Has the US lost its place as the "most superest" of superpowers?

[kifler]

Recently my friends and I were arguing about a future China vs. the US war. I said that China could easily win it given the manpower, industry, and dedication to the country/government. They could only counter with "You're sooo stupid".

I've been told that China is the largest holder of American debt and as such could call upon the debt and bankrupt China. So prior to the said war, couldn't China simply destroy the American economy?

I also know that China has a very large spy network, not strictly for the James Bonq-esque type of stuff that many people are accustomed to but rather economic espionage etc...

Thirdly with the ammount of army spending they have (public records, however its rumored they spend a hell of alot more) they've constructed giant training fields for the army, purchased new weaponry like crazy, and we've resorted to using Google Earth to find their new nuclear sub...

But who do you think would win that war and why?

[beowulff]

The US could still nuke China back to the Ming Dynasty, which pretty much makes them the top dog.

[BrainGlutton]

A U.S.-China war almost certainly would escalate to a nuclear exchange. (That is why the U.S. and the Soviet Union fought a Cold War.) There would be no winners, only survivors.

[kifler]

A U.S.-China war almost certainly would escalate to a nuclear exchange. (That is why the U.S. and the Soviet Union fought a Cold War.) There would be no winners, only survivors.

Unless it was relieved through proxy wars... However, in this information age, I find it slightly hard to see what countries would fight and how it would go about as indirectly, China and the US are tied close together.

[kifler]

The US could still nuke China back to the Ming Dynasty, which pretty much makes them the top dog.

But could they actually do it? Say tomorrow the US economy went belly up because of China. Would any country allow or justify the Americans use of nuclear arms?

[JXJohns]

There is no effective way for China to move its massive manpower to the continental United States. Without that ability, their propensity to damage the US in a conventional war is limited. Economic and nuclear wars are two separate discussions.

[JXJohns]

But could they actually do it? Say tomorrow the US economy went belly up because of China. Would any country allow or justify the Americans use of nuclear arms?

The point of being a super-super power is you don't have to ask permission or worry about said justification.

[beowulff]

The point of being a super-super power is you don't have to ask permission or worry about said justification.
Couldn't have said it better.

[kifler]

The point of being a super-super power is you don't have to ask permission or worry about said justification.

But logically the US couldn't fend off every nation's protest for the action, military or otherwise.

There is no effective way for China to move its massive manpower to the continental United States. Without that ability, their propensity to damage the US in a conventional war is limited. Economic and nuclear wars are two separate discussions.

Interesting point, never crossed my mind. Otherwise do you think China could certainly fend off an American attack/attempt to invade?

As for Economic wars, can you think of any recent examples of such a thing? Its a relatively new concept for myself.

[SuaSponte]

I've been told that China is the largest holder of American debt and as such could call upon the debt and bankrupt America. So prior to the said war, couldn't China simply destroy the American economy? Um, you do know how debt works, right? The creditor cannot "call upon the debt" unless the debtor has defaulted. Your bank can't just call you up and say "we want the $200,000 you owe on your mortgage by Friday 2:00 P.M.," unless you have missed payments. So long at the U.S. Treasury keeps paying interest and principal on T-Bills as they come due, China can't use debt as a weapon.

In any event, the debtor, particularly a sovereign nation with lots of nuclear weapons, can simply say, "nope, we ain't gonna pay." It would make it rather hard for the United States to borrow in the future, but if a foreign country was attempting to use debt as a weapon to damage the United States, repudiation of that debt would be an appropriate response.

Sua

[The Hamster King]

I've been told that China is the largest holder of American debt and as such could call upon the debt and bankrupt China. So prior to the said war, couldn't China simply destroy the American economy?I assume you mean "call upon the dept and bankrupt America".

If the United States and China were really at the brink of war, how exactly would China go about collecting that debt?

China: "Pay us back those billions of dollars RIGHT NOW so that we can cripple you before we attack!"

USA: "Screw you! You want it? Come and get it!"

Now if the United States were to renounce its debt it would have horrible consequences for the world financial markets. But if the United States and China are on the brink of war the world financial markets will be fucked already.

Being so heavily invested in the United States is actually much riskier for China than the United States. It's in their best interests to keep thing cordial between the two countries so that they can get their money back.

[pool]

I don't buy China using are debt against us, for one thing the World Economy as a whole definitely don't want American currency to become worthless.

[Lemur866]

This again.

Look, what exactly do you think the war will be about?

Countries don't schedule wars like RTS games, where one side lines up all their soldiers, tanks, bombers, warships and missiles on one side of the map, and the other side lines up all their soldiers, tanks, bombers, warships and missiles on the other side of the map, and the one with the most points at the end of the game is the winner.

Countries engage in armed conflict for real world reasons. Which means that the "winner" of a war depends hugely on what the war aims of each country are, and note that it is possible for both sides to win, or both to lose, of both sides have their war aims fulfilled or unfulfilled.

As a perfect example, line up the military from North Vietnam circa 1968 on one side of the map, then line up the military from the United States circa 1968 on the other side of the map and let them fight it out. Which side will win? Except, in real life, who quit the game, and who ended up controlling all of Vietnam?

If your war scenario is that the United States attempts to invade and pacify China, then there is absolutely no way this can succeed, even if you wave a magic wand and don't allow nuclear warheads. If your war scenario is that China attempts to invade and pacify the United States, they fail even worse, they can't even make it across the Pacific Ocean. At least the United States already has in-theater staging areas in Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

But of course, a war between the United States and China isn't going to involve invasion of China. So what will it involve? And invasion of Taiwan by China? An invasion of North Korea or South Korea by either China or the US? A war between China and India, in which the US intervenes on the side of India? Chinese backed rebels seize control of Zimbabwe? What, exactly?

Thing is, China has a very large military, but it has almost no capability to project power globally. They don't have long-range submarines, they don't have aircraft carriers, they have a navy but it's a brown-water navy organized for coastal defense. They don't have the ability to ship and fly thousands of troops thousands of miles across the globe and keep those troops supplied with food, ammo, and fuel.

So in the hypothetical war between the US and China, what does China hope to accomplish? Throw back an American occupation force? Occupy and annex Taiwan? Occupy and annex Mongolia? Occupy South Korea or Japan? Occupy Australia? Occupy the Russian Far East? Drop a nuclear bomb on New York? Destroy a couple US carrier groups so that the US cannot project power into east Asia any more? Force the US to withdraw from South Korea? Show enough success against American forces so that China's military will have to be taken seriously in the future, and thus deter future adventurism on the part of the US?

If China's goal is simply to absorb, contain, and eventually force the withdrawl of any invading army, they've got an almost 100% chance of success--barring internal revolt. Going the other way they've got a very tough goal. Just making a landing on Taiwan would be really difficult, but if they could occupy Taiwan and declare it annexed, then the rest of the world would probably let them get away with it. But territorial expansion into India, Russia, or Mongolia? There's no way the international community would let that stand. Or do they want to send "advisors" into the neighboring country and set up a puppet government? Can they do any of this without wrecking their export economy? It isn't easy to predict their chances of success unless we define exactly what would constitute success or failure.

And the idea that since China owns a lot of US debt they could crush our economy is silly. If you loan a guy billions of dollars and he won't pay it back, does he have a problem or do you have a problem?

[marshmallow]

Recently my friends and I were arguing about a future China vs. the US war. I said that China could easily win it given the manpower, industry, and dedication to the country/government. They could only counter with "You're sooo stupid".
It depends on why and where the war starts and also how far into the future we're talking about. What are the aims of either side? As of right now, the conventional military of the United States would smash China's due to sheer technological superiority. But that might not matter depending on the circumstances of the hypothetical -- if for some bizarre reason we're trying to invade and occupy mainland China, well, that's not going to work very well at all...

On preview: what Lemur said.

[kifler]

Well if Taiwan and Tibet were to go "out of line" and China used its might to assert itself over the "breakaway" state.

[kifler]

Eep, pressed submit too early.

I'm talking more or less if China were to invade Taiwan and annex it, would the US step with force or simply use diplomatic means?

[Lemur866]

If it was Tibet, the US would do nothing except send a strongly worded note to the Chinese ambassador. And there would be 20 documentaries made in the next few years about Chinese atrocities in Tibet, and the suffering of the Tibetans, and isn't it terrible, and see how I'm a good person for feeling bad about it? And probably a slowdown in China's economic growth as companies weigh the negative PR consequences of opening more factories in China vs the operating costs of those factories.

If it was Taiwan, it depends. Is China really going to attempt to force a landing on Taiwan? If the Chinese start shooting at the US Navy, they're going to start shooting back. And then, yes, we've got a shooting war between China and the US. Except, can China acheive local naval and air superiority such that they can transport thousands of troops across the strait, and land them in the face of determined opposition? Even if China sinks some US warships, I can't see how they can protect their troop ships from US submarines and aircraft. And even those troop ships make it across the strait, they've still got to land. Unloading troop ships takes time, even if you're in a safe port. If you're using converted civilian ships, how do you get your troops onto the beach in the face of Taiwanese opposition? What percentage of troops do you expect to survive the invasion? How do you prevent a mutiny when the troops figure out what that percentage is? And even if "succeed" and land troops on Taiwan and crush the Taiwanese military and chase US forces off the island, what exactly have you won? What has "victory" done to your economy? What has it done to your international reputation? What has it done to international trade? Does the fighting stop just because you run up the PRC flag over Taipei? Or are your ports blockaded by the US navy? How do you persuade the US navy to stop sinking your ships? How will India, and Vietnam, and Thailand, and Russia, and central Asia react? And so forth.

[Squink]

I don't buy China using are debt against usThere's lots of smoke lately though:

Unease at China's threat to sell dollar (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/09/cnfxnews109.xml)

China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml)

China will not sell usd assets in absence of serious dispute - economist (http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/08/09/afx4002493.html)

China may sell off Treasury bonds if US imposes trade sanctions - report (http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/08/08/afx3997945.html)

[kifler]

This again.

Look, what exactly do you think the war will be about?


Thing is, China has a very large military, but it has almost no capability to project power globally. They don't have long-range submarines, they don't have aircraft carriers, they have a navy but it's a brown-water navy organized for coastal defense. They don't have the ability to ship and fly thousands of troops thousands of miles across the globe and keep those troops supplied with food, ammo, and fuel.

China bought the unfinished Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag in 2001 from the Ukraine, supposedly to be turned into a floating casino. Pictures taken while in port suggest this plan has been abandonned and show that work is being carried out to maintain its military function. There is no conclusive evidence as to what role it would play in the Chinese Navy.

China also hinted earlier this year that they were planning to construct another carrier. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy has become more prominent in recent years owing to a change in Chinese strategic priorities. The new strategic threats include possible conflict with the United States and/or a resurgent Japan in areas such as the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea. As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a long-term plan of developing a blue water navy.

Not to contradict you, but for your information/entertainment.

[ralph124c]

Would the Chinese be so foolish as to start a run on the dollar? They would lose their single largest market. Not only that, their dollar resrves would plummet in value. What i don't understand-why dont't the Chinese just buy up Ford and GM? then they could close them down and export cars to the USA. The USA is the debter, co why would the creditor shoot himself in the foot? China will never go to war over Taiwan-they just want taiwan to accept Chinese hegemony. If they do that, the mainland govt. will leave Taiwan alone.

[Lemur866]

It takes more than buying a junked surplus Soviet hull to float a working aircraft carrier. It's true that China hopes someday to float a modern blue-water navy, but they certainly don't have that capability today or tomorrow. And the existance of a Chinese aircraft carrier wouldn't make much difference in any forseeable US-Chinese naval conflict. Either that conflict will take place within range of Chinese land-based aircraft, in which case the contribution of the carrier will be miniscule, or it will take place outside that range, in which case that single lonely carrier will be a sitting duck.

You can't buy a modern navy with money, it takes years just to train the guys who will train the guys who will train the guys who will staff that navy.

That's not to say that the US navy could operate with impunity along China's coast, there are mines, torpedo boats, land based anti-ship missiles, land-based aircraft, land based anti-aircraft to counter our naval aircraft and on and on to worry about. Maybe in a couple of decades the Chinese can amass enough of a navy to allow them to achieve local naval and air superiority for long enough to allow them to make a landing on Taiwan. But that isn't happening today and it's not happening tomorrow.

[Mosier]

Power isn't about the ability to win wars anymore. Power is about global influence. Right now, the United States is losing some of its relative influence over the rest of the world, and China is gaining more influence. It's not hard to predict that in the near future China will have more global influence than America, and we can only hope that everyone still gets along when a new, different schoolyard bully starts calling the shots.

[Ludovic]

What i don't understand-why dont't the Chinese just buy up Ford and GM? then they could close them down and export cars to the USA.Government regulations would probably prevent such an idea, even from a front company. Smaller American companies, less so.

Then there's the fact that the less associated you are with the Chinese government, the more you make business decisions based on an actual profit motive. I don't think there's a Chinese corporation that is not transparently owned by the Chinese government that would want to buy an American firm just to close their American plants down, even for the IP.

[Squink]

we can only hope that everyone still gets along when a new, different schoolyard bully starts calling the shots.This is expecting a lot of the PNAC crowd.

[XT]

I said that China could easily win it given the manpower, industry, and dedication to the country/government. They could only counter with "You're sooo stupid".

Well...your friends probably could have been more tactful and instead of calling you stupid should have said "you don't understand how modern nations project military power, you don't understand why raw manpower does equate to projectable militar power' etc. The Chinese have a larger military than the US does...but they have almost no way to project that military power beyond their own borders. In addition, while they certainly have a quantity advantage the US's quality advantage more than compensates for it in a conventional confrontation. As Lemur866 put it, it all hinges on your war aims. What exactly are we proposing here? A US invasion of China? Ridiculous...would never happen. A Chinese invasion of the US? Equally ridiculous. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan? They wouldn't have a hope in hell of succeeding at that (which is why there still IS an independent Taiwan after all these years).

I've been told that China is the largest holder of American debt and as such could call upon the debt and bankrupt China. So prior to the said war, couldn't China simply destroy the American economy?

This would be one of those 'cut off your nose to spite your face' kind of things. Sure, China COULD do this...but then it would ruin THEIR economy (as well as probably everyone elses) as well. It would probably hurt them worse than us in fact as no one would then buy their goods or services. Sure, if it were a prelude to war they wouldn't care...except that we wouldn't then either. I don't think its within China's capability to 'destroy the American econnomy', regardless...though they could certainly hurt us badly. At the cost of wrecking their own economy in the process.

I also know that China has a very large spy network, not strictly for the James Bonq-esque type of stuff that many people are accustomed to but rather economic espionage etc...

Certainly they do...they ARE a major power after all. Perhaps it has escaped your notice however that the US doesn't exactly lack this resource either (NSA, CIA, etc)...

Thirdly with the ammount of army spending they have (public records, however its rumored they spend a hell of alot more) they've constructed giant training fields for the army, purchased new weaponry like crazy, and we've resorted to using Google Earth to find their new nuclear sub...

They could spend every bit of their anual GDP for decades and they wouldn't catch up to the US's current capabilities....not unless the US suddenly halted spending money on our own military. I've seen estimates for China's annual military budge ranging from something like $70 billion (in US dollars) up to around $95 billion. Even if you double that ('officially' China spends something like roughly $20 billion, at least as of 2004) they aren't even in the ball game with the US's annual budget ($585 billion)...and our current capabilities are light years ahead of their's.

Check out this pie chart (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp) (about half way down the page) and look at the total percentage world wide toward defense...look at the US, then look at China. Notice a difference?

Out of curiosity, do you have a cite about the US Navy being so baffled by this uber new nucler sub technology that they are using google earth to find them? I'm just curious as to the source of that.

But who do you think would win that war and why?

Depends on how you define the conflict. If its an invasion by the US of main land China with the intent to occupy China, then I'd have to say we'd lose that one...badly. Just about anything else outside of China's borders they would most likely lose, depending on what goals both sides had. You mentioned an invasion of Taiwan...China would lose if they tried a forced entry assault on Taiwan, even if the US didn't take part (IMHO, and as long as we are talking about staying convention with no nukes). Same with a Chinese invasion of South Korea or Japan. China just doesn't have the ability to project enough military force into those regions. A US/South Korean invasion of North Korea with China helping the North would probably result in a blood bath...but China might just come out on top in that kind of conflict (if the North didn't fold up like an empty beer can). What I'm getting at is you'd really need to define your projected conflict to have a feel for who might 'win' or 'lose'...and at least do a bare bones out line of what you think the two nations goals would be.

-XT

[Lemur866]

Power isn't about the ability to win wars anymore. Power is about global influence. Right now, the United States is losing some of its relative influence over the rest of the world, and China is gaining more influence. It's not hard to predict that in the near future China will have more global influence than America, and we can only hope that everyone still gets along when a new, different schoolyard bully starts calling the shots.
Of course, this imagines that current trends will linearly continue. If China's economy continues to grow at 9% and the US at 3%, eventually China will be 1,000,000 times richer than the US. Except that's not reasonable to expect.

And define "near future". To me, "near future" means, in the next 20 years. You honestly expect China to be richer and more influential than the US in 20 years? Even in terms of total GDP, rather than GDP per capita?

Plus, remember that not every US president for the next 20 years will be as incompetant as George Bush.

And China has huge unresolved problems that make another 20 years of uninterupted 9% growth look pretty unlikely. Sure, we're all going to have to get used to the idea that China is going to occupy a relatively ever-larger role on the world scene, but this doesn't imply decline for the United States.

Remember back in the 80s how everyone was moaning that if current trends continued, Japan was going to own the United States? China's current rapid growth is simply due to the fact that they are transforming from a totalitarian socialist dictatorship into a normal country. Once they reach normal country status they have no reason to expect their current rapid growth to continue, any more than Finland or Italy expects 9% growth.

[Sam Stone]

The U.S. economy dwarfs all others. The U.S. military dwarfs all others. That's the bottom line. Sure, China has more men, but that's not a big deal these days, as soldiers don't line up on battlefields and try to overwhelm each other any more. Iraq had more soldiers than the U.S. did, and we all know how the invasion went.

If U.S. and Chinese forces clashed somewhere (let's say they wound up on the opposite side of some regional conflict somewhere), the U.S. would absolutely flatten the Chinese forces. If the Chinese were foolish enough to put up their air force against the U.S. air force, they'd probably lose planes by a 10-1 ratio or so. If they put their Navy up against the U.S. Navy, there would be a lot of Chinese ships on the ocean floor.

There is no one power on the planet that can come close to winning a major military conflict against the U.S. The big risk to U.S. interests is the 'death of a thousand cuts', where small conflicts crop up all over the place, terrorist attacks increase, economic warfare is waged, etc. It won't look like a world war, but rather a low-scale continual wearing down of the American people and economy.

But that's very unlikely. If you think the Chinese have leverage over the U.S. because they hold debt, imagine how much leverage the U.S. has, since the U.S is an economic collossus. When the U.S. economy sneezes, the world catches cold. Look at what's happening to the overseas market right now because of the U.S. credit crunch. An economic collapse of the United States would trigger a worldwide depression. No one wants that, except for the nutbar terrorists.

[ralph124c]

I don't understand why the Chinese are investing in aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, and the like. China has no natural enemies-with the possible exception of Russia. Japan is a fading power-their population is declining. India is a possible rival, but has no need to pick a conflict with China. And, despite the friction between the USA and China, our disputes mainly center on trade issues. The only possibility (as I see it): the Chinese take a VERY long view-they see russia in decline. China needs the resources of Siberia-is it conceivable that she may (one day) decide to just march in and TAKE Siberia?
Siberia probably harbors billions of barrels of oil, unlimited timber supplies, gold, managanese, iron ore...I am quite sure that China views those respurces hungrily. So the real question is: will Putin be able to revive Russia as a superpower?
I'd say thtas his plan.

[kifler]

I don't understand why the Chinese are investing in aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, and the like. China has no natural enemies-with the possible exception of Russia. Japan is a fading power-their population is declining. India is a possible rival, but has no need to pick a conflict with China. And, despite the friction between the USA and China, our disputes mainly center on trade issues. The only possibility (as I see it): the Chinese take a VERY long view-they see russia in decline. China needs the resources of Siberia-is it conceivable that she may (one day) decide to just march in and TAKE Siberia?
Siberia probably harbors billions of barrels of oil, unlimited timber supplies, gold, managanese, iron ore...I am quite sure that China views those respurces hungrily. So the real question is: will Putin be able to revive Russia as a superpower?
I'd say thtas his plan.
I would agree with you as far as Putin's evil plan. However I don't think that China would faceoff with Russia but rather turn them inside out through other means.

[kifler]

Oh and just to clear up, my friends said I was so stupid because the US could waltz into China like they did Fortress Europe :rolleyes:

[XT]

Oh and just to clear up, my friends said I was so stupid because the US could waltz into China like they did Fortress Europe

Well, your friends are wrong. Oh, I have no doubt we could defeat the Chinese military (if we left aside those pesky nuclear weapons China has), and probably take the major cities. Then what? Look at how stretched we are trying to hold onto Iraq...China would be 100 (or maybe 1000) times worse. If that was the point your friends were making then you can tell they they are full of shit.

-XT

[Sam Stone]

The days of world wars that involve occupying and holding vast amounts of land are over, just as the days of trench warfare are over. That's not what conflict will look like in the 21st century. We aren't going to see massed battles of Chinese vs American troops.

The name of the game now is projection of power and global leverage. The Chinese are building their military because they want to create an Asian sphere of influence and be the big dogs on the street. They want to be the ones who can float a carrier group into a conflicted region and influence events in their favor. They want to be the one other countries depend on for arms and protection. They want to control the sea lanes, be able to blockade non-cooperative countries, and negotiate from a position of strength. They want to be able to make a demand in the U.N. and have the clout to have it mean something.

Being a superpower means sheltering other nations under your wing, and getting favorable treatment as a result. It means being able to carry out hard diplomacy. For example, the U.S. is in a position to dictate policy to Israel, because Israel is dependent on the U.S. to keep its economy going and to provide arms to defend itself. Wouldn't China like to be the 'big brother' to Iran, or North Korea, or Libya, or any one of a dozen other countries, and be able to use threats of the withdrawal of support to force them to act in a way that benefits Chinese interests?

That's what this is all about. It's why Russia wants to be a superpower again as well. Unfortunately for us, it's not very likely that a Chinese or Russian superpower will be as benign as the U.S. is. So there's a showdown coming, but it will be played out over a long period on many fronts.

[BrightNShiny]

I don't understand why the Chinese are investing in aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, and the like. China has no natural enemies-with the possible exception of Russia. Japan is a fading power-their population is declining. India is a possible rival, but has no need to pick a conflict with China. And, despite the friction between the USA and China, our disputes mainly center on trade issues. The only possibility (as I see it): the Chinese take a VERY long view-they see russia in decline. China needs the resources of Siberia-is it conceivable that she may (one day) decide to just march in and TAKE Siberia?


Well, the Chinese are busy signing economic deals with rickety tinpot dictatorships. And if you're going to invest heavily in those places, then you need the ability to project force to make sure your pet investment doesn't go belly up because your tinpot dictator collapsed. That seems to me to give the Chinese plenty of incentive to beef up their military.

Plus, most countries just like having big weapons.

[archmichael]

I'm with Sam Stone on the changing face of war. It might sound rather sci-fi, but I envision a future where the American military has no desire or capacity to hold ground.

If I was utterly ruthless, I would wage a war on China's infrastructure. After you gain air superiority, the next targets are power plants, communications, all the bridges, refineries, dams, and mine every harbor. I dont think you would even need to attack the PLA

There would be no enemy to fight against since there would be no opposing ground troops. Controlling the civilian population would be a full time job for the PLA. Every major city would turn into a Katrinaville-New Orleans. No power, no communications, no running water, no food distribution.