Page 10 of 41 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 807

Thread: China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

  1. #181
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Is China Trying to Bankrupt US?

    Is China Trying to Bankrupt US?

    June 09, 2011

    Does a cash-strapped US face a Cold War redux as China encourages it to ramp up defence spending? Boosting alliances is the way to respond, says Brad Glosserman.

    One popular narrative credits the end of the Cold War to a US strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Well aware of the advantage conferred by its superior economic performance, Washington pushed Moscow into a military competition that drained the USSR of its resources. In this narrative, US President Ronald Reagan’s push to create a missile defence system – realistic or not – was the straw that broke the Soviet back.

    Are Chinese strategists pursuing a similar approach to the United States? Is Beijing pushing US buttons, forcing it to spend increasingly scarce resources on defence assets and diverting them from other more productive uses? Far-fetched though it may seem – and the reasons to be sceptical are pretty compelling – there is evidence that China is doing just that: ringing American alarm bells, forcing the US to respond, and compounding fiscal dilemmas within the United States. Call it Cold War redux....

    China is trying to shape that strategy – not just by playing down its potential to threaten the United States but by playing up some of its capabilities. That’s one way to read China’s January 2007 anti-satellite test or the test of the stealth fighter in January of this year just as Gates was visiting China. China is trying to make its capabilities, no matter how nascent or premature, the focus of US planning and forcing the US to respond.

    While this theory – that China would highlight its own threat to force a US response – sounds far-fetched, it seems to be working. There’s mounting concern in the defence community over China’s deployment of an aircraft carrier and its anti-access area denial strategy. That’s reasonable: hysteria and dire warnings about a transformation of the regional balance of power are not....................

    Most important, the United States must better leverage its strengths, in particular its relationships with allies, friends and partners.

    Alliances and relationships are force multipliers. The more tightly integrated the US and its allies, the more convincing the signal to potential adversaries that the United States is committed to the defence of those partners – in other words, it strengthens our deterrent. And that is the most important element of our security strategy in the Asia Pacific.
    http://the-diplomat.com/2011/06/09/i...o-bankrupt-us/


    The Chinese modernisation of its armed forces and it growing economic clout indeed places China in a comfortable position.

    The provocations in the South China Seas maybe for genuine economic reasons, as also to send alarm bells ringing with its consequences.

    The current economic state of the US does not encourage a 'race' and yet the US interests has to remain shored up.

    Alliances and relationships have to be organised so that the responsibility is shared, but such alliances and relationship should have a sound footing and not be applicable on merits on a 'case by case' basis.

  2. #182
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    The most remarkable thing to me is we are discussing abandoning a free nation that has been allied with us for over 60 years to an aggressive police state.
    It might be wise to recall that the discussion is assuming a Chinese attack on Taiwan and assuming that the US will abandon Taiwan. That's a rather hypothetical discussion on multiple levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    It will be tragic if we allow things to get to a state where we would even be confronted with the decision.
    Why would anyone assume that what the US "allows" or doesn't allow will determine what state of affairs emerges between China and Taiwan?

  3. #183
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Lawvol & Dayuhan:

    If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.

    Obviously this is a hypothetical discussion but it is still remarkable that we are having it. Would we be even having the same discussion if the country in question were Australia?

    The implicit and explicit backing of the US is the only thing that has kept Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP, the only thing. The attitude of the US is the critical factor in the state of affairs between the two states. As it changes, so does that state of affairs.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  4. #184
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.
    Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.

    Assuming she ever gets operational, using what you know of US tactics and capabilities...if you wanted to sink the Chinese aircraft carrier, how would you do it and what would you use? [...] Obviously a nuke could also do it.
    How Would You Sink The Shi Lang? - Information Dissemination - April 15, 2011.
    Last edited by Backwards Observer; 06-12-2011 at 03:29 PM. Reason: add link

  5. #185
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    This is nothing at all new... the dispute is old and the US position is as well. The US considers the Spratlys to be disputed territory, not an integral part of the Philippines... which makes sense, because deciding these disputes is not in any way up to the US. Given this, Chinese military action in the Spratlys is not regarded as an attack on the Philippines and would not trigger the mutual defense pact. Again, this has been the US position for ages, and comes out every time the issue comes up, as it has done periodically for decades.

    There's a big difference between being willing to protect allies from actual attack on their territory and taking a blanket position of support that actually encourages allies to take an unnecessarily bellicose stance that could provoke a conflict that would benefit nobody. I don't see that kind of common sense as a disincentive to anyone who wants a mutual defense relationship with the US.
    The armed forces of the Asia Pacific countries can only offer token resistance to China, hence China’s writ will run with Asia Pacific countries merely as bystanders. In short, they have no options. At best, they can sue for Peace on China’s terms.

    The US on the other hand, has her national interests in the Asia Pacific region. In this connection this thread is pertinent:

    Alliances and relationships are force multipliers. The more tightly integrated the US and its allies, the more convincing the signal to potential adversaries that the United States is committed to the defence of those partners – in other words, it strengthens our deterrent. And that is the most important element of our security strategy in the Asia Pacific.
    http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...429#post122429
    If Alliance and Pact Partners of the US, who have no military clout, find the US allowing them to succumb to China’s pressure tactics, then the Alliance and Pact becomes redundant and useless.

    If in their time of need, the US does not show some sort of solidarity with them, then such Pacts with the US would remain suspect and it would not be surprising if such countries wonder if there is any guarantee that the US will honour its commitment or fight shy that it would go against US' interests.

    If one observes the US Pacts from the Third World perspective and not from the US perspective, Pakistan, which was in the CENTO and SEATO, has felt let down by the US when the push came to shove. Even now, when Pakistan’s very existence depends on US finance and military assistance, they are very wary of the US. On the other hand, China, without doing as much as the US, is assisting Pakistan in key areas of concerns, riding at times against the tide of international opinion. It is obvious, that China is being perceived as 'a friend in need, is a friend indeed'. This is not lost of the Third World countries.

    Observe the situation of Taiwan. One never knows when, where and which side the cat will jump. A sense of deep insecurity. It is not material whether there is One China policy or Two China policy. The US had always charged itself with the defence of Taiwan, come what may. Now, it is ‘iffy’.

    Philippines has been left on the limb. I am not too sure if they have a Defence Pact with the US or not. It is obvious they feel that they have been let down if one goes by statement of its government.

    What may appear as common sense to the US wherein US interest overrides Pact/ Alliance obligations, such common sense remains obviously a disincentive for Third World countries to enter into Pacts and Agreements.

    It would not be a strange if one is wary of ‘fair weather friends’, more so, when faced with a totally disproportionately strong adversary breathing down the neck.

  6. #186
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    The armed forces of the Asia Pacific countries can only offer token resistance to China, hence China’s writ will run with Asia Pacific countries merely as bystanders. In short, they have no options. At best, they can sue for Peace on China’s terms.
    Ray, do you think India would go to war with China to protect Taiwan or any other Asia-Pacific country? As a close neighbour, wouldn't it be common sense to do so?
    Last edited by Backwards Observer; 06-12-2011 at 03:41 PM. Reason: punctuation

  7. #187
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backwards Observer View Post
    Ray, do you think India would go to war with China to protect Taiwan or any other Asia-Pacific country? As a close neighbour, wouldn't it be common sense to do so?
    India does not have a military alliance or Pact with any country and hence, I presume, it will just be a bystander.

    In Afghanistan, India should show more than platonic interest, but then not much can be expected of the Indian Govt.

  8. #188
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    India does not have a military alliance or Pact with any country and hence, I presume, it will just be a bystander.

    In Afghanistan, India should show more than platonic interest, but then not much can be expected of the Indian Govt.
    Ray, thanks for replying. Do you think a military alliance between the US and India would be a potent enough deterrent to China? What are your feelings on the likelihood of such an alliance/pact from the Indian side?

  9. #189
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    It is interesting that you posted this up. I can't recall the article, but there was something recently that Chinese business interests want to open an economic zone with the US.

    Moderator adds: It was Boise, Idaho in Post 37. in the China & South China Sea thread.

    I think we would be wise to look back a little bit at our own history towards the tail end of the Cold War, with the old nemesis Soviets,
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-12-2011 at 06:38 PM. Reason: Mod's Note

  10. #190
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    I don't think that the Chinese are that aggressive towards the US.
    They would have many better approaches available, and there's little to no evidence that they're using them:

    # covertly lobby in the U.S. congress for additional expenses (not for public infrastructure investments or DoD, of course)
    # push the U.S. into another war like Iraq
    # attempt to break up U.S.-Japanese cooperation to the point that Marines withdraw from Okinawa
    # attempt to have the U.S. give up Taiwan (which is after all quite irrelevant unless you really, really want to have a good Taiwanese graphics card in your PC)
    # increase Chinese cultural influence and perception in the U.S. to a point where Taiwan and Tibet become invisible

    So far the F-22 export ban and end of production, small wars focus, low U.S. savings rate and overemphasis of private consumption, budget-breaking tax cuts, Iraq War and Taiwanese economic integration with Chinese mainland seem to be the only major actions that play into the PRC's hand.
    All of them can be explained without PRC influence in the shadows.

  11. #191
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    A very knowledgeable colleague – Michael Richardson – published this article in several Asian and Australian publications. An interesting twist in the “energy race”, which is maybe more interesting than the often cited but never materialized “arms race”
    http://hdff.org/2011/06/01/beijing-b...n-energy-race/
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  12. #192
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backwards Observer View Post
    Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.
    That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  13. #193
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Lawvol & Dayuhan:

    If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.
    I do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings. Again, I would do what is best for America just like the Lincoln you invoke. Below is a quote demonstrating his realist thinking given his desire to do what was in the interests of preserving the Union. He also demonstrates a difference in his personal thinking and his realist thinking.

    I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

    I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
    We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  14. #194
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    So what's Vietnam, the Philippines,Taiwan,and Malaysia done for the United States lately? I just saw on the news that some Congressman went to Iraq and told their president that since things are going so well over there now they can start paying us back for the war like President Bush said they would. He was asked to leave Iraq! Point being we don't get any respect in the world because we are willing to fight and pay for others people's problems. If China wants to drill of the coast of VIETNAM for oil....hey good for them!
    Though dated, may help:

    U.S. Strategic and Defense Relationships in the Asia-Pacific Region
    January 22, 2007
    Bruce Vaughn
    Analyst in Southeast and South Asian Affairs
    Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

    East Asia is rapidly changing, largely due to the rise of China which is fueled
    by China’s impressive economic growth. China’s new economic clout is giving it new power and influence in the region. Many Asia-Pacific analysts and observers, both in the region and in the United States, feel that the United States is preoccupied in the Middle East and as a result is not sufficiently focused on the Asia-Pacific at a critical point in the evolution of what may prove to be a new era in Asia.

    China is the only power that is presently thought capable of becoming a peer competitor of the United States. To many the overwhelming challenge is the need to try to shape the global and regional geo-strategic and economic environments to encourage and facilitate China’s peaceful and constructive evolution as a great power.

    There is concern by some that a policy towards China that assumes China will become a threat to the United States and its interests in Asia will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    That said, many feel that a strategy that hedges against the possibility that China’s rise is less than peaceful and cooperative is a prudent course of action.....

    Some alliances have proven to be more resilient and adaptable in adjusting to evolving challenges than others. Several factors appear to be linked to the durability of America’s alliances in Asia, including common perceptions of threat, shared strategic objectives, diplomatic attention, shared values, and common history.

    A better understanding of the disposition of America’s forward deployed force structure, alliance ties, defense partners, and working relationships in Asia in the context of U.S. strategic priorities and shifting geopolitical realities can inform
    assessments of the future direction of American strategic posture in the region.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33821.pdf
    Last edited by Ray; 06-13-2011 at 07:31 AM.

  15. #195
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.
    People may roll their eyes at my cynicism, but if human nature is anything to go by, the charade will drag on until mainland China becomes a democracy. Then the mainlanders will vote some guy in who promises to reunify Taiwan by force.

  16. #196
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings.
    We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.
    Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

    There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

    If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.
    Last edited by Ray; 06-13-2011 at 06:54 AM.

  17. #197
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Jaw jaw better than war war (for now):


    Given China's increasing power and economic security, dealing with the Communist nation poses a "big challenge" for the United States, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday.
    Kissinger: China poses 'big challenge' for U.S. - CNN - June 12, 2011.

    ***

    US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, has warned China not to interfere in Taiwan’s presidential election and promised to support Taiwan’s democracy in every way she can.
    US lawmaker warns China on Taiwan - Taipei Times - June 13, 2011.

    ***

    BEIJING - A deadly killer jet that can take on the most advanced miliary fighters of the world's sole superpower. A behemoth "ship" under construction that will project the military power of the "Middle Kingdom" further off its coast. An army of cyber hackers ready to do all the havoc on the Internet.

    These days, news stories by some Western media about China's military strength tend to play up its increasing size and menacing potential. Some Western observers have tried to hint to readers that something "big and evil" is fast evolving in China.
    Crunch myth about China's military threat - China Daily - June 13, 2011.

  18. #198
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    China will always downplay that it is a threat to any country, far or near.

    That is how she has been able to achieve her 'Peaceful Rise'.

    Now, it is China to show a bit of flexing her muscle, passing it off as merely a tired arms flayed yawn!

    War is not the answer. Containment is!

  19. #199
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

    There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

    If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.
    True enough. However, remember that if the US can break alliances, so can other nations. Nations do what they believe to be in their own interests. Iraq is a perfect example. Despite feeding off the American defense department for their security needs for over half a century, and thereby supporting their social programs, some EU nations chose to oppose American intervention in Iraq. Although they certainly made a legal argument (a correct one IMO) to support their opposition, they acted in their interests and used law as a tool for justification. Kosovo shows a willingness to ignore international law when it serves their interests, so we know this opposition wasn't a stand on principle.

    Backing out of an alliance or not giving the full measure certainly involves many considerations. The long term ramifications are part of that calculation. However, even considering the fallout, it may still be in our interests to do our own thing. BTW, I never expressed umbrage at what Iraq did in Slapout's reference. However, even if I did it would still be consistent with my argument. I can understand the rationale for another country breaking an "agreement" or acting in contravention to our interests, but I don't have to like it.
    Last edited by LawVol; 06-13-2011 at 07:42 AM.
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  20. #200
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Check how Russia and China managed/ manages their unofficial alliances.

    You will note the difference and to which side the not powerful Third World would like to align with.

    Right now, they want to align with the West. However, if the West is unreliable, then why not seek a reliable friend?

    And if they move there, where will the US be?

    That is why the US has to ensure that they are reliable.

    Who loses most? The US or the Third World countries?

    US has missed out on rock solid alliances, inspite of great assistance, because they appear arrogant and they mix with the elite and abandon at the earliest compared to the other so called superpowers.

    China's 'friendship' is without strings attached. They make friends with the Devil itself. The US acts pious and behaves otherwise with not only string attached, but slowly push countries into vassalage.

    Check out Pakistan, notwithstanding big talk of Pakistan.
    Last edited by Ray; 06-13-2011 at 09:18 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)
    By Beelzebubalicious in forum Europe
    Replies: 1934
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 07:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •