Is war between the USA and China inevitable - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14845359
While China may be a reluctant superpower with an ageing population what they have achieved economically in the past 20-25 years cannot be denied.

If they can get rich before they get old they will surely surpass America as the worlds number one economic superpower.

I doubt America would let this happen without using any means it possess to prevent it, even its military.

So I'm not really asking "is a war between China and the US inevitable" but more, would a war between China and the US be inevitable if America feared it would eventually be replaced as the worlds number one superpower by China?
#14845486
SolarCross wrote:The US won't fight China with conventional arms as that is a losing proposition, possibly the US has quality but China has quantity. If the US ever fights China it will either be as part of a vast coalition or as a nuclear exchange.


Good thing China doesn't have any nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them. :lol:
#14845617
There is the Thucydides Trap argument. The idea is that the status quo power and the rising power end up in conflict due to the fear of competition by the status quo power and the desire to expand by the up and coming power. This was a reasonable explanation for conflict between Sparta and Athens but today's world is more complex with a greater number of factions.

Also, there are nukes. Nukes tend to put a damper on warfare between large states as they can't get close to winning without the losing side resorting to MAD. We might expect to see many short wars generally involving proxies, hybrid warfare and such like. The real conflict is economic and political. But I don't think Industrial Age total war is likely due to the presence of nukes. A nuclear war would ruin both nations. But there is a risk things could get out of control.

The USA is going to be struggling to hold China back. But then there is India too. Europe is a possible competitor but seems to be more of a danger to themselves. Russia, Japan, Korea, the list goes on. The best thing the US has going for it is the potiential to be a facilitator. The Americans can still fall back on this even if they can't control the world outright. But can they make the gear-shift in thinking to move from hegemon to a facilitator between nations?

@anarchist23 video about Pilger's movie points out the Chinese are scared of America. But the USA is all they are scared off. China's neighbours are scared of China. What's more they are collectively weak compare to China. So they encourage US involvement. The US, like Sparta, is scared of China. Whose fear matters most? Pilger's position is nonsense.

I think both @anarchist23 and Pilger don't really have any answers. What is likely to happen, as happened with Sparta and Athens, is the USA and China will exhaust themselves in competition and one or more of the other contenders will come out ahead. Regardless, it will be the same old shit for the rest of us.

Thucydides wrote something else of interest besides the idea of Thucydides trap. He also wrote "the strong did what they will and the weak suffered what they must".
#14845619
In the next few decades USA could develope an efficient anti ballistic missile shield and a preemptive strike against China is then plausible.

VLADIVOSTOK — If the next world war is to happen, it will most likely be in Asia and feature a clash between the incumbent hegemon, the United States, and the principal challenger, China. The good news is China does not want war now and in the foreseeable future, primarily because Beijing knows too well that the odds are not on its side. But if we look ahead 20 years from now, in 2034, the circumstances will have shifted significantly.

NOT NOW
There are three reasons war is unlikely anytime soon.

First, despite the double-digit annual growth in its defense budgets, China’s military still significantly lags behind the U.S.’ It will take China 15 to 20 years to attain parity or near-parity with the U.S.-Japan allied forces in the East Asian littoral.

Second, for all the talk of mutual interdependence, China depends on America much more than the other way round. China is still critically reliant on the U.S and its allies, the EU and Japan, as its principal export markets and sources of advanced technologies and know-how. Overall, China’s dependence on international markets is very high, with the trade to GDP ratio standing at 53 percent. China imports many vital raw materials, such as oil and iron ore.

As most of its commodity imports are shipped by the sea, China would be extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, which is likely to be mounted by the U.S. in case of a major conflict. Both for economic and strategic reasons, the Chinese government pursues policies to reduce the country’s reliance on foreign markets, trying to shift from an export-oriented model to domestic sources of growth. It is also making efforts to secure raw materials in the countries and regions contiguous to China, like Central Asia, Russia or Burma, so as to reduce dependence on sea-born shipments. However, at least for the next 15 to 20 years China’s dependency on the West-dominated global economic system is going to stay very significant.

Third, China would have to confront not the U.S. alone but also America’s Asian allies, including Japan, Australia and perhaps India. Thus China needs at least one major power ally and some lesser allies. Whether China dares to pose a serious challenge to the U.S. will, to a large extent, hinge upon Beijing and Moscow forming a Eurasian geopolitical bloc. This is already happening now, but it is going to take some more time.

The bottom line: over the next 15 to 20 years a major war in Asia is highly unlikely because Beijing will be playing a cautious game. Even if a military clash does occur, it will be short, with China being quickly routed by the preponderant American force. However, around 2030 the balance is bound to undergo considerable changes, if China is successful in:
1) closing military gap with the U.S.;

2) making its economy less reliant on the Western markets and overseas raw resources; and

3) forming its own alliance structure.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/artyom-lu ... 46641.html
#14845720
Image

The cost of seizing Taiwan by force is too much for China to handle and it would face crippling economic sanctions by the West, making it impossible to export to the US and Europe. To achieve global supremacy, China needs at least 9,000 more nuclear warheads and dozens of aircraft carriers. China may take Taiwan, if the majority of Taiwanese vote yes in a national referendum as it had been done in Crimea.
#14845753
That China-US military balance chart is a little out of date and ignores crucial weapon technology.

China has one operational carrier now. They are building one or two more and planning 4 or 5 in total at this time. Depends on how well their economy holds up. There are more carriers appearing in Asia. India has two and they are replacing them with more modern carriers. Japan and Australia have both introduced helicopter carriers, though those ships are intended for amphibious operations rather than fleet actions.

Still, even if all these ships were combined into a fleet, they would be nothing compared to US aircraft carriers.

But what has the Americans worried is the intermediate range bassitic missiles, especially the anti- ship versions. This is innovative technology the Americans have never faced before. Combined with submarines, naval mines, and cruise missiles, the anti ship ballistic missiles present a credible asymmetric area denial strategy which would prevent the Americans from bringing their superiority in conventional naval power to bear.

Ultimately the Chinese will need to be able to project naval power of the same order as the Americans have in order to ensure security of their global possessions independently of the USA. The Asian rivals: India, Japan and Korea, are obligated to do likewise. So we are seeing an unprecedented naval arms build up in Asia. That is what is freaking out the Pentagon. US global power is built on naval supremacy. Asia is in the process of challenging it.
#14845754
foxdemon wrote:That China-US military balance chart is a little out of date and ignores crucial weapon technology.

China has one operational carrier now. They are building one or two more and planning 4 or 5 in total at this time. Depends on how well their economy holds up. There are more carriers appearing in Asia. India has two and they are replacing them with more modern carriers. Japan and Australia have both introduced helicopter carriers, though those ships are intended for amphibious operations rather than fleet actions.

Still, even if all these ships were combined into a fleet, they would be nothing compared to US aircraft carriers.

But what has the Americans worried is the intermediate range bassitic missiles, especially the anti- ship versions. This is innovative technology the Americans have never faced before. Combined with submarines, naval mines, and cruise missiles, the anti ship ballistic missiles present a credible asymmetric area denial strategy which would prevent the Americans from bringing their superiority in conventional naval power to bear.

Ultimately the Chinese will need to be able to project naval power of the same order as the Americans have in order to ensure security of their global possessions independently of the USA. The Asian rivals: India, Japan and Korea, are obligated to do likewise. So we are seeing an unprecedented naval arms build up in Asia. That is what is freaking out the Pentagon. US global power is built on naval supremacy. Asia is in the process of challenging it.


Only advantage China has is armies of Zombies willing to die, that advantage only works in a very limited war in Chinese territory. Otherwise the Chinese are not capable of defeating the US, Russia or even Japan. Simply their culture will not function in a modern battlefield.
#14845768
ThirdTerm wrote:Image

The cost of seizing Taiwan by force is too much for China to handle and it would face crippling economic sanctions by the West, making it impossible to export to the US and Europe. To achieve global supremacy, China needs at least 9,000 more nuclear warheads and dozens of aircraft carriers. China may take Taiwan, if the majority of Taiwanese vote yes in a national referendum as it had been done in Crimea.


Why would China need aircraft carriers. This is their back yard.
#14845770
foxdemon wrote:That China-US military balance chart is a little out of date and ignores crucial weapon technology.

China has one operational carrier now. They are building one or two more and planning 4 or 5 in total at this time. Depends on how well their economy holds up. There are more carriers appearing in Asia. India has two and they are replacing them with more modern carriers. Japan and Australia have both introduced helicopter carriers, though those ships are intended for amphibious operations rather than fleet actions.

Still, even if all these ships were combined into a fleet, they would be nothing compared to US aircraft carriers.

But what has the Americans worried is the intermediate range bassitic missiles, especially the anti- ship versions. This is innovative technology the Americans have never faced before. Combined with submarines, naval mines, and cruise missiles, the anti ship ballistic missiles present a credible asymmetric area denial strategy which would prevent the Americans from bringing their superiority in conventional naval power to bear.

Ultimately the Chinese will need to be able to project naval power of the same order as the Americans have in order to ensure security of their global possessions independently of the USA. The Asian rivals: India, Japan and Korea, are obligated to do likewise. So we are seeing an unprecedented naval arms build up in Asia. That is what is freaking out the Pentagon. US global power is built on naval supremacy. Asia is in the process of challenging it.


China has neutralized our carriers with the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile.
#14845772
"carrier killers" have their own limitations, and it's not as if counter measures haven't been created. Nor does it mean we aren't developing technology that makes them obsolete. Nor do they make war viable for China (or the us).

It would be a disaster for everyone and it's extremely unlikely.
#14845791
mikema63 wrote:"carrier killers" have their own limitations, and it's not as if counter measures haven't been created. Nor does it mean we aren't developing technology that makes them obsolete. Nor do they make war viable for China (or the us).

It would be a disaster for everyone and it's extremely unlikely.


It isn't ASBM by themselves. Combined with those other area denial weapons that make the strategy viable. Any defence only has to be good enough to make it too risky and costly for an opponent to attempt to overcome it.

So China is building up a good defensive position for their growing naval power. I think Mahan said something about naval power operating from fortified bases. But the big step is to sail a blue water navy that can rival the USN. They aren't there yet but they sure are trying.

What matters is wealth. Naval power doesn't come cheap and the protagonists need strong economies. We all know the GDP stats and that China is already the largest economy in ppp terms. But here's a link anyway.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php

Note India and Japan, China's rivals, are up there too. I can't see how the USA can possibly maintain naval power overmatch in the long run. The end of US naval supremacy means a return to the pre WWII days of great power rivalry. And globalisation as we have known it over the last 70 years.
#14845798
Actually, it is not that easy to hit a ship with a ballistic missile delivered warhead. First you've got to detect the ship in a vast area of ocean, then identify that the ship is a hostile military ship. Then you need a way to track that target and provide targeting data. Remember that the ship is moving. Finally, you need terminal guidance to hit the ship.

Now that ship will have ECM and decoys. Also a layered active defence. This is assuming aircraft haven't chased off or destroyed your targeting platforms. Or ECM or cyber attacks haven't disabled any satilites you are using for reconnaissance or communication. And your command and control hasn't been neutralised by sub launched cruise missiles while you were getting your ASBMs ready to launch. And after all that, you find the target was only one or two destroyers operating as a distraction from the carrier group which is now in position to launch air strikes against your bases.

Fixed targets like Guam are much easier to hit. They don't move and everyone has the targeting coordinates already.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The Settlement program is an example of slow ethn[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]