It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How we would fight China

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I want to make people aware of the overall plan for a US Pacific Rim Alliance to counter The Peoples Republic, this is not a speculative plan, it has been in place for a long time. The news latley has provided a glimpse into this stratagy, it is many years old and is really starting to take shape openly.
I want to put this out to let people have an oppertunity to see that this isnt like Iraq, Afganistan, or the like, this is a very detailed and overarching plan that has taken years, say decades to put in place.
I invite you to read the links below and judge for yourself the plan, the article is very very large but indepth and quite the comprihensive piece well sourced and researched.

How we would fight China
www.theatlantic.com...
www.theatlantic.com...
www.theatlantic.com...
www.theatlantic.com...
www.theatlantic.com...

Some news related to the original article.

US to base troops in Australia
www.ft.com...

US expands Guam Base
www.mathaba.net...

US to move not close base on Okinawa
www.nytimes.com...
edit on 23-1-2012 by 1947flxible because: Spelling thats 11 of a million




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
From a Western selfish point of view, the removal of China as a superpower would increase our economic comfort for some time in the West. However that is not worth the human cost.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Meh..i think i'll wait and see how the US deals with the Middle-East situation before we get to the China question.

Looks like the S is about to HTF very soon in the Gulf, we will see where the US stands after that debacle.

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
China is not a military threat to the USA, or any country. Look at the long history of China, it isn't a people that are into conquest.

So there's no point in discussing how to win a war against China. If an all out war happened (0% chance) it would go nuclear anyway and both sides would lose. Yes, China has nukes.

Economically, China has the USA by the balls though.
edit on 23-1-2012 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
A war between China and the US would be disastrous for both sides...so I'm not sure why you posted this.

A war would result in:

1) The US not being able to finance themselves anymore...because do you honestly believe China will fund a war against itself?

2) China would lose one of their key trading partners who buys a ton of their stuff.

3) The US would suffer from massive price hikes as cheap Chinese goods won't be freely available anymore.

4) The US population (and China's) would suffer. Not only because of deaths, but also because the US almost can't afford those wars in the Middle East. And a war against China will be infinitely more expensive than fighting 25k Taliban (a lot less now). To fund that, especially in the absence of China buying US bonds, they would have to raise taxes massively and pretty much cut all government services drastically.

5) Oil price would explode. Guess what that does to the economy...you know, the economy that's already bleeding in a curb?

In short, a war against China is not only ridiculous, but also incredibly short sighted and silly.

Imo wars will often be economic wars in the future rather than regular battles on a field. The kind of war the US is currently waging against Europe for example. Europe's in a pretty #ty situation right now, but objectively, the US is off waaaaaaaaaaay worse. Of course they focus on highlighting European issues to deflect from their own. And when it comes to the economy, China could beat the US to a bloody pulp...and it's not even close. Try competing with Asian growth rates


As for the US being a military superpower...sure. But given that they failed miserably in the Middle East, and given that China's army is faaaaar larger than what they encountered there, it's safe to say that war wouldn't be a quick one. That is...unless they use nukes, in which case all sides lose.
edit on 23-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
China is not a military threat to the USA, or any country. Look at the long history of China, it isn't a people that are into conquest.


China alone may not be, but throw the Middle East and Russia into the mix and we may have a bit of a hard time.. Assuming nukes aren't traded like Pokemon cards. In which case my Australian friends might get a bit lonely.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by 1947flxible
 


I hope we all realize that for all of our military technology, China's manpower outnumbers us 2 to 1 at the very least...

In essence, you shoot one and two more pop up to carry the torch. The smartest thing would be to drop about four or five nukes on their country to strike their primary strength (population) a staggering blow. The initial blast would cripple their military bases, and the resultant radiation would decimate their forces.

After that, it's a simple matter of drop-in bioweaponry. Poison their water supply, poison their crops...

Yeah, if we had to, I'd bet a clever strategy would be all it took to destroy China as a superpower. However...if they decided to strike first...well, we all know how that goes (Pear Harbor). Then again, I heard we knew it was coming, we just couldn't do anything. Something about reaction time, or needing the attack to succeed in order to declare war.

I don't know. All I know is we could do it if we had to. We aren't a superpower for nothing...



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I am not commenting on the worthwhileness of the plan, just that it has been around for a long time and shed some light to it. As we all know it doesnt matter if a country poses a threat to us or not can you say Iraq, Libya and Afganistan.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 1947flxible
 


IMO a US/China war is not on the horizon as long as americans still buy their toxic junk.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1947flxible
I am not commenting on the worthwhileness of the plan, just that it has been around for a long time and shed some light to it. As we all know it doesnt matter if a country poses a threat to us or not can you say Iraq, Libya and Afganistan.


You can add Iran to the list. After all, the only reason the US is considering action is because whenever Israel says "jump!", the US asks "how high?". They're essentially Israel's lap dog


The only reason the US is going to war is to:

A) Make defence contractors who pay off politicians happy (Cheney!!).
B) Get access to resources.
C) Allow speculators to get paid off when they know in advance about war plans that increase the price of oil. The Koch brothers are a great example of that, and made most of their fortune since the war in the Middle East.

The official reasons:

A) Freedom.
B) Liberty.
C) Human rights.

Sometimes wishful thinking and reality are really far apart


Also, Bush used to criticize Russia for indefinite detentions and bogus trials...just look where the US is now. It's legal system is now on par with the Russian one thanks to Obama signing indefinite detention without trials into law. And the GOP is proposing child labour, so thanks to them, the US might soon be like China too.

I mean, why would Russia/China ever invade the US if the US is becoming just like them?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
China could defeat the US just by surrendering.

China...Here's 2 million prisoners of war..feed them....here's another 2 million..feed them.

The US...ok we give up.

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
China could defeat the US just by surrendering.

China...Here's 2 million prisoners of war..feed them....here's another 2 million..feed them.

The US...ok we give up.

Cosmic..


Or they could simply stop buying US government bonds while selling the old ones at any price. The war would be over in less than a week


Or they could forbid exports to the US, completely destroying the US economy in the process. After all, where do you think all those iPad parts come from


Economic power > military power (at least in the 21st century)

The above is a FACT, but something a lot of armchair patriots will have a hard time coming to terms with. It's the result of US politicians making their defence contractor lobbyist friends happy, spending more on military than the entire rest of the world combined every single year, instead of focusing on education and a strong economy.
edit on 23-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I know exactly why you posted this. Seems people are so tired of Chinese inferior junk laying around their homes do to ever decreasing employment offering it the only way to cope with budget. So China gets no respect. Thank YOU for this article. It has been a subject of mine for a while.
China has for a long long time been under the radar in more ways than one. While not making a spectacle of its self it has created a large formidable military machine. Its Navy Has become state of the art. Its Infantry has polish discipline and moral.

With regard to comparison to Russia lets not forget that Historically speaking Russian Military has the highest casualty rate due to its "Fight War By Attrition" Infantry style. They have lost more military human resources than anybody else in all wars they have ever fought.

Let us hope this test never comes about for more than the obvious reason. One being the US Military stopped training to fight the communist 10 years ago. Most of the fighting experience of our military has been Urban style and against antagonist not a real defined Military. China, if it comes to the test will be a very tuff customer on the field of battle.

I see a lot of replies to this topic of " US Military Might is so vast that no country can beat us." "With our secret abilities we would squash China, no I don't worry about that."
If the above two statements are true how is it that it took UN forces so long to win the battle of RAG TAG Libya. Why has it taken so much resource and US human lives to still not be victorious in Afghanistan.

United States Military has become complacent with respect to keeping the battle going so military contractors such as Halliburton and KBR owned by political figures can make Trillions of Dollars from the Effort of War.
Better hope this WAR never leaves the shelf of thought at the WAR COLLEGE.
edit on 23-1-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
China only has regional ambitions. The Eastasian region that China wants primacy of is one of three major regions that are contended for control of all of Eurasia. The US has bolstered its forces in Europe to deter any Russian expansion into Europe, and the US has spent the last decade conducting overt war and regime changes in the Middle East.

The US doesn't want to lose Eastasian primacy to China, because it would reverse a lot of American manipulation and control over countries like South Korea and Japan. This is why the US has some new strategy to counter China's regional ambitions.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
China only has regional ambitions. The Eastasian region that China wants primacy of is one of three major regions that are contended for control of all of Eurasia. The US has bolstered its forces in Europe to deter any Russian expansion into Europe, and the US has spent the last decade conducting overt war and regime changes in the Middle East.

The US doesn't want to lose Eastasian primacy to China, because it would reverse a lot of American manipulation and control over countries like South Korea and Japan. This is why the US has some new strategy to counter China's regional ambitions.


Well, if outright war is their "strategy", then it's a disastrous one for both sides...but probably worse for the US.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
China only has regional ambitions. The Eastasian region that China wants primacy of is one of three major regions that are contended for control of all of Eurasia. The US has bolstered its forces in Europe to deter any Russian expansion into Europe, and the US has spent the last decade conducting overt war and regime changes in the Middle East.

The US doesn't want to lose Eastasian primacy to China, because it would reverse a lot of American manipulation and control over countries like South Korea and Japan. This is why the US has some new strategy to counter China's regional ambitions.


Well, if outright war is their "strategy", then it's a disastrous one for both sides...but probably worse for the US.


It would be catastrophic for the US. The logistical and economic strain would crush it, along with its imperical ambitions elsewhere. And trust me, there's many other countries willing to fill in the voids that the US empire will leave behind (starting with EU, China, and Russia).



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


USA is ally to India..India/China border is likely to be the battle front. US interests with regard to making money haven't changed. Our soldiers will bravely go where they are told. Sorry to say some things never change. Human life sacrificed to Boarders, Economies and Religion are an Abomination that make any Land Desolate.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


People often have tremendous misconceptions about war, the war-machine, what motivates it and how it actually works.

It's often shocking (well, not so much anymore) how most people seem to simply be oblivious to recent History. History is the best teacher, not arrogance.


1) The US not being able to finance themselves anymore...because do you honestly believe China will fund a war against itself?


How would the US not being able to finance itself? The US already functions on it's own, and the US legislation and Constitution seem to keep it that way, with how the Federal Reserve and military complex function.

Furthermore, not only they can keep the military engine going, they actually have plans for "when everything fails". Literally, thousands of jets are scattered through deserts, ready to be re-activated to serve for combat, with only need for a pilot and ammunition.

And there is a huge detail that your forget to mention:

One of the weaknesses of the US is that it lost most of it's industry. The only industry that is left in the US is specialized industry, or production methods that have to be kept in "secrecy" (inside the US know-how only). And the reason for that to happen, is because the US actually "sent" most of it's industries and factories to China. You are right in the % that you say that China does own part of the US, but you see, they only own it as long the US doesn't have an industry...

And I'm sure it's not hard to figure out how fast and how many industries would kick-start again in the face of a World Conflict. It happened 2 times already in the past century.

People often seem to forget that the US industry in the 20's and 30's wasn't the monster it was during the 40's and 50's (before it would start loosing to outsourcing again). And I think I don't need to say what caused that build-up in industry, right? People do remember World War 2, right?


2) China would lose one of their key trading partners who buys a ton of their stuff.


Actually, you're wrong. China could simply change clients, and it's not even that hard. If China simply WANTS to supply raising nations instead of the US, they can simply keep the same cash flow of today. The US is a fine client, but it's not the only client. There's more than one way to make money. I find it quite amusing how Americans often seek security in aspects that aren't secure at all.

You see, the whole stock-markets crap only works if all nations involved are not at war with each-other.


3) The US would suffer from massive price hikes as cheap Chinese goods won't be freely available anymore.


Yes, for a brief period of time, but what you have today is CEO's filthy rich because of those goods, because they buy cheap and re-sell them to Americans for double the price (Apple being a good case of that).

In the end, and truthfully, if a World War would break out, and China is involved, that would actually force the US to make it's own products AGAIN. That would make the US (as a nation) filthy rich, instead of the CEO's or banks.


The US population (and China's) would suffer. Not only because of deaths, but also because the US almost can't afford those wars in the Middle East. And a war against China will be infinitely more expensive than fighting 25k Taliban (a lot less now). To fund that, especially in the absence of China buying US bonds, they would have to raise taxes massively and pretty much cut all government services drastically.


That's not true. Although you would have some sacrifices being made nationally, for the collective good of the nation, it wouldn't actually be that bad for the people who were not in combat.

The unemployed rate would drop really really fast, mostly due to the re-appearance of industry. Provably, fueled by the need for war, several other businesses would emerge all over the US. More people working and paying taxes = more money for the State.


5) Oil price would explode. Guess what that does to the economy...you know, the economy that's already bleeding in a curb?


Yes, correct. But during WW2 they weren't concerned over oil. They just had found a new source of power, called "nuclear power".

Maybe they have another secret project going on, like they had the Manhattan project, and there is a safety move behind the loss of oil. If we have to dream, at least make it in a good way.


As for the US being a military superpower...sure. But given that they failed miserably in the Middle East, and given that China's army is faaaaar larger than what they encountered there, it's safe to say that war wouldn't be a quick one. That is...unless they use nukes, in which case all sides lose.


Although we disagree with the methods and how it would unfold, I agree with your conclusions. China wouldn't be a sweet war ride...



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 





People often seem to forget that the US industry in the 20's and 30's wasn't the monster it was during the 40's and 50's (before it would start loosing to outsourcing again). And I think I don't need to say what caused that build-up in industry, right? People do remember World War 2, right?


What caused it was that most of the rest of the developed world was in shambles and destroyed. The US had a nice head start





How would the US not being able to finance itself? The US already functions on it's own, and the US legislation and Constitution seem to keep it that way, with how the Federal Reserve and military complex function.


No, the US doesn't function and finance itself...not even close. The only reason they could keep up was either economic booms (short term), foreign nations buying government bonds (mostly China as a %...and it would be a disaster if they stopped buying them), and by devaluing their own currency. I used to pay over 2 Swiss Francs per dollar...it's now less than one. Go figure


So no, the US isn't self-funding. They just have a really good credit line because the US$ is the world's reserve currency...but that won't last forever. Asia, Europe, and Russia are all putting a ton of pressure on the dollar being replaced in the medium term, so it will eventually happen. Last time this happened (to the Sterling btw), it devalued by over 80%!! Now that's something US citizens should be worried about.




Furthermore, not only they can keep the military engine going, they actually have plans for "when everything fails". Literally, thousands of jets are scattered through deserts, ready to be re-activated to serve for combat, with only need for a pilot and ammunition.


They could have a gazillion planes, it doesn't change the fact that it would completely destroy the US economy.




Actually, you're wrong. China could simply change clients, and it's not even that hard. If China simply WANTS to supply raising nations instead of the US, they can simply keep the same cash flow of today. The US is a fine client, but it's not the only client. There's more than one way to make money. I find it quite amusing how Americans often seek security in aspects that aren't secure at all. You see, the whole stock-markets crap only works if all nations involved are not at war with each-other.


China is already serving other clients alongside the US...so it's not something they would only start if the US isn't a viable client anymore. If a China vs US war ever happens, look at the stock price of Apple...it will tank because its base component imports will disappear and will have to be replaced by (A LOT) more expensive national alternatives.




Yes, for a brief period of time, but what you have today is CEO's filthy rich because of those goods, because they buy cheap and re-sell them to Americans for double the price (Apple being a good case of that). In the end, and truthfully, if a World War would break out, and China is involved, that would actually force the US to make it's own products AGAIN. That would make the US (as a nation) filthy rich, instead of the CEO's or banks.


That would require FUNDING. It's already close to impossible to get decent cheap enough funding as it is due to the economy...and given that the economy would tank even more during a war, it would be even harder to get funding to kickstart those industries.

What might happen is that war-related factories pop up...but that's not real sustainable economic growth, and not replacing the goods lost.




That's not true. Although you would have some sacrifices being made nationally, for the collective good of the nation, it wouldn't actually be that bad for the people who were not in combat.


Except all the cheap stores like Walmart serving the vast majority of the population would all go out of business to be replaced by more expensive national stores. They'd sell at prices the majority couldn't afford. And do you really think a major war with a country like China wouldn't affect its people given modern weapons? This isn't WW2, this would be an entirely different scale...




The unemployed rate would drop really really fast, mostly due to the re-appearance of industry. Provably, fueled by the need for war, several other businesses would emerge all over the US. More people working and paying taxes = more money for the State.


The only industries thriving would be the weapons lobby (like during WW2). Tourism would be pretty much dead, oil prices would spike and result in a massive increase in cost of doing business, and a ton of other industries would suffer so much....the "new" war-related business wouldn't make up for it.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


Forgot to mention: Saudi Arabia alone has so many investments in the US, if they pulled them out all at once, the US economy would enter a 3yr+ recession (not kidding either, you should read up on how much of NYC alone they own). Now consider that China's stake in the US is massively larger, and you realize that if they pulled out from one day to the other, you can kiss the US economy goodbye.

You can't compare WW2 (or even Vietnam) to today. The financial world and economies are now all waaaay more interlinked than before. On paper there's countries, but they're now so interconnected, if one large country (like the US during the current crisis) messes up, everyone suffers.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join