US Army: long intersting "Economist" report

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

US consumers live beyond their means buying cheap Chinese goods,

Incorrect. They are living beyond their means because various institutions (banks and credit cards, mostly) have extended lines of credit that are irresponsibly large. These entities have found that they can make more money by catering to irresponsible behavior than by being fiscally traditional. My European friends have no ability to rationalize how easy it is in the US to live beyond one's means. It isn't by accident.

As to oil, in five years it will have a pipeline to Russian and is already negotiating to create links to both India ( which has some oil but not a lot) and the former southern Soviet republic.

Not good enough. The Chinese need for oil exceeds the supply of these countries. And its thirst for oil is increasing. The worst part is that it isn't sustainable, even without a war cutting it off. The world is quickly running out of oil, thanks in large part to China's increased demand (which comes from the West, which is using up most of the rest of the supply). But this isn't really the important point

With an economic embargo on China the entire economy would collapse. The reason is simple... if you are a factory and your customers are taken away, you have no reason to have the workers come in the next day. If you have nobody to buy what you make, you're out of business.

What this means is that China's needs for oil would drop off dramatically overnight. No need to buy oil for electricity and plastics when your factories are shut down. So the question of oil volume into China isn't really important. China's domestic economy is simply too small and immature to survive a sudden and dramatic decrease in industrial activity.

And that is why I do not consider China and the "1st world" nations in a symbiotic relationship. Cutting off the parasite (China) would kill the organisim but not its host (the consumer nations of the 1st world). It might be extremely painful to make the cut, but the host has the ability to survive. In a symbiotic relationship either both or neither would survive the separation.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

I intentionally avoided the scenario of a Taiwan invasion because that involves U.S. naval capacity, and so maximizes the importance of technical advantage, and as far as that goes of air power. I don't see an automatic Chinese win there. No question the U.S. can bring dramatic force to the table in a conflict like that, but more importantly, so can Taiwan. Taiwan is no backwater ally, they are preparing to fight China without the U.S.

The assertion I am taking issue with is the absolute. There are, indeed, possible scenarios where the U.S. could do nothing except flap its gums, and if it were to intervene the odds would be so stacked against it as to necessitate a U.S> failure. For instance, were the Chinese to invade Laos, Myrnmar/Burma or Butan. That's not China, that's "some one else's turf." A U.S. attempt to prevent that kind of attack might be able to place a bit of high-tech force in theater, but the environment, terrain, and proximity to the Chinese heartland make any kind of sustained U.S. effort a laughable proposition. 25th Division and maybe a couple of National Guard brigades, against three or four Chinese field armies, plus all the reserves they can bring to fight.

This is not some rag-tag force, not Iraqis drafted into Saddam's army, but a major nation with military tradition, a general staff, and a pool of educated warm bodies to stick into the ranks factors larger than the U.S.

Interdiction is not so easy; the Chinese don't just import anti-aircraft missiles, they make them. The Chinese have traditionally fielded tough infantry strong on field craft. Not a lot of nice roads, open areas, and vehicle-friendly conditions in those three states. You know what wet, rain, and mud does to thermals. So do the Chinese.

Do you really see automatic U.S. victory in a scenario like that? I certainly don't. I haven't forgotten the Chosin Reservoir; not because I think U.S. forces are inherently bad, but because U.S. infantry has a history of unwillingness to divorce itself from its vehicles and machines, and a smart opponent can take advantage of that. And yes, Korea 1950-53 was a fight "not on their own turf", for both major opponents.

I think CM:SF scenarios regarding Taiwan and Chinese forces would be great. The US and Allied invasion of Taiwan might be beyond the scope of the game, but the remainder of the tactical operations conducted by III MEF and the US Army and Allied forces (to include the loyal Taiwanese forces still surviving) against the Chinese would make a great game. Same for hypothetical "land wars in Asia".

If Korea kicked off again, the same key terrain that was vital in 1950 is pretty much the same today. Critics called the US military "road bound", but any force similarily equipped would be the same. And modern Chinese mech forces would also be road bound, Chinese tanks cannot go over mountains and through jungles just like Western tanks cannot.

And besides, any MSR with a column of enemy armor will become a highway of death, no matter how many anti-aircraft missles the Chinese manufacture. They would have to keep their armor spread out significantly.

So that leaves the Chinese in pretty much the same situation operationally today as they are in 1950. Many divisions of infantry with alot of infantry weapons. Thier artillery would not last long against US MRLS and air. Certainly their weapons are more modern, but so is that of the US and Allies. There is no doubt that the Chinese would use the warfighting techniques that they are good at to minimize US firepower and maneuver capabilities, just as they did in the Korean war. And there is no doubt that many US battalions would be virtually annhilated, but not without a significant price to be paid by the Chinese as well. And the US and Allies will be able to maneuver more forces faster to react to a Chinese offensive than the Chinese would be able to exploit the tactical success of any victory. So that is the what I mean about the near absolute in a US Army/US military victory against any enemy it may face, to include the Chinese, withholding any political influences.

The 25th Light Infantry division would probably not be deployed with National Guard brigades to fight Chinese forces. It would more likely be a Marine Expeditionary Force (consisting of 3rd Marine Division and elements of the 1st Marine Division, plus a Marine Air Wing), with a US Army Corps consisting of something like the 25th Infantry Division (light), a brigade from the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Air Assault Division, and 3rd Infantry Division (mech). Not to mention the US Navy and Airforce squadrons. And more US Corps could be on the way.

Below is part from the book "This Kind of War" by T.R. Fehrenbach. Outstanding book. The author was a US Army colonel and he commanded US Army units in Korea. I carried this section with me to read while in OIF 1 and 2 for when I thought things were kinda tough.

The capabilites of US infantry weapon technology to Chinese weapons technology was much closer then than it is now. So imagine the battle with the exact same people on both sides, with the same tactical deployments, but armed with 2006 weapons....

On 27 November, as the 7th Marines attacked westward from Yudam-ni, the 5th Marines moved west of the reservoir and joined them. It had first been planned to move only two battalions through Toktong Pass, following with the third on 28 November, but at the earnest suggestion of the motor transport officer, the entire regiment moved together. Thus, at nightfall on 27 November, two full regiments of Marines, less one company holding the high ground above the pass, and a weapons company left at Hajam, were able to operate in conjunction at Yudam-ni.

Before the night passed, both regiments were deep in crisis.

Again the story of one company, one platoon, tells the story of all.

At dark, the seventy men of First Lieutenant John Yancey’s platoon of Easy Company, 7th Marines (my note: all Marine battalions have the same company designations, so Easy, or Echo as it is now called, would be in 2nd battalion, labeled 2/7) was dug in the frozen earth facing north along the brush, rocky slopes of Hill 1282. Each foxhole, painfully scrabbled out of the frozen shale, held two men, and machineguns protected the flanks. Yancey’s platoon was in the middle of the hill, with Bye’s to his left, Clement’s to his right. Behind Yancey’s position the company skipper, Captain Walter Phillips, was positioned with his exec, Lieutenant Ball, to fight the company.

The moon came up, huge and swollen, rising clear and bright over the swirling ground mists. It came up behind Easy Company, silhouetting the company positions for the enemy, but not throwing enough light along the dark corridors to reveal the lurking Chinese. On the hill, the temperature had dropped to twenty below.

Easy’s men heard monstrous shuffling sounds through the dark, as thousands of boots stamping in the snow. They heard sounds, but they could see only ghostly moon shadows.

Yancey asked Ball, on the mortars, to fire star shells.

Ball had little 81 ammo, but he tried. The flares wouldn’t work-lifted from crates stamped “1942”, they fizzled miserably.

“Oh Goddam”, Yancey said. Yancey, as reservist, had been a liquor-store operator in Little Rock when the war broke. He had a baby, born on the day he went ashore at Inchon, whom he had never seen. He had a Navy Cross from Guadalcanal, and he had washed off the mud of Okinawa. He did not consider himself a fighting man. But he had learned his own lessons in a hard school, the hardest there was.

The ranks of the Marines were now diluted with reservists, at least 50 percent. Few of them were mentally prepared to fight, or physically hardened to war. Inchon, luckily had been easy.

But now, on the frozen hills above Yudam-ni, the Marines, regular and reservist alike, faced reality.

Because their officers were tough-minded, because their discipline was tight, and because their espirit- that indefinable emotion of a fighting man for his standard, his regiment, and the men around him, was unbroken- weak and strong alike, they would face it well.

The enemy mortars fell first, bursting with pin-point precision among the foxholes on the forward slope of Hill 1282. Then, in the moonlit hills, bugles racketed, purple flares soared high and popped. The shadows suddenly became men, running at Marine lines.

The Chinese did not scream and shout like the North Koreans. They did not come in one overwhelming mass. They came in squads, yards apart, firing, hurling hand grenades, flailing at the thin line across the hill, probing for a weak spot across which they could pour down into the valley beyond.

Again and again they were stopped; again and again the Chinese bugles plaintively noised the recall. The icy slopes were now littered with sprawled figures in long white snow capes.

Again and again, while the Marine’s guns grew hot, they came back to flail at the hill. Looking down into the shadowy valley, Yancey could see hundreds of orange pinpoints of light, as the enemy sprayed his hill with lead.

The night seemed endless. A grenade exploded close to Yancey, driving metal fragments through his face to lodge behind his nose. Many of his men were hit. Those who could stand continued fighting; those badly hurt were dragged some twenty yards behind the company position, where a hospital corpsman worked over them in the snow.

There was no shouting or crying. Now and then a man gasped, “oh Jesus, I’m hit” or, “Mother of God!” and fell down.

The attacks whipped the hill. By the early hours of morning, most of Easy’s men had frozen noses or frozen feet in addition to their combat wounds. Yancey’s blood froze to his moustache, dried across his stubbled face. Snorting for breath through his damaged nose, he had trouble breathing.

Slowly, painfully, day began to spread over the bleak hills. Now, Yancey thought, surely it must get better, with daylight.

Instead, things grew worse.

A fresh wave of Chinese, in company strength, charged the hill. Yancey’s men fired everything they had-rifles, carbines, machineguns. The Chinese fell in rows, but some came on. At his line of holes, John Yancey met them with as many of his men as he could muster, included many of his wounded. Somehow, he threw them back.

The platoon, all Easy Company was in desperate straits. Captain Phillips, who had carried ammunition to Yancey’s platoon during the night, and who had said again and again, “You’re doing okay, men, you’re doing okay!” took a bayoneted rifle, and ran out to the front of Yancey’s line.

“This is Easy Company!” Walt Phillips said. “Easy Company holds here!” He thrust the bayonet deep into the snowy ground; the rifle butt swayed back and forth in the cold wind, a marker of defiance, a flag to stand by.

The wounded lay helplessly behind Easy Company; there was no way to get them out. And Easy Company was not going to leave its own.

The Chinese came again. Now they stumbled over their own dead, scattered like cordwood a hundred yards down the slope. And on the hill, Americans also fell over their own dead, moving to plug the leaks in the line. Small leathery-skinned men in quilted jackets leaped into the perimeter, and over-ran the command post.

For over an hour, close-in fighting raged all over the hill. The Chinese wave was smashed, but Chinese dropped behind rocks, in holes, and fired at the Marines surrounding them.

John Yancey realized that some sort of counteraction had to be taken to push them out. He ran back of the hill, found a half dozen able men coming up as replacements. “Come with me!”

With the new men, he charged the breach in Easy’s line. His own carbine would fire only on shot at a time; the weapons of two of the replacements froze. The other four dropped with bullets in their heads-the Chinese aimed high.

Beside the CP, Lieutenant Ball, the exec, sat crossed legged in the snow, firing a rifle. Several Chinese rushed him. Ball died.

Now Yancey could find only seven men in his platoon. Reeling from exhaustion and shock, he tried to form a countercharge. As he led the survivors against the broken line, a forty-five caliber Thompson machinegun slug tore his mouth and lodged in the back of his skull. Metal sliced his right cheek, as a hand grenade knocked him down.

On his hands and knees, he found he was blind.

He heard Walt Phillips shouting, “Yancey!, Yancey!”

Somebody he never saw helped Yancey off of the hill, led him back down the rear slope. He collapsed, and woke up later in the sick bay at Yudam-ni, where his sight returned.

Behind him, on Hill 1282, Captain Walt Phillips stood by his standard until he died. Late in the afternoon, a new company relieved Easy; of its 180 men only twenty three came off.

But they held the hill.

Everywhere it had been the same. Dog Company was driven from its hill three times and three times it charged back. Captain Hull, Dog’s skipper, had fourteen men left, and he himself as many wounds.

To the east, above the pass, Barber’s Fox Company was in like shape. Barber was down, but still directing the defense.

Reality had caught up with the Marines, as with all men, but they had faced it well. Everywhere, the Marines had held.

[Battlefront.com]

Thank you LTC West for pointing out one thing the "Americans will be defeated if met with conventional forces" forget to factor in. And that is the two way street of modern equipment. If one side has it then only one side can be affected by things like the lack of safe roads, the inability to traverse terrain, and the problems that arise from lack of fuel, spare parts, and the sundry of things that are required to make a modern force functional. If this is a problem for the US forces, then it is certainly a problem for the Chinese or the Russians.

What's more, each force would try to leverage its investment in modern equipment and training. Chinese would NOT try to fight it out in Burma with the US no more than the US would want to fight it out with them there either. The Russians would not like to fight in the mountains where cover is slim, supply routes are difficult, etc. any more than the US forces would. And none would be predisposed to use urban terrain as the main battleground UNLESS they felt their forces were not up to the challenge of open terrain warfare against the US.

So, if someone here thinks the Chinese are an even match for the US, then they must also accept that the Chinese would want to fight out in the open. With that presumption in place, one must take a serious look and see which side would have advantages in such an arena and dispense with notions of warfare in other settings (jungle, dense urban, high mountains, etc.). And in doing so remember that the US equipment, offensive and defensive, is battle proven while much of the "equalizer" stuff that the Russians and Chinese have are not.

Also keep in mind that while it might be true that the US has not gone up against a full fledged modern mechanized force, neither have the Russians or Chinese. I'm not sure why it should be assumed that the US would come off worse in such a situation simply because it hasn't experienced such a thing. At least the US has recent experience fighting a sustained military operation of 100,000 plus troops half a globe away. The Russians and Chinese come up very, very short in that experience.

Anyway, just more food for thought

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

And let's not forget the Russian infantry. Think Falluja. Now, replace the Iraqis with Russian infantry. What does that do to the U.S. casualty count? Now let's remember the Russians are smart enough to figure out, and to field in mass quantities, bullets designed to punch through Kevlar. [Eek!] Yikes! How long could the U.S. sustain combat against an opponent like that? Would U.S. "victory" come before they ran out of machines?

You have a point, but if Russian Airborne or other Russian 1st rate infantry occupied Fallujah, then the US forces would have approached it differently and would have cleared it even more methodically. And Fallujah would have suffered 10 times more damage. US casualites would be higher, but the end result would have been the same. It is actually a little more difficult fighting an enemy that follows no tactical doctrine, and fights fanatically and WANTS to die. Fighting Russians would be more predicatable.

Just so you know, the Jihadists have figured out kevlar and have used AP ammo to defeat kevlar already. But AP ammo is harder to acquire and causes "cleaner" wounds as does standard ball/lead core ammo. Using AP ammo in an AK-74 would completely mitigate the purpose of the hollow nose of the Russian standard 5.45mm ball ammo.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Well I just disagree with you there, I think a limited war inbetween U.S. and Chinese or Russian forces is possible in a third party dispute. The first already has happened; and given U.S. force projection possibilities, and both Russia's and China's increasing military capacity, it seems to me a little ostrich-like to exclude the chance of a clash sometime in the future. There are lots of ways big powers can go to war without chucking nukes.

A mineral wealth discovery (oil/gas) and/or dispute over regime change in a whole series of places could place U.S. troops in proximity to Russians or Chinese. The list pretty much sucks for the U.S. logistically: Laos, Burma, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal, Tadjikistan, Kirgizistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia all border on China and/or Russia; and Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, are reasonable targets for a Chinese or Russian intervention/invasion by air.

Are you seriously saying the U.S. could project a winning amount of force to any and all those locations, in the face of what the Chinese or Russians could deploy? This would not be an internationally-sanctioned war on terrorism IMO, it would be a superpower face-off the rest of the world would want to stay out of. That's an awful lot of European and African air space, and intermediate staging bases, closed to U.S. logistics flights, I would think.

On the technical level, here's a what if, what if the Russians figure out how to jam GPS? What does that do to U.S. strike capacity? Here's a meterological one: what if the U.S. were to oppose a Chinese intervention in Burma, during the monsoon season? How much air can the U.S. put on station, really, in the face of a Southeast Asian monsoon? Would it be enough to be decisive against a first-class opponent?

For me, there are too many variables out there to just blithely assert: the U.S. would win, period, in all cases. Maybe if the U.S. were allowed to deploy force and prosectute the war on its terms at its chosen pace. But the bigger the opponent, the harder it is to enforce the terms. The Chinese were smart enough to invade NE Kashmir when the passes of the Hindu Kush were snowed in, and so the Indians were unable to do much about it for months. Same deal in Korea. Would modern China's military leadership ignore weather, terrain, and distance if it came to a fight with the U.S.? If they take something like that into account, how automatic is U.S. victory on the tactical level?

LTC West,

Fair enough. Now riddle me this: What if the Russians in Falluja have viable AT and ADA? What if they can challenge U.S. air supremacy with a combination of missles and aircraft? What if the Russians bring anti-radiation weaponry into the mix? If they can lay down artillery of their own. The Russians have a pretty good artillery tradition, after all. What if the Russians come up with a missile that seeks Firefinder radars?

Now, let's take a couple of battalions of Spetsnaz, and turn them loose in the U.S. rear area. Now lets remember the Russian military traces its heritage back to Stalingrad.

This is not to say U.S. Marines would fold if told to dig Russians out of an urban area under those terms. U.S. Marines are tough. But are they so much tougher than Russians, to assume automatic automatic U.S. victory, with the opposition likely to outnumber the Americans? The Germans tried that at Stalingrad, the Russians proved there is a limit to what a high-tech force can achieve, and if the leaders of that force ignore reality, disaster can follow.

But maybe I'm missing something. What was it, a division of Marines and Army in Falludja? Maybe you can explain to me how a force like that would have been able to defeat a Russian airborne division ready and waiting, range cards filled out and AT crossfires set and so on, and with a reasonable slice of back-up. Me, I would predict a bloodbath for both sides.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

What makes you think that Europe would join any any such embargo of China, we have a fortune invested their, you accused me elsewhere of a lack of imagination, but you are assuming if the US wants to change a regeme in Taiwan in what is effectively a civil war we will side with you.

As to the oil, the US currently uses 25% of world oil, the Chinese, less than 10%, even without Venezula, and Iran, Russia, the worlds second largest oil producer can meet most of that, oh and in case you didn't know as well as expanding domestic coal production China is currently undertaking the largest civil nuclear programme in world history.

As to the excesses of US consumers being down to the nasty greedy banks, sorry I don't buy that. Product prices have been dropping and if the US public and government have choosen to live for today, then don't blame the chinese or the banks.

If yiy chooses to get high on crack and then shoots his wife, don't blame the pusher or the guy you bought the gun from, take responsibility for your own actions.

The harsh reality of the growth of China is that within 10 years the choice to back America or stay on the side lines may well see most of the world, looking at their shoes when it comes time to stand up and be counted.

Oh and it's hard to call China a parasite, when the US has printed more dollars than it can ever cover, is the worlds worst polluter, and is eating up more resourses than anyone else, on histories largest ever line of credit.

We are close to the point where at least economically the US couldn't stop China even if it wanted too, and without doubt if current trends continue by 2020, a trade war is more likely to break America than China.

Within twenty years China with 1.4bn population will have the largest domestic consumer economy in the world, big enough in terms of manufacturing and services to withstand global events at least as well as the West.

By the same time, on the projections of US population growth, the US to sustain it's current level of energy use, will need to annually buy 40% of the worlds oil output (and thats if output doesn't fall), but will also be the worlds most indebted country.

As the saying goes,

" You need three things to fight a war, Money, Money and MORE MONEY",

US military power is built on the strenght of the dollar and the US economy, and as both a eroded so to will the miltary capabilities. We could within only a decade see the start of a soviet style cancer where the US economy could not sustain US military expenditure at current levels without it rising towards 10% of GDP.

LtCol West ,

10 chinese divisions in Taiwan is in excess of 100,000 men, just as a matter of interest, assuming no use of japanese or Korean based ( both to close to China and sitting on the fence). just how many Marines can the US put ashore , how many strike aircraft can the Navy/Marines put off their carriers, and how does that compare to the combined Chinese/taiwanese air and land power.

I've never heard of an amphibious invasion being launched when the enemy had air and land superiority.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

Well I just disagree with you there, I think a limited war inbetween U.S. and Chinese or Russian forces is possible in a third party dispute. The first already has happened; and given U.S. force projection possibilities, and both Russia's and China's increasing military capacity, it seems to me a little ostrich-like to exclude the chance of a clash sometime in the future. There are lots of ways big powers can go to war without chucking nukes.

I agree in theory, but I think the stakes are too high. Personally, I think a full conflict with China is inevitable unless there is a dramatic change within China and with the consumer nations that feed it (increasingly this includes even Eastern Europe, BTW). But the difference between you and I, I think, is that such a conflict would not be contained. So one would HOPE that such a conflict would not arise out of a rather trivial reason.

Are you seriously saying the U.S. could project a winning amount of force to any and all those locations, in the face of what the Chinese or Russians could deploy? This would not be an internationally-sanctioned war on terrorism IMO, it would be a superpower face-off the rest of the world would want to stay out of. That's an awful lot of European and African air space, and intermediate staging bases, closed to U.S. logistics flights, I would think.

No, I am saying that there either wouldn't be a conflict at all (i.e. like Chechnya) or it would go far, far beyond that little backwaters area.

On the technical level, here's a what if, what if the Russians figure out how to jam GPS? What does that do to U.S. strike capacity? Here's a meterological one: what if the U.S. were to oppose a Chinese intervention in Burma, during the monsoon season? How much air can the U.S. put on station, really, in the face of a Southeast Asian monsoon? Would it be enough to be decisive against a first-class opponent?

I don't see the Russians or the Chinese as "first-class opponents". A conflict between the US and GB, for example, would be a battle of "first-class opponents". The Russians and Chinese are not in the same class for many reasons, many of which do not have to do with gizmos and battle widgets.

For me, there are too many variables out there to just blithely assert: the U.S. would win, period, in all cases.

Anything is, of course, possible. I just don't see a realistic situation happening where the US would not win in a conventional sense. But perhaps that is because I don't see many chances for the US to come into direct conflict with Russia or China in the first place.

Peter,

What makes you think that Europe would join any any such embargo of China, we have a fortune invested their, you accused me elsewhere of a lack of imagination, but you are assuming if the US wants to change a regeme in Taiwan in what is effectively a civil war we will side with you.

Obviously it would depend on the circumstances. However, if the US gave Europe a "you are with us or against us" proposition, I doubt Europe would choose to favor an aggressive China in that circumstance. 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).

As to the oil, the US currently uses 25% of world oil, the Chinese, less than 10%, even without Venezula, and Iran, Russia, the worlds second largest oil producer can meet most of that, oh and in case you didn't know as well as expanding domestic coal production China is currently undertaking the largest civil nuclear programme in world history.

China has, in theory, the capacity to make electricity without oil. It isn't doing that though. And even if it did, how do you make plastic from coal? How do you sell products if the markets aren't buying?

I don't have time to check out your numbers about oil usage, but China is for sure projected to surpass the US in terms of consumption within the very near future. However, the number of years the supply can meet that demand is quite small (10-30 years tops).

As to the excesses of US consumers being down to the nasty greedy banks, sorry I don't buy that. Product prices have been dropping and if the US public and government have choosen to live for today, then don't blame the chinese or the banks.

Ah... you really don't understand what is going on here, do you? Check out some articles about the housing market in the US and it will give you a glimpse at what is going on. Greedy people are driving things all the way around. Consumers want to live beyond their means. That is their fault. But the financial institutions are deliberately catering to this need, just like a drug pusher. They are disregarding centuries of proven long term economic models because they are going for short term gain.

In California, for example, 50% of the people buying houses are putting 0% down as a deposit. They are doing what is called an "interest only" mortgage. This means people do not have to be financially stable to get a house. All they have to do is have a job today and bingo, they get the house. They pay the bank interest on the full value of the home and own nothing. If they fail to pay the bank seizes the house. With the market today the values in areas like California are going up about 10% or more a year. So if the homeowner can't pay after a year the bank has received massive interest payments for a year and now can sell the house at a 10% profit. And what is driving the housing prices up? Why, the banks of course. Because they are willing to give just about anybody any amount of money they ask for, the consumers are bidding up the prices of the houses because hey... it's not their money, right? So the banks are creating a false rate of inflation and profiting from it all along the way.

So individual greed of the consumer is driving this whole process. But it would quickly hit a barrier if the financial institutions were sticking to the old rules where a home owner has to come up with 10-20% equity and have a proven history of being able to afford the monthly mortgage payments. But the banks found that it wasn't in their best interests to protect the consumer from himself, and therefore they are in part responsible for what is now happening (foreclosures at an all time record high, equity at an all time record low).

Again, what this means is that the individual consumer greed is being facilitated by larger, domestic entities. The low priced stuff from China isn't a factor here. What it is a factor in is people buying themselves out of jobs. I live in one of the most productive wood products States in the US, and yet 50% of the raw material for the products is coming from outside of the US (not even outside of the State!). Then the people who lose their wood products jobs here complain and blame while they are sitting on furniture made in China and reading newspapers that came from pulp fiber out of Central America and SE Asia. People are stupid and shortsighted, what can I say.

The harsh reality of the growth of China is that within 10 years the choice to back America or stay on the side lines may well see most of the world, looking at their shoes when it comes time to stand up and be counted.

Oh and it's hard to call China a parasite, when the US has printed more dollars than it can ever cover, is the worlds worst polluter, and is eating up more resourses than anyone else, on histories largest ever line of credit.

Oh, no disagreement with you there. In its own way the US is a huge parasite. Most European countries fit this definition too, as well as most countries in general. However, I was specifically speaking about the economic relationship between China and the US. It is not symbiotic unless you limit it to the corporate level. In that sense both the US and Chinese corporations are getting super rich out of this arrangement. The governments too are getting rich out of it. But not the nations as a whole.

We are close to the point where at least economically the US couldn't stop China even if it wanted too, and without doubt if current trends continue by 2020, a trade war is more likely to break America than China.

No, I still disagree. It would hurt American VERY BADLY, but it would kill China. The US has the institutions and resources to go on its own again. China is completely dependent on economic growth for its survival. Without it, there would be a revolution. Things would be quite rough in the US, but there would be little chance of a widespread revolution.

My, we have strayed off topic a bit, haven't we?

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

Of course all this talk of China assumes that they will keep going at their present rate. Historically China has had these periods of growth and prosperity and then immediatly followed them with major political strife and often civil war.

If the current economic growth continues then it will result in a massive increase in the Chinese middle class who will demand more say in the government. Does anyone really believe the regiem will roll over and die? We have already seen that they are not willing to do so without a lot of blood.

I can see some bad things happening in China within the near future.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snips]

My, we have strayed off topic a bit, haven't we?

Hardly at all, if you consider that

1. The original article caused so much offence to our American cousins by pointing out that there is more to modern warfare than killing lots of people,

and

2. The offending article was published in a magazine called "The Economist".

All the best,

John.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Peter,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />US consumers live beyond their means buying cheap Chinese goods,

Incorrect. They are living beyond their means because various institutions (banks and credit cards, mostly) have extended lines of credit that are irresponsibly large. These entities have found that they can make more money by catering to irresponsible behavior than by being fiscally traditional. My European friends have no ability to rationalize how easy it is in the US to live beyond one's means. It isn't by accident.

</font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I can see some bad things happening in China within the near future.

They've got a few trillion greenbacks to help sop up any spillage

[SgtMuhammed]

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

[Battlefront.com]

Stalin's Organist,

And in what way does that mke his statement incorrect?

OK, I'll clarify. Peter said the problem is that the US population is living beyond its means BECAUSE Of cheap Chinese imports. That isn't the case at all. One can not buy things unless one has the money to buy with. That is where credit card companies and banks come into play. If people only bought what they needed, instead of what they desired, then the cheap Chinese goods would mean they would live well within their means. But that isn't the case. Instead they spend whatever they really earn, then they spend whatever it is they are lent. What they spend it on is irrelevant.

Why is this at all relevant to the hypotheticals about an embargo against China? Simple. If the US shut off its markets to Chinese goods then the people in China who need those sales are screwed. There is no domestic demand to pick up the slack and there is also no foreign markets ready to do so either. Over time, perhaps, but it would take decades to replace just the US markets alone (not to mention if Europe shut them out too). Unfortunately for the Chinese economy, they would probably have time measured in months. And that just isn't going to happen. So a US shutout of China kills the Chinese economy, which leads to political turmoil, which then neutralizes it as an effective military force.

But what about in the US?

Well, things would be extremely tough for sure. No doubts about it. What would most likely happens is the few remaining strong US economic sectors would take a major hit as spending shifted away from things like new cars and mass consumer goods. The auto industry and retail employ vast numbers of US workers (Walmart and GM are the two largest companies in the US, with combined employees around 600,000 or more IIRC). So the US economy, as we know it today, would fall apart. Unlike China, however, it wouldn't happen immediately. At least not catastrophically so. Sales of cars would take a big hit short term, then decline after. Retail sales would also take a huge hit up front, then decline rapidly. But people would find that they really don't need all this crap anyway. They would need the jobs, that's for sure, but they don't need to spend themselves into debt as they are now. Heck, perhaps the credit card companies and banks would find some new way to lend people more money than they can afford to borrow, thus softening the blow. Etc. etc.

So again... my point is that if the US shuts off China, China goes down hard. The US staggers around, but recovers. Perhaps not to its previous "glory" of idiotic and wasteful consumption of useless crap, but it would recover instead of going into revolution.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Steve,

Well I just disagree with you there, I think a limited war inbetween U.S. and Chinese or Russian forces is possible in a third party dispute. The first already has happened; and given U.S. force projection possibilities, and both Russia's and China's increasing military capacity, it seems to me a little ostrich-like to exclude the chance of a clash sometime in the future. There are lots of ways big powers can go to war without chucking nukes.

A mineral wealth discovery (oil/gas) and/or dispute over regime change in a whole series of places could place U.S. troops in proximity to Russians or Chinese. The list pretty much sucks for the U.S. logistically: Laos, Burma, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal, Tadjikistan, Kirgizistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia all border on China and/or Russia; and Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, are reasonable targets for a Chinese or Russian intervention/invasion by air.

Are you seriously saying the U.S. could project a winning amount of force to any and all those locations, in the face of what the Chinese or Russians could deploy? This would not be an internationally-sanctioned war on terrorism IMO, it would be a superpower face-off the rest of the world would want to stay out of. That's an awful lot of European and African air space, and intermediate staging bases, closed to U.S. logistics flights, I would think.

On the technical level, here's a what if, what if the Russians figure out how to jam GPS? What does that do to U.S. strike capacity? Here's a meterological one: what if the U.S. were to oppose a Chinese intervention in Burma, during the monsoon season? How much air can the U.S. put on station, really, in the face of a Southeast Asian monsoon? Would it be enough to be decisive against a first-class opponent?

For me, there are too many variables out there to just blithely assert: the U.S. would win, period, in all cases. Maybe if the U.S. were allowed to deploy force and prosectute the war on its terms at its chosen pace. But the bigger the opponent, the harder it is to enforce the terms. The Chinese were smart enough to invade NE Kashmir when the passes of the Hindu Kush were snowed in, and so the Indians were unable to do much about it for months. Same deal in Korea. Would modern China's military leadership ignore weather, terrain, and distance if it came to a fight with the U.S.? If they take something like that into account, how automatic is U.S. victory on the tactical level?

LTC West,

Fair enough. Now riddle me this: What if the Russians in Falluja have viable AT and ADA? What if they can challenge U.S. air supremacy with a combination of missles and aircraft? What if the Russians bring anti-radiation weaponry into the mix? If they can lay down artillery of their own. The Russians have a pretty good artillery tradition, after all. What if the Russians come up with a missile that seeks Firefinder radars?

Now, let's take a couple of battalions of Spetsnaz, and turn them loose in the U.S. rear area. Now lets remember the Russian military traces its heritage back to Stalingrad.

This is not to say U.S. Marines would fold if told to dig Russians out of an urban area under those terms. U.S. Marines are tough. But are they so much tougher than Russians, to assume automatic automatic U.S. victory, with the opposition likely to outnumber the Americans? The Germans tried that at Stalingrad, the Russians proved there is a limit to what a high-tech force can achieve, and if the leaders of that force ignore reality, disaster can follow.

But maybe I'm missing something. What was it, a division of Marines and Army in Falludja? Maybe you can explain to me how a force like that would have been able to defeat a Russian airborne division ready and waiting, range cards filled out and AT crossfires set and so on, and with a reasonable slice of back-up. Me, I would predict a bloodbath for both sides.

The US would not project a force into any region unless it thought it could win. If the operational situation was such that it would take more forces, more carrier battlegroups, more airforce wings, etc..then the US would take time to establish the right force. And that force would be very powerful, especially if the ROE was very liberal.

The most likely scenario that would cause a major problem is one were a US force was deployed for political reasons, or as a "speed bump" such as when a brigade of the 82nd was sent to Saudi Arabia when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi Republican Guards could have driven south and caused havoc. But when the 7th Marines showed up a few days later, with their tanks and AAVs and air, as well as US Airforce and US Navy squadrons, that window of opportunity was shut.

Here are my answers regarding your questions:

1) Russian artillery would not last long against US MRLS and PGMs. And US artillery would be used in an unrestricted manner in return.

2) Russian jets gain air supremacy? For how long? 15 minutes? US air would be used in an unrestricted manner.

3) Anti-radiation weaponry? Not sure, how about phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.

4) MOAB bomb/ B-52s against strongpoints.

5) US M-1A1 and M-1A2 tanks are the most difficult tanks in the world to kill.

The US just has a ton of firepower to throw at a conventional fight. Firepower does not win everything and it would come down to an infantry fight. But the last time I checked, with the exception of Spetnaz, most Russian soldiers do not get much training, morale is poor, and leadership is severly lacking in the NCO ranks. I know Grozney was a while ago, but that was not executed all that great and lots of Russian soldiers simply deserted.

6 US battalions conducted Fallujah 2, most from the 1st Marine Division. A US Army calvary battalion was the primary US Army component.

Just my opinion, I may be wrong. Hopefully we will never have to find out.

If CM:SF evolves to the point that players can create hypothetical scenarios such as the one that you just described, it would make for some interesting match ups.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Steve,

What makes you think that Europe would join any any such embargo of China, we have a fortune invested their, you accused me elsewhere of a lack of imagination, but you are assuming if the US wants to change a regeme in Taiwan in what is effectively a civil war we will side with you.

As to the oil, the US currently uses 25% of world oil, the Chinese, less than 10%, even without Venezula, and Iran, Russia, the worlds second largest oil producer can meet most of that, oh and in case you didn't know as well as expanding domestic coal production China is currently undertaking the largest civil nuclear programme in world history.

As to the excesses of US consumers being down to the nasty greedy banks, sorry I don't buy that. Product prices have been dropping and if the US public and government have choosen to live for today, then don't blame the chinese or the banks.

If yiy chooses to get high on crack and then shoots his wife, don't blame the pusher or the guy you bought the gun from, take responsibility for your own actions.

The harsh reality of the growth of China is that within 10 years the choice to back America or stay on the side lines may well see most of the world, looking at their shoes when it comes time to stand up and be counted.

Oh and it's hard to call China a parasite, when the US has printed more dollars than it can ever cover, is the worlds worst polluter, and is eating up more resourses than anyone else, on histories largest ever line of credit.

We are close to the point where at least economically the US couldn't stop China even if it wanted too, and without doubt if current trends continue by 2020, a trade war is more likely to break America than China.

Within twenty years China with 1.4bn population will have the largest domestic consumer economy in the world, big enough in terms of manufacturing and services to withstand global events at least as well as the West.

By the same time, on the projections of US population growth, the US to sustain it's current level of energy use, will need to annually buy 40% of the worlds oil output (and thats if output doesn't fall), but will also be the worlds most indebted country.

As the saying goes,

" You need three things to fight a war, Money, Money and MORE MONEY",

US military power is built on the strenght of the dollar and the US economy, and as both a eroded so to will the miltary capabilities. We could within only a decade see the start of a soviet style cancer where the US economy could not sustain US military expenditure at current levels without it rising towards 10% of GDP.

LtCol West ,

10 chinese divisions in Taiwan is in excess of 100,000 men, just as a matter of interest, assuming no use of japanese or Korean based ( both to close to China and sitting on the fence). just how many Marines can the US put ashore , how many strike aircraft can the Navy/Marines put off their carriers, and how does that compare to the combined Chinese/taiwanese air and land power.

I've never heard of an amphibious invasion being launched when the enemy had air and land superiority.

Peter.

The US would not be able to put ashore as many as it would like, that is certain. But in that scenario, it would be nearly a division in amphibs, and alot more forces, US Marine and US Army, to follow as soon as a port and an airfield was secured, which would be a tough fight.

The US Navy's 7th Fleet and the US Airforce operating out of places like Japan, Korea, and Guam would have to establish air and sea superiority before any amphib fleet go close. Might take a few days or weeks, but China cannot win that fight. And the US Airforce B-52/B-1/B-2 squadrons would really be earning their pay as well as those US Navy carrier battlegroups.

And, in my opinion, at least the UK and Aussies would help the US. So, those 10 huge Chinese divisions, while dangerous, are eventually meat for the grinder.

And the Taiwanese would not simply give up as well.

So, as long as the US and its allies have the political will to go to war, in my opinion, there currently no one on this planet that can stop the current US warmachine by military means alone. There are plenty of stiff fights and bloody noses though.

Its like looking at WW2. As soon as the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the US mobilized for war, Japan and Germany lost the war. No one could say for sure, and it took nearly 5 years of terrible battles to do it, but there was just no way that those two countries could match the production of the US, the Soviets, and the UK. Admiral Yamamoto knew it though, hence his quote about waking a sleeping giant after Pearl Harbor.

But in CM1 we all knew that the Germans lost WW2. The game is still great to play. So fighting modern to near future battles with US forces against any other is still challenging and fun, even though the US would probably win in the long run in any pure conventional conflict.

[TheTris]

Steve,

I wasn't happy with the rigour in suggesting that finding an American who thinks American's are great is as compelling evidence as finding that a senior American in charge of training a specific skill set suggesting American's are not great at that skill set.

So now I'm going to agree with you - Chinese forces are not equal to American forces. It's crazy to suggest they are. China could not contemplate an invasion of America, for instance. I do believe that America would be defeated if it invaded China, but I'm not certain.

But now I'm going to disagree again . Britain vs America would not be a battle of first rate opponents. One Platoon of Brits vs one of Americans would be, but the Brits do not have the resources or numbers to count as a first rate power. We're second rate, for sure.

But we are good at pacification :-D

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by TheTris:

I do believe that America would be defeated if it invaded China, but I'm not certain.

The US could only do something like this after a massive mobilization of national resources. And while the US would probably defeat the Chinese conventional military in time, it could never control China or successfully occupy it.

So after seizing Beijing and capturing the Chinese nukes, the best thing the US could do is to leave China. Declare victory and get the f**k out. Staying would make the occupation of Iraq look like a cake-walk. Way too many people and way too much ground to cover, unless 80% was made into a nuclear wasteland.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I never said that the Us was living beyond it's means "BECAUSE" it was buying cheap imported Chineses, goods. I tthink that is a geneuine mistake on your part (probably because due to the clearly superior Scottish education system, I use the English language properly).

The US is sucking in resources, goods, and increasingly services from all around the world at an unsustainable rate. driven by debt. The fact that China is now the major source, doesn't mean thAt China is the cause, though the fact that they keep their currency artifically low, and are buying US debt to hold the dollar up, does mean that they are clearly happy with things to continue as they are.

As long as their economy grows and prospers, the damage it is doing to America doesn't bother them at all. Given that it can't go on for ever, that might be short term and blinkered, but then you can hardly condemn them for that when the US is doing the same.

It's a bit like to guys falling off a skyscrapper, trying to pick each others pockets on the way down.

I think we should all have a look at the CIA world book, On almost any statistic the Chinese look to be better placed to survive atrade war. Sure 20% of their exports go to the US, but as they just revalued their economy by 20% because of recalculated domestic demand, I don't see it breaking them.

What is of growing importance is that if you look at the trade with the EU, then we could be approaching a point where China's surpasses the US.

Because so much of US GDP is internal, the extent to which other countries depend on the US relies on the US continuing to live beyond it's means.

So a US trade embargo means huge opportunities for european exporters to the US, (and japanese), but at the expense of exports to China. The problem is that if the dollar collapses as it might in a trade war, just what will an indebted US be able to buy, given that european goods will become far more expensive in US markets.

I can evisage a situation where the volume of trade with China and the ability of the Chinese to pay and the opportunities for investment out way the advantages in the US.

The CIA purchasing partity figures have China currently at about two thirds of the US, but on current growth it will be nine tenths, in ten years. In addition as one of the main drivers of Us growth is currently house prices, the parity gap might close quicker.

As parity looks at what you can buy in your own country if US GDP grows because a house in the US costs fifteen years wages instead of ten, that shows in the headline figure, but not in parity.

If one countries growth is driven by House and shares speculation to unrealalistic levels, and anothers by industrial investment and manufactured exports, in the long run I knoe who'll win, regardless of what the headline figures show.

This probably isn't a good analogy, but after the discovery of America for more than a century Portugal and Spain where the economic centre of Europe as they used Inca gold to fund a lavish life style.

The problem was that the production wasn't in the Iberian peninsula, but elsewhere, and when the gold ran out, the countries who's industries their goldhad helped to build took over.

Oh one final point. In my China scenario, the majority of Taiwanese supported unification, not opposed it, and if you check the BBC world news site, you'll see that the more pro chinse current opposition could well win the next election.

Taiwan is a recent democracy, and still a young one, many Taiwanese still see themselves as Chinese first, and as China closes the gap and then overtakes them, while it grows in power, the idea that peaceful unification can happen isn't that far fetched.

My scenario had the antichinese faction having lost in exile or losing getting the US to intervene. Added to that with diminished US influence and fear of China, japan and the EU keep out of it.

It's designed to have a straight US v China war for Taiwan, with the US invading without allies or allied bases, five to ten years from now.

Peter

[Bigduke6]

LTC West,

Fair comments, thank you. Our difference of opinion is that you see the superiority of U.S. support arms as unchallengable, and I believe a major nation like Russia, China, India or maybe even Brazil or South Africa could in fact "level the playing field" dramatically, as they have the brains and technical skill to do so. I believe assuming U.S. doctrine and capacity is world-beating in all conditions is premature, when all we have seen the U.S. fight in recent years is Grenada, the Libyian Navy, badly organized Pushtun tribesmen, a shabby Iraqi army, and then the even shabbier remains of that army.

This is not to say the U.S. force is bad, far from it, in my opinion history will say the present U.S. army understood combined arms operations at least as well as the 1941-43 Wehrmacht.

But, if you will pardon the boxing analogy, to be judged champion, you have to fight the contenders. The post-Vietnam U.S. military so far KOed several bums unable to punch their way out of wet paper bags.

To me, the outcome of a title fight - specifically, a limited war outside the particpants' homelands - is way beyond prediction. A title fight on the America opponents' terms - the jungles of Burma, the mountains of Kirgizistan, the urban centers of Iran - would not make me enthusiastic to bet on the U.S. It would be a whole lot less than a sure thing.

P.S. By "anti-radiation" I mean "missile able to home in on radar". The Russians make them. If weapons like that were used in a war against the Americans, I think it would degrade U.S. capacity more than a little. The U.S. as yet has not faced that kind of threat in a shooting war, AFAIK.

[TheTris]

LTC West - Absolutely agree. My comments should be viewed as restricted to the immediate military situation of a meeting between the powers under discussion, and not the following and related pacification/regime change.

[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.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

I think we should all have a look at the CIA world book, On almost any statistic the Chinese look to be better placed to survive atrade war. Sure 20% of their exports go to the US, but as they just revalued their economy by 20% because of recalculated domestic demand, I don't see it breaking them.

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.

Most political stable countries would have a very hard time with such a massive jump in unemployment in one go (see the Great Depression for a reminder), but one that has massive corruption and discontent problems? I can not imagine how the regime would manage to survive without a massive, bloody internal struggle.

And this is without taking into consideration the near certainty that other nations would embargo China as well. If Japan did, and I think they would, the export loss would be 35%. Add to that embargos from Europe and Canada... the number goes over 50%. In addition, a roughly equal amount of imports would not appear in Chinese ports.

There is no way the Chinese economy could absorb such a hit.

There is no way the Chinese society could absorb such a hit.

There is no way the Chinese government could absorb such a hit.

On the other hand, as you pointed out, the countries doing the embargoing would suffer but would be able to compensate. I know Mexico would be thrilled to hear that they don't have to compete with China. Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and all sorts of other Asian nations would be simply thrilled, since they have all been affected by the rise of China. Other nations, like India and Eastern Europe, would see brand new opportunities for their own economies. Then of course there is traditional European trading partners to expand relations with.

The Chinese aren't stupid. I am sure they are quite aware what even a few months worth of economic warfare would mean for them. If they are going to risk a conflict with the US, it won't be over anything trivial. Hence my comments to BigDuke about little skirmishes being highly unlikely. The threshold for conflict is so high, that if it reaches that level the resulting conflict would be massive.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Peter, 3 x 4 = 12, not 24.

[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.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

There is no way the Chinese economy could absorb such a hit.

I beg to differ, oh most honorable and respected game-designing wai-gu-ren.

You sound awfully sure, but now you're getting into a question about the resiliency of Chinese manufacturers, and the ability of the Chinese government to give them additional support. Are they operating on 5 per cent margins or 50 per cent margins? China has a seriously positive trade balance. That's cushion. Would a conflict with U.S. stop credit internationally? Lotta banks around the world willing to advance credit if the recipient can repay.

Can the Chinese find other markets to replace the U.S.? Would they need to? What do the expert wai-gu-ren say?

The handy-dandy CIA fact book says China's GDP is about 7.6 trillion dollars :eek: , and exports are about 580 billion. That's 2004. In other words, about 7 per cent of the Chinese GDP is direct export earnings. Admittedly that number may be doubled once you factor in value adding, but still. The way I read those numbers, exports are not an overwhelming portion of the Chinese economy. Therefore, loss of them should not constitute a disaster. Logically, anyway.

As to whom Chinese exports go, the fact book says this: US 21.1%, Hong Kong 17%, Japan 12.4%, South Korea 4.7%, Germany 4% (2004) Note that exporting to Hong Kong is not exactly foreign export, and in any case, I doubt seriously the mayor of Hong Kong would honor a U.S. trade blockade on the PRC. I am not so sure the Japanese, Koreans,and Germans would follow along; you'd have to check which economy is more important to them, the U.S. or the Chinese. But the U.S. aside this is not a list of nations just champing at the bit to stick it to China so the U.S. can get its way internationally.

In any case, the way I crunch those numbers the U.S. market accounts for between two and five per cent of the Chinese GDP. (20 per cent of 560 million, plus whatever value-added domestic GDP that helped make that happen).

And of course, maybe there are some U.S. goods or services exported to China it would really hurt the Chinese to do without, you know, the formula for Coca Cola, uh...non-bootlegged Britney Spears music videos...uh, MacDonald's hamburger frachises...uh, strike that bit about China needing something from the U.S.

Bottom line, no matter how you cut it, the loss of the U.S. market should not be destructive to an economy as large and diversified as China's. A bit painful maybe, but disastrous no. You say the Chinese couldn't take the hit. I say the Chinese economy, growing as it does between 8 and 12 per cent annually, for close to a generation, should be able to make up whatever revenues the U.S. market constituted in about a year. Two tops. It all boils down to how damn big the Chinese economy is: It is the second-largest on the planet. It makes sense that even the U.S. would have limited influence over an economy that size.

There is no way the Chinese society could absorb such a hit.

Oh for heaven's sake Steve, these are Communists we're talking about. The workers don't have unions, and if the government wants to shoot some workers to make a point, basically, it can. Now remember the reaction of Chinese society when the U.S. bombed their Belgrade embassy. Pretty big stink on the mainland, right? Are you ironclad positive the Chinese society is so apatriotic, and so dependant on income from the U.S., that the Chinese population wouldn't be willing to suck it up, tighten belt straps, and generally go without to support their government's confrontation with the U.S.?

Nationalism is quite strong in China and the government promotes it. The Chinese people are generally proud of their country (some call it convinced of their racial superiority, I'm being nice even though I am one of the big-nosed wai gu ren), and their sense of nation was formed, literally, on the basis of resistance to better-armed western barbarians dictating terms. They already have the draft and nationwide unemployment is about 9 per cent; that's a pool of 130 million people, more or less, that could be funneled into a war effort and the rest of the Chinese economy would never feel it. I'll spare you the eek! Graemlin this time.

As far as the Chinese are concerned, the last time they fought the Americans, they won. So I gotta disagree with you there, I wouldn't predict a society like that would go down like a house of cards at a U.S. blockade.

Now I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. If you can explain to me how the loss of the equivalent of five per cent or so of GDP would make China crater in two months, then I am all ears. I have heard some pretty amazing economic arguements in my day. Maybe you have a doozy that will make me eat my words. It better be a doozy, is all I can say.

IThere is no way the Chinese government could absorb such a hit.

Honorable historians say: If there is one thing the 20th century teaches us, it is that Communist societies that support the government are pretty durn resilient even under the worst onslaughts, and if the Communists don't have that support, the government can come apart at the seams.

My gut instinct, if the Chinese goverment got into a pissing contest with the Americans, and the Chinese casus belli was at least vaguely supportable from the Chinese POV, you'd have over a billion active supporters.

Old, but actual Soviet joke:

Q: If you want to be rich, what language should you learn?

A: English, that's the language of finance and economics.

Q: If you want to be a great lover, what language should you learn?

A: French or Italian, as those are the languages of love and passion.

Q: And what language should you learn, if you just want to live out your life out in the Soviet Union quietly, and become nothing special at all?

A: For this you must learn Chinese.