Posted on 05/10/2005 6:11:01 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
The Middle East is just a blip. The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was
For some time now no navy or air force has posed a threat to the United States. Our only competition has been armies, whether conventional forces or guerrilla insurgencies. This will soon change. The Chinese navy is poised to push out into the Pacific—and when it does, it will very quickly encounter a U.S. Navy and Air Force unwilling to budge from the coastal shelf of the Asian mainland. It's not hard to imagine the result: a replay of the decades-long Cold War, with a center of gravity not in the heart of Europe but, rather, among Pacific atolls that were last in the news when the Marines stormed them in World War II. In the coming decades China will play an asymmetric back-and-forth game with us in the Pacific, taking advantage not only of its vast coastline but also of its rear base—stretching far back into Central Asia—from which it may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific. In any naval encounter China will have distinct advantages over the United States, even if it lags in technological military prowess. It has the benefit, for one thing, of sheer proximity. Its military is an avid student of the competition, and a fast learner. It has growing increments of "soft" power that demonstrate a particular gift for adaptation. While stateless terrorists fill security vacuums, the Chinese fill economic ones. All over the globe, in such disparate places as the troubled Pacific Island states of Oceania, the Panama Canal zone, and out-of-the-way African nations, the Chinese are becoming masters of indirect influence—by establishing business communities and diplomatic outposts, by negotiating construction and trade agreements. Pulsing with consumer and martial energy, and boasting a peasantry that, unlike others in history, is overwhelmingly literate, China constitutes the principal conventional threat to America's liberal imperium.
How should the United States prepare to respond to challenges in the Pacific? To understand the dynamics of this second Cold War—which will link China and the United States in a future that may stretch over several generations—it is essential to understand certain things about the first Cold War, and about the current predicament of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the institution set up to fight that conflict. This is a story about military strategy and tactics, with some counterintuitive twists and turns.
I was told by a client who served on a guided missle cruiser (had a designation CGN, but can't remember the name...it was named after a souther state I think) back in the late 70's early 80's. He told me that on the day of Reagan's inauguration, they moved a huge number of ships into striking distance of Iran and told Iran that they had 48 hours to release the hostages or they would be nuked (this guy said they armed the nukes and were ready to launch)...and that is why the hostages were released. Apparently, the ships were moved prior to inauguration on Reagan's directive, approved to by Carter. Don't know if this is BS or not.
The time to have done that was 20 years ago. Now, after years of industrial development and encouragement of people to move to the Special Economic Regions, the balkanization potential has markedly decreased. And, correspondingly, the fervor of Chinese Pan Nationalism has increased.
Sorry, no money. Too busy giving illegals free medical care.
Ever heard of the NEP?
You've nailed it. As long as we are the marketplace of record, there PROBABLY won't be war with China. This is especially true given the fact that the PLA is legal controlling partner of every foreign-owned entity in China.
I read that the eu has replaced US as their largest market several months ago.
Checkmate.
See post #247
It is a model set-up from the get-go for "re-nationalization" on the Q.T. when the balloon goes up.
Who is more at risk, economically, in the blow up between West and East? Clearly, the West.
Definitely an additional possibility!
This is a good analysis until Pres. Hillary pulls the rubber mask off her head and Mao is unveiled underneath. And she sits on our response.
I'm not saying that is impossible or that they will never do so (they are a mistake prone society) but if they did, it would be devastating economically for them in the long term.
For what it is worth, it seems to have worked just fine for Mexico when they expropriated Standard Oil's holdings in 1938.
As to being economically devastating for China, I don't see why it would be, although I can certainly see why it would be devastating for us to lose all of that investment in one fell swoop.
It can be done with conventional explosives in the right spots. It was done in the second world war.
"If they were smart, they would strike now while we are preoccupied in the midle east and before the Japanese ramp up."
Hmmmm...Your profile says you particularly like Asian people. I don't trust you. Not one bit...
And you think Bill Clinton, who reigned in American for 8 full years, would implement that policy under any circumstances? And I'm sure the first page on any enemy's playbook is to wait until the next Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter takes office.
The problem is that those ships didn't carry nuclear missiles capable of land attack until the mid 1980s...
Also, the hostages were being released while Reagan was being inaugurated--before he could actually give any orders.
Your friend was pulling your leg.
"Last I checked Russia still exists (although no longer with the Soviet system) and it still has those nukes and can still use them."
Thanks--you just made my point.
Military forces are there to ensure the survival of the nation-state controlling them. Survival of the nation-state includes the survival of the nation-state's system of government.
The Soviet nuclear forces failed to accomplish that mission.
It was not the failure of the nuclear forces or military forces it was the failure of the sadists who ran that place. Although Putin is there trying to reinstate the system. But that is anbother matter entirly. Without our nukes we would not be here today, WWII would have lasted years longer, China would have long taken Taiwan already and Stalin would have controlled all of Europe. Instead of disarming we need more. Even in regional conflicts we would need them. The 5000lb bunker buster is only good against shallow targets. North Korea has a 4 million man army.
Nukes are far from useless. Read more about the before you go storming off in denial of the fact that we need a strong nuclear force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.