[rangerone314]

There have been others who thought that international trade would make war obsolete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Angell#The_Great_Illusion

The thesis of the book was that the integration of the economies of European countries had grown to such a degree that war between them would be entirely futile, making militarism obsolete.

Published in 1909 and also in 1913, a year before World War I broke out.

History never repeats itself but it does rhyme.

[rangerone314]

But that is why China is building stealth bomber/fighter J-20, a fleet of aircraft carriers, own global GPS, stealth busting radar, a blue water navy, and anti-ship missiles. In the future, US won't be able to easily or realistic deny China's import/export transportation ability... but there is always the "first strike nuke" option... and that is my point... American cannot afford to fight conventional war with China... but US doesn't NEED to if nukes will do the tricks.

Read "One Second After" by William R. Forstchen.

I imagine something like that would mysteriously happen to the US if the US went monkeysh*t on China using a first strike nuclear attack. Good luck with cars, trucks, refrigeration, power generation, fuel deliveries, food deliveries to grocery stores (which people would walk to only to find them empty).

[bochen280]

But that is why China is building stealth bomber/fighter J-20, a fleet of aircraft carriers, own global GPS, stealth busting radar, a blue water navy, and anti-ship missiles. In the future, US won't be able to easily or realistic deny China's import/export transportation ability... but there is always the "first strike nuke" option... and that is my point... American cannot afford to fight conventional war with China... but US doesn't NEED to if nukes will do the tricks.

Read "One Second After" by William R. Forstchen.

I imagine something like that would mysteriously happen to the US if the US went monkeysh*t on China using a first strike nuclear attack. Good luck with cars, trucks, refrigeration, power generation, fuel deliveries, food deliveries to grocery stores (which people would walk to only to find them empty).

EMP isn't as scary as the book makes it out to be. The book is an interesting read but still doesn't reflect reality. Stuff would come back in a few days. Hey just a while ago didn't India's entire electric grid go down? I don't see them going back to the stone age. [besides, think logically for a moment here, if China could succeed in doing a nationwide EMP attack on US in a post-strike retaliation, why would they settle for just an ephemeral EMP when they might as well go for a more permanent thermonuclear ?] And you don't think IF the US was to do that kind of sneaky first-strike attack on another so-called "superpower" they would have covered all their bases and have put in contingency plans for all possible retaliation methods? If the CCP was wiped out, who in China is going to retaliate in the first place? The Russians have/had deadhand and automated doomsday weapons, but the only thing the Chinese have is a stringent "No First Use" policy.... hardly a deterrent. From a psychological standpoint, maybe America would bet that it can nuke China and China would NOT retaliate? This is a very real possibility. If China was really nuked and leadership decapitated in a first-strike, I don't think China would retaliate even if it was still capable of doing so. (Given the soft, peaceful, pushover, and forgiving nature of the Chinese) Hence, there is no deterrence and when push comes to shove that makes the nuclear option much more attractive to the US.

[vtsnowedin]

I don't see a preemptive nuclear strike by the US against anyone as even a remote possibility. Especially China. How would the politician's explain to the voters that they destroyed the source of all the stuff they buy at Walmart and the like?
What I do see is a jockeying for position in the oil producing regions of the world. China is investing in Africa and has been stated above in the Canadian tar sands. The danger will come when a supertanker pulls up to the loading point at KSA and the Saudi es have to say not today or tomorrow as a lot of wells have just water leveled out of production. A world wide panic will set in and countries that have oil will shut off exports. The Chinese will figure that the oilfields they have invested in are theirs and will move troops to keep the oil flowing back to China, They will come nose to nose with our troops bent on keeping the oil flowing our way. This will be a disaster and an expensive one at that as both sides will spend a lot of the remaining oil fighting over the dribbles that remain and destroy both economies. Famine will follow.

[EnergyUnlimited]

...but the only thing the Chinese have is a stringent "No First Use" policy.... hardly a deterrent. From a psychological standpoint, maybe America would bet that it can nuke China and China would NOT retaliate? This is a very real possibility. If China was really nuked and leadership decapitated in a first-strike, I don't think China would retaliate even if it was still capable of doing so. (Given the soft, peaceful, pushover, and forgiving nature of the Chinese) Hence, there is no deterrence and when push comes to shove that makes the nuclear option much more attractive to the US.

It is really crap military planning to assume that your adversary is a *cretin*.
Never works well and it ensures that you lose.

So it is best to assume that Chinese *no first use* policy is just a means to fool Americans, who are often quite frankly stupid or at least you are.

Ideas that Chinese would not retaliate if they have opportunity to do so are plain insane.
It is also plain insane to assume that Chinese nuclear assets are as limited as claimed by Being - some extremely nasty surprise can easy come out of that.

[bochen280]

...but the only thing the Chinese have is a stringent "No First Use" policy.... hardly a deterrent. From a psychological standpoint, maybe America would bet that it can nuke China and China would NOT retaliate? This is a very real possibility. If China was really nuked and leadership decapitated in a first-strike, I don't think China would retaliate even if it was still capable of doing so. (Given the soft, peaceful, pushover, and forgiving nature of the Chinese) Hence, there is no deterrence and when push comes to shove that makes the nuclear option much more attractive to the US.

It is really crap military planning to assume that your adversary is a *cretin*.
Never works well and it ensures that you lose.

So it is best to assume that Chinese *no first use* policy is just a means to fool Americans, who are often quite frankly stupid or at least you are.

Ideas that Chinese would not retaliate if they have opportunity to do so are plain insane.
It is also plain insane to assume that Chinese nuclear assets are as limited as claimed by Being - some extremely nasty surprise can easy come out of that.

Was that a typo? You meant to say Beijing, right? What is the point of having more capable nuclear deterrence capabilities if you HIDE IT? The whole point of deterrence is to make it well known to your opponent that you have a credible one. In any case, it is the American perception of the credibility of China's nuclear deterrence that factors in the relative attractiveness of a first-strike option. And in these cases, perception often have a very large influence on reality and the actions that stem from that. If China had a more credible deterrence there would be no point in hiding it. If China foolishly believes that purposeful ambiguity can serve the same as a projection of a more powerful deterrence, well that might not work out too well for them.

[bochen280]

I don't see a preemptive nuclear strike by the US against anyone as even a remote possibility. Especially China. How would the politician's explain to the voters that they destroyed the source of all the stuff they buy at Walmart and the like?

It would likely be martial law at this point. The internet kill switch would probably be thrown and media cutoff... and as for the 'cheap stuff', indentured servitude camps will have plenty of people working for free to provide the cheap labor.

What I do see is a jockeying for position in the oil producing regions of the world. China is investing in Africa and has been stated above in the Canadian tar sands. The danger will come when a supertanker pulls up to the loading point at KSA and the Saudi es have to say not today or tomorrow as a lot of wells have just water leveled out of production. A world wide panic will set in and countries that have oil will shut off exports. The Chinese will figure that the oilfields they have invested in are theirs and will move troops to keep the oil flowing back to China, They will come nose to nose with our troops bent on keeping the oil flowing our way. This will be a disaster and an expensive one at that as both sides will spend a lot of the remaining oil fighting over the dribbles that remain and destroy both economies. Famine will follow.

Exactly, both sides would quickly reach point of diminishing returns as EROEI drops even further... each side fighting over last remaining bits of oil will make it even worse than if they just negotiate on a deal and shared the zero sum pie...

So it really comes down to only two scenarios:

1) US negotiates their non-negotiable way of life with the Chinese to a level that the Chinese find fair and acceptable... and a level the US can tolerate...
OR
2) US take China out of the equation altogether....

The first option will likely never be tenable because the Chinese acceptable standard of living and US acceptable compromised standard of living mutually excludes each other... Not only is it zero-sum, the pie is ever shrinking.... The latter option is of course the nuclear first-strike option. The latter option is more attractive IF US believes China to only possess minimally effective deterrence/retaliation capabilities.... and right now, as it stands, that is the case.

[EnergyUnlimited]

If China had a more credible deterrence there would be no point in hiding it.

False.
Lets say to produce first strike capability against US without causing unnecessary arms race.

If China foolishly believes that purposeful ambiguity can serve the same as a projection of a more powerful deterrence, well that might not work out too well for them.

But if you assume it foolishly, you might lose.

[bochen280]

If China had a more credible deterrence there would be no point in hiding it.

False.
Lets say to produce first strike capability against US without causing unnecessary arms race.

I think you meant second-strike capability. China has no first-strike capability against anyone of the nuclear nations. And even if they did, it is against their long stated policy to strike first. Unlike the US and Russia, China has vowed to never even launch-on-warning and will only launch after confirmed attack has already taken place. This position puts China at a disadvantage and gives the first-strike nation a premium.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I think you meant second-strike capability. China has no first-strike capability against anyone.

So it is quite reasonable to expect that they are working on it... and it is entirely unknown, how advanced is such a work...

You see, I bet that recent US adventures here and there are making countries like Russia or China quite determined to acquire something what might prove in confrontation to be a first (and final...) strike capability against US.
It would obviously rely on massive atomic first strikes, perhaps preceded by EMP attacks.
But you are unlikely to hear official statements about that.

US would probably retaliate to a significant degree in any case but for China that could be an acceptable loss allowing to alleviate local population problems.

And even if they did, it is against their long stated policy to strike first.

Sometimes cigar is just a cigar... but sometimes it is not...
Do not confuse public projections with actual policy.

[rangerone314]

EMP isn't as scary as the book makes it out to be. The book is an interesting read but still doesn't reflect reality. Stuff would come back in a few days. Hey just a while ago didn't India's entire electric grid go down? I don't see them going back to the stone age. [besides, think logically for a moment here, if China could succeed in doing a nationwide EMP attack on US in a post-strike retaliation, why would they settle for just an ephemeral EMP when they might as well go for a more permanent thermonuclear ?] And you don't think IF the US was to do that kind of sneaky first-strike attack on another so-called "superpower" they would have covered all their bases and have put in contingency plans for all possible retaliation methods? If the CCP was wiped out, who in China is going to retaliate in the first place? The Russians have/had deadhand and automated doomsday weapons, but the only thing the Chinese have is a stringent "No First Use" policy.... hardly a deterrent. From a psychological standpoint, maybe America would bet that it can nuke China and China would NOT retaliate? This is a very real possibility. If China was really nuked and leadership decapitated in a first-strike, I don't think China would retaliate even if it was still capable of doing so. (Given the soft, peaceful, pushover, and forgiving nature of the Chinese) Hence, there is no deterrence and when push comes to shove that makes the nuclear option much more attractive to the US.

India's entire electric grid wasn't destroyed... selected points of failure caused a cascade... trucks, cars weren't blown out by an EMP. There was no pulse to destroy transitors. The damage from India's power failure compared to a major EMP attack is like comparing a mosquito bite to a shotgun wound.

As far as China being a pushover and forgiving, I'm not even going to go there, LOL! Seems very naive.

[rangerone314]

When China's economy is bigger than the US's, they'll be able to bankrupt our economy in an arms race the way the US hurt the USSR in that arms race. And without as much of the R&D, they can steal what technology they want. (its a disgrace)

[evilgenius]

I think the board is losing perspective in this argument. The biggest reason why China doesn't have as much nuclear firepower as one might imagine is not because of anything to do with the West. The biggest reason is their complicated regional relationship with India. In order not to get caught in an economically crippling arms race with India they have opted to keep their nuclear forces small. This has helped both China and India, neither having to overspend on the most expensive military tech. Having done this both of these very large countries concentrated on their economic futures, developing themselves into exporting countries. This initiative underwrites my contention that the West doesn't have much reason to fear Asia, unless it chooses to create something.

[bochen280]

I think the board is losing perspective in this argument. The biggest reason why China doesn't have as much nuclear firepower as one might imagine is not because of anything to do with the West. The biggest reason is their complicated regional relationship with India. In order not to get caught in an economically crippling arms race with India they have opted to keep their nuclear forces small. This has helped both China and India, neither having to overspend on the most expensive military tech. Having done this both of these very large countries concentrated on their economic futures, developing themselves into exporting countries. This initiative underwrites my contention that the West doesn't have much reason to fear Asia, unless it chooses to create something.

Its all about geopolitics... maybe that is what the West wants? For China and India to concentrate on economics at the expense of defense so when push comes to shove West can take out BOTH India and China (half of world population!) in one fell swoop since both nations only have minimal deterrence.... and thereby push peak oil into the future another 20 years?

[evilgenius]

I think the board is losing perspective in this argument. The biggest reason why China doesn't have as much nuclear firepower as one might imagine is not because of anything to do with the West. The biggest reason is their complicated regional relationship with India. In order not to get caught in an economically crippling arms race with India they have opted to keep their nuclear forces small. This has helped both China and India, neither having to overspend on the most expensive military tech. Having done this both of these very large countries concentrated on their economic futures, developing themselves into exporting countries. This initiative underwrites my contention that the West doesn't have much reason to fear Asia, unless it chooses to create something.

Its all about geopolitics... maybe that is what the West wants? For China and India to concentrate on economics at the expense of defense so when push comes to shove West can take out BOTH India and China (half of world population!) in one fell swoop since both nations only have minimal deterrence.... and thereby push peak oil into the future another 20 years?

Maybe not that so much as an Indian alliance with a country like Russia would entirely destabilize US plans for the region. India has flirted with Russia to varying degrees in the past. It was beneficial to them when Russia and China were at it during the Cold War. They used the alliance to thwart China then. They could use it to thwart the US today if they find themselves in a choke hold over resources. The picture gets very cloudy when you stop always seeing one country or one side with a white or a black hat, doesn't it?

[rangerone314]

Picture this WWIII scenario: US & Europe & India vs China, Russia & Islamic world

[ralfy]

In relation to costs,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OT5uw1Fb_0

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of ... its-2010-6

[bochen280]

Picture this WWIII scenario: US & Europe & India vs China, Russia & Islamic world

You left out Israel.

[sparky]

.
India is a military joke ,the Islamic word is a concept most Muslim states are solid pro west
including the most militants like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
Morocco , Indonesia and Egypt are very pro U.S. ,
the rest have food deficit and need vast amount of grain imports ,
that's controlled by the West traders and navies
China doesn't want any war , they are winning as it is
Russia doesn't want any war either ,
if forced into one they have the option of vitrifying the Easter edge of NATO
as a warning to the rest to cool down

[bochen280]

http://www.defcondeterrence.com/ <- Just in Time for Dec 2012 Spirit

(this is my own website and no, its not spam)