Alright, I stopped reading after this line.
General News Regarding China & Hong Kong
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
Ferocitus
Deity
Hahahahaha.
That's very close to China's response to western liberal ideas like yours too.
Keep wagging your dog. Maybe you'll get the war you are hankering for.
Moderator Action: Please do not troll other posters. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
@Ferocitus you are overestimating China. Hopefully the chinese themselves are not. A war is possible and it would go nuclear before the current hegemon would give up its position. The end result would be China totally destroyed, the rest of the world somewhat damaged but thrown into near anarchy, and an exceeding dangerous situation all round.
The chinese are at least a couple of decades away from being able to win an all out war on the US and its system of alliances. Meaning they don't have the ability to deter such a military response to their rise. If it happens it won't be a limited war, which China could win. This is the most dangerous phase of any (attempted) transition time in "great power" games.
The chinese are at least a couple of decades away from being able to win an all out war on the US and its system of alliances. Meaning they don't have the ability to deter such a military response to their rise. If it happens it won't be a limited war, which China could win. This is the most dangerous phase of any (attempted) transition time in "great power" games.
warpus
In pork I trust
People always forget to specify where exactly such a war would be fought and over what. You couldn't invade China right now and successfully occupy that country, not even if you have the mightiest military in the world. But at the same time, if the war was happening just off China's shores, their entire fleet would be sunk and they wouldn't be able to invade one tiny island even if they tried.
It's highly unlikely that China and the U.S. would go to war anyhow. Maybe some sort of short military engagement, sure.. but a full out war? The ruling classes of both countries are rich dudes who would lose a lot of money in such a war. It isn't going to happen.
It's highly unlikely that China and the U.S. would go to war anyhow. Maybe some sort of short military engagement, sure.. but a full out war? The ruling classes of both countries are rich dudes who would lose a lot of money in such a war. It isn't going to happen.
That's why the objective in a war against China would be destruction, not occupation. Basically smash their infrastructure so hard that recovery to their current state wouldn't be possible for at least several generations. And then, once you force them to the negotiating table to make the pain stop, you impose all kinds of sanctions on them to make that recovery even less likely.
Oh, the Versailles strategy. You are a bit late for the 100 year anniversary
It works when done right. Just look at Iraq. They were a rising power in the Middle East until the First Gulf War. Since then Iraq has been in a state of near social collapse and could never possibly rise to become a credible threat to anyone ever again.
The restrictions imposed on Germany post-WW1 failed because they weren't strictly enforced. Had they been, I doubt WW2 would have happened. Or at the very least the European Theater wouldn't have been as bloody of a conflict.
warpus
In pork I trust
Okay, but if we just try to imagine realistic possibilities only and ignore all the Michael Bay interpretations of history.. then..
Iraq is your example for something done right? Even though Iraq was no match for the USA and the USA had much global support, there was a second war. And if you would implement your strategy, there will be a second war as well.
You would have to be a fool to believe that the USA could keep up sanctions to keep China down forever. Europeans are still buying Huawei equipment, despite Trumps sanctions and are moving to all-Chinese platforms.
And this is not even counting the possibility that if threatened with utter destruction, a cynical Chinese leader could come to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to use nukes to trade a few million Americans against a few million Chinese.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
War with China isnt really an option. Itd only benefit a neutral rising power isolated from fallout like Brazil or something. China has anywhere from 55 to 65 nuclear armed ICBMs which doesn't sound like a lot next to the US's 400+ but it's enough to do terrible damage to the US mainland.
Early on China would likely focus land army power on loose ends like Tibet and South Korea. The navies would fight in Chinese waters because the US navy and airforce is unparalleled. Unfortunately it'd be a long time before the US could even hope to land in China. So we'd be looking at a long drawn out conventional bombing campaign where Japan, SK and Taiwan would suffer mass casualties along with the Chinese mainland where we're fighting to "save lives". Eventually when power tilts too far one way or the other ICBMS would launch on both sides. Before this happens though, the Uyghurs would be exterminated in death camps and Tibet would be decimated. Japan and Taiwan would be lucky to escape with any infrastructure at all while Hong Kong would be crushed under a brutal police state.
I think Inonimattu might be overestimating US soft power if he thinks we'd be able to drag a lot of allies into that mess. Obama, I dont like the guy but for all his faults was rebuilding soft power. Trump's been taking a wrecking ball to that soft power. Allies don't look at the US as having a solid foreign policy anymore since we're as fickle as the executive branch elections. Why suffer in WWIII when a neutral party or a nation that joins the victors at the tail end of the war would reap the rewards of the decimation of the two premier global super powers.
War's not an option. Diplomacy is a bit of a joke in the current US political climate. This might be a reason to clean up Israel's behavior, stop sanctioning Venezuela, Cuba and Iran and cut Saudi Arabia loose. Any diplomatic action against China would look cynical at best, hollow at worst.
The only option would be to get the Chinese people to oppose mistreatment of Uyghurs. That's hard to do from the outside while we have politicians calling Ilhan Omar a terrorist or countries in the EU with Burka bans.
Early on China would likely focus land army power on loose ends like Tibet and South Korea. The navies would fight in Chinese waters because the US navy and airforce is unparalleled. Unfortunately it'd be a long time before the US could even hope to land in China. So we'd be looking at a long drawn out conventional bombing campaign where Japan, SK and Taiwan would suffer mass casualties along with the Chinese mainland where we're fighting to "save lives". Eventually when power tilts too far one way or the other ICBMS would launch on both sides. Before this happens though, the Uyghurs would be exterminated in death camps and Tibet would be decimated. Japan and Taiwan would be lucky to escape with any infrastructure at all while Hong Kong would be crushed under a brutal police state.
I think Inonimattu might be overestimating US soft power if he thinks we'd be able to drag a lot of allies into that mess. Obama, I dont like the guy but for all his faults was rebuilding soft power. Trump's been taking a wrecking ball to that soft power. Allies don't look at the US as having a solid foreign policy anymore since we're as fickle as the executive branch elections. Why suffer in WWIII when a neutral party or a nation that joins the victors at the tail end of the war would reap the rewards of the decimation of the two premier global super powers.
War's not an option. Diplomacy is a bit of a joke in the current US political climate. This might be a reason to clean up Israel's behavior, stop sanctioning Venezuela, Cuba and Iran and cut Saudi Arabia loose. Any diplomatic action against China would look cynical at best, hollow at worst.
The only option would be to get the Chinese people to oppose mistreatment of Uyghurs. That's hard to do from the outside while we have politicians calling Ilhan Omar a terrorist or countries in the EU with Burka bans.
Did someone compare post WW1 investment in Germany to post WW2 investment and conclude "post WW1 sanctions were too light"?!?
He got paid to be in Iraq and counts "long-term destabilization" as a success. No wonder he acts as he does.
He got paid to be in Iraq and counts "long-term destabilization" as a success. No wonder he acts as he does.
Rich ruling classes have long gone to war with each other. In the long run, it might be inevitable. In the shorter run, America has to consign itself to losing influence in the region
Heck of a gamble to say "this time it's different". But yeah.
May be much more than a couple of decades. But the funny part is that it's also several decades too late for the US to try and win an all out war against China without suffering unacceptable damage.
China doesn't need war to become a global hegemonic power. Time is on their side.
warpus
In pork I trust
Historically speaking these people were only willing to do that when they thought they would benefit from such a war. It usually meant new territories, new colonies, new slaves, etc. Governments used to also not be owned so much by the business class. Today's ruling business class is just a bunch of greedy old people who just want moar money. A war with China would lead to everyone losing money, on both sides. There would be no new territory gained, just destruction all around. I disagree that it's inevitable for these reasons. I do think we'll have a sort of cold-war style reality in the coming decades, as China rises in power, but I doubt it will ever come down to a full blown military conflict. Nobody will win that.
Not worrying about a future hot war with China means that you can retask some of your self-defense dollars quite usefully! If a citizen is not worried about war, they can fund antibiotic research, anti-poverty efforts, environmental protection, etc. Or, they can live for the moment, I guess.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
If it comes to war the US won't be fighting for tibetans or uighurs. It'll be fighting to keep a rival from displacing it as world hegemon. It won't be about money either, it'll be about power. WW1 was terrible for business (war business is but a fraction of the whole) but empires went into it anyway. Same with 2. And plenty of people with influence can think they'll win. It's rather odd that China keeps allowing a big "nuclear gap" to exist, because people in the US may very well go for all-out war in that situation.
Imo the situation now, regarding the possibility of a big nuclear war, is more dangerous than it has been since the 1980s.
Combination of Iraq War apologia and bad history about Versailles. You’re on a roll, dude.
Seriously read anything about Versailles and the road to reparations. The situation changed multiple times between 1919 and 1929. It was clear to pretty much everyone in the world as early as 1922 that Germany literally could not pay the reparations. Not only that but the European economy was dependent on a trade balance that German species couldn’t support, wrecking the German foreign exchange reserve at the same time it made Germany dependent on overexpensive raw imports. European trade was a shadow of its former self and could never recover under these conditions, a recovery everyone prayed for as they knew it was the only thing that could save them from this mess. The US even put serious capital down on trying to retrieve the German payment system just to keep the money moving, and it didn’t work.
The problem with Versailles was not that it was not enforced, it was unenforceable. And the economic black hole Germany had become caused 1929 without question.
And Iraq was a massive disaster from everyone’s point of view except, I guess, people who just like watching the world burn.
Never underestimate humanity's propension and capacity for self-destruction.
