US vs. a resurgent China

[JohnRM]

The fact is it would not be a war between the United States and China. It would be a war between the world and China.

China would not win this war.

The only way that there would be a war between China and the United States would be if China attacked Taiwan. There is a reasonable degree of certainty that if that were to happen, North Korea would use the opportunity to invade South Korea. If Taiwan and South Korea were at war with China, Japan would be forceably drawn into the conflict. At very least, the war would be...

Allies
United States
South Korea
Japan


Enemies
China
North Korea


The next level arrives if Europe decides to become involved, which I doubt. The United Kingdom may align itself with the Allies, but France and Germany certainly would not. At best, we would get strong "moral" support, an economic embargo on China, and an indefinite extension of the arms embargo.

Some eastern european nations may attempt to provide limited, non-essential support, but it will have little or no impact on the final outcome.

War may erupt between Iran and the Allies. China recieves a generous portion of its petroleum imports from Iran, and there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the United States would, at least, blockade all shipments from Iran, and hopefully, launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities, as well as industrial targets, specifically petroleum-related centers.

The next tension point is India & Pakistan. India is traditionally an enemy of China as Pakistan is traditionally an ally. I doubt either nation would become involved in the war, at least not immediately.

Russia, as always, will hang out on the sidelines, quietly aiding whichever side it feels best serves its own interests and close to end, they will align with the winning side and confiscate as much territory as they can to add to their empire.

 

[Che Guava]

The only way that there would be a war between China and the United States would be if China attacked Taiwan. There is a reasonable degree of certainty that if that were to happen, North Korea would use the opportunity to invade South Korea.

Really? I wouldn't have thought that NK would try something like that, especially when the US army would be so close by...

The next level arrives if Europe decides to become involved, which I doubt. The United Kingdom may align itself with the Allies, but France and Germany certainly would not. At best, we would get strong "moral" support, an economic embargo on China, and an indefinite extension of the arms embargo.

I would think that if China attacked Taiwan, the rest of Europe would get involved, not just the same "Coalition of the Willing". A situation like that seems more clear-cut than the Iraq war.

Some eastern european nations may attempt to provide limited, non-essential support, but it will have little or no impact on the final outcome.

Fair enough

War may erupt between Iran and the Allies. China recieves a generous portion of its petroleum imports from Iran, and there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the United States would, at least, blockade all shipments from Iran, and hopefully, launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities, as well as industrial targets, specifically petroleum-related centers.

I guess that this could be a possible outcome. If I was Iran, however, I htink I would steer clear of providing oil to an isolated china...

The next tension point is India & Pakistan. India is traditionally an enemy of China as Pakistan is traditionally an ally. I doubt either nation would become involved in the war, at least not immediately.

I definitely agree that it's unlikely they would ge involved either way...

Russia, as always, will hang out on the sidelines, quietly aiding whichever side it feels best serves its own interests and close to end, they will align with the winning side and confiscate as much territory as they can to add to their empire.

Sounds likely as well...

 

[IglooDame]

Russia, as always, will hang out on the sidelines, quietly aiding whichever side it feels best serves its own interests and close to end, they will align with the winning side and confiscate as much territory as they can to add to their empire.

A reasonable analysis overall, and I've quoted the part that is to me most interesting.

Would China do anything that might end up provoking war with the US without having assurances in hand that Russia wouldn't ally against China when the bullets start flying? On the other hand, with Russia's land forces in poor shape, would China see Siberia as being ripe for the taking and trade Taiwan for Vladivostok? Hmmm... I apologize if I'm channeling Tom Clancy here, though.

 

[JohnRM]

A reasonable analysis overall, and I've quoted the part that is to me most interesting.

Would China do anything that might end up provoking war with the US without having assurances in hand that Russia wouldn't ally against China when the bullets start flying? On the other hand, with Russia's land forces in poor shape, would China see Siberia as being ripe for the taking and trade Taiwan for Vladivostok? Hmmm... I apologize if I'm channeling Tom Clancy here, though.

Russia has a well-known policy of "if attacked, throw some nukes and think about it later."

 

[Winner]

The only way that there would be a war between China and the United States would be if China attacked Taiwan. There is a reasonable degree of certainty that if that were to happen, North Korea would use the opportunity to invade South Korea. If Taiwan and South Korea were at war with China, Japan would be forceably drawn into the conflict. At very least, the war would be...

Well, IMHO the most probable cause would be the Chinese aggression in South China Sea, rich in petroleum. US may become involved and the hostilities break out. Another possibility is the Chinese agression against Taiwan.

The next level arrives if Europe decides to become involved, which I doubt. The United Kingdom may align itself with the Allies, but France and Germany certainly would not. At best, we would get strong "moral" support, an economic embargo on China, and an indefinite extension of the arms embargo.

Britain and France can send their navies, if China is the agressor.

Some eastern european nations may attempt to provide limited, non-essential support, but it will have little or no impact on the final outcome.

War may erupt between Iran and the Allies. China recieves a generous portion of its petroleum imports from Iran, and there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the United States would, at least, blockade all shipments from Iran, and hopefully, launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities, as well as industrial targets, specifically petroleum-related centers.

Actually, it will be the Iran who will block the oil supplies. They can easily close the Persian Gulf (look at the map and you'll see what I mean) and stop the oil supplies for Europe and US.

The next tension point is India & Pakistan. India is traditionally an enemy of China as Pakistan is traditionally an ally. I doubt either nation would become involved in the war, at least not immediately.

Russia, as always, will hang out on the sidelines, quietly aiding whichever side it feels best serves its own interests and close to end, they will align with the winning side and confiscate as much territory as they can to add to their empire.

Well, Russians would rejoice. They'd become the only supplier of oil and gas for both Europe (though we have some oil in North Sea as well as imports from Libya and Algeria) and China (+ Japan, of course after the pipeline is finished).

 

[Gelion]

Russia has a well-known policy of "if attacked, throw some nukes and think about it later."

Sure it has. I mean look at how she used them before

 

[Shaihulud]

Bahhhh! This is just a troll thread designed for U.S super-patriots to blather on about the superiority of their great and wonderful super-weapons.

The fact is it would not be a war between the United States and China. It would be a war between the world and China.

Why assume so? Its more likely that U.S iniates war first propably based on some piddly excuse, im sure many USian would cheer at that thought. Anything that dares to cahllenge U.S world hegemony must be destroyed and damn the consequences. WHo cares how many people are dead as long as I can sleep in my bed utterly safe and secure in the bosom of my loving super-country. I would even volunteer my freedom if I can somehow make it stronger! Some people needs to project the power of their country onto their own self, damn if I know why propably, sexually deficient or something.

Some reason why some people profess to dislike U.S, U.S action is hypocritic, all their talk of serving freedom is mostly bunk and rots. They are self serving and the God helps anyone who gets in their way because they are communist, athesitic facistic terrorists who are pedophiles.

Actually, I believe Huntington was right about the future. The World = the West in our ethnocentric minds. But in fact, China and Islam challenge the West (their common enemy) and, at least China, don't care much about the others.

I see that you have bought into this rubbish. Most Chinese don't care for such a view, indeed I don't even think that the leaders of China think in such absolute terms, evil cynical beings though they may be.

 

[Winner]

I see that you have bought into this rubbish. Most Chinese don't care for such a view, indeed I don't even think that the leaders of China think in such absolute terms, evil cynical beings though they may be.

I observed that most of people bashing the Clash of Civ. don't even know, what it says. Are you one of them?

Chinese, as traditionally, try to create a sphere of influence, which makes them safe. It's not unusual, almost every major power does that and China is not different. Together with cultural ties, it will try to push the US out of East Asia.

 

[MobBoss]

And what happens when your civic population gets cold feet at using these bombs...?
A brutal, highly-televised slaughter will not sit well with the American citizenry.
You might be able to stomach it, but many will not...Fact.

The fact is you are doing exactly what Japan did in WWII...you are underestimating the people of the United States. In such a war with China, it would be viewed as a "us or them" war, a war that would destroy the USA if lost....in that type of war, such as in WWII, the USA wouldnt get cold feet.

I consider China and Russia to be still superpowers also.

Then you are in a minority in the world. Russia is a shadow of its pre-cold war self. China isnt there yet.

And a superpower should be able to clamp down on it's conquests...
It is obvious Iraq and Afghanistan are not fully under the boot.
Same as Russia cannot smash the islamists in their Southern Front.

Curt, if our goal was to put Iraq and Afghanistan "under the boot" we could do that if we wanted..but that is not the goal in those countries. The 150,000 troops we have in Iraq is still only a fraction of the total troop strength of the Army, Reservesa and the National Guard.

No amount of rhetoric can sway the cold truth of the matter.

Curt, we have had this discussion before. Last time, you had enough wisdom to acknowledge I knew what I was talking about since I have been in the military for 19 years. Has that changed?

It would take more than 1.4 million men to defeat the reds.
And most of those US troops are spread around the globe, protecting US interests.

How do you come up with that number? Anyway, here is a link from wiki for the active US military strength: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Military funny that its just over 1.4 million men. What it doesnt include also is the National Guard and Reserves of those forces. That puts the current US Military at significantly more than 1.4 million personnel. Add into the fact that any such war would greatly increase recruiting, the number would grow exponentially. The USA has over 100 million people of age to serve in the military. I have no doubt that 1.4 million to "defeat the reds" would be an easily obtainable goal.

 

[Winner]

Sure it has. I mean look at how she used them before

Err, when was it last attacked by a major power?

 

[Che Guava]

I can agree with some of your points here, MobBoss, but there's no way that "defeating the reds" would be an "easily obtainable goal", with 1.4 million or 14 million...

 

[Gelion]

Err, when was it last attacked by a major power?

What is the point of your comment?

If you mean that Russia would use nuclear weapons when attacked by a majour power it is a likely as France, US, Britian or any other nuclear power to use these weapons (when attacked by a majour power).

If you mean that Russia has plans to use nuclear weapons if its attacked by another power you are correct. Every majour power has contingency plans, not to have them would be a crime against the people of that nation. I am sure many interesting documents could be found in archives of ALL majour nations.

If you mean historically the answer is: Nazi Germany in 1941.

If you mean "what the hell you are saying, it never was" then I explain that my comment was directed at post above that claimed that Russia used nuclear weapons when it was attacked or has a habit to use them. When it is certainly untrue I was mocking that point of view.

 

[MobBoss]

I can agree with some of your points here, MobBoss, but there's no way that "defeating the reds" would be an "easily obtainable goal", with 1.4 million or 14 million...

I meant raising the number Curt required was "easily obtainable" not the actual conflict itself.

 

[Che Guava]

Ah, I see. I retract my objection

 

[Shaihulud]

I observed that most of people bashing the Clash of Civ. don't even know, what it says. Are you one of them?

Do I seem like one of them? You would love to align yourself with the rational west, but clearly you are not. The belief that there would be an eventual clash of culture East/West is clearly misguided, cultures are difficult thing to quantify and it is wrong to lump them by geographical position.Europe is not the U.S nor will they ever unite for one single apocalyptic battle against the "Eastern" Civ. You can see that I dislike simplification, it is deluding.

 

[Winner]

What is the point of your comment?

Point is that it is pointless to point at the fact mischief: ) , that Russia has never done that, because the last time she was attacked she hadn't nuclear weapons. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Speedo]

Just reading the OP, I think they seriously underestimate what the US would be capable if. It would mainly depend on the circumstances of the war, but in most scenarios I would think that the public would probably end up behind the effort. After all, a war with China would be more of the type that the US military has trained to fight, rather than the guerilla stuff going on in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Remember... this country was able to assemble the most powerful military force on the face of the earth in just over 2 years... I feel serious pity for anyone who underestimates what the US is capable of when a fire is lit under their arses.

 

[Steph]

Remember... this country was able to assemble the most powerful military force on the face of the earth in just over 2 years...

You mean, the force that needed the Russians, the English, and countless other countries to beat the Germans?

 

[Winner]

Do I seem like one of them?

I don't know, that's why I ask you.

You would love to align yourself with the rational west, but clearly you are not. The belief that there would be an eventual clash of culture East/West is clearly misguided, cultures are difficult thing to quantify and it is wrong to lump them by geographical position.Europe is not the U.S nor will they ever unite for one single apocalyptic battle against the "Eastern" Civ. You can see that I dislike simplification, it is deluding.

So you didn't read it, did you? Clash of Civ. is about something completely different. He (Huntington) is actually very sceptical about the West and its position and in no way he say there will be some "apocalyptic battle", how you call it. CoC isn't simplification, it just uncovers one dimension of international relations, which has been ignored in the times of ideological battle known as the Cold War. Culture is important and analysis based on cultural differences is relevant.

 

[bhsup]

You mean, the force that needed the Russians, the English, and countless other countries to beat the Germans?

We also had this little skirmish going on over in the Pacific. You might have heard of it.

Please don't take this as, in any way, endorsing that inane "We saved your butts in WWII" attitude that some of my countrymen like to make from time to time. I just wanted to point out that we were rather busy in the Pacific as well as Europe.