Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Should US Deal with China Long-term?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The rest of the world isn't interested in your conflict. US isn't better.
    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Emtos View Post
      The rest of the world isn't interested in your conflict. US isn't better.
      You're deluding yourself if you think it's only "our" conflict. If you think the US is overbearing, just wait until China gets the same amount of power that we have today.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by johns624 View Post

        You're deluding yourself if you think it's only "our" conflict. If you think the US is overbearing, just wait until China gets the same amount of power that we have today.
        China didn't declared a trade war on us. Nor they drag us in conflicts here and there. Nor they have the weight on our internal policies....
        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

        Comment


        • From airforcetimes.com - China Attacks US Space Force as Threat to Peace.

          Cry me a river.

          link below.

          https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...reat-to-peace/

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Emtos View Post
            Nor they have the weight on our internal policies....
            Yet.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by johns624 View Post
              Yet.
              It's unlikely that it will happen in a foreseeable future.
              There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                It's unlikely that it will happen in a foreseeable future.
                You're right. Belgium isn't important enough for them to subjugate in the next decade.

                Comment


                • From breakingdefense.com: US Navy Rushes Its Sub-hunting Helicopters to India, Eye On China. Link below

                  https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/...-eye-on-china/

                  excerpt

                  With New Delhi in a hurry to begin getting the state-of-the-art helicopters into use, and the US government eager to pull India closer as a hedge against growing Chinese naval capabilities, the US Navy allowed Sikorsky to take three of its brand new MH-60R Sea Hawks and begin modifying them to Indian standards to deliver next spring. The Navy will receive new MH-60R’s in a few years to replace them. The remaining 21 helicopters will be delivered in 2023 and 2024.

                  Most of the changes being made to the aircraft are in the communications and data sharing realm, Kane said. “They want the ability to talk to their satellites obviously, so there’s an Indian indigenous SATCOM data link. Also,they can talk to their ships so there’s a link to that they’ve asked us to install, and there’s some other modifications like a floatation system, and other things that we’ll have to [change] from the standard US Navy configuration,” he added.
                  The MH-60R was born to be a sub hunter, however, and that mission will remain central to the Indian configuration. “They’ll come off the line as ASW [anti-submarine warfare] aircraft so they’ll have the active dipping sonar,” the AN/APS-153 radar “and things that you would normally see on a US Navy configuration,” Kane said.

                  Comment


                  • From Wikipedia - Borders of China

                    There is also a map which shows disputed border

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_China
                    Last edited by lakechampainer; 17 May 20, 10:13.

                    Comment


                    • In terms of a US containment or surround strategy with regards to China, the key country is Taiwan. Taiwan has a population of about 23,000,000 versus 1,423,000 for Communist China, so just on that basis, its potential influence is limited. However, Taiwan, does have huge trade with the mainland, and they need a lot of Taiwan's trade.

                      It seems to me that the way the US should deal with Taiwan, is to have as close relations as possible, and to provide support to Taiwan as much as possible. Try to make a "beacon" for the people of Mainland China - try to support Taiwan in following the principles of liberty that the US political framework is based on. (Of course, it would be nice we tried to follow those principles in the US itself).

                      Link to Wikipedia article on Taiwan-United States relations, with several excerpts following.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan...ates_relations

                      excerpt 1


                      Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan.[38][39] On July 14, 1982 the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances),[38][40] and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty."

                      The U.S. Department of State, in its U.S. Relations With Taiwan fact sheet, states "[T]he United States and Taiwan enjoy a robust unofficial relationship. The 1979 U.S.–P.R.C. Joint Communiqué switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communiqué, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.[41]

                      The United States position on Taiwan is reflected in "the six assurances to Taiwan", the Three Communiqués, and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).[42] The Six Assurances include: 1. The United States has not agreed to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan; 2. The United States has not agreed to hold prior consultations with the Chinese on arms sales to Taiwan; 3. The United States would not play any mediation role between Taiwan and Beijing; 4. The United States has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act; 5. The United States has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan; and 6. The United States would not exert pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the Chinese.[43] The "Three Communiqués" include The Shanghai Communiqué, The Normalisation Communiqué, and The August 17 Communiqué, which pledged to abrogate official US-ROC relations, remove US troops from Taiwan and gradually end the arms sale to Taiwan, but with the latter of no timeline to do so, an effort made by James Lilley, the Director of American Institute in Taiwan.

                      excerpt 2

                      On December 2, 2016, U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump accepted a congratulatory call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen, which was the first time since 1979 that a President-Elect has publicly spoken to a leader of Taiwan.[50] Donald Trump stated the call was regarding "the close economic, political and security ties between Taiwan and the US".[51] The phone call had been arranged by Bob Dole, who acted as a foreign agent on behalf of Taiwan.[52]

                      PRC Foreign Minister Wang Yi soon made a statement saying that China opposes any move to separate the country, without explicitly mentioning the phone call between Tsai and Trump.

                      Comment


                      • Some thoughts on how I think the US should approach the problem of China, in terms of our relations with the 14 countries which have a land border with China - I also add a 15th country, Japan:

                        1. Russia is the most important country - as the other one of the three great powers, our goal should esentially be to not have them against us. That implies that we go along with what they want, to the extent we can go along with it. If that means they benefit, so be it.

                        The choice I had in the poll about setting a "triangle" in the Soviet Far East was naive. Not that that was a bad idea, but Russia will decide what they want, they won't be waiting for us to decide.

                        2. India - We should do whatever we can to promote India. Certainly in terms of democracy/human rights, we should already be doing this, as they are much more advanced than China. Military, we should support the development of their Navy, as it's a long way from Europe and the Persian Gulf to China. Probably most importantly, we should be building legitimate, long-lasting trade with them. And we should definitely support them in efforts to reduce pollution: I am still amazed by the "green" types in the US who wanted to shut factories, and then much dirtier factories opened in China (Obviously with much less worker rights/benefits also)

                        3. South Korea and Japan - Obviously two completely separate countries, not on the greatest terms for historical reasons, also for economic rivalry reasons. My view here is, to work with each of them, and yield to them when possible. Our goal should be to promote positive relations amongst themselves as much as possible. Maybe we could set up a three-way joint space program with them (after all, we could use the help, with no manned space flight capability). These countries (with Taiwan) are three very good actors on the world stage. And hey, if China thinks a space program might have military benefits, too bad.

                        4. Vietnam - We should work with Vietnam to promote human rights there, and also our economic relations, as with India. And yes, to follow Jimmy Carter's line of thinking, one of the best ways to promote human rights is to be an example through our own actions. We should get our own house in order.

                        5. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikstan - the former Soviet Republics - we should have the realpolitik view of not hassling them, we should regard them as being in the Russian sphere of influence. We should, though, support the effort to make the Chinese shut their concentration camps/re-education camps/whatever you want to call them camps. They have 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 Uyghurs in these camps. Edit: We should make available to the world media (especially the US media) satellite photos of these camps.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjia...ducation_camps

                        6. Given that Mongolia is right between China and Russia, not much we can probably do. But if there is anything we can do for them, we should.

                        7. Pakistan - we are already so tied in with them, probably no easy way to reasonably change our behavior easily. But if they get a little less friendly with China because we become friendlier with India, so be it.

                        8. Bhutan, Nepal, Laos, Myanmar: We should work with them to promote, development, public health, etc. And if they can advance through India's "Look East" program, so be it.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_East_policy_(India)

                        9. North Korea - not much more we can or should do here, I think. I assume there is no way to make the disagreement over Paektu Mountain into a real issue of contention. That is the North Korean "sacred mountain" that there is a YouTub video about Kim Jong-un riding a horse on it in winter conditions.


                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paektu_Mountain

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VFDpEw3s5w
                        Last edited by lakechampainer; 18 May 20, 14:11.

                        Comment


                        • Another option that should have been in the original poll is, "Challenge China via limited cyberattacks"

                          By that mean, attacks that hit them where they live - such as interfering with their means of controlling and surveilling the population - for example, subtly corrupting some of their facial recognition data, or the their tracking data. And maybe not just doing it - but planting stories that it is being done, or planting false stories: ie means of attack A when actually planning means attack C, etc.

                          Perhaps the raw data of a face, or a gait, etc. could be slightly altered, so that a match won't be made. They would either get an inconclusive, or generate a new person. I'm sure there are many such methods; I'm sure both sides use them and are aware or them - but again, this is where they live.

                          Comment


                          • From Rand Corporation - China's National Military Strategy. by David M. Finkelstein. From about 1998.

                            https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...F145.chap7.pdf

                            excerpt 1

                            The U.S. Army War College (AWC) model of military strategy as developed by Colonel Arthur Lykke, USA (Ret.) serves as the superstructure of the following analysis of the PLA.3 While the PLA would certainly not use an American construct to articulate its national military strategy, this model is nevertheless a useful tool for the descriptive and analytic purposes of this paper. I have also borrowed useful frames of reference from the planners on the Joint Staff who produce the Pentagon’s national military strategy (which in turn is based upon a derivative of the Army War College model),4 as well as several universal military concepts such as “center of gravity” and others. Into these “frames” we shall place Chinese “lenses” to articulate a vision of the bigger picture.

                            excerpt 2

                            If one were to distill all of the statements of China’s national security objectives, both explicit and implicit, that have been publicly declared or adduced over the last few years they could be distilled to three simple words: sovereignty, modernity, and stability. These words encompass the totality of everything the Chinese nation is determined to achieve. Moreover, these objectives are not only those of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), but capture the essence of the Chinese Revolution.
                            That revolution has been in motion since the last decades of the Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty. The Chinese proudly proclaim over five thousand years of continuous civilization, and rightly so. But China is new to the business of developing a nationstate—less than one hundred years, less experience than the United States. The history of the Chinese Revolution has been, and continues to be, the story of the difficult transformation of an ancient traditional civilization into a modern nationstate. Every stage of the revolution has more or less sought the same three objectives: sovereignty, modernity, and stability. From K’ang Yu-wei to Dr. Sun Yat-sen to Republican China under Chiang Kai-Shek, to Deng Xiaoping and now Jiang Zemin— all have attempted to achieve these goals. Where there has been divergence has been in the “ways” to achieve those “ends.” The great exception was, of course, Mao. While he embraced sovereignty and modernity as legitimate national security

                            objectives, he rejected stability as a goal in his later years. By substituting “perpetual revolution” for stability and by making “class struggle the key link,” Mao set back China’s progress immeasurably. Consequently, the history of China under Deng Xiaoping is in great measure the story of Deng’s efforts to reverse the damage and find a new path to progress.10 And there is little doubt that China under Jiang Zemin embraces these three national security objectives as well. Let us explore each a bit further.

                            excerpt 3

                            In the context of 1998, how Beijing defines sovereignty is now much broader than merely being the master of its own nation. Today, issues related to sovereignty encompass at least six categories of issues. First, of course, is concern over the return of territories Beijing considers part of the PRC, but over which it exercises no jurisdiction—Taiwan and Macao, for example. Second are issues related to border disputes China still has with some of its neighbors and the problems of demarcation and control. This encompasses a series of bilateral problems. Issue number three concerns areas of China over which Beijing does exert control but whose indigenous non-Han population oppose China’s rule, such as in Xinjiang and Tibet. A fourth category is one of multiple competing claims such as in the South China Sea, not just for atolls, reefs and islets but for maritime resources. A fifth issue involves what Beijing views as unwanted and unwarranted foreign concern over, or meddling in, Chinese domestic social and political issues. A sixth category relates to international pressure for China to accede to multilateral instruments and protocols which might constrain Beijing’s freedom of action whether or not the instrument in question is or is not problematical.

                            Comment



                            • The Chinese are rather obsessed with the Spratly Islands and other islands in the South China sea. To be fair, other countries are also- including Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei - and Taiwan. I'm not concerned about the other countries; they don't bear any responsibility for the virus. In large part, these aren't so much "islands" as small outcroppings of land, etc. The actual real interest is in having the rights to oil and gas, fishing, etc. Of course it is a main part of the sea lanes to China from the south and the west.

                              Link to Wikipedia article on the Spratly Islands below, also two maps from the article.

                              I feel like the US and its allies, mainly Japan, are already playing a game here with China. Doing freedom of navigation exercises, bombers on and off Guam etc. I think they are in a way trying to bait China into putting a lot of resources into a game that in the end they can't win. Not only would they ultimately have to face the US, but Japan. In fact, this helps give "an excuse" to Japan to continue to build up its formidable naval and air power.

                              The Chinese have put a huge effort in putting two (until now anyway) aircraft carriers at sea. Links to Wikipedia article on the ships are below, after the maps. It seems as if the US and its allies could play games to get China to maintain a high operational tempo, which could help to use up its limited naval forces.



                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute





                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rrier_Liaoning

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rrier_Shandong
                              Last edited by lakechampainer; 19 May 20, 08:11.

                              Comment


                              • From americanprogress.org - "Limit, Leverage, and Compete: A New Strategy on China"

                                https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...trategy-china/

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X