• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Montecresto said:
Sure SD. You go tell all that bull**** to the administration, the Pentagon, the CFR and other think tanks full of people with just a little bit more knowledge on the subject than you, all the analysts, including the one in the op and let us know what you hear back.
Click to expand...

The analysts are always ginning up threats. How do you think they justify the fact that we spend more on defense than the next umpteen countries combined. A few years ago they were talking about a resurgent Russia and how much of a threat they were going to be. Mind you the country could not even fuel its navy, but just the same they were supposed to be a growing threat.

China is our competitor, not our enemy. There are no parallels between China and the former USSR. We are economically integrated with China. They are not going to go to war with us. Hell, visit the country, they like us.
 
Sherman123 said:
We do not want an nationalist autocracy to dominate the most populous and economically important continent on the planet. It is in our interests to prevent this from occurring politically, economically, and morally.
Click to expand...

But why do we have to be an adversary of China? I mean we don't treat Europe like this.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Calm down man, I'm actually on your side here. One doesn't need to be a superpower to adequately defend two small bodies of water. I'm just saying that their emphasis isn't on power projection or open water navies, but in A2/AD. Here's a paper on the subject (From the Naval War College no less):

http://www.usnwc.edu/Lucent/OpenPdf.aspx?id=95&title=The Global System in Transition
Click to expand...

But that was a very calm post, with no exclamations, no caps and no cursing, lol!
 
However, I am confident that China and Russia would give us discount prices to make our uniforms, electronics and weapons systems to keep them in check. :roll:
 
Montecresto said:
China could soon defeat the United States and its allies in a naval conflict in the East Pacific, says Vassily Kashin, a senior research fellow at the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

In a commentary published on Dec. 27 on the website of the Voice of Russia, the Russian government's international radio broadcasting service, Kashin says it is "highly probable" that by 2020 China could defeat the US in a local conflict in the east part of the Pacific or slow down the transportation of US forces to the region after it completes its current cycle of reforming and rearming the People's Liberation Army.

"China could be able of reaching its political goals even before the US localizes all the necessary forces for a full-scale counterattack," Kashin said.

China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst


Well, we could only hope that such events need not ever be stress tested.
Click to expand...

There is the thing about red lines and war. If the adversary thinks you are a wimp and will not push the button, MAD does not work.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The analysts are always ginning up threats. How do you think they justify the fact that we spend more on defense than the next umpteen countries combined. A few years ago they were talking about a resurgent Russia and how much of a threat they were going to be. Mind you the country could not even fuel its navy, but just the same they were supposed to be a growing threat.

China is our competitor, not our enemy. There are no parallels between China and the former USSR. We are economically integrated with China. They are not going to go to war with us. Hell, visit the country, they like us.
Click to expand...

What about China creating "Self-Defense Zones". That seems to be a bit provocative doesn't it?
 
Montecresto said:
But that was a very calm post, with no exclamations, no caps and no cursing, lol!
Click to expand...

I'm just imagining you as the homeless guy running around in rags with a sign screaming "The end is nigh!"
 
Hamster Buddha said:
But why do we have to be an adversary of China? I mean we don't treat Europe like this.
Click to expand...

Because Europe is a collection of democratic polities that we trust due to their system of government which in turn allows them to work in concert with us and vice versa. It is why even at the height of the fears of Japanese economic hegemony in the 1980's we never seriously considered the need for a future military bulwark against Japan, or when India was performing more strongly alongside China in the 1990's we never speculated about an Indian containment strategy. It goes to the core of Democratic Peace.

Edit: While China for all its protestations to the contrary is self-aggrandizing power with regional and global pretensions that are contrary to our interests and beyond our ability to trust.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
Because Europe is a collection of democratic polities that we trust due to their system of government which in turn allows them to work in concert with us and vice versa. It is why even at the height of the fears of Japanese economic hegemony in the 1980's we never seriously considered the need for a future military bulwark against Japan, or when India was performing more strongly alongside China in the 1990's we never speculated about an Indian containment strategy. It goes to the core of Democratic Peace.
Click to expand...

So because they have a different form of government, that makes them a potential enemy. I get what your saying, but when you boil it down, doesn't it sound petty?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
What about China creating "Self-Defense Zones". That seems to be a bit provocative doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Is it any different than what we have one around our own country. It is certainly not like they are asserting Manifest Destiny over their whole hemisphere or anything. I am not saying they are not going to be provocative from time to time, or flex their muscles in the region from time to time, but I don't believe it will ever lead to any sort of real conflict at all. We are simply too economically integrated for that to happen. Name any decent sized western company and they have operations in China. Any decent sized Chinese company has operations over here. In past large conflicts between great powers you simply did not have that kind of economic "globalism" integration. In 1914, Germany did not have large numbers of factories in Britain. In 1940, Japan did not have corporate offices all over the United States. At no time in the Cold War did we have any real economic integration with the USSR.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The analysts are always ginning up threats. How do you think they justify the fact that we spend more on defense than the next umpteen countries combined. A few years ago they were talking about a resurgent Russia and how much of a threat they were going to be. Mind you the country could not even fuel its navy, but just the same they were supposed to be a growing threat.

China is our competitor, not our enemy. There are no parallels between China and the former USSR. We are economically integrated with China. They are not going to go to war with us. Hell, visit the country, they like us.
Click to expand...

First you tell me that all "serious analysts" see China as no threat at all, now you say they're playing with the numbers to justify hefty budgets. I really think you should take an honest look at THE INCREASE in Chinas spending in the last decade, then you might be breathing the same air as those compiling the anual Pentagon reports on China to congress.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
So because they have a different form of government, that makes them a potential enemy. I get what your saying, but when you boil it down, doesn't it sound petty?
Click to expand...

I think it's actually extremely fundamental. Their form of government is what makes them aggressive and untrustworthy. You can ascribe a variety of reasons for this that range from game theory analysis of decision making matrices to foreign policy inertia and feedback, and on. Regardless it is no coincidence that established and legitimate democracies do not fight each. If China were a democracy we would still have problems but the threat would be dramatically diminished and our posture would be significantly different.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Is it any different than what we have one around our own country. It is certainly not like they are asserting Manifest Destiny over their whole hemisphere or anything. I am not saying they are not going to be provocative from time to time, or flex their muscles in the region from time to time, but I don't believe it will ever lead to any sort of real conflict at all. We are simply too economically integrated for that to happen. Name any decent sized western company and they have operations in China. Any decent sized Chinese company has operations over here. In past large conflicts between great powers you simply did not have that kind of economic "globalism" integration. In 1914, Germany did not have large numbers of factories in Britain. In 1940, Japan did not have corporate offices all over the United States. At no time in the Cold War did we have any real economic integration with the USSR.
Click to expand...

Before World War 1, there was a great deal of economic integration between the major European powers. It's part of the reason that many on both sides didn't believe such a thing was possible. Didn't really work out for them did it? Again, you think that a war has to start by each side being intelligent and no mistakes being made. All it takes is for China to assert itself in contested areas (we have no such thing btw) to much, or us to push back to hard... either side to underestimate their intentions, and war could erupt at a moment's notice. I also went over these points in a previous post in more detail, so I'll let you reference those instead.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Is it any different than what we have one around our own country. It is certainly not like they are asserting Manifest Destiny over their whole hemisphere or anything. I am not saying they are not going to be provocative from time to time, or flex their muscles in the region from time to time, but I don't believe it will ever lead to any sort of real conflict at all. We are simply too economically integrated for that to happen. Name any decent sized western company and they have operations in China. Any decent sized Chinese company has operations over here. In past large conflicts between great powers you simply did not have that kind of economic "globalism" integration. In 1914, Germany did not have large numbers of factories in Britain. In 1940, Japan did not have corporate offices all over the United States. At no time in the Cold War did we have any real economic integration with the USSR.
Click to expand...

That works both ways you know. But then it didn't stop the US from flexing its big muscle declaring that it was positioning 60% of its Pentagon assets in the WestPac, did it?
 
Sherman123 said:
I think it's actually extremely fundamental. Their form of government is what makes them aggressive and untrustworthy. You can ascribe a variety of reasons for this that range from game theory analysis of decision making matrices to foreign policy inertia and feedback, and on. Regardless it is no coincidence that established and legitimate democracies do not fight each. If China were a democracy we would still have problems but the threat would be dramatically diminished and our posture would be significantly different.
Click to expand...

And back during the Cold War I got that, as the USSR was constantly exporting their form of government around the world and trying to destabilize regimes and so on and so forth. But what national interests would we have for getting involved in a regional conflict over, let's say the East China Sea, between Japan and China? I agree that China doesn't want war with us, but they do want some of these areas that contain energy resources that they desperately need.
 
shrubnose said:
it means that China will not be going to war with the USA.
Click to expand...

They may not want war with the US, they probably don't want war at all, but the potential is there for a conflict, you would agree yes?
 
joko104 said:
If China wants to dominate the sea in it's immediate area it obviously could come to be able to do so, unless Japan radically re-arms too.
Click to expand...

Heya Joko. :2wave: Why.....Japans Navy has more ships than the Brits do.
 
MMC said:
Heya Joko. :2wave: Why.....Japans Navy has more ships than the Brits do.
Click to expand...

And if we are talking about open waters, than you would have a point. But china will be using aircraft and cruise missile capabilities to wage war in the East China Sea.
 
Sherman123 said:
I think it's actually extremely fundamental. Their form of government is what makes them aggressive and untrustworthy. You can ascribe a variety of reasons for this that range from game theory analysis of decision making matrices to foreign policy inertia and feedback, and on. Regardless it is no coincidence that established and legitimate democracies do not fight each. If China were a democracy we would still have problems but the threat would be dramatically diminished and our posture would be significantly different.
Click to expand...

It is the USA that is documented to be untrustworthy and aggressive. We have snatched assets in every area of the World. The ME war-making has been about OIL. Syria is about OIL. Iraq is about OIL. Libya is about OIL. The USA is the saber rattler around the World, and we create instability and civil wars to try to subjugate the World with our Banking system and Corporate hierarchy. That's reality.
 
DaveFagan said:
It is the USA that is documented to be untrustworthy and aggressive. We have snatched assets in every area of the World. The ME war-making has been about OIL. Syria is about OIL. Iraq is about OIL. Libya is about OIL. The USA is the saber rattler around the World, and we create instability and civil wars to try to subjugate the World with our Banking system and Corporate hierarchy. That's reality.
Click to expand...

Oh you silly hippy.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
It won't be a ground war that we will have to wage with China though. What it will probably become is an attempt to assert it's rights and aggressively defend it's claims in the East and South China Sea. The US and Japan won't tolerate this, and that's when war would break out. Not a world war scale, but a naval/air force action which they have been preparing for the last 20 or so years. At that point, it will probably devolve into a blockade of some sort to try and starve out the country of energy and food, because China doesn't have the force projection capabilities they won't be able to break it. In response, they'll probably send out their diesel sub fleet and start hitting our shipping and oil rigs that we rely on. Then it just be a question of who is willing to suffer the longest, odds are that the US would cave first, as public opinion will probably see it as just another war "over there" and Japan doesn't have the resources to wage that kind of war for a prolonged period of time.
Click to expand...

Ah H Buddha
f_zen.gif
.....but then those winds do tend to shift around. Wherein others interest would come into play, knowing they would be next to fall to China"s dominance. Such as Taiwan and Vietnam. Course then South Korea and the Phillipines. Which China would not even be ready for all coming at it while trying to contend with US Naval Forces and any of our alleged other Allies.
 
MMC said:
Ah H Buddha
f_zen.gif
.....but then those winds do tend to shift around. Wherein others interest would come into play, knowing they would be next to fall to China"s dominance. Such as Taiwan and Vietnam. Course then South Korea and the Phillipines. Which China would not even be ready for all coming at it while trying to contend with US Naval Forces and any of our alleged other Allies.
Click to expand...

I don't see South Korea getting involved, though if they were that were certainly escalate things severely if North Korea was to kick start that conflict. The Philippines and Vietnam wouldn't start up anything at this point, more than likely wait and see what happens. After all, perhaps if the Americans and the Japanese can keep it together, they won't have to worry about the South China Sea. That and Vietnam would then have to deal with the possibility of and invasion. All of this really depends on how far the varying powers want to escalate things. If anything, the US winning a conflict with China over the East China Sea (and the possible war it could spawn) is by no means a forgone conclusion.
 
DaveFagan said:
It is the USA that is documented to be untrustworthy and aggressive. We have snatched assets in every area of the World. The ME war-making has been about OIL. Syria is about OIL. Iraq is about OIL. Libya is about OIL. The USA is the saber rattler around the World, and we create instability and civil wars to try to subjugate the World with our Banking system and Corporate hierarchy. That's reality.
Click to expand...

Naw. Not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom