Trump admin legacy: Poisoning future US China relationship

[AndrewS]

@gadgetcool5

Back to the original topic, let's say the Trump Administration succeeds in completely poisoning the future China-USA relationship.

In such a situation, how much do you expect Chinese military spending to increase?

SIPRI has estimated that Chinese military spending has been a modest 2.0% of GDP for the past 20+years.

In comparison, the US is currently at 3.4%. If China were to match this level, then Chinese military spending would see a 70% budget increase overnight.

And also bear in mind that the Chinese economy is/will be larger than the US economy.

 

[LesAdieux]

Like i said before if US hit on China militarily i dont think China would respond directly instead it would hit taiwan which fits Mao's famous motto "You fight your battle, i fight my own battle"

PLA battled the US military for three years in Korea, america did not win! McArthur who totally trashed the japs, considered the PLA "a formid foe". and the PLA didn't hold the US army in high regards. the after war appraisal by the general staff of PLA rated the US army "not as good as the crack units of the KMT army", that's a flattery to those who fled to taiwan.

 

[j17wang]

I do not see a Russia under Putin to side with the world against China because he knows Russia is next on the chopping block should China fall. Unless you hear from an official Russian or Chinese source on why or even if the missile deliveries were suspended, I would stop paying attention to that story.

Keep in mind that Putin is being pressured by significant protests happening in Khabarovsk right now, which is a border city with China. China doesn't exactly lack leverage against Russia, although it should absolutely not interfere with its domestic affairs either. Again, remember Russia was caught in a hard place between India and China, and its response is as much about making sure not pissing off one ally against another. Imagine how bad it would have been for the Russians had they delivered an S-400 battalion to China a month after skirmishes with India?

 

[B.I.B.]

PLA battled the US military for three years in Korea, america did not win! McArthur who totally trashed the japs, considered the PLA "a formid foe". and the PLA didn't hold the US army in high regards. the after war appraisal by the general staff of PLA rated the US army "not as good as the crack units of the KMT army", that's a flattery to those who fled to taiwan.

Where did you get the idea he regarded the PLA as a formidable foe?. I got the impression he treated the PLA abilities with contempt. Thats one reason for why he got caught off guard.

 

[LesAdieux]

Where did you get the idea he regarded the PLA as a formidable foe?. I got the impression he treated the PLA abilities with contempt. Thats one reason for why he got caught off guard.

"a formidable foe", those are McArthur's own words. initially he treated PLA with contempt, after the fiasco of the first two compaigns, he asked Truman to use atomic bombs.

 

[gadgetcool5]

@gadgetcool5

Back to the original topic, let's say the Trump Administration succeeds in completely poisoning the future China-USA relationship.

In such a situation, how much do you expect Chinese military spending to increase?

SIPRI has estimated that Chinese military spending has been a modest 2.0% of GDP for the past 20+years.

In comparison, the US is currently at 3.4%. If China were to match this level, then Chinese military spending would see a 70% budget increase overnight.

And also bear in mind that the Chinese economy is/will be larger than the US economy.

I don't know. If China raises it to 3.4%, the US will raise it even further towards 5%. The US will also press gang its allies into military spending to ring around China, and try to peel off Russia. Sure, China can match the US in military spending, but it can't match the US + Japan + India + Aus + EU + SEA + Taiwan + South Korea.

That's the problem with these military arms races. It ends up being a lose-lose proposition for all economies. It becomes very expensive for everyone. The only ones who benefit are military contractors.

China being still a developing country with hundreds of millions who are still poor or lower middle class, should not waste money chasing this military competition.

The only area China needs a major buildup is its nuclear deterrent, because if the US increases its nuclear warheads further, it won't have much benefit since the US nuclear arsenal can already wipe out the whole world. But if China increases its nuclear warheads, it can increase the potential costs of going to war against it. Unfortunately I don't see any moves by China to increase HEU or military plutonium production, that it would need to reach 1,000 warheads. The Chinese government is behind the 8 ball as always.

 

[AndrewS]

I don't know. If China raises it to 3.4%, the US will raise it even further towards 5%. The US will also press gang its allies into military spending to ring around China, and try to peel off Russia. Sure, China can match the US in military spending, but it can't match the US + Japan + India + Aus + EU + SEA + Taiwan + South Korea.

You answer "I don't know".

So did you actually try to think and analyse before posting?


1. You keep overestimating the influence that the USA has over everyone else in the world.

How is the USA going to force other countries into increasing military spending?

Even during the USA-USSR Cold War, when there was a far greater Soviet military threat, Europe and Japan were far less militarised and spent far less on the military than the USA. Look at the historical military spending figures for yourself.

2. Suppose China then decides to match a US increase in military spending to 5% of GDP?

Remember that the Australian government white papers expect the Chinese economy to be twice the size of the US economy by the 2030-2035 timeframe.

In such a scenario, China can militarily outspend any potential US-led alliance in an arms race.

3. There won't be a firm anti-China alliance. It's not in the interests of other countries.

For example, the reality is that South Korea and SE Asia will be remain neutral in any China-USA conflict.

 

[SPOOPYSKELETON]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288897512934387712

 

[Phead128]

Biden will hire a bunch of ex-Obama foreign policy officials as part of his cabinet.

So I fully expect within 1-2 years, the Tariffs will be removed, Wang Mengzhou released, Consulates restored, ban on Huawei lifted, and discriminatory aggressive rhetorics will significant subside.

The most recent escalations is mostly driven by Jabba the Pomp and his minion Navarro (China-hawks) knowing his boss is unlikely to win re-election, so they wish to poison the relationship and provoke a China response.

Rest assured, most of these actions will be rescinded/changed upon a Biden administration. Biden will just be more smart like TPP-style containment of China, not the style of Trump's overt brashness. Biden will still treat China as a strategic competitor, but significant room for cooperation.

 

[j17wang]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288897512934387712

Clearly even washington's propaganda is failing miserably if it can't even convince its own citizens.

How is it only "one quarter" of Americans call china an enemy when their own main street media calls china the global threat 24/7? Jeez, that number aught to be at least +50% for american media to even be considered "remotely effective".

I wouldn't even care about the 73% unfavourability rating. Canada probably has that same unfavorable rating for the US. You should see how downright discriminatory we are to the US these days, (which I certainly help along).