US Army: long intersting "Economist" report

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

flamingknives,

Sorry, but if you look at the WS-1B, on the Web you'll see that it comes in 4 or 8 round versions, I didn't put that in post.

Peter.

Aha. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

It is amazing how quickly money can devalue once bullets start flying.

It's ability to soak up fluids doesn't change

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

lets have a comparison.

CHINA (2004) USA (2004)

$7.262 trillion $11.75 trillion

GDP - growth rate: 9.1% GDP - growth rate:4.4%

GDP - per capita: - $5,600 $40,100

GDP - composition by sector:

agriculture: 13.8% agriculture: 0.9%

industry : 52.9% industry: 19.7%

services: 33.3% services: 79.4%

Labor force: 760.8 million 147.4 million

by occupation:

agriculture 49%, agriculture, 0.7%

industry 22%, industrial, 22.7%

services 29% services, 76.6%

Unemployment rate:

9.8% in urban areas; overall at 20% 5.5%

Population below poverty line:10% 12%

Gini index: 44 Gini index:45

Inflation rate 4.1% 2.5%

Investment 46% of GDP 15.7% of GDP

Budget:

revenues: $317.9 billion $1.862 trillion

expenditures: $348.9 billion, $2.338 trillion

Difference: $ 31.0 billion, $1,476 trillion

Public debt:

31.4% of GDP 65% of GDP

Industrial production growth rate: 17.1% 4.4%

Electricity - production: 1.91 trillion kWh 3.839 trillion kWh

Electricity - consumption: 1.63 trillion kWh 3.66 trillion kWh

Electricity - exports: 10.38 billion kWh 13.36 billion kWh

Electricity - imports: 2.3 billion kWh 36.23 billion kWh

Oil - production: 3.3 million bbl/day 7.8 million bbl

Oil - consumption: 4.9 million bbl/day 19.6 million bbl

Oil - reserves: 17.7 billion bbl 22.5 billion bbl

Natural gas - production: 35 billion cu m 548 billion cu m

Natural gas - consumption: 29 billion cu m 640 billion cu m

Natural gas - reserves 2.2 trillion cu m 5.2 trillion cu m

Current account balance: $30.32 billion - $646.5 billion

Exports: $583.1 billion $795 billion

Imports: $552.4 billion $1.476 trillion

Reserves: $609.9 billion $85.9 billion

Debt - external: $233.3 billion $1.4 trillion

It's a bit of a mixed bag, but the idea that China would be the big loser, rather than it being a bloody disaster for both isn't borne out by these.

I was going to put in Exports and imports by country, but its a bugger to format and to get an idea of how different nations might react we need to look at each individually to see there balance of trade with the US and China, and to be honest I can't be bothered.

Peter.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You're missing the point Suddenly losing 20% economic output would be fatal for China. I have no doubts about it. Overnight this would greatly increase China's already tough unemployment rate of 20%, representing nearly 150,000,000 unemployed. How much a US only embargo mean in terms of increased unemployment is tough to say. Probably it would at least double it. The vast majority of the new unemployed would be in urban areas, which is the worst place for them to be.

I wonder how long it would take their trillion dollar CASH holdings to be reduced to such a level that this would actually happen?

and in the mean time what would happen in the US and to the rest of the world if the Chinese started using those cash reserves?

(see http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t203874.htm - China expects to have US$1000 billion in forex reserves by June this year)

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

Hey, I could be wrong and the Chinese could shrug off a major embargo. However, tonight I listened to the first of 5 live reports from China on the award winning "Market Place" radio show (PBS). Everything I heard confirms what I've been saying... the Chinese government is walking a very fine line right now. They are trying to figure out how to sustain the unreal expansion of their economy and fix the problems nearly 30 years of explosive growth has left it with.

One of the interesting sets of statistics was their importation of steel and cement. This year they imported 30% and 50% of the world's total production! Youch! I fogot about how hungry they are for steel, but didn't know anything about the cement factor.

Anyhoo, one of the various reports was about the changing rural areas. A prime, and apparently dangerous, gap is emerging between the rural people and those in the cities. The Chinese government has not forgotten that it is the rural masses that put them in power and have kept them there for so long. From what the report hinted at, at least some part of the Chinese leadership is concerned that the gap is larger now than it was back in 1949. So they are trying to spend significant amounts of money on the rural areas and try and speed up the urbanization process.

I agree that the Chinese have done a better job of keeping the masses pro-Communist (or at least not anti) than any other Communist country, with the possible exception of Cuba. But why is that? Because the government has slowly been relaxing social controls. It isn't doing this because it wants to, rather because it has no choice. How much of the population wants greater change? Well, the slaughter and the suppression of the student movement of the 1980s would suggest that everything isn't all happy and wonderful in Maoland. Whether a major, and sudden, bump to the economy would be enough to cause major revolt... I don't know. My gut says yes, but that's about all I got on that point

As for the geopolitical realities of a conflict between China and the US... I think it is extremely, and highly, unlikely that the US would militarily strike at China or its interests. Look how careful it is about Tiawan to see that. So if there is a conflict, it would most likely be because China did something agressive outside its traditional borders. And it would have to be rather serious. In such a situation I don't see many countries backing China. Especially ones that would feel threatened by whatever action China just did, such as South Korea and Japan. So yeah, I think it is extremely likely there would be a widespread reaction against China. How serious would depend on the incident that kicked all of this off.

As for how badly an embargo would hurt each... China imports a lot of raw materials for its economy. The US imports a lot of finished goods, which IMHO are largely unnecessary (who really needs a fish clock that sings Country and Western songs? ). This means China gets a double whammy in that it lacks raw materials to keep its economy moving, and it lacks markets for the bulk of its export goods. The whammy depends on how serious the embargo is. Obviously a few wrist slaps and no problem. But a total shut down by the US and a few other key players could be massive.

Remember, when looking at bulk numbers one is not seeing the importance of what is being cut out. Think of the USSR in WWII. The total amount of Lend Lease aide it received was not very much compared to the domestic production. However, it was Lend Lease that motorized nearly its entire infantry force and provided critical materials that it lacked. So the gross amount (be it tons or $) is not necessarily indicitive of impact.

So... basically I am sticking to my vision of things. In the extremely highly unlikely scenario of a conflict between the US and China, I see China as the aggressor and the US being part of a reaction to it. I see few lining up to be on China's side, though the circumstances would heavily determine how comitted to the conflict the other nations are. I see the primary response to the aggression being an economic one. I do not see China being able to handle this without significant internal problems short term. I do not see how they can circumvent a serious embargo since they are already tapping out pretty much everybody's resources and flooding the existing markets with their exports. Yeah, sure there is a possibility that they can clamp down on the problems before the get out of hand. They've done it well in the past. I'm just not betting that they would be able to contain it if the situation turns out to be as serious as I imagine it to be.

However, there is one glaring factual error you made that I must correct:

As far as the Chinese are concerned, the last time they fought the Americans, they won.

I assume you are speaking of Korea? Sorry, nobody I know thinks the Chinese beat the US. One has to look at the war aims...

North Korea - initially they wanted to reunify with the South. They clearly lost that one. Then they were fighting to keep what they had. They won that. Since they started the conflict, it must be considered that they lost it. Coming out even on an attack is considered by most to be the same as a loss.

South Korea - initially wanted to preserve itself from being sucked in by the north. They won that battle. They certainly would have liked to have the north as well since there was a chance for it. They lost that. Since they were attacked, and they survived intact, by most definitions South Korea won.

China - entered the fray to keep North Korea from being overrun by the alignment of Western based nations. It won this battle, but was not able to press on to kick the Western based nations out of the area. It therefore lost that battle. I'd say the Chinese suceeded in securing their primary goals, though they failed to get the icing on the cake.

US - entered the fray to keep South Korea from being overrun by the North Koreans. It won this battle, but was not able to press on to kick the Communists out of the area completely. It therefore lost this part of the battle. I'd say the US succeeded in securing their primary goals, though they failed to get the icing on the cake.

In no way, shape or form can I see how it is possible to call the Chinese victorious over the US. They merely preserved the status quo which the North Koreans had clearly weren't capable of keeping on their own. Both the Chinese and the US lost their chances at getting the best result out of the confilict, both succeeded in preserving the status quo. The only real loser here was North Korea and the only real victor was South Korea.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

On the issue of the superiority of US artillery especially Mlrs are you aware of this

WS-1B 4-tube 320 mm Multiple Rocket Launcher

The WS-1B Multiple Launch Rocket System has been developed by the China National Precision Machinery Corporation (CPMIEC), based in Beijing, China.

The WS-1B is a long range artillery rocket weapon and an advanced derivative of the 302 mm WS-1 in service with the Army of the People's Republic of China.

The system fills the gap in firing range between a conventional self propelled artillery system and a surface to surface tactical missile.

The system is operated in a defensive or offensive role for deployment against targets deep behind enemy lines including military bases, massed armoured divisions, missile launch site, airports and airstrips, harbours and military industrial bases. The rocket launcher system is mounted on a 6 x 6 flatbed truck on a turntable.

The WS-1B rocket with a new high performance rocket motor and warhead, reaches a maximum speed of Mach 5 and maximum flight altitude of 60 km, giving a minimum firing range of 80 km and a maximum firing range of 180 km.

The probability deviation is between 1% and 1.5%. The WS-1B rocket is longer than the WS-1, with length 6.182 m, and diameter of 0.320 m. The take-off weight is 708 kg with a 150 kg warhead.

The ZDB-2 blasting warhead is loaded with steel balls and prefabricated fragments. The SZB-1 submunition warhead provides an effective high power weapon against massed tanks. When the SZB-1 submunition warhead detonates, just under 500 bullets are expelled under high pressure.

Now if we are talking about a CEP of only 250yards at over 100miles, and a battery of say three trucks can fire a total of 24 rockets in under 30secs, each with 500 bullets (12,000) and we assume that to launch the new assaultreplacement for the LVTP the US has to bring the ir assault ships in to less than 30miles, well lets just say it could be pretty nasty.

I know that Aegis is good, but from what I know it can't handle 24 rockets at Mach 5 in under 30'sec's, so you would need to be sure that absolutely nothing survived before the assault began.

Peter.

That is a huge threat and it would have to be degraded before the amphibs got within that threat ring. But any artillery/rocket/missle system is virtually worthless without its C2 and radar to target the weapons. If the US had to take back Taiwan against a Chinese force that occupied it, then the number of B-2 strikes and TLAMs fired from every platform imaginable would be conducted to make the US Navy Admiral in charge of the landing force felt warm and fuzzy about getting closer.

The US can up the ante right now over any conventional weapons system fielded by anyone else. That is why the US, even though it is now waging an asymetric/counterguerrila war fight now, still fielded the F-22 and is fielding other weapon systems to ensure its strategic dominance.

And unless the Chinese had time to build up its forces on Taiwan, then its assualt divisions would probably be fairly light and its logistics would be minimal. US subs would be able to isolate Taiwan from the Chinese fleet fairly quickly. And the US Navy's 7th Fleet is more than a match for anything China can put in the water, even 10 years from now.

As far as Chinese mainland targets go, the US would have nothing to gain to invade mainland China and the force requirements would require a National mobilization on the scale of WW2. But every Chinese military and government facility could be hit by TLAMs and B-2s virtually at whim. Some golden BB's might nail a B-2 or two, but again, the Chinese military C2, air defense network, airbases, key infrastructure, etc..could be severly attritted.

I doubt that other than a few skirmishes, either side would risk total war on the Chinese mainland. But if Chinese coastal missle batteries and airbases are active, those would probably be targeted. China could always rattle the nuclear sabre, but nothing they have comes close to the US's nuclear capability.

I do think a great CM:SF scenario could be built around this concept and it would make for a very interesting game.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Pariotism is a good thing when it doesn't go to extremes and blind people, but like most americans I discuss things you are intfused with a belief in the moral and cultural superiority of your own country, and your views on china show that.

take a lot at these, which i found on the web.

"Analysis: If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 41.6 to 45.75 million range, so you probably can't go wrong picking a final number from this neighborhood. Depending on how you want to count some of the incomplete estimates (such as Becker and Meisner) and whether to count a source twice (or thrice, as with Walker) if it's referenced by two different authorities, you can slide the median up and down the scale by many millions. Keep in mind, however, that official Chinese records are hidden from scrutiny, so most of these numbers are pure guesses. It's pointless to get attached to any one of them, because the real number could easily be half or twice any number here.

Perhaps a better way of estimating would be to add up the individual components. The medians here are:

Purges, etc. during the first few years: 2M (10 estimates)

Great Leap Forward: 30M (12 estimates)

Cultural Revolution: 500T (10 estimates)

Ethnic Minorities, primarily Tibetans: 750-900T (8 estimates, see below)

Labor Camps: 15-20M (4 estimates)

This produces a total of some 48,250,000 to 53,400,000 deaths. The weak link in this calculation is in the Labor Camp numbers for which we only have 4 estimates."

Now to this you can add 6million for the civicl war and 12million for WW2, of which 2million were military. Then add in the estimated 500,000 to 1 million in Korea, and you are taking on a nation that has endured some 70 million deaths in less than 60 years.

In contrast we have,

US Casualties in Conflict

Wounded and dead Deaths

Revolutionary War 10,623

War of 1812 6,765

Civil War: Union 634,703 Confederate 335,524

Spanish-American War 4,108

World War I 320,710

World War II 670,846

Korean War 136,935

Vietnam War 211,471

Gulf War 760

The actual total number of dead, is less than 1 million ( about 800,000) in over 230 years. As with vietnam, and indeed the Iraqi's you seem to have this distinctly American belief in your own superiority and as a result to grossly underestimate the resolve and determination of your opponents.

I remember reading Kissingers work on deterrents, written around the McNammara era. When talking about escalation he very clearly in an interview laid out how it would work with the US matching the Soviets at every level until they were forced to conceed when the US had raised the cost to the point that it hurt too much.

But when the interviewer asked at what point the US would call a halt and conceed, he made a flat absolute denial. For Kissenger and the US political establishment that was unthinkable, the believed absolutely that without doubt the soviets would crack first and that they would keep raising the stakes till they did.

For them they had truth, justice and God on their side, and the godless communists were opportunic and morally weaker, so of course they would back down.

I think that when you look at what nations like Germany, or Russia or China have endured and overcome, there can be no doubt that they are every bit as strong as the US and probably a lot stronger.

I agree that a military conflict with China and the US is highly unlikely, and the US would be unlikely to start it, but even if they did, I doubt the US would have the guts for it.

Thats why the european always wanted US troops and even Nukes over here, because when push came to shove they wanted you dragged in on day one because they didn't trust you to commit unless you had too.

As to oil embargos and trade wars, dispite what you think, I have little doubt that the Chinese can endure (and would) far more pain over Taiwan than the US would. Hell look at Vietnam, it deeply wounded the US for two decades, even though total US casualties, wouldn't even register as a large famine in China.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

One more thing Steve,

Big Duke didn't say the Chinese won, He said the Chinese believe that they one, which is a different (and in the context of attitudes to a future conflict), thing entirely.

LtCol West,

did some Checking, by my reckoning even if you could use it Okinawa is 400miles each way from Northern Taiwan, and mainland Japan and Korea about a 2,000mile round trip.

The Straits of Taiwan are only 90 miles wide and 100 fathoms deep. Which given that fast airborne laser depth finding can already operate to 150 fathoms would make it a Killing ground for something the size of a Los Angeles.

Chinese coastal and land based cruise including New Russain SS-N-22's can cover that gap from one side let alone from each.

To close the gap and use Subs, the US would need to have airsuperiority over a 500mile strip and that means almost certainly bringing Carriers in to range of shore based defences.

The whole defence of Taiwan scenario that the US is geared to assumes that it's the Chinese doing the invading. Oh and my count of US amphibious forces, comes out at a maximum of 40,000 that they can put ashore if they use everything.

True the US can quickly achieve local superiority as the Chinese have to cover the whole coast while the US can concentrate on their choosen beachhead, but once ashore that beachhead is incredibly vulnerable to long range MLRS.

If the US concentrates too much it's fish in a barrel, if it spreads to thin, it loses local superiority.

oh and I found this as well,

A-100 10-tube 300 mm Multiple Rocket Launcher

The A-100 is developed by China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) and CASA 1st Academy. The whole system includes 12-tube launch vehicles, reloading vehicles, and command & control vehicles, all of which are mounted on the WS-2400 8X8 wheeled chassis.

The strong Russian style WS-2400 wheeled chassis is also used on the DF-11 (M-11) surface-to-surface ballistic missile system.

The Command & Control vehicles is fitted with computerised fire-control and GPS. All 12 rockets can be fired out in 60 seconds, and it can be reloaded in 20 minutes. The rocket can deliver the 200 kg anti-armour or anti-personnel blasting warhead to a range of 50~100 km.

The CPMIEC is also developing a variety of new 300 mm rockets with an enhanced fire range of 70~180 km. It can be fired by the A-100 system without any modification.

Peter.

[Bigduke6]

Most honorable and respected BFI Mandarin Steve,

Confucius say: 800-pound old gorilla may not like it when 550-pound young gorilla come to jungle, and may even beat chest, but if he smart old gorilla share bananas!

Refute the numbers then. If the CIA is to be believed, exports constitute less than 10 per cent of the Chinese economy, and the U.S. market constitutes 21 per cent of that 10 per cent.

You characterize the Chinese growth rate as "abnormal", and in the same breath point out it's been going on for nearly 30 years. To me, that's a sustained growth rate, and apparently, quite normal for modern China.

Using the numbers Peter just trotted out (I believe that's also the CIA fact book) we get the following picture of "slack" in the Chinese economy and society, that would necessarily be brought into play before some form of a U.S. embargo could bite:

* GDP re-investment is three times the U.S. rate

* 10 - 20 per cent unemployment

* 49 per cent of labor force in sustenance farming

* Government budget well in the black

* Public debt as a percentage of GDP half U.S.

* 75 % of oil produced at home

* 100+ % of electricity needs produced at home

* 100+ % of natural gas needs produced at home

* $609.9 billion foreign currency reserves.

The Chinese could pay off their foreign debt today, twice, and still have enough money left over to buy five or six Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, with air groups!

Now maybe the CIA is lying. They have done that. But, if the numbers reflect reality, this is not the picture of an economy about to crumble if it fails to sell a certain number of fish clocks playing C/W music to Walmart. Rather, this is a picture of an economic colussus already running under its own power, and so big, diversified, and competative it comes close to being impervious to outside influences.

I see no grounds for your assertion the Chinese "can not afford" a trade war with the U.S. They have the reserves, and they appear not to be overly dependant on any particular resource.

Consider steel, since you brought it up. Yes China imports half of its steel. Sounds dangerous, right? The U.S. Navy chokes off the steel and the Chinese cry "uncle," right?

China's let's not forget is one of the world's top producers all by itself. Its main sources of additional steel are, off the top of my head, Russia, Ukraine, India, South Korea, and (maybe) Thailand. Now, how do we get the U.S. Navy to blockade the Harbin spur of the Trans-Siberian railroad, hmm....

See, this is why Omar Bradley said getting involved in a land war on the Asian continent was a dumb idea. Asian countries like every one else structure their trade with their neighbors, and China's neighbors are more or less invulnerable to the U.S. Navy. Even where vulnerable they are unlikely to support a U.S. blockade on China. Brazil also is a big steel exporter, no problem for the U.S. to halt that stream. But how does the U.S. keep Russia from selling China steel?

I'll spare you a similar exercise on concrete, but if you want I'll bet you a dollar the same countries sending China steel, could also provide China all the concrete it needs. But if you know of some strategic resource the Chinese economy needs so badly that its absence will crater the economy, and how that resource stream is vulnerable to U.S. interdiction, then I'm real interested. But it ain't oil, gas, electricity, or steel, the way I see things.

As to this:

I think it is extremely likely there would be a widespread reaction against China. How serious would depend on the incident that kicked all of this off.

Confucius say: If W., Rummy, and Condi piss off patriotic Americans like Honorable Game Mandarin First Class Steve, they unlikely to be more popular outside America.

Well yes, if the Chinese were to invade South Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan simultaneously, and then murder all women and children, I guess you could get the world to react. Chinese armies are not particularly genocidal, however. (Fairness in reporting: They do apparently loot like crazy.)

But if the issue is a shoving contest between the world's number one and two economic powers - who owns the Spratleys or what kind of government comes next in Burma or should the Koreans be allowed to unify - the logical move for the rest of the world is to back off and let the lions decide who's king of the jungle.

I think you will agree with me that, in recent years, Beijing has done a better job than the Washington in spinning a reputation as a country that doesn't invade other countries too much.

On Korea:

As far as the Chinese are concerned, the last time they fought the Americans, they won.

I choose my words carefully. I said: "As far as the Chinese are concerned." In the Chinese opinion.

In China, the U.N. attempt to conquer North Korea and so unit the Korean peninsula in 1950 is part of the basic education of every Chinese citizen able to, well, get an education. It is the opinion shared by the Chinese general staff. If you have not discussed this point with any of those people, see the joke from the previous post. Maybe it's time to learn Chinese.

I personally think the Chinese came out a shade ahead in the conflict, as their announced goal from start to finish was to oppose "Capitalist expansion." At the price of about 200,000 Chinese soldiers they managed that.

The U.S. joint chiefs and Dugout Doug OHH decided Inchon gave them a fair shot at making all of Korea democratic; so they went for it, score a failure there.

But Ridgeway kept the Chinese out of Seoul and southwards, so South Korea stayed in the capitalist camp. I would call it a draw, but maybe with the Chinese a bit ahead on points.

But that's just me. The really important opinions are those of the Chinese decision-makers, and by extension, the populace. Those two groups do not think fighting America means automatic defeat. Those two groups, most likely, think that with sufficient sacrifice and intelligent fighting, America is eminently defeatable. Certainly not so China could impose its will unilaterally on the U.S. But so that China's wartime goals can be achieved? The Chinese have been there and done that. Why shouldn't they believe they can do it again?

I point this out to take issue with your assertion military conflict between China and the

U.S. is a low probability. I never really got into the calculating until this debate, but now that I have given the numbers a once-over, it looks to me like China certainly could consider opposing the U.S. in a land conflict. Why not? Where's the U.S. leverage?

I just don't understand how you can say "The U.S. will win everywhere," and then defend that absolute position by excluding China as a potential U.S. opponent, on grounds a limited war would devastate the Chinese economy.

It seems to me that it would be very realistic indeed for the Chinese to threaten the U.S. with a limited war somewhere, the moment they had the military ability to fight U.S. forces on favorable terms. Economically, China appears to be in a position to oppose the U.S. in a limited war, already.

[Tarquelne]

The actual total number of dead, is less than 1 million ( about 800,000) in over 230 years. As with vietnam, and indeed the Iraqi's you seem to have this distinctly American belief in your own superiority and as a result to grossly underestimate the resolve and determination of your opponents.

Are you arguing that the existence of lots of dead Chinese demonstrates great Chinese resolve and determination?

First, only half-facetiously: Any Chinese willingness to die for their country (or kill other Chinese for their government) is almost certainly matched by an American's (or even a fer'ner's) willingness to kill for his country.

Second, shouldn't those figures be expressed as a % of the current population to be meaningful?

Finally:

What are the Chinese supposed to do if under great pressure? Most simply can't stop being Chinese. And much of the time it was more a matter of being slaughtered, or slaughtering, than fighting the good fight. I don't see that as a sign of national strength. To be frank, I see it as a sign of all too human bloody mindedness.

As a people - as people - I think the Chinese have an absolutely tremendous ability to endure... but governments rise and fall. A war/embargo isn't going to destroy China, but it could very well cause those in power to back down, turn their energies inward, or be destroyed.

It is now not like it has always been. But on the whole I think modern communications tech. and ideas make running an authoritarian gov. tricker than it was in the past, despite the existence of SMGs.

Does China have a greater capacity to accept casualties than the US, in both the absolute and relative sense? I it does. OTOH, I don't think the US proposes to meet it on anything like even ground in that regard. (See comment one.)

And does the US have the necessary capacity to accept casualties to fight a necessary war? I think it does. I think pretty much every nation does: If nationalism, religion or hatred can't get you through it, there's always stupidity.

But when the interviewer asked at what point the US would call a halt and concede, he made a flat absolute denial. For Kissenger and the US political establishment that was unthinkable, the believed absolutely that without doubt the soviets would crack first and that they would keep raising the stakes till they did.

I see that simply as a willingness to outspend the Soviets. A comment on Kissenger's willingness to spend and sacrifice (well, have others sacrifice, for the most part), I think.

I don't see any reason to think it has anything to with a belief in America's superior moral fibre, or whatever. (Ditto with regard to Steve's comment, too, btw.)

I think that when you look at what nations like Germany, or Russia or China have endured and overcome, there can be no doubt that they are every bit as strong as the US and probably a lot stronger.

How many nations actually fail such tests, anyway? Russia in WWI? The gov. fell, but the people kept going. I'm not sure what you mean by "overcome". Lots of people get overrun by events, and the survivors keep going. Maybe more bitter, narrow minded and isolationist or militaristic than before, but they keep going.

The US, with it's short history, isn't as firmly rooted in the past as most other nations. (OTOH, most people don't really think farther back than a few generations anyway.) So we might not have as much nationalism, religion or (I'd like to think) hatred as many nations. However, to be frank again, I'll put American bloody mindedness and stupidity up against any other nation's bloody mindedness and stupidity in the world.

If forced to it I think American's would endure, like everybody else.

[ January 17, 2006, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Tarquelne]

You characterize the Chinese growth rate as "abnormal", and in the same breath point out it's been going on for nearly 30 years. To me, that's a sustained growth rate, and apparently, quite normal for modern China.

Hmm... I think there's a big difference between "sustained", as in past tense, and "sustainable." And here the important thing is if China's growth is sustainable.

Barring a major change (like economic expansion into orbit and beyond) I don't think that rate of growth is anywhere near sustaible. China has been mobilizing hitherto untapped resources. But once those resources are "online" and China is modernized growth will slow as they have to wait for better technologies or forbidden Japanese management secrets for improvement. Just like everybody else.

Whether the great growth will end next year, or after 30 more years I don't know. But (and this is my point) I don't think 30 years of tremendous growth is a good indicator of future growth: You have to look at current conditions.

* 10 - 20 per cent unemployment

* 49 per cent of labor force in sustenance farming

Could be danger signs. Pools of labor, but the potential for unrest is there, too.

The Chinese could pay off their foreign debt today, twice, and still have enough money left over to buy five or six Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, with air groups!

I think the significant question is: Could they actually buy/make ships that would stand up to the USN?

From what I've read the US still has enough of a technological edge to make a big qualitative difference.

I'll add that importing a commidity doesn't mean that China can't produce it: Just that it can't produce it cheaper than it can import it.

So...

...I'm interested in that, too.

OTOH, China might really need it's concrete or whatever cheap. Cheap cheap cheap.

Cheap goods and machines allow for the cheap transformation of a subsistance farmer into a much better educated laborer, and economic growth.

The switch to more domestic sources of production for things like steel and concrete would help the empolyment situation... if there are already employable laborers. And they'd need to build the machines. They've got lots of money... do they have enough, though?

Simply put, right now they're effectively "renting" the production facilities of other nations. Do they really have enough cash to buy their own? I dunno, but they might not. I've read - who knows where - that for all the money sloshing around China capital is still stretched thin.

Logical, but nations in either sphere might find themselves pulled into the conflict. China and the US could demand that others be either with them or against them.

(I think they came out behind, as I don't think the US actually threatened Chinese interests enough to justify the price, as inexpensive as China might have found it.

OTOH, the internal preception of having defeated the US might be of tremendous value. So in that sense they probably came out ahead.)

Aside from the absolute position thingy I think it makes sense: Assuming he's right then China itself wouldn't show up for the fight. There would be no war for the US to lose.

I think it'd come down to how much the US was willing to ante up: The full might of the US military would almost certainly (no absolutes here!) be able to stop Chinese agression projected across a significant body of water or well beyond it's land-borders.

In an attack on China I think the US would win the "target rich" phase but have no hope of following up on that with without lots of Chinese help.

So I think the significant question is just how much of it's weight the US would be willing to throw into a conflict. How much money, how many lives. And _that_ would depend on the specific politics of the war and any concurrent US commitments.

I don't think it'd be particularly hard to come up with situations where the US would want to militarily oppose China but not have the political motivation to employ enough force to win.

The US being silly enough to deploy insufficient forces is another matter. Despite recent events, I think it pretty unlikely the US would do so.

[Bigduke6]

Tarq,

The US being silly enough to deploy insufficient forces is another matter. Despite recent events, I think it pretty unlikely the US would do so.

Why? If they can fail to predict an insurgency in Iraq and then spend years using expensive conventional force in an ineffective attempt to destroy the insurgency, with Vietnam only 30 years in the past where is your evidence the U.S. would be any smarter when it came to China? They screwed up on the Yalu in 1950, why can't they again?

As to potential scenarios, I am specifically avoiding the Taiwan scenario as something the Chinese would consider in the near future. A cross-strait invasion means going toe to toe with the U.S. Navy and Air Force, and to do that in Taiwan, the Chinese need tens of thousands of guided missiles. This is already within the technical capability of the Chinese economy, but gearing up and fielding would take time, as would the decision. If the Chinese went at Taiwan right now the U.S. would chew them up until it ran out of smart munitions.

Which brings me to my second point. The correct Chinese policy for Taiwan appears to be to improve living standards and economic power in the mainland, until Taiwan has no choice but to get absorbed by China same way as Macao and Hong Kong. You want an example of dependence, think about what a Chinese boycott would do to the Taiwan economy. With their growth rate, all the Chinese have to do is wait, why fight a war on U.S. terms for the island? It will be part of China sooner or later, every one knows that.

What I am having real trouble in getting across here is that China can make trouble, intervene, sling its power around, test the U.S., whatever you want to call it, in a lot of other places besides Taiwan. If the U.S. choose to oppose such a move it is pretty obvious U.S. forces could get smacked, and I think that's a pretty good arguement against the line "U.S. forces will prevail everywhere, anytime, period."

If the Chinese believe they can pull the intervention off based on economic strength and (adjusted for theater) military parity for the U.S., and the Americans believe they can defeat the Chinese based on a overconfident belief in economic influence and an overrating of U.S. military power, then you get just the war Steve says is unlikely to happen.

If Hitler can pick a fight with the Soviet Union on grounds of German military supremacy, the U.S. decision-makers are certainly capable of picking a fight based on U.S. military supremacy. Bad calculation, that's what makes for disastrous wars.

Clarification: I am not saying the U.S. government is Hitlerian, genocidal, anti-Semetic, or anything of the sort. I am saying it is capable of a making an error in its calculations of where it should commit military force, and if China were the opponent, the probable outcome is far from a guaranteed U.S. victory.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Pariotism is a good thing when it doesn't go to extremes and blind people, but like most americans I discuss things you are intfused with a belief in the moral and cultural superiority of your own country, and your views on china show that.

Ah, that is a load of crap. I could, however, argue something similar about your positions if I chose to. That your anti-American feelings are coloring your view of the inferiority of American moral and cultural attributes, and therefore that no matter what I say I'm going to be wrong if it in any way suggests that the US is still in the driver's seat. But I won't because I think you are trying to argue this rationally, as am I. To prove my point, look at all the negative things about the US I've said in the process of just this one conversation. For example, this:

China is quickly gaining major influence in the world, but the US is still top dog. Wounded dog, at the moment, but still the top dog. The EU has the potential to be right up there with the US and China, but it is still stumbling along with its own short term political/social/economic issues. It has a lot of potential long term.

Unlike many Americans, I fully understand the "all Empires must fall" lesson of history. I expect the US to lose its dominant position in the world. The question is how and if there will be much of a world worth talking about after its fall for many, many years (like what happened after the fall of Rome).

I don't know a single "patriot" that would so openly and thoroughly admit that the US is in decline and will, eventually, be eclipsed. Because I don't think it has been unseated already doesn't make me irrationally patriotic. And if you don't think that this is enough, please check out my many negative comments about how the US is conducting itself these days. If you can find anything rah-rah-America in my comments, I'd be curious to know what they are because I can't think of any. I do, however, think that the rest of the world is just as dysfunctional, selfish, and counter productive, so perhaps you think I think that excuses the behavior of the current US leadership. I'll correct that right now by saying that I don't.

Now, if that is STILL not enough for you... try this out.

If the US were put into a similar embargo, as I described China being put into, the US economy would collapse just as I foresee the Chinese one collapsing. It is even possible that there would be civil war of some sort within the US, as I predict it would in China. At the very least there would be a State of Emergency that would likely bring out all the nasty fascist tendencies that bubble under the surface of American society and politics. The fact that its domestic economy is massively strong, even considering its horrible trade balance, is actually a liability. If you understand how America's economy works you'd understand that. Looking at numbers in the CIA fact book doesn't tell anybody much of anything. I'll get into that more with my reply to BigDuke.

But the short of it is, I am not the pot calling the kettle black. If the same situation that I outlined hit China instead hit the US, I would expect the results to be nearly the same. The chances of either happening are thankfully quite small for at least the next 20 years. I also think the chances of a significant embargo against the US, for any reason by any party, is just about zero in this time period. After 20 years form now I think all bets are off. I don't expect the world of 20 years from now to be recognizable to us.

Hopefully you will withdraw the hubris from an otherwise interesting intellectual "what if". It has no place here.

As to oil embargos and trade wars, dispite what you think, I have little doubt that the Chinese can endure (and would) far more pain over Taiwan than the US would.

Oh, I totally agree. The question is could the US dish out the sort of pain on China that would exceed China's threshold while not suffering so much as to exceed its own? In my mind the answer is likely "yes", if the conflict were deemed important enough to enter into. This is why I don't think small flairups between China and the US would happen. I think it would be an all or nothing type conflict, and I am going to guess that Taiwan would register as an "all" and not a "nothing".

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Now I am not saying it was America's fault in any way or they had it coming , but as Steve mentioned an oil embargo, well thats exactly what Roosevelt placed on Japan just after being elected in 1040 and we all know what japan did within a tear.

Like BigJuke said, people can make mistakes.

Besides My scenario was that Taiwan had enough support for reunification peacefully on it's terms and the US backs the minority to reverse that. It was an attempt to create a US/China head to head on an even playing field.

Historically there is plenty of evidence, that the communists had slight majority support for a unified Vietnam, and that the US if not engineered then helped the South to go back on the deal for unification, so it's not without precident.

Peter.

[Tarquelne]

Why? If they can fail to predict an insurgency in Iraq and then spend years using expensive conventional force in an ineffective attempt to destroy the insurgency, with Vietnam only 30 years in the past where is your evidence the U.S. would be any smarter when it came to China? They screwed up on the Yalu in 1950, why can't they again?

Tsk tsk tsk. Watch those absolutes. There's no question that they "can't" do it again. At least in my mind. I just think it's unlikely. Because the US wouldn't have to be smart to avoid it, just not stupid. As I indicated in another post, I think America's got as much stupidity as anybody, but even for us I don't think it's SOP. I think very few Administrations would be as, ah... lets say "bold" enough to give us the current Iraq situation.

What I think could make it likely rather than unlikely is as much anti-Chinese feeling in the US as there once was anti-Soviet feeling. Especially coupled with some sort of "containment" policy. I don't think the conditions are right for that to happen, though.

What I am having real trouble in getting across here is that China can make trouble, intervene, sling its power around, test the U.S., whatever you want to call it, in a lot of other places besides Taiwan. If the U.S. choose to oppose such a move it is pretty obvious U.S. forces could get smacked, and I think that's a pretty good arguement against the line "U.S. forces will prevail everywhere, anytime, period."

Sure, I agree with all that. Though note that Steve's expanded/qualified his first statement quite a bit, so I don't think "everywhere, anytime, period" is what's being pushed. Maybe "everywhere, anytime at all likely to actually see such a conflict.", but that's quite different.

I am saying it is capable of a making an error in its calculations of where it should commit military force, and if China were the opponent, the probable outcome is far from a guaranteed U.S. victory.

That's what I thought I said, too.

(OK, I admit I do think that total US commitment would "almost certainly" see the US win unless playing in China's backyard and we look beyond the short-term.)

[ January 17, 2006, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Tarquelne]

Quick (hopefully) Korean War question:

They /the US/ screwed up on the Yalu in 1950, why can't they again?

Did China screw up worse than the US? What I mean is, were the Chinese just being paranoid about the US threatening the Yalu facilities/China?

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

Yikes, this turned into a bit of a ramble

Confucius say: 800-pound old gorilla may not like it when 550-pound young gorilla come to jungle, and may even beat chest, but if he smart old gorilla share bananas! ?

Which is why I think there won't be a conflict in the first place I don't think the Chinese or American leaderships (at the present time) are stupid enough to fight. At least not for the next 10-20 years. After 20 years I think a global war is increasingly inevitable with each passing year for one or more reasons. Not unless someone figures out how to switch off the dependency on fossil fuels.

Refute the numbers then. If the CIA is to be believed, exports constitute less than 10 per cent of the Chinese economy, and the U.S. market constitutes 21 per cent of that 10 per cent.

I don't need to refute the numbers because numbers don't mean much without detailed context. I can't give that sort of detailed context for China, but I can by extension of logic using the US:

According to the CIA the US has a GDP of $11.75 trillion. Oil imports account for 8.2%, spending on agriculture 0.9%, and unemployment is 5.5%.

The true weakpoint in an economy is its underlying premiss, not how much money one has in the bank, level of employment, or any other such consolidated statistic. What I mean by that is the answer to "what is it that makes the entire economy possible?". In the US the answer is simple -> cheap oil. Sure, there are other factors, but if one has to choose a single factor, that would be it. Year after year the economy geared itself more and more to the use of oil (gasoline and plastics in particular) as a basis for its underlying economic model of distribution and manufacturing of goods. Things that were once made from other materials, such as metal and wood, are now made out of plastics. The factories that once made things out of the other metals are long gone.

The primary method of distribution of goods has become the long haul truck (national markets) and short haul trucks (local markets). One of the most important segments of any economy is Agriculture. Agriculture in the US has been consolidating itself because of the ability to quickly move its goods to any point in the country because of this and cheap petro-chemicals for greater product yields from monoculture crops. This has lead to cattle ranches with hundreds of thousands of cattle in one location (Colorado, for example) instead of smaller farms dotted around the country capable of catering to the needs of the locals. Therefore the local needs can not be met by local sources of supply. This is more true in some areas (like the desert states) than others (like the midwest states), but above all of this is the model of production. Large machines that require tons of fuel and other petroleum based products to function plant and harvest the crops, while other large machines spray petro-chemicals to help grow and protect the crops.

Commerce in general in the US has moved to "just in time" manufacturing and distribution. The hurricanes in the Gulf States underscored this. The stocks of goods needed in time of crisis were regionally located and not distributed locally. When the local WalMart ran out of something it had to get restocked from fairly far away. There wasn't anything in the "back room" to draw from. These goods are, of course, moved by truck. Disruptions in the road network or availability of fuel make this method of resupply impractical or at least more costly. And that gets into the larger point...

Corporations are based on economic models that make certain assumptions. When those assumptions are adversely affected by circumstances outside of their control, problems arise. Usually it amounts to profit hits and price hikes to the consumer. But the model can only bend so much. Taking too much of a profit hit means insolubility, hiking prices too much means an overall decrease in sales. Fairly small and short lived price hikes and disruption of supply has fairly immediate and tangible effects on the marketplace. Large disruptions, so far, have been limited to small geographical regions for fairly short periods of time. But what happens if the hit is extreme and widespread?

If the oil the US imports were shut off tomorrow the economy would basically shut down. Electricity would be affected, dramatically so, but it would be the thing that is least affected since coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable resources produce a fairly large percentage of the electricity. Electricity demand would also drop off dramatically since factories that rely upon raw materials being brought to it by truck would shut down. Also, many small factories run on diesel power because it is cheaper. No diesel, no power for them even if they have raw materials to work with. Food distribution would come to a sudden and dramatic halt with no fuel to produce, no chemicals to nurture, and no fuel to distribute. If the shutdown happened in the winter, it would be even worse since local producers in much of the country only operate in the summer months.

The domestic fuel production and reserves would not be able to cope with this sudden and massive disruption. It would have to be rationed and carefully distributed. That would mean large sectors of the economy would be forced to shut down because they aren't on "the list". This means widespread unemployment, major food shortages, urban situations I don't even want to contemplate, electricity shortages, heating shortages (which would be fatal for many in the winter), etc., etc., etc.

The US could have all the money in the world, but if nobody is going to sell it what it needs, then it might as well be sitting on piles of donkey dung for all the good it would do. One can not stuff Dollars into gas tanks to make a truck capable of delivering food. Dollars given out to the unemployed does not allow them to buy food that isn't there, turn on heat that isn't powered, or stop someone from stealing whatever reserves they might have on hand. Money does not keep people peaceful when they decided that they need to take violent action, either on their own or in groups. Only getting the oil tap turned on can do that in the short term. And because an 11 trillion Dollar economy can't retool itself in a few weeks or months, short term is all that matters.

Soooooo....

This long winded description should show you that the higher level consolidated numbers don't mean much of anything. A fairly small $ hit to the economy (8.2%) doesn't mean it can absorb it. One has to instead look at the domino effect at a more nuts and bolts level. I think an embargo of Chinese goods would be bad enough, but an embargo of goods and resources... fatal. I don't see how anybody can argue otherwise.

You characterize the Chinese growth rate as "abnormal", and in the same breath point out it's been going on for nearly 30 years. To me, that's a sustained growth rate, and apparently, quite normal for modern China.

I called it abnormal in the context of economic modeling in general. No economic expert I have ever heard things that China's rate of growth is sustainable. In fact, the Chinese know this very well and are desperately converting land and peoples to feed the next wave of growth. So it's not my position that I'm defending here.

The Chinese could pay off their foreign debt today, twice, and still have enough money left over to buy five or six Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, with air groups!

As stated above, if nobody is going to sell them these things and they can't make them on their own, then what's your point?

Now maybe the CIA is lying. They have done that. But, if the numbers reflect reality, this is not the picture of an economy about to crumble if it fails to sell a certain number of fish clocks playing C/W music to Walmart. Rather, this is a picture of an economic colussus already running under its own power, and so big, diversified, and competative it comes close to being impervious to outside influences.

No, that is very much incorrect. Their economy is based on interaction with the rest of the world. Raw goods in, finished goods exported. They can not live on their own. If they could, they would already be doing so.

I see no grounds for your assertion the Chinese "can not afford" a trade war with the U.S. They have the reserves, and they appear not to be overly dependant on any particular resource.

Yes, they are. Petro-chemicals for agriculture... without them, food yields drop off dramatically. Without imported food to make up the difference, widespread famine. Without concrete and steel to build factories and what have you, the new jobs that are needed to keep the next generation employed. Without oil they can't make plastics, and without plastics large parts of the economy would have nothing to make products with.

China's let's not forget is one of the world's top producers all by itself. Its main sources of additional steel are, off the top of my head, Russia, Ukraine, India, South Korea, and (maybe) Thailand. Now, how do we get the U.S. Navy to blockade the Harbin spur of the Trans-Siberian railroad, hmm....

Again, it doesn't take much to disrupt things. Even a modest decrease in overall steel supplies could have major impact. If South Korea and Thailand joined in on the embargo, which of course they would be pressured to do (and probably would), then China will come up short. Plus, as I've been saying all along, this is just one small piece of the equation. A full embargo means more than just a reduction in steel.

See, this is why Omar Bradley said getting involved in a land war on the Asian continent was a dumb idea.

Bradley was a very smart man.

But if you know of some strategic resource the Chinese economy needs so badly that its absence will crater the economy, and how that resource stream is vulnerable to U.S. interdiction, then I'm real interested. But it ain't oil, gas, electricity, or steel, the way I see things.

When your economy is based on certain assumptions, and those assumptions are disrupted, then the entire model changes. The amount of change is related to the amount of disruption. However, the change is an amplification of the disruption, not a 1:1 relationship. Knocking out $1 billion in supply does not mean a $1 billion hit to the economy. It could mean $1 trillion or even more.

Confucius say: If W., Rummy, and Condi piss off patriotic Americans like Honorable Game Mandarin First Class Steve, they unlikely to be more popular outside America. ?

They've been on my crap list since before they took office. They only made me able to say "I told you so" to the blind supporters that thought the label "Republican" meant fiscal responsibility, smaller government, less government intrusion into personal lives, and intelligent foreign policy

Well yes, if the Chinese were to invade South Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan simultaneously, and then murder all women and children, I guess you could get the world to react. Chinese armies are not particularly genocidal, however. (Fairness in reporting: They do apparently loot like crazy.)

Hmmm... seems you are forgetting the lessons that the Ukraine and Iraq should have taught you. The world doesn't work in nice ways. It is all about power and gain. China is a big threat to many, many nations either economically or militarily (and both in some cases). If China clearly crossed a line and went on a rampage somewhere significant, I don't think you'd find many countries sitting on the sideline. The murder of local inhabitants wouldn't change anything. Darfur and Ruwanda show that. Nobody cares because nobody benefits from caring.

I think you will agree with me that, in recent years, Beijing has done a better job than the Washington in spinning a reputation as a country that doesn't invade other countries too much.

Quite true. But we are talking about a situation where they break from this track record. Memories are very short.

I choose my words carefully. I said: "As far as the Chinese are concerned." In the Chinese opinion.

I fail to see the relevance in this. I've never said that the Chinese weren't patriotic or (at present) supportive of the government AS IS. What we are talking about is how things would look when all is said and done. If China were able to continue on with business as usual while conducting their military campaign, then I don't doubt they could suffer amazing numbers of casualties before they decided enough was enough. But I'm predicting that there would be bigger problems for them other than a few hundred thousand dead soldiers.

I never really got into the calculating until this debate, but now that I have given the numbers a once-over, it looks to me like China certainly could consider opposing the U.S. in a land conflict. Why not? Where's the U.S. leverage?

Uhmmm... that's what we have been discussing. You are vastly underestimating the economic implications of an attack of any significance.

I just don't understand how you can say "The U.S. will win everywhere," and then defend that absolute position by excluding China as a potential U.S. opponent, on grounds a limited war would devastate the Chinese economy.

Well, then I will qualify my statement. I think the US will win everywhere when "everywhere" is limited to probable encounters. This excludes a minor Chinese military adventure, Russia cracking down on yet another ex-Soviet province, an invasion of Space Lobsters, or other things that aren't likely going to result in US military intervention. Since these situations aren't likely to ever happen, then I don't see the point in considering them.

It seems to me that it would be very realistic indeed for the Chinese to threaten the U.S. with a limited war somewhere, the moment they had the military ability to fight U.S. forces on favorable terms. Economically, China appears to be in a position to oppose the U.S. in a limited war, already.

They are in a position to go toe to toe with the US militarily, for sure. But I don't see the evidence that they would want to nor that they would be able to suffer the consequences of such an action.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Tarquelen

OTOH, China might really need it's concrete or whatever cheap. Cheap cheap cheap.

Exactly my point.

Cheap goods and machines allow for the cheap transformation of a subsistance farmer into a much better educated laborer, and economic growth.

That and it provides a product for the rest of the world that is cheaper than they can domestically produce it. Heck, cheaper than it can be produced in other relatively low cost countries. So if their prices suddenly go up... the equation changes. How much? Depends on the circumstances. Especially if the markets are artificially shut out.

Think about Battlefront. If a law were passed in the US making it illegal to produce wargames, what the heck would it matter if we had tons of money in our pockets? Immediately we would be shut down. Could we use our money to bide our time until we reinvent ourselves? Perhaps. But perhaps we find out we aren't good at doing anything but making wargames. With that now rulled out, we're effectively sunk.

The economic landscape is littered with the debris of once big companies that weren't able to change quick enough to changes in their markets. I don't see how a corrupt, inefficeint government of $7 something trillion Dollars can suddenly reinvent itself without a massive pain and suffering.

Simply put, right now they're effectively "renting" the production facilities of other nations. Do they really have enough cash to buy their own? I dunno, but they might not. I've read - who knows where - that for all the money sloshing around China capital is still stretched thin.

This is the conlcusions I have heard as well. The big concern is the limited oil resources. At their rate of growth they will oustrip the US as the single largest consumer of oil within a few years. And then what? Where is all that extra oil going to come from when most experts agree that volume is not going to be able to meet the demand. On top of that, a growing number of scientists are indicating that we might have already reached, or passed, the "tipping point". Meaning, we've already found all the world's available oil and we've tapped nearly all of it already. Even the optimists feel that we only have perhaps 30 years left of oil at the current rate of consumption.

Steve

[MikeyD]

"...we only have perhaps 30 years left of oil at the current rate of consumption."

...and by that time I'll be a very wrinkly 81 years old. Kinda seems futile to be worrying about returns on my retirement IRA account when the whole structure upon which our civilization is built is due to crumble around that time!

The implication of that, also, is the days of U.S. political hegemony are numbered. Once resources get scarce it'll just cost too much for us to go scampering around the globe putting out (or setting) other people's political brushfires. Gulf War I may have already been the apex of the curve. Not only did we win a major war in a few days of fighting but the U.S. didn't even have to pay for it! When planning started going forward for the current Iraq war I could detect a note of creeping official anxiety when it was realised this time it was going to be all on our dime. If the final tally works out to "Iraq war = 8 year effort and 1 trillion dollar outlay" there may be some justifiable hesitancy to repeat the experience anytime soon. And by the time institutional memory fades (in 30 years) there will no longer be enough resources available to mount any significant adventures!

The opposite position could be argued as well. 30 years from now we'll be cutting eachothers throats over the remaining resources, like starving dogs fighting over a bone.

[ January 17, 2006, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Peter Cairns]

Tarquelne,

OK we'll do it the meaningful way as percentages.

US war dead since 1940 400,000

Chinese war dead since 1940 16,000,000

Ratio 400 to 1

Current US population 295m

Current Chinese population 1,350m

Ratio 4.4 to 1

Which means that the Chinese in war alone without civilian casualties the cultural revolution or the great leap forward ( Now there is a contradiction in terms) have endured proportionally 90 times the losses of the US.

Steve,

I am not anti American, in any way, but it's the excessive optimism that Uncle Sam will always win that gets me.

What the statisy=tics on casualties show is the track record, and on that basis, China ( like Japan, Russia, and Germany), has been there and done it, the US hasn't, That doesn't mean it can't, but the certainty most americans have on the strength of their own country seems bizarre to lots of people in Europe.

To be honest the British suffer from it a bit too, the "We Won the War" brigade, you see it in the glorification of the SAS in the British press, as if they are bullet proof.

But what you see as Anti-American, is for me and many on this side of the Atlantic, a different view on the "Utility of War"

One of the reasons I think both France and Germany were so reluctant to go to war and attack and occupy Iraq was that they had been their . They're cities had been leveled they had been occupied and had occupied.

This creates a very different attitude to war, and the european one (and Japanese) is very different from that of the US. Over two centuries and more europe as gone throw a stream of bloody devastating wars that have seen genocide and slaughter, time and time again.

That has lead to a culture that avoids it and sees it as often futile and counter productive. By contrast US experience has been one of constant victory and often advancement as a consequence of war. After WW2 the Us came out stronger and in a better global position than it went in, the rest of us were in ruins.

So when Europeans, see the US or indeed anyone, adopt a "We'd Win" attitude, and a belief that if push came to shove, they'd back down, because we wouldn't, they start to either back off, or as I do, try to warn you off.

Sure you've accepted belatedly that it could harm America, or bring your government down, but your initial position was a belief in your own superiority, and that is dangerous for any nation.

It's came up in the debate about Fortress Damascus. Faced with the possiblity, that the Syrians might garrison the capitail in force and make a fight of it, your contention was that it wouldn't happen,because by that stage they would know the US had one and throw in the towel.

I would never plan on that basis or assume that, nor would most europeans, because having clubbed each other to a pulp for centuries we expect people to fight on regardless even when it's hopeless because we've seen it done, and mostly done it ourselves.

Hell Steve I am Scots, we've fought everyone from the Romans to the Germans, via the Vikings and the English, and have been beaten more often than not but the challenge comes regardless of how daft it looks we stand and fight, and when we fight abroad we have learned to expect or enemies to do the same.

For all it's strength and military prowess, that is still Americas achilles heal, it's unshakable belief in it's own superiority and ability to succeed no matter the odds.. Thats one reason why a nation that seems to be on an even more unsustainable path than China seems not oblivious to the danger but dismissive of it, be it economic, military or ecological.

As Luke said to Vadar, "Your over confidence is your weakness".

Peter.

[juan_gigante]

This a very interesting debate that I don't want to interfere too much in, but I do have some minor quibbles to voice.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

They can not live on their own. If they could, they would already be doing so.

Not necessarily. I could, most likely, become a hermit and survive all by myself, be self-sufficient. However, if I am a part of society at large, I will still survive and my quality of life will be far higher. Same with China. Just because they could be self-sufficient if they had to doesn't mean that they will choose to be.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Their economy is based on interaction with the rest of the world. Raw goods in, finished goods exported.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

If the CIA is to be believed, exports constitute less than 10 per cent of the Chinese economy

To mangle Mark Twain, rumors of China's dependence on the rest of the world for markets are greatly exaggerated.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

As Luke said to Vadar, "Your over confidence is your weakness".

Luke said that to the Emperor. When it comes to Star Wars, you're dancing with the devil here.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

I am not anti American, in any way, but it's the excessive optimism that Uncle Sam will always win that gets me.

Never said you were anti-American, just that I could interpret your pessimism as such just as you interpreted my optimism as blind patriotism. Meaning, just because we don't agree doesn't mean nationalism is at the root.

This creates a very different attitude to war, and the european one (and Japanese) is very different from that of the US. Over two centuries and more europe as gone throw a stream of bloody devastating wars that have seen genocide and slaughter, time and time again.

Quite true. There has been much resentment in the US about this over the years. We have our military umbrella spread out over these nations (specifically Japan and Germany), yet we get a lot of flak for the very same thing. From time to time there have been calls to pull back to CONUS (continental US) and let everybody else sink or swim on their own. A modern day version of inter World War "Isolationism" that was VERY strong in the US.

Sure you've accepted belatedly that it could harm America, or bring your government down, but your initial position was a belief in your own superiority, and that is dangerous for any nation.

Er... no, I always said that a conflict with China would be very bad for the US, just not as bad as for China. I have consistently stuck and reinforced that line of reasoning. What I have just introduced is a NEW concept, whereby the US is the one being embargoed. I did that just to show that my logic of why China would collapse is not rooted in optimistic nationalism, but rather simple understanding of how fragile even huge economies are. To demonstrate my sincerity, and lack of hypocrisy, I demonstrated how easily the US economy could collapse. These are two different scenarios, so don't confuse them.

It's came up in the debate about Fortress Damascus. Faced with the possiblity, that the Syrians might garrison the capitail in force and make a fight of it, your contention was that it wouldn't happen,because by that stage they would know the US had one and throw in the towel.

The conventional forces, yes, I still maintain that they would (largely) collapse by the time the force got to Damascus. The unconventional forces would really only kick in after.

I would never plan on that basis or assume that, nor would most europeans, because having clubbed each other to a pulp for centuries we expect people to fight on regardless even when it's hopeless because we've seen it done, and mostly done it ourselves.

Yet Iraq didn't. Not in either war. Neither did Afghanistan. AFTER the initial phase... then things really start to cook. And all bets are off because it all depends on the US' will to stick it out. Iraq SHOULD show that it isn't nearly as wimpy as many on this board insist that it is. The war has cost billions more than it was supposed to, nearly 10 times as many soldiers have been made casualties since the "end of major hostilities", the insurgency is still blazing away, etc., etc., etc., and the US is still there.

For all it's strength and military prowess, that is still Americas achilles heal, it's unshakable belief in it's own superiority and ability to succeed no matter the odds..

And in reverse I would say that the European's achilles heal is their lack of confidence in their own abilities and they project that onto the US. Or to paraphrase Luke "Your lack of confidence is your weakness".

So I'll restate again. Syria has no chance of defeating the US conventionally. It can make a conventional defense hurt a little or perhaps even a lot, but it will not influence the immediate outcome (i.e. the destruction of the governing regime and the total occupation of the country). Long term, I'm certainly not as confident, just like I am with Iraq. When the OIF was clearly going to happen I remember me saying "I am sure we will win the war, but I am not sure we will win the peace". My lack of confidence was a direct result of the poor political leadership. Here we are nearly 3 years later and I was right about both aspects. Iraq fell fairly quickly without much trouble, but the peace has been a lot more difficult than the political leadership expected. Since the US is still there the jury is still out as to the ultimate success of the restoration of Iraq as a stable, semi-democratic state. An operation against Syria comes with the same caveats.

As for China, that is an entirely different kettle of fish. I expect that the only conflict we would have with China would be an all out, do or die, struggle. The US hasn't fully mobilized since WWII so it would take something rather huge to make it happen again. But once fully mobilized, I don't think there is any way the US would come off worse than China. Battered, set back 20 years, whatever... but intact and "victorious" in a military sense. China would be left in a state of civil war, with domestic population deaths numbering in the hundreds of millions. Make no mistake about it, I think this would be a horrible way to go and I'd hardly consider it a desirable struggle to get into. But if China forced the issue, I am confident that they would not achieve their goals and would wind up with far more problems than they started out with.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

juan_gigante

Not necessarily. I could, most likely, become a hermit and survive all by myself, be self-sufficient. However, if I am a part of society at large, I will still survive and my quality of life will be far higher. Same with China. Just because they could be self-sufficient if they had to doesn't mean that they will choose to be.

True. I'll revise my comment. If China could be self-sufficient AND get everything it wanted, it probably would. Heck, anybody would. But China needs things and/or things at a certain price. The fact that they are buying things from others means that either they don't have them, don't have a realistic ability to get them domestically, and/or the pros of going abroad outweigh doing it locally. It all boils down to the same thing, though. If their chosen economic model is yanked out from under them, there will be problems. BigDuke seems to think that these problems can be easily overcome. I don't see any evidence to support that point of view, but instead tons of evidence to dispute it.

To mangle Mark Twain, rumors of China's dependence on the rest of the world for markets are greatly exaggerated.

It is folly to confuse quantity with quality, general with specific. I've outlined how taking away oil would destroy the US's economy, which is the largest in the world and has a long track record of success. If the US economy could go down in flames nearly overnight by the simple removal of ONE import item, then why is it that China would have no problems adjusting to similar (or as I predict, worse) economic disruption?

Exports also are, dollar for dollar, more important than domestic production. Domestic production and spending mean the same capital is circulated. No new capital comes in. Exports brings in someone else's capital, which can be used domestically. If you think China's economy got to where it is today without exports, I'd like to see some expert explanation to back that up.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

I'll go backwards. That's just how we do things where I'm from.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If you think China's economy got to where it is today without exports, I'd like to see some expert explanation to back that up.

I don't think that. The point is, we rely on them more than they rely on us.

But China needs things and/or things at a certain price. The fact that they are buying things from others means that either they don't have them, don't have a realistic ability to get them domestically, and/or the pros of going abroad outweigh doing it locally.

And the same thing is true of the U.S. China needs stuff from abroad? So do we. I ask - what is it that China needs that they can't make? Some numbers from Bigduke:

* 75 % of oil produced at home

* 100+ % of electricity needs produced at home

* 100+ % of natural gas needs produced at home

* $609.9 billion foreign currency reserves.

As we've gone over, many other goods (steel, cement) the Chinese need are produced in nearby SE Asia countries that we couldn't stop from trading with China.

And let's not forget the damage the Chinese could do to the dollar. Most of those 609.9 billion is in dollars. If they wanted to unload their dollars, they could make the value plummet like a rock. Think that would be good for America?

I'm not denying that ending of trade relations with China wouldn't hurt them. I just think that it would hurt us more.

[juan_gigante]

And in regards to American military supremacy, I think that $20 for a pair of socks might test the American people's will to continue the fight, especially if the war was started in any way other than China launching some sort of Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack on America with no provocation.