I know this is not exactly an informed opinion, but it seems that way mainly from media reports. For years I’ve read stories about how US companies have been closing factories and moving manufacturing overseas, often to China. My own company has almost completely abandoned domestic production for our chips. The fact that most products I buy have a “made in China” sticker on them reinforces the impression. The newly-completed bridge on the SF Bay was made from modules shipped from China. I’ve seen pictures of these huge, rapidly-constructed cities in China build, apparently, just for fun. The conclusion I draw is that China has a huge industrial capacity they almost don’t know what to do while the US is in such a shape that if we were cut
off from our south-east Asian supplies we would be severely hampered in our production and maintenance of modern weapons, vehicles, etc, and anything electronic. It’s all uninformed impressions; I welcome having my ignorance fought and I would love to be wrong about this.
Also, I don’t quite believe the idea that the Chinese economy would collapse without the US to sell to. Their production of components and consumer goods for the Western markets could be switched to supplying the domestic war machine.
[QUOTE=EdwardLost]
Also, I don’t quite believe the idea that the Chinese economy would collapse without the US to sell to. Their production of components and consumer goods for the Western markets could be switched to supplying the domestic war machine.
[/QUOTE]
But it wouldn’t just be the US they export to (though even that would be enough to seriously put a crimp in China’s economy), since a conflict with the US wouldn’t just involve the US and China, especially economically. If China actually attacked the US (which is what I presume this is about, especially since I don’t see the US ever being able to politically just attack China by fiat) it would bring in a bunch of other countries by treaty…countries who, at a minimum would halt trade with China. In addition, of course, you have the whole ‘how would China get it’s exports out of China if the US is interdicting their trade??’ aspect as well. It would absolutely devastate China’s economy. Granted, it wouldn’t help the rest of the world’s economies either, and there would be a serious recession in the US and probably Europe and most of the rest of the western world as well, so we aren’t talking about completely one sided effects here, but China would be hurt a lot worse since they are absolutely dependent on exports to maintain their economy.
The impression is pretty false though. US manufacturing is VERY strong today. What the US has done is shed manufacturing JOBS but mostly that’s through automation, not outsourcing to China. What we’ve generally outsourced to China is manufacturing of light goods and services…textiles, say, or maybe assembly of consumer electronics (iPods and the like). None of that would help China to ramp up like the US did in WWII, since none of it involved heavy manufacturing (in fact, the US actually exports heavy machinery TOO China, which they obviously wouldn’t be getting in a shooting war with the US ;)).
You have to look at the types of manufacturing China actually does and what sorts of things the US and other countries have shifted to them to manufacture for them.
I recall many years ago reading that the U.S. military was wringing its hands because China controls so much of the world supply of rare earth metals, many of which are used in high performance military equipment. Probably doesn’t matter now, but something like that could matter many years out. There’s supposed to be a lot of rare earths in Afghanistan, too.
We actually have quite a lot in the US. The problem is that mining and refining them is seriously environmentally damaging so it costs a lot more to do it in the US where we have relatively strict regulations (and, unlike China, or presumably Afghanistan we actually enforce them).
Yeah, one merely needs to ask the Japanese, Germans, North Koreans and North Vietnamese how well this common wisdom worked out for them wrt the US not being willing to fight. Or, hell, the folks in Afghanistan or good old Saddam who thought the same thing. The US is willing to fight when we are willing to fight, and while we certainly prefer to minimize casualties, it’s not going to prevent us from fighting if we (i.e. the voting public and the two major parties) THINK we need to or should. Really, what ties our hands (and, mind, I see this as a feature not a bug) is getting the public on board and getting a consensus within our political structure TOO fight (see video counter point to the Chinese power one on how powerful is the US?)
I supposed depending on ones definition of ‘left’. We certainly ‘left’ the US and invaded not one but two countries and then stayed for nearly a decade in one case and over a decade (and still counting in another).
Like I said, whether the US fights or doesn’t fight has little or nothing to do with perceived casualties, and everything to do with public support, especially support from the major parties. It’s ridiculous to assert that the US would cower in fear if China sank a major warship, or that we’d flee if anyone put up a good fight or fought us with real weapons. But then, based on other threads and other posts I’ve read from you, you are so blinded by partisan slant wrt the US that it’s meaningless to debate with you on the subject…you knows what you knows. And you assumes what you assumes wrt anyone who argues with you. I don’t think that any of this demonstrates any sort of particular virtue in the US…sometimes we fight for good and honorable reasons. Sometimes we don’t. But that we WILL fight if we, as a society feel we should is pretty much beyond question, and anyone still trying to bring us this hoary old chestnut is out of touch with reality.
But, you knows what you knows, so I won’t further try and confuse you with the facts…
Somalia: The assertion is kind of true, there. A lot of Americans didn’t really know what we were doing there in the first place. Nation-building or something?
Yemen: I don’t know that we were ever really “in” Yemen in the first place; to the extent we have carried out drone attacks there (since the Cole bombing), we haven’t precisely “left” either.
Beirut: See Somalia.
Iraq: We didn’t leave nearly fast enough.
Afghanistan: Hell, we’re still there. I mean, we’re gradually winding things down, but we certainly didn’t just cut and run at the first sign of trouble. As with Iraq, we probably kept at it too long.
So, as far as how long would Americans tolerate a war with China (assuming a non-nuclear war)–it would really, really depend. If it’s some war which Americans don’t understand why we’re there in the first place (“Where the hell are the Spratly Islands and why do we care?”) that implies a possibly low amount of “staying-power”. If Americans are convinced the Chinese have attacked us or something ("the sinking of one major US ship with heavy loss ", i.e., China launches one of those anti-ship ballistic missiles we keep reading about at some U.S. warship in what we consider international waters), then maybe 10 years later Americans are still all “Remember the Gerald R. Ford!”, quite possibly past all actual reason.
If China attacks the US – think, second Pearl Harbor, or worse – then the US would last a very long time.
If the US attacks China, not so long.
I realize that recent history leads to the idea that the US would be the invader. The U.S. should take great care to avoid that. Strong sanctions, if it comes to that, would cost the US a great deal of money. But compared to war, the economic – not to mention human – cost would be cheap.
This is from a terrible news source and is probably false. But it’s in the news today, and is relevant to the thread:
You know, based on the map released (China Global Times, maybe?), I stand a better chance at not dying immediately with China firing nuclear weapons at the US than with Russia doing so. Not sure if good or bad.
Seriously though, I don’t know much about the matter - does MAD seem the only possible outcome to any country attacking another with nuclear weapons? Or at least if not North Korea? Other that we have France and the UK, Israel, India and Pakistan. I mean, what are the odds of other countries not also being targeted by China? Russia and the US have more than enough nukes to go around (each having over 100x the number of the #3 country, according to Wikipedia. Then there’s the issue of whether or not the other countries would launch against each other. Israel and other areas of the ME have issues, of course, and India and Pakistan.
The closest I ever came to finding out was on September 11, 2001. For a while, that tragedy terribly affected how I looked at the world. I thought it likely that another attack was coming, and that there was a reasonable possibility it would be worse.
Looking at it today, with the perspective of time, I see great merit in not rushing into anything military. But once there is an attack like 9/11, public thinking becomes, almost instantly, far more bellicose. And 9/11 was tiny compared to even a single rather small nuclear bomb landing on an American city or town.
Can a sensible US president stand up to public opinion clamoring for major revenge, rationalized as deterrence against something still worse? I hope so, while doubting it.
I wasn’t really talking about nuclear retaliation against a country that launched a nuclear attack on the US. I can see the logic in the idea that MAD is no longer a deterrent if third-party country now knows you (US) won’t respond in kind to a nuclear attack.
But if China attacks the US, and the US retaliates against China, is it inevitable that France, Russia, etc. also launch nuclear weapons? Obviously, they’d prepare for the possibility, but would they do it if their own country wasn’t attacked?
Also, if China launched nukes against the US, would China also attack France and UK, since they are nuclear-capable? Russia has so many nukes to go around, they could afford to do so. And against non-nuclear US allies.
And then if the US launches first against China or Russia, who all would launch against the US, and would they also launch against US allies? Alas, for other countries currently allied with the US, at that point it’s probably too late for them to say “we’re not on their side anymore.”
Or, hell, the folks in Afghanistan or good old Saddam who thought the same thing. The US is willing to fight when we are willing to fight, and while we certainly prefer to minimize casualties, it’s not going to prevent us from fighting if we (i.e. the voting public and the two major parties) THINK we need to or should. Really, what ties our hands (and, mind, I see this as a feature not a bug) is getting the public on board and getting a consensus within our political structure TOO fight (see video counter point to the Chinese power one on 