Five reasons for China and US to go to war: New Strait Times

There remain five major reasons for the United States to go to war with China, according to Evan N Resnick in a Jan. 13 article written for the New Strait Timesan English language newspaper based in Malaysia.

Resnick led by saying that China's economic ascent since the start of Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms in 1978 is a major concern for the US. He said that China, currently the world's second-largest economy, is about to surpass the United States in its GDP on the basis of purchasing power parity within the next decade. In addition, China has more money to modernize its People's Liberation Army.

Resnick said that China's military budget rose at an average annual rate of 10.3% between 2001 and 2011. By 2012, the country's military budget exceeded US$100 billion for the first time. As a rising great power, Resnick argued that China will seek to maximize its security by expanding its influence and control in neighboring regions. He stressed that China's adoption of expansive sovereignty claims and its increasingly brazen efforts to bully its local rivals should be understood, he says, in this context.

Second, Resnick stated that President Barack Obama's Asia Pivot or rebalancing strategy could eventually lead to rising tensions and a potential war between China and the United States in East Asia. "The White House has not only ramped up military deployments to Australia, South Korea, the Philippines and Singapore," said Resnick, "but also sought enhanced defence relations with a host of regional partners, including India, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and even Myanmar."

Thirdly, US security commitments to its regional allies in Asia have encouraged those allies to harden their bargaining positions towards China. "Even in the absence of the rebalance, it is almost certain that China would have still exhibited considerable insecurity," said Resnick, "Rising to great power status in a region that is not only militarily dominated by the US, but is also replete with US allies and strategic partners."

Rensnick said that the fourth reason is that most nations in Asia-Pacific rely on the military protection of the United States while relying on China for economic development. "The various diplomatic and territorial quarrels roiling East Asia are of much greater salience and concern to China than to the US, as their outcomes more profoundly affect the national security of the much closer China than the more distant US," said Resnick.

Lastly, Resnick blamed both Beijing and Washington for not establishing a set of rules that can moderate their geopolitical competition. To avoid a third world war, Resnick said that decision makers in Beijing must realize that the regional balance of military power remains strongly tilted against China. They must understand that China will suffer disproportionately from any war that it starts against the United States or other regional powers.

Resnick also suggested US leaders to accept China's position as a growing power in the region. "At the same time, US decision makers must accept that China's growing power and acute insecurities necessitate a more circumspect and less heavy-handed US approach to the region that reflects a more refined conception of America's vital interests there," he said, adding that what China and the United States need is mutual understanding to maintain regional security.

(1) He said that China, currently the world's second-largest economy, is about to surpass the United States in its GDP on the basis of purchasing power parity within the next decade.

Why do they need a war if they can just buy whatever they need? This reason is not a reason at all. Rich people don't wage a war against poor people; they may control them, but wars are out of style. Mr. Resnick is still waging the last war.

(2) President Barack Obama's Asia Pivot or rebalancing strategy could eventually lead to rising tensions and a potential war between China and the United States in East Asia

It cannot, for obvious reasons: Obama doesn't have the resolve to go to war with China. Or with Albania, to that matter.

(3) US security commitments to its regional allies in Asia have encouraged those allies to harden their bargaining positions towards China

The USA still has allies there? Amazing. But do not worry, Obama will quickly send the most capable head of the State Department to fix this little problem. Meanwhile those "allies," like Pakistan, are playing their own game with everyone, the USA included. India just got a diplomatic slap in the face. Japan has its hands full with Fukushima; South Korea is being barked at by North. Nobody else matters.

(4) the fourth reason is that most nations in Asia-Pacific rely on the military protection of the United States while relying on China for economic development

Everyone understands that the USA will not go to war for an ally like Taiwan. The risk is immense. They better be friends with China and India. There is no alternative.

(5) To avoid a third world war, Resnick said that decision makers in Beijing must realize that the regional balance of military power remains strongly tilted against China. They must understand that China will suffer disproportionately from any war that it starts against the United States or other regional powers.

What in the world prompts Mr. Resnick to think that China is more vulnerable than the USA? 50% of immense Chinese population is entirely immune from any war, and may not even know that one occurred. They live in poverty, have no iPhones, and no electric power. On the other hand, an attack against the USA is likely to collapse all this carefully balanced cardhouse that we know as the US society.

China may not have as many nuclear weapons as the USA or Russia. But that hardly matters. Russia won't interfere, and the USA would be ill advised to throw stones from the inside of our glass house. China only needs to negotiate the balance of power with India, and India does the same with Pakistan. Those are the only players in the arena who are active and capable (in other words, have nukes.) And it just happens that not all of them are fond of US policies. They are extremely likely to sell the USA down the river if that buys them an advantage. In general, regional power blocs have an advantage over some remote superpower who may or may not decide to get involved in a regional affair. This is doubly so if that superpower is ruled by temporary presidents who are largely incompetent. Triply so if that superpower is a paper tiger.

I believe China needs a war to keep her peasant population in line. They still remember Mao and the ideas of Communism. Their shouldn’t be uber rich in such a state. China will fracture (as it always does) into warring provinces inless there is something to unify them—like a war against a hated enemy—like the USA or Japan. They have built and are building a Blue Water Navy and they will use it. With Obama in charge—they can do what they want—he is so focused on the Domestic issues he couldn’t care less about Asia. He will not oppose them—save for token responces. they will act withing the next 18 months—and lots of folks are going to die! I hope I am wrong! tell me I have read the tea leaves wrong!

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.