Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 807

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    JMA,

    I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.
    Death by a thousand cuts...

    I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

    None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

    Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

    Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

    I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now.

  2. #2
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Death by a thousand cuts...

    I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

    None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

    Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

    Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

    I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now*.
    Excellent analysis.
    *Probably Spring of 2013.
    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

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

    Default

    Look for the connected media to start floating "strategic analysis" that question the importance of Taiwan. They will follow it up with stories portraying the Nationalists as corrupt, brutal, untrustworthy and unwilling to accede to reasonable requests by us as a method to defuse a crisis even though we will make guarantees. etc. etc. The upshot is, if it happens, there will be a pr campaign first.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    JMA,

    I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.
    Nearly missed this one.

    My point was made when I stated that the opportunity to counter any potential future military threat against US interests from the Russia (then the Soviets) and China passed in the the 50's. A limited war against either power will not be possible as neither will be the widespread use of nukes. It is therefore better for the US to accept that it will need to give ground to either power in a slow and controlled manner in the forlorn hope that internal developments within those powers will reduce their need for aggressive expansionism over time.

    There is simply no point in deluding oneself that one (the US) can counter and if necessary defeat either power if push comes to shove. The best course of action is as Truman did back then is to defer the problem to the next generation. This head in the sand mentality is repeating itself now as the generation Truman passed the problem to prepares to do the same to their children. But let our generation not kid itself and our children that there is no real problem that needs attention and continue to just kick the can down the street... let us attempt a little honesty this time.

  5. #5
    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 JMA View Post
    My point was made when I stated that the opportunity to counter any potential future military threat against US interests from the Russia (then the Soviets) and China passed in the the 50's. A limited war against either power will not be possible as neither will be the widespread use of nukes.
    I sense another bout of historical revisionism coming on... what exactly was the US supposed to do in the 1950s to "counter any potential future military threat" from Russia and China? Nuke them? How and why does one go about countering potential future threats? Are we to try to preemptively counter any threat that might possibly someday exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    It is therefore better for the US to accept that it will need to give ground to either power in a slow and controlled manner in the forlorn hope that internal developments within those powers will reduce their need for aggressive expansionism over time.
    So far the US hasn't given any ground at all. The Russians certainly did: they lost an immense amount of ground with the fall of the Soviet Union. Of course that ground wasn't gained by the US, it was gained by the people who live on it, which is as it should be.

    Neither Russia nor China can reasonably called "aggressively expansionist", and the US isn't "losing ground" to anyone. We're adjusting to a more multipolar world with greater economic balance, but that's inevitable and needn't be something to fear.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    There is simply no point in deluding oneself that one (the US) can counter and if necessary defeat either power if push comes to shove.
    Neither can either "counter and if necessary defeat" the US if push comes to shove. There's a very strong incentive not to let push come to shove, as there was during the cold war... and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If any of these powers had the capacity to conclusively defeat any other, they'd be tempted to use that capacity. The less of that the better.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  6. #6
    Council Member The Cuyahoga Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Yes, they have a plan and we don't.
    Ok, but do they have a good plan?

    Personally, I think that the Chinese government has started buying the same bull it's sellling, that China is going to maintain it's current rate of economic growth for 20-30 years, instead of accepting that once today's youth bulge evaporates in the 2020's, productivity is going to drop off drastically, and the PRC's influence with it.

    Just an 18 y.o.'s perspective, but I think that the CCP is trying to play in the big leagues, when they should be playing small ball, and that centralized policy planning is part of the problem, not the solution.
    Last edited by The Cuyahoga Kid; 06-05-2011 at 09:40 PM.

  7. #7
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cuyahoga Kid View Post
    Ok, but do they have a good plan?

    Personally, I think that the Chinese government has started buying the same bull it's sellling, that China is going to maintain it's current rate of economic growth for 20-30 years, instead of accepting that once today's youth bulge evaporates in the 2020's, productivity is going to drop off drastically, and the PRC's influence with it.

    Just an 18 y.o.'s perspective, but I think that the CCP is trying to play in the big leagues, when they should be playing small ball, and that centralized policy planning is part of the problem, not the solution.
    Agreed from someone who has visited the mainland away from the seaboard a few times and also experienced the CCP local bureaucracy in its unfettered glory.

    Just an example of this in the NYTIMES regarding a much larger CCP project than any 'Battlestar Galactica' drilling platform:

    Plan For China's Water Crisis Spurs Concern

    North China is dying.

    A chronic drought is ravaging farmland. The Gobi Desert is inching south. The Yellow River, the so-called birthplace of Chinese civilization, is so polluted it can no longer supply drinking water. The rapid growth of megacities — 22 million people in Beijing and 12 million in Tianjin alone — has drained underground aquifers that took millenniums to fill.
    Not atypically, the Chinese government has a grand and expensive solution: Divert at least six trillion gallons of water each year hundreds of miles from the other great Chinese river, the Yangtze, to slake the thirst of the north China plain and its 440 million people.

    The engineering feat, called the South-North Water Diversion Project, is China’s most ambitious attempt to subjugate nature. It would be like channeling water from the Mississippi River to meet the drinking needs of Boston, New York and Washington. Its $62 billion price tag is twice that of the Three Gorges Dam, which is the world’s largest hydroelectric project.

    And not unlike that project, which Chinese officials last month admitted had “urgent problems,” the water diversion scheme is increasingly mired in concerns about its cost, its environmental impact and the sacrifices poor people in the provinces are told to make for those in richer cities.

    Three artificial channels from the Yangtze would transport precious water from the south, which itself is increasingly afflicted by droughts; the region is suffering its worst one in 50 years. The project’s human cost is staggering — along the middle route, which starts here in Hubei Province at a gigantic reservoir and snakes 800 miles to Beijing, about 350,000 villagers are being relocated to make way for the canal. Many are being resettled far from their homes and given low-grade farmland; in Hubei, thousands of people have been moved to the grounds of a former prison ...

  8. #8
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Carl, I disagree, to a point, that law of the sea arguments will not stop them. From some things I've read and some China experts I've spoken to, China is quite in tune with legalities. In fact, they tend to predicate their activity on a legal basis. In response to the incidents with the US (EP-3 and USNS Impeccable), China crafted legal arguments. It may have something to do with their "smile campaign" and "peaceful rise" strategy. In any event, a vocal challenge to this interpretation of international law combined with US activity (e.g. port calls to Vietnam, continued surveillance from inside China's EEZ, etc.) may be beneficial. What else can we do?

    Tequila, I've never been to China, but can we really gauge their military by analyzing the CCP? Doesn't their military have more of a free hand vis-a-vis political control than ours? The weather satellite shoot-down comes to mind; the pols over their seemed caught off guard. Can we afford to be wrong?

    We don't need to go toe-to-toe with China to protect our interests. SImply guaranteeing access and freedom of navigation in accordance with international law is sufficient. This is why China's strategy is anti-access and increased sovereignty at the expense of global commons.
    -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)

  9. #9
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Tequila, I've never been to China, but can we really gauge their military by analyzing the CCP? Doesn't their military have more of a free hand vis-a-vis political control than ours? The weather satellite shoot-down comes to mind; the pols over their seemed caught off guard. Can we afford to be wrong?
    The CCP maintains absolute control over the military. Frankly I don't buy the idea that the Party leadership did not know about the shootdown. There are factions and politics within the Party leadership, with corresponding factions within the Army. Some are more aggressive than others in the foreign policy realm. There may have been some disagreement between one faction with another over whether the shootdown was the right thing to do, but overall the shootdown fits with a broader CCP move towards reminding the U.S. that China maintains an aggressive deterrence capability.

    That the CCP could force the military to divest itself from its enormous Egypt-like economic empire in the 1990s and early 2000's shows, IMO, who still has control. I agree that the professionalization of the PLA has distanced it from civil society and the CCP to an extent, but they still are under the full control of the Party.

  10. #10
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    Can we afford to be wrong?
    John, I forgot about this. We had better play it such a way that we can afford to be wrong, if we can, because we probably will be wrong. That leads to the good old plan around their capabilities and actions rather than their words.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    A power shift in Asia

    Washington is obsessed with decline: the upshot of the worst economy since the Great Depression, the prospect of massive defense cuts that could signal the end of the American military’s imperial-like reach, the collapse of Arab regimes with which the Pentagon and CIA closely cooperated. But nothing of late quite captures what is going on in terms of a global power lift as much as the U.S. refusal to sell Taiwan new F-16 fighter jets.......

    By 2020, the United States will not be able to defend Taiwan from a Chinese air attack, a 2009 Rand study found, even with America’s F-22s, two carrier strike groups in the region and continued access to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa. Moreover, China is at the point of deploying anti-ship ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. surface warships, even as Taiwan’s F-16s, with or without upgrades, are outmatched by China’s 300 to 400 Russian-designed Su-27 and Su-30 fighters. Given that Taiwan is only 100 miles from China and the U.S. Navy and Air Force must deploy to the Pacific from half a world away, the idea that Washington could permanently guarantee Taipei’s de facto sovereignty has always been a diminishing proposition. Vice President Biden’s recent extensive talks with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping (who is poised to succeed President Hu Jintao), may have reinforced the notion inside the administration that Taiwan is better defended by a closer American-Chinese diplomatic understanding than by an arms race.......

    Decline is rarely sudden: Rather, it transpires quietly over decades, even as officialdom denies its existence and any contribution to it. The Royal Navy began its decline in the 1890s, Princeton University professor Aaron L. Friedberg writes in “The Weary Titan,” even as Britain went on to win two world wars over the next half-century. And so, China is gradually enveloping Taiwan as part of a transition toward military multipolarity in the western Pacific — away from the veritable American naval lake that the Pacific has constituted since the end of World War II. At the same time, however, the United States pushes back against this trend: This month, Obama administration officials — with China uppermost in their minds — updated a defense pact with Australia,giving the United States greater access to Australian military bases and ports near the confluence of the Pacific and Indian oceans. The United States is making room in Asian waters for the Chinese navy and air force, but only grudgingly.

    Decline is also relative. So to talk of American decline without knowing the destiny of a power like China is rash. What if China were to have a political and economic upheaval with adverse repercussions for its defense budget? Then history would turn out a lot more complicated than a simple Chinese rise and an American fall.

    Because we cannot know the future, all we can do is note the trend line. The trend line suggests that China will annex Taiwan by, in effect, going around it: by adjusting the correlation of forces in its favor so that China will never have to fight for what it will soon possess. Not only does China have some more than 1,500 short-range ballistic missiles focused on Taiwan, but there are 270 commercial flights per week between Taiwan and the mainland, even as close to a third of Taiwan’s exports go to China. Such is independence melting away. And as China’s strategic planners need to concentrate less on capturing Taiwan, they will be free to focus on projecting power into the energy-rich South China Sea and, later, into the adjoining Indian Ocean — hence America’s heightened interest in its Australian allies.....

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...jrK_story.html
    So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?

  12. #12
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking Heh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?
    In reverse order, that may or may not be true; it's been predicted -- wrongly -- before but it's bound to happen sooner or later.

    It has been my experience that Mr. Kaplan, his namesakes and other authors who attempt as 'impartial observers but not participants' to describe the international political and military scene make at least as many erroneous calls as those that are even somewhat correct...

    All that said, I do not get your sensing out of that quote -- and I cannot read the entire article, your link doesn't work...

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    I think it is irrefutable that the U.S. is in decline, but not because we're becoming weaker, but because others are becoming stronger (the rise of the rest). If we strive to maintain the same level of dominance we had during the Cold War over the entire globe we may end up destroying ourselves economically.

    Just to be provocative, how big a deal is it if the U.S. can't defend Taiwan? If we're assessing our global strength on that one scenario that is only important because we say it is important, then I think we may be grossly underestimating our residual global power.

    Furthermore, it is assumed that just because China "may" have greater air capability than Taiwan, and that China "may" develop the means to keep our ships at bay that all is lost. Hardly, war is much more complex than that and there are many options for the Taiwanese and those who may want to help the Taiwanese that will make the objective of taking Taiwan too expensive for China. It is hard to believe that after 10 years of asymmetrical warfare (take the term for what's it worth) that we still think largely conventionally, and are only examining this as a head on confrontation (that may never happen to begin with).

  14. #14
    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 Ray View Post
    So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?
    The article might also be seen as evidence that a certain form of recurring hysteria is alive and well in the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    It is hard to believe that after 10 years of asymmetrical warfare (take the term for what's it worth) that we still think largely conventionally, and are only examining this as a head on confrontation (that may never happen to begin with).
    Exactly. Given China's dependence on trade and the quantity of merchandise exports and commodity imports that could be interdicted without coming anywhere near China's geographically limited force projection range, why would we want to confront them in the Taiwan strait or the South China Sea?
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    All that said, I do not get your sensing out of that quote
    I too am not sure as to the implications of what Mr Kaplan has implied.

    Hence, I thought maybe those who are more qualified here, having interacted within thinktanks in the US could throw some light.

    Here is the link:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...jrK_story.html

    In case, it does not work, Google 'Power shift in Asia Kaplan' and you will get the above article.

    Thanks.

  16. #16
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thank you for the link.

    Reading the entire article, I now see where you drew your inference...

    There's no doubt we are in one of our many periods of decline. A few have been major, most were minor. How this one will end remains to be seen. Neither friend Kaplan or I can predict that but from my vantage point of 20 more years than he's amassed (and my oldest son about his age isn't worried at all...) and having lived through other periods of gloom and despair, I'm not particularly worried at this point. But then, I'm not trying to sell articles...

    We'll see...

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Still unable to grasp that what kind of resistance these odd 66 F-16s were to provide in case of war. But the refusal is likely to dent American image and will definitely boost China's.

    On the topic of US being as "has been", militarily US is at least 2-3 decades ahead of China but economically not so much.

  18. #18
    Council Member franksforum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Oakton, VA
    Posts
    23

    Default Chinese Naval Developments

    From the RSIS site in Singapore:

    "Confronted with the overwhelming superiority of the US Navy, China has embarked on an asymmetric naval strategy to mitigate American naval power. Relying heavily on submarines, cruise and ballistic missiles and modern fast attack craft, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is fast developing a powerful sea denial capability."

    Full text of the commentary is available at the below link:

    http://www.ntu.edu.sg/rsis/publicati...SIS0572008.pdf

  19. #19
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Question Hmmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by franksforum View Post
    From the RSIS site in Singapore:

    "Confronted with the overwhelming superiority of the US Navy, China has embarked on an asymmetric naval strategy to mitigate American naval power. Relying heavily on submarines, cruise and ballistic missiles and modern fast attack craft, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is fast developing a powerful sea denial capability."

    Full text of the commentary is available at the below link:

    http://www.ntu.edu.sg/rsis/publicati...SIS0572008.pdf
    Good thing nobody's planning on invading the sovereign space of China, and of course they only want this capability for defensive and not expeditionary purposes.

    At least that's what you hear all the time. Call me silly but I still think something's funny and I haven't figured out what the joke is yet.
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    Call me silly but I still think something's funny and I haven't figured out what the joke is yet.
    Ron, take it from me that the only way it'll end up seeming funny is after the water torture is over.

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
  •