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

Skip to comments.

A U.S. - China war? [Opinion]
The Los Angeles Times ^ | October 10, 2007 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 10/10/2007 1:33:49 PM PDT by yorkie

Don't back down to China's overt military threats By Joseph Farah

Dear Andrés,

As I understand it, you and President Bush believe it is in America's best interest to help China expand its economy through partnerships, sharing technology, Import-Export Bank loans, investment and relaxed trade requirements and allowing them to buy U.S. companies of strategic importance -- like 3Com.

I disagree.

What China needs to do to improve the plight of its people is to abandon the failed experiment with command-and-control socialism that has created a nightmare world of totalitarianism for more than 1 billion people.

President Reagan rejected similar policies toward the Soviet Union and created the conditions that resulted in the Evil Empire imploding of its own dead weight in a peaceful revolution. Reagan rejected the failed policies of the past, in which the United States tried to "help" the Soviet Union with bailouts and other random acts of kindness - virtually everything we're doing with China today.

China is the Evil Empire of the future. You don't have to be a prophet to see it. You only need to be a student of history. It was just two years ago that a top Chinese military official said Beijing would use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if Americans defended Taiwan against an invasion from the mainland.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.

Chas Freeman, a former U.S. assistant secretary of Defense, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China would respond with a nuclear strike on the U.S. in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alaska; china; communism; economy; interdependence; prc; roc; sinoamericanwar; taiwan; war

1 posted on 10/10/2007 1:33:53 PM PDT by yorkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yorkie
And this surprises who?

China is well on it's way to poisoning our young, killing our pets, and taking over strategic companys.

How much of this do you think is coincidence?

2 posted on 10/10/2007 1:41:17 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yorkie
China is a problem. After a generation of a one child policy, millions of men have reached marrying age without the prospect of finding a mate - ever. Such a predicament may force unrest toward the Chinese government. A sure way to redirect unrest is to go to war.

China could field an army of millions. They are a problem.

3 posted on 10/10/2007 1:42:16 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yorkie

chicom bump for later........


4 posted on 10/10/2007 1:42:36 PM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yorkie

but but, free trade is growing jobs here and that’s important for the middle class of America.... /barf


5 posted on 10/10/2007 1:45:13 PM PDT by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yorkie

With all due regard for the importance for survival I simply don’t see the U.S. winning in an armed conflict with China. If you want to endure the loss of millions of Americans lives in an nuclear war, take on China. The only answer to China is to wait them out. They know we can’t beat them in a conventional war on their home turf and that we’d be forced to engage them in a nuclear exchange. No one wins under that scenario but truth be told, with a population 5 times that of the U.S. and a geographic size greater than that of the U.S. when you take into account the size of the region as a whole, China is far more likely to survive a nuclear exchange than is the U.S. It appears to me that time is on our side with China although ultimate resolution may be at Taiwan’s expense.


6 posted on 10/10/2007 1:48:05 PM PDT by glide625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

They could take a lesson from the mooselimbs,

hey you single guys, there’s 72 brides over that there hill, once we invade, new brides for everyone (who survives)!


7 posted on 10/10/2007 1:52:39 PM PDT by JMJJR (Just doing my part to slow the coming of the next impending ice-age)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: glide625
and here I was torn between learning Spanish and converting to Islam to fit in with the peaceniks. Guess I better get my Mao pajamas as well. No one wants a nuclear war to be sure, but your way pretty much guarantees we’ll be overrun just because of sheer numbers. Should we simply surrender now to make you feel better about things?
8 posted on 10/10/2007 1:56:57 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: glide625

They have 5 times the population of America, which also amounts to 5 times the mouths to feed. They get millions upon millions of tons of foodstuffs from the US (mostly grains and livestock feeds) That would end in the event of a war. We are much better prepared, at least from a food situation, to survive a war than China is...


9 posted on 10/10/2007 1:56:58 PM PDT by steel_resolve (Think pitch forks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yorkie

....never happen. Walmart must live on.


10 posted on 10/10/2007 1:59:38 PM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glide625
They know we can’t beat them in a conventional war on their home turf and that we’d be forced to engage them in a nuclear exchange.

One Cruise missle hit on the Three Gorges Dam, war over, we win

11 posted on 10/10/2007 2:00:52 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: glide625
They know we can’t beat them in a conventional war on their home turf and that we’d be forced to engage them in a nuclear exchange.

One Cruise missle hit on the Three Gorges Dam, war over, we win

12 posted on 10/10/2007 2:01:00 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yorkie
To: yorkie

Currently, an all-out war between the PRC and the United States is very remote.

China is hard pressed to keep up its economic rise so as to suppress potential unrest among its people. While the one-child policy has led to a higher percentage of boys, there is huge pressure on those [sometimes] single children to provide for their progenitors, not only their parents, but also their grandparents. A sizable proportion of young Chinese men dying in a war is almost guaranteed to spark an uprising within China. The United States and allies are currently by far China's largest trading partners. The trade sanctions imposed by a declaration of war would collapse the Chinese economy.

Similarly, due in part to bad judgment, the United States is becoming more and more dependent on China. China is a major source of imports, and also one of the larger nations to which the United States exports--a sign of how bad the United States is currently with exporting, even with a cheaper dollar. With China's trillion dollar plus trade surplus, which has been used to buy plenty of American dollars, China is protecting the United States from the country's huge account deficit. If war is declared, China could conceivably collapse the American economy, too.

So, total war between the United States and China (and it would almost have to be total war) seems to be far in the future, if at all.


Posted on 10/10/2007 2:00:03 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail? )


13 posted on 10/10/2007 2:01:53 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Hmmmm.....

Both were somewhat of a failure.

15 posted on 10/10/2007 2:02:58 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe; yorkie

“China is well on it’s way to poisoning our young, killing our pets, and taking over strategic companys.

How much of this do you think is coincidence?”

Having done business in Beijing, I can tell you that the Chinese leaders are a patient lot......they could wait many more years to do us real harm. They are ruthless!


16 posted on 10/10/2007 2:04:38 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve

>>We are much better prepared, at least from a food situation, to survive a war than China is...<<

Seems that a lot of food we consume comes from China - and much of it is contaminated (not just pet food).

I’m for all labeling to display country of origin.


17 posted on 10/10/2007 2:06:27 PM PDT by yorkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Interesting though. :)


18 posted on 10/10/2007 2:09:55 PM PDT by mowowie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: glide625
No one wins under that scenario but truth be told, with a population 5 times that of the U.S. and a geographic size greater than that of the U.S. when you take into account the size of the region as a whole, China is far more likely to survive a nuclear exchange than is the U.S.

Uhhhhhh... China isn't that much bigger than the US, and much of it is desert... which is why they import so much food from us. Their population centers are very, very dense, and resources are scarce. They are like the Russians, with a few giant manufacturing and power grids set closely together rather than smaller ones spaced farther apart. Any armed conflict shuts down these areas, and the food supply, immediately.

Also, the Chinese have roughly 60-80 weapons capable of reaching the US. We have several thousand capable of reaching China. Hardly quid pro quo.
19 posted on 10/10/2007 2:13:45 PM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
60-80 weapons

Make that "60-80 strategic nuclear weapons".
20 posted on 10/10/2007 2:15:23 PM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: glide625; All

With all due regard for the importance for survival I simply don’t see the U.S. winning in an armed conflict with China. If you want to endure the loss of millions of Americans lives in an nuclear war, take on China. The only answer to China is to wait them out. They know we can’t beat them in a conventional war on their home turf and that we’d be forced to engage them in a nuclear exchange. No one wins under that scenario but truth be told, with a population 5 times that of the U.S. and a geographic size greater than that of the U.S. when you take into account the size of the region as a whole, China is far more likely to survive a nuclear exchange than is the U.S. It appears to me that time is on our side with China although ultimate resolution may be at Taiwan’s expense.

It depends when the war took place. If its after the Olympics next year, we should have the Airborne Laser in service by then. Have a couple of them patrolling off the Chinese coast, and thier nukes can be knocked out of the sky when theyre still in boost phase.


21 posted on 10/10/2007 2:18:00 PM PDT by wingsof liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
I can tell you that the Chinese leaders are a patient lot......they could wait many more years to do us real harm. They are ruthless!

Yes, patience is a part of that culture, to a large degree.
I have found, many times, that long range plans, not the 3 year or 5 year plans but loooong range plans, are looked at with seriousness,

Still, poisoning our children with lead that everyone KNOWS is a no-no (how did I ever survive) and killing our pets could BE part of a long range plan.

22 posted on 10/10/2007 2:19:18 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

I wouldn’t put anything past them.


23 posted on 10/10/2007 2:25:27 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: qam1
To: qam1

"One Cruise missle hit on the Three Gorges Dam, war over, [the United States wins]."

That might end the war straight away--you have a point there--but it would be even more controversial than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the carpet bombing of Dresden.

If it needs to be done to win the war without a huge (on the order of tens of millions) loss of life, then destroying the dam and flooding that region of China could be done. But just as with the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima, it has to be weighed against the cost of a more conventional attack. Furthermore, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, just targets with a lot of not-so-innocent civilians. The flooding would kill a lot of people in cities not used for military purposes.

Add onto that that millions of Chinese might not be killed by the destruction of the dam. Using the pictures below, the amount of the population immediately along that part of the Yangtze Rive may not be as densely populated as in other parts of the China, particularly on the eastern coast. 'Only' one million people were displaced to make room for the reservoir the dam is projected to create. Also, one of the dam's roles, along with producing electricity, is to prevent flooding in land adjacent to the Yangtze. So, unless people flock to live there after the dam is created (which could happen), the 'floodable' region caused by the sudden destruction of the dam might be sparsely populated. Shanghai is at the end of the Yangtze, but by the time the water from the flood gets there, there probably won't be that much destructive kinetic energy.

THE THREE GORGES DAM
Type: Concrete Gravity Dam
Cost: Official cost $25bn - actual cost believed to be much higher
Work began: 1993
Due for completion: 2009
Power generation: 26 turbines on left and right sides of dam. Six underground turbines planned for 2010
Power capacity: 18,000 megawatts
Reservoir: 660km long, submerging 632 sq km of land. When fully flooded, water will be 175m above sea level
Navigation: Two-way lock system became operational in 2004. One-step ship elevator due to open in 2009.

Posted on 10/10/2007 2:48:21 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail? )


24 posted on 10/10/2007 2:53:56 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yorkie

China has more billionaires now than any country except the USA. The China of these file pieces is not the China of the present.


25 posted on 10/10/2007 2:56:12 PM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glide625
The Chinese population is heavily concentrated in their eastern, coastal regions. Furthermore, with missile silos in Alaska, and greater missile/rocket expertise, the United States has a leg up on hitting actual cities in China, particularly the the heavily populated eastern ones such as Shanghai and Beijing. In contrast, the easternmost point of China is still a considerable distance away from the United States' eastern region (east of the Mississippi taken as being eastern) where the majority of Americans still reside.

Opinion: China is the weaker of the two currently, but a big war would be very bad for both sides.

26 posted on 10/10/2007 3:06:10 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: glide625
P.S. The more time elapses, the weaker the American position becomes with respect to China.

China is developing at a rapid pace, the United States is also developing, but MUCH slower (because the United States is already quite developed by modern standards). As you've pointed out, China has a far larger population, and especially with some of the overpopulationists here in the United States, that doesn't seem set to change very soon.

Currently the United States is stronger than China. In the future, that may not be.

27 posted on 10/10/2007 3:10:06 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve
China is also self-sufficient in food.

In the case of a complete blockade, Chinese would be eating a lot of rice and less meat, while Americans would be eating lots of corn, wheat, and some meat, and less out-of-season fruits and vegetables. It would be more drastic for China, but easily survivable for both countries (if nuclear war doesn't destroy most of the farmland).

28 posted on 10/10/2007 3:12:15 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yorkie; Constitutionalist Conservative; Gator113; Zhang Fei; DanielLongo; Tamar1973; Dr. Marten; ...

Asia pinglist ping.


29 posted on 10/10/2007 3:58:43 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yorkie

China has been preparing for war against the US for quite some time now. They are trying to find ways to counter our carriers and air advantage. It wouldn’t suprise me one bit if they resorted to nukes over Taiwan.

Maybe Bill Clinton can go over there to help? Actually I think he’s done enough damage to us already.


30 posted on 10/10/2007 5:10:14 PM PDT by rfreedom4u (My Freedom of speech trumps your feelings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
Also, the Chinese have roughly 60-80 weapons capable of reaching the US.

No telling how many of their thousands of medium and short range nuclear armed missile that they can squirrel away aboard container ships and sneak up to within range for a covert launching.

It is no accident that most all of their new missiles have demonstrated mobile-launching capabilities.

Remember how seriously provocative that Russia's missiles in Cuba were? The Chinese can vastly eclipse it...and also don't plan to tell us in advance how they will attack us...just as the Russians didn't bother before Cuban emplacements either.

31 posted on 10/10/2007 6:10:33 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

What missile silos in Alaska?


32 posted on 10/10/2007 8:52:41 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY
The missile defense shield. (Those are used for interceptors to shoot down enemy missiles, but could probably also be equipped to launch missiles at China). At Fort Greely. If not at Fort Greely, there probably would have been some missile silo in Alaska to easily strike at the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The BBC used to have a map of missile shield interceptor and radar bases on many of their articles on the missile shield. Oddly they've since gotten rid of them....

Basically, the United States has a much closer striking range (since Alaska could be readily sent missiles made in the contiguous United States since the state is connected by land to the bulk of the country--Hawaii would have to have the misssiles shipped) to hit the heavily populated areas of China than China would have to hit the heavily populated areas of the United States.

33 posted on 10/11/2007 1:00:28 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
...but could probably also be equipped to launch missiles at China.

Yeah, I know about the interceptors at Ft. Greely, but I think you're a little optimistic in your assumption that any missile can be put into any silo.

34 posted on 10/11/2007 9:01:02 AM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: qam1
One Cruise missle hit on the Three Gorges Dam, war over, we win

I can't predict who would win the war if the Three Gorges Dam (TGD) were hit. But I would like to throw out a bit of statistics. When the TGD first broke ground back in the early 90's, the planned facility would have represented 11% of China's power output if it had been brought online then. Today, it represents a mere 3% if brought fully online. And in 20 years time, potentially the TGD's 18,000 Mega Watts of power would only represent 1% or so of China's electricity output. So China has grown considerable and will continue to grow as an industrial power.

35 posted on 10/11/2007 11:58:51 AM PDT by ponder life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
Also, the Chinese have roughly 60-80 weapons capable of reaching the US. We have several thousand capable of reaching China. Hardly quid pro quo.

Yes, you are right. And that fact alone really proves that China isn't a threat. China puts considerably more resources towards civilian pursuits. No one will argue that China is now a significantly larger industrial power than Russia. Yet Russia maintains nearly a thousand nuclear tip missles that can hit the US. And they aint just missles laying around since the cold war. Missles have to be constantly upgraded to ensure that they work. This takes considerable resources, especially for a thousand of them.

China will consume roughtly 5-7 times as much steel as Russia, which goes to show how much bigger it is as a industrial nation (and in 15 year, I don't doubt will consume 10 times as much steel). However, how much more resource does it take to maintain a thousand missles in Russia as opposed to only 60-80 in China?

Though China's nuclear missles are more dated than the Russians, China does have the resources to build more than the Russians if they wanted to. But they don't. So, I don't understand the worry people have towards China. Especially in light of the lack of concern towards Russia. My bet is that in 15 years time, Russia will still have more nuclear tipped missles than China, but China will export 10 times as much in goods and services.

Russia is still the only other country in the world that can take out the entire United States, China cannot.

36 posted on 10/11/2007 12:13:22 PM PDT by ponder life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

(BEIJING) — Potatoes may soon join rice as a staple diet for China’s 1.3 billion people as the nation searches for alternative crops to deal with a sharp decline in farmland, state press reported Thursday.

China is facing increasing difficulties in feeding its massive population partly due to the widespread conversion of its farming areas into industrial zones and residential areas, as well as the impacts of global warming.

Potatoes, which can grow in dry areas not suitable for rice, are now being seriously looked at as a way to get more food from a smaller area, the China Daily said, citing a study from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

“A slight increase in yield for each hectare of land used in potato farming would help meet the huge food demand of the growing population,” the academy’s vice president, Qu Dongyu, was quoted as saying.

“Potato is definitely the most nutritious staple food. It is rich in vitamin C, B, proteins and minerals.”

China’s arable land has shrunk to 122 million hectares (300 million acres), just above the government-set “red line” of 120 million hectares that is deemed necessary to feed the country’s people, state press reported last month.

Also to deal with this problem, China last month suspended a plan to plant millions of trees across the country amid worries they would have taken over the precious farmland.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxrFqWdpFvIRKDzSEOKpaYL9tvRQ


37 posted on 10/11/2007 8:31:02 PM PDT by steel_resolve (Think pitch forks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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