Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I don't understand is how people claim that China's military is progressing at a much faster rate than the U.S.' even when the United States spends far more annually on military technology? Our Air Force and Navy are technologically much more advanced, and we continue to hurl money at them to build more advanced equipment, how then can someone explain why China is going to all of a sudden eclipse the US in terms of military might? I was reading about the Chinese Navy and it said they were having tons of trouble procuring the technology for the next generation of Han attack subs, so I find it hard to believe what you've been saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rate of Chinese military advancement is higher than the US for a variety of reasons:

1. They were starting with much less technologically than us, and you are talking rates of growth here not absolute size/spending
2. The US military budget is spread over a much larger mission area -- takes a lot of resources to choose to police the world
3. The US is involved in a foolish war that costs $10-20B/month and is wearing out its equipment at rates never envisioned during their design (tanks, planes, etc. all utilized at wartime rates for extended periods)

There is also the bow wave of numbers that are a concern for those who are determined to maintain US full-spectrum dominance. China currently graduates 4x as many engineers and scientists per year than the US, a whopping 52% of Chinese graduates are in technical areas (compared to ~18% for US). Once they combine their rapidly increasing supply of technical know-how with the capital generated by a burgeoning economy, they will be in position to rival the US. One could argue that our dominance was essentially founded on the enormous capital rushed in after WWII when at one point the US produced over 50% of all manufactured goods on earth (Japan and Europe in mostly ruins) and our superior higher education system which began to be much more utilized by the general public folloiwng the war years.

NTB hopes we work together as allies in the future (hopefully for good). This is a nice goal I would support. Based on how the US has behaved in foreign policy in the 15 yrs since the end of the Cold War, I wouldn't bet on it. Maybe the fact that we might not be able to outspend and dominate China in the future might bring about some new humility, however. Based on the "beware of China" rhetoric from many leaders, it would be a new course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, NewTeaBag, for your many fine and informative posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

[/ QUOTE ]

And thanks to you also, Kaj, for your penetrating questions and for sharing your interesting perceptions.

Re: Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful
 

China is like the USA where they would feel the need to "guide" other countries. They are not violet as we Americans are.

War is stupid.....

Anyways, the two countries will never fight eachother because the two need eachother to survive. America is a consumer economy, we buy everything that China makes. Without the USA, China would be nothing of what they are today.

The Chinese know this, like we know this. The USA made China what it is today! They make everything, and we buy it...

There will be no such war between the USA and China during our lifetime, with that being said, at the rate their going, they may become more powerful but will not act on it.

I hope once we get our horrible president out of office, our country will hopefully strive again.

That Coward Harry Truman **** Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think a war between the US and China is sickeningly likely, but if it happens, it's virtually certain to be over an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends...by treaty the USA is obligated to go to war to protect Taiwan. If we have a democrat in the White House (i.e. a dishonorable coward), then the USA will welch on the treaty and let Taiwan be swallowed.

If we have Repub (a REAL MAN) in the White House, then US NAVY will crush the Chi-Coms Navy. China may try a 'U-Boat' campaign against the USA and how the world reacts to this disruption to international commerce will be very interesting. China loses the naval war and they never fully deploy their big army on Taiwan.

My position is the USA should have had WW3 in 1950 after:
1. The Chi-Coms attack the US/UN forces in Korea via a surprise attack.
2. The USSR Air Force attack US Bombers in Korea.

MacArthur correcly implied Truman was a coward and Truman fired him for it. If we went to war then, we would have crippled communism and their imperial ambitions... Personally, I think we could have beaten the USSR in three years while holding the Chi-Coms in a holding action. Gen Patton was not very impressed by the Russian army. He thought they were poorly supplied.

Re: That Coward Harry Truman **** Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we have a democrat in the White House (i.e. a dishonorable coward), then the USA will welch on the treaty and let Taiwan be swallowed. ... If we have Repub (a REAL MAN) in the White House,...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm sure there's some great objective, reasoned analysis coming...

Re: That Coward Harry Truman **** Things Up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think a war between the US and China is sickeningly likely, but if it happens, it's virtually certain to be over an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends...by treaty the USA is obligated to go to war to protect Taiwan. If we have a democrat in the White House (i.e. a dishonorable coward), then the USA will welch on the treaty and let Taiwan be swallowed.

If we have Repub (a REAL MAN) in the White House, then US NAVY will crush the Chi-Coms Navy. China may try a 'U-Boat' campaign against the USA and how the world reacts to this disruption to international commerce will be very interesting. China loses the naval war and they never fully deploy their big army on Taiwan.

My position is the USA should have had WW3 in 1950 after:
1. The Chi-Coms attack the US/UN forces in Korea via a surprise attack.
2. The USSR Air Force attack US Bombers in Korea.

MacArthur correcly implied Truman was a coward and Truman fired him for it. If we went to war then, we would have crippled communism and their imperial ambitions... Personally, I think we could have beaten the USSR in three years while holding the Chi-Coms in a holding action. Gen Patton was not very impressed by the Russian army. He thought they were poorly supplied.

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters:[*]Being a Repub or a Dem does not make one a real man or a coward there exist examples of both in both parties.
-IMO, Clinton was a draft dodgng coward unfit to be CinC of The US Military
-IMO GW was only a step away from being a draft dodging coward using the NG as a safe haven to avoid service in Vietnam. That coupled with his low intelligence makes him unfit to be CinC of the military
- Kerry served militarily with distinction, despite the political respinning and assasination of his service record during the election cycle.
- Carter was a Navy Nuclear Submarine trained man, yet few would characterize his term in office as "manly"
- Bush snr was a WWII combat veteran Navy Pilot who served with distinction
- Kennedy was also a Naval Officer who served with distinctinon in WWII

Note that cowardice and or manliness does not necesarily come from or directly derive from being an elephant or a donkey.
[*] China retaking Taiwan by force is unlikely in the very near future "barring some huge political military change". Look to my above discussions and you will see that rather than attack now, when they would likely retake the island (leaving it a charred uninhabitabe rock post combat phase) but lose the bulk of their Navy and Air force in the effort as well as 100,000s of troops. They would also give The US Navy a fair beating up of it's own. What would happen "post retake"? Can a fight of this scale with so many dead and so much economic damage NOT escalate?

WHy not wait the 5to10to15to20 years it would take to gain control of the region "without firing a shot" and then simply "walk into Taiwan" once The US Navy's position has become far weaker (in theater) and the Chinese Navy and Air Forces have become that much stronger?

Chinese, and Asian for that matter, philosophy is a far longer looking perspective then the US/western "we want it now" "Your way right away" culture.
IMO, that means they are probly smart enough to see that their position will be stronger and The US's weaker later so why risk dumping a bucket of water on their now boiling economic expansion (which fuels the military revival) now?

A better question is this? Will whatever new president, and his party, and advisors, and congress have the intelligence to look a bit deeper into the future to see that China, as a staunch ally, would be hugely more beneficial than as a fierce enemy? Will they have the courage to work towards this? Vice trying to gain immediate politcal points scoring via "damn that Chinese threat" style public arguments.

This is Poli, home of the semi-barely applicable analogy so I'll throw in an oft repeated story, but one which bears basic truths in many situations.

Papa bull and son bull are stood on top of a hill looking down into a valley of tasty looking cows. Son bull says to pappa bull "Hey dad!! Let's run down there and [censored] us one of them there cows!" Papa bull replies, "No son. Lets walk down there, and [censored] them ALL"