posted
If China ever raises it's standard of living to current American standards, it will be terrifying to behold. The quantities of goods consumed would be enough to scour this world, methinks.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would the fight be about? Oil is the only resource I can think of that both countries might want, that there will be a shortage of.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there will be a war. China won't have to fight us. They will take the end of oil seriously and come up with an alternative while our government points out that depletion of resources is just a theory. The Chinese will move in and take over while we're all waiting for The Rapture.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if you just consider oil, both the US and China will likely need a whole lot of oil in the comming years, and at some point the world will be unable to meet the needs of both countries. Would the resulting shortages lead to a conflict between the two nations? Possibly.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope the US doesn't fall victim to one of the classic blunders: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."
It's quite a bit worse than, say, going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
China's oil and energy consumption while great the energy consumption growth is actually slowing down just so you know, aside from that, so what? The only way to stop it would be to force 1.4 billion people to live in poverty and with no hope. Where's the morality in that?
-----------------------------------------------
K, an actual war between the US and China now while I believe that the US would lose some terrific losses would aka "win" depending on the situation, a naval and air war I think the US would win but a strategic bombing campaign would be a failure and any attempt to invade the PRC mainland would fail.
25-30 years from now however the situation could reverse.
IP: Logged |
posted
They don't have to fight us. Many Asian nations, China included, are buying up our companies and our land one piece at a time. Pretty soon they will just own us, and that will be it.
quote:China's oil and energy consumption while great the energy consumption growth is actually slowing down just so you know
If you take China at it's word, that is. They report that that it's slowing down, but there aren't a lot of independent analysts who believe them.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
This came from the WTO I think. They're economic growth is currently at a sustainable 9.8%
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I would highly suggest you do some research into the difference between "their, there, and they're." Taking these grammar rules to heart with help strengthen your arguments.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe a joint Chinese and American "liberation" force to take over some of the smaller middle east oil producing nations...
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:K, an actual war between the US and China now while I believe that the US would lose some terrific losses would aka "win" depending on the situation, a naval and air war I think the US would win but a strategic bombing campaign would be a failure and any attempt to invade the PRC mainland would fail.
Blayne, seriously, slow down. Your grammar is actually getting worse - amazing trick, that - to the point of "this sentence no sense". I really have no idea what you were trying to say in what I quoted. Just read over what you write, once, will you? If it doesn't make sense to you, it won't make sense to anyone else either.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
for the 2006-2010 Period I believe that in a Generic air and sea war the US would "win" though to quote Sun Tzu there has been no nation that has benefited from protracted war. (with the excpetion of the Soviet Union and the Qin Kingdom)
However, the USA would lose some terrific loses that whatever Tom "Communist Body Bag Count" Clancy might say the US would not be able to do so without a scratch, the US would lose terrible loses in any armed conflict with the People's Republic.
A land war however I'm almost certain the US would lose, either invading the PRC or fighting in some nearby country would lose. We're talking about a nation with by now a far greater national determination to succeed and has Sun Tzu as a trainer. Chiang Kai Shek either ignored or glossed over the Art of War thinking it doesnt suit modern conditions and paid for it.
Currently the PRC Land assets are as good as or better then their American counter parts, the T-96/98/99 MBT's are equal to or better then an M1A2 Abrams, the Chinese has some 8000 older MBT's to serve as reserves, possess UAV's and had switched to a more agile and modern Brigade Oriented Force Structure. As well as modernized its CIERS or however its spelt systems.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's funny that we talk about going to war with a country who is currently sucking up a lot of our debt. China owns a ton of US Government securities. They're not going to war with us anytime soon.
Unless it's to reposess Texas. They can have it. Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't think there will be a war. China won't have to fight us. They will take the end of oil seriously and come up with an alternative while our government points out that depletion of resources is just a theory. The Chinese will move in and take over while we're all waiting for The Rapture.
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I hope the US doesn't fall victim to one of the classic blunders: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."
It's quite a bit worse than, say, going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
These two statements made my day.
But back on topic, I know embarrassingly little about this sort of matter. My (admittedly uninformed) opinion is that either the US or China would need to be terribly desperate for a war between the two countries to erupt because of the dependence each has on the other. I can't imagine anything that would cause such desperation.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They won't go to war anytime soon so don't worry about it. Anyhow you have to give us an idea of what type of war it is ex: nuclear, attrition, war over overseas territories
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
1 word two syllables.
Taiwan.
End of Story.
All the world needs is a gun happy trigger happy Pro Pax Americana Jack Ryan Jesus Reagan with an M16 and a King James Bible who wishes to make the world a better place if it weren't for pussy liberal smacktards with their socialist, communists, neoliberal, leftist trash media buddies standing in the waaaaay *deep breath* recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign nation and the PRC is forced to take the ROC by EF, well then the VIP's in Washington may very well become KIA or else we're all down in the PT.
IP: Logged |
posted
I say we recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. Recognize them, then let them try to invade, then the entire western world refusues to sell anything to China or buy anything from them unless they stay away from Taiwan, open their markets, honor WTO trade rules and let their currency float free.
At least it'd shake things up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And as a result the economy goes into a depression and all of you lsoe your coushy jobs huraay!
IP: Logged |
posted
I work in a restaurant, people will still be able to eat, and it's hardly cushy, by any sense of the word.
And the economy wouldn't tank. The economies of Thailand and other nations with cheap labor would boom from an increase in imports from us. Heck, this would be great for Africa. They could afford to industrialize at our expense, which I'd rather pay for over the arming of China.
There'd be a major hiccup in the economy for sure, but it's a hurdle we would overcome.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might be difficult for the US to coerce China into doing anything (such as leaving Taiwan alone) through economic force or a trade embargo - wouldn't such measures hurt the US almost as much as they would hurt China? The two countries are so economically interconnected that simply cutting off trade wouldn't really be a viable solution. Also, there's the small problem that China owns a huge portion of the US foreign debt... if they ever decide to cash in, you guys might be in a bit of trouble.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No cuz you see as mentioned above America's huge multi hundred billion dollar debt is so great and is so tied to China thanks to the deficit that to stop trading with China would collapse the economy.
Plenty of restaurants had to close during the depression.
IP: Logged |
posted
There's a couple good reasons Africa isn't providing large-scale cheap labour already... lack of infrastructure and political/social instability, for starters. And it's unlikely that will change in the near future. What American corporation would want to invest where there's such a high risk?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also even if war happened tomorrow the swift change in trying to pacify and develop africa would take YEARS even with India in the mix there's just not enough infastructure to make up for the demand the prices will sky rocket, then take into account what happens when your currency becomes useless within a few days...
IP: Logged |
posted
We'll borrow money from the west and Japan and pay off our debt to China before we do it. It can be a plan that takes some before hand work. We could institute a special tax specifically to gain funds to pay off that debt and when it's paid off, we execute the plan.
As for Africa, it's a big place, and there are a few stable nations in it, even in subsaharan Africa where the promise of industry would spur peaceful reford and more stability. So we help them build the infrastructure. In two years we could pay off the Chinese debt and have a nice little African infrastructure started to begin replacing Chinese goods with African goods. South Korea other southeast asian nations will pick up a lot of slack, and hell, AMERICAN workers can pick up some of it too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
War? In a Post-Nuclear world, you're seriously talking about a naval-air war? Strategic bombing?
MAD ring a bell? Land based invasions are... well stupid. Standing armies are kept in order to give some flexibility to military strategy, but there is no doubt that it would be a matter of hours before nuclear weapons are fired if war broke out between china and the USA
Posts: 122 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prices for WHAT would skyrocket? Food wouldn't cost anymore than it does now, we can support ourselves in that regard. Price for oil? We don't buy our oil from them. Price for what?
You mean DVD players? VCRs? Certainly not cars, we either make our own or we get them from Japan. Yes, the price for consumer electronics would rise, but not SKYROCKET. America, and Japan, both still make everything China makes, and people still buy them. If the price of a free Taiwan, and forcing China to play fairly is that I can't afford a new DVD player for a few years, then I'm willing to make the sacrifice.
Further, there wouldn't be a pacification cost in Africa, and that's just silly to say so. If we came to Africa and said, hey guys, we have a couple hundred BILLION dollars in goods we want to buy from you, and are willing to loan you the money to build the factories necessary to make them, you don't think there are governments there that would snap to and raise their hands? They would, if for no other purpose than greed. A nice bonus would be an Africa will a few more million people capable of purchasing OUR goods, and unlike China, a government that actually allows us to sell them and doesn't steal our patent protected products as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
China doesn't have the capacity for MAD. MAD only really applies to Russia and America. Mutually Assured Destruction. China has less what, three dozen nukes at best? They'd kill a LOT of people, but we'd have more than enough to pick up the pieces afterwards. China, would not. We'd win a nuclear war, which is why it wouldn't come to that. China knows it could win a land war, but a nuclear war would result in the destruction of their entire nation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why, I simply love fairy tales! DO tell another!
But seriously... what? I don't think you realize the extent of the US's dependence on China in your wonderful free-market economy. Yes, the US does grow it's own food and make its own cars and DVD players, to some extent... but it's not ENOUGH. You depend on imports from other nations, for everything from basic food to electronics to clothing and natural resources. Part of the reason for your high quality of life is the affordability of "luxury" items (in the eyes of the rest of the world) such as computers and appliances and electronics, and that affordability is possible because of the huge amounts of labour that are outsourced to China and other countries. It is simply NOT POSSIBLE for American companies, as a whole, to produce things as cheaply as Chinese companies because overhead costs - namely wages - are so much higher in the US. You might be able to get away with transferring most of your oursourced industry from China to other countries like Japan and Taiwan - albeit slowly - but it's not economically feasable for you to simply start manufacturing all of your own products and become completely self-sufficient. And building Africa into the same sort of labour base as Asia currently is would be the work of decades, not a spur-of-the-moment transition.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If we came to Africa and said, hey guys, we have a couple hundred BILLION dollars in goods we want to buy from you, and are willing to loan you the money to build the factories necessary to make them, you don't think there are governments there that would snap to and raise their hands? They would, if for no other purpose than greed. A nice bonus would be an Africa will a few more million people capable of purchasing OUR goods, and unlike China, a government that actually allows us to sell them and doesn't steal our patent protected products as well.
It's this sort of economic advantage-taking that has been contributing to the state of economic shambles currently experienced by many developing nations.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
We don't depend, or at least don't have to depend on anyone else in the world for our own food production. Say what you want about anything else, but no one beats America when it comes our ability to gluttonously produce enough food to overfeed ourselves with.
And I haven't suggested cutting off all of east asia, just China. Clothing could shift to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and plenty of other nations that we already import from. So fast as computers, we can make those on our own, and for many of our computer products we DO make our own. Hell, part of why Dell is so pissed at China is that they stole and continue to use Dell patented products without paying for it, and Intel, and IBM.
I have no idea where in my previous posts you got the idea that I was aiming for self sufficiency, seeing as how I specifically said we'd get a lot of stuff from elsewhere. It took us a couple decades to work ourselves into this mess. If we actively try, we can get ourselves out of it in a decade as well.
Edit to address your second post:
I don't see how it could possibly get any worse than it is currently. There are plenty of Africans who want the same standard of living as the rest of the world. And it's in our economic interests to help them get there, not to leave them in poverty. American and European companies would have it in their best interests to try and develop industry in Africa, it would be an investment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If its our economic interest to do so why not now? Oh I'll tell you why, because its impossible.
It would still take decades to develope Africa not 2 years it took easily 10 years for China to be the economic giant exporter it is now, and that was with a economy and infastructure already in place.
The "slack" is also impossible in Asia because they simply aren't big enough to do so and Japan doesn't even produce its own low grade steel anymore.
Japanese cars you say? Oh you must've forgotten that 90% of them are produced..... IN CHINA!
As for reborrowing money.... what are you a crack addict? You'ld have to cut spending in all military spheres by 90% to get anywhere close to paying your debt within a reasonable time if you can't then you simply have no money and if you have no money then what are you going to do AFTER the war? Same thing as Britain, shorn of its colonies and military obligations a broken and bankrupt shell of its former self.
The war would not go nuclear becuase the Chinese had pledged a no first use policy, and even then MAD still apply's due to nuclear winter. Losing 20 million people does not in any way mean you've "won" unless its a phyrric victory. There's such a thing as "acceptable casualties".
A trade embargo with China would hurt the west and case at the least a recession and at worst a total economic collapse, these things are started by chain reactions.
Also here's the thing what you suggest assuming if it works would cripple the economic growth of a SIXTH of humanity and who are the Chinese PEOPLE going to blame? They'll blame you not their government, you for provoking them.
Also, how much per year is Iraq costing the States? And this is an enemy with 30 years old tech and a demoralized army and now only doing clean up and occupation work? 200 billion us $?
A war with China would exceed the trillions and don't even think your economy could survive it. Even major nations with the exception of the United States in WWI/II and the SU in WWII have ever benefited overal from a major war.
IP: Logged |
posted
I never suggest a war with China, at least not a military war. My war is economic. And please the "no use first" policy would evaporate if they were ever in serious trouble.
How many nukes have to be set off to achieve a nuclear winter? And what do you consider a phyrric victory? Phyrros himself never really gained anything from his victories. A Phyrric victory means you are left in almost the same situation as you would been if they war had been lost, which would not be the case.
Regardless. I doubt my 'plan' would ever actually work. I was tossing it out there to see the reaction. The problem has to be addressed though. We can't continue this way forever, and there must be something in place to help us when the problem reaches a head. China is getting over a hundred billion dollars a year to arm themselves, to advance themselves, and gain advantages over us. Our economy is dependent on theirs, they steal our patents and don't really care about what we have to say about it.
This is a bad relationship, and while it feels good now because of all the cheap goodies we get out of the deal, it is NOT good for our long term situation. The situation needs to be resolved.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We'll borrow money from the west and Japan and pay off our debt to China before we do it.
I find extremely amusing the idea of America ever paying off serious debt without first going into another depression.
Why is it that everyone else here seems to think the only logical World War Three would be a matter of the US v China? Australia's cool too! Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would we go into a depression if we tried to pay off our debt? There've been serious efforts in the last couple decades to pay off the debt, and under the Clinton era made some serious progress, though it's gotten worse again. During that same time, America had unprecedented prosperity. So, your argument doesn't hold much water.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you would go into a depression if you tried to pay it off. I was saying you're far more likely go into a depression before doing it.
And at what point did I make an argument?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I read it wrong. You meant to say that we'd need to go into another depression before realizing the importance of paying it off?
You could have worded it more clearly, but I see what you're saying. And I can't say I disagree, sadly. Americans somewhere along the way seem to think that money will continue to magically appear, and I don't know what will change their thinking. Either a smart president who realizes the danger and actually cares, or an economic collapse and depression.
That's part of why I advocate for change. We need fiscal responsibility, we need a concerted effort to pay off a large part of our debt, particularly to China. And we need to stop letting them jerk us around on trade. Why is it we have a backbone when it comes to "ruthless killers," in other words, terrorists, but can't seem to find our voice when it comes to China.
Opening markets and creating a stable African consumer economy benefits us, and Africans. It's a long term strategy, but long term strategies have to start somewhere don't they?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok, glad that there isn't too much floride in the drinking water.
100 billion? Even the Pentagin's estimate is 90 billion (small diff I know), but its obvious since its part of its behavior to over react to get even MORE funding for its military industrial complex its obviously overreacting.
As for China's military bugdet we have to A) remember that alot of military investment is also for dual use, aka super computers for both World of Warcraft servers and military cryptology.
B) While its true their 30 billion dollar budget may be too small so their probly underestimating their military budget to seem more transparent as less as a threat which is crucial to their growth.
I'ld say 40-60 billion dollars at most. More at 11.
And then we must remember that the states have a budget of say...... 450 billion $?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Opening markets and creating a stable African consumer economy benefits us, and Africans. It's a long term strategy, but long term strategies have to start somewhere don't they?
Okay, great, but how do you propose to create this "stable African consumer economy"? One cannot simply waltz into Burkina Faso and say "hey guys, put those guns down and come work in this television factory!" We cannot fix all of Africa's problems FOR them, although we can (and should!) give them the support they need. Simply trying to turn their economies and societal structures into carbon copies of ours, however, won't solve anything. Neither will throwing investment money at them - that's been going on for years (...the spectacularly failed electricity project in the former Zaire, anyone?), and has only succeeded in making dictators richer and problems worse.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Unless what he wants to do is just allow the African people to suffer as long as they can make our Nike's for us at a $ per shoe. Doesn't matter if some random african dictator keeps all the wealth.
IP: Logged |
posted
There are several nations in Africa with stability, and with new leaders that are trying to make their nations a better place. It isn't easy, and they have few if any outside companies trying to actively invest in them, becuase they all think like you do, that Africa is one giant ball of tribal warfare. And yet it isn't, every African nation is not the same.
Also, I do not propose that we supplant their culture with a "carbon copy of ours." Is it your claim that every nation on the planet with a consumer class and industrialized base, all share the exact homogenized society? I'd like proof of that.
Nations with stability could be chosen, based on their political and societal stability and can then be actively invested in. Those that do not have that level of stability will not be.
Blayne -
I know you can read, and thus should have seen specifically where in previous posts I enumerated the benefits to African society that would come. I suggest you check first next time, before leveling insulting accusations.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I was being sarcastic, I wasn't automatically accusing you of wanting Africans to suffer. I just finished watching Hotel Rwanda and I'm in a snarky mood.
IP: Logged |
posted
Then you should especially be a fan of increasing the African quality of life and ending strife there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes, but to do so only because its convenient to or at the expense of 1.3 billion people is in of itself wrong. I am in complete support of increasing the quality of African life but not at the expense of another whole group of people and epsecially if it can be done right.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
