Trade War with China

Discussion in 'Strategic Defense' started by Ultra, Jan 27, 2018.

  1. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    2,527
    I don't really see it as China deliberately challenging Pax Americana.

    China has spent a modest 2% of GDP on the military over the past 20 years, as per SIPRI.
    In comparison, a militarised US and Russia averaged 4% over the past 10 years, which is twice as much.
    So if China was really trying to challenge Pax Americana - Chinese military spending should be DOUBLE what it is today.

    ---

    Plus this is off-topic, but you're looking at the wrong comparison for WW1 if you're looking at the military/economic balance.

    The Dual Alliance (Imperial Germany + Austrian Empire) faced a larger Triple Entente (Russia + France + UK)
    The Triple Entente had a population of 259M in total, which was over twice that of the Dual Alliance (119M)
    And industrial potential which was 46% larger, as per Kennedy.

    So Germany was always going to struggle to subdue its neighbours in Europe, never mind the impact the USA had.

    In comparison, the China's economy and military spending is already larger than the rest of Asia.
    Although China currently lags behind in technology level in many industries.
    But in roughly 15 years, China should have a hi-tech economy roughly the same size as the rest of Asia + USA combined.

    Plus Germany can be conquered in a single campaign as it is a small country.
    It didn't have many natural resources and could be blockaded because it was surrounded by enemies.

    In comparison, China is the same size as the continent-spanning USA which means it can be broadly self-sufficient.
    Plus China shares land borders with lots of neutral or friendly countries, so it is difficult to blockade by sea.
    China is also secure on land, as all of its neighbours know they can never hope to win a major land-war against China.

    So China is free to focus on a naval conflict rather than on a land war
    In comparison, German naval construction was slashed because the German Army faced a bigger enemy on its land borders.

    In any case, China's goal is a peaceful UK-USA type power transition, rather than deliberately going to war.
     
    #5171 AndrewS, Jun 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  2. Jono
    Offline

    Jono New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    170
    and it's because he wants to believe in those China bashing articles.
    he is brainwashed, and he chooses to be so.
     
    KIENCHIN and manqiangrexue like this.
  3. FriedRiceNSpice
    Online

    FriedRiceNSpice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    222
    The situation on the ground was still fairly evenly matched even at the end of the war, at least for Germany. Germany was essentially starved to death, it wasn't able to produce enough food to feed it's people and couldn't acquire enough raw resources to feed it's industry due to allied control of the seas and naval blockade. This should be an important lesson to China, and is likely the driver for both BRI and the naval build up. In the long term, these two projects of utmost strategic importance. Germany did have a glorious, admirable naval build up as well, but ultimately could not match even the Royal Navy, let alone the fleets of the entire Alliance. Oh, having the two sick men of Europe as it's only major allies did not exactly help either.
     
  4. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,001
    Likes Received:
    195

    This is the trap.
    If the free market is the target, the level of living/size of middle cast and so on will be a random variable.

    IF the level of living / wealthy middle cast the target then the market regulations will be the random variable.

    It is like the monetary policy triangle
     
  5. FriedRiceNSpice
    Online

    FriedRiceNSpice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    222
    Do you mean that you are advocating for promotion of middle class rather than promoting free markets as the goal? Of course, having a healthy middle class that can drive economic growth via consumption should be an end goal, but promoting free markets is a very necessary step to make that happen.
     
  6. xiabonan
    Offline

    xiabonan Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    766
    Again, all of Josh Luo's arguments are based on the assumption that the US = The developed world. This is simply not true. Yes, China as a whole still lags behind the technologically advanced countries in many areas, for example, Germany for auto-making and machinery, France for aeronautics, Japan for optics and electronics, South Korea for screen technology and Taiwan for semiconductors. Even Russia in certain space technologies and military technologies. That's why China has always been insisting that its prosperity depends on coorperation and collaboration with other countries, including the US. It has been saying it doesn't want a trade war, although it's not afraid to fight one.

    Yes it's true if China lost access to all of these countries tech it could severely undermine its growth, but why would these countries do it? Europe and Japan has some concerns over trade with China, but Europe has always been saying that they don't think tariff is the way to solve things, and prefers multilateral talk and negotiations, including going to the WTO. In the current world, China is not the rule-breaker, the norm-breaker, the disrupter, but the US is.

    Even during Mao's era, China had good relationships with Europe in general. France is the first major Western power to recognise the PRC government. Back then China had virtually no trade with France whatsoever. The China-Japan relationship is heating up as well, in fact it's probably one of the best times for China-Japan relationship. China is also having very good relationships with SEA, as SEA countries already replaced the US as China's second largest trading partner (the largest being EU) in the first five months of this year. Except for Vietnam, all major SEA countries have expressed their support for Huawei 5G equipment. China-Middle East relationship is very good, too.

    What many people don't realise is that China+Japan+Korea+Taiwan+Southeast Asia already has a higher combined GDP than US+Canada+Mexico. The EU is larger than the US, too. The world is no longer a polar world where America is the sole economic power or hegemony. To ask the world to isolate is a mission impossible for the US, as it would be punching way above its weight.

    You just simply can't isolate the largest trading nation by far in the world, the nation with more than 1/5 of the world's total population.
     
  7. AssassinsMace
    Offline

    AssassinsMace Brigadier

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    7,626
    Likes Received:
    8,534
  8. xiabonan
    Offline

    xiabonan Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    766
    Just the stable genius being stable.
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  9. manqiangrexue
    Online

    manqiangrexue Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,061
    Likes Received:
    6,488
    "I wiped out 150% of China's economy and I'll get the other 28% one way or another!" LMFAO Huckabee better get a jump on how she plans to explain this...
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  10. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    25,380
    That is not what history tell us Are you saying that Japan was predestined to win the WWII because Japanese navy at that time has 10 yes 10 Aircraft carrier VS 3 for US. In fact the Japanese navy was larger than US navy at that time . but as the war goes on US can produced hundred of ships and thousand of fighter within 3 or 4 years while Japan can't because Japanese economy is 1/10 of US economy at that time

    You get it all wrong what England at the onset of WW1 has the best navy and the best industry German is newbie in this game. . In both war the industrial strength of Britain and US tilt the balance of power But those industry is not there any more
    What decide the WW I war is the combined naval strength of British and US. They effectively quarantined Germany and prevent food and other necessity from reaching the Germany
    Germany is running out of food and other necessity forcing her to surrender It is not the battle field prowess that decide the outcome of the war. It is who has the stamina to withstand the punishment and keep on fighting

    China is now the factory of the world she can produce immense amount of industrial good and weaponry once it goes to war economy. She is self sufficient in basic food like grain and meat She produce about 50% of their oil from domestic source
    China is continent size economy and has hundred of million under arm if need be
    China economy is now about 70% of US economy. so it is correct to say that US had never meet their peer until now
    The BRI and silk road will open new avenue of energy food and other necessity from russia and central asia once it finish bypassing the sea route and decrease China vulnerability from embargo That is why China is working feverishly to built the BRI

    I can go on and on why the present situation is not the same as Germany I should know the subject very well because that is my Exam essay in history during my high school year
     
Loading...

Share This Page