For those of you who like Big Picture/Strategic subjects

[gparks1989]

I don't post all that often, but this is a topic I'm intersted in and have been doing some research on:

FWIW, China's government and its foreign policy is incredibley pragmatic. The number one concern of the Chinese government is to ensure FDI and the uber-growth of its economy. By doing so, it can get people rich and ensure that they are otherwise engaged and not interested in overthrowing the totalitarian "Communist" party. Its biggest goal is to ensure the constant flow of energy resources. In order to do this it needs to have open and safe SLOC. In order to do this it needs a strong navy to defend its merchant vessels.

This article gives no real credible reason for China to embark on a massive military expansion meant to kick sand in the face of its number one export partner. It would seem that while China would LOVE to have the 7th fleet (and those pesky EP-3's) out of its general vicinity, it would make more sense for the Chinese to pay lip service to America's imperialist tendencies while secretly embracing the stabilizing force that the US Navy provides in flashpoints like the Gulf of Aden, Persian Gulf and Straits of Malacca.

China's foreign policy (at least publicly), is all about ensuring economic growth through the procurment of natural resources. Why else would they send mine workers (but not troops) to Afghanistan, or moneys (not humanitarian workers) to the Sudan? They want their people to get rich and content. Kicking America out of East Asia would be a triumph for some crack pots in their military, but the chances of Japan and Korea, or Southeast Asia for that matter, capitulating seems highly unlikely. As a rule, most people begrudgingly support American military hegemony.

 

[Jim123]

^^^ A Chinese twist on the old Carter Doctrine.

 

[gparks1989]

^^^ A Chinese twist on the old Carter Doctrine.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Just had another thought:

How does this novelist envision China expanding across the seven seas with a power greater than that of the USN? Their first carrier will come online in MAYBE ten years. It's taken us nearly one hundred years to perfect the art form, I don't see the Chinese catching up any time soon. They're fleet of subs is still disproportionately diesel powered. Most importantly, the Chinese seem to be interested in assymetric warfare; I don't see that being of much use in an offensive role.

 

[PropStop]

meh...studied China for a while now... Not too worried. But hey, I like Chinese food.

 

[The Chief]

..... doesn't have the cash to cover that bill, so these points are just the open salvo for the cutbacks that will soon be coming!!

No problemo. We just explain to the Chinese that we have this unfunded requirement to rebuild our military and ask them to lend us the money. Surely they will understand.

I .... Kicking America out of East Asia would be a triumph for some crack pots in their military, but the chances of Japan and Korea, or Southeast Asia for that matter, capitulating seems highly unlikely. As a rule, most people begrudgingly support American military hegemony.

Yes, but, however comma, There seems to be at least in my view, a changing of attitudes in Asia. For example, while Japan agreed to allow us to restructure our facilties in Okinawa, the Government has reneged on this agreement and now seem to want to pack up and leave Okinawa

The number one and the number two economies in the world, side by side, in Asia has long been a dream of many asians. Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or Dai-tō-a Kyōeiken, comes to mind.

 

[phrogdriver]

The number one and the number two economies in the world, side by side, in Asia has long been a dream of many asians. Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or Dai-tō-a Kyōeiken, comes to mind.

I don't think the Chinese really liked the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea at the time!

 

[Fog]

I hear what all you younger guys are saying, and, hell, you may be right. There may be a popular uprising against their communist regime in the next decade. But, I wouldn't bet on that.
Rather, based on the reading I've done, it looks as if the PRC never intends to confront the USA in a traditional miltary manner. Instead, they may (a) Blow up our computer [& electrical?] grid, (b) blow up most, if not all, our orbiting recce/comm satellites and (c) launch missiles against any CVs in the region.
I will wager 2 things: (a) if the PRC decides to move, how much $$ we owe them won't make a bit of difference & (b) Maggie Thatcher didn't turn over Hong Kong because the lease was up - there was no other viable option available to her.

 

[The Chief]

I don't think the Chinese really liked the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea at the time!

I would respectfully disagree. In the beginning the idea was generally accepted in China. It started going south when the Japanese Military reacted, or overreacted to warring factions' actions. I would quickly agree it turned out rather badly. The book Retribution is an excellent source.

But that was then and now is now.

 

[exhelodrvr]

I hear what all you younger guys are saying, and, hell, you may be right. There may be a popular uprising against their communist regime in the next decade. But, I wouldn't bet on that.
Rather, based on the reading I've done, it looks as if the PRC never intends to confront the USA in a traditional miltary manner. Instead, they may (a) Blow up our computer [& electrical?] grid, (b) blow up most, if not all, our orbiting recce/comm satellites and (c) launch missiles against any CVs in the region.
I will wager 2 things: (a) if the PRC decides to move, how much $$ we owe them won't make a bit of difference & (b) Maggie Thatcher didn't turn over Hong Kong because the lease was up - there was no other viable option available to her.

They will go slow and steady, and if they can get what they want without military action, they will. But they won't be afraid to use military action/viably threaten military action, if they think it would be successful, and if they need it to achieve what they want.

 

[gparks1989]

Soapbox here I come!

The number one and the number two economies in the world, side by side, in Asia has long been a dream of many asians. Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or Dai-tō-a Kyōeiken, comes to mind.

I agree completely; generationally, there will always be shifts. I read your previous posts about your trip to Japan and it seemed as though you were speaking to a bunch of 20-somethings. Being of that demographic, I can speak to its inherent idealism. What I think you’re seeing is a bunch of young folk who think the world will be different if the status-quo is shaken. This may be as a result of an inexplicable anti-Americanism, or, more likely, it is a direct result of the American (and quickly global) economic crisis. The reason being, many viewed this as a sign of weakness. Thus, people suddenly feel they can break away from the American umbrella. As for your second point; the Chinese and Japanese hate each other. Bottom line. The latter is typically oblivious of this fact. The former would more than love to blast the other out of the water (economically). That’s my opinion. However, on paper, an alliance of the two would be formidable and all by destroy American hegemony in the region.
Quick question, to all I suppose: has Japan made overtures about removing us from Honshu, or just Okinawa? It seems like out of the two, Oki would be more expendable given our presence in Guam…unless it capsizes…

… (a) if the PRC decides to move, how much $$ we owe them won't make a bit of difference & (b) Maggie Thatcher didn't turn over Hong Kong because the lease was up - there was no other viable option available to her.

If the PRC were to embark on a legitimate campaign (i.e. not rando trawlers with naked men posing as their crew) with the US, it would lead to significant economic troubles for China thus you’re right…dollas wouldn’t play into their political calculation…however, nor would sanity as far as I can see it. I think Thatcher had an indefinite lease on Hong Kong (the island), but not Kowloon and the New Territories. The pressure she probably felt was more feasibility rather than the supposed military impotency the author describes.

They will go slow and steady, and if they can get what they want without military action, they will. But they won't be afraid to use military action/viably threaten military action, if they think it would be successful, and if they need it to achieve what they want.

…But, what exactly are they moving towards? What do they want to achieve? It sounds like this sort of rhetoric is born from a fear of a spread of some evil force. China’s foreign policy is far to anti-imperialist or expeditionary…so I don’t quite understand what they’re aiming for.
As an aside…why aren’t we rattling sabers about India’s rise?? They were aligned (or, rather, non-aligned) with the USSR and they’re all but sworn enemies of Pakistan (our awkward bed mate)…so why are we giving military technology to them and inviting them to banquets? Food for thought.

I hope I don’t come across as preachy or douche…just love foreign affairs and how America is developing its foreign policy RE: China.

 

[helolumpy]

There was a book published in China back in 1999 titled (translated) UNRESTRICTED WARFARE. In the book two Chinese Colonels address the tenents of modern warfare to include conventional warfare, cyber war, financial war, terrorism and criminal activity all controlled at the national level.
The book is a facinating discussion on how China could take down the United States through methods other than open conflict.
It's a reading used for discussion in the Complex Irregular Warfare class up here in Newport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

 

[Flash]

We can fight pretty dirty too if we have to and the Chinese could quickly come out on the losing end of that too.

 

[Will_T]

I always hear of china versus usa, but I see one big issue with that... nukes. If either side starts to get there butts kicked, the nukes will fly. And I think the US is on track to neutralize that threat (Anti-ballistic missile boats and the ABL), but nukes complicate the entire matter. Now, I believe that the US would end up on top, but that may just be patriotic optimism, especially if china grows even more then it has recently. I think a lot of people are threatened by an economic giant, but I also think that they're not as advanced as they seem. They have had only a few years of technological development and are fractured as a country by demographics, while the USA is a tech wizard (I have heard that our 5 to 10 year military advantage is the only thing stopping our kids from speaking Chinese) and pretty solid as a country.

If were going to talk about naval warfare here though, I want to throw my hat in the ring for a nuclear powered, railgun and missile- armed battleship

 

[CWJones411]

I know it's off topic, but I'm loving the advertisements this thread has brought up. Mail order bride from Thailand, anyone?

 

[SynixMan]

@gparks, WRT India, I think we are trying to court them into being closer to us. Their ongoing hatred of Pakistan isn't our concern really. They are an integral part of our economy and we are banging the "Buy American" for their defense recapitalization. Given their desire to be a player in the Indian Ocean, it would be a good strategic move to play ball with them.