In what specific manner? You do know that Pirates of the Caribbean wasn’t a documentary about modern shipping and commerce, right?
There are many disputed islands in the South China Sea, so resist just losing those. And yes, resist invasion, dominance, these sorts of things.
As to what we get out of it, well, a free, open, and Western leaning Asia is better for the U.S. than a closed Chinese dominated block. Ultimately, the choice is, do we want Asia to look like North Korea and Myanmar, or South Korea and Taiwan, for example.
That may be true now. I have my doubts. China has enough land based missiles to effectively ground the Taiwanese air force. It probably won’t remain true in the future as China upgrades and expands its airforce.
I’m still not getting what you expect the United States to actually DO. The real engine of Chinese adventurism would be the growth of the Chinese economy that will allow China to build shiny new toys that it will eventually want to play with. So the only real lever we have to prevent China’s growth is to stop trading with China, and try to prevent others from trading with China. Is that going to happen? No it will not.
So, absent shutting down trade with China, what specifically should the United States do to resist China? Empty talk about how we stand shoulder to shoulder with our brave yadda yadda yaddas? Commitments to bomb China if China raises a Chinese flag on a barren rock in the middle of the South Pacific?
And North Korea and Myanmar are worse states than China, yes? Again, if we prefer South Korea to North Korea, and if we don’t resist China then South Korea will be turned into North Korea, what exact steps do we take to resist China? I’m seeing a lot of vagueness and platitudes here. Do you think our foreign and economic policy towards China should look more like our relations with Iran?
If the U.S. were to embargo China as we have Cuba, what would be the result?
Act as a big brother to these countries. Let it be known that if anyone fights them, they fight us. And have the assets in place to make that a credible threat.
After the Chinese bubble pops and the American empire collapses from overreach a triumphant Luxembourg will ascend the throne of history…until it collapses too. These global hegemon things are tricky.
Would it be ironic if China cited the domino theory to come to Iran’s aid whenever we get around to invading them?
So if China invades Laos, we start bombing Beijing?
If you want us to increase military spending to have assets in place to defeat China militarily, that means you’re in favor of massive, permanent across the board tax increases, yes? What percentage of GDP should the United States spend on our military, to guard against the hypothetical Chinese threat? 10%? 20%? 30%?
It seems pretty odd that we should be willing to pay any price and bear any burden to defend freedom in Asia, yet the one price we aren’t willing to pay would be to stop trading with the putative fascist power that is going to be subjugating Asia.
Pretty much. At minimum, China needs to expect that.
Three billion percent!
They have nuclear tipped ICBMs; they know that won’t happen. America isn’t going to bomb China over Laos any more than it bombed the USSR over Afghanistan.
To me its more like the situation with the US in the late 1800s. Their defense budget and armed forces were tiny in comparison to other world powers. But it was obvious to anyone who cared to look closely that they were going to be a dominant force in the coming century.
To turn that hypothetical power into actual power took two world wars (unless you count beating down on the Spaniards), of course.
Perhaps not for Laos, at this point, but we definitely would go to war over Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan. The rest of the countries in Asia want to be included on that list.
Immediately prior to World War I, very intelligent people were saying that a general European war was impossible because of the extensive trade network between the eventual combatants. This was not a fringe theory; it was a common one.
In any event nobody knows what the geopolitical situation will be in the future. It’s far too chaotic a system.
Still, there’s only a limited range of realistic possibilities. There must be things we can rule out.
I’ll call Qin out when he’s wrong as readily as the next poster. But he’s not wrong this time.
A threat in military terms is not the same thing as a threat in conversation. A conversational threat is when I say I’m going to harm you. But a military threat is when I have the ability to harm you.
Is a large Chinese navy a threat to the United States? Yes. Is a large American navy a threat to China? Yes. Does the fact that a threat exists make war inevitable? No.
What if we substitute “British” for “Chinese”?
I tend to think/assume that due to cultural reasons China will not have the kinds of alliances that the US will. Aren’t other countries that are liberal democracies generally going to side with the US and western europe in any kind of geopolitical alliance? China on the other hand due to its stated indifference to internal matters in trading partners can operate freely with countries like Sudan, Myanmar, Syria, etc. that the rest of the world is shunning. But who knows. I am assuming though that if nations like Argentina and Brazil continue their march towards more representative government and safety nets that they will not ally with an authoritarian nation like China unless there are some really good economic and political incentives to doing so.
China isn’t the only rising power. Russia and Brazil (as well as India) are all rising up pretty fast. So are a lot of smaller countries (Paraguay, Vietnam, Thailand, Nigeria etc).
I have no idea if a powerful latin america bloc will arise, or what. I know there is already a pink tide in latin america of leftist leaders pushing back against neoliberal economics. I wonder if that trend would continue or start up in africa or asia.
The smaller countries will have a lot more power than they do now, and I have no idea how the alliances will form and shift.
With regard to Chinese hardware and expertise in carrier operations, the idea that a Chinese Navy will seriously be able to challenge the U.S. Navy within your adult lifetime is pretty ludicrous.
It takes eight years for US to go from “completed and verified blueprints” to “shakedown cruise”. It took us about 20-30 years to develop useful carrier doctrine and perfect aspects of the use of aircraft carriers to dominate sea power projection.
China doesn’t have anything in construction, they’re still building medium-capability bluewater destroyers and littoral vessels. If we see a Chinese carrier on part with the Nimitz, with flight operational tempo, airframes, and discipline sufficient to go toe to toe with a Nimitz or Gerald Ford-class carrier in anything less than 30 years, I’ll be outright amazed.
We have more than a dozen big-deck carriers of that type.
Why? America has a history of being untrustworthy and disdainful towards its “allies”. If China can offer better treatment then they should have no problem attracting allies.
That’s pretty naive from a historical perspective. They aren’t going to be able to challenge the US Navy any time soon, but an adult lifetime is a long time. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in 40 years time carriers are as anachronistic as dreadnoughts.