China: The Real Threat

[RDixon]

What have they been up to since Bush TOOK the office of President of the USA?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/chinese_report.asp


Do you think Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and Condi are competent enough to deal with this?

[Mazer]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison.asp
Comparing USA to China, I see more green check marks on our side of the table. And on the right side of the page the USA is ranked first and China third. We're closely matched, but I don't think there's any reason to worry. Unlike Iran or N. Korea, the policy of mutually assured distruction would actually work against China. Since nobody is really worried about the spread of communism anymore, containment isn't an issue. At this point they represent the largest untapped commercial market in the world, and with so many business interests influencing our government, I don't expect the USA to make any serious threats against China in the near term, even if they make serious threats against us. A lot would have to happen before we engaged in any kind of war or cold war with them, which is why they aren't a real threat right now.

[Sinner]

Your eyes are wondering.....the Chinese don't need weapons to hurt the USA or the World for that matter. the U.S. now runs an annual trade deficit with China of more than $200 billion, China surpassed the United States as being the world's largest exporter. Only five years ago, the United States exported more than double the amount of China. During the first half of 2006, Chinese exports of manufactured goods reached $404 billion compared to $367 billion in exports by the United States. If Chinese exports continue growing at their current pace, Chinese manufactured exports will be more than double those of the United States in five years, there is a huge trade imbalance and it has cost at least 1.5 million jobs in the USA, the dollar is down and interest rates will raise.

This imbalance needs to be fixed and I have faith it will be.

[RDixon]

Funny; MacArthur told Truman almost that exact same thing on Wake Island just a few days before China moved a few hundred thousand troops across the border into NK whipped the living shit out of MacArthur's UN forces.

China has a long history of doing exactly what they say they will do.

You completely ignored the main point of my topic: Taiwan.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with communism.

Or as much to do with communism as the Iraq mess has to do with fighting terrorism.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Unlike Iran or N. Korea, the policy of mutually assured distruction would actually work against China.

why won't MAD work against Iran or North Korea?

[Mazer]

Because if we nuked them and they nuked us the distruction wouldn't be mutual. They simply don't have enough nukes to finish us off.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Because if we nuked them and they nuked us the distruction wouldn't be mutual. They simply don't have enough nukes to finish us off.

It doesn't have anything to do with nuclear weapons either.

At least not at the onset.

WHEN China attacks Taiwan will Bush have the balls to carry out our obligation to aid them?

It will be what we call conventional war and if iraq has taught us anything over the past three years, it is that we pretty much suck at conventional war, mostly due to ineffective and incompetent leadership.

Any one care to discuss the very real threat posed by the China / Tiawan situation or are you all just going to continue with the smoke n mirror distraction of Iran and NK, neither of which are now or will be a threat to the USA for many many years?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Because if we nuked them and they nuked us the distruction wouldn't be mutual. They simply don't have enough nukes to finish us off.

so, with respect to Iran and North Korea, it's not that the policy of MAD won't work against them, it's that the policy of MAD won't work against us.

Originally Posted by RDixon

Any one care to discuss the very real threat posed by the China / Tiawan situation or are you all just going to continue with the smoke n mirror distraction of Iran and NK, neither of which are now or will be a threat to the USA for many many years?

i don't see China as a military threat, Taiwan notwithstanding. we are well along a path of economic interdependence with the Chinese, as Sinner illustrates. that in itself is the strongest motivation for countries to figure out a way to coexist. i think they will be a very real economic threat in the future but everyone will find it is in thier best interest to work out the Taiwan situation. this is a good thing, because Bush & Co. do not have the balls or the will to face them down over Taiwan. that whole "freedom is on the march" thing is a soundbite designed to provide cover for establishing hegmony in the Middle East - we will cheerfully abide repression and tyranny wherever it is convenient and/or profitable to do so.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

It will be what we call conventional war and if iraq has taught us anything over the past three years, it is that we pretty much suck at conventional war, mostly due to ineffective and incompetent leadership.

Awe, come on. It only took our army one month to sweep through Iraq. If anything, that proves that our army is better at conventional warfare than any in history. The only incompetent leaders during the invasion were Saddam and his subordinates. What you're perceiving as failure is the fighting that has occured since the end of the invasion, fighting that has been anything but conventional.

Originally Posted by theknife

so, with respect to Iran and North Korea, it's not that the policy of MAD won't work against them, it's that the policy of MAD won't work against us.

Preciesly. We could nuke them today and be done with them, but we'd have to be pretty unscrupulous to try it. The problem with having the biggest arsenal in the world is that there are always unscrupulous people in our government and we can't always count on human decency to keep them from pushing the button. The reason we make rules for ourselves is to prevent us from making things worse during periods of crisis, but where rules fail we must set traps for ourselves. Leaders in both the US and the USSR accelerated the arms race in order to set such a trap.

For the most part that trap has been defused, but there are still people who think that victory can be acheived in a nuclear battle, despite the inevitable cost of human casualties and collateral damage. The people whom MAD was meant to reign in are as much a threat to us as our enemies. It only takes one nuke to kill thousands of Americans, and we only have to launch one nuke at an enemy to provoke that kind of retaliation. So until we dismantle our arsenal we need Russia and even China to point their missiles at us.

Now we just need to make it clear to North Korea and especially Iran that we wouldn't hesitate to nuke them into oblivion, despite the reality that we wouldn't do such a thing. It's a paradox: we need MAD to prevent dangerous men from making bad decisions, but we need dangerous men that can make the kinds of threats that make MAD feasable. In other words, we need MAD men like Rumsfeld to keep madmen like Ahmadinejad in their place.

[Malk-a-mite]

Originally Posted by Mazer

that proves that our army is better at conventional warfare than any in history.

No, it proves that the US military is smarter than to take on anyone else of the same training and techology levels. If you think the US is the best in history I suggest looking at history more.

The Huns, the Mongols, the Armies of Alexander the Great, Napoleon.
Hell the 1940 German army mainly lost to the Allies because the Allies out produced them (for ever Liberty ship they were sinking the US was producing 2 more).

Consider the Mongols were using Psy Ops centuries before the term was coined (marching the captives of the last city in front of the army to make the size of the attacking force look larger).

Does the US have a incredibly impressive fighting force? Hell yeah... they also outspend the rest of the world combined when it comes to defense. They better damn well have something to show for it.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Awe, come on. It only took our army one month to sweep through Iraq. If anything, that proves that our army is better at conventional warfare than any in history.

And three years later they still can not secure a single 6 mile stretch of road leading from baghdad to the airport or any other space in iraq.
Even the so-called green zone is not completely secure.

As for the best army ever in history I would have to vote for Alexander the Great's army with the legions of Rome during the time of Ceaser a close second.
Great leaders make for great armies.
Inept leaders make for what we have now; a total fucked up mess.

But that still hasn't got a response from you about Taiwan and what you think will happen when China invades it.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Malk-a-mite

The Huns, the Mongols, the Armies of Alexander the Great, Napoleon.
Hell the 1940 German army mainly lost to the Allies because the Allies out produced them (for ever Liberty ship they were sinking the US was producing 2 more).

Consider the Mongols were using Psy Ops centuries before the term was coined (marching the captives of the last city in front of the army to make the size of the attacking force look larger).

Or the Romans…..just to Babel….The Battle of Ctesiphon 363AD --, Julian the Apostate who was believing himself to be the next Alexander the Great, Julian had 90,000 men and sent 30,000 of them into Ctesiphon to sack the city and destroy the Persian Army, put the Persian army lead by Shapur was not there. Shapur was trying to beat the Romans back but failed to do so.The roman Army took the city very easily, losing only 70 men to the 2500 of the enemy. It was a great victory for the Romans, but Julian did not have the equipment or a plan to hold the city and wanted to push forward, he was overruled and they bagain to retreat back towards the other half of his army. The Persians caught up with them and his rear army was under heavy attack and in the battle Julian was struck with a spear. He died later that night. Jovian then became Emperor. The Roman army was deep inside Sassanid territory and Jovian had to make peace on unfavourable terms to get his troops back to a friendly territory. He gave up five Roman provinces and promised never to attack again in Armenia. One of the events atributed to the Fall of the Roman Empire.


This post is in no way on topic……..I just love Roman history and felt like posting a story.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

But that still hasn't got a response from you about Taiwan and what you think will happen when China invades it.

Maybe nothing. The forces in Washington that want to improve trade relations with China will press our government to break relations with Taiwan. That won't happen alltogether, but if the People's Republic of China ever manages to finally snuff out the Republic of China (Taiwan's government), that will be the end of it. Nobody will go to war to restore a government that has been slowly disappearing over the last half century.

[Malk-a-mite]

Originally Posted by Sinner

This post is in no way on topic……..I just love Roman history and felt like posting a story.

In that case make a new thread and share a couple more of those. :)