I think quadraphonics has it about right. China will never invade US or even fire bullets at US forces, except possibly by foolish actions by some local commander or minor incident when US is clearly violating Chinese territory, and that also will be a local mistake, not US policy. China can make "economic war" on US with considerable advantage, thanks to US "twin deficits" and when they have built up their Taiwan invasion capacity, which probably will not be used, they may use the threat of using their economic power to the disadvantage of the US to get US to agree with the re annexation of Taiwan, in accord with the long standing US position that there is "One China." Probably the growing economic ties between Taiwan's economy and China's will make this all happen with out a shot fired. The US will do quite a lot, quietly as it can, to help China in this, if China will agree to only buy oil for current consumption and not to fill their own "strategic oil reserve." China can easily begin now to buy oil at $100/barrel and that would really hurt the US economy, which is built on big gas-guzzler driving to the shopping centers. In a non-military, economic war, China is stronger. See additional comments in the "Fuel Choices,...Pollution" thread, which perhaps I should have named "Fuel Choices,...Pollution & National Security" but that would have been too long to fit.
A point that I was trying to make a while ago was that China can use a tactic that will make us hold still for anything that they care to do to us, as long as they are willing to use it. We have to push back, and we'd better. The least we can do is push them back to the point that if they don't, we won't, and we can regain our standing in the world, even if we lost a hell of a lot of it by invading Iraq. Even if the current government does not deserve to carry on, and needs a huge recall election, we as people really don't deserve this. We were tricked. I mean, we liked a guy because he liked to receive oral sex and he gave it all to the Chinese.
The thread question can have an affirmative answer by the decline of US as well as the accent of China. Both seem to be happening and may be the two different sides of the same coin, called the "price of oil." China currently runs on coal. They are easily the world's largest producer of coal. It comes from their ground at a terrible price in lives, more than 5,000 every year. (2,700 have died in the mines of China in the first 6 months of 2005.) On a good day only 2 or 3 die. Monday, 28 November 05, was a bad day. 134 died in one explosion and 15 are still missing, probably crushed, making the total 149.* Also that day in another mine, flood this time, 18 died. Assume 3 of the injured pulled out still alive don't make it. Then the one day toll total is 170 dead, probably nearly 200 as the various deaths in small mines did not make it into my morning newspaper. China is determined to end its dependency on coal. Last year 12,000 mines were closed, mainly small ones with no safety equipment, etc. China has its currency under valued, and plans to keep it that way - good for exports, which are running a global surplus (I think) of about 150 Billion US$ annually. (Hard to know exact figure.) If China wants to, it can import 15,000,000,000 barrels of oil at $100/barrel. An incomprehensible (for me at least) number so it is roughly 50 million barrels per day or, if US population is 300 million, this is roughly a barrel each week for every man woman and child in the US. - That I can get my mind around. I think it is more than the per capita use in the US. or at least approximately the same as. Obviously, China needs to import other things besides oil, but it should be clear that they can destroy the US economy, whenever they chose: The jobs still not “out sourced” to lower cost areas are very dependent upon "Joe & Mary US" getting into their gas guzzler and driving to the shopping center at least twice each week and they will not be able to due this if oil is $100/barrel for long. Real wages have already been declining in US for several years. Think what $100/barrel oil will do Joe and Mary’s purchasing power, even if they could drive to the shopping center. How did the US get in such an unfortunate position? Mainly by neglect of public transport, believing in the self-serving liars who told Joe & Mary that there was no alternative to gas for their cars and they must have a SUV for the weekly car pool crowd etc. When President Eisenhower left the white house, he warned of the power of the "Military/ Industrial complex." He should have included the other threat to US security: The "Detroit/ Oil complex." As I said at the start: there are two ways to reach an affirmative answer to the thread's question. I think the US going down will be the more dominate reason to answer it "Yes." ____________________________________________ *148 dead, 3 still missing - from chinadaily later today.
I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment. And your unspoken assumption is? That the US is too dumb to recognize it and prepare alternatives? The US did not become a great nation by keeping it's head in the sand. If Billy T in Brasil and Light can see it, I have a reasonable expectation that there are those in the US government that can figure it out also. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Unfortunately, the current US government has a vested interest in the Detroit/Oil complex. They are acting in their own interest, (As Ex-CEOs with pensions to collect, major stock holding in "blind trusts" etc.) instead of the public interest. Also in my newspaper of today: Between 1990 and 2004 the compound growth rate in China was 9.3% and inflation was 5.5% - That is almost 4% real growth. In slightly less than 20 years, the productive might of China will double at this rate and many of their citizens will at least be on motor scooters, if not in cars. It really is time for the people of US to get new leadership that will serve the public interest. The government is the problem, not the people. Be honest - why are US sons (and daughters) dying in Iraq? Would they be there if Iraq had no oil? Who is benefiting for the "twin deficits"? -Certainly it is not "Joe & Mary" USA, or their children who will get stuck with a bill they can not pay.
One additional question related to last paragraph of my prior Post: Why Iraq? (Instead of some other gulf oil state). Answer: Profits from Iraq oil were going only to France and Russia and all other gulf oil states were already enriching US oil companies.
I think that China already has destroyed the US economy and we won't know it until they stop selling us their garbage.
Well, perhaps. But then again, if they stop selling their products to us, then where will they get any money for food and war supplies for their military? It's a two-way street, Meta, and it usually takes two to tango, ya' know? Baron Max
Well, if they maintain the record levels we say last month, it would work out to $144 Billion a year. But China is under enormous pressure to increase the value of its currency, and has already switched from a fixed dollar peg, so they trade surplus is unlikely to remain that large for a long time. For the sake of argument, however, suppose it does.... Assuming you're talking about them dumping their entire trade surplus into oil purchases, it would be 1.5 Billion barrels a year at $100/barrel. That would put their total oil consumption at about 3.5 Billion barrels a year (they currently consume about 2 Billion annually). The United States consumes about 7.5 Billion barrels per year. Not even close. China has about 4 times the population of the US, so in such a scenario the US would still be outpacing China in per-capita consumption by a factor of 8, almost an entire order of magnitude. Even if China was to buy 15 Billion barrels a year (as you erroneously projected above), they'd still be consuming only half of what the US does per-capita, and, at $100 a barrell, their $150 Billion trade surplus would become a $1.3 Trillion deficit. So you can forget about Chinese per-capita oil consumption matching that of America any time in the foreseeable future. Yeah, right. Their trade surplus is not going to last forever: eventually the standard of living will rise to the point where Chinese people want to buy the output of their factories, and the cheap factories will move to other countries. And that will be the end of their trade surplus. Likewise, any manuever aimed at "destroying the US economy" would lead overnight to massive tarriffs on Chinese imports, turning their trade surplus into a trade deficit. Talk of "economic warfare" is ridiculous; the term is practically an oxymoron. You'd have to be some kind of moron to attempt the wholesale sabotage of the economy of a major trading partner. And even if you were, the only way to do it would be via military means, an area in which the US has the clear advantage.
Well, the US spends an order of magnitude more than China on its military, and has done so for many, many years. America's military budget equals that of the rest of the world combined. Even if China put their entire trade surplus of $150 Billion a year towards their military, they'd still be spending less than half what the US does. While those numbers aren't adjusted for purchasing power parity, they are nevertheless pretty impressive. Moreover, they'd have to overpower not just the US, but all of its allies as well, many of whom (Japan, Europe) have economies comparable to China's. For that reason, it would be stupid for China to pursue a policy built on militarization, as this would surely prompt Japan to remilitarize and preclude an end to the European arms embargo. Indeed, without access to a modern weapons market, China will have a very expensive time of catching up with the US. For these reasons, I do not think we will see a Chinese military capable of head-on confrontation with the US in our lifetimes.
We had better be adjusting our numbers for purchasing power parity. China has a lot of the things we have. The cruise missile engine, for example, while hi tech and functional, has become a cheap and easy to use and install advance in jet propulsion. China makes them and they stole our specs for our cruise missiles. If it costs the US a million dollars to buy a cruise missile because of contractual obligations, it costs China how much? There is room in there to make them at less than a penny on the dollar. Development costs are next to nothing. Their reliability can be relatively low, meaning fewer rejects on the production line. It takes a lot of gas for them to make it over the Pacific, but nothing they can't handle. Twenty thousand missiles fueled up to cross the Pacific with a success rate of about half? Are we talking about a thousand dollars, ten thousand dollars, fifty thousand dollars each? There isn't a lot of hard currency involved here. The hard currency will be for anything they can't make themselves, like about a billion gallons of halfway decent gasoline. It doesn't take much money for China to make a useful weapon. A cruise missile is easier to build than a car because it has so many fewer attachments. A factory with somewhat flexible tooling can crank out cruise missiles faster than it can cars for that reason. All that we are talking about is an airplane that can cruise at 70 percent or so of the speed of sound for 12 to 24 hours and doesn't have to be reusable. If they can crank out that many suitcase nukes I would be more than a little worried, but thousand pound bombs are still just as destructive as always.
Dude, you're in outer space. A cheap 500 mile/hour plane, with no sophisticated guidance or evasive action systems would never have a 50% "success rate", especially against the United States. They'd get shot the fuck down by the Navy way over the Pacific. You think the US doesn't have enough radar systems, satellites, gunships and fighter planes to handle that shit with 12 to 24 hours notice? Where do you think the $500 Billion military budget has been going for all these decades? Even if they launched thousands at a time, America would just nuke them out of the sky. You don't use cruise missiles for intercontinental wars of attrition, that's what ICBM's are for, and I guarantee you that those cost China millions as well. Less than the US, but, again, the US has much more sophisticated systems. Considering the huge US lead in anti-missile systems, such an exchange would end very badly for China. The cruise missiles are for fending off navies in the Taiwan straight. Since lots of China's infrastructure is concentrated along the coast, and America's advanced airforce, the presense of a couple of US carriers there would be a real problem in a conflict. That's why they're spending so much on short-range missile systems and submarines. And they are getting to the point where the US will have to think twice about whether to go in there if Taiwan flares up. But China's way, way behind the US in terms of long-range force projection. The issue is not whether China's about to invade the US, but whether the US is about to lose the ability to operate right on China's doorstep with impunity.
I do wonder where the military budget has gone. Two words: Saturation attack. The sheer number of missiles that China could lob at us if they chose to is a very large number that is impossible to defend against. I don't think our defenses could handle more than a few dozen, let alone 10,000. I do think they could field a million if they were of a mind to try. You may forget that an effective missile for such an attack does not have to be manufactured to the highest standards. Beijing doesn't care if they kill half the people who launch them, they could just as happily have peasants lighting million pound thrust solid fuel boosters with kitchen matches. It boils down to one million air frames made as cheaply as possible, one million small jet engines built as cheaply as possible, a guidance system for under $200 each and not in hard cash, a few bits and pieces here and there, fuel, and some kind of warhead or live cargo carrying guns. These engineering atrocities could have a lot better than fifty percent success rate getting from there to here. They can cruise at an arbitrarily low level if you don't mind a high rate of loss. They can conceivably populate the US with millions of teenagers armed with their favorite kind of rifle. The fanciest, most hi-tech defenses that we can possibly build have limitations that can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. If you can't hit them high, hit them low. If you don't have five million dollars to spend to develop a pen that can write in weightlessness, use a pencil. If your phaser banks are out, use a WWII howitzer. Rock, paper, scissors. Even those of us who are testosterone poisoned can at least emulate a partial immunity and look at facts. The most heavily industrialized nation in the world with the most essentially free semi-skilled labor in the world, with a huge store of hard cash and little need to spend it can get a billion barrels of oil and devote it to a project like this, plus a fraction of their resources can do a million or more of these things with ease.
If China's currency rose 25 percent against the dollar their trade surplus would probably remain about the same and the US trade deficit would ge larger. None of the Chinese products on the WalMart shelves would be replaced by American made products if the Chinese currency rose 25 percent. China might however lose some market share to nations like Vietnam that have cheaper labor than China.
I agree that a saturation attack with ICBMs would decimate the USA because Star Wars can't stop ICBMs yet, but why would China want to do that? The USA would decimate China in retaliation. If China grabs Taiwan I expect the US response will not include nuclear weapons. If in the future China gives aid to Arab Nationalists rebels fighting our Arab allies and the US responded by defaulting on it's debt to China and blocading Chinas ports, then China might respond with biological warfare or a few nukes smuggled into the USA in shipping containers. The USA would probably back down at that point rather than going for a full scale nuclear war.
In what way? Are you talking about gross national product, population, technological innovation...what?
Do you have even the slightest idea how large the USA is? Do you have even the slightest idea how many ICBMs it would take to "decimate" a country that large? How many ICBMs do you think it would take to "decimate" even the city of Los Angeles? How 'bout San Francisco? All of the nations on Earth don't have enough ICBMs to decimate the US ...let alone China! Hell, if the US helped them, for god's sake, I don't think it would "decimate" the US! People get really weirded out when begin talking about missiles and nukes and stuff ...they let their Hollywood-mentality over-power their brain and conjure up some of the strangest ideas and doomsday scenarios! Baron Max
An interesting observation about this thread. Notice how quickly the younger ones leap directly into talking about WAR? And give almost no thought to things like industry, trade, economics, political approaches, domestic issues, natural resources, climate, etc., etc. - just headlong straight into visions of battle? It's no wonder we've always been able to send them off to fight (and would-be "religious" leaders can convince them into being walking bombs). The first thing on their minds is destruction! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
