How we would fight China

Wow, that was a LONG, but great read. Very interesting to say the least, we're certainly in for some important events/decisions in the near future! The only thing I think the article could have had more information on was Russia's involvement, I think they will be much more aggressive when things heat up.

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


Russia's currently involved in a government (aka Putin & Co.) vs Oligarchs war. This internal strive will keep 'em busy for a good while. Russia will focus on former Soviet nations rather than anything else...like the Ukraine.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I respectfully disagree, yes they are going to have intense internal struggles but if they feel threatened they will not back down as it is still a part of their problems. Take the U.S. Missile Shield for example, they're not going to sit quietly without the legal guarantees in place and that's just ONE area that could lead to immense uncertainty. Counting Russia out, in my opinion, is just silly, especially with all those nukes. Plus, if their internal problems worsen, the risk of those nukes getting in the wrong hands increases.

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I respectfully disagree, yes they are going to have intense internal struggles but if they feel threatened they will not back down as it is still a part of their problems. Take the U.S. Missile Shield for example, they're not going to sit quietly without the legal guarantees in place and that's just ONE area that could lead to immense uncertainty. Counting Russia out, in my opinion, is just silly, especially with all those nukes. Plus, if their internal problems worsen, the risk of those nukes getting in the wrong hands increases.

I'm not counting them out when China goes up against the US, it's just highly unlikely that we get to this stage anyway given the stakes involved. That war would be horrible and serve no purpose, and for that reason alone it's kinda pointless to think about Russia.

And as I said, Russia's got enough on its plate as it is with all the internal issues...so at least for the moment, they're no real threat.

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.

What about Tibet? Or the Korean War? Or their conflicts with Vietnam? Or skirmishes with India and the USSR? And thats only since WW2 ended

reply to post by MrXYZ

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.

That's not true, IMO.

Several catastrophes have happened during the last ten years, with several super-powers, and none of them suffered any real aftershock. Political and emotional? Yes. But not economical. From Japan to Katrina, several events made a dent in the economy, and the only thing to learn from that is that the economy always bounces back, as long as the people don't die.

The matter of fact is that China wouldn't pull off, even in a World War, and even if it did, and a WW3 happened, there are other ways of getting secured.

For instance, during the time before the US joined into WW2, Japan was going through several sanctions. They didn't have any oil, nor other supplies they needed. Yet, they were a serious enemy against the US during WW2. I'm saying this so you can see with this example, how countries work around hard times.

Most of the things we would "lose" today are luxuries. Most our countries would continue to function.

We are talking about war, but if a metheor would hit China... What? The world would go belly up just because China has bigger problems on their own?

Trade is trade. Living is living. We can't fall under the illusion that we are "so different" from the past. We aren't. 5000 years ago the Chinese had ships the size of modern Aircraft Carriers and provably found the Americas before Colombo, yet, they went through a period that had phases like WW2, where China was nearly a joke to a country like Japan.

Like I said, I do agree with your conclusions. It would be bad, it would get bad pretty quick and everyone would suffer (and some even more than what they think they will suffer), but it wouldn't be the end. IMO

Regards

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ

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.

What about Tibet? Or the Korean War? Or their conflicts with Vietnam? Or skirmishes with India and the USSR? And thats only since WW2 ended

Compared to the US they are sheep when it comes to imperialism. At least when it comes to wars...

However, they figured something out: Economic power is more important than military power. Look at the MASSIVE land grabs China's taking part in now. They own huuuuuge chunks of Australia and Africa.

If you want to build in some African countries for example, and China says "no", you won't be building anything. That's how they get access to precious resources and farm land. They don't even need military power to do that, just economic prowess. So far, they're are waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the curve. You might believe the US also fights wars for resources, and yes, the wars in the Middle East might have given them temporary access to some oil wells. However, if they keep on going with full force and the military to secure those resources, the people there will hate them (which is exactly what's happening). China on the other hand simply brings money to those countries, uses no force, and supports the whole thing with a few infrastructure project promises. They're much more appreciated because of it, and it's easier for them to expand their power in a sustainable way.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ

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.

What about Tibet? Or the Korean War? Or their conflicts with Vietnam? Or skirmishes with India and the USSR? And thats only since WW2 ended

Compared to the US they are sheep when it comes to imperialism. At least when it comes to wars...

However, they figured something out: Economic power is more important than military power. Look at the MASSIVE land grabs China's taking part in now. They own huuuuuge chunks of Australia and Africa.

If you want to build in some African countries for example, and China says "no", you won't be building anything. That's how they get access to precious resources and farm land. They don't even need military power to do that, just economic prowess. So far, they're are waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the curve. You might believe the US also fights wars for resources, and yes, the wars in the Middle East might have given them temporary access to some oil wells. However, if they keep on going with full force and the military to secure those resources, the people there will hate them (which is exactly what's happening). China on the other hand simply brings money to those countries, uses no force, and supports the whole thing with a few infrastructure project promises. They're much more appreciated because of it, and it's easier for them to expand their power in a sustainable way.

Only because they haven't had the military power to compete with the US or Russia. Regarding China's economic power, to imply that its completely harmless and beneficial to local populations is wrong. They are happy to deal with dictators, sell arms, populate and enforce their rules harshly

reply to post by MrXYZ

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

Actually, that's not true at all. The US had a major stock exchange crash years before, and was still struggling to get back on it's feet, it was ramping up, but it wasn't all that good. The US was back then pretty much worst than what it is now.

And other countries weren't that bad. USSR was emerging, since Stalines brutal policy were actually working (not for the good of the people, but at least it generated state's wealth and resources), the UK wasn't all that bad itself with major deals coming out of WW1.

The worst country in all that area was pretty much Germany, who had socialists and nationalists bringing it's industry back together. And let's not forget to mention what Hitler did for the industry complex. People often forget that without WW2 Nazi mistakes like invading Russia, we could be speaking German now. Lets just say "thanks" for Hitler being strategically dumb.

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.

I didn't mean it in a way that the US manufactures it's own money (although its partially true). I mean it like the US military and basic US functions wouldn't have any problems to continue to function on a effective level. The same way the US didn't die belly up during the 1929 Crash.

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

Economy is money, and if you can generate money, you have an economy. The US wouldn't stop having and producing money (not as a bill, but as a value) because China would leave them.

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.

See? You are starting to get it.

More expensive national alternatives means that the money goes into US companies, which make more money inside the US who will get back down to the lower layers of society. Nationalism was what brought Germany into Super-power status after WW1, for very good reasons.

You are assuming that the economy only happens with bonds and such. It doesn't. Stocks and bonds represent the REAL economy (purchase, exports and imports). During a major conflict, the REAL economy matters, not stock markets.

That's why there are "war time policy" and "war time measures" and special powers. It's war.

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.

A debt is only a debt as long there is someone collecting it. The funny thing about wars, especially world wars, is that special measures come into place.

Don't forget that the US economy boomed and geared up during the aftershock of the big crash of 1929. You had CEO's begging for food from night to day.

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

Actually, it is. It means you have real production, real jobs and real products, selling them for real. War is a great wealth generator, and the more people jumping in, the more the economic boom.

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...

Since when cheap stores are good? They kill small businesses and fair trading. Walmart brings PRODUCTS from OUTSIDE the US, meaning, the US citizens spend their money on people that live outside the US, meaning, no tax revenue to the US, meaning, less profit inside the US.

Bring back local business and people will EXCHANGE money inside the US, making more money in the process.

I think you have some very wrong economic misconceptions of all this.

Wanted to add aditional info to the original article, remember that China sides with Iran and Pakistan in any military conflict. Additionaly the Chinese are preparing for conflict with the US working with the Russians.

How we would fight China - (please read entire article)
www.theatlantic.com...

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

US expands Guam base
www.mathaba.net...

US to move base on Okinawa not close
www.nytimes.com...

Chinese President prepares PRC Navy for war with US Navy
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.asianews.it...

Russian leaders tell top generals "prepare for armageddon"
www.thetotalcollapse.com...
www.eutimes.net...

Russia and China warn against Iran Strike
www.dailymail.co.uk...

China warns US of stike on Pakistan
www.nationalguard.com...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
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.

I fully agree with this statement.

This is the inevitable result of economic globalization; the inter-relations between countries. In some ways it also acts as a deterrant against drastic action, because countries must weigh their options instead of just going all out. But you are right... if there was a serious war between major competing nations then globalization would backstep into more nationalistic economics, thus the most "globalized" nations would be the most affected.

In an actual war.
China would get stomped.
On intelligence, technology.

The USA is just superior all over when it comes to military power.
The Chinese have 1980s technology man, you guys cannot be serious.

Also the USA wouldn't have to pay China back if its at war..how dumb is that

Originally posted by Duceis
In an actual war.
China would get stomped.
On intelligence, technology.

The USA is just superior all over when it comes to military power.
The Chinese have 1980s technology man, you guys cannot be serious.

Also the USA wouldn't have to pay China back if its at war..how dumb is that

The only thing that your "advanced technology" acheives are exponentially higher costs to maintain than "1980s technology". China would stomp your logistics and your forces will not be able to sustain their war effort.

And you think the US has far superior intelligence to the Chinese? Don't forget where the US military gets a lot of its parts for its equipment.

reply to post by Duceis


USA could have stomped China in the 50's to 90's.But no longer. Do you know that several defence components are made in China.REE processing is in china and REE's are very critical for US military.

______________________

I'm disgusted with the tptb using our kids as cannon fodder.
Why is it that u.s. just can't get along instead of propping up a
falling economy by feeding a war machine ? u.s. has become
the new ss Nazi's wanting to take over the world and falsely believing
that war will solve their problems. Enough already !
u.s needs to normal out.

Where's Ron Paul, you need him.

______________________

___________________________

Originally posted by Starchild23
it's a simple matter of drop-in bioweaponry. Poison their water
supply, poison their crops...

To the rest of the globe, it's statements as yours
that confirms u.s. is the planets main problem.
The planet would be better off without such a poisoned
mentality.

______________________________

The following is the actual text of a speech delivered in December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian ­the Vice-Chairman of China's Military Commission to top officers and generals............................"Comrades, I'm very excited today, because the large-scale online survey sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party's cause will be carried on. In answering the question, "Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war," more than 80 per cent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations.

Today I'd like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time, during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands [Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands and the Spratley Islands --- Ott] and mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of 'peace and development' had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China's next phase.

You have already lost the 'next war' with China - because you didn't even realise it was occurring, besides - it is all NWO now and their policy seems to be to collapse the US, whether they give it to China ot the Mexicans remains to be seen.

www.rense.com...

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
___________________________

Originally posted by Starchild23
it's a simple matter of drop-in bioweaponry. Poison their water
supply, poison their crops...

To the rest of the globe, it's statements as yours
that confirms u.s. is the planets main problem.
The planet would be better off without such a poisoned
mentality.

______________________________

edit on 25/1/12 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

I agree. I honestly don't understand why some Americans think they are the only country with weapons of mass destruction, and that if they used them on their adversary that the adversary wouldn't strike back.

And the most ironic thing is that when it comes to the US, I would have to say that China is one of its main infiltrators (along with Russian and Israeli agents). The Chinese aren't stupid, nor are they weak. Case in point: they are only interested in regional objectives, not global domination like the US. Their objectives are far more tangible, acheivable, and defendable.

Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China".

Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein,

British military commander of World War II, victor of El Alamein.

Incidentally Rule 1 was "Do not march on Moscow"

Well for starters, how about sending a crack team in to hide their chopsticks?