War on Terror now passe - China the Real Threat

Lieing is an Asian Art.
'Western' Governments lean over backward to avoid telling bare faced porkies in public.
In the Orient it is accepted as a fact of life that bare face lies are told, every one does it, it is considered normal. On a personal level it is what 'Westerners' know as 'White lies' to avoid upsetiing friends but at government level Bare face howlers are normal.
I have always said on this board that China's biggest problems are internal not an external threath. Revolts are a Chinese way of life and it has led to the Chinese colonization of surrounding terratories.
john
Gold ya know it's the answer, unless ya sum jock enameled B who can't drive and probably has never been out of the cuntry, in the real world.
 

expat_71

War Hero
China is also getting a lot of help from the french in s.e.asian states.
French State owned companys i.e techneape are putting pressure on small sub contractors to give half their awarded work to Chinese State owned companys.
Euro super power my arrse.
 
Looks like the 'strategic dilemma' concept might take effect here then. China tries to feel more secure by doing things that makes others, principally the US, feel insecure so they respond in ways which make the Chinese feel insecure etc.

Easy to get worried; sensible to get worried. Timothy Garton Ash's book 'Free World' makes a good case for inclusion and trade to turn potential enemies into friends but I wonder if he's not a little unrealistic. Such a stance requires statesmanship of the sort we seldom, if ever, see today where the electoral cycle makes really long-term direction and commitment hard in the US (plus, as has already been pointed out, they have the vested interests of the military-industrial complex to scare-monger). Me? I'm worried.

Given Chinese energy interests in Africa and Latin America surely some sort of blue water navy will take to the seas? If Brazil can boast an aircraft carrier don't the Chinese have/plan them?
 
AndyPipkin said:
dan_man said:
Perhaps it will turn in the Cold War MK2, imagine it being stationed in Japan.... the BFG of the modern day perhaps could be BFJ?

As a small island off Europe with strictly limited power projection capabilities, the UK would be well advised to stand well clear of any future US/China confrontation. There's practically nothing we could do to influence the outcome but trying to do so may precipitate an extra hot portion of stir-fry courtesy of Beijing, if you catch my drift...

Of course there's nothing we could do...

There's not enough bullets for starters! And the only way we could get enough bullets is to have them made in China, which would raise a few suspicions wouldn't it?

"Hello Mr Ping? We need some more bullets please. Oh about 10 trillion I reckon... None of your fcuking business mate!" slam phone down.
 
LankyPullThrough said:
Looks like the 'strategic dilemma' concept might take effect here then. China tries to feel more secure by doing things that makes others, principally the US, feel insecure so they respond in ways which make the Chinese feel insecure etc.

Easy to get worried; sensible to get worried. Timothy Garton Ash's book 'Free World' makes a good case for inclusion and trade to turn potential enemies into friends but I wonder if he's not a little unrealistic. Such a stance requires statesmanship of the sort we seldom, if ever, see today where the electoral cycle makes really long-term direction and commitment hard in the US (plus, as has already been pointed out, they have the vested interests of the military-industrial complex to scare-monger). Me? I'm worried.

Given Chinese energy interests in Africa and Latin America surely some sort of blue water navy will take to the seas? If Brazil can boast an aircraft carrier don't the Chinese have/plan them?

As I pointed out above, TGA is fundamentally wrong. Countries that have nothing to do with each other have nothing to fall out about. Countries that have a lot to do with each other can easily fall out.

Politicians come and go in the USA but long-term grand strategy remains surprisingly constant. The over-arching aim of US grand strategy has for at least 100 years been to prevent the emergence of a dominant power on the Eurasian landmass which would have enough resources to threaten the US itself.

From the Chinese viewpoint, the sensible thing to do would be to invest (as the first article suggests) in sea-denial capability such as subs and long-range bombers, rather than a blue-water surface fleet which would provide easy targets for the USN. However, I'd expect China to built some large surface ships for prestige purposes.
 

.Dolly

War Hero
AndyPipkin said:
.Dolly, if the Chinese chap was a citizen of a country other than the PRC and worked for a western firm then I'd be inclined to take him seriously. But if he was from China itself...

Read this:

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/113025.php

Interesting article Andy, thanks.

The guy was definitely PRC so indoctrination and propoganda were mentioned over the Chateau Neuf Du Pape but it was still quite an astonishing display of nationalism and barely veiled projection of world domination. It got some of us quite rattled anyway...... (or was that 'ratted'... hmm I can't remember! :D )
 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
AndyPipkin said:
Pteranadon said:
This is the latest pitch by the US military for lots more conventional high tech toys. Counter insurgency is too messy and there isnlt anything much for the airforce and navy to do.

The chinese would be stark starting bonkers to take on the US in a conventional or nuclear war.

However they OWN the US. If they stop buying US debt at their current rate then the US economy goes down the toilet.

If the US economy goes down the toilet then the Chinese economy goes down very soon after it.

Which illustrates rthe fallacy of the arguiment. These are very interlinked economies and it would be in neither's interest to go to war. So But would the US go to war if the Chinese seized Taiwan? ;)
 
I'm somewhat dubious as to whether or not a "blockade" would require the USN to approach Chinese waters. I'd imagine that fair bit of economic damage could be done at the "far end" of the shipping operation.

Although I've a notion that it's probably a moot point anyway.
 
Pteranadon said:
AndyPipkin said:
Pteranadon said:
This is the latest pitch by the US military for lots more conventional high tech toys. Counter insurgency is too messy and there isnlt anything much for the airforce and navy to do.

The chinese would be stark starting bonkers to take on the US in a conventional or nuclear war.

However they OWN the US. If they stop buying US debt at their current rate then the US economy goes down the toilet.

If the US economy goes down the toilet then the Chinese economy goes down very soon after it.

Which illustrates rthe fallacy of the arguiment. These are very interlinked economies and it would be in neither's interest to go to war. So But would the US go to war if the Chinese seized Taiwan? ;)

Who was Germany's major trading partner at the beginning of both the first and second world wars?

Answers on a postcard please...
 
Pteranadon asks
"But would the US go to war if the Chinese seized Taiwan?"
Pre King George II, er YES, now, er DOUBTS IT.
John
 
Am finding this very interesting...

Andy P: I wonder how consistent US grand strategy has been. Take inter-war isolationism and then Roosevelt's difficulties in getting the US engaged against Germany until Hitler made it easy for him by declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor. A bipartisan foreign policy consensus emerged over Europe by 1947 and Asia by 1950 but, post-Johnson, there was not really the same sort of agreement about what to do in areas outside of Europe was there?

Isn't there a chance of China and the US clashing in areas pretty far-flung for each of them? With China getting interested in markets, materials and energy in Africa and Latin America won't they see they a need for some sort of strategic power projection? If not aircraft/commando type carriers will they need heavy-lift air?

Also, roaming further afield geopolitically won't China have to factor in the chance of clashes with regional players as well as/instead of the US? While they might write-off the ability to match the US at sea might they not see a possible need to match AN Other who might not be backed directly by the US? VERY hypothetically...Brazil? Nigeria? Even if they 'only' want to engage in gunboat diplomacy it's hard to do that without gunboats?

If there are problems with engagement, i.e. things to argue about, aren't there dangers in the opposite? I'm thinking over post-1929 Japan when their leadership seem genuinely to believe that it was a choice of war or starvation. People you shun can prove as difficult as people you befriend. A China that feels itself excluded from markets, worried about the domestic consequences of slowing economic growth etc etc.

Re. Japan. Jonwilly: why so worried about Japan? I'm not taking ssue, just interested to know...
 
Japan has never truey bleived it was in the wrong over their actions in WW II. Japan has few natural resourses, China is naturally rich by comparison.
The jap is by nature a believer in his Natural supremacy, zero PC in Japan and their daily treatment of overseas workers is a disgrace to all but the Japanese.
The Japanese are a hard working and foward looking race, their navy is perhaps second only to the USA, RN included. Their "Army" is well trained and equipped also could be expanded with ease. They have a 'Space' program and nucs would be a matter of months not years if they decide they need them.
No politician can renounce the symbolism of the 'Yakasuky' (spelling) Shrine.
To me they are just biding there time. They do not have the internal problems of China which one day will rip China apart with massive unrest of the downtrotten workers, a feature of China throughout recorded history.
john
Oh and PS
The jap is basically militaristic ya Chinaman is a bussinesman.
 
LankyPullThrough said:
Am finding this very interesting...

Andy P: I wonder how consistent US grand strategy has been. Take inter-war isolationism and then Roosevelt's difficulties in getting the US engaged against Germany until Hitler made it easy for him by declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor. A bipartisan foreign policy consensus emerged over Europe by 1947 and Asia by 1950 but, post-Johnson, there was not really the same sort of agreement about what to do in areas outside of Europe was there?

Isn't there a chance of China and the US clashing in areas pretty far-flung for each of them? With China getting interested in markets, materials and energy in Africa and Latin America won't they see they a need for some sort of strategic power projection? If not aircraft/commando type carriers will they need heavy-lift air?

Also, roaming further afield geopolitically won't China have to factor in the chance of clashes with regional players as well as/instead of the US? While they might write-off the ability to match the US at sea might they not see a possible need to match AN Other who might not be backed directly by the US? VERY hypothetically...Brazil? Nigeria? Even if they 'only' want to engage in gunboat diplomacy it's hard to do that without gunboats?

If there are problems with engagement, i.e. things to argue about, aren't there dangers in the opposite? I'm thinking over post-1929 Japan when their leadership seem genuinely to believe that it was a choice of war or starvation. People you shun can prove as difficult as people you befriend. A China that feels itself excluded from markets, worried about the domestic consequences of slowing economic growth etc etc.

Re. Japan. Jonwilly: why so worried about Japan? I'm not taking ssue, just interested to know...

Interseting points. I'd expect the USA and PRC competition for resources will result in 'proxy wars' worldwide of the type common in the Cold War, with each side backing different nations/factions but not directly facing each other. Not sure China will clash with extra-regional powers but likely to clash with Japan and India over resources. As Japan will be backed by the US, not much China can do to match them, but certainly I would think China would want to match the increasingly powerful Indian fleet as India is the one regional power China is likely to conflict with with doesn't have guaranteed US help. Recently there were rumours of China setting up a naval base in Pakistan.

Re 'shunning' - yes, but you have to be engaged before you can be shunned, I'd have thought.





US grand strategy has at least been consistent since 1950
 
While overall there may have been some consistent US foreign policy aims after 1950 (in a word, containment) I still think you can overestimate the amount and underestimate the impact of the electoral cycle and key players in the policy-making game. I would argue NSC-68 gave the appearance of greater unanimity and consistency in grand strategy than there actually was. 'Appearance' as, in its failure to distinguish between vital and peripheral interests, it steered away from what Kennan had been driving at (argument courtesy of John Lewis Gaddis).

The US seems to have confused Stalin by seeming to imply that Korea wasn't vital to a US defence posture in Asia, encouraging the Kremlin's nod to Kim Il Sung to rock on south of the 38th paralell. After that, apparently everything was vital then you can track a straight line to Vietnam. The Nixon Doctrine and Kissinger seem to have gone back to thinking some areas were peripheral (e.g. 1970s Angola: enough aid to keep the fighting going, not enough to win).

The Carter Doctrine then put oil and the Middle East higher up the strategic agenda. The Reagan Doctrine could be seen as a return to a 1950-68 outlook.

I have racked my mind for the source (but as it was 15 years ago I studied it can't remember it) but there is a theory called the 'Generational Paradigm' that sees US foreign policy moving in what you might call an 'intercourse pattern' of willingness to engage in direct military intervention overseas - in, out; in, out.

Some aims may have been consistent since 1950 but I am not always sure means or willingness have.

AndyP: not trying to be disputatious, just trying to advance the argument. Interesting stuff about India! Didn't the old USSR support India to China's Pakistan? Maybe the Chinese are the consistent ones....
 
jonwilly: nearly forgot my manners, thank you for elaborating. Persuasive stuff. I am also in Thailand, finishing a three year stint at the end of this month, and have found it interesting to see the Japanese in this neck of the woods. Am struck how often some of them will be polite to each other but not to any other bugger. That attitude, writ large for the nation as a whole, would not bode well.
 
The jap in Thighland.
My first memory was in early 80s, Wat Prha Keao, No Photograph allowed of the Emerald Buddha, I entred a guard pointed to my camera and then to a notice Forbidding Photograph. I smiled he smiled and I placed my camera away. A tour party of japs followed, the guard ignored them, waited till one produced his camera let him shoot away then walked up snatched the camera opened and ripped out the film.
Always remember they where the only folk to have national Jap only, clubs down Patpong 3.
Strangely an elderly Japanese couple live in next Condo to me, always ultra polite.
john
Just found this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2217518,00.html

Most disturbing, Japan threatened, remember what happened last time.
 
Bad memories die hard and I guess the Japanese left a lot of bad memories. There is a very large Japanese community in Sao Paulo Brazil. I was told it was the largest such outside of Japan itself, running to its third generation. When there I heard, from a Chinese who had seen it, of weekend punch-ups between groups of Japanese extraction youths and Korean ones, all based on Korean family experiences of Japanese occupation. The Koreans were occupied by Japan from 1910 so had far lengthier experience of life under the imperial Japanese jungle boot than other Asian societies.

If this sort of national hostility is still lurking, cold economic winds and intensified geopolitical competition may make a dangerous brew. After all, the Chinese themselves had a bad time from the Japanese in manchuria from 1931 and on a wider scale after 1937.
All helps me feel a bit better about leaving Asia...
 

Latest Threads

Top