4 ms·

It blows my mind that the US keeps treating China, its biggest trade partner, as an enemy. There is no way that China would ever initiate a war against the US.

It blows my mind that the US keeps treating China, its biggest trade partner, as an enemy. There is no way that China would ever initiate a war against the US. It feels like, if anything, this insistence on treating China as an enemy increases risk for the US.

trynumber9 3y ago
The assumption is that they will initiate a real war against Taiwan at some point. The result of that assumption is to prepare by slowly phasing out trade where possible rather than waiting for it all to happen at once when they do invade.
- QuarterReptile 3y ago
  And the result of that preparation is that both sides are less entangled with one another and thus (theoretically) more ready to be at war with one another. Anyway, the chain of who-started-it doesn't have a first link. There is no value-free way to assess it all..
  - TinkersW 3y ago
    Repeatedly implying you will attack Taiwan is a pretty clear first link.
    - olalonde 3y ago
      Taiwan isn't a US state as far as I know. The US doesn't even recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.
      - throwaway626 3y ago
        The US has a clear interest in preventing reunification with the mainland, regardless of the island’s legal status.
      - QuarterReptile 3y ago
        It's true, the US sold Taiwan down the river to drive a wedge between USSR and PRC, then spent decades telling ourselves that PRC would become a nice, (post-Christian) liberal democracy if they just became rich enough. That didn't happen.
derefr 3y ago
China would never directly initiate a war against the US; China’s long-term goals have nothing to do with militarily weakening the US, and are rather more focused on a global hegemony achieved by economically cornering emerging markets. However, there are a number of actions China could take against countries other than the US, where the US would either feel obligated to initiate war against China in response; or where US voters might demand the US go to war against China in response. (And Chinese military analysts are very aware of all of these, drawing big red lines around these parts of strategy-space. Though they're also always re-measuring where these lines land — American public sentiment can waver such that today's "unforgivable" action might be tomorrow's "barely tolerable" action.) There are also a number of actions China could take against its own citizens, that could "require" the initiation of war against them according to various treaties signed by the US, or even according to "international customary law." Re: the Genocide Convention: > Importantly, the Convention establishes on State Parties the obligation to take measures to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide, including by enacting relevant legislation and punishing perpetrators, “whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” (Article IV). That obligation, in addition to the prohibition not to commit genocide, have been considered as norms of international customary law and therefore, binding on all States, whether or not they have ratified the Genocide Convention. (I.e. a country being clearly labelable as actively committing genocide, historically has been, and continues to be, justification for the initiation of a world war where all previously-neutral countries ally together to invade and stop them from doing this.)
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  > (I.e. a country being clearly labelable as actively committing genocide, historically has been, and continues to be, justification for the initiation of a world war where all previously-neutral countries ally together to invade and stop them from doing this.) They are a nuclear armed state (since the 60s) with launch vehicles and submarines, nobody is going to go to war with them over their own domestic crimes. A land war in Asia against a nuclear armed emerging superpower with a good percentage of the world’s population is practically suicidal. International customary law only matter if you have the firepower to back it up.
dmvdoug 3y ago
Look at the latest iteration of Army doctrine. It says it’s meant to refocus us on being able to fight peer or near-peer nations. It’s very clearly targeted at China alone.
bluGill 3y ago
15 years ago I would have agreed with you. However with XI in power and the way he is turning the country I no longer can agree. XI isn't stupid - he won't start a war tomorrow - but he is building up both the military power needed to start a war in 10 years, and the international political climate to make that less harmful to China if he does. Only time will tell of course, but right now I'm cautious about China as they may be willing to bite their trade partners in the future.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
The thing that blows my mind is that you're blaming the US for the situation. Google China's behavior in the South China Sea to get an idea of the problem. Or it using trade as retaliation against Australia, Lithuania and others. The list goes on from there. Trade with China has always thought to be a democratising force, instead US has funded is country that is aggressively arming itself against it and becoming a threat to a civil rules based international order. Your 'no way' sounds pretty naive when the evidence points to China walking the path to exactly that. They have stated in not so many words that they will invade Taiwan, and walk right up to that line on a daily basis, and when that happens China will be at war with the US and the west generally.
- QuarterReptile 3y ago
  >The thing that blows my mind is that you're blaming the US for the situation OTOH, the US should be blamed, since we backed the communists past KMT to victory in the civil war... Play stupid games and so on.

trynumber9 3y ago

The assumption is that they will initiate a real war against Taiwan at some point. The result of that assumption is to prepare by slowly phasing out trade where possible rather than waiting for it all to happen at once when they do invade.

QuarterReptile 3y ago
And the result of that preparation is that both sides are less entangled with one another and thus (theoretically) more ready to be at war with one another. Anyway, the chain of who-started-it doesn't have a first link. There is no value-free way to assess it all..
- TinkersW 3y ago
  Repeatedly implying you will attack Taiwan is a pretty clear first link.
  - olalonde 3y ago
    Taiwan isn't a US state as far as I know. The US doesn't even recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.
    - throwaway626 3y ago
      The US has a clear interest in preventing reunification with the mainland, regardless of the island’s legal status.
    - QuarterReptile 3y ago
      It's true, the US sold Taiwan down the river to drive a wedge between USSR and PRC, then spent decades telling ourselves that PRC would become a nice, (post-Christian) liberal democracy if they just became rich enough. That didn't happen.

derefr 3y ago

China would never directly initiate a war against the US; China’s long-term goals have nothing to do with militarily weakening the US, and are rather more focused on a global hegemony achieved by economically cornering emerging markets. However, there are a number of actions China could take against countries other than the US, where the US would either feel obligated to initiate war against China in response; or where US voters might demand the US go to war against China in response. (And Chinese military analysts are very aware of all of these, drawing big red lines around these parts of strategy-space. Though they're also always re-measuring where these lines land — American public sentiment can waver such that today's "unforgivable" action might be tomorrow's "barely tolerable" action.) There are also a number of actions China could take against its own citizens, that could "require" the initiation of war against them according to various treaties signed by the US, or even according to "international customary law." Re: the Genocide Convention: > Importantly, the Convention establishes on State Parties the obligation to take measures to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide, including by enacting relevant legislation and punishing perpetrators, “whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” (Article IV). That obligation, in addition to the prohibition not to commit genocide, have been considered as norms of international customary law and therefore, binding on all States, whether or not they have ratified the Genocide Convention. (I.e. a country being clearly labelable as actively committing genocide, historically has been, and continues to be, justification for the initiation of a world war where all previously-neutral countries ally together to invade and stop them from doing this.)

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
> (I.e. a country being clearly labelable as actively committing genocide, historically has been, and continues to be, justification for the initiation of a world war where all previously-neutral countries ally together to invade and stop them from doing this.) They are a nuclear armed state (since the 60s) with launch vehicles and submarines, nobody is going to go to war with them over their own domestic crimes. A land war in Asia against a nuclear armed emerging superpower with a good percentage of the world’s population is practically suicidal. International customary law only matter if you have the firepower to back it up.

dmvdoug 3y ago

Look at the latest iteration of Army doctrine. It says it’s meant to refocus us on being able to fight peer or near-peer nations. It’s very clearly targeted at China alone.

bluGill 3y ago

15 years ago I would have agreed with you. However with XI in power and the way he is turning the country I no longer can agree. XI isn't stupid - he won't start a war tomorrow - but he is building up both the military power needed to start a war in 10 years, and the international political climate to make that less harmful to China if he does. Only time will tell of course, but right now I'm cautious about China as they may be willing to bite their trade partners in the future.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

The thing that blows my mind is that you're blaming the US for the situation. Google China's behavior in the South China Sea to get an idea of the problem. Or it using trade as retaliation against Australia, Lithuania and others. The list goes on from there. Trade with China has always thought to be a democratising force, instead US has funded is country that is aggressively arming itself against it and becoming a threat to a civil rules based international order. Your 'no way' sounds pretty naive when the evidence points to China walking the path to exactly that. They have stated in not so many words that they will invade Taiwan, and walk right up to that line on a daily basis, and when that happens China will be at war with the US and the west generally.

QuarterReptile 3y ago
>The thing that blows my mind is that you're blaming the US for the situation OTOH, the US should be blamed, since we backed the communists past KMT to victory in the civil war... Play stupid games and so on.