It is vital that the U.S. destroy China within the next 20 years.

[Phys251]

Barry Goldwater was a great man.

 

[Fishking]

How about instead of making war a self-fulfilling prophecy we go about forming a global trading network among countries surrounding China so that they won't be forced to be economically dependent on them?

Oh wait... we had that with the Trans-Pacific Partnership until President Trump, in his infinite wisdom, decided to nix it.

It's interesting that you think China hasn't compromised those countries that would be included in the TPP via economic subversion.

 

[Fishking]

Candidly I think it's to late. China has already won this contest. Getting MOST their missiles isn't good enough. Would be hard to get support to kill one billion Chinese. China's industrial capacity is 100 times ours. Our society can not even function without Chinese products. They are ahead of use on hacking and surpassing us on computers. The have greater economic power over other countries than we do in increasing numbers of countries. They literally own huge pieces of the United States - more than any other country. How much of China do we own?

We are still the bully in the world market with our buying power. We just don't leverage that to any gain on our behalf.

It is too late for offensive actions or even offense strategy. Our strategy should be defensive. Defensive militarily and economically. The later means restoring our manufacturing capabilities by government subsidizing. Think of how much that could be if we didn't plow gzillions of dollars into the ME. Europe. The Asian Theater. Just about everywhere in the world?

We should definitely be stopping our reliance on their manufacturing and building our own things. We can still use China to build cheap widgets that don't have any strategic value.

 

[joko104]

We are still the bully in the world market with our buying power. We just don't leverage that to any gain on our behalf.



We should definitely be stopping our reliance on their manufacturing and building our own things. We can still use China to build cheap widgets that don't have any strategic value.

Sure, we also could kill a few tens of millions of slow learner Americans since you and most Americans truly love cheap slave labor products and to hell with American blue collar workers. "We"can "do" a lot of things. We can continue to commit national economic suicide.

 

[iguanaman]

Trade won't stop the Chinese.

Lack of trade will though. They depend on us as much as we do on them. That's a basis for diplomacy not war. If you want to fear some nation try Russia. They have nothing to offer the world but oil that will no longer be needed soon. They will need to take other countries who have things to offer or perish. They also have 100 times as many nuclear warheads as China and Putin has threatened to build a doomsday weapon to blackmail the world. That is some scary stuff.

 

[iguanaman]

Sure, we also could kill a few tens of millions of slow learner Americans since you and most Americans truly love cheap slave labor products and to hell with American blue collar workers. "We"can "do" a lot of things. We can continue to commit national economic suicide.

The way China is going soon we will be making cheap stuff to sell to them. Their middle class is growing while ours is fading. GM sells more cars in China than here. Think about what that means.

 

[Cordelier]

It's interesting that you think China hasn't compromised those countries that would be included in the TPP via economic subversion.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "compromised". The way I envision it, TPP would have given them more options besides having to completely depend on China.

 

[armycowboy]

According to National Defense Magazine (NationalDefenseMagazine.org) China plans to field a "world class military" by 2049. This cannot be allowed to happen. China fielding a world class military combined with their economic strength and the international political appeal of their "prosperous autocracy" model will be detrimental to both the short and long term interests of the United States.

This cannot be allowed to happen. While I don't support anything approaching genocide of China their military must be effectively destroyed and their economy set back for a minimum of 30 years (50 years would be better).

To this end the U.S. must

1) Prepare its nuclear arsenal to be capable of destroying the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons on the ground in a first strike.
2) Failing that, deploy conventional weapons of sufficient type and quantity to do the same thing to the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons in a first strike.
3) Dramatically expand our ballistic missile defenses so they can stop the remains of a Chinese counterstrike.
4) Build up large enough naval forces to enable the U.S. to utterly destroy the Chinese navy and still have sufficient reserves to deal with other naval/air continencies around the world.
5) Strengthen ties with nations near China including South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia and above all, Taiwan.
6) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive cyber warfare capabilities.
7) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive space warfare capabilities.
8) Establish a plan for long term U.S. and allied military occupation of key areas in China in the post war era.
9) Begin steadily building the popular political support for the conflict in the United States.

The war is coming. And only by planning to fight it in 2040 will the U.S. give it and its allies the cushion it needs before 2049.

If you're in the military, bring it up during the next Command and Staff meeting. Otherwise, your opinion on war means nothing to me.

 

[Fishking]

I don't know what exactly you mean by "compromised". The way I envision it, TPP would have given them more options besides having to completely depend on China.

I'm saying that China owns a lot of their manufacturing and such as well. You trade with them, the profits will still go to China.

 

[Geoist]

Would be hard to get support to kill one billion Chinese.

It is interesting how you posted the above sentence but not, "Killing one billion Chinese would be horribly unethical and a war crime."

 

[Geoist]

I have no desire to kill a large number of the Chinese people. I've seen studies by nuclear weapons experts that the U.S. back just a decade or so ago could destroy the vast majority of land based Chinese nuclear missiles while killing only about 800,000 Chinese. And with improved missile accuracy that total can well be reduced significantly.

If I went out and killed a dozen people I'd be considered a mass murderer/serial killer and a monster. What would that make you, advocating for actions that could kill nearly a million people?

 

[Nickyjo]

According to National Defense Magazine (NationalDefenseMagazine.org) China plans to field a "world class military" by 2049. This cannot be allowed to happen. China fielding a world class military combined with their economic strength and the international political appeal of their "prosperous autocracy" model will be detrimental to both the short and long term interests of the United States.

This cannot be allowed to happen. While I don't support anything approaching genocide of China their military must be effectively destroyed and their economy set back for a minimum of 30 years (50 years would be better).

To this end the U.S. must

1) Prepare its nuclear arsenal to be capable of destroying the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons on the ground in a first strike.
2) Failing that, deploy conventional weapons of sufficient type and quantity to do the same thing to the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons in a first strike.
3) Dramatically expand our ballistic missile defenses so they can stop the remains of a Chinese counterstrike.
4) Build up large enough naval forces to enable the U.S. to utterly destroy the Chinese navy and still have sufficient reserves to deal with other naval/air continencies around the world.
5) Strengthen ties with nations near China including South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia and above all, Taiwan.
6) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive cyber warfare capabilities.
7) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive space warfare capabilities.
8) Establish a plan for long term U.S. and allied military occupation of key areas in China in the post war era.
9) Begin steadily building the popular political support for the conflict in the United States.

The war is coming. And only by planning to fight it in 2040 will the U.S. give it and its allies the cushion it needs before 2049.

Thank you, Dr. Strangelove.

 

[Cordelier]

I'm saying that China owns a lot of their manufacturing and such as well. You trade with them, the profits will still go to China.

Ok... so what level of Chinese investment does a country have to have before you'd write it off?

 

[Dayton3]

If I went out and killed a dozen people I'd be considered a mass murderer/serial killer and a monster. What would that make you, advocating for actions that could kill nearly a million people?

It's different thought I can't really explain how.

 

[Integrityrespec]

According to National Defense Magazine (NationalDefenseMagazine.org) China plans to field a "world class military" by 2049. This cannot be allowed to happen. China fielding a world class military combined with their economic strength and the international political appeal of their "prosperous autocracy" model will be detrimental to both the short and long term interests of the United States.

This cannot be allowed to happen. While I don't support anything approaching genocide of China their military must be effectively destroyed and their economy set back for a minimum of 30 years (50 years would be better).

To this end the U.S. must

1) Prepare its nuclear arsenal to be capable of destroying the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons on the ground in a first strike.
2) Failing that, deploy conventional weapons of sufficient type and quantity to do the same thing to the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons in a first strike.
3) Dramatically expand our ballistic missile defenses so they can stop the remains of a Chinese counterstrike.
4) Build up large enough naval forces to enable the U.S. to utterly destroy the Chinese navy and still have sufficient reserves to deal with other naval/air continencies around the world.
5) Strengthen ties with nations near China including South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia and above all, Taiwan.
6) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive cyber warfare capabilities.
7) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive space warfare capabilities.
8) Establish a plan for long term U.S. and allied military occupation of key areas in China in the post war era.
9) Begin steadily building the popular political support for the conflict in the United States.

The war is coming. And only by planning to fight it in 2040 will the U.S. give it and its allies the cushion it needs before 2049.

Our modern politicians are globalist and only worried about their money interest. Joe and the left are going to cave to China, give in and give them whatever they want.

 

[Dayton3]

Our modern politicians are globalist and only worried about their money interest. Joe and the left are going to cave to China, give in and give them whatever they want.

I know a senator with presidential aspirations who might be receptive to my argument.

 

[Rhakron90]

According to National Defense Magazine (NationalDefenseMagazine.org) China plans to field a "world class military" by 2049. This cannot be allowed to happen. China fielding a world class military combined with their economic strength and the international political appeal of their "prosperous autocracy" model will be detrimental to both the short and long term interests of the United States.

This cannot be allowed to happen. While I don't support anything approaching genocide of China their military must be effectively destroyed and their economy set back for a minimum of 30 years (50 years would be better).

To this end the U.S. must

1) Prepare its nuclear arsenal to be capable of destroying the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons on the ground in a first strike.
2) Failing that, deploy conventional weapons of sufficient type and quantity to do the same thing to the bulk of strategic Chinese nuclear weapons in a first strike.
3) Dramatically expand our ballistic missile defenses so they can stop the remains of a Chinese counterstrike.
4) Build up large enough naval forces to enable the U.S. to utterly destroy the Chinese navy and still have sufficient reserves to deal with other naval/air continencies around the world.
5) Strengthen ties with nations near China including South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia and above all, Taiwan.
6) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive cyber warfare capabilities.
7) Vastly strengthen U.S. offensive and defensive space warfare capabilities.
8) Establish a plan for long term U.S. and allied military occupation of key areas in China in the post war era.
9) Begin steadily building the popular political support for the conflict in the United States.

The war is coming. And only by planning to fight it in 2040 will the U.S. give it and its allies the cushion it needs before 2049.

"Destroying" China simply isn't feasible. Its too big, we don't have enough of political, economic, or technological advantage to over power them, and the rest of the world wouldn't stand for it. I would absolutely agree that finding some means to counter them, however, and especially their influence on the United States' domestic affairs, is essential.

Frankly, I'm hoping that China is a problem that more or less takes care of its self in the longrun. Decades of the "One Child Policy," and the corresponding massive sex discrepancy the gender selective abortions it resulted in created within the country, have China set up to basically hit a demographic cliff sometime after the mid century. The could very well face population decline more severe than either Japan or Western Europe.

This would likely tank their economy, which would, in turn, most likely kill the CCP's grasp on power.

 

[Fishking]

Ok... so what level of Chinese investment does a country have to have before you'd write it off?

I'd be fine with isolating most of the region for most economic and manufacturing related things. We can still rely on them for making cheap widgets and toys and such, but not for important things. China's influence runs very deep, including the US, which is a problem.

You see their influence in things like what movies are allowed to include in, the NBA locking down any criticism against China's aggressive stance towards Hong Kong, ect.

 

[Cordelier]

I'd be fine with isolating most of the region for most economic and manufacturing related things. We can still rely on them for making cheap widgets and toys and such, but not for important things. China's influence runs very deep, including the US, which is a problem.

You see their influence in things like what movies are allowed to include in, the NBA locking down any criticism against China's aggressive stance towards Hong Kong, ect.

I think you're making the classic mistake of fighting the last war. Take a country like Vietnam... in your analysis, it pretty much holds the same position in relation to China that Poland did to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Back then, if we traded with Poland it would have indirectly benefited the USSR, and so we made it policy to try and avoid doing so.

But Vietnam today is in a much different position than Poland was then... first off, it's not nearly in thrall to the neighboring superpower. Secondly, Vietnam realizes it is within it's best interest to try and diversify it's trade as much as possible - not only to widen it's market access, but also to keep from becoming just another vassal Chinese state. So if we draw back and refuse to deal with Vietnam because of it's ties with China, are we not just forcing them into a situation that they'd much rather avoid?

China is going to have substantial economic clout no matter what we do... that's just a fact of life. Anybody doing business with them has to be aware of that and adapt to that reality.

As far as Chinese human rights abuses go, I think we have to put them at the forefront of our concerns in any dealings we have with China... but we also have to acknowledge that there are going to be limits to how far we can go in interfering with internal Chinese affairs beyond providing moral support to dissidents.

 

[Fishking]

I think you're making the classic mistake of fighting the last war. Take a country like Vietnam... in your analysis, it pretty much holds the same position in relation to China that Poland did to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Back then, if we traded with Poland it would have indirectly benefited the USSR, and so we made it policy to try and avoid doing so.

But Vietnam today is in a much different position than Poland was then... first off, it's not nearly in thrall to the neighboring superpower. Secondly, Vietnam realizes it is within it's best interest to try and diversify it's trade as much as possible - not only to widen it's market access, but also to keep from becoming just another vassal Chinese state. So if we draw back and refuse to deal with Vietnam because of it's ties with China, are we not just forcing them into a situation that they'd much rather avoid?

China is going to have substantial economic clout no matter what we do... that's just a fact of life. Anybody doing business with them has to be aware of that and adapt to that reality.

I think you might be underestimating the threat China poses. Actions taken wouldn't necessarily have to be permanent. They can always fix their many issues that they've been getting away with for years (e.g. stop building and army artificial islands in the South China sea, stop stealing our intellectual property and technology, ect).

As far as Chinese human rights abuses go, I think we have to put them at the forefront of our concerns in any dealings we have with China... but we also have to acknowledge that there are going to be limits to how far we can go in interfering with internal Chinese affairs beyond providing moral support to dissidents.

Isn't that the same type of appeasement that got is WWII?

 

[Cordelier]

I think you might be underestimating the threat China poses. Actions taken wouldn't necessarily have to be permanent. They can always fix their many issues that they've been getting away with for years (e.g. stop building and army artificial islands in the South China sea, stop stealing our intellectual property and technology, ect).



Isn't that the same type of appeasement that got is WWII?

Yes, but those actions are themselves driving a wedge between China and her neighbors.... Vietnam and the Philippines both had claims on the Spratly Islands that China just swept aside. By staying in TPP, we could have strengthened Vietnam's hand in taking whatever responses it deemed appropriate in responding to the Chinese moves.

Was it appeasement when we didn't go to war with China over Tibet? The way I figure it, you've got to pick your fights and always use the right tool for the right job.

 

[BahamaBob]

"Destroying" China simply isn't feasible. Its too big, we don't have enough of political, economic, or technological advantage to over power them, and the rest of the world wouldn't stand for it. I would absolutely agree that finding some means to counter them, however, and especially their influence on the United States' domestic affairs, is essential.

Frankly, I'm hoping that China is a problem that more or less takes care of its self in the longrun. Decades of the "One Child Policy," and the corresponding massive sexI discrepancy the gender selective abortions it resulted in created within the country, have China set up to basically hit a demographic cliff sometime after the mid century. The could very well face population decline more severe than either Japan or Western Europe.

This would likely tank their economy, which would, in turn, most likely kill the CCP's grasp on power.

Some good points. In addition, unchecked pollution in China has killed all life in nearly all its rivers. The air pollution and water pollution is bound to lead to an increase in deaths and serious health issues in the near future.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Some good points. In addition, unchecked pollution in China has killed all life in nearly all its rivers. The air pollution and water pollution is bound to lead to an increase in deaths and serious health issues in the near future.

The pollution is something China is working hard and fast to correct. Air quality has improved dramatically in the last 4 years as China forced old Diesel engines off the roads and shut down local coal steam plants. It is forcing chemical plants to improve pollution controls and is shutting down ones that don’t. That has negatively effected many companies downstream as supply of some chemicals was short globally ( first hand knowledge)

 

[BahamaBob]

The pollution is something China is working hard and fast to correct. Air quality has improved dramatically in the last 4 years as China forced old Diesel engines off the roads and shut down local coal steam plants. It is forcing chemical plants to improve pollution controls and is shutting down ones that don’t. That has negatively effected many companies downstream as supply of some chemicals was short globally ( first hand knowledge)

The only thing that slowed pollution in China was the shutdown due to Coronavirus. It is now higher than ever.
Air pollution levels in China now higher than before COVID-19 | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The only thing that slowed pollution in China was the shutdown due to Coronavirus. It is now higher than ever.
Air pollution levels in China now higher than before COVID-19 | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

Pollution in China - Wikipedia

Air pollution has become a major issue in China and poses a threat to Chinese public health. In 2016, only 84 out of 338 prefecture-level (administrative division of the People's Republic of China (PRC), ranking below a province and above a county) or higher cities attained the national standard for air quality.[24] However, by 2018, those 338 cities enjoyed good air quality on 79% of days.[25]

In the last few years, China has made a lot of progress in air pollution. For example, average PM2.5 concentrations fell by 33% from 2013 to 2017 in 74 cities.[26] The overall pollution in China fell further 10% between 2017 and 2018.[27] Another study shows that China reduced PM2.5 by 47% between 2005 and 2015.[28] In August 2019, Beijing experienced the lowest PM2.5 on record—a low of 23 micrograms per cubic meter.[29] Beijing is on track to drop out of the Top 200 most polluted cities by the end of 2019.[30][needs update] The reasons are many fold: (1) Millions of homes and businesses are switching from coal to natural gas[31][32] (2) Afforestation measures[33] and (3) Being the world's number one in the use of electric vehicles.[34]

The Chinese government is also spending money to combat pollution—for example, in 2013, China's Academy for Environmental Planning pledged $277 billion to combat urban air pollution.[32] In the first batch of 74 cities that implemented the 2012 Environmental Air Quality Standards, the average concentration of PM2.5 and sulfur dioxide dropped by 42 percent and 68 percent, respectively, between 2013 and 2018.[35]

Not higher than ever