• 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

Do you support or just excuse Chinese military spending based on "because of the US"? Do you support US military spending?




If China acts militarily against the US, the debt is cancelled - causing China to fragment and the US to become the richest nation ever. Please, please China let the US cancel its debt.

^ That claim is absurd, but you keep repeating the claim. If the US refused to honor any foreign debts we have, it is the end of the American economy. Hyper-inflation would hit within 2 weeks, when essentially every retail shelf goes empty. Write off the stock market. So would gas pumps as countries refused to accept American money for oil purchases. Within a month the USA would be a 3rd world country economically. China, having a massive industrial base and not dependent on the US market would recover. The Chinese society does not run and live on American products. The USA would not.

The USA filing bankruptcy with the world really doesn't eliminate the debt and save all that money. It would make American money worthless. Nor is it that the debt can just be "cancelled." China isn't holding a stack of IOUs like you seem to believe.

But the REAL winner would be Russia of such an economic war between China and the USA.
 
Last edited:
^ That claim is absurd, but you keep repeating the claim. If the US refused to honor any foreign debts we have, it is the end of the American economy. Hyper-inflation would hit within 2 weeks, when essentially every retail shelf goes empty. So would gas pumps as countries refused to accept American money for oil purchases. Within a month the USA would be a 3rd world country economically. China, having a massive industrial base and not dependent on the US market would recover. The Chinese society does not run on American products. The USA would not.

You expect the US to pay Chinese debt while China acts militarily against the US? I bet you think we'd also still be importing all that cheap crap. Be real.
 
You expect the US to pay Chinese debt while China acts militarily against the US? I bet you think we'd also still be importing all that cheap crap. Be real.

Explain what you mean by "militarily act against the US?" You mean attack the USA militarily? Well, that's pretty much is the end of human life on this planet so it really wouldn't matter either way.
 
China though is increasingly becoming an issue. Hence the EU should become a country ASAP!

We are not going to form into one country, we are about as united as we want to be. We also do not need it as there is the NATO and the EU can also function with troops as a union rather than a country.
 
This is a couple weeks old!!

Kerry’s Return to Vietnam Is All About Blocking China
- See more at: Kerry


The US is talking to the Philippine's as well about a port, perhaps in case it doesn't work out in Vietnam, I suppose. Also, I don't know that this is so much of a military partnership that Clinton/Gate's was working on or just a case of Vietnam being concerned enough about China to make the distasteful arrangement.


Yeah Monte thats what the Piece I had up was about......plus like I said earlier, these Asian Nations standing together will be enough. As China is into conflict with all of them. We wont need to look to the Europeans nor even consider them to be at our side with anything in this region.

Kerry has made several trips to NAM. Plus again.....South Korea already made their Statement. I didn't see anything from China responding back.
 
All depends on if the USA will have it hands tied behind its back like it has had in recent conflicts. If the US unleashed its firepower and put a middle finger up to international law then no nation on Earth could hold her back.
 
Call me when they let us set up a base in Vietnam, or when we begin conducting joint exercises. Until then, it's all talk about "strategic partnerships" is nothing but hot air and bluster.

Also... 5 patrol boats? Really? Like that's gonna help if China comes calling?



Seems the Vietnamese didn't have our help in 79 nor any of our Patrol Boats.....course as all know. China was never able to Conquer NAM and had their ass handed to themselves on a Silver Platter. Just like China was unable to deal with Japan.

The only difference from the Past......is now all these other Asian countries can and will stand together.

The New Wrinkle that China hasn't figured out.....and the one the Russians could never understand about in the first place.
 
All depends on if the USA will have it hands tied behind its back like it has had in recent conflicts. If the US unleashed its firepower and put a middle finger up to international law then no nation on Earth could hold her back.

Yeah Higgins that's the Key.....telling the UN to STFU. Then to kiss our ass. I'm all for that.
 
Yeah Higgins that's the Key.....telling the UN to STFU. Then to kiss our ass. I'm all for that.

Afghan would already be over and Iraq would be a different story. Even serving in the British army its the same story ( with less firepower), we knew what the problem was in Basra but there was **** all we could do about it. Afghan we spilled blood in the helmand and we leave and they walk back in....
 
We are not going to form into one country, we are about as united as we want to be. We also do not need it as there is the NATO and the EU can also function with troops as a union rather than a country.

Hell, maybe it's time for the US to form one country.
 
Nonsense...sort of.

Could China launch a preemptive series of air/missile strikes against U.S. bases/stockpile areas and slow America's ability to defend their regional interests...sure.
But that would only, IMO, be at best temporary.

You control the skies, you control the war. And China simply does not (not apparently will it by 2020) have the air power to take on the U.S. Air Force and Navy. Not even close. Heck, they would have a hard time taking out the Japanese 'air force' (which undoubtedly would be an active U.S. ally in any regional war).
It might take a few weeks (at most) for America to transfer enough air power to the region to gain air superiority, but it would happen. And once they control the skies, they can ship all the troops/equipment/supplies they need.
Sure, China could win the opening battle (like Japan did at Pearl Harbor in 1941) by a preemptive strike. But win the war in 2020...forget it.
 
Nope, it's just ridiculous. Perhaps by 2040, but definitely no.
 
Wow, how the hell it's possible to discuss something for 17 pages without even reading the original article that the OP site refers to.
Original article - in Russian

us-china-relations.jpg

"Air Sea Battle concept developed by the U.S. military to effectively counter the efforts of countries such as China and Iran to disrupt the deployment of U.S. forces in the surrounding regions.

Air Sea Battle concept developed by the U.S. military to effectively counter the efforts of countries such as China and Iran to disrupt the deployment of U.S. forces in the surrounding regions. Conceptually Air Sea Battle has three main lines of action: the destruction of the opponents' management, control and intelligence potential, destroying the means by which the enemy is trying to isolate the area of ​​warfare to prevent U.S. forces from entering it, and the destruction of enemy strike force.

The problem is that China for many years has been building its armed forces on the basis of such an option of enemy action. China's strategy, in turn, is based on large-scale impact on the systems of intelligence and control of its enemy using electronic warfare and cyber attacks and the use of anti-satellite weapons.

China will be able to deliver a massive and precise non-nuclear blow on U.S. military facilities and transport infrastructure in the region, dramatically slowing the rate of increase of U.S. forces in the theater of military operations. Destruction of the Chinese potential, in order to implement its strategy of isolation of the battle area, may require a huge amount of resources and, more importantly, time, given the massive Chinese investment in modern air defenses .

The presence of China's huge stockpiles of high-precision non-nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles, means that large numbers of aircraft and the U.S. Navy will be diverted to the task of providing missile defense and to destruction of mobile missile complexes.

Today, the U.S. faces an internal crisis and lack of funds. While U.S. forces are spread thinly across different regions of the world, and in some of its parts, such as the Middle East, their presence is an important element of the existing balance of power. Although the Asia-Pacific region is a declared priority of the U.S. military construction, the U.S. can not maintain the same concentration of there way to that observed in the North Atlantic during the Cold War, without negatively affecting their obligations in other parts of the world.

Taiwan, despite its considerable forces, is extremely vulnerable to attack from the mainland. Using the military potential of the territory in Sino-American conflict which is not directly affecting the island, may be difficult for political reasons. Philippines, despite the considerable territory and population, have negligible military potential and are likely to divert American forces to its defense, than can do at least something to help .

It is possible that after the completion of the current cycle of military reform and rearmament by 2020 China will be quite capable in the local conflict quickly defeat the U.S. allies and U.S. forces in the western Pacific Ocean, disrupting or slowing down the transfer of U.S. forces to the region from other parts of world. China may be able to achieve the political goals of the war before the United States in the region will focus the energy needed to complete a counterattack.

Trying to punish China and knock it out from its positions after an accomplished Chinese victory would mean for the U.S. entry into a protracted military conflict with a major foreign power - the first time since the Korean War. While no guarantee of victory and a real risk of a nuclear catastrophe. The strongest militarily U.S. allies will be in Europe and are unlikely to be able or interested in providing any help. The U.S. may simply have to accept defeat.

Thus, soon becomes obvious that the protection of American interests in East Asia can not be achieved without a permanent presence in the western Pacific of significant numbers of U.S. forces. Moreover, the inevitable and important part of this force's presence will be land forces. With the decline in budgetary resources, it means that the United States will face problems in securing military presence in other parts of the world such as the Middle East.
Thus changes in the nature of military confrontation in the Pacific certainly entail significant consequences for global politics and security.
"

Vasily Kashin for "Voice of Russia"
26 Dec. 2013
Translated by FallenAngel


Cheers,
Fallen.
 
China IS becoming an issue, you think the EU becoming one country could project itself more favorably in the event of a conflict with China?

Yes. That is why I said it.

It could communicate that China may be big and strong but it will have to look for riches elsewhere!
 
Indeed. After Iraq, nobody in the U.S. (and that includes Obama) seriously "wants" to flex our military muscle. But we also don't want to lose traction on long established policies and goals.

Assad using chemical weapons antagonizes the fragile balance of peace in the Middle East, a peace we have devoted decades of resources to preserve. From that perspective, Obama had little choice but to draw lines and make threats.

Or did they?

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has dropped yet another bombshell allegation: President Obama wasn't honest with the American people when he blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack in that killed hundreds of civilians.

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
 
... I doubt our failure to make good on our threat to attack Syria had much to do with an increase in wisdom.

(1) Democrats were tied up by their constituents

(2) Republicans do anything to undermine Obama.

(3) Our allies weren't really willing to match our commitment due to domestic politics

(4) Russia offered us an easier alternative to make good on our 'principles' and obligations to our Middle East allies, backed by a threat of turning Syria into a proxy war along with the intrinsic threat of it turning into a second Iraq. The highest and most practical levels of our government had little choice but to accept from a diplomatic and domestic politics perspective.

AND!!! Much to my pleasant surprise, there was a fair amount of angst and opposition amongst the American people this time, unlike the similar lead up to war in Iraq in which those of us who opposed were tiny in number (comparatively) and somewhat persecuted for opposing. There were even congressional members who later stated, to oppose was very dangerous to ones career and proponents of the war EXPLOITED that.
 
Yeah Monte thats what the Piece I had up was about......plus like I said earlier, these Asian Nations standing together will be enough. As China is into conflict with all of them. We wont need to look to the Europeans nor even consider them to be at our side with anything in this region.

Kerry has made several trips to NAM. Plus again.....South Korea already made their Statement. I didn't see anything from China responding back.

China need not be like one of their silly neighbors and saber rattle. As another poster already mentioned, saber rattling stems from a form of weakness. At any rate. I'm not sure I understand what your driving at. Are you suggesting that the US isn't working on redistributing 60% of our military assets to the WestPac, that we aren't having unusual levels and numbers of meetings with China's regional neighbors, or that the Pentagon isn't looking for additional deep water ports for our navy in the region. Are you saying that the regional players both can and will deal with China on their own?
 
China need not be like one of their silly neighbors and saber rattle. As another poster already mentioned, saber rattling stems from a form of weakness. At any rate. I'm not sure I understand what your driving at. Are you suggesting that the US isn't working on redistributing 60% of our military assets to the WestPac, that we aren't having unusual levels and numbers of meetings with China's regional neighbors, or that the Pentagon isn't looking for additional deep water ports for our navy in the region. Are you saying that the regional players both can and will deal with China on their own?

Well I already had mentioned them being allied with us.....so I don't agree with the premise that China could defeat us.
 
All depends on if the USA will have it hands tied behind its back like it has had in recent conflicts. If the US unleashed its firepower and put a middle finger up to international law then no nation on Earth could hold her back.

Oh, that would be nice. Yes just fly the finger to everyone else with an interest in the outcome. Sadly, your probably serious; in fact that's probably the way you handle conflict in your personal life, **** everybody else, I'm doing what I want.
 
Well I already had mentioned them being allied with us.....so I don't agree with the premise that China could defeat us.

Ooooh-Kaaay!
 
Pride precedes the fall, arrogance is tragedy waiting to happen and NO empire has ever remained at the top, nor is it possible. But in the dying days of every single one, there were no shortage of people belligerent to the notion of what they were experiencing.
 
We are not going to form into one country, we are about as united as we want to be. We also do not need it as there is the NATO and the EU can also function with troops as a union rather than a country.

Is not a UN mandate required for NATO military engagement and defense?
 
Over 150 posts before anyone mentions the debt. Best sign that the original article is about what is literally possible, rather than what is actually realistic.

Whatever we think of the Chinese government, our economies are intertwined.

If they aggressively attacked our interests (violently seizing regional power unannounced would qualify in my book,) we could withhold all payment until after the dust settled, and then renegotiate the debt, likely in our favor.

Ceasing those payments is going to have a much more immediate and dramatic effect on China than us. Factories there would start closing immediately. The U.S. would get hurt too, but not to the same extent.

So WHY would China attack our interests? They can only hurt themselves.

Though I'd rather not, it could be argued a brief conventional dust-up with China (with them as the aggressor) is exactly what our economy needs. We could negotiate the debt, stimulate the economy, and "rightsize" the Chinese military.

This is lingering Cold War FUD.
 
Back
Top Bottom