What's new

5 Reasons China and America Could Go to War | The National Interest

samsara

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
8
Country
Lao Peoples Democratic Republic
Location
China
5 Reasons China and America Could Go to War

1280px-011104-n-6747h-002_uss_george_washington_at_sea.jpg


Harry J. Kazianis, 2017-02-06

While thankfully the chances of all-out war are remote, as all parties would have a tremendous amount to lose—including their own lives in a nuclear confrontation—the possibility remains, as history has taught us all too well. Here we will explore five ways Washington and Beijing could find themselves in open conflict. While this essay for reasons of time and space won’t ponder over the consequences of such a conflict, you can be sure of one thing: if tensions were to escalate beyond just a minor, isolated clash, there is the distinct possibility a third and possibly atomic world war would be in the offing.

Over the last few years, I have undertaken what most would consider a depressing assignment: debating and thinking through the possibility of a great-power war in today’s chaotic international environment. And for good reason. As Washington attempts to transition away from counterinsurgency operations and the nightmare that has become the Middle East, new challenges—many from revisionist great powers—seem to be popping up around the globe. The crisis in Ukraine—with many now openly calling the state of U.S.-Russian relations “Cold War 2.0”—serves as perhaps the best example of such a chilling possibility.

Yet, despite whatever the crisis of the day is, when it comes to challenges Washington must face in the years to come, none is as important as the challenge presented by the People’s Republic of China. Beijing—now empowered by an economy and military that is only second to America—seems bent on remaking the international order in the Asia-Pacific and possibly the wider Indo-Pacific at least partly in its own image. From the East China Sea to the wide expanses of the Indian Ocean, China has clearly made its intentions known that the current international order is open to at least some revision on its terms. Over the last several years, various clashes over the very meaning of the maritime commons, natural resources below the sea bed, air-defense identification zones and various near collisions in the near seas and in the sky have set off alarm bells in capitals around Asia. While Washington has declared its own “pivot” or “rebalance” towards Asia, destabilizing and what some have called “coercive actions” by China have continued unabated.

So where does all of this end up? Is open war in Asia a possibility? Would the United States be sucked in?

While thankfully the chances of all-out war are remote, as all parties would have a tremendous amount to lose—including their own lives in a nuclear confrontation—the possibility remains, as history has taught us all too well. Here we will explore five ways Washington and Beijing could find themselves in open conflict. While this essay for reasons of time and space won’t ponder over the consequences of such a conflict, you can be sure of one thing: if tensions were to escalate beyond just a minor, isolated clash, there is the distinct possibility a third and possibly atomic world war would be in the offing.

NOTE: This first appeared in Feb. 2015 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

1. A Crisis in the East China Sea

One way a U.S.-China war could commence is by Washington getting sucked into a regional war in Asia. Looking beyond a straight-up U.S.-Chinese great-power war there is another clash in Asia that could be almost as terrifying—and would likely draw in America: a China-Japan war in the East China Sea.

Over at the Lowy Interpreter, I explored a hypothetical scenario that is all too possible—where the number-two and -three economies on the planet come to blows over some obscure rocks inhabited by goats:

Two Chinese SU-27 fighters come within 25 feet of a Japanese P-3 Orion surveillance plane just 10 miles west of the Senkakus. The Japanese pilot gets nervous. A slight tweak at the controls and the Japanese plane collides with one of the Chinese fighters. Both aircraft crash into the ocean, with no survivors.

...Beijing accuses the Japanese pilots of violating Chinese sovereign airspace...Japan claims the Chinese pilots acted recklessly, flying so close...Just 72 hours later, a group of twenty Chinese nationals land on one of the disputed [Senkaku] islands under the cover of darkness...A Japanese naval task force carrying a small detachment of soldiers is dispatched. Their goal: remove the only residents of the disputed five-island chain.

...As Japanese naval forces come within 20 miles of the islands a Chinese J-10 fighter jet buzzes the task force. On its second pass it comes dangerously close to a Japanese destroyer. In a perceived act of self-defence, the destroyer shoots down the aircraft.

Hours later...Beijing fires a warning shot, a DF-21D or “carrier-killer” missile which hits the ocean just 10 miles away from the Japanese task force. Undeterred, Japanese forces press ahead. Domestic pressure on Chinese leaders becomes intense. They feel they have no choice but to escalate, launching a massive saturation strike with ballistic and cruise missiles against the Japanese task force...Prime Minister Abe urgently phones President Obama formally requesting America's help...

In the above article, I would later make the argument that Washington might not automatically jump in to defend Japan. And depending on the context of the situation and the severity, I would argue it is entirely possible Washington might try to play the role of mediator instead of as a combatant—in fact, depending on the situation, why should Washington make matters worse and officially take a position, especially if it was a minor clash with no loss of life?

Whatever the scenario, as long as China and Japan are at each others throats in the East China Sea and America continues to assert that since the Senkaku Islands are “administered” by Japan—meaning that they fall under the protective umbrella of the U.S.-Japan alliance—the possibility of conflict between Beijing and Washington is always possible. In fact, if China and Japan were to come to blows, there are many situations in which Washington would be compelled to act and back its treaty ally by waging a kinetic struggle against Beijing—all the more reason for America to help find mechanisms to cool tensions in the East China Sea over the long term.

2. A Crisis in the South China Sea

Accurately dubbed by frequent TNI contributor Robert Kaplan “Asia’s Cauldron,” the South China Sea continues to present what amounts to an open wound for U.S.-Chinese ties—a wound that could ooze with blood at any moment. With Beijing declaring its nine- or (sometimes referred to as) ten-dash line, which effectively declares the area a massive Chinese lake, there is always the possibility a clash could spark a greater crisis in which America would feel compelled to intervene.

Why China continues to press its claims in the area of the South China Sea makes sense once one realizes the stakes involved. Trillions of dollars worth of goods pass through this vital body of water. Trillions more might be under the water in the form of oil, natural gas and precious minerals. With multiple overlapping territorial claims, we just might be lucky that we have not yet had a major crisis spin out of control.

In the South China Sea, the risks are quite obvious: if a U.S. ally, specifically the Philippines, were to become engaged in a major kinetic clash with China (it was entirely possible at Scarborough Reef back in 2012), the U.S.-Philippines alliance could set off a chain reaction of events. While Washington has been rightly vague about what types of scenarios it would back Manila in if open conflict were to arise, you can bet the United States would clearly be involved in some capacity—increasing dramatically the possibility of a Washington-Beijing clash.

3. An Incident at Sea

A clash at sea where Chinese or American sailors lose their lives could certainly be the spark for increased tensions or a deadly conflict.

Consider the December 5, 2013 incident where a U.S. naval vessel and a Chinese warship came close to colliding. According to a statement by the U.S. Pacific Fleet, “While lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens (CG 63) and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision.” It went on to explain that “this incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap..” Considering this is not the only incident of a near-fatal collision at sea, we must weigh the possibility that an American and Chinese vessel could very well collide in the near future.

While it seems remote that a war could spark from just one possible clash of ships, if the loss of life were severe, and the incident was recorded and beamed all over the world (thanks to social media and a relentless 24-hour news cycle), you can bet U.S.-Chinese relations would be headed towards a crisis. And that would certainly increase the risk of a situation where other pressure points—whether in the East or South China Seas and even some sort of cyber retaliation (official or unofficial)—could set up a series of events where one side felt compelled to act decisively if they felt conflict was becoming inevitable.

4. An Incident in the Air

Chilling as it is, this has already happened once. In 2001, a U.S. P-3 Orion collided with a Chinese fighter jet, setting off a crisis in U.S.-Chinese relations not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War. There was talk in Washington at the time of a possible change in approach towards China—something much more hardline. Chinese leaders were concerned that the two nations were “headed for a confrontation as China emerges as an economic and military power in Asia.” While the course seemed to be set for greater tensions in the near term, the events of 9/11 would intervene to shift America’s focus away from Asia and back to the Middle East.

Sadly, the possibility of a U.S.-China clash in the air is still a real possibility. Back in August of last year, a Chinese jet passed dangerously close to a U.S. P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane. U.S. officials at the time explained that “The Chinese jet … passed the nose of the P-8 at 90 degrees with its belly toward the P-8 Poseidon, we believe to make a point of showing its weapons load out... ” Officials also noted that the Chinese “flew directly under and alongside the P-8, bringing their wingtips … to within 20 feet and then conducted a roll over the P-8, passing within 45 feet.” What if such an incident had turned deadly?

5. Finally...Don’t Forget Taiwan

While tensions between the PRC and the ROC have certainly dropped considerably since the election of President Ma in 2008, there is no guarantee that Beijing may begin to exert pressure seeking the return of its so-called “renegade province.” In fact, Chinese president Xi Jinping alluded to such a possibility, stating, “the issue of political disagreements that exist between the two sides must reach a final resolution, step by step, and these issues cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”

So how does Taiwan play into the possibility of a U.S.-China war? Simple. As a recent report from the always-smart D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis (CSBA) explains, the dynamics of PRC-ROC tensions have not changed:

Despite atmospheric improvements in cross-strait ties...the fundamental nature of the dispute has not changed. Beijing still refuses to renounce the use of force as a means of reunification, and China’s steady, methodical build up of missile and air assets aimed at Taiwan serves as a constant and sobering reminder...At the same time, a series of polls indicate that a vast majority of the Taiwanese population continues to reject unification. While both sides’ official positions remain unaltered, the cross-strait military balance has moved decisively in China’s favor....Two decades of annual double-digit growth in Chinese military expenditures have resulted in Beijing acquiring a wide margin of conventional superiority over Taiwan, leading to growing concerns that it may no longer be able to withstand a large-scale PRC assault against its territory and raising the specter of a forcible annexation before U.S. forces could intervene.

There is also the very real possibility that a change of leadership in Taiwan, especially if a candidate from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) were to win the 2016 election, could ratchet up tensions—especially if they were to cool efforts to further tie Taiwan to the Chinese mainland. One could easily see Beijing begin to raise the stakes with Taipei—pushing for the resolution of what it has stated many times as one of its most important “core interests.” Clearly, Washington would be concerned over such a trend that could quickly create a crisis in U.S.-Chinese relations. If China were to forcibly attempt to reunite with Taiwan using kinetic force or an outright invasion, it seems some form of a U.S.-China conflict would be all but guaranteed.

Conclusion:

Nothing consumes my intellectual bandwidth more than the possibility of a U.S.-China war. While the idea of such a clash seems remote, the number of pressure points that could spark such a conflict are too many to outright rule out such a possibility. All the more reason why both sides need to work towards a way to reduce tensions that could lead to kinetic conflict.

Thankfully, over the last several months, there has been a reason to be hopeful that some of the pressure points listed above might become less of a concern in the future. In November of 2014, the United States and China signed two memorandums of understanding (MOUs) that should help at least with regard to near incidents in the air and sea. As Peter Dutton neatly explained in these pages, the “MOUs help reduce the risk of crisis...” However, Dutton also notes “they will not eliminate it, because they do not eliminate the divergent security interests that are at the root of the crises. And even as they improve understanding, such insight is no replacement for respect for power.”

Clearly, the United States and China have many reasons to press forward with what has been over the long term a very successful relationship, despite recent tensions—over $550 billion in bilateral trade alone is just one of many examples. Yet, as Graham Allison explained in these very pages, “when a rapidly rising power rivals an established ruling power, trouble ensues. In 11 of 15 cases in which this has occurred in the past 500 years, the result was war.” Just that fact alone should force policy makers in both Washington and Beijing to work towards avoiding what Allison calls the “Thucydides’s Trap.” What could happen if we don’t is simply too awful to imagine.

This first appeared in Feb. 2015 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/5-reasons-china-america-could-go-war-19338?page=show
 
.
CCTV-4 中文国际 - FOCUS TODAY 今日关注 [short clip] 20170208

  • US think tank reveals US island-seizing plan: 4 steps to occupy Yongxing Island in Xisha
  • [China's Foreign Minister in Canberra] Wang Yi talks about South China Sea: US should brush up on the history of WWII
  • A South Sea Fleet holds emergency field training of hovercraft
 
Last edited:
.
The US cannot afford a war with China. Heck it cannot even afford to piss them off. China can very easily just start a war of trade, which would be disastrous for America.
 
.
Here's the full segment, FOCUS TODAY 今日关注 20170208 (>26')
 
.
The US cannot afford a war with China. Heck it cannot even afford to piss them off. China can very easily just start a war of trade, which would be disastrous for America.
You are aware that majority of US debt is not longer held by China, right? And the balance of trade is towards China. If US puts stopper on imports from China, china will feel a hell lot of pain due to explosion of unemployment.
 
.
You are aware that majority of US debt is not longer held by China, right? And the balance of trade is towards China. If US puts stopper on imports from China, china will feel a hell lot of pain due to explosion of unemployment.

It is vice versa. If China stop import from the US, it will also cause a lot of unemployment.

At the end, it is not about the explosion of unemployment that give the problem to the government, but the people resolve to support the government. If they feel that the war is justified, everyone can brace the hardship. But, if they think that the government is at fault, they will oppose, and become the problem that can hurt their own nation.

At this point of time, Chinese people have more resolve than the American. Because they are the one that has been invaded.
 
Last edited:
.
It is vice versa. If China stop import from the US, it will also cause a lot of unemployment.

At the end, it is not about the explosion of unemployment that give the problem to the government, but the people resolve to support the government. If they feel that the war is justified, everyone can brace the hardship. But, if they think that the government is at fault, they will oppose, and become the problem that can hurt their own nation.

At this point of time, Chinese people have more resolve than the American. Because they are the one that has been invaded.
You are talking to an Indian so logic doesn't apply here.....
 
.
5 Reasons China and America Could Go to War

1280px-011104-n-6747h-002_uss_george_washington_at_sea.jpg


Harry J. Kazianis, 2017-02-06

While thankfully the chances of all-out war are remote, as all parties would have a tremendous amount to lose—including their own lives in a nuclear confrontation—the possibility remains, as history has taught us all too well. Here we will explore five ways Washington and Beijing could find themselves in open conflict. While this essay for reasons of time and space won’t ponder over the consequences of such a conflict, you can be sure of one thing: if tensions were to escalate beyond just a minor, isolated clash, there is the distinct possibility a third and possibly atomic world war would be in the offing.

Over the last few years, I have undertaken what most would consider a depressing assignment: debating and thinking through the possibility of a great-power war in today’s chaotic international environment. And for good reason. As Washington attempts to transition away from counterinsurgency operations and the nightmare that has become the Middle East, new challenges—many from revisionist great powers—seem to be popping up around the globe. The crisis in Ukraine—with many now openly calling the state of U.S.-Russian relations “Cold War 2.0”—serves as perhaps the best example of such a chilling possibility.

Yet, despite whatever the crisis of the day is, when it comes to challenges Washington must face in the years to come, none is as important as the challenge presented by the People’s Republic of China. Beijing—now empowered by an economy and military that is only second to America—seems bent on remaking the international order in the Asia-Pacific and possibly the wider Indo-Pacific at least partly in its own image. From the East China Sea to the wide expanses of the Indian Ocean, China has clearly made its intentions known that the current international order is open to at least some revision on its terms. Over the last several years, various clashes over the very meaning of the maritime commons, natural resources below the sea bed, air-defense identification zones and various near collisions in the near seas and in the sky have set off alarm bells in capitals around Asia. While Washington has declared its own “pivot” or “rebalance” towards Asia, destabilizing and what some have called “coercive actions” by China have continued unabated.

So where does all of this end up? Is open war in Asia a possibility? Would the United States be sucked in?

While thankfully the chances of all-out war are remote, as all parties would have a tremendous amount to lose—including their own lives in a nuclear confrontation—the possibility remains, as history has taught us all too well. Here we will explore five ways Washington and Beijing could find themselves in open conflict. While this essay for reasons of time and space won’t ponder over the consequences of such a conflict, you can be sure of one thing: if tensions were to escalate beyond just a minor, isolated clash, there is the distinct possibility a third and possibly atomic world war would be in the offing.

NOTE: This first appeared in Feb. 2015 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

1. A Crisis in the East China Sea

One way a U.S.-China war could commence is by Washington getting sucked into a regional war in Asia. Looking beyond a straight-up U.S.-Chinese great-power war there is another clash in Asia that could be almost as terrifying—and would likely draw in America: a China-Japan war in the East China Sea.

Over at the Lowy Interpreter, I explored a hypothetical scenario that is all too possible—where the number-two and -three economies on the planet come to blows over some obscure rocks inhabited by goats:

Two Chinese SU-27 fighters come within 25 feet of a Japanese P-3 Orion surveillance plane just 10 miles west of the Senkakus. The Japanese pilot gets nervous. A slight tweak at the controls and the Japanese plane collides with one of the Chinese fighters. Both aircraft crash into the ocean, with no survivors.

...Beijing accuses the Japanese pilots of violating Chinese sovereign airspace...Japan claims the Chinese pilots acted recklessly, flying so close...Just 72 hours later, a group of twenty Chinese nationals land on one of the disputed [Senkaku] islands under the cover of darkness...A Japanese naval task force carrying a small detachment of soldiers is dispatched. Their goal: remove the only residents of the disputed five-island chain.

...As Japanese naval forces come within 20 miles of the islands a Chinese J-10 fighter jet buzzes the task force. On its second pass it comes dangerously close to a Japanese destroyer. In a perceived act of self-defence, the destroyer shoots down the aircraft.

Hours later...Beijing fires a warning shot, a DF-21D or “carrier-killer” missile which hits the ocean just 10 miles away from the Japanese task force. Undeterred, Japanese forces press ahead. Domestic pressure on Chinese leaders becomes intense. They feel they have no choice but to escalate, launching a massive saturation strike with ballistic and cruise missiles against the Japanese task force...Prime Minister Abe urgently phones President Obama formally requesting America's help...

In the above article, I would later make the argument that Washington might not automatically jump in to defend Japan. And depending on the context of the situation and the severity, I would argue it is entirely possible Washington might try to play the role of mediator instead of as a combatant—in fact, depending on the situation, why should Washington make matters worse and officially take a position, especially if it was a minor clash with no loss of life?

Whatever the scenario, as long as China and Japan are at each others throats in the East China Sea and America continues to assert that since the Senkaku Islands are “administered” by Japan—meaning that they fall under the protective umbrella of the U.S.-Japan alliance—the possibility of conflict between Beijing and Washington is always possible. In fact, if China and Japan were to come to blows, there are many situations in which Washington would be compelled to act and back its treaty ally by waging a kinetic struggle against Beijing—all the more reason for America to help find mechanisms to cool tensions in the East China Sea over the long term.

2. A Crisis in the South China Sea

Accurately dubbed by frequent TNI contributor Robert Kaplan “Asia’s Cauldron,” the South China Sea continues to present what amounts to an open wound for U.S.-Chinese ties—a wound that could ooze with blood at any moment. With Beijing declaring its nine- or (sometimes referred to as) ten-dash line, which effectively declares the area a massive Chinese lake, there is always the possibility a clash could spark a greater crisis in which America would feel compelled to intervene.

Why China continues to press its claims in the area of the South China Sea makes sense once one realizes the stakes involved. Trillions of dollars worth of goods pass through this vital body of water. Trillions more might be under the water in the form of oil, natural gas and precious minerals. With multiple overlapping territorial claims, we just might be lucky that we have not yet had a major crisis spin out of control.

In the South China Sea, the risks are quite obvious: if a U.S. ally, specifically the Philippines, were to become engaged in a major kinetic clash with China (it was entirely possible at Scarborough Reef back in 2012), the U.S.-Philippines alliance could set off a chain reaction of events. While Washington has been rightly vague about what types of scenarios it would back Manila in if open conflict were to arise, you can bet the United States would clearly be involved in some capacity—increasing dramatically the possibility of a Washington-Beijing clash.

3. An Incident at Sea

A clash at sea where Chinese or American sailors lose their lives could certainly be the spark for increased tensions or a deadly conflict.

Consider the December 5, 2013 incident where a U.S. naval vessel and a Chinese warship came close to colliding. According to a statement by the U.S. Pacific Fleet, “While lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens (CG 63) and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision.” It went on to explain that “this incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap..” Considering this is not the only incident of a near-fatal collision at sea, we must weigh the possibility that an American and Chinese vessel could very well collide in the near future.

While it seems remote that a war could spark from just one possible clash of ships, if the loss of life were severe, and the incident was recorded and beamed all over the world (thanks to social media and a relentless 24-hour news cycle), you can bet U.S.-Chinese relations would be headed towards a crisis. And that would certainly increase the risk of a situation where other pressure points—whether in the East or South China Seas and even some sort of cyber retaliation (official or unofficial)—could set up a series of events where one side felt compelled to act decisively if they felt conflict was becoming inevitable.

4. An Incident in the Air

Chilling as it is, this has already happened once. In 2001, a U.S. P-3 Orion collided with a Chinese fighter jet, setting off a crisis in U.S.-Chinese relations not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War. There was talk in Washington at the time of a possible change in approach towards China—something much more hardline. Chinese leaders were concerned that the two nations were “headed for a confrontation as China emerges as an economic and military power in Asia.” While the course seemed to be set for greater tensions in the near term, the events of 9/11 would intervene to shift America’s focus away from Asia and back to the Middle East.

Sadly, the possibility of a U.S.-China clash in the air is still a real possibility. Back in August of last year, a Chinese jet passed dangerously close to a U.S. P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane. U.S. officials at the time explained that “The Chinese jet … passed the nose of the P-8 at 90 degrees with its belly toward the P-8 Poseidon, we believe to make a point of showing its weapons load out... ” Officials also noted that the Chinese “flew directly under and alongside the P-8, bringing their wingtips … to within 20 feet and then conducted a roll over the P-8, passing within 45 feet.” What if such an incident had turned deadly?

5. Finally...Don’t Forget Taiwan

While tensions between the PRC and the ROC have certainly dropped considerably since the election of President Ma in 2008, there is no guarantee that Beijing may begin to exert pressure seeking the return of its so-called “renegade province.” In fact, Chinese president Xi Jinping alluded to such a possibility, stating, “the issue of political disagreements that exist between the two sides must reach a final resolution, step by step, and these issues cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”

So how does Taiwan play into the possibility of a U.S.-China war? Simple. As a recent report from the always-smart D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis (CSBA) explains, the dynamics of PRC-ROC tensions have not changed:

Despite atmospheric improvements in cross-strait ties...the fundamental nature of the dispute has not changed. Beijing still refuses to renounce the use of force as a means of reunification, and China’s steady, methodical build up of missile and air assets aimed at Taiwan serves as a constant and sobering reminder...At the same time, a series of polls indicate that a vast majority of the Taiwanese population continues to reject unification. While both sides’ official positions remain unaltered, the cross-strait military balance has moved decisively in China’s favor....Two decades of annual double-digit growth in Chinese military expenditures have resulted in Beijing acquiring a wide margin of conventional superiority over Taiwan, leading to growing concerns that it may no longer be able to withstand a large-scale PRC assault against its territory and raising the specter of a forcible annexation before U.S. forces could intervene.

There is also the very real possibility that a change of leadership in Taiwan, especially if a candidate from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) were to win the 2016 election, could ratchet up tensions—especially if they were to cool efforts to further tie Taiwan to the Chinese mainland. One could easily see Beijing begin to raise the stakes with Taipei—pushing for the resolution of what it has stated many times as one of its most important “core interests.” Clearly, Washington would be concerned over such a trend that could quickly create a crisis in U.S.-Chinese relations. If China were to forcibly attempt to reunite with Taiwan using kinetic force or an outright invasion, it seems some form of a U.S.-China conflict would be all but guaranteed.

Conclusion:

Nothing consumes my intellectual bandwidth more than the possibility of a U.S.-China war. While the idea of such a clash seems remote, the number of pressure points that could spark such a conflict are too many to outright rule out such a possibility. All the more reason why both sides need to work towards a way to reduce tensions that could lead to kinetic conflict.

Thankfully, over the last several months, there has been a reason to be hopeful that some of the pressure points listed above might become less of a concern in the future. In November of 2014, the United States and China signed two memorandums of understanding (MOUs) that should help at least with regard to near incidents in the air and sea. As Peter Dutton neatly explained in these pages, the “MOUs help reduce the risk of crisis...” However, Dutton also notes “they will not eliminate it, because they do not eliminate the divergent security interests that are at the root of the crises. And even as they improve understanding, such insight is no replacement for respect for power.”

Clearly, the United States and China have many reasons to press forward with what has been over the long term a very successful relationship, despite recent tensions—over $550 billion in bilateral trade alone is just one of many examples. Yet, as Graham Allison explained in these very pages, “when a rapidly rising power rivals an established ruling power, trouble ensues. In 11 of 15 cases in which this has occurred in the past 500 years, the result was war.” Just that fact alone should force policy makers in both Washington and Beijing to work towards avoiding what Allison calls the “Thucydides’s Trap.” What could happen if we don’t is simply too awful to imagine.

This first appeared in Feb. 2015 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/5-reasons-china-america-could-go-war-19338?page=show

It should be 6 reasons, not 5.

The last one is the most probable to happen.

6. To save Donald Trump position as the president

In order to save his *** from the American people wrath, Trump will divert his people attention to China. He has said it. China stole the American money. So he can use China as the object of his people wrath, and then go war against China.
 
.
China Foreign Minister: "I Have Suggestion For My American Friends: Brush Up On The History Of World War Two"

ZeroHedge, 2017-02-08

While Trump has been busy focusing on the US judicial system in recent days, letting the simmering conflict with China over trade and the disputed South China Sea islands slide to the back burner, China has remained on the diplomatic offensive, and in overnight remarks cited by Reuters, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the United States "needs to brush up on its history about the South China Sea, as World War Two-related agreements mandated that all Chinese territories taken by Japan had to be returned to China."

China remains upset by previous comments from the new U.S. administration about the disputed waterway. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said China should not be allowed access to islands it has built there. The White House also vowed to defend "international territories" in the strategic waterway.

Perhaps in an attempt to deescalate the situation, and offer an olive branch, last week U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis suggested that diplomacy should be the priority in the South China Sea. However, that was insufficient for China, and in comments carried on the foreign ministry's website late on Tuesday, Wang said he had a "suggestion" for his American friends. "Brush up on the history of World War Two," Wang was quoted as saying during a visit to Canberra, Australia.

Wang added that the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Declaration "clearly state that Japan had to return to China all Chinese territory taken by Japan. This includes the Nansha Islands," he added, using China's name for the Spratly Islands.

"In 1946, the then-Chinese government with help from the United States openly and in accordance with the law took back the Nansha Islands and reefs that Japan had occupied, and resumed exercising sovereignty," Wang said.

"Afterwards, certain countries around China used illegal methods to occupy some of the Nansha islands and reefs, and it's this that created the so-called South China Sea dispute."

China is committed to having talks with the parties directly involved, and in accordance with historical facts and international law to peacefully resolve the issue, and that position will not change, Wang said, but added that countries outside the region should support the efforts of China and others in the region to maintain the peace and stability of the South China Sea, and not do the opposite.

For now the ball is in Trump's court: Wang concluded by saying that China sets great store on Mattis' comments stressing diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea, as this is not only the position set by China and Southeast Asia but also the "correct choice" for countries outside the region.

Assuming Trump's immigration ban is escalated to the Supreme Court, he will likely have his hands full with domestic issues for a long time, which also means that any incipient diplomatic spat with China will most likely fizzle on its own.
 
.
It should be 6 reasons, not 5.

The last one is the most probable to happen.

6. To save Donald Trump position as the president

In order to save his *** from the American people wrath, Trump will divert his people attention to China. He has said it. China stole the American money. So he can use China as the object of his people wrath, and then go war against China.


To admit, IMO THIS is the most important, most dangerous aspect of this nasty "sable-rattling" issue.
IMO Trump has too much of an ego and no sense of politics, international interdependences and most of all no interest in FACTS.

That's why I see this issue so dangerous.

Deino
 
.
trump is just a stupid amatuer, what make it dangerous is that someone behind could take full advantage of trump's stupidity and laziness to fullfill their own agenda.

The obvious risk is Bannon, he is more cunning and speak like a true religious zealot that resembling fundmental islamists.
 
.
trump is just a stupid amatuer, what make it dangerous is that someone behind could take full advantage of trump's stupidity and laziness to fullfill their own agenda.

The obvious risk is Bannon, he is more cunning and speak like a true religious zealot that resembling fundmental islamists.


True words and to admit one of my biggest fears since years is that on the one side the West is deamonising Islam, projects a vision of horror if Iran would get a nuclear capability while at the same time more and more conservative, fundamental Christian tendencies are notable esp. in the US ... so how likely is it that by a strange coincidence or due to such a srtrnage and undemocratic voting-system like in the US a fundamental Christian government with the biggest nuclear arsenal on earth will come in power?
 
.
I have more worry about the Neocons and MIC Deep State there than the outspoken and seemingly reckless property magnate turned into the POTUS, Donald Trump, and the USA is a fracturing basket case nowadays. Those elites always telegraph. Does anyone notice the leaks about POTUS is mentally unsound, or any other thing, then insert Pence into the scene. Well, it may not play out like that (telegraphing your plans has a funny way of throwing a monkey wrench in the works), but major powers better get ready than be sorry. Perhaps Moscow is just doing anticipation. After all the USA is putting its largest forces and assets nearby the Russian border post Cold War.

Btw, do you guys truly believe that Trump really holds a firm grip over these characters incl. the Pentagon, the Agencies, those with deeply entrenched interests, as he claims or thinks he does. They may even stab behind his back one day by employing some kind of false-flag operation (check the "Operation Gladio" or the USS Liberty incident in the past), that seeks to pin the blame on the Russian/Chinese/Iranian... up to their agenda.

This year may be pretty tensed, some surprisingly shocking event or turbulence is not really out of possibility.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
400 air defense systems mobilized near Moscow in snap exercise

RT, 2017-02-08

Launch_units_of_SAM_S_400_Triumf.jpg

Launch units of SAM S-400 "Triumf" © Mikhail Voskresenskiy / Sputnik

Air defense systems around Moscow were put on high alert Wednesday as part of a surprise nationwide combat readiness drill for the Russian Air Force. The Russian capital is one of the best-prepared areas of the country in terms of nuclear strike defenses.

“Units of the air defense force responsible for defending Moscow and the central industrial region have been put on highest combat alert,” the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement. “The air defense mission involves fully-manned combat crews.”

The check involves the redeployment of batteries of S-300, S-400 and Pantsir-S air defense systems to backup positions in a simulation of area contamination, the ministry said. The guards of the batteries also conducted anti-saboteur maneuvers and trained to operate in hard terrain.

Moscow’s air defense system is among the most developed in Russia. When the US and USSR were restricted in deploying anti-ballistic missile systems by the ABM treaty signed in the 1970s, the capital was selected as the only site allowed an ABM shield. The US chose to preserve the Safeguard Complex in North Dakota, ensuring its second strike capability. The defenses have been significantly upgraded since the treaty was scrapped, following the US withdrawal under the George W Bush administration.

The air defense drill is part of the surprise Russian Air Force training ordered by President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday. It involves some 45,000 troops and 1,700 pieces of military equipment, including 150 aircraft and 200 surface-to-air missile launchers, according to Deputy Defense Minister Aleksandr Fomin, who met foreign military attaches on Wednesday to brief them on the situation.

589a2cbec36188e5348b45cd.jpg

Russia conducts snap air force combat readiness check, Western media accuse Moscow of ‘going to war'

“This is a surprise exercise and thus not subject to control under the Vienna document or the OSCE documents. No formal notification was required, but we do inform you as a gesture of goodwill,” he said.

The snap exercise will last until Thursday, Fomin added. The Russian official said it is meant to test how prepared Russia is to repel a possible attack.

“During the test we pay special attention to the deployment of air defense and the readiness of aviation groups to respond to an aggression,” he said, before detailing how exactly Russia was moving its troops during the exercise.

The briefing came amid alarmed reports in some Western media outlets which claimed that the exercise indicated Russian preparations for war.
 
Last edited:
.
True words and to admit one of my biggest fears since years is that on the one side the West is deamonising Islam, projects a vision of horror if Iran would get a nuclear capability while at the same time more and more conservative, fundamental Christian tendencies are notable esp. in the US ... so how likely is it that by a strange coincidence or due to such a srtrnage and undemocratic voting-system like in the US a fundamental Christian government with the biggest nuclear arsenal on earth will come in power?

Teacherman, what giveth?

I thought you only were into flying steel birds... but Civilisational analysis? Seeking balance and honest world view in Fact poor international scene? Have you been eating hindiaan food? Just kidding...


What a nice surprise, old man!

Since, you are at it try Financial interests and their interrelationships to the mess humanity is facing?

@Götterdämmerung is the Berlin Underground on this one!

Anyhow, the only REASON war will ever happen has to do with either introduction of Global single currency or our very own Western Debt crisis.

Keep surprising me, Deino.

Honestly, I wish to the deepest of my heart the WE in the West go back to our True Ideals of Schiller and the 9th Symphony by the deafman...

I wish that Eurasia be border free and all the people live in their own countries and their own cultures.

War is good for Business, though.

Without war there will no new planes for you to write about, my good friend!

We need to integerate entire Eurasia...for the first time in Human History....this now is truly possible. I wish it to happen...good for my small country!
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom