Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[a_majoor]

Regardless, Walmart does promote North American manufacturers to relocate to China....and that doesn't sit well with me.

I suspect WalMart isn't saying "go to China or else", rather US suppliers are looking to maintain thair sales to WalMart and increase their own profit margins; going offshore is one way of doing so. We heard the same thing back in the 1980s about Mexico, and India is now on people's radar as the next big target for outsourcing. Given a choice, I would much preffer strengthening India's economy through free trade, given it is a semi free market democracy, with the added bonus it is on China's southwestern flank, giving the Dragon another thing to watch out for.

Kaplan's article is interesting, especially the observation that PACCOM is far enough removed from Washington to have a degree of independant action, and is capable of assembling "hub and spoke" alliances for different scenarios and situations; Oceanic strategy moving to a higher level. The proposed evolution of the navy makes a lot of sense, although I wonder if the real "Rrevolution in Naval affairs" wouldn't consist of finding ways to make naval platforms a lot faster (similar to the Army obsession with substituting speed for mass). This would make force projection more creditable (getting on station in days or weeks rather than weeks or months), as well as giving opponents a bigger headache in planning tactical or strategic countermoves.

Kaplan is also correct in suggesting the best thing to do would be to find subtle ways to contain China in webs of trade, diplomacy and military alliances and deterrence, the most telling quote in the article is "there are lots of ways a war with China could start, the problem is how do you end it?"

 

[Long in the tooth]

To add to the reasons China has an extremely small window -

News reports last week reported shortages of water in Northern Chinese provinces where 110 Million people live.  Water tables have dropped 1 metre/yr for the last several years.  Not only is there no water for primary heavy industry (steel and chemicals) but huge hydroelectric plants are running way below capacity.  If the Chinese get to the information age, they may have to forego the industrial age.

In a larger sense, this illustrates the systemic advantage that N America and Europe have.  Except for the Amazon, Nile and Congo, most developing areas are bereft of the water resources we take for granted.  Even the richest Mid East countries only produce 5 gal/day/person of potable water.  They may artificially support their economies in the short term with petro wealth, but it's only a temporary fix.

 

[TCBF]

" They may artificially support their economies in the short term with petro wealth, but it's only a temporary fix."

- And after that?  It's back to goat herding in the big sandbox and caging Mars Bars from National Geographic video crews.

Tom

 

[oyaguy]

I'm kind of curious, on reasons we will end up fighting China.

The whole thing on spheres of influence seems kind of interesting, but when we get down to it does Nepal matter? Or Burma, or Zimbabwe? As the U.S. found out in the 70s, Vietnam didn't, and doesn't matter.

I would go as far to say that even Taiwan doesn't matter.

I admit though,  my knowledge on the matter is superficial, more so when it comes to Chinese motivation to obtaining the crown of super power.

 

[TCBF]

"The whole thing on spheres of influence seems kind of interesting, but when we get down to it does Nepal matter? Or Burma, or Zimbabwe? As the U.S. found out in the 70s, Vietnam didn't, and doesn't matter.

I would go as far to say that even Taiwan doesn't matter."



- You raise a very interesting point.  Darfur doesn't matter.  Neither did Rwanda, or Somalia, after it became 'inconvenient'.

But what happens when we miss one?  Turns out, Ethiopia, the Alsace, Austria, the Sudetenland and Manchuria all mattered.  Who knew?

Tom

 

[oyaguy]

Mr. TCBF, you have a good point.

But the difference is that in Somalia, Rwanda, and the Darfur, a lot of people died, at the hands of their fellow citizens. The failure to intervene was done with full knowledge of what was going on, and is a failure of humanity.

In Ethiopia, Manchuria, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Alsace{less of a salient point here}, a foreign power took these areas by force, in contravention of established international law. Political leaders knew they mattered, but didn't have the will to do anything about it, knowing the consequences could be war.

The differences is also illustrated in two dictators. Hitler, and Stalin. Hitler killed his own citizens, then started going beyond his own borders for victims. The international community eventually got around to taking care of Hitler because he was "rocking the boat" so to speak. Stalin killed far more people, but they were his own citizens. He didn't "rock the boat" and lived to old age as a result.

China may garner influence in the developing world, but again, does it really matter? As long as China doesn't invade or annex these countries, China is in the clear. As for prosecuting human rights violations in China, can anyone be touched if you're on the UN security council?

The question still stands. Why will we fight China? And does Burma, Zimbabwe, and Nepal really matter?

Maybe a better question in regard to flashpoints with China, is whether Taiwan is worth a fight with China?

 

[a_majoor]

The question still stands. Why will we fight China? And does Burma, Zimbabwe, and Nepal really matter?

Maybe a better question in regard to flashpoints with China, is whether Taiwan is worth a fight with China?

Figthing wars is usually a matter of "national interest". Burma, Zimbabwe and Nepal do not matter so much in the "big picture" (how much trade do "we" do with these places), but from a strategic point of view, they strengthen China.

Taiwan is in the national interest of many Western nations, because it is a democracy, because it is an economic powerhouse and because we do a lot of trade with Taiwan, and for important, value added products (open your computer case and count the number oc components markes "Made in Taiwan"). Abandoning a friendly nation in that part of Asia will also send very negative signals to other pro democratic, market friendly trading partners like Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia.

We may never come to blows with China. Robert Kaplan's article in the "Atlantic Monthly" suggests war is a very "zero sum" option, and proposes keeping China tied up with overlapping multi-lateral engagements. Others both on this site and in the various media have pointed out China's political and structural deficiencies, which may conspire to bring the nation down from the inside. China's history and the reigning communist ideology suggest China has ambitions to regain the mantle of the "Middle Kingdom" and become a regional hegemon, which has disturbing implications since this conflicts with the goals and aspirations of nations like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and even second string nations like Indonesia. Lots of potential flashpoints do exist, so we need to keep our eyes open.

 

[tomahawk6]

The US has made a commitment to help Taiwan in the event of attack. The help can be in the form of weapons resupply [as we did for Israel] or armed intervention. It seem's that the US will probably have to use force. The PRC is building up its amphibious and submarine forces. Delivery of 8 Kilo class subs from Russia has been accelerated. Any attack/invasion by the PRC must be able to neutralize the US carrier force. The Kilo's are one component. The Sunburn another. They also have to be able to control the air space over/around Taiwan. Numbers may have a real advantage over quality.

 

[paracowboy]

Maybe a better question in regard to flashpoints with China, is whether Taiwan is worth a fight with China?

yes. Tyranny (whether it be by a lone individual, an autocratic Party, or a theocracy) MUST be fought and defeated in order to promote Democracy. This is not a knee-jerk, Right-Wing, statement born of too many bumper stickers. This is a carefully thought out belief bolstered by what I have seen and read over several years. Democracies do not go to war with democracies. Peace is in our best interests. War gets Canadians killed. Dictatorships are like a boa constictor: they have to keep a lethal grip on their prey, or it will escape, and once started on swallowing, it has to continue or it will choke to death. This is why they inevitably spread into their neighbours, and we get involved.
Democracies are like trees. Fragile when growing, very nearly unshakeable once fully developed, and their seeds spread and grow on their own.

(Holy crap! I'm a freakin' poet!)

 

[oyaguy]

(Holy crap! I'm a freakin' poet!)

Read your analogy on the boa constrictor again.


Points on democracy and tyranny taken. Sometimes though, I see Taiwan turning into the Balkans of our day. The actions of a few Taiwanese and Chinese officials could set off a chain of events that could get a lot of people dead. More importantly, it will have two nuclear armed nations facing off in a conventional arena. The odds of something terrible and nuclear,  going wrong are enormous.

As for taking down tyrannies around the world all in the interest of democracy, easier said then done. Look at Iraq, the weakest member of the so-called axis of evil.

 

[Edward Campbell]

No matter how good the cause, a war with China will be a major policy blunder.

It is unnecessary â “ there is no big, serious dispute, not even within Taiwan, over the issue that Taiwan is Chinese â “ the dispute is over how and when the inevitable reconciliation with happen.  The Taiwanese, reasonably, want China to be a functioning, perhaps conservative democracy before reunification takes place.  The ruling Chinese oligarchy actually values Taiwanese independence - Taiwan is a vital source of foreign investment capital and it serves as a convenient whipping boy when it is necessary to wag the dog every now and again â “ to divert attention from the manifest social and economic failures which are the norm in China, everywhere except on the East coast strip.

A war between China and the USA cannot, in my view, be contained â “ there is no way that China resembles Iraq: not strategically.  A US war with China will embolden the entire Islamic world â “ forget the Arabs, this will be enough to do what Iraq could not: unite the Muslims â “ including Pakistan which will bring in India.  Russia will be a victim of collateral damage â “ but it is not clear, to me, how the Russian oligarchy will see its self interest.  Old continental Europe will try to stay out â “ the anti-American animus is so very strong there â “ but they may be dragged in anyway.

The Americans cannot win a land war in China.

The Chinese cannot win a global war against a major maritime power â “ China, at the start of the 21st century, is like France at the start of the 19th.

But: The Chinese will not fight a global war; they will concede defeat.  But: the rest â “ the Muslims, etc, will attack â “ maybe ineffectively â “ on a global basis.  America will have two wars: an un-winnable war on the Asian land mass and a global conflict against a rag-tag coalition of the envious.

The only way to defeat China at home is to use so enough nuclear force to give effect to Curtis LeMay's bomb 'em back into the stone age dictum. Americans may find that exercise too inhumane; remember: broadly speaking, the American people are driven by moral rather then pragmatic instincts.

This is a war no one wants or needs.  If it happens it will hand an easy, unearned victory to Eurabia.  China should not be our enemy â “ even though it need not be our friend.

 

[paracowboy]

honestly, I think the whole discussion is moot, anyway.

Taiwan is a vital source of foreign investment capital and it serves as a convenient whipping boy when it is necessary to wag the dog every now and again â “ to divert attention from the manifest social and economic failures which are the norm in China, everywhere except on the East coast strip

just as Hong Kong was (still is). China rattles the sabre whenever it want to distract it's populace, as Edward states, or when it wants to shake some concessions from the US. Taiwan starts talking about declaring itself independent when it wants to shake some concessions from China, or when there's an election. Nobody wants this war, including China. Maybe especially China. China has been slowly moving towards democracy anyway, and trying rapidly to move towards capitalism. They've long since recognized the failures of communism, but have to reconcile failure with "Face", and the ruling elite still want (of course) to maintain their grip on power. It'll happen, though, eventually. And then the world will have another superpower, both military and economic.

 

[tomahawk6]

The US doesnt need to wage a land war in China. A naval blockade and air campaign would severely restrict China's ambitions.

 

[tomahawk6]

Interesting article from strategypage.

June 5, 2005: China's economy survives at the mercy of the United States Navy. For thousands of years, China has been what is known as a â Å“continental power.â ? That is, it had everything it needed right at home and was not dependent on seaborne trade to survive (like Britain and Japan, which are classic examples of â Å“Oceanic Powers.â ?) But now China is an Oceanic Power, with over half of its GDP coming from exports to foreign nations. Moreover, nearly all the oil China uses is imported via seagoing tankers. China is now more dependent on access to the sea than Japan, which  gets about 20 percent of its GPD from exports, or the U.S., which gets about ten percent. Thus if China were to try and take Taiwan by force, the United States could cause economic collapse in China by blockading China's ports. This could be done with nuclear submarines, a type of warship China is not equipped to deal with. Then there's the American aircraft carriers, which can clear the sea of any Chinese ships that venture too far from the Chinese coast. While China has some capability to go after American carriers and subs, it's not enough to break a blockade. Indeed, the blockade can be established by simply announcing that any ships that violate it will be seized, or sunk. This is because American satellite surveillance can track ships movements accurately. China can threaten nuclear retaliation, but even there they are at a major disadvantage, and to make that threat, opens them to a first (non-nuclear or nuclear) strike against their ICBMs (which at present can only reach part of the west coast of North America.)

While China's military power is growing, it will be decades before they become strong enough to change the above situation. So any serious threat to Taiwan has to be made under the threat of major economic retaliation. While such a blockade would initially give the Chinese government a boost in popularity among Chinese. A few weeks or months of several hundred million Chinese being jobless would change attitudes, given that the current communist dictatorship is not very popular to begin with.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I suspect I am repeating myself, but It has long seemed logical to me that the next big war ought to be between China and Russia.

The prize ought to be Siberia.

See the map, below.

There is a lot in Siberia that China needs: oil, mineral resources and a bit of lebensraum, too.

China and Russia are ancient enemies â “ periodic bursts of friendship go against the cultural grains.

There are a lot of hurdles: can China defeat Russia at an acceptable cost in lives and treasure?  This brings up an interesting technical question: just how toothless is the Russian bear?  Can Russia be provoked in aggression?  The Chinese are neither immune to nor unconcerned about international laws and norms.

If, big Big IF the Chinese calculate that they can provoke Russia into aggression and then defeat Russia at an acceptable cost, then I fail to see the downside, for them.

 

[Britney Spears]

I must confess I never understood the idea of lebensraum, as if this was some big game of Civilization where people are just numbers that move aorund on a map and produce tanks every turn or something. Most of China is already thinly populated inhospitable tundra and desert, How will seizing more inhospitable tundra solve anything? Do you think you can just pick people up in downtown Toronto, drop them off en mass in Whitehorse and instantly have another Toronto? Sometimes I think you guys only see the heavily populated coastal cities, where the action is, and assume that the rest of China is the same. Those cities have been heavily populated for 2500 years, and for a good reason. Ditto for why Chinese Siberia and Turkestan is not. Similarly, what resources exist in Siberia that are important enough to INVADE RUSSIA(you know, the one with the thousands of nukes) over? If  invading  Russia were that easy you'd think someone else would have tried it already, yes? ( and no, The Russo-Japanese War doesn't count because it was fought in China, not Russia)  China has plenty of oil and natural gas in the western desert and in the south sea, whether they are economical compared to Saudi oil is another matter, but it's there. The only important goods that China relies on the West for are Skilled workers and capital.

 

[Dare]

I suspect I am repeating myself, but It has long seemed logical to me that the next big war ought to be between China and Russia.

The prize ought to be Siberia.

See the map, below.

There is a lot in Siberia that China needs: oil, mineral resources and a bit of lebensraum, too.

China and Russia are ancient enemies â “ periodic bursts of friendship go against the cultural grains.

There are a lot of hurdles: can China defeat Russia at an acceptable cost in lives and treasure?  This brings up an interesting technical question: just how toothless is the Russian bear?  Can Russia be provoked in aggression?  The Chinese are neither immune to nor unconcerned about international laws and norms.

If, big Big IF the Chinese calculate that they can provoke Russia into aggression and then defeat Russia at an acceptable cost, then I fail to see the downside, for them.

You say this as though you expect Russia to lose in such an eventuality. Russia is light years beyond China in technology, and has a vastly superior nuclear force. In a strictly War Games sense, Russia would win without any doubt in my mind. For either country to annex Mongolia would likely trigger a greater war. Any territory grabs would likely go through Mongolia first. Either way, the chance of this being the next war is highly doubtful. I think it's often talked about because it would be, strategically and militarily, a big win for the west either way. There is certainly a very serious territory need that may be required in the semi-near future for China as Russias dwindling population may prove to be tempting but China needs Russia as a friend to challenge the west (our south.. or east as it may be, or the four corners of the world, whichever you choose). There are very strong links between the two, although there are many disputes between the two and many differences, I think they're more on the same page than they'd like us to believe. Now, thinking longer term, I would say a Sino-Russian war would be more and more plausible.

 

[Dare]

I must confess I never understood the idea of lebensraum, as if this was some big game of Civilization where people are just numbers that move aorund on a map and produce tanks every turn or something. Most of China is already thinly populated inhospitable tundra and desert, How will seizing more inhospitable tundra solve anything? Do you think you can just pick people up in downtown Toronto, drop them off en mass in Whitehorse and instantly have another Toronto? Sometimes I think you guys only see the heavily populated coastal cities, where the action is, and assume that the rest of China is the same. Those cities have been heavily populated for 2500 years, and for a good reason. Ditto for why Chinese Siberia and Turkestan is not. Similarly, what resources exist in Siberia that are important enough to INVADE RUSSIA(you know, the one with the thousands of nukes) over? If  invading  Russia were that easy you'd think someone else would have tried it already, yes? ( and no, The Russo-Japanese War doesn't count because it was fought in China, not Russia)  China has plenty of oil and natural gas in the western desert and in the south sea, whether they are economical compared to Saudi oil is another matter, but it's there. The only important goods that China relies on the West for are Skilled workers and capital.

Unlike the Saudis, China consumes far more petrol than they output. China, like everyone else, would like to get itself out from under the thumb of OPEC. Siberia has many natural resources which can attract all sorts of invaders. China also has the highest growing energy needs in the world. They're *going* to need that oil, one way or the other. I'm sure that once China has enough clout, they'll become more vocal of their material desires. Who would come to Russias defence? Ukraine? Bulgaria? Maybe. I don't think there are many nations that would want to wade in the middle of that crapstorm. I still think it's highly unlikely to occur at all in the short term and even still unlikely later on, but nonetheless, stranger things have happened.

 

[Zartan]

Lebensraum: German for "Living Space". A term used by Hitler to describe an advantage to invade Russia. It was planned that when the Soviet Union was conquered, the area would be resettled by Germanic peoples (including Britons!), while the native population would be enslaved or liquidated.

However, Siberia is not totally inhospitable. Over 30 million people live there, mostly in the south. However, a conquest would be useful, as southern Siberia has many of the largest fresh water lakes in the world. As one of the previous threads stated, the Chinese would need this, if the North, is in fact drying up. But the climate is extreme, ranging from desert to tundra.

 

[a_majoor]

History is a useful teacher yet again. In the 1920s and 30s, Imperial Japan was seething with intrigue and even rocked by coups and countercoups over the very subject of exploiting resources.

The invasion of China and the annexation of Manchuria was the logical first step, it was close by and had raw materials and a viable work force, but where to expand next? The Imperial Army had its sights fixed on Siberia, with its untapped treasure trove of resources, especially oil. The relative lack of Russians living in Siberia was thought to be an asset for the cause; the Red Army was too far away to realistically defend Siberia and watch the European frontiers (much less export World Socialist Revolution) at the same time.

The Imperial Navy was of the opinion that it would be much quicker and more profitable to take out the established colonies in SE Asia, since the resources were already developed and a work force existed in place, making them more readily available in time of war. In the end, the Navy won the political struggle, with an assist from Marshal Zhukov, who defeated the Japanese Army in a series of campaigns in Mongolia  (This was actually quite dangerous for Zhukov, since being victorious placed him under a cloud of suspicion from Stalin, doubly so since he was using "Deep Battle" theory developed by Marshal M.N. Tukhachevskii, who had been shot by Stalin in a purge in 1937).

China, if it is thinking about this, has the same conundrum with almost the same payoffs: rich but untapped resources which would take decades to develop, or readily accessable resources available now?