today is never to "win" in some sense that we should be happy of. It's just to have less massive destruction than the other guy.

I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine. On the last 60 years, China don't tend to get involved in international conflicts either. Vietnam, Tibet, Korea - that's about it.

rayiner 7y ago
It’s only recently that China had had the economic power to challenge the US in the international stage.
- azinman2 7y ago
  And it's making such statements with the artificial islands that they're building, the increasing military spending, the stealing of military secrets by hacking subcontractors, demonstrating their anti-sat missiles, etc. And that's just military. With their new one belt, one road initiative, they're trying to split the world into countries that use all Chinese tech w/Chinese standards, trading with china to build infrastructure by Chinese laborers.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    The US has done more or less the same.
    - azinman2 7y ago
      Is this whataboutism? I don't understand your point. The GP said "I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine."
      - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
        The point is that the populist alarmism over China is the same as 1984 sheeple being told who to hate by BB. The US has a few dozen military bases outside US territory but somehow China making moves to expand its influence over its economic sphere is a matter of grave concern. So much of the anti-China rhetoric is the same as the anti-Japan rhetoric from 30 years ago. It's mostly veiled racism and a search for an enemy to hate to solidify the domestic group identity.
    - adventured 7y ago
      > The US has done more or less the same. Far less in fact. The US hasn't done most of those things. Which artificial islands did the US build in eg the Gulf of Mexico to steal all of Mexico's gulf territorial waters? It didn't. Instead, the US has maintained a fair split of the gulf with Mexico, despite being a superpower that could take it all anytime it wants to. The US could take most of the water territory in the Caribbean if it wanted to, any time it wanted to. Where are the vast number of examples of the US getting its military tech directly - via hacking - from cloning it from the USSR, Russia, Britain, Germany and France. Is that where the US got the F22, by stealing it from Russia? Is that where the US got the B2, by stealing it from France? Is that where the US got its 20 year lead in drone tech (eg Global Hawk 25 years ago), by stealing it all from Germany? Or how about the innovations in carrier technology over decades, that was stolen from which country, Spain? Italy? Japan? None of that happened. When did the US send a large army of labor into Africa to extract resources there? It didn't. What the US has done for Africa, is push hundreds of billions of dollars in aid into the continent and save millions of lives with programs like PEPFAR. And its cure (thanks Pharmasset) for Hepatitis C will save millions more over time (see: Egypt).
      - rayiner 7y ago
        The fact that you're being down-voted for offering a fact-laden response to a glib and fact-free swipe at the U.S. is ... disconcerting.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Instead of building islands they bought, leased, and bullied their way to airbases and islands across the world post WW2. Geography meant building was not necessary. Hacking? Not sure, there was certainly significant US commercial spying in the early post-war years. They licensed many military techs and broke the terms of licensing, often providing nothing whatsoever in return. Just one example: The Miles M54 and Power Jet's engines, which after very little time and development became the Bell X-1. None at all of the promised data and tech was provided in return. There are others, sometimes by even more dubious means.
  - lambdasquirrel 7y ago
    If you were the leader of a country that would find itself in the crosshairs of another that was quite aggressive in the world stage, starting wars unilaterally, what would you do? If a particular fickle leader were to block the Strait of Malacca, what do you think would happen to China's economy? See this is the problem with adventurism and brinksmanship. It forces people to do whatever it takes, just as due diligence.
    - azinman2 7y ago
      China's ambition is not purely reactionary. If that were the case, then all countries would be acting similarly.
      - vkou 7y ago
        If there were Chinese military bases in Vancouver, Havana, and all across Mexico, with docking rights in Halifax, the United States would not be acting all that much differently from how China is acting today. Actually, now that I think of it, it would probably act by loudly contemplating the possibility of regime change in its neighbors.
    - lacampbell 7y ago
      If you were the leader of a country that would find itself in the crosshairs of another that was quite aggressive in the world stage, starting wars unilaterally, what would you do? I would probably try and cosy up to my immediate neighbours, not antagonise them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SkyMarshal 7y ago
China does not have much of an expansionist history, but the Communist Party does. CCP has only controlled China for 70yrs, during which time China lacked the ability to get involved in international conflicts beyond its own borders. As it becomes a great power it clearly has an agenda of extracting raw materials in Africa, selling manufactured goods across Eurasia and the rest of the world, and linking the supply chain from Africa <-> China <-> Europe more closely. It will likely guard those interests with force once it's able to. Same as the US. Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
- MockObject 7y ago
  > Hard to complain when we've been doing it for 50+ yrs. Exactly the opposite. If I don't like America doing it, I like even less China doing it.

kemiller2002 7y ago

What is really scary is the question about how prepared they need to be. Seriously, how many parts come from China? Everyone talks about how they "might" have put kill switches in our hardware etc., but it's a really scary thought we might go to war with them and that this is true. IIRC Clinton made the change allowing U.S. contractors to get military parts from foreign nations which means they've had 20+ years to infiltrate our equipment. If all they need to do is flip a switch to disable significant portions of the fleet, that puts the U.S. at a severe (understated) disadvantage. Their sabotage doesn't even have to be something major to cause real problems either.

liability 7y ago

Even if the USN decisively won a war with China, the likely outcome would for all practical intents and purposes still resemble a loss. The cost of war between two nuclear super powers is so high that anybody who suggests trying to win one shouldn't be taken seriously.

Mirioron 7y ago
Just the loss of Chinese production would be an enormous hit to the economy, no need for nuclear weapons even.
tomohawk 7y ago
France was Germany's largest trading partner before the Great War. The cost was immense, but that didn't stop the war. The Nazis had a great alliance with the Communists in the USSR, but that did not stop them from committing suicide by attacking the USSR. Parties like the CCP that have no concern for human rights tend to get the countries they control into trajectories that unavoidably lead to conflict. Even countries that, logically speaking, would be much better as allies, or at least cooperating.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
munificent 7y ago
Every war since the Industrial Age began is a loss for the world in terms of cost. Spending money to make things that blow up other things you spent money to make, often with people inside, is a clear net negative for humanity. The goal of war today is never to "win" in some sense that we should be happy of. It's just to have less massive destruction than the other guy.