Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ThingsComeAround]

China 'will not match' US military power - general

[caniff]

China is perfectly content to sit by and wait while we go broke.

(Not saying that's gonna happen - and you can say the US is already busted-ass broke - but that to me seems to be the only way towards Chinese hegemony.)

[ThingsComeAround]

I disagree.

They don't want us to go broke, then we couldn't buy any of their products.
Possibly they'd increase the metals business influence in Africa, Australia and soon South America (for lumber, meats)

[rollo]

Why would the Chinese want to challenge the U.s.? We keep the peace in Asia. keep the Asian shipping lanes open. to challenge the u.s. might mean the U.s. might not keep the lid on the region. Russia is China's most serious threat and they could at least fight them to a stalemate. The U.s. and china are buddy-buddy now. europe is circling the drain so china knows who to cosy up to.

[visitorq]

China is a captive market. They are incapable of competing against the West in regards to technology, and that includes military capacity. It doesn't mean the US won't arm China and pass on important new technology, just as we did for the Soviets (right from the beginning, continuing all the way through the Cold War), but the West will always dominate militarily (the US is many orders of magnitude more powerful than China in that regard; there is not much comparison really).

[sirius black]

China would be wise not to try and match American expenditures militarily. Why spend that money on weapons when its better used to expand your economy? Its the US that is not smart for spending about 1/5 of its GNP on defense.

Also, China is doing well militarily as it is. It is now or will be shortly the only other country to have stealth capability. It will if not already have intercontinental ballistic capability to reach the western states. Much of the technology has either been stolen or bought outright with the U.S.'s own blessing going back to the '90s. They have a thriving spy business in the U.S. already.

America needs China economically as well but its China that is getting non dependent on America. China has replaced America as the chief trading partner with longtime U.S. partners like Japan, Korea, India and Brazil...and the list is growing each year. China now controls much of the mineral rights in many subsaharan African countries.

China would be wise to let the U.S. continue its economical decline on its own and spend the money on itself.

As far as America always being the strongest country militariy, that may not be so. NO country holds that position for ever and the trend doesn't favor America. There are a plethora of people who would suggest that America can no longer project power in a war with a country of decent size.

[Castaway]

[visitorq]

[visitorq]

[NohopeSeriously]

China's biggest priority isn't about strengthening the military. It's all about regional diplomacy, namely Taiwan and stabilizing the North Korean economy with the help of the Chinese private enterprise.

[caniff]

[sirius black]

China's economic relationship with the U.S. is symbiotic right now. However, the trend for China is away from the U.S. as I've noted, its replaced America as the major trading partner to traditional American partners like Korea, Japan, India and Brazil and Europe is on the horizon. The point is its diversifying its economy where its not as reliant on the American economy. Right now, no country is immune from the U.S. economy. There is an economic saying that says when America sneezes (economically) the world catches cold. That remains true now. But no country holds that title forever. China, however, is moving in position to become the next economic power just like America replaced Great Britain at the turn of the last century. That is the trend. So, in a nutshell, China does have a choice in the American economic Ponzi scheme and its doing it now by diversifying its economy away from the U.S.

If America's economic issues continue to decline, spending a fifth of the GNP on the military may not be possible. Great Britain had a policy to keep its Navy considerable larger than its closest rival. Eventually, its economy couldn't maintain that which culminated in WW2. America could stand the same fate. Not right now, but in the future. My post was with regards to the future, not the present.

With regards to America winning a conventional war with China. Lets define conventional. The dictionary definition is:
Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought using conventional weapons, not chemical, biological, nor nuclear weapons.

Using that definition, I'd like to see some expert opinion that America could win a conventional war in China.

Furthermore, China has the largest standing army in the world. Well over 2 million on active duty, almost twice America's which is at its height since its involved in 2 wars. This is China's peace time army and given its population could easily summon more. There isn't a military expert that would say America could win a conventional war in China.
America fought China in a conventional war in the Korean war and fought to a standstill. America couldn't force China back to its own border.

America's military is of no importance with regards to China's emergence. Its America NOT China that is taking money that could be better spent on its economy to put into the military and propping up bases and soldiers around the globe. Its America that has conceded to China, NOT the other way around. First in recognzing it during the Nixon administration and has conceded Taiwan as a Chinese island that will eventually go back to China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Republic of India, Pakistan and Japan have formally adopted the One China policy, under which the People's Republic of China is theoretically the sole legitimate government of China

My point is China is being wise NOT to compete in military spending. America got powerful by NOT spending on its military. Japan and Germany became the 2nd and 3rd biggest economies respectively (until recently) partially because they did NOT have to spend on their military. The U.S. was their proxy military for decades via bases in Asia and specifically Okinawa and NATO.

In World War I, Great Brtain France, Russia, Ausro-Hungary empire and Italy ALL had bigger armies than America did. It doesn't matter if we could blow them up a few times over. We'd never do it. We had the means to do that in Vietnam but still lost the war. For all that military might we're still in a country like Afghanistan for a decade. China is a non starter or specifically a war with and in China is.

[johnnyenglishteacher2]

[sirius black]

[Steelrails]