War With China September 6, 2010
Posted by Michael in News.trackback
I love Chinese military parades. You gotta admit, they look pretty scary. They look like they are ready to kick some ass, which is the whole purpose of these parades. I don’t think I have shown this one before. It is awesome. Note that the boot-stomps and other sound effects are dubbed in. Also, they are using Western military march music to produce this spectacle.
These parades conceal a deeper reality about the vulnerability of China.
Here’s how a war with China would happen.
1. China goes nuts about Taiwan or oil rights in the South China Sea, and attacks. In the process, they shoot at a U.S. carrier task force.
2. Whilst calmly offering a military response, the U.S. repudiates it’s debt to China, currently around $900 billion. We twiddle our thumbs for a few days while the renminbi (the Chinese currency) goes under, the Chinese banking system collapses, and the Chinese economy is exposed as a house of cards and heads for the Stone Age.
3. Guess what, we win. And there is a big bonus — our debt structure is more sustainable. A war with China would be hugely profitable. Bring it.
See, the underlying reality of U.S.-China relations is this: the elites in China have maintained their legitimacy and power with economic growth. That growth has been fueled by piratical foreign exchange rates, which means they hold huge amounts of dollars, the world’s reserve currency. They can’t really afford to piss us off in a big way. We hold all the cards, and those cards are U.S. Treasury bonds. They deserve their weak position, because they basically ripped us off to pump up their economy.
So, China, I love your parades. But at the core, your economy, your demographics, and your politics are rotten. You fail to scare me.
Long-term, an amicable and productive relationship with China means they have to wean themselves from the drug of artificial exchange rates. They get this; it’s just something they keep putting off.
Obama does not get this, of course. The Community Organizer In Chief does not have an ounce of economic sense. He projects weakness to the Chinese, and they can smell it on him.
What an ass.
I like your version of how it would go down, Michael & I sure as hell hope it’s right. The scary part is I’m afraid we may have to find out some day.
I see it differently, of course. In my scenario China avoids a hot war with Taiwan by continuing to isolate them internationally, and by continuing to fortify the strait so as to make it too expensive for military intervention by the US. Then they lean on Taiwan until they capitulate without doing anything more militant than military exercises. Taiwan will give them an economic boost as well as help Hong Kong and Macao provide financial stability.
The only question is: “What year will Taiwan fall?”
I’m guessing it’ll be about 6 years from now.
Everybody knows you don’t go after China until you have Western Australia, Eastern Australia, Indonesia and New Guinea already.
Then you just sit back and build up your armies on Siam, while taking a country here and there, so you can get cards.
Hmmm. I see, Wiser, that you are a seasoned veteran of the “Risk” type of global war board game. My low opinion of you is slightly improved. You might not be totally stupid, even as a non-Lutheran.
I see, Wiser, that you are a seasoned veteran of the “Risk” type of global war board game.
How do you think I became a conservative? Growing up, I played games like “Risk” and “Monopoly.”
Unlike liberals, whom, based on the current leader of their party, seem to have grown up playing games like “Dream Date.”
I see it differently, of course.
Geoff, I get your point, of course, and it’s plausible.
But look at the senior Chinese leadership in that video. They are all wearing coke-bottle glasses. They don’t have micro-thin air permeable contact lenses, like you and I can easily buy.
You get my point. God bless the Chinese, they are trying to catch up, but technologically they are still at Release 2.2 while we are zooming forward from Release 4.3, and they don’t have a social structure that will help them catch up.
Like us, they have a huge history of entrepreneurship and successful global trading.
They don’t have Madonna.
We win.
Wiser, that was excellent.
I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again.
Worldwide, America’s cultural influence is far more important than our military threat.
Don’t believe me? Fly around a little, and pay attention. Watch Korean kids trying to look like American blacks. You’ll get what I mean.
Wiser, that was excellent.
Oh, great. Now Michael’s gonna ban me.
Reagan thought that we are the last best hope of man on earth.
He spelled this out in a speech on American exceptionalism, which you can read here.
That speech expresses precisely what our current president rejects. Obama wants us to be part of the crowd, one of the European social welfare states that he thinks is cool, even as they collapse.
Unfortunately, he does not seem to recognize that their season in the sun, now over, was subsidized by America’s military and cultural hegemony, and our economic prowess.
He wants us to be like Spain. We should really be committed to green jobs and enormous public sector union employment.
Guess what? Spain tried that, and it is close to bankruptcy. Greece already has gone down the toilet. The Germans are keeping Greece’s economy on life support. I don’t know why. Eventually, Germany is going to figure out that the Euro is a rip-off for southern Europe.
but technologically they are still at Release 2.2 while we are zooming forward from Release 4.3
Yeah, but in the past decade they went from 1.0 to 2.2, and we went from 4.1 to 4.3.
Just look at the semiconductor industry. In the 90′s we were leaders in semiconductor manufacturing, and China didn’t have any capability to speak of. Now?
Just look at the semiconductor industry.
Um, Geoff, chill. The semiconductor industry is a commodity. It’s on the downslope of the product life cycle. Same for fiber optic technology, or battery technology. The advances are awesome, but predictable. It’s all just Moore’s Law.
Look at the really disruptive technologies. Massive-scale mobile broadband. Bio-engineering.
Who owns that?
We do.
We own that because of Madonna.
See, I’m just sayin’, pretty soon you will be able to keep track of your dog on your cell phone with the help of satellites, plus regulate your thermostats and sprinkler system while you are on vacation, and actually watch your house with cheap webcams. The technology for that is here now. I control my thermostats online.
The issue is bandwidth, and that is going to explode. The bandwidth is going to attract a bazillion dollars to meet the demand.
That is not actually some kind of prediction by me. It is happening right now.
Who owns that?
We do.
Not so fast there, boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT0WEFs2S90
Check out this list of top countries in engineering publications.
Massive-scale mobile broadband.
Meh.
Bio-engineering.
Yeah but have a gander at this:
I should explain my “Meh.” The one thing we need more bandwidth for is telecommuting with live video. That will disrupt society and industry, but not necessarily in a good way. It will, however, allow us to reduce our CO2 expenditures cheaply and realistically, so regardless of whether it’s rational or not, we can avoid Cap ‘n Trade penalties.
The bandwidth for telecommuting, though, doesn’t require mobile access – cable or DSL are fine.
All the other features you mention are nice, but not things people will pay much more for.
Check out this list of top countries in engineering publications.
OK, I checked. The U.S is way on top, and China is a distant fifth. What’s your point?
Keep in mind that Chinese engineers publish mundane shit about already well-explored topics.
They don’t have Lady Gaga to motivate them.
The one thing we need more bandwidth for is telecommuting with live video . . .
Dude, we’re deploying that right now. The airline industry is about to take another beating. The technology of for full-motion affordable teleconferencing, with real-time eye contact, is already here. The issue is bandwidth, and it’s in the pipeline.
Dude, we’re deploying that right now. The airline industry is about to take another beating.
Well put me on the list. I’d just as soon telecommute to Massachusetts starting ASAP.
Well put me on the list. I’d just as soon telecommute to Massachusetts starting ASAP.
2014, at the latest. That’s at your home. Earlier, if you will do it at a teleconferencing facility at a nearby home or airport, and your boss will pay for it.
Keep in mind that Chinese engineers publish mundane shit about already well-explored topics.
That’s becoming less and less true. If you read the journals (admittedly I only read fluids & heat transfer journals, but this holds true for them at least), you’ll find that more and more interesting articles are coming from other countries. Thirty years ago that wasn’t the case.
2014, at the latest.
Ack! Then put me on the beta-testing list.
I only read fluids & heat transfer journals…
That sounds like something that shows up in your mailbox in a plain wrapper.
Ack! Then put me on the beta-testing list.
We normally do “friendly-user” trials before we launch a new product, but that is restricted to employees.
I’ll slip you on the list if I can.
Looks like China is currently ranked only 15th in molecular biology and genetics publications.
Lipstick 1, Geoff 0.
That sounds like something that shows up in your mailbox in a plain wrapper.
Lipstick is a mature and wise woman.
Think twice about what she says.
and your boss will pay for it.
Based on my experience, it’s gonna take a lot longer than 2014 for small businesses to embrace that concept.
“…it’s gonna take a lot longer than 2014 for small businesses to embrace that concept.”
Ha ha ha! I … wait, I don’t get it. Can you back to Risk jokes?
Guess I’m going to have to retract those China rankings – they’re the sums over the past 10 years, not any kind of up-to-date ranking.
That sounds like something that shows up in your mailbox in a plain wrapper.
Yes, my career counselor didn’t explain the details very well, so my enthusiasm flagged a bit when I found that journals in my field didn’t actually have centerfolds.
Can you back to Risk jokes?
Honestly, how many Risk jokes are there?
I don’t know, but I bet if you Google around a bit you’ll find more than one web page dedicated to Risk-humor erotica.
… I bet if you Google around a bit you’ll find more than one web page dedicated to Risk-humor erotica.
Why do you wish to destroy one of the few happy memories I have of my childhood?
My deepest apologies, Wiser. If it’s any consolation, try to imagine the look on Michael’s face the first time he sees a site referral log that shows someone got here by Googling “Risk funny dildo.”
If it’s any consolation, try to imagine the look on Michael’s face the first time he sees a site referral log that shows someone got here by Googling “Risk funny dildo.”
“Risk funny dildo”, did you say?
Yes, that would be priceless. Seeing “Risk funny dildo” would positively drive him insane, especially since this post has nothing at all to do with “Risk funny dildo” at all.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
“Risk funny dildo”
Great site! I agreed with everything you say! For the best quality risk funny dildo, check out my site! Best risk funny dildo on the entire internet, guaranteed!
I swear this place reads more and more like the Hostages every day.
Not that it matters much, but I’ve made my dormant site private to avoid the chance of having one of those opportunistic companies come after me for using excerpts from their articles. So you might as well remove Uncommon Misconceptions from the sidebar.
You know what? I’ve seen many wannabee Napoleons and Alexander the Averages fall for the “Fortress Australia” fallacy. Yeah, you can build up a shitload of forces that are insulated from outside attack, but since controlling Australia only gets you a small number of extra armies every turn it is a dead end strategically.
It’s always a better idea to spread your armies out equally on your borders (unless your opponent has a strong point, in which case you double down on reinforcing around that strength) so that you can contest their control of continents. If you retreat to Australia & don’t contest your opponent’s control of Asia, they will eventually overwhelm you. All you need to do is control ONE country in each continent, and you will prevent all the other players from collecting extra armies.
Think about how you would play “Zombie Risk”. Do you hole up in a supposed stronghold like a mall or an old farmhouse, and wait for events to rescue you? No. No matter how much you reinforce your perimeter, the Zeds will find a way in somehow.
Think about how you would play “Zombie Risk”.
That right there might be the best thing I’ve ever read on the intertubes.
All I’m saying is that the “Australia Strategy” is the Risk equivalent of the Prevent Defense in football: It usually “prevents” victory.
Of course, if you want to get tricky, you could use a feint towards an “Australia Strategy” to distract your opponent from another threat. Let’s say that you’ve got Australia, while your opponent holds Asia. If you make some reinforcements to your Australian forces early in the game, usually your opponent will respond with significant reinforcements in SE Asia, to try and bottle you up coming through New Guinea. If you also hold either Alaska or a Northern European country, you can then massively reinforce one of these other countries and go tear-assing across Asia while your opponent has significant forces tied up far away from the action. Then, even if they decide to “punish” you and take your monopoly on Australia, you will still have denied them their monopoly on Asia, which is a “win” to you.
All I’m saying is that the “Australia Strategy” is the Risk equivalent of the Prevent Defense in football: It usually “prevents” victory.
All I was saying is that if you choose the Australia Strategy, you are better off controlling Siam and leaving China alone until you can also defend yourself on the eastern flank.
go tear-assing across Asia
This is what is called the “classic blunder” You never get into a land war with Asia. That would be akin to going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Obviously, you don’t know squat about acquired immunity to ibogaine poison, you cretin.
And notice that I didn’t say “try to conquer Asia”. All you have to do is keep a foothold there to prevent your opponent from getting the bonus for hegemony over Asia.
And Australia is fine, but I wouldn’t make it the linchpin of my strategy. Relying on Australia is like barricading yourself in the basement with your wife and the daughter who was bitten by one of those shambling undead things. It’s fine to use the basement, but going there too early takes away your options. I think that North & South America are much better bases of operations than Australia, mainly because you don’t have a single bottleneck getting forces in & out that you see with Australia.
And notice that I didn’t say “try to conquer Asia”. All you have to do is keep a foothold there to prevent your opponent from getting the bonus for hegemony over Asia.
That’s why you sit on Siam and not Indonesia.
Relying on Australia is like barricading yourself in the basement with your wife and the daughter who was bitten by one of those shambling undead things.
I also mentioned taking countries around the board in order to get cards. If all you do is sit in Australia, of course you’re going to lose.
*shakes head and wonders why I even bother sometimes….
NERD BLOG!!!!!
Michael, I’m unimpressed by your view of a potential conflict between China and the US. Economic warfare would indeed be a key part of any conflict, but would hardly be the only front. And you are underestimating the ability of totalitarian states to endure in the face of economic ruin.
Look at Japan or Germany in WWII. Both nations had their economies devastated by the mid-point of the war, and yet managed to increase their production of war goods. Further, they were able to maintain control of the civil society to the very end.
Also, you are assuming that only we would wield an economic weapon. What if the Chinese make an economic counterstrike? How about a cyber attack that disrupts trading and banking here?
And lastly, any military action would be a Rubicon that would be impossible to uncross. Popular opinion here (and in China) would mandate that further retaliatory action be taken. Events would take on a life of their own. And if the regime in China is truly frightened that they were about to be overthrown, either by us or their own people, there’s no telling just how far they might go. And they have a nuclear capability. I’m glad we’ve got a BMD system in place, but I’m not willing to bet LA on a system built by the lowest bidder.
but I’m not willing to bet LA on a system built by the lowest bidder.
LA?
Hmmmmmmm………………
“I swear this place reads more and more like the Hostages every day.”
Does this mean that I can start looking forward to IB’s “Big Chart Friday?”
Heh.
Geoff’s right, the Chicoms are not going to break what they want to possess, Taiwan’s impressive industrial and economic strength. That would be mind-numbingly stupid.
They will continue to pick away at the rest of the world’s willingness to protect them, and once that wanes to the appropriate level, Taiwan will give up. Within 10 years.
Keep in mind Taiwan was ruled by one party, Chiang’s Kuo Ming Tan, from 1949 to 1990, when they held their first democratic elections. It’s not like they have a whole lot of liberty under their belts. Bout 1/3 of em want reunification under the PRC, 1/3 prefer autonomy, and the last 3rd likes things just the way they are.
Wang has attributed China’s upcoming biotech surge to the government-endorsed National Medium and Long term Science & Technology (S&T) Development Plan (2006-2020) launched earlier this year by the State Council. Under the plan, the government will make biotechnology its top priority within the science and technology sector over the next 15 years, with the bio-medical industry as a whole to follow.
OH NOES! You maan they are following Commerade Hussein Obama’s plan to “Put Science In It’s Rightful Place”???
Taiwan will give up. Within 10 years.
I agree, although I think it may take longer than that.
hahahaha!
Top selection on Google for “Risk funny dildo?”
This thread.
Demographically China is in trouble.
It is in a rears the equivalent population of Canada when it comes to females to marry their excess males.
So, a war that murders off millions of their males might be just what the leaders will want one day.
But, like in the USA and Europe and the old USSR, the Chinese love their children….and only got one each.
So the people will NOT want to go to war.
I don’t know what’ll happen, but it won’t be pretty.
1930′s Ukranians loved their children too, but that didn’t stop Stalin from slaughtering whole villages with his forced famines.
Me? I’m in the “something bad is going to happen in China” camp.
I should clarify: I don’t necessarily think that we’re going to see a big external war involving China, more like a Chinese Civil War….fought with chemical/biological weapons and maybe even (God I hope not) tactical nukes. The two things that China has in abundance are people and land. If the Chinese central government has to sacrifice a whole shitload of people and a few hundred square miles of land to reassert control over their population, I’m afraid that they will consider this to be a manageable transaction.
The problem is, there’s a very good chance a Chinese civil war will spread beyond China’s borders, especially if the regime thinks an external threat can coalesce support in the face of civic unrest.
Wouldn’t that external threat be best represented by a close neighbor? That gives us:
1. Taiwan
2. India
3. Russia
4. Japan?
Taiwan, I could see; however, that might be “killing the golden goose”, especially when they have a realistic chance of getting Taiwan back without firing a shot.
India? I don’t know. India is a nuclear power, but it is a pipsqueak nuclear power compared to the US or Russia. Russia has more to offer China, but Putin isn’t likely to roll over & play dead.
Japan would be the logical choice, because of their horrible treatment of China in WW2. It’s not like the Chinese need any additional reason to hate the Japanese at this point; however Japan is only useful as a coalescing enemy, because a small island nation with few national resources isn’t exactly what China needs.
Taking on the US would be high risk & low reward, especially when our continued economic viability is in China’s best interest. Like the old saying goes: “If you owe the bank $50,000 and can’t make your payments, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $50 million and can’t make your payments, that’s the BANK’S problem.”
5. Xinjiang. Not exactly “external,” except that any large-scale uprising would certainly be resupplied through Af/Pak or (less likely) one of the ‘Stans.
China might even be smart enough to figure out, like Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, that blaming their woes on Islamic extremism would garner some measure of U.S. support.