Raoul's China Saloon (V5.0) Beta
The Bar Room => The BS-Wrestling Pit => Topic started by: Calach Pfeffer on June 24, 2022, 02:14:24 PM
-
If the growing US-China rivalry leads to ‘the worst war ever’, what should Australia do? (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-24/if-theres-a-us-china-war-what-should-australia-do/101178230)
Should Australia join the United States in a war against China to prevent China taking the US' place as the dominant power in East Asia? Until a few years ago the question would have seemed merely hypothetical, but not anymore.
Senior figures in the Morrison government quite explicitly acknowledged that the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China could lead to war, and their Labor successors do not seem to disagree. That is surely correct. Neither Washington nor Beijing want war but both seem willing to accept it rather than abandon their primary objectives.
There can be no doubt that if war comes, Washington would expect Australia to fight alongside it. Many in Canberra take it for granted that we would do so, and defence policy has shifted accordingly. Our armed forces are now being designed primarily to contribute to US-led operations in a major maritime war with China in the Western Pacific, with the aim of helping the United States to deter China from challenging the US, or helping to defeat it if deterrence fails.
In fact, the risk of war is probably higher than the government realises, because China is harder to deter than they understand....
-
I wonder if it will be a matter of "join".
The suggestion that...
Excerpted from: ‘Disaster just around the corner’: Australia must not misread China’s deadly strategy (https://www.smh.com.au/national/disaster-just-around-the-corner-australia-must-not-misread-china-s-deadly-strategy-20220623-p5avxp.html)
When it launches its attack, China will feel that it has given the West fair warning. It has for many years protested surveillance activities by aircraft and ships in waters close to its coast. Those protests have grown increasingly belligerent. The action against Australian and Canadian aircraft and declaring sovereignty over the Taiwan Strait further signal China’s serious escalation. More is to come.
This is bad news for Australia, because China will not de-escalate. Rather, even more severe action can be expected if the flights continue.
China is a sophisticated power and strategist. When it launches a lethal attack, several parameters will be evident. First, China will attack an ally of the US, not the US itself. That will delay and complicate the US response because the US itself is not under attack. The second is that China’s attack will be at a time and place that disadvantages the West – US carriers not in theatre; some other major distraction for the US. Third, China’s post-attack phase will already be in place. It will have its narrative ready to go, accusing the other country of some gross threat or violation. It will incite the Chinese people and muddy the international view of what actually took place. China will call for calm and dialogue, but will be uncompromising in asserting its rights over the area the incident took place.
Seems pretty compelling. And Australia seems like a fairly well-warned target. Market dis-integration has been going on for a couple of years. Not that many Australians in China to worry about. Not right next door to the Americas. AUKUS won't yield actual subs for years. Etc and so on. Knocking down a Japanese or Korean plane presumably is ill-advised because lots of other planes would be in the air very quickly. As for Canadians? Bigger market than Oz, right?
So, "join"?
Maybe just be Prince Ferdinand.
-
When?
Some time after iron ore stops being a weakness.
China’s plan to end its Australian iron ore dependency (https://www.afr.com/world/asia/china-s-plan-to-end-its-australian-iron-ore-dependency-20211130-p59dmo)
China to set up central iron ore buyer to counter Australia (https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/china-to-set-up-central-iron-ore-buyer-to-counter-australia-20220616-p5au6q)
So... 2025?
-
Let's hope the US gets someone more rational in the White House by 2025. Cutting back on the provocations near China and its territories and reducing weapons sales to TW would go a long way towards de-escalating the situation.
-
"It will have its narrative ready to go, accusing the other country of some gross threat or violation. It will incite the Chinese people and muddy the international view of what actually took place. China will call for calm and dialogue, but will be uncompromising in asserting its rights over the area the incident took place."
Thank you for your service
-
let's hope we get a little more sanity in a lot of places before 2025.
from The Devil's Dictionary: To ask for something with an earnestness proportioned to the belief that it will not be given.
-
SLEEPWALK TO WAR (https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2022/06/sleepwalk-to-war/extract)
Australia’s Unthinking Alliance with America
Competing with China for primacy in East Asia is by far the most serious strategic commitment America has undertaken since the Cold War. And yet Washington has launched into it with no clear idea of what would count as winning, how it could be won, how much it will cost and why winning really matters. This would seem almost unbelievably foolish and irresponsible if it did not sound so familiar. This is what happened when Washington launched America into Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s, and indeed into Vietnam in the 1960s....
Then, commenting on the above:
Opinion: As China hawks fly, we need heretics (https://www.smh.com.au/national/as-china-hawks-fly-we-need-heretics-20220707-p5b01d.html)
...The release of White’s essay, titled “Sleepwalk to War”, is well-timed as it coincides with the arrival of a new federal Labor government and tentative signs of a thaw in hostilities between China and Australia. Foreign Minister Penny Wong was set to meet her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Bali on Friday, the first such meeting since 2019.
White’s central contention is that Australia risks stumbling into a disastrous war with China by overestimating American power and its commitment to the Asia-Pacific. “I think historians will judge both our political and bureaucratic communities harshly for that,” he tells me....
[...]
Twelve years on [from his first Quarterly Essay, “Power Shift”], White thinks his idea of a power-sharing arrangement in Asia is no longer feasible. China has become too strong and the US too weak. The most likely outcome in coming decades, White argues, is that “the US-led era in our region will give way to an Asia divided between two regional hegemonies ... India will dominate South Asia and the Indian Ocean, and China will dominate East Asia and the Asia Pacific.”...
-
Sadly, the US needs conflict for multiple reasons and doesn't care about limiting casualties for any side other than the US (which wasn't the case until bodies of dead American soldiers showing up on the nightly news started making Americans ask why America was throwing away teenagers with no real goal in mind).
Without wars and threats of wars, the US has little ability to distract from domestic issues. Sometimes, other things do distract the public, but wars and threats of war are easier for the government to arrange and control the length of than another Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial.
Although more and more countries are catching on, the traditional "Support the US view of any situation or you're against truth, justice, democracy, motherhood, apple pie, the Ameri.. the International Rule of Law (as written by America, but sometimes not even ratified by the USA and ignored at convenience) and are in league with the obviously lawless and very naughty opponent we selected and may find yourself in need of some freedom bombs and a new government."
This has gotten SO old that even Mexico is staying neutral regarding the US proxy war in the Ukraine.
Then there what Eisenhower warned about. The US Military-Industrial complex doesn't make obscene profits if demand for their products falls. So, first, arrange a proxy war in the Ukraine. Convince more and more NATO countries to sell or donate their old equipment and ammo to the Ukrainians, but keep a firm grip on how fast this happens. If all of NATO didn't send anything, Ukraine would be 90% conquered by now. On the other hand, if all of NATO sent all their old toys at the same time, Russia would likely have decided that it had no choice but to wrap things up early. Instead, the US wants to drag it out as long as possible, both to get rid of as much old equipment and ammo as possible plus to be able to field test some newer items against Russia. The US is heading into a recession, but stocks of the big defense (aka war) manufacturers are doing quite well and the orders for replacement items have only begun getting approved. Wait and see what happens to those when the next fiscal year's military budget is approved.
But, wars the US finds convenient can't be counted in to last forever. In Vietnam, the American public turned against the war. The lack of a functional goal in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't exactly make those major rallying points once each initial invasion was complete. Since Trump needed a large enemy and found China to be more convenient than Russia (or maybe the rumors of Russia having some items to embarrass Trump is true), he flipped from liking China to hating it. Then he painted Biden as being pro-China, which put the democrats in the position of having to outdo the republicans on being anti-China. Neither Trump nor Biden care about any group inside of China or about HK or TW, except as ways to try to stir up anti-Chinese hatred. Now the US if falling over itself to be nice to Pacific island countries it previously abused or ignored for fear that Chinese aid might help those countries more than the US ever did and that the Chinese military might end up having a few places to dock some navy ships.
Unfortunately, the US has a bad habit of dragging in allies and leaving them holding the bag. Ask those the US supported in Syria how well things went when the US decided to disengage. Ask those in Afghanistan who helped Americans and barely escaped with their lives when the US decided to bail in the middle of the night.
If there's a war of the US vs China, the US will happily support it with the blood of as many Japanese and Australian soldiers as it takes. If launching attacks from those countries invites counterstrikes, the US will make deeply moving speeches about the heroism of dead Australian and Japanese soldiers. Every family of those non-America soldiers will be sent massive amounts of thoughts and prayers and maybe even a medal (if the US Military can find a place to get new medals designed and manufactured while blocking all (???) trade between the US and China).
Or, Japan and Australia will notice that many NATO countries (including the US) keep finding convenient exceptions and exemptions from all the sanctions placed on Russia so they can buy what they need while pressuring other countries to boycott and sanction as much as possible. The US and NATO get a lot more things they need from China than they do from Russia. Being expendable cannon-fodder for the US to try to "contain" China isn't in anyone's best interests, except maybe the US - solely because they can't handle the concept of being anything short of #1 in all categories.
Imagine instead, the US cuts it's military budget by 20%, allowing China and most other nations to do the same. There's still more than enough military protect the US, Australia, Japan, China, etc., and no need to rattle sabres in each other's faces. Imagine what good each country could do with that much cash. Maybe the US could try to shock the world by balancing its budget again.
-
Whatever happened to the South China Sea ruling? (https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/whatever-happened-south-china-sea-ruling)
Five years ago on this day, an international tribunal in a landmark ruling dismissed Beijing’s claim to much of the South China Sea. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague said on 12 July 2016 that there was no evidence that China had exercised exclusive control historically over the key waterway....
-
Rogue state
Emboldened by size and technology
Is unwilling or unable to play constructive role in the world
Seeks legitimacy.
Call 1800-BLAMENATO
-
War over Taiwan among five likely conflict scenarios with PLA, US think tank says (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3166797/war-over-taiwan-among-five-likely-conflict-scenarios-pla-us)
A bid to forcibly unify Taiwan, or escalations in the South China or East China seas, among scenarios seen as likely to trigger a major war
Analyst in Beijing calls reading ‘simplistic’, while fellow observer says report could inspire the building of guard rails to avoid such conflict
War with China: Five Scenarios (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2022.2032960)
Stacie L. Pettyjohn
Abstract
The US military rightly focuses on a Taiwan-invasion scenario for force planning, but to understand the odds of Sino-American war a range of scenarios must be examined. Consideration of five scenarios suggests that none of the wars that China might intentionally start are very attractive from Beijing’s perspective, providing the United States and its allies with time to strengthen deterrence. The greatest risk of a Sino-American conflict in the near term is inadvertent or accidental escalation caused by misperception or miscalculation. As the United States takes steps to bolster deterrence and reduce the risks of deliberate war, it must simultaneously put in place crisis-management mechanisms to prevent inadvertent or accidental escalation.
Fears grow of possible miscalculation involving Australian military in contested South China Sea (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-14/possible-miscalculation-australian-military-in-south-china-sea/101236626)
Concerns are growing that a serious incident could soon occur between the Australian Defence Force and the Chinese military as strategic tensions grow in the Indo-Pacific.
The ABC has revealed HMAS Parramatta was recently closely tracked and challenged by the Chinese military while transiting through the contested waters of the South China Sea and East China Sea.
As details emerged of Australia's latest interaction with the People's Liberation Army (PLA), a US warship conducted a freedom-of-navigation operation (FONOP) in the South China Sea on Wednesday by sailing within the 12-nautical-mile boundary imposed by Beijing on the Paracel Islands.
Australia is yet to conduct a US-style FONOP to challenge Chinese claimed territory and features in the South China Sea, but military observers believe the tempo of ADF activity in the region is high....
-
You know, I wonder...
I forget where I read it, but there was some American analyst who said, sort of as an offhand comment in an article, that Chinese don't have the concept of an accidental war. Presumably they meant something like war is human nature blinded and the sage is not provoked. There is however use of force because sometimes correction is required. If human nature has strayed too far from the path of balance - presently a trajectory of east rising, west declining - then, kapow.
So I wonder... what if it's China that fucks up but it's not China that pulls the trigger. What if Chinese corrective measures, such as for example being a dick with a military aircraft or fucking around with boats, produces a legitimate aggressive response and personnel end up dead.
Say, for example, Oz starts using unmanned drones for surveillance instead of manned vehicles, and China gets in the habit of shooting them down, and then some manned aircraft in the area find a Chinese jet on their tail, but there's a second aircraft yadda yadda bang.
Perhaps just the cost of greyzone warfare
-
Since Almighty Merica itself didn't bother to ratify UNCLOS, it has no standing to object to another nation disputing a ruling.
Speaking of failed legitimacy of an over-emboldened rogue state that refuses act within international law, the US didn't join the International Criminal Court and even passed the "Hague Invasion Act" which allows it to use military force to retrieve US or allied personnel who find themselves facing international war crimes trials.
Not only does this make the US and allies (including hired mercenaries) safe from ICC scrutiny, it also prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC) and prohibits extradition of any person in the US to the ICC.
Need forgiveness for crimes against humanity? Visit USAMilitaryHardwareUnlimited.warfare
Spend enough on Made In The USA weapons and we'll make your whole population into Allied Personnel and pledge to keep you safe from the ICC. Disclaimer: Protection lasts until we find it convenient to liberate your nation, replace you with a better puppet, and hire mercenaries to drop you off at the front door of the Hague (unless you know too much - then you won't live long enough to talk).
The USA loves to prance around as the "World's Policeman" and include Deputy Fife Australia to help with demands to follow the international order in SE Asia. The fact that the US passed a law to protect war criminals and even forbids assisting REAL international law enforcement shows that it lacks any legitimacy as an arbiter of international law.
The whole line of "China lacks any understanding of the concept of X" argument might have carried a little weight when the Empress Dowager was still running things (yet somehow, despite her other failings, she kept the west from slicing up China like a pizza). Now it's about the same level of staleness as claiming that the majority of modern Catholics and Protestants are all still locked into the thinking that led to all those religious wars in Europe.
Yes, culture has some influence, but claiming 1.4 billion people are so "quaint" in their belief systems that the don't understand this big modern concept of an accidental that's so obvious to enlightened white people. If this were true, Trump could easily have tricked China into a war in mid 2020 (since Americans generally flock to presidents as wars begin). Instead, China did the same things it does now - escorting violators out of restricted spaces and filing diplomatic protests.
China is VERY aware of US efforts to make the region less stable and that this could indeed cause an accident. Some may attach culturally related beliefs on top of this, such that the US's own terribly unbalanced internal situation makes it blindly lash out at others, but that doesn't mean that anyone with a finger on a trigger or over a button is going to pull or press it without a very specific reason that would make perfect sense to average Chinese and average Americans.
Even if you believe that BS claim about Chinese not getting the idea of war starting accidentally, will the thought of "they don't understand the concept of accidental war" be of the slightest comfort to those who die in a war? So, instead of saying foolish things like "HAHA! Chinese can't understand the concept of a war starting accidentally!", wouldn't it be an infinitely wiser thing to not keep take action after action which could trigger an accident that could lead to war?
Then again, the US (and whatever US minions are stupid enough to join in) repeatedly, deliberately making a series of escalating provocations against China seems like a deliberate attempt to cause an accident that could lead to war. The USA doesn't want an incident or an accident. The USA wants another proxy war where the only country involved with minimum possible casualties is (of course) the USA.
The good news is that Australia's new trade minister recently hinted at a reduction of hostilities and peaceful coexistence. Now Australia has to wait and see if America will veto this attempt to act as a sovereign nation instead of as a US puppet.
-
China's Foreign Minister blames Morrison government for poor relations, tells Penny Wong to 'treat us as a partner, not a threat' (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-10/treat-us-as-a-partner-not-a-threat-wang-yi-told-penny-wong/101225434)
Included protips:
"Firstly, Australia must treat China as a partner, not an adversary," Mr Wang told Ms Wong, according to the statement.
"Secondly, we must adhere to a path of seeking common ground while reserving differences.
"Thirdly, we must adhere to not targeting or being controlled by third parties," he said, a likely reference both to Australia's efforts to persuade South Pacific nations away from security deals with China along with Australia's involvement in US-led diplomatic initiatives in Asia.
"Fourthly, we must build a positive and pragmatic foundation of public opinion," he said, likely referencing expectations that Australian leaders would be more cautious in their public language as well as recent public opinion polling that shows sentiment in Australia towards Xi Jinping's government sharply souring.
It's a worry, that kind of language. The Wangster isn't describing a relationship. He's laying down some hot tips on how to act. That's to say, there isn't a relationship. Encounters aren't a result of different characteristics and requirements negotiating some settlement. There is instead some prior condition that dictates the terms of encounters. We all know, of course, that this prior condition is historical determinism, the rise of the east and the decline of the west, and not just that weird Chinese hubris no one calls "face" any more, but whatever.
So...
China-Australia relations: Albanese rejects Beijing’s 4 ‘demands’ after Wang Yi-Penny Wong meeting (https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3184853/china-australia-relations-albanese-rejects-beijings-4-demands)
Australia’s PM said his country ‘doesn’t respond to demands’ when asked about the four ‘actions’ China’s foreign minister had said could improve ties
‘We will cooperate with China where we can,’ Anthony Albanese told reporters. ‘But we will stand up for Australia’s interests when we must’
Yeah.
This is going to end well.
-
I was brought up to believe there are not more than five fingers on any hand.
I met a man with six.
That was unexpected.
"Whoops!" - the Sun Tzu Collection
-
It's weird though, these lists of demands. The wise people in Beijing can't possibly suppose anyone will try to attend to them. So where do they come from? Why do these sets of demands exist? I assume as an action, it's held up as some kind of mirror to western pronouncements and requirements placed on China. And they expect no one to do anything. So Beijing can respond in kind and do nothing about whatever gets megaphoned at them. They intend for these "relationships" to fail? Or what, they're starting the protestant church of China?
I think China's going to win a lot of ground that we don't know they're winning. It'll be something about new regional norms that sees China in charge of more than expected or able to dictate an uncomfortably large number of terms for... something.
But I think we're in for a fair amount of "why are you punching yourself" kinds of interactions. "See, you're using your own hand and punching yourself, why are you punching yourself."
I wonder... modern, civilized confidence in the new world order, what used to be the Pax Americana, with "democracy" and "law" (as defined in American/western terms) as highest ideal goals... I wonder if that's near enough done that we won't be so shocked when it's no longer the norm? I mean because China is pulling some seriously neo-Protestant shit here.
Does it go that way though? China pulls a Reformation and we get a world with two versions of "democracy" and a hundred different "globalizations"?
-
The western countries make demands on China all the time. Why should anyone be even slightly surprised if China laid out requirements to quickly improve relationships?
-
"The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.”
- Sun Tzu, the SNL Years
-
"Holistic Prediction and Postdiction
Attention to the field would appear to have clear advantages for explanation of events, inasmuch as it allows for avoidance of the fundamental attribution error. But attention to a broad range of factors might mean that any event can be readily explained—perhaps too readily explained. If a host of factors is attended to, and if naive metaphysics and tacit epistemology support the view that multiple, interactive factors are usually operative in a given outcome, then any outcome may seem to be understandable, even inevitable, after the fact. And indeed, I. Choi, Dalai, and KimPrieto (2000) have shown that Koreans regard a larger number of factors as potentially relevant to explaining a given event. They gave European American, Asian American, and Korean participants a detective story and listed a large number of facts. Participants were asked to indicate which of the facts were irrelevant to solving the mystery. Koreans reported believing that far fewer facts were irrelevant than did European Americans. Asian Americans were intermediate between the other two groups.
Hindsight bias. An advantage of the more simplistic, rulebased stance of the Westerner may be that surprise is a frequent event. Post hoc explanations may be relatively difficult to generate, and epistemic curiosity may be piqued. The curiosity, in turn, may provoke a search for new, possibly superior models to explain events. In contrast, if Eastern theories about the world are less focused, and a wide range of factors are presumed to be potentially relevant to any given outcome, it may be harder to recognize that a particular outcome could not have been predicted. Hindsight bias (Fischhoff, 1975), or the tendency to assume that one knew all along that a given outcome was likely, might therefore be greater for Easterners." (p.299)
Nisbett, Richard & Peng, Keyin & Choi, Incheol & Norenzayan, Ara. (2001). Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic Versus Analytic Cognition. Psychological review. 108. 291-310. 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291. (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.407&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
There are no accidents.
-
So China needs coking coal for steel-making for infrastructure projects as economic stimulus in response to covid + "covid-zero" ("Covid, but no calories!"), and China needs thermal coal (or electricity pricing reform) for a warmer 2022 than 2021, but none of this so much that the not-sanctions can lift without some form of concession, nor even so much that risky military encounters aren't still fun. So, four protips and a new ambassador to Oz. the new ambassador is a sheep warrior, nice, kind, conciliatory, meeting people without being hostile, etc, reportedly, but the protips remain weirdly so far out of step with actual international relationship talk that yadda yadda I don't know.
I suppose the thinking they want to encourage is "let's find other markets and leave the sea to China." Let's know our place in the world. A lackey to a real (declining) power in the US who should rethink some bullshit let's not talk about Japan and India.
Thanks China. Luv u2.
-
You know, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Does Beijing have any hot take on kings and queens? I wonder why we don't hear any tips on that. Maybe it's included in the not being controlled by third parties tip.
The other thing is "adversaries". Who started the enemies and adversaries talk? For that matter, who started the cold war mentality talk?
-
With that in mind...
The long game - China’s grand strategy to displace American order (https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-long-game-chinas-grand-strategy-to-displace-american-order/)
AUGUST 2, 2021
Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from “The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order” by former Brookings Fellow Rush Doshi.
This introductory chapter summarizes the book’s argument. It explains that U.S.-China competition is over regional and global order, outlines what Chinese-led order might look like, explores why grand strategy matters and how to study it, and discusses competing views of whether China has a grand strategy. It argues that China has sought to displace America from regional and global order through three sequential “strategies of displacement” pursued at the military, political, and economic levels. The first of these strategies sought to blunt American order regionally, the second sought to build Chinese order regionally, and the third — a strategy of expansion — now seeks to do both globally. The introduction explains that shifts in China’s strategy are profoundly shaped by key events that change its perception of American power....
gggggggggg
Xi is leading China’s aggressive new strategy, but he didn’t invent it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/xi-is-leading-chinas-aggressive-new-strategy-but-he-didnt-invent-it/2021/09/16/6ff5a9f6-0683-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html)
Is it Xi Jinping or is it China? Is the aggressive, illiberal and triumphalist direction that China has taken over the past decade a result of one man, “the chairman of everything,” the Chinese Communist Party general secretary? Or does Xi’s bumptiousness reflect something larger, perhaps more frightening and permanent: the united will of the 80 million-member Chinese Communist Party?
The answer to this question is not merely academic. It’s crucial as the United States seeks to fashion a policy to deal with China. And it forms the subtext of the most important book on China in years: Rush Doshi’s “The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order.”
Doshi’s central argument is that Xi is not new and different. And that the woeful direction he’s taking China constitutes far less a fundamental change than a logical expansion on his predecessors’ policies. Xi may be an accelerant on China’s nasty turn, but, Doshi argues, China is following a trajectory that has long been in place....
-
Since your queen remembers what war is like, she's not on the sidelines trying to promote one. If she were, I'm sure China would be happy to remind her that her country's imperial excesses ended very badly. Since she doesn't try to personally set standards for all countries outside what's left of the British Empire, China has no quarrels with her. As it stands, one by one, the remaining members of the commonwealth are demoting her from their postage, currency, and head of state status.
There is no grand strategy to replace the US order. It's a simple matter of enough countries realizing that keeping their populations as serfs to provide cheap resources to the self-appointed creators and arbiters of the "world order" and "international community." Perhaps this graphic will make it plainer how things are changing now that the US is finding it harder and harder to "save" other countries by bombings and instigating coups.
-
Gainsaying isn't discussion.
I personally find it relieving to have Chinese actions make sense. And having to like "China" before Chinese actions do make sense isn't an example of having Chinese actions make sense. I'd prefer to have some way to respect their histrionics that doesn't involve joining them.
The idea for instance that China presently has and for a long time has had a grand strategy, that's respectable. If the miserable fudgepackers have all this time merely been bellyaching about history leaving them behind and blaming the west for it...... nope.
Ironic side note: happened to click on a wikipedia page. Turns out Japan made 21 demands, and that's what started the Century of Humiliation.
What a jolly prankster this new China has become.
-
(https://static.ffx.io/images/$width_800/t_resize_width/q_86%2Cf_auto/8c3e299f62bff23135373d8eaaeb3269f41080f7)
-
Focusing everything about how the global political climate is changing on China is massive oversimplification. China didn't force most of SE Asia to skip joining US sanctions and boycotts against Russia. Even India bailed on that. Of course, you could make up some vaste conspiracy about China secretly applying pressure in Asia, but that won't explain Mexico failing to fall in line with US suggestions about joining.
If you want Chinese actions to make sense, reread that list instead of just the western commentaries. China wants a world where no one country (not even China) can bomb countries half way around the world to support its defense contractors and wants to be able to buy and sell without every deal being turned into a lame spy novel by the US government and those who obey the US.
China wants a world where foreign aid improves the economies of receiving countries, and thereby makes them into better trading partners. Chinese foreign aid doesn't require governments to adjust their internal functions to please China. If a country turns down a Chinese offer on a project, China's response isn't to sanction or take negative actions. Instead, it bids on the next project. China also charges far less interest because it's in this for long term mutual benefit (note the part about better trading partners). A quick check of economic grown rates in African countries pre and post BRI clearly shows that the majority of BRI recipients have economically benefited more from Chinese assistance than from far longer assistance from the west.
History tried to leave China behind. China decided to catch up. Once it made enough progress, it saw opportunities to help other countries out of eternal poverty and took them.
The side effect is that poor countries are no longer primarily dependent on the US, EU, and close associates when famine comes knocking. They no longer have to meet "standards" imposed from outside in order to grow their economies and improve the lives of their people. They don't have to agree to host foreign bases for little or no money to get better aid packages. They don't have to worry about getting sucked into a war started on behalf of someone else and then get left dealing with the mess when the country pulling the strings decides to turn its attention elsewhere.
Even Mexico has told the US it's not going to support the US in its international intrigues. Mexico has enough problems and is smart enough to not be used by the US to cause more problems. Imagine how much better life could be for Australians if the primary purpose of the military was defending the country instead of preparing to be used as cannon fodder by America and the UK.
Next, strap in tight and imagine country after country telling the US "You are free to boycott any country you like. We are free to boycott any country we like. You are no longer free to demand that we support your unilateral sanctions and boycotts against countries around the world."
Does this mean that a "bad" country could do anything it likes? No. The UN was created so that the International Community (ALL nations) could take steps. Individual countries can always slap their own restrictions.
What it would be is the end to piracy under the guise of unilateral sanctions. No more US Navy hijackings of ships that carry goods to or from countries the US doesn't like. It would also mean the end of US theft of assets of other countries. The people of Afghanistan are on the edge of starvation, but after 20 years of bombing them, the US also stole billions of dollars on the way out.
Ending the US Imposed version of the world order and giving even a modest amount of that power over to the UN could finally move the world towards the peaceful path the UN was created to bring.
-
Yesterday, a legally armed US citizen shot and killed a heavily armed mall shooter who had already killed three shoppers. Just because American people kill American people doesn't mean Chinese people have to kill Chinese people. But American people do kill American people. Ideally therefore China should develop this characteristic. The US is after all the moral standard, and Chinese actions should be developed in that light.
-
China wants a world where foreign aid improves the economies of receiving countries, and thereby makes them into better trading partners.
Like Sri Lanka?
You know, the rosy picture is rosy.
-
'If you make China the enemy, China will be the enemy': Beijing's fresh threat to Australia (https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/if-you-make-china-the-enemy-china-will-be-the-enemy-beijing-s-fresh-threat-to-australia-20201118-p56fqs.html)
By Jonathan Kearsley, Eryk Bagshaw and Anthony Galloway
November 18, 2020 — 6.10pm
Beijing has issued an extraordinary attack on the Australian government, accusing it of "poisoning bilateral relations" in a deliberately leaked document that threatens to escalate tensions between the two countries.
The government document goes further than any public statements made by the Chinese Communist Party, accusing the Morrison government of attempting "to torpedo" Victoria's Belt and Road deal, and blaming Canberra for "unfriendly or antagonistic" reports on China by independent Australian media....
Was that the first "enemy" talk time?
-
What's this? Chinese investment in Australia is down and anyway Australia has been closing up shop?
https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/insights/2022/04/demystifying-chinese-investment-in-australia-april-2022.html#:~:text=In%20the%202021%20calendar%20year,billion%20to%20AUD%200.8%20billion.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/economic-diplomacy-under-doona-australian-investors-dump-china
https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/statistics-on-where-australia-invests
But what? Chinese investment in Australia was always a fraction of Australian investment in China? Is that actually true? That can't be true. Is it?
If it is, I guess that's part of the, uh, "grievance". Way too much buying of commodities without being able to own the means of production.
You know what, sure, here's the golden goose, you can have it.
-
Do you know, every one of those 14 points... they're all about China not being able to buy stuff. Either buyers have been directly refused, thieves have been thwarted, or environments have turned contentious and deals are harder to make quietly.
On any other interpretation, the list makers are a bunch of crying rubes.
-
I think China knows far better than to emulate the growing violence in the US. Armed civilians only stop a tiny fraction of armed criminals. Any country that looks at the stats will see the US as a warning, not a model.
Did you bother to look up who Sri Lanka owed money to? Debt to China was a very small part of a huge debt problem that was also compounded by mismanagement of the country's economy. The good news is that the port still is operating and can accept foreign emergency aid, including food shipments from China. Or would you prefer to have seen the USA, foreseeing the possibility of a financial collapse, have started bombing the country flat a few years ago in an effort to help fix their problems?
In the meantime, per capita GDP is rising at a faster rate in multiple African countries thanks in part to Chinese BRI projects. Out of those many countries, at least one will probably find a way to wreck its economy with or without participating in BRI. The rest will continue to expand their economies and provide models on how to rebuild the few that fail.
Wow. Aussies are shocked that continuing to spew anti-China propaganda actually annoys Chinese people, Chinese businesses, and the Chinese government. I guess they miss the good old days when China wouldn't publicly react to repeated provocations and that a thinly veiled "But responding to deliberate abuse is something only the west is allowed to do!" diatribe will be forthcoming.
-
See, it's the humorlessness. That'll be why the public have genuinely started being haunted by thoughts and fears of war.
For the purposes of this particularly humorless exchange, humorlessness is ""objective" argument without admission of subjective horsehittery"
Horseshittery, btw, is the level of horseshit a person at any one time accepts as wisdom
-
It's a bit hard to enjoy the humor when the potential outcome of a completely senseless and useless war fought to enrich US defense contractors could easily be seeing 7+ billion deaths and sends the whole world back to the stone age (assuming the roaches don't decide to finish humanity off).
Instead, let's replay that really fun game from the 60's. Whoever can slap a flag on the moon first wins round one, but this time we keep the game going. It's actually great fun and leads to all sorts of very helpful technology being developed. Assuming everyone can sit at the table like adults, we also figure out how to divide lunar and asteroid resources in a reasonably fair way while whoever harvests them also pays a modest tax (how does 10% sound) to a UN agency dedicated to economic development of impoverished nations. This way, the whole world comes out ahead at the end of each round of play.
-
So anyway, this is UFWD effort right? Identify the enemies, unite the front. I was wondering when "enemies" talk first appear. Well, knock me down with a feather, turns out for the CCP, it was with Mao. United Front being one of the three magic weapons. (Didn't Xi also use that magic weapons rhetoric too? In internal speeches describing the United Front Work Department business.)
Jeepers. What a miserable approach
-
I think the "enemies" problem really began when Trump's poll numbers started sinking deeper and deeper. Screwing over Canada, Mexico, and then Europe didn't win him any points at home, so he suddenly flipped from acting like a great buddy of China to trying to paint it as an enemy hellbent on world domination and the destruction of America's Divinely granted right to sanction, destabilize, or bomb any country it felt like at any time for any (or no) reason. Mix in some "they took our jobs" and slap up a few sanctions that actually harmed American companies and consumers and it turned to a great way to rally redneck racists looking for some group to hate. The UK and it's favorite former prison colony's PMs both decided this was a political winner.
Now all 3 are out of office and the ice between China and down under is finally showing some hints that cracks may start forming soon. Perhaps even if the US continues down the path of provocation, the leaders will realize that spilling a lot of Australian blood for US politicians and defense contractors really isn't the brightest idea for the countries future.
-
I'm not sure your point of view can be trusted. It sounds compromised. Interacting with this point of view as if it were a point of view has begun to seem foolish. Sorry bud.
-
Of course, this is just another set of incredibly mobile goal posts for you. You always try the very tired "China doesn't have the ability to understand X, unlike
white people the West." Then you shift to another tactic and another. Then you tried claiming the whole thread was just being humorous. Now that all of that failed, you without any supporting reasons decide to declare my point of view can't be trusted and is foolish.
My direct answer to the question in you thread title is that Australia and every country should let the USA know that their soldiers and navy will stay home and only adopt defensive positions if the US manages to push the world to the brink of a war. Imagine if the USA decided to throw a war and no one showed up.
And why should anyone place trust in your POV? If you want to kick back and let your country throw away its soldiers lives away because the USA wants another proxy war no matter how many dead Australians it takes, I'd say that's not just foolish, but also rather homicidal towards your fellow countrymen.
I've consistently made it plain throughout this thread that I want to see the sabre rattling reduced so that a war will be less likely. My hope is that then some trust can be rebuilt to further stabilize the situation, further reducing the chance of war. If you think wanting peace is bad and seeing millions die for no better reason than to please the USA (the same country that increased a number of exports to China to make up for reductions in Australian exports to China), then your mental processes have a major malfunction.
In the meantime, I'll be watching imports and exports between China and Australia to get an idea of how backroom negotiations are really going instead of listening to parrots of the US point of view.
-
You have a tendency to select from among possible interpretations, like there's a preference or a strategy at work. Reading the interpretations over time can suggest the character of this preference or strategy, marking it as either compromising or constructive. I think your interpretations suggest a partiality that undermines the easy acceptibility of your claims. You're defending your country.
-
Many things have multiple ways to view or interpret. Unlike you, I don't repeatedly use racist arguments like "Chinese people are culturally incapable of understanding the very concept of interpretation X." You also do your best to claim that this interpretation only a true westerner can comprehend is actually the best interpretation.
In terms of partiality, you are firmly glued to interpreting everything that makes China look bad. You seem particularly willing to see your own country used as a pawn and your own soldiers used as cannon fodder. History (even VERY recent history) shows that the US being more than willing to abandon allies is not an interpretation or a bias, but instead is a long established pattern.
If me thinking that war is so undesirable that it should always be the LAST POSSIBLE option and that distant countries shouldn't be trying to push their allies into risky behavior that can easily lead to "accidents" that can lead to proxy wars is a bad thing somehow can be called "partiality", I'll happily accept the label.
-
for example ^^
-
A few examples of the USA abusing
pawns allies:
"Hey Australia, go ahead and get in a trade spat with China. The USA has your back!" (US promptly sells more coal to China.)
"Hey France, how DARE you sell submarines to another ally without cutting the USA in on the deal!
Hey Australia, you REALLY should be buying subs from us, not France. Scomo, sit up and beg to take the deal. That's right. Who's a good doggy. Yes, Scomo's such a good doggie. Now roll over and we'll pet you."
"Hey Afghans who helped the USA. We're leaving in the middle of the night to avoid pictures of you hanging off the skids of one of our evacuation helicopters (that was terribly embarrassing). It's SO secret that your troops outside the base only found out after others broke in, released prisoners we'd abandoned, and did some looting.
We spent 20 years "nation building" to support your puppet government. As a final show of support, we decided to drone strike a foreign aid worker and some children and claim they were terrorists. That should make it easier for you to keep your people afraid of you. All that and then you ungrateful bastards lost control so fast that other countries couldn't get all of their people out before the government we threw out and spent 20 years dropping bombs all over your country to suppress came and threw you out.
Oh, and we're really upset that some of you hung onto the outside of airplanes and fell to your deaths. Do you have any idea how bad that looked in the press? Just for that, we're freezing all your money and confiscating at least half of it. Good luck feeding your people."
"Hey NATO, even though you are all on schedule complying with our requirement request to increase your military budgets, one of your leaders offended our leader, so we're going to move a bunch of hardware away from the offending country and park it where it will be less useful, but at least it will be in a place where the local leader didn't annoy us. We'll use Didn't meet final budget requirements 3 years before schedule as the excuse."
"Hey Canada and Mexico. You are our only neighbors and well trusted trade partners. Instead of sitting down and negotiating some reasonable adjustments to NAFTA, we're unilaterally cancelling it. If you want a new trade deal with us, come back and kneel on your side of the table."
"Hey Syrian Kurds. We counted on you for many things and know you've been counting on us, but we've decided that you're ready to fight alone. Best of luck!"
"Hey South Vietnam. We finally got a peace treaty signed. It even says that we SWEAR (and cross our hearts and hope we die if we break the promise) that we'll be back within 5 minutes if the North Vietnamese send even one soldier across the border. You know you can count on the USA to defend you no matter what happens.
Oh wait. We've decided that it's not worth the effort to help you any more. We're sure you can take care of your northern border.
WTF! We don't care that the entire North Vietnamese Army moved south and has entered your capital. Get your damned hands off of our embassy evacuation helicopter before someone takes a picture."
Enough examples? Nah, let's toss in a 19th century one just to show that the USA betrayal and abuse problem didn't originate in the 1960's or 70s.
"Hey Cherokee! Thanks SO much for helping my army win the war against the Creek. I solemnly pledge As long as the sun shines and the grass grows there shall be friendship between us, and the feet of the Cherokee shall be toward the East. at least until I'm elected president. Then I'll evict you from your remaining lands and send you on a long walk down the Trail of Tears. You and others like you will be safe west of the Mississippi, until we decide to take those lands and drive your people onto smaller and smaller reservations."
-
deep state
-
The Australian way of war (https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-australian-way-of-war/)
In a span of nearly 90 years—from 1914 to 2003—Australia chose to go to war nine times.
In the 100 years from 1914, Australian military personnel were on active service for nearly half the time—47 years.
Finding that frequency ‘startling’, one of the greats of Australian military history, David Horner, an emeritus professor in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, has penned a book on how and why Australia keeps going to war.
The war game: Australian war leadership from Gallipoli to Iraq starts with a quote from Jonathan Swift: ‘War! That mad game the world so loves to play.’ Then Horner examines the deadly way Australia plays: ‘Warfare certainly has elements of a game: there are two, sometimes several opponents; there are rules, although these are sometimes broken; there are winners and losers; and it becomes addictive.’
What explains the addiction? Why did a nation with its own continent—‘largely remote from countries that might pose a major threat’—go out to fight?
Horner seeks the themes in the nine conflicts: the First and Second World Wars, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation (when Indonesia sought to prevent the formation of the new nation of Malaysia), the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War.
He offers this judgement about the constants that connect the fights:
"Australia has always gone to war as a junior partner in an allied coalition. Its leaders have had little scope to influence allied strategy and their decisions have been unlikely to affect the outcome of the war. The main decisions of Australia’s leaders have been whether Australia should go to war, and the level of commitment to the war."
One big change after World War II is that Australia fights not to decide a war, but to buttress an alliance.
The purpose is to get credit without too many casualties. In the seven conflicts since 1945, Australia’s eyes were on political ends. Our weight was not decisive, since the level of our military commitment was not critical to victory.
Alliance politics shape and drive Australian strategy. The war decision is a culmination, not the start. What Australia did in Vietnam echoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
‘Like the commitment in Vietnam,’ Horner notes, ‘Australia’s military involvement in the Middle East had grown over the previous dozen years to a point that made it difficult to avoid continuing once the Americans sought further assistance.’
The lesson to draw from Iraq, he writes, is that ‘the US process for going to war was deeply flawed and Australia would be wise to treat any US plan for war with deep suspicion; and Australia should not smugly assume that it might not engage in the same faulty process in the future’.
The calculations in Australia’s war game involve a ruthless realism.
Our leaders sent the military off to what became the failures of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Australia’s military performed well, as failure took a long time to arrive. The alliance prospered.
The voters of Australia have often blessed the alliance politics of their leaders. The commitments are embraced. The failures are regretted and the losses mourned, but the game is repeated.
-
unironic collectivist critique: "all ur collective are fall apart"
western collectivism ftw
-
Eagle eyes are on Taiwan, but is China distracting us from a ‘second Pearl Harbour’? (https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/eagle-eyes-are-on-taiwan-but-is-china-distracting-us-from-a-second-pearl-harbour-20220801-p5b673.html)
The first sign that it’s started is when the world’s internet fails and showers of shooting stars fill the sky.
Vital undersea cables have been cut by specialist subs and ships and intensive cyberattacks are under way; the shooting stars are satellites falling to earth.
With surveillance satellites destroyed, they can’t detect the launch of China’s missiles. The first wave slams into US air force and navy bases across the Western Pacific, almost simultaneously.
Beijing has not used its nuclear warheads, but it doesn’t need to. Its high-explosive missiles are accurate to within 10 metres through mid-course correction.
Just 10 or so missiles targeting key points at each base are enough to put the American stations out of action and to destroy the aircraft and ships they host.
“Just as in 1941 in Pearl Harbour, US aircraft including fighters, tankers, surveillance aircraft, bombers and intelligence-collecting aircraft are mostly parked in neat, straight lines clearly visible from space,” writes Jim Molan, former major general in the Australian army and now Liberal Senator for NSW, in the opening to his new book, Danger on our Doorstep.
This surprise attack on the US, its “second Pearl Harbour”, is more successful than the first. Because China’s commanders learn from Japan’s mistake and blow up the American fuel storage tanks as well. So any replacement craft arriving at the bases cannot refuel.
A second wave of Beijing’s missiles soon arrives to finish the disarming of America’s bases in the Western Pacific. They destroy stockpiles of bombs and missiles.
America’s stealthy submarines in the region remain submerged and mostly intact. They can detect some of the mayhem above, but they rely on US satellites to communicate. The sub commanders can’t report their findings or receive orders.
The US has two big navy battle groups in the region as the attack unfolds, standard for peacetime deployment. According to Molan’s scenario:
“Carrier-killer missiles from China’s east and south coasts are fired at the larger ships in both battle groups, with backup from smaller cruise missiles from Chinese ships and submarines in the vicinity, and from China’s old but usable H-6 bombers, which each fire two of the enormous anti-ship cruise missiles they haul into the air under their wings.” All the major combatants are torn apart, burn and sink.
“The cost in human lives is appalling,” writes Molan. Xi Jinping has delivered his message even as the world still struggles to restore communications. Xi’s message to America, as Molan puts it:
“You are out of the Western Pacific and we will not let you re-establish your bases in Japan, South Korea or even Guam. From Japan to Australia and out to Hawaii, the Western Pacific is now a Chinese sphere of influence.”
It’s merely a scenario, but is it plausible? Molan argues that we’re preparing for the wrong war. He thinks that we’re all standing around waiting for a limited Chinese attack on Taiwan. And while he says that’s possible, it would only happen if China’s strategists are silly.
If Xi struck Taiwan, his attacking forces would be vulnerable to a hammering from the US. Why would he accept that pain when he has the option of pushing America out of the hemisphere altogether, forcing it back to the region east of Hawaii?
Then he can take Taiwan at his leisure, probably without the use of force. And dictate terms to US allies including Australia, now cut off from its great ally.
And Xi can luxuriate in history’s acclaim as the ruler who ended half a millennium of Western dominance of the Pacific....
-
Who published this war-porn scenario? If it was that simple, a few dozen countries would have tried it already.
I once made the mistake of reading a lame novel about special forces from several countries going to a secret base that had stopped communicating. It was beyond terrible how badly written and out of touch with reality (and the basic laws of physics) it was. This is worse.
Satellites falling out of orbit when "shot down" is stupid to the point of hilarity. Yes, a satellite killer could grab a satellite and drag it down, but you'd need one killer per target and the target would have plenty of warning of being approached. If even 5 US spy satellites detected something approaching them at the same time, that would be an instant red alert. If instead a small high velocity projectile was used, there would be shapnel which would end up hitting more satellites, thus creating more shrapnel. If there were enough initial targets, it would take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to turn low earth orbit into a blender. That means NO one would have spy satellites, communication satellites, weather satellites, or space stations for a very long time.
While waiting for the chain reaction to take place, the US would simply use Starlink to maintain communications. There are more Starlink satellites than anything else, so there's zero way for any country to take them all out in a hurry.
10 conventional missiles per base? Maybe for some of the tiny ones. This guy either never bothered to see how big some of them are or doesn't want facts to get in the way of his book. Does he really think the US (or any country) would set themselves up for easy chain reactions to make wiping out a big military facility so simple?
A war could happen, but if so, it won't play out like this. Of course, reality never gets in the way of selling BS like this. This guy doesn't care about reality. He just wants people to buy his book and his agent is probably busy trying to sell the movie rights.
-
oh sure. technology is why it can't happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASAT_program_of_China
Anti-satellite programs exist everywhere, so I have read, because space is an offensive warfare environment.
-
For those playing along at home, the key point of that article was, why invade a small, um, territory like Taiwan if in return you'll get hammered by military forces being hosted in every nearby country? Why not fuck everyone all at once and then start attacking Australia because Australia will become a US staging ground?
If you were interesting in some long game, you could start by ridiculing alliances. Maybe attempt some worldwide demonstration by, oh, I don't know, punishing an economy and calling out friends of that economy. Brings peace to the region.
Feel free to defend China. But let's not pretend China isn't already fighting a war.
-
ASATs exist, but trying to blow up a couple hundred satellites WILL be a pyrric victory. Most countries don't like self-destructive victories. Maybe the US would be crazy enough, since it co-created the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine.
I already described the Kessler syndome (https://www.space.com/kessler-syndrome-space-debris), but let me try again. Each blown up satellite creates a small cloud of shrapnel. One satellite's worth of shrapnel might not hit anything, but each one you blow up creates another debris cloud that endangers more satellites. Each satellite hit by debris also is partly or completely turned onto more shrapnel. Pass a certain threshold and it becomes a self-sustaining chain reaction. This turns low Earth orbit into a blender where no satellite can survive for long. So, NO COUNTRY will get to have spy satellites, weather satellites, communications satellites, navigation satellites, science satellites, or space stations in low earth orbit for at least a few decades.
For higher up, a single cloud of shrapnel in a retrograde equatorial orbit where the geosynchronous satellites are parked will destroy most of them in 12 hours. Survivors get a 12 hour reprieve until the cloud comes around for a second pass.
The horrifying thing is that we're already in danger of a Kessler Syndrome event happening spontaneously due to the amount of junk already in orbit. This is why space agencies around the world are working on orbital garbage collection devices. If they could cooperate instead of being influenced by pathetic war-porn novels, we'll have a much better chance of preventing this from happening.
Edit: I just accidentally tripped over a pic of what a small piece of space debris can do. No, you don't have to shoot it that fast. All you need is two different orbits intersecting to get some amazing velocity differences.
(http://raoulschinasaloon.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10327.0;attach=2108;image)
But, just to humor you and the author of this sick fantasy let's pretend that Chinese ASAT weapons use magical disintegration ray cannons so there's no danger of a Kessler event. Now tell me how many spy satellites and military communications satellites the US has and how they can all be disabled within the span of a few minutes? Oh, and don't forget that US military and civilian intelligence agencies like to keep secrets not just from China, but from each other too.
But by the lame power of deus ex machina, the Chinese somehow get hold of the non-existent master list of all US spy satellites and military communications satellites and somehow manages to set up giant emplacements of disintegration ray cannons around the world so that all of these hundreds of satellites can be taken down in 5 minutes. Then what?
The US military and government switches over to Starlink and other friendly comsat constellations. Civilian mapping satellite companies provide live feeds from their satellites. Allied natiions provide access to both government and civilian satellites.
But, this story being far above average in forcing irrational storylines to continue lets China disintegrate THOUSANDS of other satellites in just a few minutes.
The Secretary of the US Navy hangs his head and says "I have no way to talk to our submarines." His second in command says "Except for the extreme low frequency system." The Secretary replies "Oops, I forgot about that."
"What about our military bases in the Pacific?" asks the President.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff replies "Before we lost Starlink most reported in. Each was hit with ten hypersonic missiles with large conventional warheads. We've got radio communication back with 8 of the large bases so far. The smaller ones are out of operation, but whoever planned attacks with only 10 missiles against our larger bases was a complete moron." As he finished the sentence, a bolt of lightening struck the chairman, killing him instantly.
A distant sounding disembodied voice with at Australian accent was then heard saying "Stop messing with my story. China has to win this or I won't be able to lobby for bigger military budgets. Even more importantly, if China doesn't win, I won't be able write a sequel where Australia saves the day and conquers China."
****
If you want to see a real war, there are a number of them in progress right now.
I think you should scroll up and read that "Australian Way of War" article again. You should be VERY concerned that the US isn't just pushing Australia into trade "wars", but is pushing Australia's military into closer and closer encounters with China's military.
If the US and China went to full scale war, the US would be throwing as many Australian, Japanese, and South Korean troops as possible to reduce US casualties just to make the war more palatable politically back home. If Australia is the only allied country involved in a flashpoint that leads to shooting, can you be confident of how many Americans will be sacrificed to save Australia?
Australia would be a pretty pathetic staging area with Japan so much closer. Even then, this magical Peal Harbor type preemptive strike is a pure war-porn fantasy. There's NO WAY to disable that many satellites that quickly and to stop all other means of communications. There's NO WAY to thoroughly disable large military bases with one small volley of conventional missiles.
If this was possible, the US has about 3 times China's military budget. Why hasn't the US taken down all of China's satellites (without losing ALL satellites), sunk all its warships, and deployed Baron von Munchausen to take care of any pesky details that were forgotten? Quite simply, it's because the only way to be that thorough within the laws of physics is to use WMDs in a preemptive first strike. Thankfully for the world, the US still has enough sanity to realize that the price would be far too high.
Instead, the US wants a long simmering war, nowhere near its own coasts, with plenty of "friends" to serve as human shields for US troops. China doesn't want to play that game. China's long game is simple. Keep TW aware that China has a red line and do everything possible to keep TW inside of that line. Eventually, tides of opinion will shift, 1C2S agreements will be signed, and China will be reunited.
-
But is Molan’s scenario plausible? Or is he just an obsessive ex-army type who’s spent too much time alone with the internet and a paranoid imagination?
I turned to a well-regarded US strategist, Elbridge Colby, for guidance. Colby was the lead author of the US National Defence Strategy published in 2018. From his seat at the Pentagon as deputy assistant secretary of defence for strategy and force development, he was privy to America’s defence capabilities and all its secrets. And all US knowledge of China’s.
After reading Molan’s scenario, Colby’s verdict: “It is very credible. Molan clearly knows what he is talking about. I would say, if anything, he may well underestimate the scope and scale of a Chinese attack. It is possible they would go for a narrower strike, but it is also possible they would go even bigger than he lays out.”
-
Chosen principles are motivating. but they aren't cause and effect. Doing a "logically, China couldn't..." is far less meaningful than "logistically, China could..." and then working out whether or not they want to.
So, what does China want to do, and what will be the consequences for everyone else?
No, those questions aren't answered by a recapitulation of extant ideological feints. They're answered by looking at the actions of real people with a view to adequate interpretation of their action. "Adequate" as opposed to "possible". The interpretation that coincides with fact, I mean. The explanation among the entertaining alternatives that mislead. I'm pretty sure you have a philosophical aversion to any claim that such interpretation can be identified, right? Logistical interpretation can never be anything more than shallow guesswork, right? The only thing we have is principled discussion with some chosen collection of stipulations that provide for adequate argument without constituting facts, right? Provides for lengthy debate but no more than axiomatic conclusions.
So in the end, you'll have to lay claim to some axioms.
The rest is time used up.
-
But is Molan’s scenario plausible? Or is he just an obsessive ex-army type who’s spent too much time alone with the internet and a paranoid imagination?
I turned to a well-regarded US strategist, Elbridge Colby, for guidance. Colby was the lead author of the US National Defence Strategy published in 2018. From his seat at the Pentagon as deputy assistant secretary of defence for strategy and force development, he was privy to America’s defence capabilities and all its secrets. And all US knowledge of China’s.
After reading Molan’s scenario, Colby’s verdict: “It is very credible. Molan clearly knows what he is talking about. I would say, if anything, he may well underestimate the scope and scale of a Chinese attack. It is possible they would go for a narrower strike, but it is also possible they would go even bigger than he lays out.”
I see America's education system has failed even worse than I thought it had. The alternative explanation is that "yes, a surprise attack could weaken US forces in the Indo-Pacific area, but no where near as much as claimed. But by endorsing this war-porn novel, I stock the flames of fear that keep me employed and drive up the defense stocks I'm invested in."
In the meantime, not one "well-regarded US strategist" has bothered to publicly consider that reducing tensions with China could easily save the US over $100 billion a year while still leaving the US with the world's most massive and expensive military. That sort of thinking would cause them to instantly shift from well-regarded to disregarded. They'd stop getting invited as well paid speakers at "Why we need an even more bloated defense budget" panels at defense contractor conferences.
The whole concept boils down to "Let's fantasize about an implausible scenario that doesn't even fit the rules of physics and then try to make everyone else angry about it (so they'll buy the book and support bigger military budgets)."
Logistically, China could give the US a very hard time with a surprise strike. Logistically, any mass surprise attack on satellites end 98% of all usable devices in space and ends all options for low Earth orbit satellites for decades. Logistically, the US has more ways to communicate than via satellite and more was to take pics from above than via satellite, so imposing any realistic communications or intelligence blackout across a wide region is not feasible.
China wants to operate in a world where no one country can set policies for everyone else upon pain of unilateral sanctions that all other countries are expected to follow, destabilization attempts, or far worse. International law means all countries get a say in setting the rules, not just the USA (plus a few "friends" which all host US military bases).
China wants to do business around the world. China wants its business partners to have growing economies, so that it can do more business with them. This means that it's in China's best interests to assist countries across the economic spectrum.
The USA may scream "They took our jobs", but the US just had the longest running economic streak in its history, and a significant part of that was aided by lower cost goods from China cushioning inflationary pressures from both growing wages and far faster growing corporate profits. Unfortunately, the US cranked up the money printing machines too many times and also sold too many bonds (including a large amount to China) to buy its way our of every economic set back, so is about to pay the price with a serious recession. If they were smart, they'd dump the Trump-Biden tariffs for a fast 1% reduction in their inflation numbers. Too bad the government won't listen to the so many US business leaders and prefers to "punish" China by making its own consumers and businesses pay more for things.
In the meantime, China continues to widen its business horizons across the globe. Starting a war with the US would risk a nuclear exchange and would be bad for business. I have ZERO concern that the pathetic scenario of a Chinese surprise attack will ever get past the stage of a moronic novel.
-
So, "China number one" sounds good as an axiom. "USA? PooSA!" has a ring to it as well. "Rising East, declining west" doesn't feature as much.
I don't know, man. "The USA betrayed us all" is fine, I guess. But why is there no sense that China won't do the same?
Wait. Is China... unable to be a betraying hegemon? China will never be big enough to fail an ideal? A multipolar world means everyone is equally small?
Dude.
None of that is logistics. That's all idealism
-
I don't honestly think China does want to do business around the world. They want to do something, but it's not the fostering of economic opportunity. If it were, then the old dreams of engagement with China producing a more liberal China would have come true. Globalization seems instead to have enabled a more illiberal China
-
I think China, US, India, and Russia each having leadership in some things and each being somewhere in the top 10 in others is the way to realistically approach things. Sadly, the US and it's minions consider being less than number 1 by any measure to be some kind of sin.
I think a world where ANY one country can crush any country it disagrees with is wrong. I believe ALL countries have the right to boycott other, but that the unilateral sanctions of any one country being mirrored by friends and rivals because of fear of secondary sanctions is wrong. I can even understand a full scale blockade and embargo for something like nuclear missiles being moved around the world to drop them on another country's doorstep.
I can't understand why Cubans still are under massive sanctions for an event that was resolved 60 years ago. I can understand trying to restrict nuclear technology from getting into the hands of non-nuclear technology might need the UN to restrict dual use items, but I can't understand why Iran and North Korea both were targeted economically for extended periods before engaging in that kind of research and why the US seems particularly attached to seeing North Koreans starve to death.
The world doesn't need a hegemon but the US doesn't want to lose it's golden position of sitting on top of the pile.
If you bother to sit down with some economic charts and plot the trends, China's not the only country set to match or exceed the US in a number of ways. This means one of two things. A bloody war with a high chance of wiping out billions caused by the US trying to remain in charge, or a multipolar world where NO single nation can unilaterally decide the fate of other nations. I think the second option sounds pretty appealing. Really bad things requiring international cooperation to fight can be coordinated by the UN. Real international order can come from the UN instead of the US plus a handful of minions fighting to see who can agree fastest.
This also covers your "too big to fail" argument. In a world without a hegemon, even the biggest country having a total collapse won't trigger the chain reaction disaster the world barely avoided in 2008. Multipolarity adds in redundancy that makes all nations safer. Yes, a larger economy failing will hurt worse, but one country controlling international transfers and forcing most trade to be in its currency is a great way to make an economic disaster a hundred times worse.
About 120 countries have enough trust in China to have it be their primary trading partner.
The USA has a long history of abusing its allies in distant wars, including the botched retreat from Afghanistan last year. I have a GREAT idea to prevent EVER having to face this risk with China or the US or any other country misusing your Kangaroo Infantry or Koala Kommandos. It's so simple that even a child could understand it.
If your ally is attacked directly inside of their own country, help to chase the enemy out, but go no farther. If your ally gets itself in a war outside its territory, stay home.
This means if the US wants to fight Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanstan, Syria, or anywhere else, it will be 100% US troops (and locals brave/foolish enough to trust the US) and your soldiers won't be expended for no valid reason. If Canada and the US start shooting at each other, decide which one you like the most and help secure the border.
China doesn't do the whole "in the interest of (insert things like democracy and international order here), we're sending hundreds of thousands of troops to the other side of the world and dropping bombs even after setting up a puppet government", so it's a lot harder for China to abuse allies the way the US has. Still, in the incredibly unlikely event China decides to conquer Argentina and asks for help, the same advice holds - If you don't send troops, your troops can't be used as cannon fodder.
Liberalism or lack of liberalism doesn't matter to a country that wants to buy or sell goods, unless that country has a "We only want to deal with people who are like us or desperately want to be like us." agenda.
China doesn't treat everything as a zero sum game. Properly done trade, properly done foreign investment, and properly done foreign aid can benefit both countries involved. If you reject this premise of China helping improve the economies of countries around the world in order to increase trade, then you'll have little choice but to embrace the thought of China being an incredibly kind nation going on a hospital building spree in poor countries solely to help the local people with no thoughts of long term gains. That's not a bad point of view. I personally think both explanations apply, but I doubt you have the ability to really wrap your head around the second explanation.
So what's your brilliant plan? If it's "only democratic countries should set international policy", why isn't India in the G7 and named heir apparent to the US when its GDP passes the US GDP? If it's "USA forever", that would be just as crazy as saying every leading empire back to Alexander the Great should never have fallen. The US had it's shot as benevolent dictator outside its own borders and proved to be rapacious, tyrannical, and untrustworthy even to its closest allies. As it fades, others rise. If those others are wise enough to learn, this cycle of one country having far more power over others than any country should finally has a chance of ending. Then maybe, just maybe, the global effort to end the possibility of nuclear armageddon can finally be ended, as the UN has been trying to do for a very long time now.
If my view, countries being free to trade with each other or not, of international law being set by more than a small exclusive club of nations, of ending one country's "right" to unilaterally sanction, destabilize, overthrow, or bomb others, and of finally ending the specter of nuclear annihilation make an idealist, I'll gladly accept that label. What should someone deeply opposed to these ideals be called?
-
The most populous hierarchical society in the world believes in equal partnerships? You need to vist China some time.
Meanwhile, what should AU do? Decouple. Decouple like a motherfucker. And recognize ourselves as the least defensible continent in the world, and perhaps one of the least well defended societies in the world.
Respect the Chinese. Take them at their word. They want changes to occur in Australia and they're willing to use force. But they're weak. Economic power is destructive, but it isn't strength. They hate their own circumstances so much they don't want to make babies.
Raises a question. Emerging powers that see opportunities slipping away... do they let them go? No. And China won't. China and CCP are entirely big enough to consider the use of force viable.
The question is, engage with these motherfuckers or let them burn? But see, does engagement mean accepting China as an international economic powerhouse or does it mean proceeding with decoupling but use a lot of diplomacy to - somehow - avoid them being pissed off by their declining economic importance? Does let them burn mean sacrificing, say, Taiwan and all the nearby countries who can be intimidated now?
A few years are needed to unravel the international China narrative. All that bullshit about mutual respect and cold war mentality and rising and declining. The cloud of lies and murder. The west has been way too accommodating and needs to get it's act together. Signs suggest it will, and at the same time it will be too little too late.
Drumbeat of fucking war.
-
"It's all your own fault if...." is not a way to talk about war.
"If you want China to be the enemy..." is not a way to talk about friendship.
War and enemies... most of the world knows about that stuff in their region. I don't think we'll see Chinese troops in Europe or the US and probably not in AU. But for the first time in a long time, conflict will be present in western daily lives. Infrastructure disruption and substantial economic fall out. Seems like the pandemic is presently providing us with a taste. Maybe that's at least partly why talk of war seems more real. The poor westerners have seem a little privation so now we know.
But I do think it's time to stop being shocked. Standing around horrified is peacetime privilege. Just like, I guess, making martial speeches is wartime privilege.
It'll be disruptive. But not everyone will die. Yay.
-
Or, to sum up, I think we've entered a new phase of
miserable great power relations, and it behooves us all to stop talking the bullshit of the previous phase. I think it's okay to call China on its bullshit and it's stupid and dangerous to lie.
-
I'll agree it's a new phase. I'd say changing from coldwar dialogue would be a huge step in the right direction.
You might want to consider Chinese history. Unlike the US and unlike the European empires in the Age of Exploration Colonization, China keeps any military disagreements close to home. In the 1400's, China had the world's biggest fleet which included the world's biggest ships. The "Treasure Fleet" got it's name for carrying treasure outward to establish trade. They also had more than enough soldiers to protect the ships and deal with pirates.
The fleet went as far as Africa. Countries weren't conquered and colonized. They were recruited as trading partners. Yes, it wasn't perfect. Some interference in local affairs happened in some places. At least one local king who ran piracy operations against his neighbors found out the hard way not to try piracy against a giant fleet, but overall it was minor compared to what was just beginning to get cranked up by the Europeans.
Sadly, the growth of richer and richer merchants threatened some of the political elite enough that the voyages were ended and the larger ships were destroyed. Yes, you could try to stretch this to the present, but reigning in some giant corporations with fines and breaking up monopolies also happens in the USA+vassals camp too. If the US doesn't decide to try a bit more reigning in, wait and see what happens when Amazon starts buying up defense contractors.
Compare that to what Europeans did to North America, South America, Africa, SE Asia, and that place inhabited by kangaroos, koala's, and some guy called Calach.
After the end of the Treasure Fleet, I suspect it would be very difficult to find any significant military activities involving China further away from the mainland than than the SCS. This is unlike the US, which feels free to invade globally and, like a proper bully, tries to drag a few followers along to help (and help absorb some of the damage directed at the bully).
If the US would keep itself out of Asia, defense budgets, including China's, could be reduced. The US itself would then be able to cut its own defense budget, if Congress (where the weapons industry is a huge supplier of campaign funds) were to agree.
In the meantime, China is busy slashing tariffs for goods from the 16 poorest countries in the world. Your fear of China suddenly deciding conquer the world isn't stopping the improvements this will bring to the lives of those who live in such countries.
The world is at a cross roads. The US can continue to push to remain a hegemon (which as worked out VERY badly for so many countries, even democratic ones), or the world moves towards being multipolar.
Will a multipolar world be perfect? Probably not. Will it be better than world run by a fading hegemon willing to literally anything to remain as #1 both militarily and economically? Probably. Aggressively pushing for a war that could spiral out of control just to slow a hegemon's inevitable decline seems rather unfair to the rest of the planet.
-
To the extent that US practice impoverishes it's own people, it is in decline. The more wealth is concentrated, the more rigidly maintained those mechanisms for concentration, the less the nation as represented by it people can be great. That seems to be the way it works in America.
But if "the west" had its origin in the Ancient Greeks, stories of decline are nativist entertainment. Even talk of hegemons is misguided.
Science isn't uniquely western, but I do think the eastern approach is destructive of scientific knowledge. Which, by the way, means China IS Darth Vader. "Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the [East]."
That technological terror, though, that's what enabled all those people in poverty in China to be "lifted" to less absolute a poverty. China did it. With the tools of global interconnectedness.
I don't think China can sustain as productive, and terrible, an empire as the US and the Europeans have done. For better or worse, we'll be poorer, and dumber, and saddled with duller entertainment, under the Chinese thumb. It'd actually be bizarre if somehow western crisis collectivism somehow didn't respond to being so bored.
That's probably one of the stronger reasons China keeps trying to separate western powers. Don't trust the US, don't be led by others, you're in decline, know your place. It's telling just how miserable the Chinese approach to other powers is.
The "decline" of the US is the "rise" of China inasmuch as the condition described by US "decline" is kind of an ideal world. That "rise" isn't a rise to prominence of glorious, what achievement? It's a settling at a lower level.
Papermaking, printing, gunpowder and the compass. Anything else over "5000" years? What were the social and cultural achievements? Pottery?
Seriously, why is it going to be a better world for most people?
-
That's to say, since Chinese appear mostly to undermine, not build up, the world, their's is not a "rise".
-
You need to revisit China. Yes, it has build some intersting weapons, but that's been the case of all countries with advance science. You conveniently skip over the fact that China is putting larger efforts into not only civilian use technology, but also into basic research. No one's going to weaponize the world's largest radio telescope any more than NASA's Hubble and Web Telescopes. Your Darth Vader reference is amusing, but misguided.
Weapons didn't lift people out of poverty. Improved agricultural techniques and improved economic opportunities for the impoverished did.
You really should do some research on more recent Chinese technological developments. Check the US Patent Office to see how many patents Huawei and BOE got last year. Check the amounts of scientific and medical data shared in major journals. Then come back and try to pretend that paper was the last "worthy" item invented in China.
I'm a space fanatic. I'll let you in on a little secret I figured out watching China's space program. The time lags between the first few crewed launches drove me bonkers. WHY WHY WHY wouldn't they launch faster? Outside hate is strong too. Every time China accomplishes something in space, it gets attacked as copied, will fall apart in 10 seconds, a piece of a Death Star (or a Force focusing weapon if you like), and allegedly proves that there's a brand new SPACE RACE. Stop and think. If it really was all copied, China could never pass the US, so the US already won the race before starting. If it was all going to fall apart in 10 seconds, it could never win the race or make a useful weapon. But the critical secret is . . .
China is NOT racing the US in space. China's space plans are laid out long in advance and progress is at a stately pace to help avoid bad things like the Apollo 1 fire.
Similarly, China isn't trying to be economically bigger than the US. China is growing its economy to help it's own people and helps other economies grow which provides more trade opportunities which helps its economy grow more. If China's population was only 50 million, the same economic growth rates from impoverished towards prosperity would not have even ruffled the feathers of US hawks. China will continue to try to grow in a fast, but stable fashion whether the US economy doubles tomorrow or falls into Great Depression II tomorrow.
China wants to progress. If it can do this in beneficial cooperation with others, great. If not, China will march on anyway. Happily for China, the majority of nations (including the USA) seem more than willing to continue economic cooperation.
Sadly, at current rates, I think we're about 20 years from China and India having to provide massive foreign aid to keep Americans from starving.
-
Again with the idealism?
"we've entered a new phase of miserable great power relations, and it behooves us all to stop talking the bullshit of the previous phase"
That was me being idealistic, I guess.
-
the polarisation that goes together with this "debate" is too warlike. if I were to be idealistic, I'd say alienating talk is a sign of talk refused. If "discussion" leads to "sides", someone knows about the middle way and doesn't want it. War is too expensive really to imagine that the profit of warmongers is enough to make it happen. So however complex international relations are, if people can't get it together to get together, then after a while, just fuck it. let's do a war. Finding deep states or nefarious multinationals behind conflict is fine. Why not have someone profit from the mess. But, idealistically, it's people who can unfuck this situation, and its people who don't, so let's just do what the people want. It'll be fine. It's too much work to keep saying the west has to be contrite or the west has to keep China from losing her shit and blowing up an island. Fuck them. Let em do it. Shoot back for a bit. Don't listen to the negative nancies. War isn't that bad, not really. Because, seriously, do you really have anything better to be doing? Enough with the shooting holes in water.
-
Let me think. Try to promote good ideals vs. spreading hate and beating the drums of war. The ideals I was taught in America don't jive with American actions, historical or recent.
If you don't understand the power of corporate profits and wars, you should study what the US was up to in Central America between the wars. If you don't understand the power of the US military manufacturers, you should look up Eisenhower's speech about the Military Industrial Complex and also check to see which corporations regularly make massive campaign donations to hawkish candidates.
Have you even been following weapons shipments to the Ukraine. First the US got it's Eastern EU allies to send all their old Soviet gear. Then they got their allies across Europe to send all other old gear. How's NATO supposed to do whatever it is NATO does unless it replaces all that old gear.
Now they've worked their way up to newer items and are sending those just fast enough so that Russia can advance in some areas and be pushed back in others. Both sides retain hope of victory, keep fighting, and keep expending ammo and weapons.
Kindly tell me why the mighty and powerful Oz USA and NATO would do it this way instead of sending stuff as fast as they can train the Ukrainians how to use it (and why not send LOTS more things they do not to use continuously)? How does "Drain Russia as try as possible so that it can't possibly regain economic or military power any time soon AND drain NATO of as many items as possible so the US defense manufacturers will have a great time "helping" them restock over the next few years" strike you? The US is ready to fight Russia with every drop of Ukranian blood and reap financial benefits (including sending natural gas to Europe at special extra high war rates) in the process.
But, the Ukraine might decide to offer the Donbas region up to save a lot of lives and the US would have a hard time preventing this, so it's time to provoke China and beat the drums of war in SE Asia. "Hey Japan, Australia, and S. Korea! See if you can also provoke China. We've got your back, and we'll give you a few percent off on some overpriced weapons to show you how important you are. Just ignore us trading more and more with China while we try to convince you that China will eat you unless you kneel before the US flag."
Before the "All things of China are evil" campaign was embraced, America was perfectly OK dealing with China despite various disagreements. America still deals with China while trying to convince other countries not to (even selling coal to make up for China not buying Australian coal).
The optimal US play is to push one or more nearby countries into a "small" war with China, throw up a few sanctions, and sell a lot of weapons (but not so many to result in a quick resolution) while bragging about how helpful the US is being.
Unfortunately, the more likely scenario is the US getting drawn in and then what would have been a "good for TV ratings war" turns into a serious conflict massive casualties and a large chance of going nuclear. Maybe you think that's fun, but non-psychopaths disapprove of blowing up cities.
The world would be safer if the US took a vacation from Asia.