China and the United States Are Preparing for War

jus

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
76
Likes
115
Country flag
Despite the Obama-Xi handshake deal, the probability of confrontation will only heighten as long as the PLA remains a black box.



At a Nov. 12 news conference in Beijing, General Secretary of the Communist Party Xi Jinping and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed to notify the other side before major military activities, and to develop a set of rules of behavior for sea and air encounters, in order to avoid military confrontations in Asia. "It's incredibly important that we avoid inadvertent escalation," Ben Rhodes, a U.S. deputy national security advisor, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying. An "accidental circumstance," he said, could "lead into something that could precipitate conflict."

Should we really be worried about war between the United States and China? Yes. Over the last four decades of studying China, I have spoken with hundreds of members of China's military, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and read countless Chinese military journals and strategy articles. Chinese military and political leaders believe that their country is at the center of American war planning. In other words, Beijing believes that the United States is readying itself for the possibility of a conflict with China -- and that it must prepare for that eventuality.

Tensions are high not just because of Beijing's rapidly expanding military budget, or because the United States continues to commit an increasingly high percentage of its military assets to the Pacific as part of its "rebalance" strategy. Rather, the biggest problem is Chinese opacity. While it's heartening to hear Xi agree to instruct the PLA to be more open with regard to the United States, it is doubtful this will lead to any real changes.

Washington is willing to share a substantial amount of military information with China, in order to "reduce the chances of miscommunication, misunderstanding or miscalculation," as then U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a January 2011 trip to Beijing. But the
Chinese leadership, which benefits from obfuscation and asymmetric tactics, refuses to communicate its military's intentions.

Despite repeated entreaties from American officials, Beijing is unwilling to talk about many key military issues -- like the scope and intentions of its rapid force buildup, development of technologies that could cripple American naval forces in the region, and its military's involvement in cyberattacks against the United States -- that would lower friction between the two sides. And sometimes, as in 2010 after U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, Beijing breaks off military-to-military contacts altogether -- leading to an especially troubling silence.

As a result, there is a growing mistrust of China among many thoughtful people in the U.S. government. Chinese military officers have complained to me that journals of the American war colleges now feature articles on war with China, and how the United States can win. A February 2014 article, for example, in the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine, entitled "Deterring the Dragon," proposes laying offensive underwater mines along China's coast to close China's main ports and destroy its sea lines of communications. The article also suggests sending special operations forces to arm China's restive minorities in the country's vast western regions.

But China is doing the same thing. In 2013, Gen. Peng Guangqian and Gen. Yao Youzhi updated their now-classic text, The Science of Military Strategy, and called for Beijing to add to the quality and quantity of its nuclear weapons, in order to close the gap between China and both Russia and the United States. Even Xi's "new model" of great-power relations seems to preclude arms control negotiations, requiring the United States to yield to the inevitability of China's rise.

Many people outside the Pentagon may be surprised by just how many senior American officials are worried about a war with China. These include no less than the last U.S. two secretaries of defense, and a former secretary of state. In the concluding chapter of Henry Kissinger's 2011 book, On China, he warns of a World War I-style massive Chinese-American war. "Does history repeat itself?" he asks.
Over at least the last decade, on several occasions the United States has pressed China to be more forthright about its military intentions and capabilities. In April 2006, after a meeting between President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Chinese President Hu Jintao, both governments announced the start of talks between the strategic nuclear force commanders on both sides. This move would have been extremely important in demonstrating openness about military intentions. But the PLA dragged its feet, and the talks never started.

In a September 2012 trip to Beijing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tried to persuade Beijing to enter military talks. Like his predecessor Gates, Panetta called for four specific areas of strategic dialogue: nuclear weapons, missile defense, outer space, and cybersecurity. But the Chinese objected, and again the talks never happened.

Sure, Beijing could follow through on the agreements announced during Obama's recent trip. But I'm skeptical. One of the biggest advantages China has over the United States is the asymmetry of military knowledge. Why would they give that up?

China and the United States Are Preparing for War

As expected,like USA killed our enemy No.1 Pork!stan after war on Islam(oops terror after 9/11),now war on our enemy No.2 :thumb:
 
Last edited:

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
A China/USA conflict is a near-certainty.

China has decided to become a superpower with uncontested influence in Asia. This ambition has two major roadblocks - USA and Japan. India and Russia may be minor roadblocks.

Russia has now major problems with USA which has pushed Russia into China's arms. So this irritant is removed.

Let us see how the rest goes.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
My view is for India to step aside and let China confront USA and Japan in the path of its superpowerdom.

No need to weather Chinese storm. This Chinese storm is very much created by USA. The foreign policy of USA is the most myopic of any empire that has ruled so far in the world.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
My fellow Americans:

. . .

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

. . .
Full text: Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
There will be a strong posturing between US and China to test the real balance and the reaction including the reaction from its allies.
This is getting interesting
:popcorn:

Since taking office, Obama has spearheaded a coordinated effort to maintain US imperialism's domination of the entire Asia-Pacific region by diplomatically and militarily encircling China. The "pivot," formally announced in November 2011, has also seen Washington fuel previously low-level territorial disputes between China and its neighbours, including with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and several South East Asian states over the South China Sea.

In the 18 months since Obama hosted Xi Jinping in southern California for their first meeting together, there have been a series of incidents in these contested locations that have threatened to trigger a regional military conflict, with the potential to escalate into an outright war between the US and China.

American imperialism is actively preparing its military to wage war against the rising Asian power, shifting 60 percent of its air and naval assets to the region and developing its "AirSea Battle" strategy, based on a devastating missile and air bombardment and naval blockade of China.

The Obama administration does not want, however, to be drawn into a conflict with China at a time and over an issue not of its choosing. This is why Washington has urged Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who met with Xi for the first time on Monday, to reduce tensions with Beijing about the tiny and uninhabited islands in the East China Sea over which both countries claim ownership.

The agreements involve a significant concession by Beijing to Washington's constantly repeated call for "greater transparency" from China over its military affairs. As well as this demand being part of US propaganda to play up the "Chinese threat," the Pentagon in particular is seeking a greater insight into the military capacities of its potential foe.
source:Obama – Xi Jinping Talks Underscore US War Threats against China | Global Research

Thucydides described this "natural" process regarding Athens and Sparta as a combination of "rise" and fear — which inevitably leads to war. Today this is known as the "Thucydides trap." The international relations question of our age is: Can China and the U.S. avoid it?
Source:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...er-to-viewing-war-as-inevitable/#.VGWKR4-gnLc

Beware the "Thucydides Trap" Trap
Professor Graham Allison of the Kennedy School at Harvard commonly warns the United States and China not to fall into the "Thucydides Trap." This trap, he opines, yawns wide because of "the dangers two parties face when a rising power rivals a ruling power — as Athens did in 5th century BC and Germany did at the end of the 19th century. Most such challenges have ended in war. Peaceful cases required huge adjustments in the attitudes and actions of the governments and the societies of both countries involved."

Allison is referring to Thucydides' famous statement that it was the rise of Athenian power and the fear it inspired in Sparta that constituted the true cause of the Peloponnesian War. I have my doubts about this rather mechanical reading of Thucydides' history, and about whether the father of history meant to propound a general rule of international affairs. Straight-line projections often say something important. They help reveal the context within which power politics unfolds. But human decisions, actions, and interactions matter as much as any measure of national power or any trend the observer may chart — often more so.

The Greek precedent maps to contemporary circumstances imperfectly at best. Indeed, this is one historical analogy that's instructive precisely because of the differences it exposes. Simple realities of power were at work in the Greek world, but Sparta was no America. Far from being an established custodian of the regional order, the Spartans were loath to exercise leadership. That's different from a Great Britain or an America at its zenith, a global marine power jealous of its standing.

The Spartans' reticence frustrated their allies while opening the door for Athens to vie for regional supremacy. It was the Athenians who led the effort to mop up the remnants of the Persian incursion following such apocalyptic battles as Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea. They rode their success to leadership first of a league of city-states, and ultimately of a nautical empire scattered across much of the Mediterranean world. That sounds more like Britain or the United States.

But it was the character of Athens' rise, not the mere fact of its rise, that helped set the Peloponnesian War in motion. Hubris — overweening pride that brings forth divine punishment — is a central theme in Greek history and literature. The Athenians contracted a bad case of it while rolling back the Persians and founding their empire. Half a century after the fact, as Thucydides tells it, Athenian emissaries were still regaling anyone who would listen about the city's part in defeating Persia. Meanwhile, their consensual league of states mutated into a tyranny. Small wonder the Spartans fretted over Athens' rise. Economic and naval might joined to such bombast must have looked menacing indeed.

So how rising and established states conduct themselves matters. It's not just about power. Now consider the modern case Professor Allison cites, that of Imperial Germany and Great Britain a century ago. Why single out Anglo-German antagonism when two other sea powers, the United States and Imperial Japan, were on the rise at the same time?

According to the Thucydides Trap metaphor, Britain should have faced the prospect of conflict with not one but three powers on the make. Yet the British cut deals with Tokyo and Washington that let the Royal Navy draw down its North American and Far Eastern stations and pull back to European waters. The relative dearth of Anglo-American and Anglo-Japanese enmity before World War I works against the Thucydides Trap thesis. There's no substitute for probing the strategic context in full.

Ferreting out other factors reveals, for instance, that Britain's overriding concern was Germany, its mercurial Kaiser, and its High Seas Fleet. Like classical Athens, Germany combined capability with worrisome intent. And its fleet was close by, just across the North Sea from the British Isles.

The United States and Japan, by contrast, were faraway powers. Neither was especially hostile. Hypothetically speaking, they could menace British interests. Overseas interests, however, took a back seat to homeland defense. Accommodating Washington and Tokyo thus seemed like a natural choice for London by the antebellum years. Nor did Japan or America have to make the "huge adjustments" of which Allison writes to stave off conflict with Britain. Royal Navy squadrons steamed away, leaving the U.S. and Imperial Japanese Navies ascendant in their home regions. That suited the regional contenders just fine.

Similarly, survey today's strategic landscape. The BRICS countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — are making their ascent to regional if not world power. The Thucydides Trap suggests that dark days lie ahead for them and for America. But how likely is conflict between the United States and Brazil, India, South Africa, or even a prickly Russia? Not very, methinks.

That leaves China. The trend lines in East Asia point to competition or even conflict. But trends are not fate. How events unfold will rest mainly with decisionmakers in Washington, Beijing, and other regional stakeholders. That — not a simple parable of rise and decline — is the lesson from Thucydides.

source: Beware the “Thucydides Trap” Trap | The Diplomat
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Yes, there is a gradual and long term preparation going on at both sides; Russia as well. It is clearly visible as a build up.
It has been going on for quite some time and will not cease regardless of whatever be the diplomatic weather between US and China.

But there is no US-China war impending in the near future. The circumstances haven't yet raised the stakes so much that a war would seem better to them than status quo.
Beyond a decade from now, anything can happen and I agree that India should stay out of it. Let the biggies clash their egos amd muscles, we got no dog in that fight.

In the eventuality, our priority should be to safeguard overseas Indians, our trade routes (marine ones) and above all - stay vigilant against well designed mischiefs (border or mainland terror attacks) driven by the purpose of provoking & dragging India into the third world war.
Nobody likes to go down alone, many of them will try their best to pull us in. Let us not create reasons for ourselves to go at war.

Regards,
Virendra
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
Thucydides Trap 2.0: Superpower Suicide?

Though Russian troops gather on Ukraine's border, and civil war devastates Aleppo, the view from Washington still sees the 'big story' of this century as the rise of China and the mischief it entails. The big question is about the potential switch from an American to an Asian century and the bloody reckoning this could bring with it. Are America and China on collision course in the tradition of Athens and Sparta, or Imperial Germany and Edwardian Britain?

Some observers, such as Graham Allison and Joseph Nye of Harvard University, and recently strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski,sense that the problem is all Greek. They turn to the Athenian general and historian Thucydides, and his history of the Peloponnesian conflict that long ago tore apart the Hellenic world and wrecked Athenian power. As Thucydides wrote, Athens' growing power frightened Sparta, determined to hold the status quo. The power shift bred suspicion, and suspicion bred war. Likewise, unless they strike a bargain, Washington and Beijing might walk into a 'Thucydides trap.'

Thucydides did portray a trap, and his account of an ancient war warrants attention. But the trap he spoke of was more insidious and closer to home. His prime theme wasn't with the external origins of superpower war. The real snare in his History was not the murder of great powers, but their suicide.


Sparta-Athens comparisons often come to the lips of American strategic thinkers. That Thucydides did not lay out a sustained explicit theory, and that his opinion is hard to extract from the arguments he recreated, does not stop people from ransacking his history for lessons. During the Cold War, some looked to Athens as America's surrogate, a democratic, dynamic naval power confronted by the Soviet land empire and garrison state. It is a discomforting analogy. When Henry Kissinger spoke of the Soviets as 'Sparta to our Athens,' a journalist asked 'Does that mean we're bound to lose?' During hot 'small' wars, debate turned to Athens' calamitous Sicilian expedition as a parallel to Vietnam or Iraq. But with an emerging power challenging the existing strategic order of the Far East, attention turns back to the Greek precedent of bipolar rivalry.

Through the lens of 'China anxiety,' Thucydides' history stands as a perpetual reminder of the dangers of power transition. It is hard, pessimists fear, for one power to rise and the other to decline without clashing as they pass. The deeds of Beijing and Washington suggest an escalating rivalry that will get harder to keep within limits. For all the soothing rhetoric about pivots, rebalancing and the protection of norms, the hard reality is a tightening ring of American alliances and an ever-more-assertive Asian heavyweight pressing its territorial claims and pushing out its defense perimeter. And deny it all he likes, Obama isn't shifting over half of American naval assets to the Asia Pacific to contain pirates.

But contrary to fatalists, power transitions do not necessarily lead to wars. As James Holmes argues, Britain avoided clashes with imperial France, the United States and Japan before 1914. Thucydides made a different lamentation that should resonate for the United States: about the way Athens' foreign policy disaster was born in civil strife. Growing power led to a loosening of restraint and the corruption of language. The 'root cause' was not the hegemonic challenger's rise, but Athens' own growth, generating a lust for power and destructive politics with 'national security' as the totem. Foreign-policy debate suffered. In the debased rhetoric of the time, hardliners and opportunists treated the prudential regard for limits as unpatriotic cowardice.

In Book Three, Thucydides' description of wartime rhetoric bears resemblance to today's gridlocked politics. 'Words had to change their ordinary meaning....Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected.' An aristocrat exiled by the people's vote, Thucydides portrayed a volatile Athenian population misled by demagogues that whipped it up. Even allowing for his disdain for unruly democracy, we can recognize in his History a useful warning. Power generates an obsession with status and the projection of strength, mutates into imperial swagger, and coarsens domestic politics. Domestic political spite in the imperial capital leads to moral and strategic failure, precisely because it makes sober debate difficult.

So, in today's democratic superpower, restraint is labeled 'timidity.' A reluctance to risk more American casualties in peripheral wars is 'fecklessness.' Concern that a state with a multitrillion dollar debt should shift some burdens to rich allies, scale back some ambitions, and bring its commitments and power into balance is 'isolationism.'
Despite sanctioning and negotiating with Iran, strengthening ties with East Asian states, attempting to broker peace in the West Bank and Syria, critics charge the Obama administration with 'turning inward' and a 'global retreat.' For Condoleezza Rice, reductions in the defense budget and failure to leave a residual presence in the Iraq she helped Pyrrhically to liberate add up to a forsaking of 'leadership.'


Such rhetorical poison runs in both directions. President Obama might break a wintry smile at Thucydides' description of intemperate rhetoric. But his own party has its share of opportunists more concerned to appear tough than get serious. The lack of serious opposition to the dogmatically conceived invasion of Iraq flowed in part from the reluctance of many congressional Democrats to ask difficult questions, or even read the intelligence reports. Only when the body count rose and intelligence failures emerged did they discover that the Neoconservatives made them do it. A climate of hysterical accusation prevents the formation of a party of caution, and impedes the measured consideration of hard choices, including one of the hardest choices of all—whether to pursue primacy or balance in Asia.

The mutual spiral of domestic disarray and strategic error loomed soon after the United States became a superpower. Journalist Walter Lippmann warned during the Korean War that the crisis of the escalation of the war into a dangerous clash with China rose from a fatal symbiosis between growing strength and bitter domestic politics. The unwise expansion of the war into northern Korea, the agitation for taking the war into China and the rise of McCarthyist politics fed off each other. Truman was judged harshly—but by the very standards his own over-reaching Doctrine raised, trapped in a set of crusading images of his own making. This 'Lippmann Gap', between means and ends, fed and was fed by the kind of partisan rancor that today resurfaces in American politics.

Since then, every major, prudent move of retrenchment and adjustment has drawn charges of appeasement and weakness, from President Richard Nixon's realignment with China, to Ronald Reagan's arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. Both Thucydides and Lippmann were pessimistic about democracy, believing that it needed elite guardians to steady the ship. But one need not reject democracy to agree with their diagnosis. Effective statecraft, and its unraveling, begins at home.

A glance at the history of major powers suggests that their fall originates more in self-inflicted wounds than in the challenge of rivals. As Steven Van Evera writes, since 1815, great powers have been conquered on eight occasions. On six of those occasions, the aggressors were fuelled by 'fantasy-driven defensive bellicosity.' A nuclear-armed, distant maritime-air heavyweight and liberal democracy like America may not go the way of Imperial Japan, Wilhelmine Germany or Napoleonic France. But by falling prey to its own fears, it could become its own worst enemy.

Avoiding a clash will take compromise from both America and China, and a willingness to reconsider their security horizons and renegotiate their universe. This difficult adjustment will need the formation of coalitions at home. Rhetorical absolutes, and the hollow vocabulary of 'retreat' and 'leadership', are particularly unsuitable to the nature of the Asia-Pacific, because that region makes sheer dominance difficult. For China, as for the United States, a maritime military balance will make conquest by anyone difficult. While a rising China will be constrained by a neighborhood of wary adversaries, the United States with its debt-deficit problem will be lucky if its unipolarity lasts. This difficult equilibrium is the reality. A milder language, therefore, is needed for America to pick its way through the chaos, and dodge the trap.


Dr. Patrick Porter is Reader in International War and Security at the University of Reading. His research interests are diplomatic and strategic history, U.S. and United Kingdom grand strategy, and the history of strategic thought. He is a fellow of the UK Chief of the Defence Staff's Strategic Forum, and a contributing editor to Infinity, a new online strategy journal. Dr. Porter is the author of Military Orientalism: Eastern War through Western Eyes (Columbia University Press and Hurst, 2009) and The Global Village Myth: Distance, Strategy and Modern War (Georgetown University Press, forthcoming). He authored articles in International Affairs, War in History, Diplomacy and Statecraft, the Journal of Strategic Studies, War and Society, Historical Research, Security Dialogue, Parameters, and the RUSI Journal, and has written op-eds for Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, The Age, and The Sydney Morning Herald.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
USA will subjugate China internally !!

At the moment no nation can challenge USA for decades to come !!
Sloganeering like this reduces the quality of debate. At least we can have an intelligent debate on this forum if not in Indian parliament.

If you are an expert on American military, please tell your reasons why you think so.
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,417
Likes
12,935
Country flag
Sloganeering like this reduces the quality of debate. At least we can have an intelligent debate on this forum if not in Indian parliament.

If you are an expert on American military, please tell your reasons why you think so.
Study USSR and USA conflict and know it your self !!
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Sloganeering like this reduces the quality of debate. At least we can have an intelligent debate on this forum if not in Indian parliament.

If you are an expert on American military, please tell your reasons why you think so.
He is entitled to his opinion, because, he is speculating about the future. We won't know whether what he is saying is true until we reach into the future.

Study USSR and USA conflict and know it your self !!
Now, let's go back to the past.

Britain bowed out, where USSR took over. USSR bowed out where USA took over. About future, IMHO, USA will most likely bow out and PRC will take over.

It will happen very gradually, and it will be a while before we begin to realize it.
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,417
Likes
12,935
Country flag
He is entitled to his opinion, because, he is speculating about the future. We won't know whether what he is saying is true until we reach into the future.



Now, let's go back to the past.

Britain bowed out, where USSR took over. USSR bowed out where USA took over. About future, IMHO, USA will most likely bow out and PRC will take over.

It will happen very gradually, and it will be a while before we begin to realize it.
I do not think PRC will dominate USA.

China has just done what Japan, Korea and other Asian Tigers done in the past, a decade or two decades of growth.

USA has nothing to challenge right now, except China.

Reason why they are planning and encircling china from 2000 onwards.

Today they have succeeded in branding China as a trouble some neighbour from Sea of Japan to Afghanistan.

They have bogged down China's friend Russia in Ukraine crisis. Russia will be busy in Ukraine and China is left with N.Korea and Pakistan.

where as USA has technological advance, economy, diplomatic strength and MNC's which can perform and make USA economically strong again.

It is not that simple to replace USA. These guys know clearly what is coming at them and how to deal.

Even China was hugely benefited from USA due to the investments it received.

Simple logic is a guy who is lending the money knows where he is investing and what are its consequences. At the same time controls the economy of the foreign economy he is investing.

Who knows the seeds USA has sown in China has become trees and are pro USA.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
@Srinivas_K,

It is very hard to encircle continental powers. USA cannot encircle China.

China is not bogged down at all. What parameters you see which makes you make such comments.

"China friend Russia" is an immature style and thought. Russia is not a client State of China and vice-versa.

Yes USA is technologically advanced. However China has been catching up. China is the largest economy now by PPP.

USA is bogged down by massive external debts, servicing of which has become a challenge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I do not think PRC will dominate USA.

China has just done what Japan, Korea and other Asian Tigers done in the past, a decade or two decades of growth.

USA has nothing to challenge right now, except China.

Reason why they are planning and encircling china from 2000 onwards.

Today they have succeeded in branding China as a trouble some neighbour from Sea of Japan to Afghanistan.

They have bogged down China's friend Russia in Ukraine crisis. Russia will be busy in Ukraine and China is left with N.Korea and Pakistan.

where as USA has technological advance, economy, diplomatic strength and MNC's which can perform and make USA economically strong again.

It is not that simple to replace USA. These guys know clearly what is coming at them and how to deal.

Even China was hugely benefited from USA due to the investments it received.

Simple logic is a guy who is lending the money knows where he is investing and what are its consequences. At the same time controls the economy of the foreign economy he is investing.

Who knows the seeds USA has sown in China has become trees and are pro USA.
In addition to what @sgarg has said, it is the RMB that is going to take the sting out of the US Dollar. As the DOllar gradually weakens, so with the US military power. PRC needn't fight a war. It will simply intimidate its neighbors (excluding Russia, India and Australia) enough to ensure that the RMB becomes a major trade currency in the Asia-Pacific.

A quarter of US Treasury bonds are held by PRC.



@Srinivas_K,

It is very hard to encircle continental powers. USA cannot encircle China.

China is not bogged down at all. What parameters you see which makes you make such comments.

"China friend Russia" is an immature style and thought. Russia is not a client State of China and vice-versa.

Yes USA is technologically advanced. However China has been catching up. China is the largest economy now by PPP.

USA is bogged down by massive external debts, servicing of which has become a challenge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,417
Likes
12,935
Country flag
In addition to what @sgarg has said, it is the RMB that is going to take the sting out of the US Dollar. As the DOllar gradually weakens, so with the US military power. PRC needn't fight a war. It will simply intimidate its neighbors (excluding Russia, India and Australia) enough to ensure that the RMB becomes a major trade currency in the Asia-Pacific.

A quarter of US Treasury bonds are held by PRC.

This is a weakness if China, USA can twist the arm if China by using treasury bonds !!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,417
Likes
12,935
Country flag
@Srinivas_K,

It is very hard to encircle continental powers. USA cannot encircle China.

China is not bogged down at all. What parameters you see which makes you make such comments.

"China friend Russia" is an immature style and thought. Russia is not a client State of China and vice-versa.

Yes USA is technologically advanced. However China has been catching up. China is the largest economy now by PPP.

USA is bogged down by massive external debts, servicing of which has become a challenge.
Did any one thought that entire Islamic world which consists of 1.6 Billion people can be dominated and made chaotic??

They did this in just one and half decade !!

China is a power which grew infront of USA, they know its weakness, its strength.

USA has allies all around China from South Korea to Afghanistan.


Regarding Russia and China, Economy is the main thing along with military power. You can buy politicians, bureaucrats and military officials if you can spend Billions of dollars in the name of trade deals.

West know that China and Russia will get close and confront the west. Reason why they have created Ukraine, to bog down Russia.

Strategic analysis and predictions is a science which every country does. USA does this best !!

China will never match USA nor China can dominate Asia. CCP will loose its power due to democratic and civil rights movements !!


At best China will act like Germany of Hitler to reorder Asia according to USA's plans.

The best part of the plan the USA has for China is to make its neighbours fight China with USA behind them pulling the strings.

China cannot break through the alliance of Japan, Vietnam, and other bigger powers also USA.

The noose is already tightened. The more China tries to confront this ring the more it gets tightened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
This is a weakness if China, USA can twist the arm if China by using treasury bonds !!
How so? PRC holds US Treasury bonds, not the other way around. I guess I am not getting your point.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top