Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why China will never Risk War with the US over Taiwan...
"The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace In The Twenty-First Century" | 2004 | Thomas Barnett

Posted on 03/12/2005 6:22:35 PM PST by AKSurprise

Wrong, read "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett, a former Professor and senior military analyst at the U.S. Naval War College, and a top adviosr to SecDef Donald Rumsfeld.

(the following are excerpts from the book that will explain why China's navy will never be a serious threat to the U.S.):

"What the Navy was coming to grips with in 1992, as the Soviet Navy continued its decade-long collapse, was an unprecedented moment in world history: America possessed the planet's only blue-water navy. By "blue-water", I mean a navy capable of projecting military power across all the world's open oceans. In contrast, the rest of the world's major states subsist largely on "green" (littoral) or "brown" (inland) fleets, meaning they have no effective reach beyond their region. Sure Russia today can send a few capital (or large) ships to distant waters, but they are not capable of operating on their own for any length of time. They cannot rule the waves, just ply them now and then. Frankly, the same is true for every other navy in the world today, including China's. While that country may harbor dreams of global naval power in some distant future, let me assure you that China's ruling Communist Party will not survive to see that day.

Again what is amazing about this period of history is not only that America possesses the world's dominant navy, something that previous imperial powers have achieved-like England in the nineteenth century. What is amazing is that we own the world's only navy with a global reach, and no other power is making any serious attempt to catch up. If you look around the world today you see countries that have armies and air forces, and what can charitably be called the equivalent of the U.S. Coast Guard. The world has effectively surrendered the seas the the U.S. Navy, and it has done so out of immense trust that America will not abuse that unprecedented power. That is the end of one great arc of human history , and the beginning of something completely different."

"The Navy was the first of the major services to recognize this massive rule-set shift because it suffered the greatest threat loss when the Soviet Union dissappeared. Both the Army and the Air Force have other armies and air forces they can and will occasionally fight against-as in our recent wars in Iraq. But the Navy fundamentally has no other navy left to fight anymore-unless you cling to the chimera of naval war in the Taiwan Straits."

(the following excerpt shows why war in the Taiwan strait is highly improbable if not impossible):

"Three key pillars control the vast bulk of long-term investments. Not surprisingly, these three constitute the Old Core of Globalization II: the United States, the (now) European Union, and Japan. This relatively small slice of the global population (approximately one-eighth) controls over four-fifths of the money. If you want to join the Core, you must be able to access that money-plain and simple.

That fundamental reality of the global economy explains why we won't be going to war with China. The Pentagon can plan for it all it wants, but it does so purely within the sterile logic of war, and not with and logical reference to the larger flows of globalization. Simply put, those flows continue to reshape the international security environment that the Defense Department often imagines it manages all by its lonesome.

Let me paint you the same basic picture I love to draw each time I give my brief to Pentagon strategists and, by doing so, give you a realistic sense of what China would be up against if it chose to challenge the United States-led globalization process wing military means.

China has to double its energy consumption in a generation if all the growth it is planning is actually going to occur. We know where the Chinese have to go for the energy: Russia, Central Asia, and the Gulf. That's a lot of new friends to make and one significant past enemy to romance (Moscow). But Beijing will pull it off, because they have no choice. To make all that energy happen, China has to build an amazing amount of infrastructure to import it, process it, generate the needed energy products, and deliver it to buildings and wehicles all over the country (though mostly along the coast). That infrastructure will cost a lot, and it's common when talking to development experts to hear the "T" word-as in "trillions"-casually tossed around. Where is China going to go for all that money? Certainly it will tap its biggest trade partner, Japan, for all it can. But when it really wnat to tap the big sources of money, there are only two financial communities that can handle that sort of a request: Wall Street and the European Union. So when you add it all up, for China to get its way on development, it needs to be friends with the Americans, the Europeans, the Muslims, and the Slavs. Doesn't exactly leave a lot of civilizations to clash with, does it?

The importance of this momentous but ongoing historical achievement cannot be overstated: the shift from Globalization II to Globalization III is a shift from a small minority of the world (basically one-tenth) enjoying globalization's benefits to roughtly two-thirds of the planet joining the party.

So tell me, if you are a George Kennan, or any one of the other wise men from that time long ago, and you were smart enought back in the late 1940s to target Europe and Japan for intergration into a revived global economy, whom would you target today? Half the world's population in Developing Asia, where economies are growing rapidly and energy demands are skyrocketing? Or would you work to keep such potential "peer competitors" at arm's length?

And that, my friends, is how you make a roomful of Cold Warriors cry."

(This explains the need to push for democratic reforms in the Mid-East. It's more than just preventing terrorism, the Bush administration is betting that in the future the Arabs will know who helped free them from opression and who their true friends are. Thus we can place more pressure on China to bend to our will on the world stage, even their size won't make up for our influence and wealth, not to mention military power. It also explains why China will never pull their massive investments in the US out, because to do so would harm our economy, however it would destroy the global economy and China's right along with it. That why the Dimocrats and the Buchanan conservatives are totally wrong about globalization, it will help preserve the US dominance not weaken it.)


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Germany; Israel; Japan; Philosophy; Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: america; china; communistdisinfo; friedmancult; geopolitics; globalization; naive; nchamberlain; pandahugger; perestroikadeception; putwesttosleep; redteam; taiwan; thepentagonsnewmap; thomaspmbarnett; unitedstate; us; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-220 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2005 6:22:36 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Bttt


2 posted on 03/12/2005 6:24:32 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Protectionism is economic ignorance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Do you have a source and link for this?
Thanks.


3 posted on 03/12/2005 6:25:17 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
Why China will never Risk War with the US over Taiwan...

Because in the end, the PRC cares more about Beijing than they do about Taiwan.

4 posted on 03/12/2005 6:26:50 PM PST by RichInOC (...somebody had to say it...why not me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

no it's from Thomas Barnett's book, title at the top, howver he does have a blog http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/


5 posted on 03/12/2005 6:27:15 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Once again Americas power saves the world.


6 posted on 03/12/2005 6:28:14 PM PST by TheRedSoxWinThePennant (Remember the Red Sox won the World Series on George Bush's watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I think China is not only willing to risk war to take Taiwan, they are hell bent on it.


7 posted on 03/12/2005 6:28:21 PM PST by contemplator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

bttt


8 posted on 03/12/2005 6:32:53 PM PST by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I don't know. The author places an awful lot of faith in the influence of money.


9 posted on 03/12/2005 6:34:05 PM PST by TwoWolves (The only kind of control the liberals don't want is self control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Summed up quite nicely.


10 posted on 03/12/2005 6:34:24 PM PST by The Loan Arranger (http://profiles.yahoo.com/sandbear1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: contemplator
you may be right....but the Asians always seem to be more bluster than fight..........the Chinese Navy is terrible compared to ours and haven't won a been in a navel battle since whatever dynasty a hundred years ago and lost to the Russians badly....that old ambassador (can't remember name) on FOX all the time says their navel missles, tactics and armament is crap compared to ours........says they are just spouting off as they all do on that part of the continent
11 posted on 03/12/2005 6:34:33 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub

China has been busy upgrading their navy - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357795/posts


12 posted on 03/12/2005 6:40:48 PM PST by contemplator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Comments and wishes for a speedy recovery !


13 posted on 03/12/2005 6:41:15 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

I've seen Barnett on C-SPAN several times and I'm torn. Is he just a typical selfserving bureaucrat? Who knows? But he sure sounds like one.


14 posted on 03/12/2005 6:42:46 PM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
I disagree, and I'm no expert on China, but a few things:

Whenever a border nation with China is threatened, they enter the war. Korea was a perfect example of that.

The see Taiwan as we see Puerto Rico or Guam. They consider it a rebel Province, but their rebel Province. And with a million or more men in active service only a few hour's sail vs. We being so much further, they're in a stronger position than we are. And if they invaded Guam or P.R., is there any doubt we'd do all we could to take them back?

They now have nukes that can easily reach any part of that island nation, or ours.

They would see it as a great loss of face to threaten us so often of what they would do and not follow through.

15 posted on 03/12/2005 6:43:26 PM PST by theDentist (The Dems are putting all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: contemplator
oh I'm sure of that.......but that one expert actually many....have said that their force is much weaker than ours.....wish I could remember the ambassadors name. I think he is at the Enterprise Institute now but he is well informed about these world affairs.......
16 posted on 03/12/2005 6:44:21 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
you are right...but the Chinese entering many wars have got their butts kicked, first by the Russians and then by the Japanese......Korea was an anomaly cause we didn't respond in full force...
17 posted on 03/12/2005 6:46:12 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

"So when you add it all up, for China to get its way on development, it needs to be friends with the Americans, the Europeans, the Muslims, and the Slavs. Doesn't exactly leave a lot of civilizations to clash with, does it?"

3 out of 4 is good enough. In any case, China isn't exactly friendly toward the U.S. and its interests but we are still funding their build-up like crazy as it is.


18 posted on 03/12/2005 6:46:56 PM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

But your taking into account the China of the past. Yes they entered the Korean war, however were they to enter into a war against the US in the current world they would destroy their own economy. Additionally Taiwan has a very advanced military the third most powerful in Asia. They have a 200,000 man active duty army, with 1 million men in reserve. Your also forgetting that were China to nuke the US their whole country would be gone, its a risk they will never take, plus we have the Aegis missile interceptor system wasrecently activated, for all intents and purposes Taiwan and Japan are now covered by the US missile shield, those nations also have PAC anti-missile systems.


19 posted on 03/12/2005 6:48:40 PM PST by AKSurprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise
I saw his presentation of this material on C-Span. Very entertaining, lots of bravado, but little substance beyond his very forcefully delivered opinions. I hate to rip on anyone from Wisconsin, but I think he makes a few key errors. The first is in underestimating the imbalance present in China's current internal situation and the complex pressures this could exert on their outward behavior. The second is in assuming that China, or any closed totalitarian state, will act in a predictable manner based on their own rational self-interests. I know very few Chinese and no Americans who can demonstrate a consistent understanding of Chinese history or even venture a credible prediction about their future. Any pronouncement about what they will certainly do of not do is meaningless. China poses a risk that needs to be closely monitored and managed.
20 posted on 03/12/2005 6:50:38 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-220 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson