Naval Strategic and Operational Discussion

Rutim

Banned Idiot
They don't want to load the region with further escalation if there's an arms race between Japan and China.
I can only see a race in quality, not quantity. PRC has an upper hand right now and it will continue. Japan can only count on what it counted in WWII days - quality and everyday drill which surely they will have an upper hand over PLAN (I mean there's a gap in attitude between Chinese mentality and Japanese and it's not easy to maintain an orginised force consisting of so many men, as good in it's basics, as US Navy in the time of fast transitions that we witness now with PLAN).
The US prefers a bipolar world to a multipolar one and letting Japan miitarize would be risking the creation of another power pole.
The world already became bipolar but no one outside of China knows what's the bigger picture that PRC has in mind. China surely comes in an oriented direction from the start but no one knows where the final strategic point is.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I can only see a race in quality, not quantity. PRC has an upper hand right now and it will continue. Japan can only count on what it counted in WWII days - quality and everyday drill which surely they will have an upper hand over PLAN (I mean there's a gap in attitude between Chinese mentality and Japanese and it's not easy to maintain an orginised force consisting of so many men, as good in it's basics, as US Navy in the time of fast transitions that we witness now with PLAN).
Care to explain yourself on your military mentality gap between China and Japan?

The world already became bipolar but no one outside of China knows what's the bigger picture that PRC has in mind. China surely comes in an oriented direction from the start but no one knows where the final strategic point is.

But we could take reasonable guesses on some of China's strategic objectives:

  1. China generally likes the current global economic order, and will continue to support most of it
  2. China likes free-riding on US provided global public goods, and will continue to do so as long as good old Uncle Sugar is willing to provide them
  3. China might not want the US out of Asia, because she sees the US as a stabilizing force in the region. But, China is no longer happy with US primacy and is beginning to contest the US for leadership
  4. Not sure if China is willing to cut a deal with the US and be primis enter pares, but that might be the best balance between what China wants and what she could get
  5. It's not at all certain the US is willing to give up primacy in Asia, so the Pivot/Rebalance and TTP might be opening acts of an all out containment policy, instead of hedges against malevolent Chinese intentions
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Care to explain yourself on your military mentality gap between China and Japan?



But we could take reasonable guesses on some of China's strategic objectives:

  1. China generally likes the current global economic order, and will continue to support most of it
  2. China likes free-riding on US provided global public goods, and will continue to do so as long as good old Uncle Sugar is willing to provide them
  3. China might not want the US out of Asia, because she sees the US as a stabilizing force in the region. But, China is no longer happy with US primacy and is beginning to contest the US for leadership
  4. Not sure if China is willing to cut a deal with the US and be primis enter pares, but that might be the best balance between what China wants and what she could get
  5. It's not at all certain the US is willing to give up primacy in Asia, so the Pivot/Rebalance and TTP might be opening acts of an all out containment policy, instead of hedges against malevolent Chinese intentions
I believe, given my own study into the matter, that China's long term strategic goal is to normalize their presence in the Pacific and slowly supplant and push back the US, but only gradually when it is ready to. I'm sure that both sides are well aware of this strategic goal.

DC isn't stupid and has some of the world's best intelligence and brightest minds on foreign policy, not a few who are themselves from China or of Chinese descent. The question is whether there's some point or structure where the two can mutually coexist with stability in a single region without either one being pushed down or out. That's an uncertainty both sides are trying to figure out right now. The reason why both sides favour the status quo is because it lacks the volatility that the potential alternatives have (including allowing Japan to militarize). Of course, as the natural power balance changes this status quo will look less and less stable and alternatives will look more and more attractive (but I do not think letting Japan militarize is preferred by the US even then).

As for the TPP and the Pivot to Asia, perhaps it's more constructive and accurate to view that policy not so much as a containment strategy, but as a strategic check against aggression. So long as the US there, there's an extra cost to China if it pursues its regional interests too aggressively and at the expense of its neighbors. I don't believe that the US truly wants to contain China, but it does want to ensure that China doesn't become belligerent as it grows stronger.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
As for the TPP and the Pivot to Asia, perhaps it's more constructive and accurate to view that policy not so much as a containment strategy, but as a strategic check against aggression.

That’s the official line, but the exclusion of China from TPP gives rise to the containment strategy. On the one hand, US negotiators say China is excluded because it doesn't uphold all the values TPP requires (not an unreasonable argument), on the other hand, Vietnam is invited to join. Vietnam???
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Main problem of US is not China or any other foreign country . Main problem is internal decline of US , sickness without cure ,at least for now . To put it bluntly , US was founded as Christian (mostly Protestant) country with population of European descent ( Anglo-Saxon , some German , Dutch , French etc ... ) . US institutions , Constitution and laws were based on Christian morality and European philosophy and science of that era .
In a present era , we have something almost entirely different - values has changed , culture has changed , demographics are changing . US is now secular country with official leftist ideology . Economically is no longer a producer , instead it is largest consumer in the world . What is even worse , those changes have not affected whole country at the same time and level . For example , if you compare let's say California and Texas , you would be under impression that these two are parts of totally different countries .

With such internal problems , US is struggling to remain dominant world power . In a typical fashion , when all you have is a hammer , everything looks like a nail . What US still has is military power , especially air and naval power . Therefore , US is using every opportunity to assert said military power to the rest of the world . To do that , they need opponents . Smaller enemies (Iraq , Syria ...) have been used in direct fashion - US simply attacked them to prove military superiority . Larger opponents (China , Russia etc ...) could not be attacked directly . But , they serve their function . For example , real or imagined threat of Chinese aggression serves as good pretext for US to keep sizable force in East Asia and to keep countries like Japan and S.Korea under American protective umbrella . Otherwise , without constant threat of conflict , those countries would have little reason to remain allied to US ,and to spend money buying American military hardware .

In light of this , what would be best Chinese counter-strategy ? China needs to remain cool and to defuse possibility for armed conflict as much it is possible . Last thing China wants is some kind of new Cold War , without actual shooting but with trade barriers . Time is on China's side - with each passing year technological and economic gap between US and China is closing . Therefore , there is no need to get upset over every little provocation - China just needs to keep working and in 10 years it would emerge on top , no matter what other countries may or may not do .
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
That’s the official line, but the exclusion of China from TPP gives rise to the containment strategy. On the one hand, US negotiators say China is excluded because it doesn't uphold all the values TPP requires (not an unreasonable argument), on the other hand, Vietnam is invited to join. Vietnam???

China's not as excluded as it appears. A few months ago China's commerce minister said they were looking into joining the TPP and the official line was welcoming so long as China could enforce the TPP's principles. Why China might not fulfill those principles but Vietnam can is probably due to China's much greater capacity to violate IP protections (the risk that China take an IP violation and bring something to market is just much greater). Regardless it's best not to look at the TPP as some done deal and everyone being talked to as certain participants. No one that they're having negotiations with are "in". It's at best vaporware until some agreement for multiparty talks is set, and that's still a ways off. Right now the discussion is really only a preliminary one about who's interested.
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
China's not as excluded as it appears. A few months ago China's commerce minister said they were looking into joining the TPP and the official line was welcoming so long as China could enforce the TPP's principles. Why China might not fulfill those principles but Vietnam can is probably due to China's much greater capacity to violate IP protections (the risk that China take an IP violation and bring something to market is just much greater). Regardless it's best not to look at the TPP as some done deal and everyone being talked to as certain participants. No one that they're having negotiations with are "in". It's at best vaporware until some agreement for multiparty talks is set, and that's still a ways off. Right now the discussion is really only a preliminary one about who's interested.

If you think Vietnam can meet TPP principles in the next two or three decades, you're dreaming.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
If you think Vietnam can meet TPP principles in the next two or three decades, you're dreaming.

I don't think any of the actual rules and regulations are set in stone so it's a bit pointless to say so and so won't qualify. Anyways, my point was that it's not just about how likely it is for a country to fulfill principles and follow the rules but how big an impact they may have if they violate them. Also, two to three decades is a long time. In the 70s someone could have said that about China joining the WTO (not a seamless entry by any means but it still happened).
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
I don't think any of the actual rules and regulations are set in stone so it's a bit pointless to say so and so won't qualify. Anyways, my point was that it's not just about how likely it is for a country to fulfill principles and follow the rules but how big an impact they may have if they violate them. Also, two to three decades is a long time. In the 70s someone could have said that about China joining the WTO (not a seamless entry by any means but it still happened).

If, as you say, none of the rules are set in stone, then why didn't China get an invitation to be a founding member? Even if no one believes China will join, the US still should have extended an invite. Also, if the US had no intention of using TPP as a containment tool, then it shouldn't have invited Vietnam while skipping China.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it isn't chicken.
 

shen

Senior Member
I think the US is happy for China to join TPP if it means forcing China to abide by trade rules that will be advantageous to US businesses.
Chinese government on the other hand may be seeing strict TPP rules as an useful tool to hammer through domestic reforms it sees as necessary.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top