Its true that China's modernization and growing economy can be a potential threat to the US. But there's really not much that can be done about that. It is unrealistic to expect a nation the size of China to be a meek, pacifist nation. Since the foundation of the PRC, however, their past actions seem to be fairly limited and restrained by any measure. Ultimately a policy of engagement and integration is what will work and it is what makes China much less of a threat today than it would have been if the world had shunned it and tried to contain it and keep it down. If this was the policy, then today China would be a gigantic version of North Korea, poor, aggrieved and feeling threatened all the time and this China, even though much weaker economically and militarily than today's China would be a FAR more potent threat to national security than today's China wich is more open and integrated into the world and with the West. This is another point of view to think about.
Restrained? You call................ 1. killing thousands of peaceful pro-democracy protesters restrained? 2. continued brutal persecution of the Tibetan people restrained? 3. Invading Vietnam in the late seventies restrained? 4. Threatening Los Angeles with nuclear attack if we tried to defend Taiwan.......restrained? These people are not nice folks. Engagement and trade have only give the PRC the hard currency to buy hi-tech Russkie hardware as good as ours. Our hard currency and stupidity have given them enough funds to fund a major modernization of their forces and the expansion of their power on a global stage. They are presently trying to build an aircraft carrier to specifically confront us beyond their home waters. Just the Japanese toward the end of the First World War, they are expanding to dethrone us as the central figure on the asian stage.
The modernization, growth and development of any country is a threat to the US. In the way that it takes away a little bit of the the USs power as it gaines a little of it´s own. China could potentially become the worlds most powerful nation. This is a clear threat to US world power. What to do? Try to influence the development of other countries to be more democratic? or try to hold them back as much as possible? or try to make them develop into "cash cows" producing and working for the US? There are of course many more alternatives, but I´ve gotta go to bed now. G´nite.
Since the foundation of the PRC they have not really had the capability to be adventurous. India and the USSR on the sides and the ocean with no real navy on the other. That will not be the case soon. There is no conflict between my views on the PRC and this (if you've read my posts). However, while pursing the contructive engagement policies of the first Bush administration, we cannot ignore the possible rise of a modernized PLA and a not-so-benign regime in East Asia. Hence, we need to be prepared to militarily engage the PRC if the need arises. Any other course would be negligent at best, and a major threat to stability in East Asia at worst.
You understand the real motivation of the old men running the PRC? Hmmm, Where you live? Actually I didn't say it was economic. I said I don't see any positive economic result from a confrontation over Taiwan. This Spratly deal is something else though, perhaps the real economic objective with Taiwan just being the tradeable pawn. Very inscrutable! Thanks for the geography lesson guys. If it's just over Nationalism..F*ck' em. They would destroy the world economy, kill millions on both sides and make a mortal enemy of the most powerful nation on Earth for that? That would just be pure insanity.
robbie380, HayesStreet covers China - Pacific Rim better than I would and bamaslammer has the weapons systems covered........so I will touch on a few other areas. China has some SIGINT facilities in Cuba and there are reports that they are using some of the huge SIGINT faility at Lourdes that the USSR had during the Cold War. Close enough to Florida to pick up signals traffic from NASA and in view of them having a goal of making significant strides in space capability, not a good thing. China has been increasing their capabilities in the South Asia area and India is watching Chinese moves such as the SIGINT bases in the Coco Islands which allows them to monitor Indian signals traffic. The Chinese development of a deep water port at Gwadar, Pakistan is another sign of the bracketing/pincer move of India and would give the Chinese navy a base that would be <i>stepped out</i> from the Pacific basin. China has been using Pakistan as an irritant to India for years and there seems to be no signs of that situation ending. A few nice reads: <a HREF="http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/">The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)</a> <a HREF="http://www.jamestown.org/pubs/view/cwe_001_009_004.htm">THE CHINESE THREAT: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE</a> <a HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF17Df05.html">ANALYSIS: India and China: Neighborhood problems</a>- and finally <a HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EH01Df02.html">Vajpayee claps with one hand on border dispute</a> <hr color=red> <hr color=red> bamaslammer, Here are two articles on the Russian built destroyers: <a HREF="http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/sov.asp">Sovremenny Class (Project 956) Missile Destroyer</a> <a HREF="http://china.jamestown.org/pubs/view/cwe_002_003_002.htm">CHINA BUYS NEW RUSSIAN DESTROYERS</a>
I am not denying that they are buying offensive weaponry, but what I am saying is when have the Chinese since the revolution made any sort of overtures that they would want to expand their territory? Taiwan is apart of China. Also, the Spratlys are claimed by almost every single country in that region and while their forceful action there aren't positive they are not a threat to America. Every country in the region wants the petro resources in the Spratlys and I really see it as their issue unless China decides to pursue further military action in the region, but only time will tell there. Also, just because they are buying and updating their military systems doesn't mean they will use them. A strong military is a sign of prestige as well and will also guarantee that they will not get pushed around by other nations. It does not mean that they will use it in an ultimate battle with the US. The reason why I feel the Chinese know military hegemony won't work is because they have done as much as they can to make relationships with the Japanese and Americans work. Further, the Japanese and Americans are doing what they can to smooth things over with the Chinese in order for economic progress. That cannot be denied. As these nations become further economically tied up it will be almost impossible to decide to fight a war against one another because it would destroy the economies of each. The Chinese tried to push ideology and anti-imperialist powers and whatnot before and it absolutely wrecked them under Mao. The leaders of today's China are much more rational and calculating and they know they need to use capitalism in some way to succeed. Also, they know they need the US and Japan to expand their economy and that has show with how the trade between these countries has expanded rapidly in the past 10 years or so. Am I saying anything here that you disagree with? If I am then tell me because I just don't see the Chinese acting irrationally.
I have done my own research on this whole topic and it was the subject of my research paper for my class last semester. You still seem to think of China as it was under Mao, but it is not that way anymore. They do not simply put ideology over everything anymore. Also, when exactly would the Chinese go to war? within the next 5 years? 10 years? how long? A country that is so dead set on going to war would not be as willing as they are too cooperate and talk and avoid war. China and the US have more dialogues today than they ever have in the past. Talking more and understanding each other more decreases the chances of war...can you deny that? Also, read what I wrote in the post above about how an expanding military doesn't actually mean they will use it to conquer the world or that they are even trying to. Updating and expanding their military protects China from being pushed around like it was in the past. A strong military garners respect. China is not North Korea which you seem to confuse it with. NK is simply expanding their army to take over SK. That has been their sole stated goal. China's army is not solely there to take over Taiwan.
They're not after "respect." Only the Queen of Soul really wants that. You don't spend all of this precious hard currency so you won't be simply "pushed around." Look at Sweden. They have one of the best militaries in the world, yet they are a strictly defensive force. Who the heck would push them around anyhow? Us? I always find it humorous that you on the left seek to dismiss our military buildups as destabilizing yet you depict the buildup of other states as justified. That always stumped me. The Chinese, on the other hand, have a different ideal. They want to project power over global distances (with a blue water navy and Pakistani bases) and replace us as the primary global power. Why then would you spend a decade trying to buy an aircraft carrier, spend billions in hard currency on fighter planes like ours, submarines and Soverremnyy class destroyers designed to kill aircraft carriers and develop ASAT technology to destroy our GPS and C3 advantage if you simply want respect? Democratic states arm themselves to prevent war. Totalitarian states like China do so to make war. Remember those guys Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo? For most of the twenties and thirties, they prepared for war while the democratic states slept in a blissful, ignorant slumber and what did we get? World War II that cost the lives of billions. There is nothing benign about China's intentions. They simply want to replace us as a "global hegemon" plain and simple. You also said that they talk to us more. Haven't you ever heard of the Japanese diplomatic manuvering before World War II? Diplomacy is a great game for a totalitarian state bent on territorial expansion to deceive us and lull us into submission. Open your eyes. I think you've read too many books written by too many left-over sixties radicals now populating academia who believed throughout the Cold War that we, not the Soviets, were the greatest threat to peace. So what if you wrote a little paper on it? I have real world experience in the Marine Corps and plus my political science degree is concentrated in international relations.
The reality is America will always need an enemy. We need a target to justify our massive defense spending. We'll cut social programs and layoff firefighters, but we will always need to buy more bombs. After the Soviet Union fell and Gulf war I, there was a vacuum left open and China defaulted into that position. Who else could be that scary boogeyman? In the mid 90's and before 9/11, there were so much negative propaganda against China which emphasized the oncoming Chinese threat. Some paranoid people, specifically from Alabama, bought into it and wet their underpants. We were steered toward China being enemy #1. However, 9/11 happened and China was put on the back burners. In a few years, when we have Iraq settled, we will link China with Al Queda. Then we will focus all our animosity toward China.
Okay, let's cut down our military spending to near 0 and let's see how long it takes before we realize how stupid it was to assume we have no enemies.
First of all...I'm not on the left. This is just my opinion. Try not to group me to quickly. I've already said in this thread that I think what Bush has done has been great with respect towards China. I am a Bush supporter and so on and so forth. Just because I feel China is not a threat like you perceive doesn't mean I am a liberal or on the left. You know people can have opinions that are not the same as yours and not be on the left. Second...When did I say our military buildups are destabilizing? Read what I write before deciding how I feel about something. I think that our sending arms to Taiwan is good because it shows China we aren't going to screw around and be weak. China has explicitly stated that they do not want to kick the US out of Asia or remove the US as the number one power in Asia. I can only tell you that from memory, which can certainly be faulty, but hopefully you have heard the same thing since you have done research on the subject as well. The democratic states arming themselves to prevent war idea I think is kind of not true. I mean weren't we a democracy when were expanding our nation? Weren't we arming ourselves to kill off the Indians and fight off the Mexicans? We were arming ourselves to expand our nation at the expense of others. That is not arming to prevent war...we armed to make war. It's not pretty, but it's the truth. Also, WWII didn't cost billions of lives...millions yes, but billions is a bit much. Furthermore, can you really say that the world is in a state of blissful ignorance like it was back in the 20's and 30's? Honestly, are we full of isolationist sentiment like we were back then? No we are not. We are involved in almost everything that goes on so it's kind of hard to believe that we are being lulled into a state of blissful slumber and being misled by thinking that China is not going to attack us. China has not set its eyes on anything significant beyond Taiwan. I say nothing else significant because I don't consider the Spratlys a major issue. I don't know where else you can see China attempting to be a global hegemon. The Chinese have been historically xenophobic and have spent all of their time concentrating on what they believe are Chinese issues and not world issues. Well I didn't read any books by left-over sixties radicals. Actually, the ones I read were mostly by boring political science people who like to logically analyze everything without the flair that biased people on the left and right put on things. The stuff I did read like that I combined with the anti-China hawks to get a decent picture of things. My prof for my course on China in the new Asian political region was a visiting professor from Beijing who is deeply involved in ASEAN and political discussions between the US and China. He isn't one of those pro-China anti-US freaks either. He is one of those regular, level-headed people who feels cools heads will prevails and that China is not a threat and that China does not want to kick the US out as the main power in the world. From what I get from what I have read and what my other profs have said people like him are the types that are in government now. Mostly logical, level headed people. The general direction China has become oriented towards since the revolution has been more for level-headedness...you can't deny that. While they have continued to arm themselves they have also made significant changes in rhetoric and actions. Maybe we can get a Chinese person to chime in on this and let us know what the general sentiment in China is right now and what it will be in the future. My point being is that for a war to happen then people have to want a war. Neither side wants war and therefore they have all moderated their views. The Chinese people do not want war with Taiwan...this is a fact. The Taiwanese do not want war with China...this is a fact. Ok I am just rambling now....rip my points to shreds now
I guess you haven't read any of the posts on what China has been doing as far as building up their military (absent any threat). What are we supposed to do, bend over and clutch our ankles while our enemies put their hands on our shoulders and whisper BOHICA BOHICA (bend over, here it comes again) in our ears? I guess you're one of these types who believe that is so unfar that we have the best military. You're one of these who believe that we could best piss our money down an entitlement toilet rather than defend ourselves. Which is more constitutional, entitlements (not at all) or defense of our nation? We will always have a nation/s that are a threat to our national security. The price for freedom is eternal vigilance. And for as your "paranoid Alabama" comment, go to hell.
I'm not trying to tell you how to think, but you have to understand several truths when dealing with totalitarian states: 1. They will lie through their teeth. They do it to their own people, so what makes you think they are being truthful in their statements about their intentions to the rest of the world. 2. They can not coexist with democracies because those same democratic ideals are a threat to their rule. They are most definitely trying to make a play to replace us as the major power in Asia. Read what I said earlier. All this hard currency they are blowing on these high-tech weapons systems are aimed at one power: us. All of their advances are designed to defeat us and prevent us from fighting the type of war we like to fight. There are no other peer competitors in Asia for them to justify the building up of such a large military. The only reason to build up a non-defensive (global power-projecting) military is to become a power capable of defeating ones enemies across global distances. If you choose not to believe that and instead believe Chinese propaganda, be my guest. But don't reject my statements as simple paranoia from the mind of an anti-China hawk. And as for your historical arguments about the indians and the Mexicans, I strongly believe in our manifest destiny to rule most of North America. The indians were a bunch of non-technological, primitive peoples who were in the way of our nation's greatness, plain and simple. Should they have been wiped out? No, of course not. But was our fight against them genocidal? In the words of General Tecumseh Sherman, "War is hell." There are no such things as war crimes, because war is a crime in of itself.
Well...I guess only time will tell for the 1st part of what you said. For the 2nd part....I just wanted you to know you just contradicted yourself by saying what you said. You acknowledge that we were a democracy and we were arming ourself for war and not to prevent it. Also, just because they were non-technological doesn't mean we had to break every treaty we made and destroy their food supplies and way of life. Further, mantifest destiny is a bunch of crap. It's crap like when a player who just won the Super Bowl says they want to thank God for helping them win the game. We aren't pre-destined for things. If that was true then I wouldn't have to do crap...everything would just come to me. We believed we were destined for it so we did everything we could to realize that destiny. That destiny did not come to us...we did anything possible to make it happen including some terrible atrocities. Finally, when a side systematically goes out and erradicates food supplies to kill off the other side then I would call that attempted genocide especially when it is racially motivated and when we were trying to remove the Indians from the land in anyway possible. One more thing, if you don't want to believe in war crimes then I hope you never complain when our soldiers are mistreated as prisoners.
So by that rationale you'd rather that the Indians still owned all the land in this country. I refuse to use the term "native americans" because even they immigrated over here, just via the Bering Strait land bridge. Who cares if we wiped them out? It is ancient history. Too late to do anything about it now, so crying about it won't do us a bit of good. Who cares if we broke treaties with them? It proves my point that the only thing that matters in this world is not "international law," which is simply a way to keep the good guys (us) from doing what the bad guys will do anyway, but the use of force. Everything else is bull****. If you want to believe that America is evil because we wiped out some folks because they refused to assimilate into our vastly superior culture, go ahead.....be my guest. Using the Indian wars that expanded our territory and enabled us to be the great nation we are today to reinforce your argument that because we happened to kill a few primitive folks who got in the way, we can not be the moral guiding light in the world is absurd. And as one of those soldiers, I remember telling my Marines: "If you are goddamned stupid enough to get caught by these sonuvbitches, they will beat and torture your ass like no tomorrow. They don't give a flying rusty **** about the ****ing Geneva Convention. " A lot of good the Geneva Convention has done us. The Vietnamese, Iraqis and Japanese ignored it and tortured our POWs anyway. And I say again, for the umpteenth time, don't be lulled into a blissfull sleep by the sweet words of the Chinese. Make no mistake, they are bent on becoming a power capable of equaling us in terms of global power projection. If we allow them to become the dominant power in the world......God help us all.
We are really not in disagreement. I personally have not (nor has anyone else here in this thread for that matter that I'm aware of) argued that the US should just trust China's present and future intentions and disengage or ramp down US military presence and capability in Asia-Pacific. But doing so does not mean it is necessary to demonize or paint China in the worst possible light or assume the most evil intentions. It is far from clear to me that China's military modernization signals anything like that. It's spending is still fairly modest and certainly nothing compared to the likes of pre Gulf War I Iraq, North Korea, or the former USSR on a relative GDP or per capita basis. And like it or not, China will not and can not be expected to be a meek, pacifist nation that allows itself the potential to be bullied or dominated by outside powers either. I'm not saying you (HayeStreet) are in that anti-China camp but there are many who are but I'm not sure that that kind of attitude or posture is really helpful. On balance it can be worrisome but at the same time can also be seen as something that a nation of China's size is expected to do.
As I said its hard to understand unless you study it and try to understand the whole history behind it. There is nothing remotely comparable in US history so it is probably impossible for an American to emphasize with the Chinese viewpoint or position. As for war, China has publicly stated that it would go to war in the event Taiwan unilaterally declared full independence. But this is mostly as a deterrance to such a declaration. Of course, China could change its mind and just decide to launch an invasion tomorrow on a whim but the cost and fallout from that would indeed be pure insanity as you say. If Taiwan ever decided to unilaterally declare independence without any provocation from China, it is not clear how far the conflict would go or what the costs would be. It may all be a bluff and China might just do very little or it could be the start of World War III. But the point is that the capability and threat of that happening is what compels China to have to modernize its military. Even if China has no intention of ever invading Taiwan in the absence of such a declaration (and I can't prove this nor am I making this point), its military has to have the potential capability to potentially make the cost of independence to be so high that it is not seriously comtemplated by Taiwan. This reason has to be kept in mind as well when talking about China's military modernization.
