Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
bettydice said:
I don't know what you mean by "the Center of Gravity".

"all the ancient Chinese texts like Sun Tzu and modern texts like Carl von Clausewitz" are just some books written by some people with their views. They are not absolute laws of this universe.

You keep saying economy. You're too preoccupied with economy. No, economy is not a power. Economy means nothing when it comes to geopolitics. Not everything is about economy. Stop talking about economy. Supply chains and economic relations are irrelevant.


"To suggest that America and Korea will work against Chinese and Korean interests, meaning Korea will work against itself, that is pure propaganda."
No, just because Korea makes big money out of China doesn't mean attacking China is against its interests. Economy is just economy, nothing more. Not everyone is looking at only economic interests. Again, you're too economic-minded.

"Now, these new subs from Australia, does nothing."
I don't have a word for someone who says subs do nothing. Just you're out of reality.

No, you didn't read what I wrote. I wasn't talking about what the US has done. It's about what they will do in the near future.
Click to expand...
" Economy means nothing when it comes to geopolitics."

Lol shows how little you actually know about warfare and the important relationship it has with economics/economy. Question: What was the rationale of then Imperial Japan for invading China? Was it for simply trying to show their giant neighbor who's the boss and just want to kill a bazillion Chinese just because?

As for the nuclear subs the kangaroos are getting, they are not going to materialize for the next 20 f.. Ng years and by then how many Nuclear Subs do you think China would have? It'll be more than the 8 subs Australians are getting and that's for certain. Without Australia holding to their economy being relatively prosperous how the heck do you think they are going to continue to afford to spend 2.1% of their GDP (1.3 Trillion, rank 13th in the world) 16 Billion of which are being spent on their Navy to continue?

Another question, do you think that if the U.S. or say China for example remained as impoverished and economically isolated pre-1978 would this recent moves and U.S. trepidations, actions against China and the China threat theory would have come to the fore? Would the U.S. able to maintain their gargantuan military budget and bases around the world without their economy being the biggest in the world for decades? You can't separate economy from warfare and geopolitics they all intertwined.
 
B

bettydice

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
Not really. Confining this discussion to SK/TW/AUS:

For South Korea the minute they go on the offensive their existence will be in jeopardy. South Korea doing anything triggers the Sino-Korean Mutual Defense Treaty and means that the conflict will no longer be contained to military on military. North Korea is chomping at the bit to get to them and KPA with PLAAF and PLAN support is a force to be reckoned with.

Australia is the same. What is the difference with 8 more SSNs for them vs 8 more for the US except that they will have worse training and maintenance? They can't build or maintain it themselves so it just clogs up US capability. And if they strike, they open themselves up to a far more devastating counterattack.
Click to expand...
They can say the same thing on China. You try to ignore "they go on the offensive", "they strike" part. Your supposed "their existence will be in jeopardy" and "counterattack" come only after they attack China, after China get damaged. China's counterattack on them does not undone the damage done on China. Those countries could have mutually assured destruction power with China.

What's difference? Your logic of clogging up US capability is just flawed, saying adding/expanding more personel, resources, and territory will clog up capacity is nonsense. This isn't Australia vs US, but Australia + US. Australia has operational military. They are not some low IQ fools. And there isn't anything difficult about launching missiles whether from land or submarine. It's something even any small minor countries can handle it. And even if it was 100% US capability, it means US has now much wider military presence near China, able to strike China from many more directions and locations, which China won't be able to intercept all of them from.

If China keeps going on with complacent mindset like yours, the history will repeat.

"And if they strike, they open themselves up to a far more devastating counterattack."
Again, that doesn't block or undone any devastating attacks on China. Focusing on counterattack on Australia is only good for self-comfort.
 
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
bettydice said:
They can say the same thing on China. You try to ignore "they go on the offensive", "they strike" part. Your supposed "their existence will be in jeopardy" and "counterattack" come only after they attack China, after China get damaged. China's counterattack on them does not undone the damage done on China. Those countries could have mutually assured destruction power with China.

What's difference? Your logic of clogging up US capability is just flawed, saying adding/expanding more personel, resources, and territory will clog up capacity is nonsense. This isn't Australia vs US, but Australia + US. Australia has operational military. They are not some low IQ fools. And there isn't anything difficult about launching missiles whether from land or submarine. It's something even any small minor countries can handle it. And even if it was 100% US capability, it means US has now much wider military presence near China, able to strike China from many more directions and locations, which China won't be able to intercept all of them from.

If China keeps going on with complacent mindset like yours, the history will repeat.

"And if they strike, they open themselves up to a far more devastating counterattack."
Again, that doesn't block or undone any devastating attacks on China. Focusing on counterattack on Australia is only good for self-comfort.
Click to expand...
"If China keeps going on with complacent mindset like yours, the history will repeat."

Your concern is understandable and duly noted but your coming across paranoid. Operating from paranoia is never a good thing and would simply result into committing strategic suicide.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
bettydice said:
They can say the same thing on China. You try to ignore "they go on the offensive", "they strike" part. Your supposed "their existence will be in jeopardy" and "counterattack" come only after they attack China, after China get damaged. China's counterattack on them does not undone the damage done on China. Those countries could have mutually assured destruction power with China.

What's difference? Your logic of clogging up US capability is just flawed, saying adding/expanding more personel, resources, and territory will clog up capacity is nonsense. This isn't Australia vs US, but Australia + US. Australia has operational military. They are not some low IQ fools. And there isn't anything difficult about launching missiles whether from land or submarine. It's something even any small minor countries can handle it. And even if it was 100% US capability, it means US has now much wider military presence near China, able to strike China from many more directions and locations, which China won't be able to intercept all of them from.

If China keeps going on with complacent mindset like yours, the history will repeat.

"And if they strike, they open themselves up to a far more devastating counterattack."
Again, that doesn't block or undone any devastating attacks on China. Focusing on counterattack on Australia is only good for self-comfort.
Click to expand...

Australia can't build the subs themselves. They might be able to assemble them. More likely, they won't even do that and just buy. The shipyards in the US are already at full capacity and producing as fast as it can. They physically can't go faster. So this is not really Australia + US, Australia and US will be competing for a finite shipyard capacity. So what is the difference between say, US having 52 subs and AUS having 8, and US having 60? None except the 8 run by AUS will have higher risk.

There is vast difficulty in launching a missile. From where to launch? How to identify the target and track it? How to evaluate efficacy?

And of course, there's no complacency here. One simple example: the recently declassified news about armed UUVs operating in Taiwan Strait 10 years ago.
 
B

bettydice

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bellum_Romanum said:
" Economy means nothing when it comes to geopolitics."

Lol shows how little you actually know about warfare and the important relationship it has with economics/economy. Question: What was the rationale of then Imperial Japan for invading China? Was it for simply trying to show their giant neighbor who's the boss and just want to kill a bazillion Chinese just because?

As for the nuclear subs the kangaroos are getting, they are not going to materialize for the next 20 f.. Ng years and by then how many Nuclear Subs do you think China would have? It'll be more than the 8 subs Australians are getting and that's for certain. Without Australia holding to their economy being relatively prosperous how the heck do you think they are going to continue to afford to spend 2.1% of their GDP (1.3 Trillion, rank 13th in the world) 16 Billion of which are being spent on their Navy to continue?

Another question, do you think that if the U.S. or say China for example remained as impoverished and economically isolated pre-1978 would this recent moves and U.S. trepidations, actions against China and the China threat theory would have come to the fore? Would the U.S. able to maintain their gargantuan military budget and bases around the world without their economy being the biggest in the world for decades? You can't separate economy from warfare and geopolitics they all intertwined.
Click to expand...
"Question: What was the rationale of then Imperial Japan for invading China?" Simply speaking, China's economic size didn't defend China from Japanese invasion. The US was militarily blockading Japan. China has no such ability to blockade any country. Having the biggest economy or being no.1 in GDP doesn't do anything. Enemies don't somehow stop their attacks just because you have bigger economy than them. China didn't obey the US when China was poor and the US was overwhelmingly the biggest economy. You shouldn't expect things would be any different when the economic sizes are reversed.

"by then how many Nuclear Subs do you think China would have?" It doesn't matter what or how many China would have. What China has does not offset enemy's offensive power. Modern weaponry is destructive enough even for smaller military and China has so many enemies all around. Think about this, no matter how many guns and bullets you have, it doesn't block a single enemy bullet.

You don't need much economy to have capabilities to destroy China. Even the poorest and most impoverished small countries have missiles and nuclear weapons, even the poorest tribes are running tanks and shooting rockets and Australia isn't and will never be the that much poor in the first place.

Economy is not a "the biggest takes all" game. The US or no one needs the biggest economy to have military capabilities to counter China. The US+Canada+Australia are two whole continents. They will of course always have enough economic means no matter what. Economy isn't an issue here. Taiwan already has/is adding significant missiles to strike on mainland China and they don't just go away even if Taiwan's economy reduces to pineapple farms. Taiwan doesn't even need pineapples to have nuclear missiles.
 
B

Bob Smith

Junior Member
Registered Member
bettydice said:
"Question: What was the rationale of then Imperial Japan for invading China?" Simply speaking, China's economic size didn't defend China from Japanese invasion. The US was militarily blockading Japan. China has no such ability to blockade any country. Having the biggest economy or being no.1 in GDP doesn't do anything. Enemies don't somehow stop their attacks just because you have bigger economy than them. China didn't obey the US when China was poor and the US was overwhelmingly the biggest economy. You shouldn't expect things would be any different when the economic sizes are reversed.

"by then how many Nuclear Subs do you think China would have?" It doesn't matter what or how many China would have. What China has does not offset enemy's offensive power. Modern weaponry is destructive enough even for smaller military and China has so many enemies all around. Think about this, no matter how many guns and bullets you have, it doesn't block a single enemy bullet.

You don't need much economy to have capabilities to destroy China. Even the poorest and most impoverished small countries have missiles and nuclear weapons, even the poorest tribes are running tanks and shooting rockets and Australia isn't and will never be the that much poor in the first place.

Economy is not a "the biggest takes all" game. The US or no one needs the biggest economy to have military capabilities to counter China. The US+Canada+Australia are two whole continents. They will of course always have enough economic means no matter what. Economy isn't an issue here. Taiwan already has/is adding significant missiles to strike on mainland China and they don't just go away even if Taiwan's economy reduces to pineapple farms. Taiwan doesn't even need pineapples to have nuclear missiles.
Click to expand...
A bigger economy allows a country to build a bigger military. Having the biggest economy will almost certainly mean the biggest military and all the deterrence that allows. Would you rather have China's military backed by a $30 trillion economy or a $500 billion economy?
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Bellum_Romanum said:
" Economy means nothing when it comes to geopolitics."

Lol shows how little you actually know about warfare and the important relationship it has with economics/economy. Question: What was the rationale of then Imperial Japan for invading China? Was it for simply trying to show their giant neighbor who's the boss and just want to kill a bazillion Chinese just because?

As for the nuclear subs the kangaroos are getting, they are not going to materialize for the next 20 f.. Ng years and by then how many Nuclear Subs do you think China would have? It'll be more than the 8 subs Australians are getting and that's for certain. Without Australia holding to their economy being relatively prosperous how the heck do you think they are going to continue to afford to spend 2.1% of their GDP (1.3 Trillion, rank 13th in the world) 16 Billion of which are being spent on their Navy to continue?

Another question, do you think that if the U.S. or say China for example remained as impoverished and economically isolated pre-1978 would this recent moves and U.S. trepidations, actions against China and the China threat theory would have come to the fore? Would the U.S. able to maintain their gargantuan military budget and bases around the world without their economy being the biggest in the world for decades? You can't separate economy from warfare and geopolitics they all intertwined.
Click to expand...

Personally I think China is going for at least 3 SSNs per year.

Based on 6% growth, Chinese GDP will go from $28 Trillion today to $50 Trillion in 10 years.
And if China continues to spend a modest 2% of GDP on the military (as per SIPRI), that means China will be spending $1000 Billion, which should be comparable to US military spending. Currently the US spends $700 Billion per year.

Of course, if there is a really hostile cold war and China decides to match the USA in spending 3.5% of GDP on the military, that would imply Chinese military spending of $1750 Billion per year in 10 year's time. You'd be looking at a Chinese military being twice the size of the US military.

It also means China will be a high-income country, with all the economic opportunities that entails.
China shares land borders with Laos and Afghanistan which are amongst the poorest countries in the world.
But if they share a border with a high-income country, their wages will be dragged upwards.
A similar thing will happen with other countries in the world
 
Last edited:
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Bob Smith said:
A bigger economy allows a country to build a bigger military. Having the biggest economy will almost certainly mean the biggest military and all the deterrence that allows. Would you rather have China's military backed by a $30 trillion economy or a $500 billion economy?
Click to expand...
A question he can never entertain to answer with logic since most of his complaints are a by product of certain fear and trepidation a.k.a. Chicken little.
 
horse

horse

Major
Registered Member
bettydice said:
I don't know what you mean by "the Center of Gravity".

"all the ancient Chinese texts like Sun Tzu and modern texts like Carl von Clausewitz" are just some books written by some people with their views. They are not absolute laws of this universe.

You keep saying economy. You're too preoccupied with economy. No, economy is not a power. Economy means nothing when it comes to geopolitics. Not everything is about economy. Stop talking about economy. Supply chains and economic relations are irrelevant.


"To suggest that America and Korea will work against Chinese and Korean interests, meaning Korea will work against itself, that is pure propaganda."
No, just because Korea makes big money out of China doesn't mean attacking China is against its interests. Economy is just economy, nothing more. Not everyone is looking at only economic interests. Again, you're too economic-minded.

"Now, these new subs from Australia, does nothing."
I don't have a word for someone who says subs do nothing. Just you're out of reality.

No, you didn't read what I wrote. I wasn't talking about what the US has done. It's about what they will do in the near future.
Click to expand...

I just explained how China will circumvent all these US strategies you brought up.

So far, it has been going good.

---------------------------------------

What is the "Center of Gravity?"

That is where the power comes from.

What is the US alliance system? Is that a "Center of Gravity?"

How do you break this alliance, which the Americans consider strength.

Simplest way is to go after or turn the weakest parts of the alliance.

Can we see why the Chinese interest in maintaining good relations with South Korea.

Let's face the facts. There is a new AUKUS, but South Korea was never a part of that discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top