Avoiding a U.S.-China War (Must Read!!!)

This month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that by 2020, 60 percent of the U.S. Navy will be deployed in the Pacific. Last November, in Australia, President Obama announced the establishment of a U.S. military base in that country, and threw down an ideological gauntlet to China with his statement that the United States will “continue to speak candidly to Beijing about the importance of upholding international norms and respecting the universal human rights of the Chinese people.”

But if the United States were to commit itself to a military alliance with these countries against China, Washington would risk embroiling America in their territorial disputes. In the event of a military clash between Vietnam and China, Washington would be faced with the choice of either holding aloof and seeing its credibility as an ally destroyed, or fighting China.

Neither the United States nor China would “win” the resulting war outright, but they would certainly inflict catastrophic damage on each other and on the world economy. If the conflict escalated into a nuclear exchange, modern civilization would be wrecked. Even a prolonged period of military and strategic rivalry with an economically mighty China will gravely weaken America’s global position. Indeed, U.S. overstretch is already apparent — for example in Washington’s neglect of the crumbling states of Central America.

To avoid this, White’s suggested East Asian order would establish red lines that the United States and China would both agree not to cross — most notably a guarantee not to use force without the other’s permission, or in clear self-defense. Most sensitively of all, while China would have to renounce the use of force against Taiwan, Washington would most probably have to publicly commit itself to the reunification of Taiwan with China.

Avoiding a U.S. - China War

Recent ATS topics:

Chinese Media Issues Warning on US Military Shift

China Media Issues Warning on US Military Shift

China 'arrests high-level US spy' in Hong Kong - reports

China Arrest high-level US spy in Hong Kong

China will Decimate the US Naval Fleet

China will Decimate the US Naval Fleet

WWIII U.S.vs. China

WWIII U.S. vs. China

once the icbms are on their way, it's all over.

there is no magical missile air defence, the pentagon didn't even have a slingshot to shoot down the 9/11 plane.

but despite all the bravado, do you think the u.s. would trade the lives of everybody in new york, los angeles, dallas and chicago for taiwan.

or china trade all the citizens in beijing, including their own lives for taiwan. get real.

they'll never be a nuclear war, unless someone like hitler comes around and is only interested in seeing the destruction of mankind.

reply to post by randomname


Actually, with the Alaskan and Vandenberg missile defense sites, and the AGEIS cruisers that have a rudimentray ABM capability, I think the US could shoot down upwards of 20-30 ICBMs from China. It is estimated they have between 50 and 150 (some estimates are above 250, they aren't the Russians' as far as numbers, but they do have the capability) that could reach the US though. So.....I suppose it helps.....some

what would be the point of aegis missile cruisers and alaskan missile defences or drones or any of america's technology.

i would assume before any major conflict, china would send up a rocket or rockets with a team of chinese astronauts and start destroying all the american satellites it can find.

so while the war rages on earth, chinese astronauts will be wrecking havoc in space with no way to stop them.

rendering the entire u.s. arsenal ineffective. including sub launched icbms, drones and anything else that relies on gps satellite navigation.

on the other hand, the united states has no way to get into space, officially.

but i don't believe that. they retired the space shuttle for a reason, and it wasn't to hitch hike with russians to space.

I wonder what the "secret" space plane that was "lost" in space for over a year does? Or what did it do?

reply to post by randomname


Actually the ICBM force has internal inertia guidance. They don't NEED the satellites to fire them. And while not as effective, the DEW line can catch incoming missiles just a few minutes after satellites would.

Not saying losing some of our satellites wouldn't hurt, but they CAN operate with out them.

Anything that these two can agree on is a great start, the idea of a red line makes a lot of sense and provides a clear boundary. As for where this line actually goes will be a tough debate and might have some pink areas as national boarders and influence is a constantly changing and dynamic thing. Also how these two relate globally will be tough as they both have a strong international presence. Having clear demarcations for military no go zones unless invited will help limit some of those whoops and problematic situations.

We haven't got a say in it at all. TPTB are now driving NATO and the UN,Obama wants a globalist policy to move forward like any good socialist would want.To make us like Europeans.
That means we have to be militarily defeated which all the draw downs are doing nicely.
The economy was disabled we can't afford to fight so the NWO will have the military to control to go after the people once the armed forces are sufficently stocked with appropriately self absorbed individuals who couldn't care less about honor or US sovereignty.
Right now we are still traditionally motivated.But they have to disarm the US populace before they do that.So first WW III, then hit the US, then the rest of the world will have little choice without a strong world power but to follow the UNs mandates.
China isn't strong enough so they intend to put us into the middle east with Syria and Iran to bog us down then China will get agressive in the pacific.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


That's about the best and most accurate sum up of the current/future situation I have ever seen. Star!

I couldn't see any war going on between the two. Just way too much trade. How would the US stock there walmarts? The trade gives china jobs and an economy. The goods give the US all the consumerism they crave. It's a win win. If anything they might work together to take over more of the middle east to get all the oil as they both need oil big time.

reply to post by cavtrooper7

I'm confused. UN was founded in 1945 after WWII and US is the major contributor. Why would UN mandate the activities? Who exactly are the TPTB that people keep mentioning? Nobody really has a clear picture or definition. Is it members of UN or Individuals?

The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II (1939–1945). Because of the widespread recognition that humankind could not afford a third world war, the United Nations was established to replace the flawed League of Nations in 1945 in order to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939.]UN

LINK

The US and China are completely co-dependent on each other. There's nothing to gain for one to war with the other. Either way, it's biting the hand that feeds you. Such a war would END the global economy as we know it.

For starters, there would be a mad rush by China to conquer oil producing nations. The US has it's hands more tied due to not wanting to tick off allies, but China would be rolling over the Middle East like gangbusters to secure oil fields. China would be cranking out war materiel like crazy. It'd be less technological, but sheer numbers would be massive. The big challenge, and the US's saving grace...it's geographic isolation from the rest of the civilized world. Any attempt to build or send carriers would result in being a massive target for US stealth forces. China would first have to be content to take over Asia.

This would mean a resort to missile attacks on the US. It'd be interesting to see where Europe goes in this. They either side with their allies, the US (likely initially, especially if their interests in the middle east are threatened), but may switch as China gains momentum on the continent.

there is no magical missile air defence, the pentagon didn't even have a slingshot to shoot down the 9/11 plane.

Apples and oranges. How can you compare the hidden hijacking of a plane to a launch detection of an ICBM? Combating the two require COMPLETELY different logistics and intelligence. Still, I'd agree that I wouldn't put much faith in our ability to shield from a nuclear strike, no matter what stage it may or may not exist in, and I'd rather NOT put that faith to the test.