NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard alot of talk that theres an imenet war with China coming, and I tend to agree.

I have heard alot of talk that theres an imenet war with China coming, and I tend to agree.
Why?

I'm assuming you mean a war between the US and China? I don't see that as a possibility to be honest. The only possible scenario would be to prevent a Chinese invasion of either Taiwan or Japan, and I don't see China doing either one really.

I think a war against Syria, Iran or both are far more likely.

I'm assuming you mean a war between the US and China? I don't see that as a possibility to be honest. The only possible scenario would be to prevent a Chinese invasion of either Taiwan or Japan, and I don't see China doing either one really.

I think a war against Syria, Iran or both are far more likely.

War with between 2 nuclear powers is most unlikely. We all know it would be a lose/lose outcome. Hopefully the UN will get off its butt and enforce sanctions on Syria and Iran and North Korea if they continue with their nuclear arms development and their support of radicals. If said sanctions are ignored then war may be outcome. The main questions revolving around this scenario are

1. Would the UN support it?
2. Would it be offensive or defensive?
3. Will Chiraq do anything constructive?

Yeah it could happen. Here are a list of my possible scenarios

China is pretty much dead set on taking back Taiwan, by any means necessary. The US is under Treaty obligations to defend Taiwan so it could be a bloodbath in the South China Sea.

Another possibilty is China moving into Korea, The Chinese people and the Koreans have always been close, if North Korea starts to fall apart or is attacked it is likely that the Chinese Communists would move in on a massive scale to protect their North Korean brethren like in the 1950 Korean war. This would surely trigger some US response.

A third possiblity is oil war. China just signed a $100 billion dollar oil purchasing contract with Iran. The US is aiming to overthrow the Iranian theocracy, the Chinese may want to protect their investment.

A forth probably least likely possiblity is that China might want to finally get payback against the Japanese for all the war crimes committed durring WW2. A lot of chinese have a bitter hatred to this day from the Japaneses agression, and their are all kinds of anti japan ralleys and riots in China all the time.

I have heard alot of talk that theres an imenet war with China coming, and I tend to agree.


Keywords: Heard alot of TALK


I heard alot of talk that pop rocks and cola make your tummy explode!! :eek:

um... no...

1) China is no longer an iminant threat
2) We would lose and
3) our economies would suffer terribly from the loss of Chinese business.

Think of it this way....

A nuclear war is a lose-lose proposition for ANY nulear power to engage in with another nuclear power.

This leaves a conventional war.

To China's west are three nuclear powers- Russia, Pakistan, and India. To its east is a large body of water. US naval power is technologically superior to China regardless of it's population or number of conventional arms, and could easily overhwhelm the Chinese navy...point-set-match.

All this aside, the US and China have a very profitable business relationship and China would not want to disturb that, regardless of how much they's like to take Taiwan back.

I'm assuming you mean a war between the US and China? I don't see that as a possibility to be honest. The only possible scenario would be to prevent a Chinese invasion of either Taiwan or Japan, and I don't see China doing either one really.

I think a war against Syria, Iran or both are far more likely.

If China invaded Taiwan theyd do so legally no? As Taiwan is not regarded by the UN, Taiwan or China as an independant, solvereign nation, but a province of China. The US would be making another huge leap out of bounds to defend Taiwan militarily.

China would potentially lose since it would involve the US tested and proven naval aviation force and naval missle groups. But if the US was to win thouroghly and solidly it would escalte beyond the Taiwanese area very fast, probably involving the strategic bombing of Chinese naval yards and costal lying airbases. It would be a huge tactic and logistics problem for the US Airforce and Navy but not entirely beyond the US capacity.

But no it wouldnt happend, and it wouldnt be a US economic decision because the invasion of Taiwan although maybe regarded by China as a legal internal affair would be regarded by the larger international community with disdain and would hurt China's standing with it's trade partners as well long before US involvement. The world could potentially rally behind the US like in the original persian gulf war. Unless of course the reason can be spun effectively by China as illegal US involvement to begin with, which would split the world evenly between US supporters and Chinese:Asian-Pacific supporters - ala world war III.

Enjoy.

China isn't exactly the greatest nuclear power on earth, and so far as I know doesn't really have warheads enough in quantity or power, or delivery systems enough to think about defeating the US in a nuclear war. The idea that any nation state would start a nuclear war is pretty absurd, and there's no need for another scaremongering cold war, because the world has its silly scaremongering war on terror to perpetuate the status quo for the foreseeable future. Maybe when the terror myth is properly exploded those in power will try using China as the next bogeyman, but that's too far off to think about in any detail, though I'd be inclined to think that China would be a bad choice for that, on commercial grounds if nothing else.

I can't imagine anybody powerful getting into a half way serious war with China in the near future.

I have heard alot of talk that theres an imenet war with China coming, and I tend to agree.
Could you elaborate? The scenarios of other posters seem real, but what about yours?

There -could- be a war with China, but it won't happen. If China were to pull out all of its business assets from the US, the American economy would collapse in a way that's never been seen before. The Great Depression would look like fun compared to what would happen. Economics plays too big a role in all this for anyone to get too antsy to go to war.

Yeah it could happen. Here are a list of my possible scenarios

China is pretty much dead set on taking back Taiwan, by any means necessary. The US is under Treaty obligations to defend Taiwan so it could be a bloodbath in the South China Sea.

Another possibilty is China moving into Korea, The Chinese people and the Koreans have always been close, if North Korea starts to fall apart or is attacked it is likely that the Chinese Communists would move in on a massive scale to protect their North Korean brethren like in the 1950 Korean war. This would surely trigger some US response.

A third possiblity is oil war. China just signed a $100 billion dollar oil purchasing contract with Iran. The US is aiming to overthrow the Iranian theocracy, the Chinese may want to protect their investment.

A forth probably least likely possiblity is that China might want to finally get payback against the Japanese for all the war crimes committed durring WW2. A lot of chinese have a bitter hatred to this day from the Japaneses agression, and their are all kinds of anti japan ralleys and riots in China all the time.

Holy shit we're all screwed - concedering that China will be in a possition economically to project It's will in the international community within 30 years without real response by anybody.

I didnt know about the 100bln oil contract with Iran. I was wondering what was holding the US back from attemping forced ellections in Iran like theyve done in Afganistan and in Iraq. So this is as far as the US goes without giving China another serious reason to whoop our butts a few decades from now.

eventually a war with china will occur, but not for a while.

Aren't they currently upgrading their millitary? If I were them, I'd wait to finish that first. Also... there is a GLARING target in China that is a big incentive for them to not go to war. The 3 gorges dam.
Imagine: 1 ICMB damages it... the water runs over the top and the dam literally falls apart. The people downstream would get a wee bit wet and the people upstreak would go kinda dry. PLUS the fact that there's be a little power deficit in that area.
That would be a PR disaster.

Holy shit we're all screwed - concedering that China will be in a possition economically to project It's will in the international community within 30 years without real response by anybody.

I didnt know about the 100bln oil contract with Iran. I was wondering what was holding the US back from attemping forced ellections in Iran like theyve done in Afganistan and in Iraq. So this is as far as the US goes without giving China another serious reason to whoop our butts a few decades from now.


Yeah, Iran and China are like peanutbutter and jelly. Check this out:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK06Ak01.html

The only possibilties that may even lead to war are a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, support of North Korea if attacked (which I see as unlikely), and as someone mentioned, a war to protect China's growing oil interests. However, it is still a remote possibility. Our economies are intertwined, and if war breaks out, both sides stand to loose big. Even more pressing, however, are both sides' possesion of nukes. The US is threatened, but at least we have the beginnings of a missile shield, and a spread-out population. China does not. The US can kill most of the Chinese population in less than ten minutes, if it really wanted to. I don't think Beijing wants that.

China is pretty much dead set on taking back Taiwan, by any means necessary. The US is under Treaty obligations to defend Taiwan so it could be a bloodbath in the South China Sea.

But you forget that Chinese can be very patient. Patient as in they are not set in getting it back tomorrow. They can wait 300 hundred years and it'll be okay. By then the US may not exist anymore or may not be able to put a fight or will just hand the damn thing over.


Another possibilty is China moving into Korea, The Chinese people and the Koreans have always been close, if North Korea starts to fall apart or is attacked it is likely that the Chinese Communists would move in on a massive scale to protect their North Korean brethren like in the 1950 Korean war. This would surely trigger some US response.

I don't think this one is very likely. The only closeness the Chinese and Koreans have is because they've been invading each other back and forth for the last 2000 years. Currently China is trying very hard to put some distance between them and North Korea. Although I'm sure they would mobilize a large army in case of unilateral action from the US, but they'll be more worried in having their interests represented in any sort of new Korean government than defending the current regime. However, if the US can manage a deal with China before invading North Korea, which looks more and more likely, then there'll be no problem.


A third possiblity is oil war. China just signed a $100 billion dollar oil purchasing contract with Iran. The US is aiming to overthrow the Iranian theocracy, the Chinese may want to protect their investment.

This has a much better chance of happening, although not necessarily over Iran. As China grows it will start demanding more and more resources and absorbing more and more money; both of which currently go to the US. I don't know if both the US and China will be nice enough to share.


A forth probably least likely possiblity is that China might want to finally get payback against the Japanese for all the war crimes committed durring WW2. A lot of chinese have a bitter hatred to this day from the Japaneses agression, and their are all kinds of anti japan ralleys and riots in China all the time.
Yeah, but they're also good business partners and as their economies become more interdependent war becomes less likely. And that's also the reason why I don't think there will be a war between the US and China any time soon, their economies are just too interdependent.

First off I didn't say a war anytime soon I said imenent meaning eventualy, second I said nothing about nuclear war because I don't think anyone would be willing to take that chance. And I personaly think that we'll see this war within our own lifetimes. I don't think that our econemy would suffer as musch as you all think it would, but yes it would suffer alot. I also think as somone pointed out that any war between the US and China would lead to WW III.

I definately doubt war will come between China and the US. Neither would win, and our economies are becoming increasingly interdependent. I believe that the US would be willing to bend over the issue of Taiwan if it ever came to a head, and the Chinese would be similarly willing to compromise if any situation occured with North Korea. It's more likely to see a US-Chinese alliance of some sorts dominating world affairs in the not-to-distant future.

Since I am currently reading Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" I think that America should hurry up and finish the job in Iraq, then send the troops into Iran. America can already attack on two fronts with troops it currently has.

Well, any war between China and the US would very likely be a shooting war. I would suggest the most likely spark for such a war would be Taiwan.

If Taiwan declared independence and America backed them, China would likely launch a near-immediate decapitation strike on the island. While counter to US interests and potentially damaging in the long-term, this would lead to relatively few casualties if China pulled it off successfully.

If America shied away from backing the independence movement China would likely find ways to insert ground troops on Taiwan, or naval forces in the immediate vicinity around the island and force a retraction. This could result in a military occupation of Taiwan that would probably prove very messy.

The worst-case scenerio would be that the US intercepts or destroys the initial strike force from China. Pride would likely keep the Chinese from backing down at that point and a war would begin in earnest. I have little concept of the overall military situation within China, but I assume the US would be hard pressed to successfully defend the Island nation from a direct assault for very long. Similarly China would also be devastated by any retalitory strikes.

Well, any war between China and the US would very likely be a shooting war. I would suggest the most likely spark for such a war would be Taiwan.

If Taiwan declared independence and America backed them, China would likely launch a near-immediate decapitation strike on the island. While counter to US interests and potentially damaging in the long-term, this would lead to relatively few casualties if China pulled it off successfully.

If America shied away from backing the independence movement China would likely find ways to insert ground troops on Taiwan, or naval forces in the immediate vicinity around the island and force a retraction. This could result in a military occupation of Taiwan that would probably prove very messy.

The worst-case scenerio would be that the US intercepts or destroys the initial strike force from China. Pride would likely keep the Chinese from backing down at that point and a war would begin in earnest. I have little concept of the overall military situation within China, but I assume the US would be hard pressed to successfully defend the Island nation from a direct assault for very long. Similarly China would also be devastated by any retalitory strikes.


Yeah I have read about this upcoming decapitation strike against Taiwan for a while now. I am absolutely convinced China is going to take taiwan in less than 10 years. Supposedly after an initial missile barrage china is going to send paratroopers into Taipei and seize the capital in a day or two. I think it will be over so fast the US won't have a chance to respond. It won't be worth tanking the global economy for a stupid little island like taiwan. America might send some of their Japan or Okinawa based fighters jets but hopefullly they just let China have Taiwan.

Yeah I have read about this upcoming decapitation strike against Taiwan for a while now. I am absolutely convinced China is going to take taiwan in less than 10 years. Supposedly after an initial missile barrage china is going to send paratroopers into Taipei and seize the capital in a day or two. I think it will be over so fast the US won't have a chance to respond. It won't be worth tanking the global economy for a stupid little island like taiwan. America might send some of their Japan or Okinawa based fighters jets but hopefullly they just let China have Taiwan.

Well, if its a choice between thousands of lives or an independant Taiwan, I'd weigh my options VERY carefully before sending troops. To successfully defend Taiwan with minimal loss of life would depend so much on good intelligence and fleet position at the time of the incident on the part of the US that I despair of our chances.

Still, we've got the treaty, and if China grew more beligerent after a successful invasion, or if it were seen then as open season on US interests in the region...too many costs in the long-term to bregrudge the short-term damage.

I would much rather Taiwan go to China or remain in its legal loophole as it wants to. To declare outright independence, no matter how justified the locals or the nationalists feel, would be needlessly messy.

um... no...

1) China is no longer an iminant threat
2) We would lose and
3) our economies would suffer terribly from the loss of Chinese business.


Our economy woudlnt suffer, they don't buy anything from us.

Since I am currently reading Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" I think that America should hurry up and finish the job in Iraq, then send the troops into Iran. America can already attack on two fronts with troops it currently has.
While I did enjoy "Executive Orders", I don't think America CAN "hurry up and finish the job in Iraq".
Unless you propose the immediate execution of all potential terrorists in Iraq, i.e., all the Iraqi people.
The job in Iraq will finish when the U.S. (and U.K., Italy, Poland etc.) decide they're so sick of it that they leave (see Vietnam "police action"), or when the Iraqi people decide they want to be a secular, American-dominated society (the only form of "democracy" the U.S. government will allow to take place there).
Flamebait? What's a flamebait?

Why would there be any war with China? It's the fastest growing economy in the world (mainly supplying America), it has the biggest Iron and Steel industry, and it's becoming more democratic. It's probably just talk by someone who doesn't know the facts clearly, or possibly a xenophobe

Why would there be any war with China? It's the fastest growing economy in the world (mainly supplying America), it has the biggest Iron and Steel industry, and it's becoming more democratic. It's probably just talk by someone who doesn't know the facts clearly, or possibly a xenophobe
Doesn't make you a xenophobe. Countries are inherently competative and tend to struggle for power. The US government isn't going to step down from being top dog to becoming a second tier imperialist power like Britain or France without a fight.

Doesn't make you a xenophobe. Countries are inherently competative and tend to struggle for power. The US government isn't going to step down from being top dog to becoming a second tier imperialist power like Britain or France without a fight.
Yeah, but this rumour probably didn't come from the govt. or did it?

Well, if it didn't there ain't a chance America would
a)Risk a Nuclear war
b)Risk a massive collapse in the American economy

Why would there be any war with China? It's the fastest growing economy in the world (mainly supplying America), it has the biggest Iron and Steel industry, and it's becoming more democratic. It's probably just talk by someone who doesn't know the facts clearly, or possibly a xenophobe

I know the facts enough to know that China is a threat to the best interests of the united states. Those interests would be: american jobs, good paying american jobs, and small business.

I know the facts enough to know that China is a threat to the best interests of the united states. Those interests would be: american jobs, good paying american jobs, and small business.

not really in the long run. The US will become more of a tertiary consumer, importing from loads of countries for goods and exporting services (like the UK). It hasn't happened yet because the govt. insists on placing stupid bloody quotas on foreign steel in order to keep the steel industry alive, which is protectionist and therefore counterproductive to the US economy in the long run

There -could- be a war with China, but it won't happen. If China were to pull out all of its business assets from the US, the American economy would collapse in a way that's never been seen before. The Great Depression would look like fun compared to what would happen. Economics plays too big a role in all this for anyone to get too antsy to go to war.
Actually our economy, at the moment, loses money on China...we buy things from them, they buy things from other nations.The things we buy from them,could just as easily be bought from Japan,Thailand, Taiwan, etc.

not really in the long run. The US will become more of a tertiary consumer, importing from loads of countries for goods and exporting services (like the UK). It hasn't happened yet because the govt. insists on placing stupid bloody quotas on foreign steel in order to keep the steel industry alive, which is protectionist and therefore counterproductive to the US economy in the long run
This is pushed for by American Unions, which are the largest part of the American Democrat Party. Bush tried to help them early in his first term, but it is unlikely he will feel he owes them much this term.

Well.. lets consider this: the Chinese Army as been modernizing itself, and it is huge, despite a (for now) economy that isnt mature.
They have been deploying missiles along the coast, and training for attacks on carrier groups. This makes you wonder that they are waiting to be attacked by carrier groups. The only country that as a significant amount of carrier groups, is the US. So, they are training for an attack on the US carrier groups. Now, Chinese defences are land based, not mobile. So they are expecting to be attacked by the US. In what situation would they be attacked by the US? Only if they attacked Taiwan (which is something for which they are equipped and trained for). Note that the current modernization of the Chinese army is sheduled to take 10 more years.

This is my (i believe) logical reasoning that backs the start a possible war with the US. It isnt necessarely true.

not really in the long run. The US will become more of a tertiary consumer, importing from loads of countries for goods and exporting services (like the UK). It hasn't happened yet because the govt. insists on placing stupid bloody quotas on foreign steel in order to keep the steel industry alive, which is protectionist and therefore counterproductive to the US economy in the long run

Free trade only works with like countries. First world-first world works because the currency is similar in value. Thats one of the reasons we were so prosperous after WWII, our currency was similar in value, and we had a trade surplus. Then came trading with second worlds, who started to make stuff for us, like Japan, who eventually became a first world, and that production shifted to CHina, and now its all over east asia, and they keep takin' our jobs. Hell, I couldn't find a wireless network card that *wasn't* made in China. I hope that the American public will realize the massive abuses in China that happen every day. Like forced partial birth abortions, or 24 hour workdays.

Well.. lets consider this: the Chinese Army as been modernizing itself, and it is huge, despite a (for now) economy that isnt mature.
They have been deploying missiles along the coast, and training for attacks on carrier groups. This makes you wonder that they are waiting to be attacked by carrier groups. The only country that as a significant amount of carrier groups, is the US. So, they are training for an attack on the US carrier groups. Now, Chinese defences are land based, not mobile. So they are expecting to be attacked by the US. In what situation would they be attacked by the US? Only if they attacked Taiwan (which is something for which they are equipped and trained for). Note that the current modernization of the Chinese army is sheduled to take 10 more years.

This is my (i believe) logical reasoning that backs the start a possible war with the US. It isnt necessarely true.

Too bad no one will listen to you. I wish they would, because thats whats going to happen.

Actually our economy, at the moment, loses money on China...we buy things from them, they buy things from other nations.The things we buy from them,could just as easily be bought from Japan,Thailand, Taiwan, etc.


My point exactly.

Well, any war between China and the US would very likely be a shooting war. I would suggest the most likely spark for such a war would be Taiwan.

If Taiwan declared independence and America backed them, China would likely launch a near-immediate decapitation strike on the island. While counter to US interests and potentially damaging in the long-term, this would lead to relatively few casualties if China pulled it off successfully.

If America shied away from backing the independence movement China would likely find ways to insert ground troops on Taiwan, or naval forces in the immediate vicinity around the island and force a retraction. This could result in a military occupation of Taiwan that would probably prove very messy.

The worst-case scenerio would be that the US intercepts or destroys the initial strike force from China. Pride would likely keep the Chinese from backing down at that point and a war would begin in earnest. I have little concept of the overall military situation within China, but I assume the US would be hard pressed to successfully defend the Island nation from a direct assault for very long. Similarly China would also be devastated by any retalitory strikes.
This scenario has several times been "wargamed out"by our government. China does not possess the ability to even GET troops to Taiwan, in an opposed transit. They do not have an amphibious capability to land enough troops to slug it out. Their navy,in entirity,would likely be sunk within several hours, their air force likely would have the normal success of initial surprise, but would quickly fall after those first airstrikes. As for nuclear, China has only a handful of warheads, half believed aimed at Russia, half at the USA. It would be likely that these would be quickly destroyed on the ground, to prevent that possibility, along with the sinking of their only sea based system.

As I recall Russia and China are hardly friendly to each other. I imagine that if the US and China went to was China would want to keep plenty of assets focused towards Russia to prevent any Russian opportunism.

Or alternately, if China does not keep an eye on Russia, they may find Russia attacking them once things start looking bad for China.

This scenario has several times been "wargamed out"by our government. China does not posess the ability to even GET troops to Taiwan, in an opposed transit. They do not have an amphibious capability to land enough troops to slug it out. Their navy,in entirity,would likely be sunk within several hours, their air force likely would have the normal success of initial surprise, but would quickly fall after those first airstrikes. As for nuclear, China has only a handful of warheads, half believed aimed at Russia, half at the USA. It would be likely that these would be quickly destroyed on the ground, to prevent that possibility, along with the sinking of their only sea based system.

I'll probably be bashed for this but..
Don't trust wargames. Especially those that envolve carrier groups:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1060102.php

The thing is, like, the top brass doesn't like to be told that their weapons suck. They deny the truth. Happened with the Brits in WW2, they were told that their big bulky cruisers were no match for the new airplanes. They didnt beleived, WW2 Started. The Japs approach Singapore. The brits send apowerful battle group led by the battleship Prince of Wales. Jap planes find the battlegroup. Prince of wales goes down, with most of the crew. The same thing is happening with the US, but this time, its Cruise Missiles vs Carriers. Please, for the sake of the men of your carriers, distrust everything that comes out of a war game.

I'll probably be bashed for this but..
Don't trust wargames. Especially those that envolve carrier groups:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1060102.php

The thing is, like, the top brass doesn't like to be told that their weapons suck. They deny the truth. Happened with the Brits in WW2, they were told that their big bulky cruisers were no match for the new airplanes. They didnt beleived, WW2 Started. The Japs approach Singapure. The brits send a A powerful battle group led by the battleship Prince of Wales. Jap planes find the battlegroup. Prince of wales goes down, with most of the crew. The same thing is happening with the US, but this time, its Cruise Missiles vs Carriers. Please, for the sake of the men of your carriers, distrust everything that comes out of a war game.
I am army myself, and have read that issue as well;)
That said, anything that floats, may sink,agreed, but the US Navy is far and light years superior to the PLA Navy. The US does not take for granted, as far as I have seen, a carrier's defenses. The cold war carriers were equipped to take on regiments of cruise missile armed aircraft, I am not navy, so perhaps someone who is can clarify this, but I do understand the basis, that to even get to a carrier, requires passing through a very impressive gauntlet of aircraft,missiles,and electronic defenses. Can be done,but not at all very easy.
As for wargames, they are one of the better tools, if used in the way they are meant to be used, they are not infallible, and if poor information is put in, poor results will come out.

China is not to be taken lightly, it has one of the most growing economy's of the world and analyst's say that this wil keep on for some time. And sinds the chinese goverment renewed the one child law in to a two child law , speculations are that the population would twice as big by 2030. Lot's of analyst's say that in 2040 China not only have a stronger economy than the US but probebly will military stronger as well. Ill give the source on the later , can't seem to find the url

I'll probably be bashed for this but..
Don't trust wargames. Especially those that envolve carrier groups:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1060102.php

The thing is, like, the top brass doesn't like to be told that their weapons suck. They deny the truth. Happened with the Brits in WW2, they were told that their big bulky cruisers were no match for the new airplanes. They didnt beleived, WW2 Started. The Japs approach Singapore. The brits send apowerful battle group led by the battleship Prince of Wales. Jap planes find the battlegroup. Prince of wales goes down, with most of the crew. The same thing is happening with the US, but this time, its Cruise Missiles vs Carriers. Please, for the sake of the men of your carriers, distrust everything that comes out of a war game.
A few months ago I read an article about this Russian anti-ship missile called the "Sunburn" that the Chinese are buying. Unlike normal anti shipping missiles like say the tomahawk or the harpoon which fly at low altitude at subsonic speed, the sunburn flies at mach 2 at high altitude and then dives down on the enemy ship making it virtually impossible to shoot down.
Unlike other missiles which explode a few feet from their targets, the sunburn smashes throught the deck of the target and explodes within the ship for maximum damage. It sounds like it could rip the US navy a new one. Makes me glad I'm not a Taiwanese sailor or a US sailor for that matter.

I have heard alot of talk that theres an imenet war with China coming, and I tend to agree.

The stem of this thread is so vague and general I hesitate to address it. However, I have heard this rather silly idea before, presumably from people who can't comprehend a United States without a permanent enemy.

A country, like a person, has a history which tells something about its "personality" and the way it will act on the international stage. China has 4,000 years of history for political observers to take into account. Historically the Chinese are not globalist in their outlook and not expansionist (beyond their immediate borders). Unlike the former Soviet Union, which had a political philosophy calling for worldwide expansion of their political/economic system, the Chinese however, while also communist, are isolationist xenophobes. The Chinese have historically attempted to impose their will upon neighboring countries (Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, Japan), but have never shown an interest in imposing their will on countries beyond their border.

Finally, the proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $420.7 billion dollars, just short of the military budget of all the rest of the world, and eight times that of China.

The idea that China will instigate war with the U.S. is ludicrous.

The idea that China will instigate war with the U.S. is ludicrous.

What about the Korean war? Lot of Chinese died there including Mao's own son. Nobody thinks China will attack the US pearl harbor style. I think most people simply think the US will attack China if China attacks Taiwan. China will fight back. There is your war.

Perhaps a better question would be with which country will the United States next instigate a war?

A few months ago I read an article about this Russian anti-ship missile called the "Sunburn" that the Chinese are buying. Unlike normal anti shipping missiles like say the tomahawk or the harpoon which fly at low altitude at subsonic speed, the sunburn flies at mach 2 at high altitude and then dives down on the enemy ship making it virtually impossible to shoot down.
Unlike other missiles which explode a few feet from their targets, the sunburn smashes throught the deck of the target and explodes within the ship for maximum damage. It sounds like it could rip the US navy a new one. Makes me glad I'm not a Taiwanese sailor or a US sailor for that matter.
The sunburn is not a new missile, nor is the Soviet style of missile a new idea to the US, who has trained against their use for much of the cold war. Soviet style missiles generally were larger,more damaging,faster, than US style, because Soviets had to plan on taking out carriers, while US had to plan against basically much smaller ships. Sunburn actually is not quite as large a warhead as the old Soviet ones as far as I can see. And chances are, as Russia sees China as a much larger threat than the US sees China, they would do much like nations usually do, and leave a backdoor in their exported missiles,much as the French did in the Gulf War, when they notified the allies of weaknesses with their Mirage a/c. sold to Iraq.

The stem of this thread is so vague and general I hesitate to address it. However, I have heard this rather silly idea before, presumably from people who can't comprehend a United States without a permanent enemy.

A country, like a person, has a history which tells something about its "personality" and the way it will act on the international stage. China has 4,000 years of history for political observers to take into account. Historically the Chinese are not globalist in their outlook and not expansionist (beyond their immediate borders). Unlike the former Soviet Union, which had a political philosophy calling for worldwide expansion of their political/economic system, the Chinese however, while also communist, are isolationist xenophobes. The Chinese have historically attempted to impose their will upon neighboring countries (Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, Japan), but have never shown an interest in imposing their will on countries beyond their border.

Finally, the proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $420.7 billion dollars, just short of the military budget of all the rest of the world, and eight times that of China.

The idea that China will instigate war with the U.S. is ludicrous.
Well put. And one note to further your point... The only fighting point, likely would be Taiwan,and the only reason PRC would want the island, is its economic success and infrastructure,both of which, a war,even in the unlikely event of a Chinese victory,would destroy. I see more likely pressure politically by China in the hopes of someday uniting, but it would take many,many years for the CHinese to match US/Taiwan/Japanese/Vietnamese/and Phillipine forces, all of whom would come to the aid of the only democratically elected China(Taiwan), along with the fact Russia would choose US over China, any day.

Yeah...war in China.

And pigs fly.

Perhaps a better question would be with which country will the United States next instigate a war?

First off will ignore this entirely by saying, oh give me a break. Just wanted to say that.

Next up:
China vs the US
How this plays out really depends on if the US continues to invest in the military as much as it does now. As much as China will spend modernizing its army, combined arms warfare defeats a better armed opponent(maybe the Chinese didnt learn this from the Germans or Japs in WWII). So while they'll have the UBERland force this wont put them in any position to take on overwhelming US-NATO-SEATO-UN coalition(whatever) airpower. Or in a position to take on the USN, or for that fact the Canadian Navy. Their one SSBN is an international joke. The thing is so loud it could be heard getting underway from Pearl Harbor. In all honesty they wouldnt survive long at sea.

China currently isnt ready to invade Taiwan. They dont have the amphibious assests to launch such an attack. They'd be forced to rely on Paratroopers. An even riskier proposition seeing as how Taiwan has a formidable SAM defense. And an air force capable of holding off the Chinese until air assests from the US could assist. The chinese would fight the US to a standstill on the ground sure, and no way in hell could the US conquer China, but consider this, the US wouldnt need to. Tianamen Square anyone? You keep the Chinese military occupied for several years you inflict causalities in the millions upon them(not so hard when most of their population is in the east) and you have all the stirrings of a revolution.

Not to mention China isnt exactly a popular country in the region(Pakistan and India both havent forgotten that China invaded Kashmir,Vietnam stopped liking China awhile ago. The Russians are wary of China and would be looking to keep their interests in Sibera well protected.The Japanese fear the Chinese attempting to exact some sort of late retribution for WWII. The South Koreas hate China for what they consider propping up the largest threat to their existance since the Japanese where imperialistic). China wants to be a superpower but they're gonna have to beat up a lot of countries to do so.

Also the US and Chinese economies arent nearly as intertwined as everyone believes. Sure our economy would hurt should we go to war but how long do you suspect that would last? Any war between the US and China would equate to a Total War. The Draft would be brought back in a new york minute and there would be requests for more people in the work force..I think everyone could go without their happy meal toy for a few months while operations transfered elsewhere to South America, or even back to the US.

Now as to why the US and China would go to war is a whole new matter all together.

Everyone believes that the US and China will go blow to blow over Taiwan. Likely. Taiwan had been in reconiliation talks with the Chinese for two decades on and off. The Taiwanese watched how China integrated Hong Kong and after seeing how badly Hong Kong has gotten its soverignty treated after being "absorbed" back into the fold Taiwan will continue to drag its feet until it feels secure enough to declare independence. Which takes us to scenario number two.

North Korean collapse is more likely with each passing year. The Chinese will only prop up the DPRK for so long before saying to hell with it and moving into the area to "liberate" the people. This will occur over the Republic of Korea's dead body and you may see a war starting between South Korea and China over control of the North. This has potential for escaltion as well as everyone will begin to fear a Chinese expansion.

The third scenario is an ever likely one as well. The US and China are already disagreeing over how Iran should be handled. China has become the second largest consumer of oil, and is growing rapidly. With world oil levels already decreasing its only a matter of time before both sides start to glare at each other over the stuff that keeps industralized nations running. Unless the US beguns to develop other forms of resources to be used.

China has stated in the past that this century was supposed to be theirs. No longer the US's. Several prominent Generals in the Chinese PRM(Peoples Revolutionary Military) said the only thing keeping them from being a superpower was the US. Even the former CIA director said in the past China was a growing threat to US national security.

sure, china's economy is growing---but way too fast. every economist agrees that soon the "bubble" will burst, and it will be the worst in history. time will tell.

sure, china's economy is growing---but way too fast. every economist agrees that soon the "bubble" will burst, and it will be the worst in history. time will tell.
True, and a major reason for a collapse of some sort, is that the only area REALLY growing in the Chinese economy, is the sector they allow to be capitalist. How long these new businesspeople will continue to prop China up, while the government does not give them any say in how the country is run, etc, makes the chance of some sort of revolution at least decent, and even better should they become entangled in a war with no successful end in sight, such as one with the US would become.

a few thoughts...

Chinese trade with the US is too profitable to risk (by China).... well, lets see, Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939 and 1914 was France, its biggest trading partner in 1941 was the Soviet Union, the United States biggest trading partner in 1812 was Britain. And the biggest trading partner the Southern States had in 1861 was the Northern States...

economics don't seem to prevent neighbors from fighting each other, much less really distant neighbors...

so much for the trade issue...

why would the US and China fight? If the PRC invades Taiwan, the US would have to help defend Taiwan, at least at this point. Otherwise, a PRC victory there completely distablizes the Far East as there would be no countervailing power to offset China. Only Japan could consider it, and they would have to build nuclear weapons to offset PRC nuclear weapons. Japan with nuclear weapons isn't a very happy thought, for us or the Japanese.

Another Korean War could also draw in the PRC, and it would be ugly. There is no question that the ROK is an ally of the US. The North Koreans have had famine for over decade now, and eventually one of three things will happen. The Army will shoot the Dear Leader, and essentially beg the ROK to take them in (like in East Germany for all practical purposes); or the Dear Leader will decide the safest thing to do with the army is roll the dice and send them south; or eventually we end up with another Rumania (the people including the army enlisted men) rise up and shoot the party and secret police (but in a much vaster blood bath).... none of these things need happen tomorrow, but one of them is likely to happen eventually. Even the Dear Leader can't hold on forever, he isn't as ruthlessly brilliant at holding on to power as Mao or Stalin, and isn't as competent as he father (from all reports).

Or the Dear Leader might decide to go into exile (apparently the Chinese have tried to persuade him to do that.... ) we will see.

At this point, the US would crush the PRC at sea, slaughter them in the air, and most likely only have to fight them on land only in Korea or Siberia.

Which leads me to the next possible scenario.... guess who used to own most of eastern Siberia.... the Chinese claimed it until the 1880s and the Russians took it over. There is a lot of oil,timber, strategic minerals, and other useful things and over 1 Billion Chinese could definitely use them. The only thing holding the Chinese out is the fact that right now the Russians have a lot of missiles (some of which are bound to work) that have nuclear warheads. The Russian Army has essentially collapsed, and their Air Force still has some first rate equipment, but is thinly spread.

In 10 years or possibly less the Chinese will have a much more modern military, equal to the Russians in capability most likely, and who can say if the Russians can keep a creditable number of nuclear delivery systems operational.

The PRC with Siberian resources would definitely be a superpower.

The traditional US strategic policy going back to the birth of the Republic is that no power in either Europe or Asia should so dominate those areas as to be capable of building a fleet big enough to invade the Americas. China with Siberia would have that capability.

Now as to why the US and China would go to war is a whole new matter all together.

Everyone believes that the US and China will go blow to blow over Taiwan. Likely. Taiwan had been in reconiliation talks with the Chinese for two decades on and off. The Taiwanese watched how China integrated Hong Kong and after seeing how badly Hong Kong has gotten its soverignty treated after being "absorbed" back into the fold Taiwan will continue to drag its feet until it feels secure enough to declare independence. Which takes us to scenario number two.

North Korean collapse is more likely with each passing year. The Chinese will only prop up the DPRK for so long before saying to hell with it and moving into the area to "liberate" the people. This will occur over the Republic of Korea's dead body and you may see a war starting between South Korea and China over control of the North. This has potential for escaltion as well as everyone will begin to fear a Chinese expansion.

The third scenario is an ever likely one as well. The US and China are already disagreeing over how Iran should be handled. China has become the second largest consumer of oil, and is growing rapidly. With world oil levels already decreasing its only a matter of time before both sides start to glare at each other over the stuff that keeps industralized nations running. Unless the US beguns to develop other forms of resources to be used.

China has stated in the past that this century was supposed to be theirs. No longer the US's. Several prominent Generals in the Chinese PRM(Peoples Revolutionary Military) said the only thing keeping them from being a superpower was the US. Even the former CIA director said in the past China was a growing threat to US national security.

The first two scenarios, involving Taiwan and Korea demonstrates a lack of understanding of the historic relationship China has with both, and requires no further comment. However, the third scenario has some merit and actually ties into my previous comment about the United States being the more likely country to instigate a future war.

China is the third greatest producer of energy in the world, but also the second largest consumer, after the United States. China has become a net importer of oil, about half of which comes from Saudi Arabia, so in that sense China closely mirrors the U.S.

Nearly one out of every three barrels of oil reserves in the world are found in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Currently 2/3s of that oil goes to the west, but in the near future 3/4s of it will go to Asia, especially China. The geopolitical vision that is driving the current Republican Neo-Con policy toward Iraq and the entire Middle East involves American dominance of global oil production, not to supply American domestic needs, but rather, as leverage over other energy rivals, particularly Europe, Russia, and China.

This is not about oil as fuel, but rather oil as power.

Certainly China and the U.S. will continue to compete for world oil reserves as China modernizes. However, there can be little argument that it is the United States that has been the more belligerent of the two in seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf militarily.

Well put. And one note to further your point... The only fighting point, likely would be Taiwan,and the only reason PRC would want the island, is its economic success and infrastructure,both of which, a war,even in the unlikely event of a Chinese victory,would destroy. I see more likely pressure politically by China in the hopes of someday uniting, but it would take many,many years for the CHinese to match US/Taiwan/Japanese/Vietnamese/and Phillipine forces, all of whom would come to the aid of the only democratically elected China(Taiwan), along with the fact Russia would choose US over China, any day.

Well actually one of the main fears in China is that if Taiwan declares independence once and for all, it will lead to the eventuall distingration of China along ethnic lines, with the Muslim territories in the West spliting off, the Tibetans reigniting the indepence struggle in the SouthWest and Hong Kong declaring independence. The Chinese Communists understand the disaster of allowing the disintegration of China after watching the disaster that has befallen most of the Soviet Union following its collapse and are determined not to allow the same to happen to them. Furthermore Taiwan is also located in one of the World's most important shipping lanes and would be a big benifit economically even if it is devestated in the invasion.

I'm suprised nobody brought up Powell's visit to Taiwan where he told Chen that Taiwan and China would be reunified, emphasizing the US's committment to the "One China Policy". To me it seems as if Bush is winking at Bejing saying that Chinese paratroopers sieze Taiwan in the middle of the night one of these days he won't take military action. It seems pointless to me for the US to try to keep playing Mr. Big regional hegemon in northeast asia-- trying to keep China from rising to hegemony is a simply delaying the inevitable. Bush's handlers seem to realize this as evidenced by Bush's plans to pull out of Republic of Korea and Japan. It doesn't make sense for the US to try to rule the whole world at once, it is impossible. Rather the Bush team correctly realizes that to run the world all you need to do is control the oil and is beefing up its presence in the Middle East. While China and Japan squable over East Asia, the US is busy taking over the middle eastern oil fields and thus ensuring global supremacy.

True, and a major reason for a collapse of some sort, is that the only area REALLY growing in the Chinese economy, is the sector they allow to be capitalist. How long these new businesspeople will continue to prop China up, while the government does not give them any say in how the country is run, etc, makes the chance of some sort of revolution at least decent, and even better should they become entangled in a war with no successful end in sight, such as one with the US would become.

The most interesting part of that is that most of the capitalists live in southern China and speak Cantonese, and the Communists are mostly northerners (and speak Mandarin) but the written language is Mandarin. The southerners don't like the northerners and vice versa. Perhaps one day we will see the traditional Chinese collapse of the South revolting from the North (a tradition that goes back 5,000 years, since Mandarin writing was invented and who knows before that).... It seems to happen every couple hundred years but the modern age has a remarkable habit of accelerating everything.

The first two scenarios, involving Taiwan and Korea demonstrate a lack of understanding of the relationship China has with both, and requires no further comment. However, the third scenario has some merit and actually ties into my previous comment about the United States being the more likely country to instigate a future war.

Your kidding me right? Lack of understanding? LOL As far as I see it the typical Chinese/Taiwan relationship is the following=
"You dont declare independence and we wont declare war on you...yet."

It only takes on pro-independence president, or pro-nationalist to offset and make the Chinese either back their threat or look weak to the rest of the world. Your lack of understanding of how deep the Chinese have for a sense of honor is something that doesnt need to be spoken of.

As for the DPRK scenario, now why is that unlikely?

Its easy to just dismiss a claim, but its hard to actually put up the facts to dismiss said claims.

Of course its always infinately easy to blame the US.

The first two scenarios, involving Taiwan and Korea demonstrates a lack of understanding of the historic relationship China has with both, and requires no further comment. However, the third scenario has some merit and actually ties into my previous comment about the United States being the more likely country to instigate a future war.

China is the third greatest producer of energy in the world, but also the second largest consumer, after the United States. China has become a net importer of oil, about half of which comes from Saudi Arabia, so in that sense China closely mirrors the U.S.

Nearly one out of every three barrels of oil reserves in the world are found in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Currently 2/3s of that oil goes to the west, but in the near future 3/4s of it will go to Asia, especially China. The geopolitical vision that is driving the current Republican Neo-Con policy toward Iraq and the entire Middle East involves American dominance of global oil production, not to supply American domestic needs, but rather, as leverage over other energy rivals, particularly Europe, Russia, and China.

This is not about oil as fuel, but rather oil as power.

Certainly China and the U.S. will continue to compete for world oil reserves as China modernizes. However, there can be little argument that it is the United States that has been the more belligerent of the two in seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf militarily.

lets talk about the historic relationship of Korea and China. Until the Sino-Japanese war of 1895, Korea was a de facto client state of China. Does this mean the Koreans want that relationship to return? Probably only if they have no choice, and right now, the ROKs at least have the US and Japan as allies. They therefore have a choice. Taiwan was a province of China until that time period as well, but the natives of that island are only ethnically Chinese the same way Finns are ethnically related to Swedes. Taiwan was pretty much ignored except when the Chinese would occasionally fight the pirates that habitually lived there. Japan comes in and horrifically oppresses the natives until they are kicked out after World War 2. Then a couple of years later, the Nationalists have to flee there.

So why would Taiwan cheerfully want to belong to China again? They have freedom for the first time in their existence and they, like the Koreans, are unlikely to want to lose it. Nor should they have too. The Bush Administration essentially caved in to China a couple of weeks ago but that doesn't make it right.

As far Korea goes, see my post above.

As far as Iran goes, the PRC sold the Iranians silkworm missiles over 2 decades ago and continue to sell them arms. At this point the US does not have the troops available to invade Iran without national mobilization and a huge increase in the size of the Army. There is definitely not a mandate for that in this country, much less in Congress.

Paranoid concerns from the Left not withstanding.

I have heard alot of talk that theres an imenet war with China coming, and I tend to agree.

I agree there will be a war "with" china but it will be on the side of the US. China being a coperate police state and the US a place of strong coperate influence could go around subduing any nations they see a threat to their economic relationship. It would work perfectly; the US has a logistical power to move forces quickly for an quick and decisive invasion. While China has the man power to occupy the territory. Seems far fetched now; depends how much china get invovled with war on terror.

Well actually one of the main fears in China is that if Taiwan declares independence once and for all, it will lead to the eventuall distingration of China along ethnic lines, with the Muslim territories in the West spliting off, the Tibetans reigniting the indepence struggle in the SouthWest and Hong Kong declaring independence. The Chinese Communists understand the disaster of allowing the disintegration of China after watching the disaster that has befallen most of the Soviet Union following its collapse and are determined not to allow the same to happen to them. Furthermore Taiwan is also located in one of the World's most important shipping lanes and would be a big benifit economically even if it is devestated in the invasion.

I'm suprised nobody brought up Powell's visit to Taiwan where he told Chen that Taiwan and China would be reunified, emphasizing the US's committment to the "One China Policy". To me it seems as if Bush is winking at Bejing saying that Chinese paratroopers sieze Taiwan in the middle of the night one of these days he won't take military action. It seems pointless to me for the US to try to keep playing Mr. Big regional hegemon in northeast asia-- trying to keep China from rising to hegemony is a simply delaying the inevitable. Bush's handlers seem to realize this as evidenced by Bush's plans to pull out of Republic of Korea and Japan. It doesn't make sense for the US to try to rule the whole world at once, it is impossible. Rather the Bush team correctly realizes that to run the world all you need to do is control the oil and is beefing up its presence in the Middle East. While China and Japan squable over East Asia, the US is busy taking over the middle eastern oil fields and thus ensuring global supremacy.

That Colin Powell speech is very similar to one the United States made in 1949 that didn't specifically say that the US would defend South Korea and very well may come to haunt all of us. The US did when the invasion occured support South Korea and committed itself to one of the bloodiest wars of the 20th Century.

The PRC by the way does not have the resources or military capability to invade Taiwan at this time. They have only enough sealift and amphibious capability to send about 60,000 troops across the Taiwan Straits (assuming they win the fight at sea and get across), and Taiwan has a very effective army with weapons equal to the PRC or better (in some categories) with the advantage of defending their home turf. The PRC could destroy the Taiwanese military forces with nuclear weapons, but making Taiwan a radioactive desert hardly suits the PRCs goal of gaining control of a very productive Taiwanese economy.

Your kidding me right? Lack of understanding? LOL As far as I see it the typical Chinese/Taiwan relationship is the following=
"You dont declare independence and we wont declare war on you...yet."

It only takes on pro-independence president, or pro-nationalist to offset and make the Chinese either back their threat or look weak to the rest of the world. Your lack of understanding of how deep the Chinese have for a sense of honor is something that doesnt need to be spoken of.

As for the DPRK scenario, now why is that unlikely?

Its easy to just dismiss a claim, but its hard to actually put up the facts to dismiss said claims.

Of course its always infinately easy to blame the US.

Okay, you are one of those folks who bristle at any criticism of the Unites States, right?

Let's look at your two previous scenarios. In the first you claim Taiwan will drag its feet until it can safely declare independence. That will never happen. Others have posted explanations for why, but suffice it to say that Chinese policy, Taiwanese policy, and American policy are all for One China. China will no more allow Taiwan to declare independence than the U.S. would allow New York to succeed. Nor will the U.S. spill American blood to prevent what it has said it supports through seven American administrations.

The second scenario involves South Korea going to war with China because China involves itself in North Korean affairs? South Korea (as well as Japan and the United States) are anxiously waiting for China to do just that and fear the reason they haven’t is that they may have lost some leverage over the North Korean government.

Both Korea’s, historically China’s “Little Brother,” recognize China as the dominant nation in Asia. Last year China replaced the United States as South Korea’s chief trading partner. This also mirrors the growing political friction between South Korea and the U.S. (remember the reception to the U.S. soccer team at the World Cup games?). Neither Korea can afford to turn its back on China and it is difficult to imagine any scenario where these historically close people go to war.

My previous comment about the threat of the U.S. to world peace, due to the Neo-Con policy of Pax Americana through domination of Persian Gulf oil reserves stands unrefuted.

I'm assuming you mean a war between the US and China? I don't see that as a possibility to be honest. The only possible scenario would be to prevent a Chinese invasion of either Taiwan or Japan, and I don't see China doing either one really.

I think a war against Syria, Iran or both are far more likely.

US doesnt even dare to touch North Korea, what makes you think it wants to take on China

it would never happen because the US's and china's economies are too intertwined. when ours goes up, china's go up, when ours goes down, china's goes into the dumps. war with china is NOT going to happen.

That Colin Powell speech is very similar to one the United States made in 1949 that didn't specifically say that the US would defend South Korea and very well may come to haunt all of us. The US did when the invasion occured support South Korea and committed itself to one of the bloodiest wars of the 20th Century.

The PRC by the way does not have the resources or military capability to invade Taiwan at this time. They have only enough sealift and amphibious capability to send about 60,000 troops across the Taiwan Straits (assuming they win the fight at sea and get across), and Taiwan has a very effective army with weapons equal to the PRC or better (in some categories) with the advantage of defending their home turf. The PRC could destroy the Taiwanese military forces with nuclear weapons, but making Taiwan a radioactive desert hardly suits the PRCs goal of gaining control of a very productive Taiwanese economy.

It is true the Chinese don't have the sheer power to overwhelm the Taiwanese, but from what I have read, the most likely scenario is that China will simply airdrop crack troops into the capital Taipei and try to hold that, hoping that if they cut off the head the body will die. Most of Taiwan's military are just spoiled kids completing mandatory military service and wouldn't be a match for Chinese special forces. Furthermore, a number of Taiwan's generals supposedly subscribe to the same greater china nationalist ideology that their mainland counterparts do and would probably refuse to fight. After seizing the capital chinese paratroopers would probably quickly install pro reunification Taiwanese politicans to issue proclamations to the people accept the reunification of China while the Chinese Navy ferries reinforcements to restore order. If the Chinese move fast enough it could work I think.

Well actually one of the main fears in China is that if Taiwan declares independence once and for all, it will lead to the eventuall distingration of China along ethnic lines, with the Muslim territories in the West spliting off, the Tibetans reigniting the indepence struggle in the SouthWest and Hong Kong declaring independence. The Chinese Communists understand the disaster of allowing the disintegration of China after watching the disaster that has befallen most of the Soviet Union following its collapse and are determined not to allow the same to happen to them. Furthermore Taiwan is also located in one of the World's most important shipping lanes and would be a big benifit economically even if it is devestated in the invasion.

I'm suprised nobody brought up Powell's visit to Taiwan where he told Chen that Taiwan and China would be reunified, emphasizing the US's committment to the "One China Policy". To me it seems as if Bush is winking at Bejing saying that Chinese paratroopers sieze Taiwan in the middle of the night one of these days he won't take military action. It seems pointless to me for the US to try to keep playing Mr. Big regional hegemon in northeast asia-- trying to keep China from rising to hegemony is a simply delaying the inevitable. Bush's handlers seem to realize this as evidenced by Bush's plans to pull out of Republic of Korea and Japan. It doesn't make sense for the US to try to rule the whole world at once, it is impossible. Rather the Bush team correctly realizes that to run the world all you need to do is control the oil and is beefing up its presence in the Middle East. While China and Japan squable over East Asia, the US is busy taking over the middle eastern oil fields and thus ensuring global supremacy.
To be honest, someday the US will have to clarify the One China policy, as it m akes no sense...Taiwan is a government much like our own,with freedom,elections,etc. We still sell them arms, which we would not do(openly at least)to any other nations province.Yet every American President,Dem or Republican, has paid lip service to the One China idea. The closest we came to a confrontation in recent years was when President Clinton showed rare backbone and sent two carriers to the area in 1996.
The fact is,right now at least, that China would lose, decisively, and they realize this as well...there are many things that could change that in say 10 years, but that whole future is a questionmark.
Also the US military is being rearranged in Asia,not withdrawn from Japan or RoK. Our concentration is likely to shift towards asia and away from Europe where it has been since the cold war. In this sense, the US likely sees a possible threat at some future point from China, but the future is neither certain nor immediate.

Once again, economics has never prevented nations from going to war. In the 1900s, a bestselling book in Britain said that if the British went to war with Germany they would both go broke. The author even proved it mathamatically. Oddly enough, in the long run, he was right.

Guess who sent troops to Belgium in 1914 (that would be Germany) and who sent troops to help the French (that would be Britian).

Enlightened self interest doesn't seem to be a reason to avoid going to war.

I don't imagine the Koreans are real excited about being Chinas "Little Brother" either. Why would they? China determined Korean foreign policy for centuries, and directly ruled it for centuries as well. Only the Japanese behaved worse (and boy did they) in Korea. At this point, even though the South Koreans are trading like mad with the Chinese, they are still allied with the US for very powerful strategic reasons. Even if North Korea magically changed sides tomorrow and joined South Korea, prudent ROKs would want to keep the Americans around to keep the Japanese and Chinese at a safe distance.

It is true the Chinese don't have the sheer power to overwhelm the Taiwanese, but from what I have read, the most likely scenario is that China will simply airdrop crack troops into the capital Taipei and try to hold that, hoping that if they cut off the head the body will die. Most of Taiwan's military are just spoiled kids completing mandatory military service and wouldn't be a match for Chinese special forces. Furthermore, a number of Taiwan's generals supposedly subscribe to the same greater china nationalist ideology that their mainland counterparts do and would probably refuse to fight. After seizing the capital chinese paratroopers would probably quickly install pro reunification Taiwanese politicans to issue proclamations to the people accept the reunification of China while the Chinese Navy ferries reinforcements to restore order. If the Chinese move fast enough it could work I think.

I hate to bring this up, but did you know that Taiwan has one of the densest air defense systems in the world, equipped with American SAMs, Western fighters (with pilots who get two to three times the number of flying hours that the PRC pilots get) and that system would slaughter an airborne assault unless after several weeks of fighting it was worn down (I don't see that happening without the world taking notice do you?)

Okay, you are one of those folks who bristle at any criticism of the Unites States, right?
Not really. I'm one of those who is disgusted with folks who interject on a global political debate by managing to blame the US or say who will the US next pick a fight with. Honest now if your going to make such an asinine comment expect some criticism to flow back your way. Of course you seem to be one of the type to feel that any criticism of your belief must make the person something else...its fun to jump to conclusions isnt it?


Let's look at your two previous scenarios. In the first you claim Taiwan will drag its feet until it can safely declare independence. That will never happen. Others have posted explanations for why, but suffice it to say that Chinese policy, Taiwanese policy, and American policy are all for One China. China will no more allow Taiwan to declare independence than the U.S. would allow New York to succeed. Nor will the U.S. spill American blood to prevent what it has said it supports through seven American administrations.

The New York scenario is the one that is ridiculious. Apples and oranges as it where. Frankly unless you can predict the future what is to say what Taiwanese policy will continue to be? They're already funding groups who lobby the UN for offical reconginition. All it takes is for another Hainan island incident before the US starts considering selling Taiwan Arleigh Brukes once more and wondering about recongizing Taiwan was well. The One China Policy is to keep China from declaring said war on Taiwan. It was started by Truman and frankly that was another foulup during his Administration. The only reason that Eisenhower didnt stop it from going on was because during the 50s the Soviet Union and China were real buddy buddy. In the 60s-early 70s Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon had to deal with the Soviets and Vietnamese as their biggest problems. In the late 70s Ford and Carter together couldnt make a decent President and so the US stopped major involvements overseas. In the 80s Reagan went on a spending spree to spend the Russians into oblivion and thus with the end of the Cold War it no longer became an issue should Taiwan be independant but now who cares? The Taiwanese do. Which is why every so often they elect someone who is pro-independence to the top seat in office. To thumb their nose at their cousins on the mainland and to prove that they can do whatever the hell they want to.


The second scenario involves South Korea going to war with China because China involves itself in North Korean affairs? South Korea (as well as Japan and the United States) are anxiously waiting for China to do just that and fear the reason they haven’t is that they may have lost some leverage over the North Korean government.

Both Korea’s, historically China’s “Little Brother,” recognize China as the dominant nation in Asia. Last year China replaced the United States as South Korea’s chief trading partner. This also mirrors the growing political friction between South Korea and the U.S. (remember the reception to the U.S. soccer team at the World Cup games?). Neither Korea can afford to turn its back on China and it is difficult to imagine any scenario where these historically close people go to war.

South Korea may be trading with China but that is because the RoK wants to try and influence the Chinese away from supporting the DPRK. As for the cold reception we got at the World Cup, much like in the US you've got two cultures forming. Those who remember the Korean War and those who are to young to remember. Those to young to remember dislike US soldiers on their land. Those old enough to remember want to keep the US around. Not to mention last year the US wasnt winning popularity contests with the start of the war in Iraq.

Now in the past Korea as a whole was a puppet state to the Chinese.The Chinese probably wouldnt mind this happening again either through military expansion or through economic power. The Koreans know this and dont want to see it happen again. Which means if the PRC crosses the Yalu to take over the North you can expect their to be violence and condemnation.

It is true the Chinese don't have the sheer power to overwhelm the Taiwanese, but from what I have read, the most likely scenario is that China will simply airdrop crack troops into the capital Taipei and try to hold that, hoping that if they cut off the head the body will die. Most of Taiwan's military are just spoiled kids completing mandatory military service and wouldn't be a match for Chinese special forces. Furthermore, a number of Taiwan's generals supposedly subscribe to the same greater china nationalist ideology that their mainland counterparts do and would probably refuse to fight. After seizing the capital chinese paratroopers would probably quickly install pro reunification Taiwanese politicans to issue proclamations to the people accept the reunification of China while the Chinese Navy ferries reinforcements to restore order. If the Chinese move fast enough it could work I think.
Alot of problems with that...planes that drop airborne units are slow and undefended. No Chinese fighters have the ability or range to defend them over Taiwan,whose aircraft ALL outlass anything China has. An airdrop, even in the best conditions, is a risky,high casualty operation. This would not be the best of times.
Also, while most Taiwanese,probably, still follow the One China idea, for them as well as for the US, it is a convenient hypocrisy. They want one China, as long as it is THEM. The Taiwanese military, contrary to what you may read, is one of the most professional militaries in the Asian sphere if you will. They and S Korea and Japan,also use US equiptment,proven to be far superior to the other choices already. And lastly, there is no Chinese navy able to ferry reinforcements, the Chinese navy is estimated to have the ability to amphibiously drop 3 battalions at a time, and it would be a one-trip deal if they survived the first trip even. 3 battalions is approximately 1 Brigade, which is 1/3 of 1 division, which, to finish the math lesson, is not enough to go on the offensive against a modern well equipped army,backed by the worlds strongest navy and air force.

I hate to bring this up, but did you know that Taiwan has one of the densest air defense systems in the world, equipped with American SAMs, Western fighters (with pilots who get two to three times the number of flying hours that the PRC pilots get) and that system would slaughter an airborne assault unless after several weeks of fighting it was worn down (I don't see that happening without the world taking notice do you?)

Of course it wouldn't be a bloodless invasion, but most of the Taiwanese fighters would be destroyed by hundreds of Chinese cruise missiles while they were sitting on the runway. The Taiwanese wouldn't have time to scramble most of their fighters but the ones that did would probably do some damage. The chinese are catching up with the advanced aircraft though. The J-7 (or is it the J-8 I forget) is basically a F-16 thanks to the miracle of reverse engineering and our "allies" Israel and Pakistan selling China advanced American military equipment.

the United States better hope China doesn't do anything to cause it to declare war. They barely have a large enough army to hold Iraq let alone take on China. I find it more likely that there would be another cold war between the US and China before outright war.

The One China Policy is to keep China from declaring said war on Taiwan. It was started by Truman and frankly that was another foulup during his Administration.

Look, there is a degree of antagonism to your posts I fail to understand in the context of this discussion. You say my claim of the U.S. threat to world peace is asinine, but offer no reasoned response to my arguments.

I don’t mean to be condescending, but in my opinion you would benefit from a little more research into this topic. Your failure to understand that the One China Policy did not emerge from the Truman Administration, but rather was endorsed in the Shanghai communiqué, signed by Nixon and Mao in 1972, and later formalized by Carter in 1978, indicates you may not have a full grasp of the subject.

Of course it wouldn't be a bloodless invasion, but most of the Taiwanese fighters would be destroyed by hundreds of Chinese cruise missiles while they were sitting on the runway. The Taiwanese wouldn't have time to scramble most of their fighters but the ones that did would probably do some damage. The chinese are catching up with the advanced aircraft though. The J-7 (or is it the J-8 I forget) is basically a F-16 thanks to the miracle of reverse engineering and our "allies" Israel and Pakistan selling China advanced American military equipment.

We talking about the PRC right? A nation that hasn't won a foreign war in a 1000 years except a brush with India in the Himalayas over 40 year ago. Nobody has attempted a major airborne assault since World War 2. The Chinese have 3 airborne divisions, and enough aircraft to lift one. The J7 is essentially a Lavi/F16 early model version... now the J8 (which is going to be a Mig29 clone) and the J10 (should it ever reach production) could be interesting but neither are in service yet, and the J8 is expected to begin production in a couple of years. The PRC has roughly 3,000 jet fighters, of which, 2000 are 1960s designs with now ECM and make excellent targets for modern air to air missiles. The other 1000, about 500 are relatively first rate Su27s, Mig29s, and the new J8, the rest are upengined Mig21s with 1970s electronics. So basically, the PRC has 500 modern aircraft against roughly 300 Taiwanese modern aircraft. The PRC also has a severe shortage of tankers, and Taiwan is at the outer edge of the combat radius of their aircraft.

There won't be a PRC airborne assault on Taiwan in the next five years.
At least, not a successful one.

The best plan the PRC would have would be naval blockade, assuming the US let them, or for that matter, the Japanese let them, or the Taiwanese Navy let them.

Of course it wouldn't be a bloodless invasion, but most of the Taiwanese fighters would be destroyed by hundreds of Chinese cruise missiles while they were sitting on the runway. The Taiwanese wouldn't have time to scramble most of their fighters but the ones that did would probably do some damage. The chinese are catching up with the advanced aircraft though. The J-7 (or is it the J-8 I forget) is basically a F-16 thanks to the miracle of reverse engineering and our "allies" Israel and Pakistan selling China advanced American military equipment.
There is no way for China to surprise Taiwan like you are talking about. Taiwan does not only occupy the island of Taiwan, they also occupy several islands between China and Taiwan, used as "listening posts" if you will.Also the US navy nearly always is monitoring Chinese forces, as are US satellites.
A de facto state of war exists between the military of Taiwan and that of China, when China makes a move that looks threatening, Taiwanese forces and bases go to alert. The launch of test missiles(the only kind China has with the range to hit Taiwan) back in 1996 drew American AND Taiwanese attention within moments of their launch, and Taiwanese aircraft already were scrambling at northern bases.
Today there were papers declassified and reported on in the press that during Clinton's term, 1998, the US drew up plans for nuclear strikes on N Korea in the event of an invasion of the south. While not being a nuclear fan, the possibility that we could, in effect, destroy China,including their own nuclear arsenal(not hidden by any means)would cause them to pause,and in war, that pause itself would be disasterous for them.

Look, there is a degree of antagonism to your posts I fail to understand in the context of this discussion. You say my claim of the U.S. threat to world peace is asinine, but offer no reasoned response to my arguments.

I don’t mean to be condescending, but in my opinion you would benefit from a little more research into this topic. Your failure to understand that the One China Policy did not emerge from the Truman Administration, but rather was endorsed in the Shanghai communiqué, signed by Nixon and Mao in 1972, and later formalized by Carter in 1978, indicates you may not have a full grasp of the subject.

Well, I am familiar with the One China Policy and previous US policy on Taiwan. Even though that there is only one China is the official policy of the US, the de facto policy is that the US Navy defends Taiwan. During the Clinton Administration and early on in this one, whenever the PRC conducted large scale exercises near Taiwan, did the US Navy steam into the area with a carrier battle group? The answer is yes it did.

The question is will it continue to do so? The current Administration may have blundered again when it reaffirmed that policy with Powell's speech, but I think if it came to it, another PRC massive exercise will see the 7th Fleet make another visit to the Taiwan Straits.

Look, there is a degree of antagonism to your posts I fail to understand in the context of this discussion. You say my claim of the U.S. threat to world peace is asinine, but offer no reasoned response to my arguments.

I don’t mean to be condescending, but in my opinion you would benefit from a little more research into this topic. Your failure to understand that the One China Policy did not emerge from the Truman Administration, but rather was endorsed in the Shanghai communiqué, signed by Nixon and Mao in 1972, and later formalized by Carter in 1978, indicates you may not have a full grasp of the subject.
While I agree with alot of what you are saying, New York, Ogiek is correct here. At first, the US"One China"policy favored Taiwan. Nixon switched, for strategic interests, to favor PRC as a counterweight to the Sov Union.

Yeah, Iran and China are like peanutbutter and jelly. Check this out:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK06Ak01.html

Yeah I see - if China is dishing out hundreds of billions to Iran in energy deals it kinda marginallizes US unilateral sanctions - China is saying screw you USA, we dont give a crap about your efforts to project power in the middle east. We need what we need - I dont think the US would even try to hint of an iraq-like policy towards Iran with this information.

It would be beyond the stupid that is just bellow obvious that this administration has managed to maintain - it would be a blatant "IM STUPID" statement to the world, ending all political capital the US has with the international community.

So its back to the unspoken ongoing coldwar with the remaining communist bloc - China itself, and its surrogate North Korea.

We talking about the PRC right? A nation that hasn't won a foreign war in a 1000 years except a brush with India in the Himalayas over 40 year ago. Nobody has attempted a major airborne assault since World War 2. The Chinese have 3 airborne divisions, and enough aircraft to lift one. The J7 is essentially a Lavi/F16 early model version... now the J8 (which is going to be a Mig27 clone) and the J10 (should it ever reach production) could be interesting but neither are in service yet, and the J8 is expected to begin production in a couple of years. The PRC has roughly 3,000 jet fighters, of which, 2000 are 1960s designs with now ECM and make excellent targets for modern air to air missiles. The other 1000, about 500 are relatively first rate Su27s, Mig29s, and the new J8, the rest are upengined Mig21s with 1970s electronics. So basically, the PRC has 500 modern aircraft against roughly 300 Taiwanese modern aircraft. The PRC also has a severe shortage of tankers, and Taiwan is at the outer edge of the combat radius of their aircraft.

There won't be a PRC airborne assault on Taiwan in the next five years.
At least, not a successful one.

The best plan the PRC would have would be naval blockade, assuming the US let them, or for that matter, the Japanese let them, or the Taiwanese Navy let them.

Well, to be accurate the People's Republic of China has only existed since 1949, although perhaps they could be given credit for their victory over the Nationalists, as well as their contribution in expelling the Japanese during World War II. I believe they also achieved their objective in Korea in the early 50s and many people still protest their conquest of Tibet.

Your general point, however, is well taken in that, with the exception of the conquest of Southeast Asia under the Yuan (which, as Mongols, you may not consider true Chinese) China has not been known for its foreign conquest - which was my original point that China is not a historically expansionist nation.

I have some advice. All of you give up pretending you have a clue how the world works. I burst out laughing at least three times reading the first two pages of this thread. It's been said before, if you want to know what an uninformed idiot thinks, post the question on the internet. This thread pretty much proves that point.

the United States better hope China doesn't do anything to cause it to declare war. They barely have a large enough army to hold Iraq let alone take on China. I find it more likely that there would be another cold war between the US and China before outright war.
They are different missions. Our army,by the way, is plenty large enough for Iraq AND another contingency.
That said, the US would not need to attack, and in war, you can "play defense" with 5:1 odds AGAINST you, and still do quite well.

I have some advice. All of you give up pretending you have a clue how the world works. I burst out laughing at least three times reading the first two pages of this thread. It's been said before, if you want to know what an uninformed idiot thinks, post the question on the internet. This thread pretty much proves that point.
:)Actually, I am fairly certain that at least three people on this thread have a definite knowledge of the situation, and I am inclined to believe that one other has some good points as well.

true enough the US has actually deployed less than a third of its forces in Iraq - it would test US forces but we could in theory maintain our position in Iraq while engading North Korea with a mln troops in concert with countinous air support from carrier groups.

US policy since 1972 is a detente with China. It originated with Kissinger, and is essentially based on the belief that an afluent, prosperous and capitalist China won't be nearly as bellicose and as outright fascist as a typical Leftist regime, say that of the Soviet Union or the hereditary feudal Leftist despotries in North Korea and Cuba. The assumption is enforced by the intertwined nature of both economies, which have come to depend on each other.

As for Taiwan, it is already an independant country and has been so for decades. This is not likely to change any time in the near future as the PRC is busy conquering Nepal right now, and also because any attempt by the Chinese to annex the ROC would be disasterous to China, both politically and militarily.

In 1979 the Chinese, in response to teh conquest of their Cambodian client by Vietnam, made a drive on Hanoi. They barely made their way 10 miles in a week - little more than a mile a day - and suffered 100,000 casualties doing it. In that instance, the Chinese had a land corridor. A PRC attack on Taiwan would have to contend with 100 miles of water and several US carrier groups, as well as a swarm of the finest combat aircraft in the world. Such a fight would be extremely one-sided.

Most of Taiwan's military are just spoiled kids completing mandatory military service and wouldn't be a match for Chinese special forces.

Please. The PRC barely put down an unarmed student rebellion in Beijing in 1989. This isn't the 5th and 8th Route Armies we're talking about.

What recent historical instance is behind this near-glowing assessment of Chinese military excellence? Please fill me in.

Chinese policy, Taiwanese policy, and American policy are all for One China.

True, but in the case of the Kuomintang that means a Nationalist regime in China, and an abolition of the Chinese Communist Party. Whereas for all practical purposes the Republic of China aka Taiwan is an independant and sovereign state.

I assume all this posturing is an attempt to save Chinese "face". All parties are well aware of how unstable the PRC regime is in mainland China, but no one want to see a violent transition or a civil war. Like the earlier poster implied, the Taiwanese are "waiting out" the mainland Maoists until - like the Soviet Union - the corrupt apparatus collapses of its own accord. At that point I expect a unification would not only occur but, like in East and West Germany, be welcomed by both nations.

China will no more allow Taiwan to declare independence than the U.S. would allow New York to succeed (sic).

More like Puerto Rico. And yes, were the islanders to vote for independance we would allow them to secede without interference. But then again, we are not nearly as militaristic and as unstable as a typical Left-wing regime, thus we can tolerate independant thought and dissent on the part of our citizenry (as opposed to, say, the PRC's reaction to the Falun Gong).

But don't mind me. What do I know. Believe what you like. :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylestania
I have some advice. All of you give up pretending you have a clue how the world works. I burst out laughing at least three times reading the first two pages of this thread. It's been said before, if you want to know what an uninformed idiot thinks, post the question on the internet. This thread pretty much proves that point.


Actually, I am fairly certain that at least three people on this thread have a definite knowledge of the situation, and I am inclined to believe that one other has some good points as well.

____________________________________________________________

Okay I give up - I dont know jack about geopolitics - Im roleplaying somebody that might know something - Im actually just an undergraduate engineering student. Goodnight :D

Well, to be accurate the People's Republic of China has only existed since 1949, although perhaps they could be given credit for their victory over the Nationalists, as well as their contribution in expelling the Japanese during World War II. I believe they also achieved their objective in Korea in the early 50s and many people still protest their conquest of Tibet.

Your general point, however, is well taken in that, with the exception of the conquest of Southeast Asia under the Yuan (which, as Mongols, you may not consider true Chinese) China has not been known for its foreign conquest - which was my original point that China is not a historically expansionist nation.

I agree with you but China would not consider a Taiwan invasion "expansionist", no more than Lincoln considered the Civil War expansionist. The PRC also repelled many little publicized invasions of Kuomintang forces from Burma in the 1950s and killed some american CIA in the process. China's defeat by Vietnam was certainly an embarrasment though.

As far as the size of the US Army goes, it could increase in size in a hurry should there be a need. The only thing that would guarantee the return of the draft would be a war with China. It would be a neccessity then. During the Cold War the US had a volunteer army of 16 Divisions. Right now the Army has 10 divisions. It could without the draft (and will probably have to) increase that by a couple of divisions. With the draft, the US has 10 regular and 12 NG divisions, and the capability to quickly raise several more (its complex but it could using Army Reserve training divisions and forming cadres from the regulars). In World War 2 the US went from 28 divisions (regular and NG) in 1940 to 89 divisions by 1943 (most of them combat ready by then too). The US population is roughly twice as large and the economy is far more productive than it was in 1945, so figure at least that number could be raised. The PRC had to cut the number of its divisions so that it could afford to modernize the rest (by 1 million troops total). So really, the current PRC Army isn't that much bigger, even with the NKPA, than the combined US and ROK Army upon mobilization. (and thats not counting additional US divisions raised by a full mobilization, I am counting only the 30 NG, USMC and Regular Army divisions currently in existance or that could be quickly raised)

Numbers aren't always what you think.

The last ground war with China was a strategic American defensive victory in defending South Korea (its still there) and a Strategic (and exceptionally costly) PRC victory in making sure the US didn't invade them (a justifiable fear for the PRC) (that the US except MacArthur had no plans for that is beside the point from a PRC perspective).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylestania
I have some advice. All of you give up pretending you have a clue how the world works. I burst out laughing at least three times reading the first two pages of this thread. It's been said before, if you want to know what an uninformed idiot thinks, post the question on the internet. This thread pretty much proves that point.


Actually, I am fairly certain that at least three people on this thread have a definite knowledge of the situation, and I am inclined to believe that one other has some good points as well.

____________________________________________________________

Okay I give up - I dont know jack about geopolitics - Im roleplaying somebody that might know something - Im actually just an undergraduate engineering student. Goodnight :D
Well, you weren't one of the three, nothing personal;) But good talking with you:)

I have some advice. All of you give up pretending you have a clue how the world works. I burst out laughing at least three times reading the first two pages of this thread. It's been said before, if you want to know what an uninformed idiot thinks, post the question on the internet. This thread pretty much proves that point.

I'm so embarrassed. Kylestania has exposed me as an uninformed fraud. I'm going to slink away in shame.

Good night all.

As far as the size of the US Army goes, it could increase in size in a hurry should there be a need. The only thing that would guarantee the return of the draft would be a war with China. It would be a neccessity then. During the Cold War the US had a volunteer army of 16 Divisions. Right now the Army has 10 divisions. It could without the draft (and will probably have to) increase that by a couple of divisions. With the draft, the US has 10 regular and 12 NG divisions, and the capability to quickly raise several more (its complex but it could using Army Reserve training divisions and forming cadres from the regulars). In World War 2 the US went from 28 divisions (regular and NG) in 1940 to 89 divisions by 1943 (most of them combat ready by then too). The US population is roughly twice as large and the economy is far more productive than it was in 1945, so figure at least that number could be raised. The PRC had to cut the number of its divisions so that it could afford to modernize the rest (by 1 million troops total). So really, the current PRC Army isn't that much bigger, even with the NKPA, than the combined US and ROK Army upon mobilization. (and thats not counting additional US divisions raised by a full mobilization, I am counting only the 30 NG, USMC and Regular Army divisions currently in existance or that could be quickly raised)

Numbers aren't always what you think.

The last ground war with China was a strategic American defensive victory in defending South Korea (its still there) and a Strategic (and exceptionally costly) PRC victory in making sure the US didn't invade them (a justifiable fear for the PRC) (that the US except MacArthur had no plans for that is beside the point from a PRC perspective).
Well put. Add to that the fact that the PRC would never be able to concentrate on the US, unlike in Korea when they were still allied with the Soviets. They basically HAVE to keep a large force to deal with the Russians, who may not be where the Red Army once was, but are quickly modernising themselves as well.
Also...to add divisions to the army isn't difficult,but in a volunteer army, they would really need to give us alot of incentive to stay in,pay raises, etc...but I wander from the subject.

I'm so embarrassed. Kylestania has exposed me as an uninformed fraud. I'm going to slink away in shame.

Good night all.
Take it easy Ogiek. For the record, though as you know I have at times disagreed with you, I enjoy talking with you, your arguments, even the ones I disagree with, are usually well thought out at least.

eventually a war with china will occur, but not for a while.
Thanks, but could you be more specific? As far as the when goes, that is. I could care less about the whys and hows, I just wanna know when.

The Russians didn't scare me.
OBL and the terrorists don't scare me.
Saddam Hussien never scared me.
China scares me.

A Sino-U.S. nuclear war over the issue of Taiwan would only result in the U.S. losing, not through capability but through the will to fight such a war. The Chinese have a retaliatory policy with their nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not. With the Chinese having a history of living up to their diplomatic words, who's most likely to be the aggressor?

The Americans, living constantly under such lavish luxury do not even have to will to fight the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents, so how are they going to deal with an enemy that is at least ten times the Iraqis in number and far better armed than the Iraqis. The U.S. will lost patience and allow nuclear action. Should such an event occur, it would be the Chinese that suffer ten nukes and they only have to retaliate with one to bring the Americans to the peace table. Americans (always valuing human life have no will to withstand one nuclear attack, as we have witnessed in the conventional strikes in 9/11), while it would even be beneficial for Chinese reconstruction to have a lower population. Chinese ICBM numbers may be scant but there is plenty of CZ series space rockets to replenish the numbers. Nuclear capabilities of the Chinese now include MIRVs and solid-fuelled ICBMs. With global consequences for a thermonuclear war, no nuclear power in the world is willing to fight with such deadly arms. The potential for another open Indo-Pakistani war simmered down as the two rival now both have nukes, despite the scores of Kashmir and three previous wars to settle.

http://www.sinodefence.com/nuclear/icbm/df31.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/nuclear/icbm/df41.asp

Scenarios of Sino-U.S. war is unlikely as the American are too smart to involve themselves into any sort of conflict that brings more ill than harm to their economy and politics. Iraq for example had oil, but Taiwan, Taiwan has few resources to off, but only three million Chinese troops breathing down their necks. The U.S. liars never lived up to their word in Vietnam and the Vietnamese were a weaker enemy compared to China, so are they going to live up to their word in Taiwan when all the dreams of glory fade.

Over the Korean Peninsula (that is if the current Chinese regime is even showing the slightest willingness to back the North Koreans), the North Koreans can sort themselves out as they have the world's largest armed force (six million men total). It is unlikely that direct conflict over the Korean peninsula will result as the North Koreans now have nukes also.

In conclusion, it would be best for Uncle Sam to keep monopolizing the world's oil supply and keep the Arabs at bay.

Think of it this way....
snip
the US and China have a very profitable business relationship and China would not want to disturb that, regardless of how much they's like to take Taiwan back.
Yeah, we wouldn't want all the Wall-Marts to go out of business. That would be tragic.
:rolleyes:

Thanks, but could you be more specific? As far as the when goes, that is. I could care less about the whys and hows, I just wanna know when.

The Russians didn't scare me.
OBL and the terrorists don't scare me.
Saddam Hussien never scared me.
China scares me.

WTF? The Chinese don't even match the U.S. in nuclear arms unlike the Russians. Bin Laden has specific agenda to destroy the U.S., China don't. In fact, if American foreign policy is clearly based on your opinions, the Americans would be focussed on nothing but the see the Chinese race wiped out.

A Sino-U.S. nuclear war over the issue of Taiwan would only result in the U.S. losing, not through capability but through the will to fight such a war. The Chinese have a retaliatory policy with their nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not. With the Chinese having a history of living up to their diplomatic words, who's most likely to be the aggressor?

The Americans, living constantly under such lavish luxury do not even have to will to fight the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents, so how are they going to deal with an enemy that is at least ten times the Iraqis in number and far better armed than the Iraqis. The U.S. will lost patience and allow nuclear action. Should such an event occur, it would be the Chinese that suffer ten nukes and they only have to retaliate with one to bring the Americans to the peace table. Americans (always valuing human life have no will to withstand one nuclear attack, as we have witnessed in the conventional strikes in 9/11), while it would even be beneficial for Chinese reconstruction to have a lower population. Chinese ICBM numbers may be scant but there is plenty of CZ series space rockets to replenish the numbers. Nuclear capabilities of the Chinese now include MIRVs and solid-fuelled ICBMs. With global consequences for a thermonuclear war, no nuclear power in the world is willing to fight with such deadly arms. The potential for another open Indo-Pakistani war simmered down as the two rival now both have nukes, despite the scores of Kashmir and three previous wars to settle.

Scenarios of Sino-U.S. war is unlikely as the American are too smart to involve themselves into any sort of conflict that brings more ill than harm to their economy and politics. Iraq for example had oil, but Taiwan, Taiwan has few resources to off, but only three million Chinese troops breathing down their necks.

Over the Korean Peninsula (that is if the current Chinese regime is even showing the slightest willingness to back the North Koreans), the North Koreans can sort themselves out as they have the world's largest armed force (six million men total). It is unlikely that direct conflict over the Korean peninsula will result as the North Koreans now have nukes also.

In conclusion, it would be best for Uncle Sam to keep monopolizing the world's oil supply and keep the Arabs at bay.
Actually nearly 60million Americans disagree with the "no will to fight"idea, as Iraq wound up being a large issue in the election. As for the Americans DOING the fighting, yes, no question of a will to fight, either.
As for retaliatory policy? PRC has 10-13 nuclear warheads, aimed at Russia and the US. The US policy has ALWAYS been retaliatory,in that official stated policy has been using WMD of any kind equates to nuclear weapons, and would be met with such. The US could , in the days of that policy, have laid waste to every single Chinese city and military base, but likely would have lost a couple of our own cities as well,in California(the only place Chinese missiles can reach) A horrible deal for the US, a very angry US population, but a completely destroyed Chinese culture, and that is a trade China would lose, and so never make. NOW, the policy is preemptive, meaning a threat, once it is identified, may be dealt with preemptively. The location of every single Chinese warhead is known,not as a great secret,either,just as the US and Sovs used to track each others. Before China would have the ability,now, to even fuel their missiles, a task that is not automatic,both Russia and the US, who both are targets of those missiles, likely would destroy the launch sites.
As for the Chinese Army, yes, huge. Not equipped up to US standards, not trained up to US standards,and stuck on the mainland, where we don't care if they stay anyway.

WTF? The Chinese don't even match the U.S. in nuclear arms unlike the Russians. Bin Laden has specific agenda to destroy the U.S., China don't. In fact, if American foreign policy is clearly based on your opinions, the Americans would be focussed on nothing but the see the Chinese race wiped out.
I was going to state the same thing, but you said it first.

A Sino-U.S. nuclear war over the issue of Taiwan would only result in the U.S. losing, not through capability but through the will to fight such a war. The Chinese have a retaliatory policy with their nuclear weapons and the U.S. does not. With the Chinese having a history of living up to their diplomatic words, who's most likely to be the aggressor?

The Americans, living constantly under such lavish luxury do not even have to will to fight the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents, so how are they going to deal with an enemy that is at least ten times the Iraqis in number and far better armed than the Iraqis. The U.S. will lost patience and allow nuclear action. Should such an event occur, it would be the Chinese that suffer ten nukes and they only have to retaliate with one to bring the Americans to the peace table. Americans (always valuing human life have no will to withstand one nuclear attack, as we have witnessed in the conventional strikes in 9/11), while it would even be beneficial for Chinese reconstruction to have a lower population. Chinese ICBM numbers may be scant but there is plenty of CZ series space rockets to replenish the numbers. Nuclear capabilities of the Chinese now include MIRVs and solid-fuelled ICBMs. With global consequences for a thermonuclear war, no nuclear power in the world is willing to fight with such deadly arms. The potential for another open Indo-Pakistani war simmered down as the two rival now both have nukes, despite the scores of Kashmir and three previous wars to settle.

Scenarios of Sino-U.S. war is unlikely as the American are too smart to involve themselves into any sort of conflict that brings more ill than harm to their economy and politics. Iraq for example had oil, but Taiwan, Taiwan has few resources to off, but only three million Chinese troops breathing down their necks.

Over the Korean Peninsula (that is if the current Chinese regime is even showing the slightest willingness to back the North Koreans), the North Koreans can sort themselves out as they have the world's largest armed force (six million men total). It is unlikely that direct conflict over the Korean peninsula will result as the North Koreans now have nukes also.

In conclusion, it would be best for Uncle Sam to keep monopolizing the world's oil supply and keep the Arabs at bay.


Did you read any of the previous posts at all?

The PRC has 10 ICBMs with the range to reach the continental US. These have one warhead each. The US still has 500 ICBMs (although now with only 1 warhead each because of the START treaty). The only time the US is likely to use nuclear weapons is if the situation is desperate, or if the other side uses them first. Most likely, we will use conventional weapons to try and take out the PRC and NKPA nuclear weapons (the missiles)... missiles in silos, unlike SCUDs on trucks, don't move and can easily be found.

The PRC built that many to make a point only.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that in the late 1960s the Soviets wanted to launch a massive nuclear strike on the PRC and the US said no (mostly because the radiation would have wiped out Korea and Japan, not to mention that genocide is not US policy).

You have made the fundamental assumption everyone has made in the 20th and 21st Century about the US. "Americans are too soft to fight". I can think of lots of examples, but then, since your mind is made up, you wouldn't believe them anyway. However, you are so clearly wrong and there are so many examples that refute you I will simply let everyone else (especially those who are in the service now) refute your assumptions.

Even assuming the liquid fueled PRC ICBMs were ever actually used, there is a good chance that about half wouldn't work (as even US ICBMs are estimated to have about an 80% chance of working, and they are solid rockets). Those that hit will ensure that the US would eridicate the Chinese government and military with every weapon available. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are good examples of what it takes to enrage the American people. Hiroshima is a good example of what happens at the end of that anger.

Don't underestimate America, Germany and Japan did and look where they are. At least the Soviets were smart enough to be terrified of us (a central reason, one of many, for the Cold War and why nobody ever fought World War 3). Just as we were terrified of them (why we still have 550 Minuteman for one thing).

the Balance of Terror turns out to have been a good thing.

Hmm. I'd think a sneak nuclear attack by China could, no, would rile the United States up enough that we'd DEMAND that the President nuke 'em to hell. Look what happened in 9/11. Less than a year later, we're bombing the hell out of the Taliban. It'd only take 30 minutes, then another 30 or so minutes for millions of people to die.

As for the first question, I'd say that war with China over Taiwan or as a result of DPRK invading/nuking ROK and the US retaliating is quite possible, even likely. However, any war plan would be put on hold until after the 2008 Olympics, since Beijing wants to be put in the best light until then.

Did you read any of the previous posts at all?

The PRC has 10 ICBMs with the range to reach the continental US. These have one warhead each. The US still has 500 ICBMs (although now with only 1 warhead each because of the START treaty). The only time the US is likely to use nuclear weapons is if the situation is desperate, or if the other side uses them first. Most likely, we will use conventional weapons to try and take out the PRC and NKPA nuclear weapons (the missiles)... missiles in silos, unlike SCUDs on trucks, don't move and can easily be found.

The PRC built that many to make a point only.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that in the late 1960s the Soviets wanted to launch a massive nuclear strike on the PRC and the US said no (mostly because the radiation would have wiped out Korea and Japan, not to mention that genocide is not US policy).

You have made the fundamental assumption everyone has made in the 20th and 21st Century about the US. "Americans are too soft to fight". I can think of lots of examples, but then, since your mind is made up, you wouldn't believe them anyway. However, you are so clearly wrong and there are so many examples that refute you I will simply let everyone else (especially those who are in the service now) refute your assumptions.

Even assuming the liquid fueled PRC ICBMs were ever actually used, there is a good chance that about half wouldn't work (as even US ICBMs are estimated to have about an 80% chance of working, and they are solid rockets). Those that hit will ensure that the US would eridicate the Chinese government and military with every weapon available. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are good examples of what it takes to enrage the American people. Hiroshima is a good example of what happens at the end of that anger.

Don't underestimate America, Germany and Japan did and look where they are. At least the Soviets were smart enough to be terrified of us (a central reason, one of many, for the Cold War and why nobody ever fought World War 3). Just as we were terrified of them (why we still have 550 Minuteman for one thing).

the Balance of Terror turns out to have been a good thing.
Well said...just a quick pointer on the too soft to fight argument...I really am amused that so many of the same people who believe the US is a warmongering,imperial power, ALSO make the assumption Americans are too soft to fight...anyway,just thought that was ironic. ;)

Hmm. I'd think a sneak nuclear attack by China could, no, would rile the United States up enough that we'd DEMAND that the President nuke 'em to hell. Look what happened in 9/11. Less than a year later, we're bombing the hell out of the Taliban. It'd only take 30 minutes, then another 30 or so minutes for millions of people to die.

As for the first question, I'd say that war with China over Taiwan or as a result of DPRK invading/nuking ROK and the US retaliating is quite possible, even likely. However, any war plan would be put on hold until after the 2008 Olympics, since Beijing wants to be put in the best light until then.
The Olympic portion would almost sound funny, but it is a serious consideration also, China has invested a great deal of money,time,and prestige to be seen in the best possible light there, so likely will totally "behave" for that long at least.

Don't underestimate America, Germany and Japan did and look where they are.

Yes, two of the world's leading manufacturing/high tech economies, exporting billions of dollars in machinery and electronics across the world.

For losers, Germany and Japan sure did pretty good!

A war with China over Taiwan?

I think if push came to shove, the USA would simply place limited trade embargoes against the Chinese should they attempt to take Taiwan. However, the USA is not obligated to defend the island, only to support it. I don't think any US President would risk a full scale war with China, although if ever a serious conflict did erupt the USA is far more capable and well equipped to emerge victorious. :sniper:

The J-7 (or is it the J-8 I forget)

nah...i think its up to j-11. at least its up to something 11 in chinese, and the equivilent of the mig 29 or something.

and i din't think the us would try to invade china. even if they won (which i think they probably will) they'll suffer heavy losses. look to 'nam-and china's much more powerful. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: ..hehe...i like gun smilies...

ps. first post!

Yes, two of the world's leading manufacturing/high tech economies, exporting billions of dollars in machinery and electronics across the world.

For losers, Germany and Japan sure did pretty good!
They were nearly destroyed, and rebuilt with American money, so the original intent of his post stands, they underestimated the US, and suffered greatly for it.

China is never ever going to start a war with the US, or do anything that could be construed as tempting the US to start a war.

Americans believe that everyone is out to get them because neo-cons have been lying to them about it since the 1950s. In fact China is perfectly happy to grow its influence through trade and cultural exchange.

Has modern China ever declared war on anyone? I can only recall the annexation of Tibet. They came out for the North Koreans in the Korean War, but was that before or after the UK and US came out for the South Koreans?

And if China invades North Korea (and do you have any reason to believe that this is going to happen?) what does that have to do with the US? North Korea isn't US territory.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that China is planning to retake Taiwan by force any time this century. Or get its own back on Japan.

It would appear many people have difficulty defining the United States in the absence of a rival. After the fall of the Soviet Union (and anyone who has visited the remains of that sad and pathetic nation knows we were sold a bill of goods on that rivalry) many hawks in the U.S. have been searching for a replacement adversary. Radical Islam makes for a poor choice because it has no real competing ideology that other nations find appealing. The war on terrorism as a substitute for the Cold War, while having the benefit of allowing the U.S. government to crack down on dissent (ala the Red Scares of the past) is ultimately an unsatisfactory replacement, mainly because terrorism is not an enemy, but rather a tactic used in warfare.

So, although they spend eight times less on their military than does the United States, and have no history or ideology of expansionism, by default we are left with China.

The original question of this thread (Will the U.S. and China eventually go to war?) seems to have devolved into war game scenarios, with the focus shifting from the possibility of war with China to various permutations of role playing a Sino-American war.

And while many got caught up imagining unlikely conflict possibilities involving Taiwan and the Koreas, overlooked was the one salient point made by young master "New York and Jersey", which is the growing conflict over world oil production. It is this area, I believe, that holds the greatest potential for friction between the U.S. and China, and unfortunately, it would appear the U.S. is the primary driving force behind the conflict.

As I mentioned, China is the third greatest producer of energy in the world, but also the second largest consumer, after the United States. China has become a net importer of oil, about half of which comes from Saudi Arabia, so in that sense China closely mirrors the U.S.

Nearly one out of every three barrels of oil reserves in the world is found in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Currently 2/3s of that oil goes to the west, but in the near future 3/4s of it will go to Asia, especially China. Combine these facts with the geopolitical vision driving the current Republican Neo-Con policy toward Iraq and the entire Middle East. Dick Cheney, et al, believe American dominance of global oil production is essential, not to supply American domestic needs, but rather, as leverage over other energy rivals, particularly Europe, Russia, and China.

This is not about oil as fuel, but rather oil as power.

Certainly China and the U.S. will continue to compete for world oil reserves as China modernizes. However, there can be little argument that it is the United States that has been the more belligerent of the two in seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf militarily.

Having defeated an expansionist Soviet Union, with its ideology of global domination, it would appear the United States now has adopted its own dreams of global hegemony, driven by a similarly intractable political philosophy of a small cabal of hard core ideologues.

Having defeated an expansionist Soviet Union, with its ideology of global domination, it would appear the United States now has adopted its own dreams of global hegemony, driven by a similarly intractable political philosophy of a small cobal of hard core ideologues.

Yep, the guy was called Leo Strauss and he convinced a bunch of people who convinced a bunch more that the US can achieve internal cohesion by stressing its role as the saviour of the world, attacked on all sides by the forces of chaos. Which used to be the USSR, then were the the terror networks controlled by Gadaffi's Libya (remember those? in the 80s? when the Taliban was the US's ally?) and now the terror networks are controlled by BinLaden (whose family is big buddies with Dubya's family) and Gadaffi is ok again.

So China is a handy hate figure. And even more handily, the US probably couldn't beat it in a war. So it won't actually attack. It will just keep its people paranoid.

Conservative supporters of the George Bush administration would benifit by reading about the Neo-Conservative philosophy that has taken hold in this government.

Leo Strauss, dependent as he is on his philosophical forebearers, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt (architects of German National Socialism), is the godfather of the Neo-Conservative movement.

The American Interprise Institute states simply that, "The neoconservatives advocate a paradigm shift in which the United States spreads American values by asserting American power-by force...." The neo-cons refer to this idealized future as "Pax-Americana," brought about by "beneficent hegemony."

Neoconservatives see the US's position as the only military superpower as an opportunity to implement a permanent world empire - they call this opportunity a "uni-polar moment." Where does China fit into this scenario? According to Neo-Cons Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly, of the Project of the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org):

"China looms as the barrier along the road from the current 'unipolar moment' to an extended pax Americana."

Some of the most prominent Neo-Cons in the current administration include Vice President Dick Cheney; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Douglas J. Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; and Richard Perle, former assistant Secretary of Defense.

......So, although they spend eight times less on their military than does the United States, and have no history or ideology of expansionism, by default we are left with China.

The original question of this thread (Will the U.S. and China eventually go to war?) seems to have devolved into war game scenarios, with the focus shifting from the possibility of war with China to various permutations of role playing a Sino-American war.

And while many got caught up imagining unlikely conflict possibilities involving Taiwan and the Koreas, overlooked was the one salient point made by young master "New York and Jersey", which is the growing conflict over world oil production. It is this area, I believe, that holds the greatest potential for friction between the U.S. and China, and unfortunately, it would appear the U.S. is the primary driving force behind the conflict.

As I mentioned, China is the third greatest producer of energy in the world, but also the second largest consumer, after the United States. China has become a net importer of oil, about half of which comes from Saudi Arabia, so in that sense China closely mirrors the U.S.

Nearly one out of every three barrels of oil reserves in the world is found in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Currently 2/3s of that oil goes to the west, but in the near future 3/4s of it will go to Asia, especially China. Combine these facts with the geopolitical vision driving the current Republican Neo-Con policy toward Iraq and the entire Middle East. Dick Cheney, et al, believe American dominance of global oil production is essential, not to supply American domestic needs, but rather, as leverage over other energy rivals, particularly Europe, Russia, and China.

This is not about oil as fuel, but rather oil as power.

Certainly China and the U.S. will continue to compete for world oil reserves as China modernizes. However, there can be little argument that it is the United States that has been the more belligerent of the two in seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf militarily.

Having defeated an expansionist Soviet Union, with its ideology of global domination, it would appear the United States now has adopted its own dreams of global hegemony, driven by a similarly intractable political philosophy of a small cabal of hard core ideologues.
Just want to make a couple of points then I will let you all have your fun as I won't have time for this today.
Reason this turned into wargame scenario- This is the major way any power on earth today makes military decisions. My point in using those initially here was to show the unliklihood of an *imminent*war with China, as their wargames and our own, both probably show they would lose, badly, and we would not win, either.
As far as oil reserves, there are untapped reserves in many areas of the world,as yet, including our own Alaska. Nevertheless, THAT would be the biggest reason for conflict at some point in the future, and it would hardly be the first time that ownership of natural resources was causus belli for war.
Your political points aside, as I completely disagree there, but I also can see where you are coming from, and it is just impossible to argue on that point,as there are too strong cases for both.
Also, China has not been the innocent, having done much to propel the possibility of cold war between the two powers, even to the point of putting out defense"white papers"stressing that the US is seen as THEIR primary opponent as well. China has since the 1970s been an aggressor in their own region, fighting Phillipine naval forces ,Vietnamese,Indian, etc. That said, I do not believe China really wishes to be a worldwide empire, but they make no secret of their wish to be an Asian superpower, at the expense of many nations, including Japan,Korea,Thailand,Malaysia,India,Vietnam, and the Philippines, ALL of whose governments prefer US presence in order to help defend against a threat THEY see, so do not say it is the US trying to find an enemy.

...

Leo Strauss, dependent as he is on his philosophical forebearers, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt (architects of German National Socialism), is the godfather of the Neo-Conservative movement.

...



Actually, Leo Strauss loathed Nietzshe. And Nietzshe wasnt an architect of the Nazi regime, Adolf Hitler just liked to read him, as he liked to hear Wagner. Personally, of what i've read of Nietzsche, i am taken to assume that if good old Friedrich got his hands on Adolf, he would strangle him.

After all, Nietzsche's passion was a jewish girl.

That is a war which will most likely never happen. Both of our country's leaders know damn well what would likely happen if that war ever did take place. There would be catastrophic repercussions felt in the world due to alliances internationally. That doesn't even factor in the nuclear element.
Also, with the Chinese people as a whole moving further and further from communism in its old form, the leaders of China will surely realize the futility of their regime and be forced to concede to more western influence, not to say that there is not one right now. With the influx of more and more American businesses such as McDonald's and Coca-Cola and the outflux of goods and certain services, the Chinese people see the fruits of capitalism everyday. Another oft-overlooked factor is going to be Ming Yao (that is how his name is SUPPOSED to be said, with the family name coming first). This 7 foot 6 NBA superstar has a huge influence upon the nation of China. People will watch him and what he says, and while the government of China may try to censor a lot of things, they will not be able to censor everything said by him or everything seen on television by the Chinese people.

However, just to entertain the idea of a war, there are a few possibilities as to what would happen. One is a short war in which America attacks China because of aggression on Taiwan, no other countries intervene, and America cuts off supply lines to China and starves the country into submission. Over a billion people over there are quite hard to feed.
Another is that North Korean aggression upon the South forces US intervention and the Chinese side with the North, leaving the US with pretty much every country that is helping the US in Iraq, except in much greater numbers, even the UN would HAVE to do SOMETHING in the case of Northern aggression (The North Koreans haven't promised oil to Chirac yet I believe). That would cause problems for the US and would be very bloody, but if war is declared and the military is allowed no limitations (except nuclear), then the US's superior technology and battle tactics would prevail. (Both the Chinese and North Koreans are using Cold War era technology and the "human wave" assault tactic by which they throw more people into an offensive than the enemy can kill, but right now... we can kill as many people as they want us to).
Those are just the two most probable scenarios, there are many more, but I have yet to think of one in which the Chinese could win, unless the US military command is braindead, which they are not. They do not possess the industrial capabilities or the technological capabilities to defeat the US in a 21st century conflict.

I have heard alot of talk that theres an imenet war with China coming, and I tend to agree.

Um... an imenent war with China? I think not. The Chinese would rather keep doing business with us for now, and US corporations like that too. War would be bad for them. Though it might be a good thing. We'd get jobs back here instead of there. And we'd get to kick some commie ass in the process. But I don't think its a good time for a war with China. Some day, but not yet.

I have to agree with you SigmaPhi.

Actually, Leo Strauss loathed Nietzshe.

You might want to read a book by Laurence Lampert, called Strauss and Nietzsche.

Although Strauss blamed Nietzsche for many of the problems of the 20th century, his later writing actually show a much greater affinity for the old syphilitic philosopher. Like Nietzsche (and Plato), Strauss believed philosophers should fill the void left by the long dead gods, as mankinds rulers.

As to the affinity Nazi's had for Nietzsche perhaps more blame for that should go to Nietzsche's anti-Semetic sister than Nietzsche himslef.

While this thread has probably gone on long enough I think it odd that nobody has discussed China's newest leader Hu Jintao. This man seems an enigma to me-- like an all new kind of Chinese dictator. Unlike the student protest crushing Deng he shows he cares for the people, visiting coal miners in the mines and peasants in the fields. While Deng and Jiang stripped Socialism of its positive aspects-- the barefoot doctor program, the "iron rice bowl" etc. Hu spents a lot of time talking about implementing a nationwide healthcare system and reducing the economic divide between the urban and rural areas. He has even stepped in to help out dissidents arrested for criticising goverment corruption.

What I really thought strange however, was the power struggle between Hu and Jiang where Hu was basically in charge of the government while Jiang maintained the control of the military. Supposedly the conventional wisdom was that we had a situation were Hu was merely a puppet for the wiley old Jiang who was refusing to step down from power and preffered to rule through a young and inexperienced puppet--Hu. But then without much of a fuss at all Jiang simply announced for no apparent reason that he was just going to retire. There are many possible reasons for the kinder gentler Chinese Communist Party-- to quell the growing unrest in the peasantry and the migrant workers, to show the world how humane and enlightned china has become when the olympics arrive in 2008, to improve relations with the United States and the rest of the world and so on.

Still I have the sinking feeling that this is all an act. Rather than actually changing, I have a feeling that Jiang's miltaristic cronies are still pulling the strings and still gearing up for the big invasion of Taiwan. I can't shake the feeling this is all a big production to try to warm the cold hearts of the Taiwanese, and lull them into a false sense of securtiy before the big invasion.
I think that they are going to have to move soon-- as in within the next 15 or 20 years at most. The pro independence movement is getting pretty strong in Taiwan and if Chen or someone else finally pushes through amending the Taiwan constitution and China does nothing, it will be the laughing stock of the world.
Furthermore China is going to soon have some major catastophic demographic shifts, thanks to the 1 child policy, with its population getting really old really fast. Soon worrying about their hordes of old people will be the most pressing concern of the Communist Party. While many people in this thread have provided me with excellent information on Taiwan's defense capacities (thanks Takrai) I still think an invasion is coming. If you ever read any Chinese propaganda it is all hyper sensitive to "ensuring the territorial integrity of the Chinese nation". They have been talking about reuniting China for so long that if Chen or one of his sucessors forces their hand I don't think they will hesitate to hit them with all 600 or so ballistic missiles currently aimed at the island and then invade.

As I see it:

Iran invades the US occupied Iraq.
North Korea invades South Korea
China invades Taiwan
Russia does something with the US, more on a war side.

Oh wait, yea its a little thing as WW3 inevitable.

I am sure that in some form or way that China and the US will be engaged, but the US troops will be mainly in Iraq and all of Korea helping South Korea against North Korea, well not all of Korea, depends on how and what happens, but hopefully, eventually all of Korea, and capture Kim Jong Ill.

Iraq, well, were prolly going to be pushed back to Basra or some shit cuz the Iranians and the Rebels in Iraq will prolly ally cuz Iran will focus on getting the US out of Iraq and then slaughter the Rebels and then do w/e.

China..hates..Taiwan..nuff said..

Russia..if your into the religious thing, then yea they'll be heavily engaged with America.

And I'll ensure this:

There will be no Nuclear Warfare at first, and if it drags on to long, there will be more then likely.

It will all be Conventional, each side hoping to win with mere jets, destroyers, tanks and infantrymen ( of course more but you get the idea )

But who knows, anything or nothing can happen. We'll all see as the next 10 or so years progress.

I must say I have given this a lot of thought myself, and here's what I predict would happen.

If Taiwan does declare independence backed by Japan, Russia, possibly South Korea, UK, US and us (Australia), China moves to invade and re-establish its authoritah. The US navy is already in that sea so there's a massive war going on. China declares this to American imperialism interfering in its domestic affairs and calls upon North Korea, Iran/Persia and other anti-american countries in central Asia and perhaps Africa to support them. A wave of terrorist groups like al Q'aeda and Jamma Islamiyah pour their funds into hostage-taking and other guerilla tactics against Allied targets. Meanwhile China's investments in nearby countries' economies - like Oz, US, Japan - are withdrawn which forces more people into unemployment and then figure "what have we got to lose, we'll sign up for the war." That's if they don't try introducing conscription again.

Since Iran/Persia has entered the war against the Allies, Israel decides that this clear and present danger to their own national security is presenting a clear opportunity, so they attack. India and Pakistan might just forget about fighting each other for the moment while everyone around them is fighting and arm themselves to the teeth and armour themselves to the eyeballs in self-defence and likewise foreign investment could be withdrawn.

Meanwhile, the Europeans could be sitting in Brussels wondering how they could be stupid enough to start this possibly WWIII in the first place, especially with the nuclear consequences. Except for perhaps eastern European countries who might side with the Allies, they remain neutral but again make themselves hugely defensible, just in case.

Also see http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html.

If we do go to war with China it would be the bloodiest war in history and possibly the quickest.The reason for me saying the war would be the bloodiest and quickest war in history is because once whomever would declare war would send nukes to that country because both countries have nuclear arsenals; and it's always good to attack first to get the upper advantage.It doesn't always give you the advantage if you fire the first missle, shot, etc., but I have a feeling if this were to happen then it would.

Um... an imenent war with China? I think not. The Chinese would rather keep doing business with us for now, and US corporations like that too. War would be bad for them. Though it might be a good thing. We'd get jobs back here instead of there. And we'd get to kick some commie ass in the process. But I don't think its a good time for a war with China. Some day, but not yet.
good point

If you ever read any Chinese propaganda it is all hyper sensitive to "ensuring the territorial integrity of the Chinese nation". They have been talking about reuniting China for so long

that if Chen or one of his sucessors forces their hand I don't think they will hesitate to hit them with all 600 or so ballistic missiles currently aimed at the island and then invade.
Surely that is the purpose of propoganda, to pursuade others? If they can persuade people that Taiwan being reabsorbed is inevitable, they can hope to get the island without a fight.
If they were actually going to invade, they'd want the advantage of surprise. How much warning did they give in Korea?

If we do go to war with China it would be the bloodiest war in history and possibly the quickest.The reason for me saying the war would be the bloodiest and quickest war in history is because once whomever would declare war would send nukes to that country because both countries have nuclear arsenals; and it's always good to attack first to get the upper advantage.It doesn't always give you the advantage if you fire the first missle, shot, etc., but I have a feeling if this were to happen then it would.

There's been a lot of talk but it ain't gonna happen just like the constant potential for a Soviet-American war.