Where Goes China?

[BiscayneSunrise]

China stands at a crossroads. In only 40 years, they have gone from an insular and brutal dictatorship to a key world player.

The geopolitical question is "Where does China go from here?

Some people say the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century and will see the Chinese replace the US as the world superpower.

My view is slightly different. China has no history of global leadership, either benevolent or hegemonic. As matter of fact, the opposite, is true. In times of great stress, the Chinese pull back deep inside their borders and work on achieving domestic goals.

The Chinese are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and a fledgling infrastructure. The Chinese may very well become a global superpower but the timing is not right. Their reserves may be a lot of money but it would be squandered with building a global blue water navy (the first requirement to be a global superpower). I believe the Chinese leadership will take their new found wealth and begin a massive spend on internal programs to leverage and solidify the gains of the last 20 years. This will help ease social unrest, and create a robust internal economy less dependent on exports.

I'm not denying that the Chinese won't expand their military somewhat and create deeper relations with suppliers around the world but this will only be to help fortify their domestic economy. It will only be then, 20-50 years out, where China will flex muscle. And even then, I am not certain it is in the Chinese mindset to be an expansionist power, like the UK or the US.

Thoughts?

[c1ue]

Greg,

I think one fundamental difference between China today and China in the Chung Kuo "Central Kingdom" era is the recognition today that China must have resources from beyond its borders.

This dictates fundamentally different behavior.

I do agree China would bankrupt itself trying to emulate a US style blue water fleet - on the other hand this is not the only option.

Aircraft carriers are large and complex - the skill sets include massive logistical, aeronautical, nautical, EW, and other realms of expertise.

On the other hand, submarines are significantly less complex - especially if the objective is simply to place a nuclear torpedo or mine inside a carrier task force.

This technology already exists in Russia and has been bought - at least the ultra high speed underwater missiles if not the advanced submarines themselves.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/220813.shtml

In this context, the recent US/China naval confrontation makes more sense.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Fair enough. I have actually read some serious analysts suggest we begin drawing down our carrier task forces given the expense, vulnerability and the cheaper technology out there.

What I am getting at is that China has only reached a very rudimentary stage of economic development and that to fully advance to global economic superpower status they still need to do some homework. The analogy would be a noveau riche with his first million. Rather than squander the money on luxuries, the money is best invested to create even more wealth.

China, will certainly, spend a lot of diplomatic effort solidifying relations with other countries but I don't see them throwing their weight around in a belligerent military fashion as some suggest. And i certainly don't see a major shooting war between the us and China.

China has immense untapped human resources and I feel it would serve their long term interest best to fully concentrate on bringing the rest of the country up to the standard we see in the major cities.

[c1ue]

Greg,

No argument with your points.

I would note that the carrier task forces are useful if for no other reason than to stress to other nations just how far back they are militarily.

Ultimately the submarine thing is purely defensive in an all-out war scenario, and that itself is contraindicated if both powers have any numbers of nukes (which they do w/ respect to the US and China).

The carrier task groups on the other hand have lots of capability in terms of force projection; an effort such as Iraq I and II is simply out of the question for almost any other nation.

But ultimately the arbiter of ground warfare victory is a 17 year old with a rifle standing on the ground. While the US has racked up a great kill ratio in Iraq and Afghanistan, history will judge whether it is the kill ratio that matters. Certainly it didn't for Vietnam.

[The Outback Oracle]

Did I see a number of 100,000 rounds per enemy killed?

[Rajiv]

I think one fundamental difference between China today and China in the Chung Kuo "Central Kingdom" era is the recognition today that China must have resources from beyond its borders.

The US must have resources from beyond its borders.
Europe must have resources from beyond its borders.
India must have resources from beyond its borders.
I am sure many other nations/regions feel the same way!

Does anybody here see the disconnect?

[touchring]

The US must have resources from beyond its borders.
Europe must have resources from beyond its borders.
India must have resources from beyond its borders.
I am sure many other nations/regions feel the same way!

Does anybody here see the disconnect?


The difference is in how the resources are acquired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> Iraq Signs Oil Deal With China Worth Up to $3 Billion </nyt_headline>

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1377748800&en=901d085f47a76988&ei=5124';}</script> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript"> function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('Iraq Signs Oil Deal With China Worth Up to $3 Billion'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('The contract was the first major oil deal the Iraq government has made with a foreign country since 2003.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Oil (Petroleum) and Gasoline,International Relations,Iraq,China,China National Petroleum'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('world'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('International / Middle East'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent('middleeast'); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By ERICA GOODE and RIYADH MOHAMMED'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('August 29, 2008'); } </script> <script language="javascript"> <!-- function submitCCCForm(){ PopUp = window.open('', '_Icon','location=no,toolbar=no,status=no,width=65 0,height=550,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes'); this.document.cccform.submit(); } // --> </script> <form name="cccform" action="https://s100.copyright.com/CommonApp/LoadingApplication.jsp" target="_Icon"><input name="Title" value="Iraq Signs Oil Deal With China Worth Up to $3 Billion" type="hidden"><input name="Author" value="By ERICA GOODE and RIYADH MOHAMMED" type="hidden"><input name="ContentID" value="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html" type="hidden"><input name="FormatType" value="default" type="hidden"><input name="PublicationDate" value="AUG 29 2008" type="hidden"><input name="PublisherName" value="The New York Times" type="hidden"><input name="Publication" value="nytimes.com" type="hidden"><input name="wordCount" value="760" type="hidden"></form> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">writePost();</script>
(http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/world/middleeast&pos=Frame4A&sn2=8ca84067/d4c26d2b&sn1=db9b9c1b/1432ab8c&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011071c_nyt5&ad=500DOS_120x60_c&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/500daysofsummer)



<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> By ERICA GOODE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/erica_goode/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and RIYADH MOHAMMED
</nyt_byline> Published: August 28, 2008
BAGHDAD — In the first major oil deal Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) has made with a foreign country since 2003, the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Corporation have signed a contract in Beijing that could be worth up to $3 billion, Iraqi officials said Thursday.


This after 2 trillion spent in Iraq and tens of thousands of casualties.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq
http://icasualties.org/

[BiscayneSunrise]

So gentlemen,

If you were an adviser to the Chinese leadership. What would you offer as a long term goal? Diplomatic? Militarily? Economically? What to do about internal development? Taiwan? Tibet? N Korea? Russia? How best to protect their supply chains?

How would you recommend they go forward in terms of allocating resources?

[BiscayneSunrise]

Greg,

No argument with your points.

I would note that the carrier task forces are useful if for no other reason than to stress to other nations just how far back they are militarily.

Ultimately the submarine thing is purely defensive in an all-out war scenario, and that itself is contraindicated if both powers have any numbers of nukes (which they do w/ respect to the US and China).

The carrier task groups on the other hand have lots of capability in terms of force projection; an effort such as Iraq I and II is simply out of the question for almost any other nation.

But ultimately the arbiter of ground warfare victory is a 17 year old with a rifle standing on the ground. While the US has racked up a great kill ratio in Iraq and Afghanistan, history will judge whether it is the kill ratio that matters. Certainly it didn't for Vietnam.

Yeah, the thing about carriers is they look impressive as hell. Satellites and UAV's just don't have the same psychological factor. And even if you rely predominantly on UAV's, given the current state of UAV technology, you still have to get them in theater. Perhaps next generation carriers will be much smaller designed to support squadrons, not of manned airplanes, but squadrons of UAV's. Or looking further out, maybe UAV's will have global range with high speed capability to get from the US to the hot spot in just a few hours.

And to your earlier point, I think the reason why the US and China had that little standoff in the South China Sea last week was because the Impeccable was getting uncomfortably close to a Chinese sub so the Chinese sent in some boats to distract the Impeccable while the sub slinked away. Just a wild guess.

[c1ue]

And to your earlier point, I think the reason why the US and China had that little standoff in the South China Sea last week was because the Impeccable was getting uncomfortably close to a Chinese sub so the Chinese sent in some boats to distract the Impeccable while the sub slinked away. Just a wild guess.

I think ASH talked about this: not an approach to a Chinese sub, but the US ship dropping sonar buoys.

The ship is an ASW type.