This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Game is Changing and the US is Now on the Defensive
Submitted by James Stafford of www.oilprice.com
The Game is Changing and the US is Now on the Defensive
The People’s Republic of China’s PLAN in the Indian and Pacific Oceans: The Game is Changing and the US is Now on the Defensive
Two warships of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) docked at a port in Myanmar on August 29, 2010, in the first publicized PLAN ship visit — but not the first actual PLAN visit — to Myanmar.
It was a move designed to help pre-position the PRC in its relations with Myanmar in the lead up to that country’s upcoming national elections. The move also ended two decades of discreet PRC approaches to its naval presence in the Indian Ocean. It also follows the open PLAN task force presence in anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa, and the now open commitment to use of the Pakistani Baluchistan port of Gwadar, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf.
Significantly, although the PRC maintains itself as both a heartland and maritime power, it is aware that the great challenge to break out from US global strategic dominance is essentially a maritime matter. Given economic and other realities, the US will be forced to rely increasingly on the US Navy — and particularly the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific and Indian Oceans — to project US influence.
But Washington is also working to bolster its strategic relations with the Republic of Korea, the ASEAN states as a whole, and India. The crunch for the US will be in finding the economic resources to boost the US Navy’s power projection advantages, particularly in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
An Australian analyst, Dr Joel Rathus, of Adelaide University and Japan’s Meiji University, has noted (in the East Asia Forum, August 28, 1010): “A re-alignment is steadily underway in East Asia. Increasingly, ASEAN (and Korea) are moving closer to the geographically distant US, while China is becoming more distant from its neighbors.”
He also said: “China has seen the US and ASEAN draw closer on issues of major interest, such as the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Clinton’s identification of this issue as a ‘pivot’ of regional security brings the United States back as a player after more than a decade of diplomatic passivity (to China’s notable discomfort).”
Building, or re-building, the US Navy in the Pacific and Indian Ocean to its earlier pre-eminence will not be easy for the US, despite the apparent numerical dominance which the USN has in the regions in terms of air and naval striking power.
To begin with, the PLAN has already deployed assets which severely inhibit the US Seventh Fleet: the Kilo- and Improved Kilo-class submarines, and other modern submarines, which can readily penetrate USN anti-submarine warfare (ASW) pickets around carrier battle groups; and the shipborne SS-N-22 Sunburn (P-270 Moskit or 3M-80/-80E) supersonic anti-ship missiles, against which there is as yet no adequate defense.
Now, Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the US Pacific Command, has confirmed during August 2010 discussions in Tokyo, that the PLA was “close to becoming operational” with its anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range (1,500 to 2,000 km) ballistic missile (also known as the DF-21).
The DF-21s have maneuverable warheads (MARVs: Maneuverable Re-Entry Vehicles), and the type has undergone testing. The yet-to-be-deployed DF-21D would, most US sources agree, be a game-changer in the Pacific, giving the PRC, not the US, control of the anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) high ground. The PRC is highly conscious of the fact that control of the seas is foreseeably being removed from the US.
All of this potentially makes the US-Republic of China (ROC: Taiwan) strategic relationship of greatly renewed importance, but the US has gone out of its way in recent years to downplay this, even to the point of supporting the ROC Army’s internal political lobbying to retain control of the ROC defense equation.
Right now, some 80 percent of the ROC’s defense spending goes to the Army, which reflects the original “continental army” approach which the ROC had when it left the mainland and was positioning itself to return. That situation no longer prevails: the ROC is now an island, maritime power, which relies on sea transport for some 99 percent of its raw materials.
Despite this, the US — and even the US Naval War College analysts — have gone out of their way to promote a so-called “porcupine strategy” for the ROC, by which it would rely on the Army to repel a PRC invasion. Now, however, the US needs the ROC to develop its maritime and air power resources, which have long been neglected.
Mark Helprin, writing in The Wall Street Journal on August 15, 2010, noted that “If present military trends continue, the correlation of forces will shift much more to Beijing's advantage within the next decade.” He continued:
“Lurking about the presidency in the guise of secretary of state, America's chief diplomat has embarked upon a mistake that someday may rival Dean Acheson's exclusion of Korea from the Pacific defense area, or April Glaspie's muddled words to Saddam Hussein.
At a regional meeting in Hanoi in late July, Hillary Clinton unveiled an initiative the effect of which is an attempt to forge a defensive alliance along the maritime perimeter, with nations such as Vietnam and the Philippines. Like her predecessor Acheson, Mrs. Clinton seems averse or blind to military analysis. Her inevitably stillborn South China Sea initiative is showy diplomacy that may lead either to a military clash with China or, more likely, a ratification of China's aims as the United States lets its implied guarantees die on the vine.
China's assertions in regard to the potentially oil rich and strategically important South China Sea are consistent, clear, and patently absurd. Based upon the questionable ownership of uninhabited rocks and shoals, some which do not rise above water and others roughly the size of a Volkswagen, it claims an area almost as large as the Caribbean Basin and as far as 1,800 miles from its nearest shoreline.
In linking America's national interests to those of the coastal states thus insulted, Mrs. Clinton's recent comments are commendable but insufficiently backed. China above all is sensitive to "paper-tigerism" and ready to challenge it, especially in regard to its essential interests and where the balance of applicable power is swinging in its favor. A naval battle in which China has the upper hand? Do we not have the most powerful military in the world?
We do, but strategic appraisal must not be one-dimensional. Although decisive to some, that this country spends more on defense than the next 14 countries combined is irrelevant to things such as the scope of its commitments, personnel costs, the willingness or reticence of allies, purchasing power parity, force structure, asymmetrical advantage and disadvantage, domestic politics, strategical genius, its absence, and many other factors including not least geography.
China fought us to a draw in Korea more than half a century ago. In Vietnam we stayed our hand for fear of drawing it into the battle, when its primitive navy was not even a tenth the size of ours, it had no nuclear weapons that could threaten us, and the Western Pacific was an American lake with a necklace of massive military installations now largely abandoned and an alliance structure we are at present trying to rebuild with words. Whittled down by successive administrations, the big stick now turns on the Obama lathe as it is pressed against the Gates knife. If present trends merely continue, in five or 10 years, when the U.S. will have to decide whether to challenge China's claims or acquiesce, the correlation of forces will have shifted much more to China's advantage. “
The PRC’s anti-fleet capabilities are not the only concern which the US must face in the region. The Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile is already deployed with the Indian fleet and the new BrahMos Block II — which is capable of more complex trajectory and maneuver — has now (as of September 5, 2010) been successfully tested. These various missiles, deployed by the PRC and India, have yet to see successful countermeasures deployed by the US Navy.
At present, the US has pursued an aggressive strategic campaign to provide strategic partnership to India, but in reality India cannot afford to abandon its relationship with Russia, even though New Delhi is aware that it must move its relationship with Russia to a new parity, abandoning the old Cold War paternalism with which Moscow treated India.
Moreover, India, while seeing accord with the US on dealing with the PRC, has its own strategic agenda to follow in the Indian Ocean, and this, too, is not necessarily in total accord with the objectives of Washington.
Source: http://www.globalintelligencereport.com/articles/The-Peoples-Republic-of-Chinas-PLAN-in-the-Indian-and-Pacific-Oceans-The-Game-is-Changing-and-the-US-is-Now-on-the-Defensive
Analysis by www.GlobalIntelligenceReport.com Staff.
For Breaking Geopolitical Intelligence, economic forecasting, trends and World News visit the Global Intelligence Report.
»
- 8716 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"Mrs. Clinton seems averse or blind to military analysis."
talk about a weak point
your armchair military anlaysis. you are stupid. a hater. the generals love her stance. go back to camel fucking
No worries...she's planning a listening tour of China.
This article is missing something important:
China is currently building a major, direct hydrocarbon supply pipeline, between the Myanmar offshore fields and southern China provinces.
Guess which large country hasn't got any access to this hydrocarbon supply, thanks to a long-standing economic embargo strategy? Myanmar is full of Chinese, Korean, Malaysian and possibly others drilling for oil. The only western company operating there is Total, and they are having a hard time back home, politically, about that business unit.
In the meanwhile, China diverts attention with a few vessels in a place where there is very little maritime activity (ever heard of the Bangladesh, Myanmar or Thai navy?)...
China also has direct access to oil along its "official" western border with central Asia. Now, to get rid of those pesky muslims and buddhists who are in the way . . .
Recall, if you will, that Laura Bush started to get real interested in Myanmar during W's 2nd term. Of course, Myanmar's position in the Golden Triangle of drug production may bear some of the cause of such interest.
Recall still, when that deadly cyclone hit, that US warships were ready to come to their aid? Ever wonder how the US manages to have some warship really close to these great natural disasters?
"the US will be forced to rely increasingly on the US Navy — and particularly the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific and Indian Oceans — to project US influence."
Maybe the government should stop projecting "influence" and focus on not screwing its economy into the ground?
Is it really a great achievement to waste trillions of dollars on murdering a million people that never fired a shot, when 1/8th of your people are on food stamps?
That's obvious but would require complete cognitive dissonance for 90% of the population. Taking the Red pill is too painful.
Our present military maneuvers are a direct result of our desire and desperate need to create/continue uncertainty in the financial markets. I'm not saying it's an impossible action on a long enough timeline, but do not expect anything in the short term... All they can do is talk and back it up with a dish of plausibility/anecdotal evidence. Jawboning because solely throwing money at the market has created diminishing returns that need to be reset/resituated through the spin of news. This spin cycle is also suffering from diminishing returns.
ooooooohhyyyyeeeeaaaaahhh!!! MeanGene!!!!!! Excuse me I have to take a phone call from my agent.
Love reading this sort of stuff. Couple of comments, not necessarily well-informed:
1. Didn't the Pacific Admiral recently say something about how concerned he was with China's intentions? And I think US/China military relationship is still on hold?
2. Does our continual dollar de-basement (and exportation of inflation to the EM's) lessen our influence, especially as the CB's see their dollar reserves in peril?
3. I'm surprised the author mentioned a closer ASEAN/US relationship. I'd be GUESSING that most ASEAN countries see the writing on the wall, i.e. China will be the more relevant trading partner over time (bigger eventual consumer market).
4. Once again we build weapons for the last battle. Carriers? Obsolete. A $1 mm missile will take out a $1 billion ship. Without carriers, we'll be hard pressed to maintain influence.
5. As economies start to falter, protectionism and isolationism will increase, in the US as well. China will use this as an opportunity to project influence.
6. China made a mention today of trying to fix their demographic/gender issue. Wonder how?
>1. Didn't the Pacific Admiral recently say something about how concerned he was with China's intentions?
Countries do not have intentions: only people do. In this case, it's the psycopathic socialists in charge of USA and China whose intentions are the most frightening.
>2. Does our continual dollar de-basement (and exportation of inflation to the EM's) lessen our influence, especially as the CB's see their dollar reserves in peril?
Yes. Inflation has a disruptive effect on the price system, on the profit and loss signals that guide entrepeneurs to satisfy consumer demands, and on the structure of production. While those who receive the newly created money first do benefit, nearly everyone else in the country is impoverished. Like with our previous, failed Continental Dollar, as well as the two previous failed central banks, the Federal Reserve and its Notes put us at risk of mass bank runs, hyperinflation, and catastrophic currency crack-ups.
>5. As economies start to falter, protectionism and isolationism will increase, in the US as well.
It's a form of self-harm. There is no advantage for the US to isolate itself from China, nor for California to isolate itself from Nevada, nor for San Diego to isolate itself from Los Angeles, nor for you to isolate yourself from your neighbor. Protectionism reflects a failure to understand economic truth, viz. the Ricardian law of comparative advantage, and its effects will be no less disastrous now than during the Great Depression.
The US investment in 'the arc of crisis' around China is doing what exactly?
Stopping China foreclosing on the dollar and consumer cockroaches? Putting the prospects for a new Pacific war in the can, the one the US's own gaming says you will lose at the cost of 3 million combatant lives.
Don't worry about the Adelaide academic, he lives in Wally world. Graph each ASEAN country's 15 year bilateral trade with China vs that with the USA. Do trend curves mean anything? You think those dirty rascal ASEAN countries aren't going to double cross Uncle Sam?
You think that overseas Chinese merchants in ASEAN countries don't know that the US consumer is tapped out?
So what does pillary Hillary do? Play the ethnic card on every border. Evil chauvinist Han! A new Malay- Chinese or Indo-Chinese insurgency. Put the squirrel into the Viet-Chinese historical emnities. Find an old North Korean torpedo thats been in the water for years and get Hollywood to write you a script. See off a couple of sunny policy Presidents in Korea. Do Japanese resistance in to Okinawa by showing what a bit of Ralph Nadarism can do to auto sales and the value of your US investments. God knows what's in the trick book for young Acquino in the Phillipines (we guess whatever it is has already been conscripted).
There's a whole raft of Americans like Denninger that can see that every last bit of their economic torture is self inflicted but still look to blame commies elsewhere or just about every other alien on the planet for it, and old Karl just like the gutless McCain will run with war in preference to rebuilding the US in the enlightened image that ran through only until Cleveland.
The US needs a history war. Devil number one would be Teddy Roosevelt and you can go on to almost every other public figure since then.
People have been declaring the obsolescene of aircraft carriers for a long time. Same thing with the main battle tank. Every time, they've been wrong.
It's great that China has Sunburns and guided this and supersonic that, but you need to FIND the carriers before you can shoot your shiny toys and sink them. I don't think China has any such capability currently. Perhaps they'll develop it in the future, but for right now, they're a blind man with a sharp spear.
All this is not to say we can/should ignore the threat China poses. But we should also not overdramatize the threat level either. That just leads to bloated military budgets, which is hardly what we need with our current debt/deficits.
+100000000000000000000000000000
Yeah, jakoye, MBTs are great...for being turned into light and heat, just like the 40+ Merkavas the Hezzies lit up in 2006.
As to carriers, they are only useful in colonial style rape. In a real war against a real country, they are worse than useless.
6) War. Historically, we have often accomplished social dominance in newly acquired territory by killing all the men in the area and unleashing the Chinamen (including nobles) upon the surviving women. The resulting children are considered full Han Chinese, and are raised as such by their fathers.
Demographic / gender issue resolved. New territory subdued and added to list of taxable assets. Win / win.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Is it not a consequence of war?
War involved men nearly exclusively for thousands of years. Loss came at the cost of men life, leaving widows (only tautologies here)
Marriage was and still is a status of security for women.
If you want to find unconsequent patterns, it might be better to look at the US with their policies of reservation (death camps) and racialization of humanity that indeed goes against the natural path of war killing men and the consequences of this situation.
If you mean that the Chinese are not yet racist and feel them for that, well, you are right on that.
Carriers are sitting ducks -- true. Boomers and attack subs, not so much.
China will continue building up its naval presence and throwing its weight in spats like this current one with Japan, and when an opportunity opens to seriously set back US influence in east Asia, China will seize it - much like Russia did in 2008 in the Caucasus.
China is already doing so in India. The inefficient Indian bureaucracy continues to ignore Chinese military expeditions into Arunachal Pradesh.
Any such action in East Asia (S. Corea / Japan) would be within the context of World War III reaching eastasia. My opinion is that America will overextend itself; the mideastern theatre in addition to the eastasian theatre is far too vast, even for the mighty American military.
We could completely destroy the PRC by dropping the MOAB (Mother of All Bitches) (Hillary) right on top of Peking and leaving her there. PsyOps to the 10th degree.
lmao
She is a piece of work. Billary, the drug-dealing power couple!
Careful, she has a snuke in her snizz.
Japan 1933
Yamashita's Gold 1945
Just what we need another F'in war. Were already broke & talkin shit to our biggest creditor. The 7th fleet might have to paddle their asses back home if the spigot gets turned off.
We can't even afford Peace to imagine wasting a drop on War. Of course that would mean not being part of the Plantation (Corporation) Economy that is busy en-Serfing its Workers. War games are a good way of funneling money to the right people to keep the People at a distance and self-editing.
Another Japan parallel, though from an earlier time.
Up into the 30s, we had decent trading relationships with Japan. Once we cut off their oil, they had no choice but to go to war, knowing they'd probably lose.
Once China decides to cut off our financing, we would have no choice but to go to war.
yep, and when you go you will loose, because there is no interrest in your victory.
Yep, that was Saint FDR and his cunning little mate Hull tricking Vandenberg into giving them negotiating rights for the naval treaty with Japan (thinking everything would be hunky dory) and then the wonder boys used the legal priviledge to cancel the treaty and cut off the gas suppy. And why was all that hardware sitting in Pearl Harbour in the middle of a European war you ask, and when was it shipped around there? And how long before had FDR signed off on the Flying Tigers funding and what other dirty tricks had they long been up to along the Burma Road? FDR had as much of the mongrel in his genes as Teddy or Kermit.
Wars start with shithead politicians caving into cronies and getting up to their arcs of instability with all blissfully unaware listening to ephemeral day to day crap.
Well this may sound a bit evil, but when I was reading about all the problems caused by the massive debts owend to bankers by the Venetian and other Christian powers (when they were building up their fleets to fight the turks), I just thought...well if they killed all their creditors..no more debt!
How many years back did the selling of guidance technology to China by president Clinton put us? It appears it's coming back to bite us?
Loral Space...someone remembers.
Poor Norman Hsu, such a nice young man. And John Huang...wonder where he's at these days ;-)
Thanks for mentioning that. That was on Richardsons watch, and I believe the Chinese attained MIRV(multiple nuclear warhead) technology in a fraction of time that it took us to discover it. I recall that the Kintons were employing the 'level the playing field by giving everyone our secrets.
The number of unaccounted crimes over the last decade is astounding. You can get away with anything now, if the crime is big enough.
Just can't see any benefit in engaging in conflict there (or anywhere else?).
I guess you could say I'm an isolationist, but I like to think of my philosophy here as "Live and Let Live". You'll say that my naivete will get me killed. My reply, "What won't?"
I guess I'm just tired of the whole thing. Old.
Copy that.
+ 100 but will happen anyways
I am amused and amazed that the author wrote this article without mentioning the SCO...a big factor in SE Asia economic and military cooperation.
Here is a Wiki entry on the SCO...I believe Iran attends the SCO meetings but do not know if they are a voting member. The US asked to be allowed to attend the SCO meetings...but was refused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
the chinese are nothing but a bunch of thieves of intellectual property. They do not know how to invent but just steal and copy. Case in point, my dad worked with Airbus and he said the company was pulling its manufacturing business out of China because they were stealing all the blueprints and copying the part formulations and manufacturing their own.
"the chinese are nothing but a bunch of thieves of intellectual property."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-MFeR8Frw&feature=related
Dude, copying has nothing to do with patent infringement. There's no intent element to that tort. But thanks for playing.
They are pretty bad. So are the Russians. Assholes can never replicate the success of Americans--when allowed to thrive. Now's not the time, though, and we're paying for it through the teeth.
To be clear, the Supreme Court of the U.S. is more anti-patent now than it's ever been. Now, many readers will correctly argue that patent law favors large corporations, which it does--on balance. However, stronger patent law increases the odds of success for folks with big B.R. from 7-5 to maybe 1-1. For long shots, though, the shift is more like from 30-1 to maybe 18-1.
Big difference for a populace used to less than 1% passbook savings.
From a business standpoint what China does is very smart. They let other countries spend lots of money on research and development and then they steal the final product.
All is fair in love and war.
If you want to place the blame, place it with Air Bus and other Western Corporations for off shoring all the manufacturing that used to take place in the West to China and other low wage locations.
Blame? My chips are on the U.S. Supreme Court.
If China disregards demands from treasury, the Fed and the administration to stop manipulating their currency, why do you think China will pay any attention to a US Supreme Court decision?
Decisions of that nature should come from the World Court in the Hague...but the US chose to ignore decisions passed by that body in the past. So will China probably.
I don't think China would even blink at anything out of the U.S. S.Ct. That ain't the issue.
But when the S.Ct. pisses down the face of U.S. inventors, which it's been doing for damn near a decade, well, then China (and the others) don't have to do anything. They just sit back like Ali and enjoy watching us buckle at the knees.
Airbus learned its lesson. What pisses me off is these people that rave all day long about how great China is. IF they love it so much they should move there and tell us about their experience.
Going back to intellectual property, what the US needs to do, and should have done all along, is to protect most of all is the military intellectual property by not outsourcing it to foreign companies. It they would keep the manufacturing in the States then the Chinese would fall behind fast and not even be close to threatening our security. Their lack of ingenuity would be exposed and all their groupies silenced.
It's too late for that, brother. Your S.Ct. saw to that. Dig?
Are we talking about China, or isnreal here?
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-criminalsandspies-folder.html
So all the German and Japanese scientists and huge amounts of advanced weaponry did nothing to help the US, France, England and Russia? Why was the US, France, England and Russia 15 years behind the Germans if they were so smart?
"...the chinese are nothing but a bunch of thieves of intellectual property. They do not know how to invent but just steal and copy."
Hahah! What hubris! America wasn't forced by the PRC to send the lion's share of its manufacturing overseas: you allowed it to happen. Take some effing responsibility.
Uhh, Nikola Tesla might have something to add to that too, and he wouldn't be denigrating China, either. On another note: who developed insulin? All the uber assed Americans should thank Canada for that one...
Not saying that Americans haven't been 'innovative', just that over the last thirty years or so their advances seem to have focussed almost exclusively on breast implants, erection inducing drugs, prescription drugs designed to keep you on drugs, and financial prestidigitation.
Just saying: America has stolen its fair share of technology over the years, just like any other nation would do given the opportunity. An opportunity which you have allowed your businesses to offer China. So you need to take a little responsibilty too, sorry.
Your 'case in point' is purely anecdotal too.
Regards
I'm sure the PRC knows the one thing that's worse than a nuclear war.
Losing a nuclear war.
Nobody wins a nuclear war. If you don't know that you are simply ignorant...or, are anxious for a biblical armageddon. You can take you're zeal for a nuclear war and stuff it where the sun don't shine.
Chinas enemys are internal... Politics, ethnic/cultural diversity, geograpic size, population, environment and resource limits (always have been)... It is one thing for highly developed, internationally cooperative and democratic nations to face economic collapse and the global challenges that exist today (OECD), but a whole different can of worms for China... China is no threat, she will eventually be broken up... They know it, we know it...
Speaking of military weapons, has anybody ever heard of this little toy?? I hadn't. Thought it was interesting it was conducting tests in Belize of all places.
If nothing else, I thought the caption under the picture was kinda funny.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/13/a160t_crash_belize/
I really miss This Week in Mayhem :(
Obama in his Chamberlainian wisdom figures the US should behave more 'multilaterally', and that this will promote peace. Since such reasoning is imbecilic, the next greatest power will simply step into the vacuum. If he realized that Chinese military supremacy would be a 1000 times worse than the American version, he would be more careful. Since he's an academically trained politicial, he wont. Soon he'll be declaring 'Peace in our Time'
I junked you because you are singling out one administration for following the same foreign imperial policies that have been carried out over the past 60 years. Read some history.
The PRC is there to support the rat-fucking Tatmadaw controlling Burma. The Tatmadaw (formerly known as the SLORC) are the monkey fuckers who have Aung San Su Ki locked up in house arrest (albeit in a pretty nice house on the lake).
The PRC has its arm around the SLORC to help them hold power amongst millions of citizens who hate their fucking guts.
Although I would personally cap certain SLORC leaders, rest assured we won't go anywhere near to it nor do anything to rile China.
Non-event.
So I'm sitting here after getting home from from a quick trip to the store where I passed hoards of vagrants and even more hoards of vacant commercial property and underwater houses and I'm supposed to fucking care 1% about China and Myanmar? The United States is bordered by Mexico (or California) and Canada. Not China/Korea/India and sure as shit not Myanmar. Can we drop the Light on the Hill bullshit and stop blowing trillions on strategery?
Not a chance - gotta keep the war machine greased. Permanently!
Ok, now that is funny, in a night-light kind of way.
Jutland 2.0 -> Stimulus 2.0. Awesome.
She delivered the message exactly how she was supposed to. We had some stealth bombers to show the world, some bases to build in Saudi Arabia, and a "wimpy" presidential image to change.
Yes...and isn't that working out well? Think about it when you or your's are waiting on food stamps or unemployment checks that no longer arrive.
Correctomundo, Doc. The old green light/red light move. Works every time. If you can't get it going, run a Gulf of Tonkin on their ass. Or the old "Poles attack radio station in Gleiwitz" gambit. That bag of tricks is still full.
Hillary has threatened China several times. Hell China would love a war. If the reports are accurate they would since our fleet with their new missiles, for which we publicly have no defense and they can seize some piece of land somewhere and nationalism will salve the hearts of the people. Their may be a massive ponzi in China but you give the people the nationalistic pride of defeating the US and they will forgive any crime and any ponzi.
Now many will scream but the US could beat them and my response is how? If they have the missiles we could not use air power on them as they would sink our carriers, and in a full war would SKorea or even Japan commit to us to fight China? Possible but unlikly especially if it looks like the US is poking China, like the US is doing. Odds are a "war" would be them sinking some boats and unloading Dollar based financial assets. That one-two punch should knock us on our ass and wondering what happened. The next level is using long range missiles and/or nukes of which China also has, a lose/lose. We certainly would not try a land invasion, I don't think the most insane jingoist madman really thinks that America could occupy China. So the result would be America loses some boats and servicemen, and takes a big financial hit and is shamed in the eyes of the world. Hell the military industrial complex here would love it. Imagine how many more boats they can build if they go and get the Pacific Fleet sunk! They can even sell a new wave of arms as part of rebuilding America!
Shameful you put the nail in the head. War with China will be our Adrianople. China will just dump our treasuries,South Korea has a true defense military. They will not attack unless attacked. All I can say is that US air and sea supremacy in 10-15 years will no longer exist. Nations like Turkey,Russia,Pakistan,India,China are developing weapons not to copy the west only but to counter them. Our navies backbone is nuclear aircraft carriers. All 11 of them. But why has not that many nations are developing one? They want a counter. Now China's military is not impressive but our military power is slowly declining. At some point something has to give. We are in debt over our heads but now neo cons want to wage war against Iran.China's new aircraft carrier killer missile will put us in such disarray our only hope would be fro India to go to war with China with us,but China can influence Pakistan and Iran to bogg down India.
It is funny those who say China is 15 years behind us. if I can remeber Germany in WW2 has the most advanced,powerful military in Europe,only Britain was close. The US and Russia were not advanced as the Panzer Units and Russia nad the US beat Germany. We beat them with manufacturing bases,the ability to produce in very large quantites.
Now we have no manufacturing base,who will build ship in a war with china after they dump our treasury assets(loans)? China will beat us in a war economically,perhaps even militarily with their massive manufacturing base. But I hope war never comes,and I seriously doubt both nations are dumb enough to go war with each other. But the french thought we were not dumb enough to enter the Vietnam War after they lose in the lates 50s.
It's actually a war I expect to happen at some point. Unless China extricates itself from the dollar clean there will be hell to pay. Heck with the rampant corruption in China and loss of fund still might be hell to pay, they will want a scapegoat. As for the US China is being set up as a scapegoat "They lent us to much" "They took our jobs" etc.
A war would actually be ideal for the big boys, it will create a lot of chaos and arms opportunities. The people will rally around their corrupt governments for another round of looting. America loses but loses no territory, so we get pissed and further bury ourselves in our eternal war doctrine. China wins, maybe picks up Vietnam, or Taiwan, or mineral rights in Africa or some such. They get the jingoistic moral boost of betting the most powerful nation on earth. The citizens get poorer and are distracted the rich get richer. Not saying that's what will happen, but the profit motive is there. And let us not forget both nations have an growing number of unemployed and unhappy young men with no chance of a good future. Without a war those young men might actually bring about real change, maybe not in the iPod generation, but one can dream.
As an aside they might not be 15 years behind. We know that we sell them tech. Also the high tech we give Israel is resold, to our pals China. So they might not be bleeding edge but they are not a backwater for military tech. And as you said they just need to counter our carriers and we lose the ability to project. We get caught in a ground war in Asia with China and it will be a rout for the history books.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-apocalypse-never/
Silly. Ballistic missiles won't be used to attack carriers, unless the shooter wants to start WWIII. NORAD would go apeshit if they saw this on their screens.
And ballistic missiles are very inaccurate. Unless armed with nuclear warheads of course. I'm sure China has no interest in engaging in a nuclear war with the US.
Yes, lots of "extra" unemployed males in the US currently. Perhaps war serves as a form of natural population control?
Sooo? We're sending our best bank (GS) with others to infiltrate and destroy Iran, in the same manner the U.S. was neutralized as a world power.
There can only be one.
I would truckbomb GS headquarters myself I I were assured of a full building, and a succesful mission. "Diversity is our strength". Who is "our", jews. Let this country burn and split.
Also, if China hit isntreal, londonistan, and dc for the trifecta, the world would be eternally grateful. Crush international "jewry" and set the world free.
"I don't see much future for the Americans. It's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social of social inequalities . . . Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it's half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together - a country where everything is built on the dollar?"
-Adolf Hitler
No one respects a communist dyke in a pantsuit outside of this shit-assed, kike "country"
(You think some of the comments here are dumb ? Jethro, just wait for how Palin will fuck up this planet..hint: take out all of your money now, have a good time and then bunker it at farm somewhere, oh, say 300 miles from the nearest major city)
The real problem is that China, building up its military forces, actually thinks they can obtain strategic parity or superiority vis a vis the United States - and thus think they can go to war with us with some prospect of success. It would actually be just as impertinent as the Japanese attack on us in 1941.
US military power is not in the number of ships or tanks we have at the moment, nor in the number we can make right away. US military power lays in the people of the United States - as heirs to the whole world, ony the United States has all of the strengths of the peoples of the world. Its why we win, whenever we set our minds to it.
China is clearly playing for Asian dominance - but they have a demographic crisis rapidly building due to their insane, anti-human one-child policy; their economy is largely Potemkin and entirely dependent upon the United States not having a policy shift which would encourage US manufacturing. They are honey-combed with bad debt, riven by corruption and in spite of despreate attempts to tamp down dissent, there is a growing revolt among the peoples of China. They haven't the sinews to challenge us, but they think they have...or shortly will have.
If things go south in China - and the almost certainly will - then in a desperate bid to keep themselves in charge, the corrupt Chinese oligarchs might try for a foreign adventure. The fools might unleash WWIII for no better reason than the Germans unleashed WWI...because it seemed like the right time, and their primary opponent (in Germany's case, Britain) seemed weak and divided (most people forget that Britain was on the verge of civil war over Ireland in July of 1914).
As an aside - the reason the world doesn't build aircraft carriers like we do is not because they don't see their worth, but because you can't just whistle up a fleet air arm. We built our first carrier in 1922 and even by 1942, our fleet air arm was still relatively inexperienced - the Japanese got a quality jump on us by dint of intensive training of their very best pilots and crews for years before they struck in 1941 - and they built their first one in 1923.
For China to challenge us in this area they'd have to build a dozen aircraft carriers and relevant planes. They'd have to build, from scratch, the entire infrastructure needed to support these ships and then, of course, recruit and train the crews (ship and air) to serve. At the earliest, they could become something to worry about, if they started right away, in 2025...and as long as we laid down carrier for carrier with them (while maintaining our current inventory - and they last about 40 years), all China's efforts would result in them still being decisively inferior at the end of all that effort. They know this,a nd thus don't bother...and they hope that various missiles and obsolescent attack subs will keep the carriers far enough away during hostilities to allow them to operate more than motor boat in the seas.
The main reason the rest of the world, with few exceptions, doesn't build aircraft carriers is because they're hugely expensive to build and to operate (our supercarriers require a crew of 5,000).
Just think of all the experience we have in modern wars. So far all China has been able to do is watch. I guess 10 trillion in unnecessary wars will at least give you a testing ground & a practice facility. I think we still hold the edge
Peak oil? How about peak asian agricultural output? There are too many people in India & China as it is. Do you really think such pop. growth is sustainable? The great asian population bubble of 2040?
Ok all you old, white men retards - do you really think war is the way to go?
Yes the US has problems but why haven't you dealt with them.
I did read something about the US education system - that might be a good place to start. I lucked out I guess - bad part of town in a working class city - but yep I made it- university (in Canada) (and say prayers every day to the 6th grade teacher that made me parse sentences.) My 7 year old niece is reading at a level that is way beyond what I was reading at her age (an I skipped a grade) and in public school.
So what do you think is the problem and what is the solution?
And just because I'm angry (I really love all people inducing old ones):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uc3ZrmhDN4&ob=av2n
Problem: "Idiocracy", Solution: IQ Tests for potential parents.
It's not really up to us, it's up to China. Emerging powers rarely rise peacefully, so history would say that conflict between the US and China is inevitable. But we are not prisoners to the past and new paradigms can emerge in the future.
That said, it's best to have that big stick handy and well-polished, in case we do end up needing it.
Lots of posters jumping on the bandwagon of a poorly researched and highly uninformed article.
The "Sunburn" missles aren't exactly news, they're 1970s Russian tech and while they might be fast, the larger part of the equation is accuracy. Radar guided ballistics aren't exactly the most accurate and at Mach 2+ there isn't a great deal of time to adjust course. The most accurate US ballistics are laser (LOS) guided or, more recently, GPS guided.
Also, if you don't think that the US Navy hasn't come up with a way to defend it prize carriers by now, you're a fool.
Mark Noonan has pretty much got it right, the real problem is that China thinks they can build up their military to compete with us. Lots of posters have pointed out that Carriers are the last war's tech, and to a small extent they are correct, but they are missing the next step in that line of thinking in that China is building their military to fight against that against that hardware. This is how they lose, b/c the next step is orbital based weaponry platforms and we're the only ones moving in this direction currently.
China obviously believes that aircraft carriers are still valuable, since they have well-known plans to build 2 of their own.
As for space-based weaponry, I wouldn't put too much faith in that. With the Chinese anti-satellite program at a very high level (as demonstrated by their destruction of a low-orbit satellite in 2007) and the US's noted financial problems, I think it's more likely than not that there will be some kind of space weapons ban treaty in the next decade.