China and the United States Are Preparing for War

Discussion in 'China' started by jus, Nov 14, 2014.

  1. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    Despite the Obama-Xi handshake deal, the probability of confrontation will only heighten as long as the PLA remains a black box.

    [​IMG]

    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: Nov 14, 2014
  2.  
  3. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
     
  4. sgarg

    sgarg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    962
    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.
     
  5. sgarg

    sgarg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    962
    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.
     
  6. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Full text: Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
     
    J20! likes this.
  7. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,118
    Location:
    India
    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:


    source:Obama – Xi Jinping Talks Underscore US War Threats against China | Global Research

    Source:
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...er-to-viewing-war-as-inevitable/#.VGWKR4-gnLc

    Beware the "Thucydides Trap" Trap
     
  8. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Location:
    Delhi, India, India
    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
     
  9. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,118
    Location:
    India
    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.
     
  10. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    21,000
    Likes Received:
    11,839
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    China and the United States Are Preparing for War


    in pakistan
    :p:p:p
     
  11. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,352
    USA will subjugate China internally !!

    At the moment no nation can challenge USA for decades to come !!
     
    Ashutosh Lokhande likes this.
  12. sgarg

    sgarg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    962
    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.
     
  13. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,352
    Study USSR and USA conflict and know it your self !!
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2014
  14. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
  15. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    (unnecessary)
     
  16. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,352
    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.
     
  17. sgarg

    sgarg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    962
    @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: May 10, 2015
  18. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, 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.

    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  19. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,352
    This is a weakness if China, USA can twist the arm if China by using treasury bonds !!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  20. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,352
    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: May 10, 2015
  21. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    How so? PRC holds US Treasury bonds, not the other way around. I guess I am not getting your point.
     

Share This Page