Skip to comments.US v China: is this the new cold war?
Posted on 02/21/2014 10:47:07 PM PST by Zhang Fei
China does not have a grand imperial plan to invade its neighbours, in the way the Soviets did. But in any country with a rapidly growing military one that is flexing its muscles and is involved in a score of unresolved territorial disputes there is always the risk that its leaders might be tempted by some sort of military solution, the lure of a quick win that would reorder the regional balance. If China and its neighbours all believe that the US has a credible plan for a conflict, this both deters any eventual Chinese adventurism and reduces the risk that anxious Asians will start their own arms races with Beijing. Or, as TX Hammes, the American military historian, puts it: We need to make sure no one in the Chinese military is whispering in their leaders ears: If you listen to me, we can be in Paris in just two weeks.
In early 2012, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Operational Access Concept (known in the building as Joac). In the event of a conflict, the paper says, the US should attack the enemys cyber and space capabilities. At the same time, it should attack the enemys anti-access forces in depth. The clear implication of this advice is that, if war ever were to break out, the US should plan to launch extensive bombing raids across mainland China. Chinas anti-navy of missile bases and surveillance equipment is based at facilities spread across the country, including in many built-up areas. The basic idea behind AirSea Battle leads to a fairly uncompromising conclusion that, in the early stages of a conflict with Beijing, the US should destroy dozens of military sites. It is the navys version of shock and awe for 21st-century Asia.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Except they sell us critical stuff and in return they lend us $$$/.
Red China never stopped being at war with the USA and has always regarded us as their number-one enemy. They are taking the principle of “breaking your enemy’s resistance without fighting”, as outlined in Sun Tzu’s treatise, as their main way forwardand all the libs in DC are giving them every opening, too.
We can get it elsewhere and we don't need their loans.
I’ll start taking the PDRChina seriously as a threat when they start reworking their logistics to allow themselves to become a threat.
As it is, they can build ships, boast about numbers of this, that and the other, but they have little to no ability to sustain operations outside their own borders.
Personally, I put the EU higher on the threat list. Although, they have much the same issue with little to no logistical sustainability.
Yes we do, US appetite for spending and not raising taxes to pay for it demands a huge supply of borrowed $$$.
I don't think it's aimed specifically at the US. And it's not even Marxist-Leninist. Taiwan's Nationalist Party - the one that fled the mainland to fight a last stand before Truman decided to use the 7th Fleet to keep China from invading - claims to be the sole legitimate ruler of China. Its Chinese map includes all of the disputed territories China is claiming, as well as Mongolia and Siberia. China has traditionally thought of itself as the rightful center of all under heaven, and the rest of the world as its rightful vassal states, to be absorbed as provinces at China's convenience.
Since the turfing of Mao's hand-picked protege, Hua Guofeng, in 1979, and the move to end central economic planning, China has been moving unstoppably towards parity in GDP per capita with the West, much like the Japanese several decades ago. The question is what it will do with its newfound wealth. Man does not live by bread alone. Here's to hoping that they don't emulate the Germans, who, despite being the richest country in Europe just prior to WWII, nonetheless decided they needed lebensraum.
Socialist Autocrat’s program of fundamental transformation has essentially been completed. Irredeemably debt laden and leaderless America is no longer a force of global influence to be taken seriously.
Are you a China watcher on the hardware side? I know there are people whose hobby is to keep track of more glamorous things like war planes, warships, artillery, tanks, and so on, but few who actually look at logistics. I'm sure there are pros who look at logistics, but hobbyists go for the glitz. Jeff Head has been tracking China's carrier development for a good long time, but I don't think I've seen anything about logistics.
Watching PDRChina used to be a job of mine, way back when. But, I’ve got no access to any real info and haven’t for decades.
The logistics is the thing to watch, though, imo.
More to the point than “watch logistics”, watch for large movements of troops within their own borders, and large fleet movements.
They’ll need work sorting out the log train and that’s done with large scale exercises.
Now, keep in mind I don’t watch careful so they might have already begun the process.
There will come a time when China will turn on us, and bite off the hand that feeds them. It will come quick. When it does, they will not be alone—they will have a peck of allies who wish to hitch their fate to the red Dragon. Few will be on “our side” in this conflict—we will see who our real friends are at that day. First will come the economic attack, watch our dollar plunge. Then the cyber attack, then the assassinations of key leaders in the media and politics (Rush, Hanity, Cruz, Levin etc...) Then will come the push, for us to withdraw from Asia. The next attack will be from space—with demonstartions on our telecommunications network. Only after this will they start to sink ships and bomb bases, Then threaten our cities. Will we fight back or fold up? I beleieve this world war is one we will lose—and along with it Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, and Samoa. I hope I am wrong!
Only greedy idiots ever thought otherwise.
The Chinese will have to cope with Vietnam Cambodia Laos before they move along. All of those ethnic groups hate each other and all hate the Chinese. Asian quagmire for the Chinese
mark to you
Hey, this is my country and I’m not at war with China! Why the hell do our leaders want a war with china?
Chinese society is built on one thing, which is different from American society, and this is very important for Americans to understand:
Chinese are above all, conscious of themselves as a race, and conscious of their race’s relationship (and relative status) to other races.
We have only ever seen China as a country when the Chinese people have been relatively lower status to our own.
That is (rapidly) changing.
When it does, we will see a side to Chinese and wonder where in the world it came from.
It has been there all the time. Chinese just hide that side of themselves, culturally.
America really needs to COMPETE with China.
Stop sending our manufacturing there. Stop buying everything from there.
We need to balance our budget, and bring back American jobs.
I just realized this is a long, very well researched and (quite) informative article, which is also highlighted now at the very top of the Drudgereport.
Quite long, in fact.
The author is a former Beijing bureau chief, for the FT.
Top left corner post, on Drudgereport right now.
The problem as I imagine it is from an odd angle, a *lack* of central control over outlying military commanders who in many ways are more warlords than generals. This is, of course, a poor description at best.
There is a paradox with civilian authority over a military, that unless they are former career military, they have a cultural disconnect from what a military is and does. But it is also a two way street, that military commanders are often naive about political realities.
How this works out in China is the great enigma.
Remember that the Financial Times is a British publication, and that the EU has more economic business with China than we do. It was said that much of the AIG funny money went to China.
Everything I've read indicates that as an economic philosophy in China, Marxism-Leninism is a dead letter. Private property is the rule in the big cities and farmers in the sticks are hanging around only so as not to forfeit their rights when titles to village land are finally parceled out, so they can cash out. The end of communism as a practical philosophy combined with the return of traditional Chinese hauteur are why the Chinese threat is increasing in leaps and bounds. The threat is more akin to Imperial Japan than that of messianic Soviet Communism.
Throughout its long history, China has had its own mission civilisatrice, its version of the White Man's Burden, long before the European version came into being. The danger is that as it grows more prosperous, China will cast about for ways to re-attain the kind of gloire that Napoleon referred to when he said "a soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon". Every Chinese dynasty, once it established itself on a firm economic footing after the chaos (massacre, famine, pestilence, et al) of dynastic change, has pursued its version of Manifest Destiny (again, millennia before the American version came into being). The current dynasty is long past the subsistence phase, economically-speaking, and can now look towards foreign adventures as a source of recreation and prestige, and possible profit, both national and personal.
Here is the second paragraph of Hu Jintaos speech as printed in the Jan. 2, 2008, China Daily:MarxismLeninism reveals the universal laws governing the development of history of human society. It analyzes the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that it is incapable of resolving internally and shows that socialist society will inevitably replace capitalist society and ultimately develop into communist society.The belief that China is not just after war, but is after a new world, a global China, may inspire some Chinese. According to MarxismLeninism, Chinas world war will not be fought to enslave or exterminate enemies, but to liberate them (hence the Peoples Liberation Army), to make them part of a new worlda global Chinese paradise. [ ]
(F)rom China, I have recently heard The International. Marxism-Leninism is fully alive for domestic consumption in China together with its International so full of military globalism, ruthless bigotry, and self-righteous fanaticism.
Marxism–Leninism reveals the universal laws governing the development of history of human society. It analyzes the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that it is incapable of resolving internally and shows that socialist society will inevitably replace capitalist society and ultimately develop into communist society. …
We have a more Marxist economy than China. A Chinese family that doesn't work is one that doesn't eat. The welfare state is well-nigh non-existent there.
The party brass need to continue talking up the rhetoric of communism because it's the foundation of their right to rule. The moment the Party formally repudiates Marxism on a de jure (as opposed to merely de facto) basis is the day the Chinese hoi polloi start asking what all that suffering was about and start demanding an accounting, starting with trials for living members of the cohort of party members with blood on their hands. Upon which the Party faces a potential Ceausescu moment, complete with the mass killings of ancien regime members characteristic of Chinese dynastic transitions.
Marxism-Leninism has nothing to do with trade barriers. The Japanese and Koreans have more barriers to American goods than the Chinese. On a per capita basis, Japan and Korea run bigger trade surpluses with the US, in spite of the fact that the Chinese have incomes 1/7 and 1/4 of the Japanese and Korean numbers, respectively. American auto manufacturers own 1/3 of the Chinese market. They are a rounding error in the Japanese one, and a nit in the Korean* one. Most American manufacturers are relatively satisfied with their access to the Chinese market relative to Japan and South Korea, whose governments protect their keiretsu and chaebol conglomerates with the fervor of a lioness defending her cubs. Walmart is the 3rd largest retailer in China. It's an also-ran in Japan, and non-existent in Korea, despite a game attempt at overcoming Korean barriers.
* For a while, the Korean government directed its tax department to obtain lists of buyers of American cars from dealers in order to run tax audits on them. This was merely the tip of the iceberg. The Korean government systematically persecuted Lone Star Funds, a US private equity player that rescued a Korean bank, and attempted to make them cough up their profits. On a commercial basis, the Japanese and the Koreans are hard asses whose relationship with the US is probably worse than the least amicable of the European countries. The only reason these people give us the time of the day is because we give them a free ride on defense and let them nickel and dime us on trade. If they weren't treaty allies, I'd say they're right on the border between friend and enemy.
As a long-time watcher of the full spectrum of American policy relationships, my impression that our only true friends (as opposed to mere allies who show up cup in hand when they're in trouble) are the ABCA members and the nations of Western Europe. The rest are just hangers-on.
In the U.S.S.R., work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: He who does not work, neither shall he eat.Therefore, such is not a repudiation of Marxism-Leninism even in practice.
The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability; to each according to his work.
In the U.S.S.R., work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”Therefore, such is not a repudiation of Marxism-Leninism even in practice.
The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his work.” …
In theory. In practice, Chinese workers used to be assigned no show jobs, and they spent the day running errands and reading newspapers. This is why they were so unproductive. Anyone who was overly productive took the risk of being branded a capitalist roader, and persecuted.
Today, the harder you work, the more you make. Horatio Alger used to write about rags to riches stories. China today is a veritable flood of Horatio Alger stories. A communist country could not have generated domestic motor vehicle sales of 18m per year (10x India's number). Through Chinese expats stateside, I've become acquainted with the stories of a number of ordinary, non-Party member, Chinese, who have transitioned from transporting a veritable mountain of goods using Rube Goldberg carriers on bicycles to vans over the course of 20 years, and individuals who went from the children of farmers to owners of auto repair facilities and other small businesses. Another acquaintance tells of a cousin, who's completely unconnected to anyone noteworthy, who just landed a bank job paying $2,500 a month despite having graduated from the equivalent of the University of Podunkville.
The naysayers about China's newly-capitalist economy are missing the forest for trees. The Federal government says it has immigration controls, but has somehow avoided raiding businesses that employ illegals and imposing the fines that were mandated during Reagan's amnesty over a period of 30 years. China is formally a Communist country, but has passed laws legalizing the private ownership of land, homes, capital equipment, government and company bonds, stocks and released hundreds of millions of workers from their work units to find work in the private (or public) sector on their own. China is a capitalist country in all but name. The no-show government work unit jobs of the past are history, but private sector jobs are plentiful and open to all comers, which is why Chinese salaries are now higher than Mexican levels. Employers in China, domestic and foreign, are getting value for their money, and are raising salaries to get the best talent.
Bottom line is that today's China is a dictatorship, but it is not a communist one, except in name. The danger from China comes not from its extinct communist ideology, but the resurgence of traditional ideas about China's (central) place in the world, ideas from which Imperial Japan drew its inspiration, but with Japan in the place of China as world hegemon. Where Japan tried to swallow all of the Pacific in a single gulp, the Chinese have traditionally opted for incremental expansion.
Nope, they’re still communistic. They don’t allow unregulated exercise of religion, they are still dogmatically committed to the abolition of the family, and even increase of personal wealth in relation to volume of work does not really contravene Marxism-Leninism. And altogether, they are still committed to spreading communism worldwide; fits right with the “central kingdom” doctrine.
Unregulated exercise of religion has never been a feature of the Chinese state. It has acted repeatedly to proscribe rebellious faiths, over the millenia. During the mid-19th century Taiping Rebellion, Christian rebels were killed to the last man, woman and child, culminating in the massacre of 200,000 at Nanking, a massacre that horrified Charles "Chinese" Gordon (played by Charlton Heston in "Khartoum"), who was to mount a doomed effort in the Sudan, 20 years on, against the self-proclaimed Mahdi. During the Chinese invasion of Yunnan around 20 years later, 70,000 Muslims were hacked to pieces. The 1900 Boxer Rebellion saw the dismemberment of 40,000 Chinese Christians on orders from the Chinese royals. This was before the Nationalist Party even existed, let alone the Communist one.
As to China being committed to world revolution, that depends on what you mean by "committed". A (subsequently imprisoned for disclosing "state secrets") party member disclosed, about 10 years ago, the fact that China had spent $10b over decades, from the 40's through the 70's, back when $10b was real money, on communist insurgencies overseas. This was during an era when tens of millions of Chinese starved to death. After Vietnam invaded Cambodia to destroy the Khmer Rouge, China's client, in 1979, China ended funding to foreign communist insurgencies - which promptly collapsed - in exchange for normalized relations with the non-communist countries in Southeast Asia that had previously limited trade and diplomatic ties due to China's material support and training for domestic communist movements.
That only seems to show a parallel with Imperial Russia, who themselves were repressive before the transition to Bolshevik rule. The USSR did not have the advantages that Nixon handed willy-nilly to communist China, however; although Putin these days is reasserting them, but in his image.