Group of US officials, lawmakers, want naval "surge" to confront rising China

[Nemo888]

Yes I am.Good old gunboat diplomacy Edward as now practiced by the PRC.Now for the bait you have so kindly dangled in front of me.
You are a student of history,when in recent memory has the US used its military power for anything but for the cause of liberty and democracy ?

Oh wait. You were kidding.

China's economy is on track to be bigger than the USA in 2016. So it is a dumb idea to get into an arms race you can't win. Deescalating and everyone submitting to international law is the only viable future. The alternative is setting ourselves up for another world war. Remember the League of Nations and the UN were both created  for this explicit reason. Making he same mistake a third time could be exponentially more costly.

 

[tomahawk6]

We got into an arms race with the Soviet Union and their economy collapsed.China cannot afford an arms race and if the economy collapses we might get lucky and see a revolution.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We got into an arms race with the Soviet Union and their economy collapsed.China cannot afford an arms race and if the economy collapses we might get lucky and see a revolution.

You're right that an arms race, à la America vs the USSR, would be disastrous for the Chinese Communist government which is why, I think, China doesn't plan to enter one.

China is already spending 2.1% of its GDP on defence (vs 4.7% for the USA) which, as I have said several times, is about the sustainable rate that aspiring "leading middle powers" should manage. Americans, individually, through their taxes,  spend three times as much as Chinese individuals do to support the military. But I doubt China can afford much more.

The fate of the current government rests on social harmony and that depends on jobs/prosperity and hope for the future. The Chinese still believe, according to the (limited) data I have seen that their children and grandchildren will have better, more prosperous lives than they do; Americans, again according to the polls I have seen, no longer believe that. They did, in the 1930s, '50s and '70s, and even into the 1990s, but not now. So, if the Chinese can contain America in Asia and keep the Chinese manufacturing juggernaught going - which requires growth in domestic demand - then they ought to be able to not worry about what is, arguably, excessive American defence spending.

I have argued, elsewhere, that in purely economic terms defence spending is not only unproductive, it is counterproductive (lost opportunities and all that). American defence spending is less counterproductive than e.g. Australian, British and Canadian military spending because of the enormous US defence R&D sector that does push technological advantages into the private/productive sector but it is still wasteful. America is spending 4.7% of GDP on defence because it is providing free "services" to China - like maintaining freedom of the seas and countering piracy, etc. (China makes a contribution, but it is far, Far, FAR short of a fair share.) How long can America afford to spend 4.7% of GDP on defence and have an advanced social welfare state, which Americans appear to want demand?

 

[Nemo888]

Couldn't the USA go bankrupt as well? Have you looked at the balance sheet lately? Either way you have another failed superpower with masses of conventional and nonconventional arms. This is not a beneficial outcome for the world. This went better than expected with the Soviet Union. Which last time I checked was undergoing the largest military buildup since the cold war.

When China fails, which is your best case scenario,  that increases the likelihood of a war. The easiest way to quash internal dissent is to find an external enemy and start a war. China state media is already doing this with propaganda journalism and historical docudramas demonizing Japan and America.

As a citizen in a small state I am in favour of international law. Being a client state of a superpower is rarely a good long term position. All three superpowers look a little threadbare and desperate. International law being a much better solution for the majority of the planet and in the long run even the superpowers who block it would benefit.

 

[a_majoor]

Nations live in a state of nature, and "International Law" is a fiction (of fig leaf, if you prefer). Small nations are subject to "International Law" insofar as the Great Powers enforce it, and Great Powers are bound to it only insofar as it advances their aims and does not constrain their vital interests or Grand Strategy.

The failures of "International Law" are far to numerous to lay out here, but the reason "International Law" is fictitious can be deduced by looking at how Law works: there must be a recognized impartial adjudicator (the Courts of Law), and there must be an enforcement mechanism for the Law to be applied (in civil society, the Police). International courts are highly politicized and not at all impartial, and who has monopoly of force over the world?

In the past, this issue has been addressed by the establishment of Empires, which had the means to set and enforce the laws over their own territories. The United States has taken the historically unique position of establishing a system of international institutions (see ERC's post in Grand Strategy for a Divided America) which benefit friends and enemies alike, in very sharp contrast to merchant empires like the Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta or the British Empire in the 18th century, which were mercantilist and sought to benefit friends and punish enemies through the manipulation of trade.

Since China has a strategy of Unrestricted Warfare, it is also quite probable that they will use both the domestic legal apparatus and international fora to launch "lawfare" as a means of entangling and slowing their opponents, which should give anyone focusing on "International Law" pause

 

[tomahawk6]

The US is hardly a failed superpower.Rather its a superpower with failed policies.A new administration with better economic policies that put 90m people back to work,will see an increase in revenue that will lower the debt and explode economic growth.

 

[CougarKing]

The "Pacific Pivot" continues...

Military.com

Mabus: Stealth Destroyers, LCS Headed to Pacific

Stars and Stripes | Jul 28, 2014

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — The Navy will send new stealth destroyers, littoral combat ships and an amphibious ready group to the Pacific, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Monday, reiterating the U.S. commitment to its military "pivot" to the region.

"The rebalance to the Pacific is real," Mabus told sailors gathered at Yokosuka's Fleet Theater for an all-hands call.
President Barack Obama announced plans for the Pacific pivot as the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were winding down. But conflicts in Syria, Ukraine and Gaza have since heated up, raising questions about the best use of forces amid dwindling military budgets. Obama reassured Pacific allies of his support during a recent visit against a backdrop of Chinese expansionism and North Korean threats.

(...EDITED)

The next LCS to deploy to Singapore will be the USS Fort Worth, which is the same type of vessel as the Freedom. It's expected to deploy later this year for 16 months after it completes operational tests, The Associated Press reported.

Mabus said also that the Navy will send an additional amphibious ready group to the Pacific.
There is already one such group in Japan comprised of thousands of sailors and Marines based on Okinawa and at Sasebo.

(...EDITED)