China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Bob's World]

The real question is "what would be the affect on America the day after a reconciliation between China and Taiwan"?

Answer: Little to none.

The best the US can hope to do in efforts to control this dynamic is to reset the conditions of failure. Worst case we engage in an "Air-Sea Battle" over the matter and lose hundreds or thousands of lives, Billions in hardware, and an unmeasurable amount of regional and global prestiege and influence. We should not play a game that can only at best be tied, but never won.

Britain waited until they got thier nosed rubbed in the Suez issue. I recommend we get in front of that occuring in similar issues that we cling to beyond their expiration date as well.

[carl]

Mr. Jones:

Agreed, a reconciliation would not affect us at all. But the word reconciliation means something peaceful arranged with the consent of both parties. I am not talking about that. I am talking about a Red Chinese conquest of Taiwan, against the will of the Taiwanese. That would be a very different matter.

I read your second paragraph as meaning if the Red Chinese tried to take Taiwan by force, we allow them to do so and abandon the Taiwanese. Is that your position? If it is, I believe we would lose all global prestige and influence.

I don't know exactly what you mean by your third paragraph. It is a bit amorphous. I take it to mean we should find out what Red China wants and give it to them. Is that correct?

[AmericanPride]

carl: My use of 1956 Suez Crisis is not to illustrate the military impotence of a declining imperial power. Instead, its important to acknowledge that the event (1) demonstrated British acknowledgement of its own decline and (2) illustrated the role of economic and political power in undermining military capabilities. I do not think a Taiwan conflict will see the direct engagement of US and PRC forces. Rather, the Chinese would likely deter direct US participation through economic leverage. This would mark the start of a new dynamic in international security as well as demonstrate the utter uselessness of US military power and investments.

Alternatively, Japan's defeat of Russia in 1905 might prove to be another useful analogy in demonstrating how imperial hubris leads to total shock and failure. But, as I said, I believe direct US/PRC conflict to be very unlikely.

[carl]

carl: My use of 1956 Suez Crisis is not to illustrate the military impotence of a declining imperial power. Instead, its important to acknowledge that the event (1) demonstrated British acknowledgement of its own decline and (2) illustrated the role of economic and political power in undermining military capabilities. I do not think a Taiwan conflict will see the direct engagement of US and PRC forces. Rather, the Chinese would likely deter direct US participation through economic leverage. This would mark the start of a new dynamic in international security as well as demonstrate the utter uselessness of US military power and investments.

Alternatively, Japan's defeat of Russia in 1905 might prove to be another useful analogy in demonstrating how imperial hubris leads to total shock and failure. But, as I said, I believe direct US/PRC conflict to be very unlikely.

The economic power and political power that removed the British and French from the Suez was American. We told them to go home and they did. I don't see how that can apply to the thing we are talking about.

I don't think direct conflict between us and the Red Chinese is probable but I don't consider it very unlikely. How would they deter us from defending the Taiwanese if we so chose except by military force? They could refuse to buy bonds and we could counter by refusing to pay them back. In that case they would get hurt as much or even more.

Unless human nature has changed there will never be a time when military power is utterly useless. If there were a conflict over Taiwan, what would stop them would be military power and what would stop us is the same.

The Russo-Japanese War is a better example of how a really lousy navy is smashed by a good one. The prime lesson I believe is have a good navy rather than a lousy one.

I rather hope all this won't ever come about. Taiwan and the mainland are pretty closely tied economically and as long as everybody is happy with the polite fiction there is no reason to fight. I worry though that all those ships the Reds are building means somebody isn't happy with the polite fiction.

[AmericanPride]

The economic power and political power that removed the British and French from the Suez was American. We told them to go home and they did.

That's the point. The US (and the other NATO allies) did not fire a shot. Yet they managed to repel a combined British, French, and Israeli invasion of Egypt. It marked very clearly the end of European adventurism in the Middle East. And it was the Europeans that were the last to find out that the game was over.

How would they deter us from defending the Taiwanese if we so chose except by military force? They could refuse to buy bonds and we could counter by refusing to pay them back. In that case they would get hurt as much or even more.

As China's economy continues to develop and modernize, its dependence on the US market lessens. The US is significantly more vulnerable and sensitive to economic shocks than China. A combination of economic threats, precision cyber attacks targeting US communications, and sea and space denial weapons could neutralize any credible US response. I do not anticipate a PRC-initiated confrontation, at least not for many more years.

Unless human nature has changed there will never be a time when military power is utterly useless.

Inability to achieve one's desired political outcomes = useless. The current US capabilities and force structure is not suited for a wide range of future threat scenarios; PRC/Taiwan included.

The Russo-Japanese War is a better example of how a really lousy navy is smashed by a good one.

It's also a great example of how misappropriated military power and imperial hubris leads to disaster. The US cannot credibly defend Taiwan from the PRC. This is the mark of America's relative decline in its ability to effectively project power. The US needs to retool its naval and air forces, enhance the security of its networks, and develop protections for its soft infrastructure.

[AmericanPride]

What economic leverage would that be? Economic leverage is a major factor deterring such an invasion.

As China's economy modernizes, the economic leverage will continue to gradually shift in its favor. Time is on the side of the PRC. I do not think the PRC will initiate any confrontation. Most likely, economic integration will eventually lead to political capitulation on the part of the ROC. Or, the PRC may find some provocation in a world of economic turmoil to exploit.

[carl]

Suez involved one ally telling some other allies that they couldn't do something. I don't see how it fits at all. If, God forbid, the Red Chinese and us had a confrontation, it would not be an a disagreement between allies, but one between enemies. That is an entirely different matter.

As China's economy continues to develop and modernize, its dependence on the US market lessens. The US is significantly more vulnerable and sensitive to economic shocks than China. A combination of economic threats, precision cyber attacks targeting US communications, and sea and space denial weapons could neutralize any credible US response. I do not anticipate a PRC-initiated confrontation, at least not for many more years.

Why is the US more vulnerable to economic shocks than Red China? If Red China made economic threats that might result in a trade war. That would be bad for everybody but especially for an export type economy like Red China's. They would really get hurt.

Cyber attacks, sea and space attacks would be acts of war. Then the fight would be on. Maybe those things would neutralize US response, maybe not. The thing is a two way street. Maybe all the sluice gates for the Three Rivers Dam would malfunction.

Inability to achieve one's desired political outcomes = useless. The current US capabilities and force structure is not suited for a wide range of future threat scenarios; PRC/Taiwan included.

If you can't achieve your goals, you failed. That doesn't mean the tools you used were useless, they were useful, but you lost. Perhaps they kept you from losing worse. The current US capabilities relatively speaking are pretty darn great right now, more than enough to deter any Red Chinese adventures. But even if they were not, they are not fixed forever.

It's also a great example of how misappropriated military power and imperial hubris leads to disaster. The US cannot credibly defend Taiwan from the PRC. This is the mark of America's relative decline in its ability to effectively project power. The US needs to retool its naval and air forces, enhance the security of its networks, and develop protections for its soft infrastructure.

We'll have to disagree on that. I think one of the main reasons the Russkis lost was a plain old fashioned Russian type lousy navy. Hubris, yea maybe, in the sense that they may have let race affect their ability to judge military capability. I don't think we would be affected so much by that. We fought them once in Korea and found out they knew what to do; besides many of our people seem to think they are 10 feet tall now.

I think the US can credibly defend Taiwan. I think you are wrong when you say we cannot. If you are wrong your premise is gone and there is not a mark of anything.

[AmericanPride]

Suez involved one ally telling some other allies that they couldn't do something. I don't see how it fits at all. If, God forbid, the Red Chinese and us had a confrontation, it would not be an a disagreement between allies, but one between enemies. That is an entirely different matter.

As I have previously stated, that is not the part of the analogy on which I am focused. Feel free to address the aspects of the analogy that I have claimed to be relevant.

Why is the US more vulnerable to economic shocks than Red China? If Red China made economic threats that might result in a trade war. That would be bad for everybody but especially for an export type economy like Red China's. They would really get hurt.

Why would economic leverage shift in China's favor? China is not the economic juggernaut it's portrayed as being; they have deep and severe domestic problems. I don't see how time is on the side of the PRC at all; quite the opposite. They're having their economic moment in the sun; they are not managing it particularly well and the chickens will come home to roost.

China's economy will not forever be a export-oriented economy. With a huge population, it has long-term advantage in market potential, labor resources and costs, as well as general advantages in market stability, governance, and planning. The urbanization of China and capitalization on investments and trade returns will produce a post-industrial economy not unlike that of the United States that but co-exists simultaneously with China's industrial economy, given the expansiveness of the country's market. China is vulnerable to a trade war in the near-term, which is one reason why I have repeatedly stated that the PRC will not initiate a confrontation in the near future.

If you can't achieve your goals, you failed. That doesn't mean the tools you used were useless, they were useful, but you lost.

There is no substitute for victory. If you lost, your resources and strategies were useless for the given scenario.

All the Taiwanese and allies need to do to defend themselves is to make the cost of aggression higher than the PRC would want to bear.

The ROC is incapable of doing that in the long-term.

The more China modernizes and the more they integrate with the global economy, the higher the cost of a potential dis-integrating action becomes.

That assumes of course that the international community would actually protest in an meaningful manner a PRC annexation of Taiwan. As I said previously, I think the most likely outcome will be continued economic integration that will lead to the political compromise and eventual capitulation of the ROC. At some point, this process may be disrupted by nationalist protest or defiance, which may or may not spark military confrontation.

It might approach accuracy to say that while the US is not an empire by any accepted or reasonably arguable definition of empire, the perception of imperial presence and design is widespread and does affect people's decisions and actions, and therefore must be taken into account. Since that perception will prevail no matter what the US says or does, there's little point in trying to reverse it, but its impact on reactions and decisions must be taken into account in planning.

The US is not an empire. It is the only the richest, most powerful subject in a universal financial empire interconnected through a web of powerful individuals, families, and corporations (specifically banks and financial institutions). What has occurred is a de-territorialization of 'empire' through a deconstruction of controls and accountability of financial transactions. Finance capitalism has experienced runaway growth since the 1970s and has outpaced every other economic sector around the world. Consequently, it has an undue and overwhelming influence on policies, politics, and security. In the US in particular, it has resulted in the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and not by force of arms, but by the weight of the law and companies "too big to fail". But the US public pays for it through income taxes (due to the collapse of tax revenues in capital gains and corporate taxes), the elimination or privatization of social services under the guise of efficiency and arbitrary minimal government, and the appropriation of private and public property. This not only has compromised the integrity of the political system, but also guts the capabilities of a defense economy already cumbersome by its own inefficiencies.

[Dayuhan]

As China's economy continues to develop and modernize, its dependence on the US market lessens. The US is significantly more vulnerable and sensitive to economic shocks than China. A combination of economic threats, precision cyber attacks targeting US communications, and sea and space denial weapons could neutralize any credible US response. I do not anticipate a PRC-initiated confrontation, at least not for many more years.

It's also a great example of how misappropriated military power and imperial hubris leads to disaster. The US cannot credibly defend Taiwan from the PRC. This is the mark of America's relative decline in its ability to effectively project power. The US needs to retool its naval and air forces, enhance the security of its networks, and develop protections for its soft infrastructure.

As China's economy modernizes, the economic leverage will continue to gradually shift in its favor. Time is on the side of the PRC.

Why would economic leverage shift in China's favor? China is not the economic juggernaut it's portrayed as being; they have deep and severe domestic problems. I don't see how time is on the side of the PRC at all; quite the opposite. They're having their economic moment in the sun; they are not managing it particularly well and the chickens will come home to roost. What "economic" threat" can the PRC bring to bear on the US that will not have as great or greater adverse impact on them? The more China modernizes and the more they integrate with the global economy, the higher the cost of a potential dis-integrating action becomes.

All the Taiwanese and allies need to do to defend themselves is to make the cost of aggression higher than the PRC would want to bear. Those costs are potentially very high, from both a military and an economic perspective.

Certainly the PRC could rain missiles on Taiwan until the Taiwanese surrender (if they do). They would then have to face the possibility of oil imports and merchandise exports being cut off. The risk and potential complications of an actual physical invasion would be extremely high.

[Bob's World]

Mr. Jones:

Agreed, a reconciliation would not affect us at all. But the word reconciliation means something peaceful arranged with the consent of both parties. I am not talking about that. I am talking about a Red Chinese conquest of Taiwan, against the will of the Taiwanese. That would be a very different matter.

I read your second paragraph as meaning if the Red Chinese tried to take Taiwan by force, we allow them to do so and abandon the Taiwanese. Is that your position? If it is, I believe we would lose all global prestige and influence.

I don't know exactly what you mean by your third paragraph. It is a bit amorphous. I take it to mean we should find out what Red China wants and give it to them. Is that correct?

Certainly it would be very different for the people of Taiwan, but the end effect for the US is the same. Many also like to play the "we must stay loyal to allies or our other allies will doubt our resolve." Here is a news flash: They already doubt our resolve, and by clinging to positions they all see as largely senseless causes them to doubt our intelligence as well.

We should not fight wars or even battles over things that are not important. If things are important, than we should fight them at any cost.

Any conflict that when it is over and one has not achieved their desired ends, but can walk away from it with a casual "wow, that sucked" attitude to simply continue business as usual, was a largely senseless conflict to begin with.

Vietnam falls in that box, as too likely will Iraq and Afghanistan. A defense of Taiwan would reside there as well. We are too easily led into senseless conflicts by Chickenhawk politicians, bad intel, and poor strategy. All of those factors will always be out there, but we don't have to keep making the same mistakes of following blindly where they lead.

[carl]

Mr. Jones:

Yes, things would be very different for the Taiwanese. They probably wouldn't like it much.

This is just a general observation, intellect without resolve, backbone if you will, only results in a failure, but one that can be rationalized very creatively.

Now near as I can judge, your answer to my question: "...if the Red Chinese tried to take Taiwan by force, we allow them to do so and abandon the Taiwanese. Is that your position?" is, yes we should abandon them.

Also your answer to my second question: "I take it to mean we should find out what Red China wants and give it to them. Is that correct?" has not yet been tendered. What is it?

I have another question, if it came to it, what countries would you defend in the face of Red Chinese aggression? This is only if it came to it. You are ready to give up the Taiwanese, how about the Japanese, or the Philippines or even New Zealand, where would you draw the line?

Oh, I just thought of another question. Does the Korean War fit into the "wow, that sucked" box?