China would win war with U.S. (UPI)

[kpete]

Security & Terrorism
China would win war with U.S.: warning
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- Asian allies are becoming increasingly skeptical of the U.S. military and are quietly warning the Bush administration not to enter into a military confrontation with China.

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea, Insight magazine online reported in its Nov. 21-27 issue.

Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. However, Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, were "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. He said China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities -- even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

Ishihara said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051122-055819-6609r

[Canuckistanian]

1. If there ever were such a war

I'd take Chinese lessons right away.

[LuCifer]

37. Might as well

Hell, I love Chinese food, may as well learn the language while I'm at it! Just so long as I can get me a Geisha! JUST KIDDING! I'm not THAT much of a MALE PIG...ok, yeah I am! BUT AT LEAST I ADMIT IT!

Lu Cifer, oh wait, Geisha is a Japan thing...WELL I WAS CLOSE!

[Matariki]

46. not to mention the one child policy has resulted in a male to female ratio

of about 5 to 1. That means not only NO Geisha for you, but no american women either. Maybe you can be a chinese soldier's buttboy?
oh wait - China doesn't have homosexuals <cough>

[BOSSHOG]

2. Add to bush's legacy

He is ruining our Army in Iraq for political reasons. Our economy is in shambles, recruitment of ground forces is down, because many folks don't want to serve under our current commander in chief. He's a fool, an evil fool and we are suffering. Please, Laura give the guy a blowjob.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Iraq is also about greed

Don't forget that one. The politics part just comes in handy for him and his republican base.

[bpilgrim]

3. we can't even beat the 2 weakest countries on the planet

there is 0 chance of us defeating china unless we go nuclear than everyone loses.

peace

[Freedom_from_Chains]

4. What can you say, we are rapidly on our way to becoming

a third world nation.

[C_U_L8R]

5. Something stinks about this so-called "news item"

Convenient how it perfect interlocks
into Rove's "cut and run" message strategy.

ie... "what kind of message would we be
sending the red chinese menace if
we admitted failure in Iraq???" ....

i'd put a big fat note of sarcasm in here
but I'd bet money we'll here it coming
out of mouths of reich wing operatives
in the coming days.

[BOSSHOG]

9. If we "cut and run"

We could spend some much needed time replenishing and refreshing our Army; give our Servicemembers a much needed break before they breakdown for good; maybe work on the deficit so we can be a player in world affairs; all the while maintaining an economically feasible rapid strike force on the horizon (in Kuwait) as proposed by that coward Rep Murtha. And you are right about the spin; but you can also bet they won't spin down to the recruiting office.

[leveymg]

27. No, UPI has turned hostile to BushCo, as have the Koreans who own it.

UPI is owned by Moon, who is a front-man for South Korean Choebel(industrial conglomerates) and governmental interests. Bush is very much allied with China, a partnership that has left Korea far behind.

The Moonie press -- Washington Times, Insight magazine -- is edited by a motley group of American paleoconservatives, libertarians and even some Left-leaning Brits with quite good credentials -- groups who have largely been excluded from insider ties with the Bush Administration.

I would agree that this is a strange (and to some extent inaccurate)article (there's no question that the US has air and naval supremacy). But, it's hard to see how this matches up with a Rovian agenda.

[icymist]

45. Add to that that it's from UPI

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that Moonie owned?

[Catchawave]

6. Good reason to bring our troops home NOW

They'll need to rest up :(

[Toots]

7. What is truly sad is that there is even such a discussion going on

Is the US's dick bigger than China's. I mean come on people......In the words of another King "Can't we all just get along?"

[Lannes]

8. They dont have to invade the US

They just have to cut off the flow of money proping us up.

[dcfirefighter]

11. Nah.

it's an outflow of money and inflow of credit and goods.

We don't need china, we need to change our monetary and fiscal policies.

[Lannes]

19. Credit is just another word for them financing our debt.

Which was my point.They cut us off and we are in big trouble.

[Yupster]

25. Debt is their problem, not ours

We could always cancel our debt to China someday in the future due to some perceived outrage.

[Lannes]

26. Who would do business with us if we did?

That would create an even larger problem.

[Terran]

28. And what happens to our economy

when all those Chinese goods we buy disappear off the shelves? Not all of it is useless junk, by a longshot.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Correct

That would, of course, start big trouble, but if our money wasn't flowing into their country for the goods, they couldn't finance a softball team, let alone a war.

This whole "China is holding our note" meme is far too often viewed through a lens of simplicity. It's far more complicated than "China is propping us up." It's completely bidirectional.
The Professor

[Lannes]

34. Yes they are propping us up,nothing simplistic about it

Of course it cuts both ways but thats not the issue.The question is who would be more affected by a severing of ties and that would be the U.S. .The Chinese have a history of dealing with hardships on a much larger scale than we ever have.They could survive a full blown trade war,we couldnt.

[ProfessorGAC]

35. No They Couldn't

Saying it angrily doesn't make you more right. You're simply wrong. They aren't propping us up. The percentage of debt they hold is miniscule compared the debt held internally by U.S. citizens. Look it up. The facts don't support your contention.

The preponderance of their cash flow is rooted in U.S. trade. Another fact you can verify through research. Their economy is not yet that stable and immune to extrinsic forces.

Sorry to burst your bubble but if you won't be convinced by the facts, then it's like talking to a conservative. They don't like facts getting in the way of their preconceived notions. NO macroeconomic interactions are as simple as you suggest. Not this one. Not any other.
The Professor

[Lannes]

38. Who said it angrily?

Why all the hostility? You have refered to me indirectly as simplistic and now Im just like a conservative.Ive been civil,you are being obnoxious.If you disagree,fine but I didnt start with the name calling.You did

It isnt just the debt,its all those cheap goods from China that we are buying in record amounts that many Americans could not afford otherwise.And yes the Chinese are better equipped to handle a trade war then we are.History shows they are more willing to sacrifice than we are.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. You Seem Angry

If you think i'm referring to you as simplistic, that's on you. I never said anything about you. You yourself said indirectly, which means you inferred that. There's a difference between what i imply and you choose to infer.

As to your final point, i understand, i just don't agree. The shift toward a capitalist economy creates a sense of comfort and entitlement in people. There plenty of the same sort of history to which you refer to establish that. As people get more comfortable, sacrifice becomes quite a lot harder to come by.

The entire cash flow structure of the Chinese economy is dependent upon major capital economies buying those goods. They cannot sustain a trade war, because nobody can do so without steady revenue. They get in a trade war with us, and they have no cash flow to speak of. And, unless Mao rises from the dead with a new cultural revolution, the people will be far less willing and able to sacrifice.

You're looking at this far too much like a X therefore Y equation. There are dozens of potential X's and several Y's. You can't think of this like a graph on a page. No offense intended, but these situations are not that simple.

And, i like it that way, by the way. There is very little in world history to suggest that countries that are economically interdependent will go to war. They can rattle sabers at times, but they will almost always work things out to a mutual best interest. In the long run, nobody wins a war.
The Professor

[Lannes]

47. If you thought I was angry well thats on you

Besides,I didnt resort to insults which you did.I didnt comment on the likelihood of a trade war only that I believe that they could handle it better than we could not that it would do more damage.Our economy is much larger but Im speaking of the collective will of Americans who have grown up in relative prosperity compared to the average Chinese.

They were willing to relocate more than a million people recently just to build a dam.I dont think we would have the will to do that now no matter how bad things got here.Its that type of sacrifice Im talking about.Besides they are a dictatorship and dont have to answer to voters who would want to compromise.Fair elections in the US is another matter.

A trade war would probably end GM because of all the business they do with China which is becoming a major buyer of their vehicles,not to mention what it would do to Walmart the world's largest employer(not that I would shed a tear for the corp) but the employees would take a big hit.

Also, all the US corporations who do business in China would have to do business elsewhere and produce their goods elsewhere.Prices would skyrocket, many jobs would be lost,the economy would tank in a way not seen since the great depression.Most Americans would not have seen anything on this scale in their lifetime.Ive seen estimates that 60-70 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.This would push many of them over a cliff.


The cut off of debt financing by China in of itself would hurt us but that would be only the begining,roughly $150 billion a year and rising is nothing to sneeze at with a war going and with our budget deficit even if its just part of the overall debt.

Other countries could get spooked and follow suit.The US wouldnt stand idly by and let the Chinese flood the market with cheap goods without some incentive.They would most likely impose tougher trade sanctions,which could easily escalate into a full blown trade war.

You may believe that this will not happen and it probably wont,like you said both sides are getting what they want to a certain extent although I beleive the Chinese are getting much more out of it.But if it were to happen I believe that they could handle it better for the reasons Ive brought up.That was my point.Not the likehood but who is tougher,which country is more willing to make the tough decisions.Look at the mess we are in.We have shown that we are willing to do everything but make tough choices,even voting for people who are working against our interests.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. You're Imagining Insults

Like i said before, i never said anything to or about you. So, let's drop that, shall we?

I've been working on modeling macroeconomics to develop new theoretical constructs in the field for well over 20 years. I'm not surmising anything based upon what i hope will happen. It's based upon published and peer reviewed papers, positing hypotheses and theories from 14 different papers since 1987. So, i'm not just blowing smoke.

I admit to getting a little rankled by doom & gloom projections which aren't supported by any data in any country's econometric profile. What you're suggesting has never happened, to any country, ever.

And, as bad as our economy is (do an archive search; i'm no apologist for the current economic approach) it's still massive and glacial in its pace. No one country would put a real significant hurt on us, that wouldn't do more damage to them than to us. I will agree that China could put our economy in a worse place, but their place would be even more painful. Entire power structures do not engage in behaviors against their own interest.

Look at this administration. As badly as they've managed fiscal policy, Iraq, social programs, the political process, and cultural unity, they didn't do it against their own interests. They thought they were serving their own interests. They were wrong about everything, but they weren't going against their own best interests.

So, this whole "China v. U.S." thing is an empty hypothetical and we're making far too much of this. I think we've exhausted this. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to change conclusions i've reached over 20+ years of research.
The Professor

[Lannes]

50. I guess just like you imagined that I was angry...

You have obviously researched the subject and I dont discount your credentials ProfessorGAC but I dont care if you have made a 1000 models of the economy,I disagree with your contention that China cutting off all economic ties wouldnt do us considerable damage.That some other countries that lend us billions of dollars wouldnt be concerned about this development and might follow suit. Yes other countries would pick up the slack as far as manufacturing eventually but it would take time and by then the damage would have been done.

As far as this administration doing things against their own self interest,of course it wasnt against their own self interest to enact tax cuts for the wealthy,subsidize major corporations,explode the national debt,the budget deficit,limiting class action lawsuits,turning back environmental laws among other things because all they care about is getting themselves and their supporters rich.As David Walker of the GAO put it we are facing a "demographic tsunami" and this administration is the main cause of it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-14-fiscal-hurricane-cover_x.htm

They dont care who suffers.But even they realize that the American public has a breaking point.They wouldnt have a leg to stand on if China stopped financing our debt while flooding the market with cheap goods.

I never said the US would start a trade war unprovoked.All my scenarios involved the U.S. reacting to moves by the Chinese.Its naive to think that they would not react in kind if the Chinese were to do something that harms the US economy as a show of strength.It may not be logical but its certainly possible.

Again,I wasnt contending that China wouldnt be greatly hurt financially or that this scenario was likely only that because Americans as a whole are more comfort driven than the average Chinese that it would hurt us more than it would them.There are far more Chinese in poverty than there are Americans.As a people they could hack it better than we could,they wouldnt have a choice.Thats all I was saying.

I remember people wondering about the tech bubble bursting were also accused of "doom and gloom".Unfortunately I have no way of proving this,like your economic models but I nailed the year it would burst years before it happened.Maybe I was just lucky,but being an economist doesnt give anyone a monopoly on predicting the future.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. How long before they do that?

:scared:

[Lannes]

22. I have no idea

Right now its in their interest because they want us to buy their goods and help them build their economy and their military but a trade war or a spat over Taiwan could change that.

[bemildred]

10. That would depend on who invaded whom.

Aggressors have a large, positive disadvantage.
Witness Iraq.

[NNN0LHI]

18. It won't begin with an invasion

It will begin with one of us trying to hold territory where there is oil. Like Venezuela, or Iran for instance. So far we can't hold Iraq. And Afghanistan ain't looking too good either.

Don

[bemildred]

21. Probably true.

But then the occupier will bleed to death, as in Iraq.

The Chinese (so far) seem uninterested in long-range imperial plans, i.e. they are willing to pay a fair price for the oil. Of course, they could have a stupid attack at any time, just like any of us.

[MarsThe Cat]

36. it will begin with embargoes

venezuela, panama canal, taiwan, or iran- one of these will be the reason it starts/escalates.

[Yupster]

23. agree bemildred

Stopping that million man attack might be difficult, but since they have no way of getting here, I'm not woirried nearly as much.

Hitler could have overrun England in a month too if he just could have gotten there, and that was only a 10 mile channel.

[bemildred]

32. Yeah. "The Yellow Peril".

I remember it well from the re-baiting press 40-50 years ago.

[wtmusic]

13. Welcome to Cold War Part Deux

wait...I thought that was over...Reagan's legacy blah blah blah...

:silly:

[leveymg]

14. The Bush family are China's resident agents. They have done a good job of

advancing China's interests, while weakening the U.S. Has this been by incompetence or design? Think about it.

[NNN0LHI]

15. The Moonie Times is only stating the obvious here

What would have happened if Cuba had knocked one of our spy planes down and held the crew as hostages as China did early in Bush's presidency?

We would have invaded them. Even if they gave us our pilots and crew back we would have still invaded them.

What happened when China did this? Bush said he was very sorry about a dozen times and then changed the subject.

Whats that tell me? It tells me they would kick our ass again just like they did in North Korea during the 50's. That is not new.

Don

[Donna Zen]

16. About asymmetrical warfare

When bush went to war, one of the things that happened was our technology and tactics were put on display. The Chinese, and anyone else who was interested, was taking copious notes. While the Chinese may not have the technology today to counter what they saw, they were/are busy developing asymmetrical solutions to counter any advantage we had.

We may scoff about this turn of events, but I for one, do no like the Chinese government or anything that they stand for.

What sad irony: the Cold Warriors have managed to empower a communist power while trying to destroy a tin-pot dictator.

The war in Iraq was about more than being lied to about WMD. Mostly, it was the fucking dumbest idea that anyone ever thought up. Let them say "oops" a million times, but that will never change what has happened.

[bemildred]

20. Bravo.

Sand pounding stupid.
:applause:

[iconoclastNYC]

17. I disagree.

We can't win an insurgency but we'd never be so foolish as to try to occupy mainland China.

This article completely ignores our HUGE superiority in the air.

You can bet if we had a conflict with China that we'd be using tons of air and cruise missle strikes to soften up thier military before any ground operations.

[HereSince1628]

24. Even in a losing effort the planet would become uninhabitable

The US would certainly go down using its nukes if it were ever in danger of losing a war to a major power.

[Johonny]

30. yes

and our rather space space and communication superiority.

[Balbus]

29. A war between these two nations would be disastrous,

not only for the nations involved, but for the world entire. There would be no winners and everyone loses. Hopefully the leadership in both countries realize that.

[Junkdrawer]

33. China is what stands between BushCo and an Iranian invasion...

I think that that was the purpose of Bush's Asian trip - to try to garner tolerance of an Iranian invasion.

Scary times, indeed.

[Saphire]

39. ya think????

[FreedomAngel82]

41. All I have to say about that

is well duh. Bush has killed our military.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Oh yeah? Just look how well we're doing in Iraq...oh, wait.

Well, remember Vietnam..uh..Cambodia.

Boy we shure whupped ass in Grenada!!

[Deja Q]

44. Well, why worry?

BTW: What makes these folks think the US won't use tactical nukes?

And why give any warning at all? Why stir the pot and take any risk? Why not leave the status quo (the trouble with terrorism) as it is, instead of upping the ante?

And how about the validity of the organization making the claim? What's a UPI, brother company to UPS?

:popcorn: at best. Stupid soap opera at worst.

[freestyle]

49. File this under news of the obvious.

Of course, there will not be any war with China. They own our asses anyway, so what would be the point. The U.S. is utterly dependent on the financial kindness of strangers. If that changes, we are toast.