Can the US Afford the Asia Pivot?

[Beidou2020]

US does not have 300 billions plus surplus in reserve, that would mean US have no national debt and 300 billions in federal reserve, US have 300 billions plus surplus in budget, US have 5+ Trillions national debt in 2001.

The actual cost of war by measure of Debt accumulated is only about 10-11 trillions with a 2 front war over the duration of 10 and 14 years. Consider that, this is relatively cheap.

And you need to look at it this way, even after the foreign government involvement, US would not have spend that 7 trillion of those 11 trillions debt had they do not gone to war, which translate to they can spare 7 trillions dollars to do something like that, but at the same time China can only spare 4 trillions in that 13 years....Which is actually proportional to the GDP figure.

How much is the CIA paying you?

 

[Mighty Caty]

@Caty

U are making a mistake by grouping China with Iraq n Afghanistan, both didn't have enough defense or anything to put a decent fight against US, but it's different with China. With that, the cost for war with China will increase a lot, it can be 10x 20x or more.

As a matter of facts, Iraq is a peer and near peer enemy of the United States.

Before both Iraq war (the first gulf war) and Operation Iraqi freedom. Pundit and military advisor alike would see American and NATO coalition would bleed more than they actually did after the actual invasion.

In the first gulf war, US and NATO coalition amass a 900,000 troop force in Iraq, facing the Iraqi "2 millions" army, but actually more than half of those are conscript.

However, not all 900,000 NATO/UN Coalition troop are "In theater" all at the same time during the invasion phase. In fact, Saudi Border with Kuwait and Iraq only did allow 300,000 some troop to stage an offensive there as the border itself is a battlefield between Iraq and SA.

Facing at least 600,000 Iraqi elite troop (medina division and other republican guard) It's not 300,000 UN troop strength nor technological advantage that broke thru the Iraqi Border and Swing around to liberate Kuwait, but rather the overall tactics of both side. The clever deployment and feign attack from the US/NATO and the fail tactics on Iraqi side.

In 2003 invasion of Iraq, the situation is even worse than it was in 1991, while the Iraqi force largely remain unchanged still the same division and numbered 500,000, simply because US and NATO did not destroy much of Iraqi military infrastructure and even less troop destruction during desert storm, but this time US can only afford a 170,000 force instead of 500,000 in Desert storm and overall NATO force not more than 300,000 troop. Yet the enemy is the same medina division and republican guard of 500,000. However this time tommy frank once again feigned and fake the Iraqi Army.

See, the Iraqi army this time would think the American is going to start a length air campaign, like they did with a 4 months bombing in 1991, instead of having their troop ready on the battle line and hold position, they were ordered to dig in and wait for the NATO bombing that has never came. Instead, Tommy Frank ordered a Blitz attack to capture Baghdad, 300 mile away from the US Starting point in Kuwait. The result is when the American 3rd division arrive in Baghdad international airport, the Iraqi force was in their underground bunker sleeping. Only when they wake up, which is the following day, the Battle of Baghdad was commenced.

Iraq is not a push over as many think, in fact, if Iraqi command is better at preparing for war instead of talking about it on radio and TV, they would have done better than what they actually did

But all that aside, this does not change the argument anyway. As indeed you cannot compare Iraq and Afghanistan to China. but you also cannot compare US Force to those of Iraqi and Afghani rebel. It may have been 10 or 20 times the cost, but it goes both way, the different again is, US will not be paying those 100 to 200 trillions alone (If you say 10 to 20 times) but China would have to fork them out of their own pocket, so....Even if I give you that, the argument stays the same. A war in this scale, China alone cannot pay for it.......Plus a war this scale if happened around Chinese coast, while Chinese cannot touch American Mainland Infrastructure, but every city and every Military target in China would have been open to attack, in exchange, China may or may not get some far away target in Guam, Japan or even Australia. Which largely have nothing to do with US economy, which mean they can bounce back almost immediately.

How much is the CIA paying you?

If I say something you don't like then CIA is pay me, then I guess they are rich enough to pay for more than half of the world, I would say about 60-70%. There how US influence goes.

 

[Beidou2020]

As a matter of facts, Iraq is a peer and near peer enemy of the United States.

Before both Iraq war (the first gulf war) and Operation Iraqi freedom. Pundit and military advisor alike would see American and NATO coalition would bleed more than they actually did after the actual invasion.

In the first gulf war, US and NATO coalition amass a 900,000 troop force in Iraq, facing the Iraqi "2 millions" army, but actually more than half of those are conscript.

However, not all 900,000 NATO/UN Coalition troop are "In theater" all at the same time during the invasion phase. In fact, Saudi Border with Kuwait and Iraq only did allow 300,000 some troop to stage an offensive there as the border itself is a battlefield between Iraq and SA.

Facing at least 600,000 Iraqi elite troop (medina division and other republican guard) It's not 300,000 UN troop strength nor technological advantage that broke thru the Iraqi Border and Swing around to liberate Kuwait, but rather the overall tactics of both side. The clever deployment and feign attack from the US/NATO and the fail tactics on Iraqi side.

In 2003 invasion of Iraq, the situation is even worse than it was in 1991, while the Iraqi force largely remain unchanged still the same division and numbered 500,000, simply because US and NATO did not destroy much of Iraqi military infrastructure and even less troop destruction during desert storm, but this time US can only afford a 170,000 force instead of 500,000 in Desert storm and overall NATO force not more than 300,000 troop. Yet the enemy is the same medina division and republican guard of 500,000. However this time tommy frank once again feigned and fake the Iraqi Army.

See, the Iraqi army this time would think the American is going to start a length air campaign, like they did with a 4 months bombing in 1991, instead of having their troop ready on the battle line and hold position, they were ordered to dig in and wait for the NATO bombing that has never came. Instead, Tommy Frank ordered a Blitz attack to capture Baghdad, 300 mile away from the US Starting point in Kuwait. The result is when the American 3rd division arrive in Baghdad international airport, the Iraqi force was in their underground bunker sleeping. Only when they wake up, which is the following day, the Battle of Baghdad was commenced.

Iraq is not a push over as many think, in fact, if Iraqi command is better at preparing for war instead of talking about it on radio and TV, they would have done better than what they actually did

But all that aside, this does not change the argument anyway. As indeed you cannot compare Iraq and Afghanistan to China. but you also cannot compare US Force to those of Iraqi and Afghani rebel. It may have been 10 or 20 times the cost, but it goes both way, the different again is, US will not be paying those 100 to 200 trillions alone (If you say 10 to 20 times) but China would have to fork them out of their own pocket, so....Even if I give you that, the argument stays the same. A war in this scale, China alone cannot pay for it.......Plus a war this scale if happened around Chinese coast, while Chinese cannot touch American Mainland Infrastructure, but every city and every Military target in China would have been open to attack, in exchange, China may or may not get some far away target in Guam, Japan or even Australia. Which largely have nothing to do with US economy, which mean they can bounce back almost immediately.



If I say something you don't like then CIA is pay me, then I guess they are rich enough to pay for more than half of the world, I would say about 60-70%. There how US influence goes.

Most of the people that support the Yankees are brainwashed by Yankee propaganda. You get your information from propaganda mouthpieces like CNN, AP, Fox, etc.

Nearly all the developing world supports Russia including the population of these developing countries.

Pretty much 95% of Chinese netizens support Russia.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Most of the people that support the Yankees are brainwashed by Yankee propaganda. You get your information from propaganda mouthpieces like CNN, AP, Fox, etc.

Nearly all the developing world supports Russia including the population of these developing countries.

Pretty much 95% of Chinese netizens support Russia.

It may be interested to know, I don't watch CNN, AP, FOX or any other TV outlet, infact, I do not even own a TV set that connected to a TV antenna. The TV is for my Husband's Video Gaming.

Problem for you is, you claim the other group that's brainwashed by other liberal or official media, but this is the exact same view that the other party want you to think, so in a way? Weren't we all brainwashed one way or another??

Try do it like me, unplug your TV for a change. Experience pure information untouched by any sort of media, only your brain.

Until then, no matter which way you stand, you are just one brainwashed guy telling other they are brainwashed...

 

[Beidou2020]

It may be interested to know, I don't watch CNN, AP, FOX or any other TV outlet, infact, I do not even own a TV set that connected to a TV antenna. The TV is for my Husband's Video Gaming.

Problem for you is, you claim the other group that's brainwashed by other liberal or official media, but this is the exact same view that the other party want you to think, so in a way? Weren't we all brainwashed one way or another??

Try do it like me, unplug your TV for a change. Experience pure information untouched by any sort of media, only your brain.

Until then, no matter which way you stand, you are just one brainwashed guy telling other they are brainwashed...

Oh my, the irony of this statement made me chuckle.
Pot calling the kettle black

 

[GR!FF!N]

How much is the CIA paying you?

atleast 10 times better than CCP is paying you...

see,thats a pathetic attitude of you lot.this new posters is posting with a lot of sense than many senior "warmonger" Chinese Senior members here..

@Mighty Caty

I agree with you.some posters simply mock US,NATO and their Asean members and its own neighbours.but they tend to forget that its their export which is keeping its country's economy booming.any fallout to China-US relations and they'll sure going to notice how their economy is going to change within a blink.

plus,they think some hundreds jets and 2-3 ACs and they'll sure going to invade in USA mainland with good old cowboy style.but they forget that USA is sole Superpower still now and they intend to remain so atleast for another century.about one thing USA is quite serious,and thats they never allow anyone to question their superiority in global arena.SU was more of a challenge in the past than China now,cause SU had their own allies,while China almost has none who could rally behind them in case of any fall out.in this case too,USA has a big advantage.

about ASEAN pivot---

I want to add that even now,ASEAN members re reluctant to create any NATO like block to oppose China(though they want a Multilateral Group to discuss their territorial problems with China).but that doesn't going to stop USA to redeploy its majority of naval assest all across west Pacific.now they're mulling for a base or two in both Philippines and Vietnam,which is certainly going to increase tension.

 

[sincity]

China just need to build up their Nuclear delivery capacity that enough to deter any alliance against China in Asia. China don't need to build base near US but make sure the China Nuclear deterance that guarantee the mutual destruction of both nation in case there is an unprovocation started by the US and US ally in the region.

Putin still have the trump card, the MAD weapons will destroy the whole world in case US and Nato want to fight a war with Russia over Crimea.

 

[Beidou2020]

atleast 10 times better than CCP is paying you...

see,thats a pathetic attitude of you lot.this new posters is posting with a lot of sense than many senior "warmonger" Chinese Senior members here..

@Mighty Caty

I agree with you.some posters simply mock US,NATO and their Asean members and its own neighbours.but they tend to forget that its their export which is keeping its country's economy booming.any fallout to China-US relations and they'll sure going to notice how their economy is going to change within a blink.

plus,they think some hundreds jets and 2-3 ACs and they'll sure going to invade in USA mainland with good old cowboy style.but they forget that USA is sole Superpower still now and they intend to remain so atleast for another century.about one thing USA is quite serious,and thats they never allow anyone to question their superiority in global arena.SU was more of a challenge in the past than China now,cause SU had their own allies,while China almost has none who could rally behind them in case of any fall out.in this case too,USA has a big advantage.

about ASEAN pivot---

I want to add that even now,ASEAN members re reluctant to create any NATO like block to oppose China(though they want a Multilateral Group to discuss their territorial problems with China).but that doesn't going to stop USA to redeploy its majority of naval assest all across west Pacific.now they're mulling for a base or two in both Philippines and Vietnam,which is certainly going to increase tension.

We were told universally that we would collapse when the western economies collapsed in 2008 due to no demand for our goods. But not only did we not collapse as was predicted, our economy accelerated and we became the global economic engine where the rest of the world depended on our markets for growth including the vast majority of multinationals. We now contribute the most to global growth as our demand for manufactured goods, services, energy, raw materials and agriculture are driving the export boom of many economies worldwide. This has resulted in us becoming the largest trading partner for many countries worldwide including the largest export market.

We certainly have no intention of invading the US. We don't need allies to surpass the US. If we reach our full potential there is not an empire on this planet that will come within touching distance of China. China at its best will be the greatest power the human race has ever seen. We certainly didn't need a bunch of westerners to come and form us into a country like a certain other country needed.

We are an independent country with an independent foreign policy with a dynamic and extremely resilient economy.

We certainly don't give a rats backside about what a bunch of foreigners think about us. We have been getting stronger by the day for multiple decades and this will accelerate over the coming decades whether anyone likes it or not.

We will continue to build up our military and protect our geopolitical interests.

 

[JSCh]

Food for thought from Indian Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar.

Implausible reality
By M K Bhadrakumar, March 5, 2014
Without much ado, China’s first and only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, left its homeport of Qingdao in east China’s Shandong Province on Sunday for conducting tests and training missions.

How far deep into the blue sea it will sail and how long will its mission continue remains unclear. But what is clear is that unlike during its 37-day voyage in the South China Sea last December, when the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens conducted surveillance of the Liaoning, no such provocative intelligence-gathering operation by the Americans is likely.
The Asia-Pacific is no more the same. The Associated Press reported that the emergent preoccupations on the European theatre have become “a renewed reality that may force president Barack Obama’s administration to give up its intended foreign policy shift to Asia indefinitely”.

Indeed, the looming crisis in Ukraine threatens to impact the power dynamic all across East Asia as well as the regions of Central Asia and Afghanistan and West Asia, the wide swathe of land American strategists would call the Greater Middle East. To be sure, the new government in New Delhi after the parliamentary poll on April-May can expect an external environment of great fluidity surrounding India.

The locus of the US foreign policy has shifted back to Europe. Europe has been receiving only glancing mention as a foreign-policy priority for the Obama administration, but the first sign of a reshuffling of priorities appeared at the annual Munich security conference two months ago in the speech by the US secretary of state John Kerry.

He all but admitted Washington’s realisation that the weakening of the US’ transatlantic leadership through the last decade or so, coupled with the administration’s plan to roll back military spending and shrink armed forces, steadily undercut the US’ capacity to lead from the front in global politics. Suffice to say, the US is rediscovering the core value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) and this is being put to test in Ukraine.

The US hopes to rally the world to push back resurgent Russia, whereas the approach so far has been to selectively engage Russia on areas of vital American interests and to use Moscow’s considerable leverage to help solve world problems. The Ukraine problem at its core is related to Moscow’s attempt to integrate the former Soviet republics under the Eurasian Union. The Eurasian Union challenges the US’ project to present the Nato as the provider of security for Central Asia.

From the Russian perspective, on the other hand, NATO’s expansion and the deployment of the US missile defence system on its border regions would transform the global strategic balance in Washington’s favour and divest Moscow of its nuclear deterrence capabilities.

Impact on India

India may face negative fallouts of these big-power rivalries that can be expected to erupt in Central Asia, especially if the US reverts to its Cold War strategy to use the ‘jihad’ as instrument of policy to overthrow the pro-Russian regimes in that region. The recent visit by the Saudi Crown Prince Salman bin Al-Saud to Pakistan and the forthcoming visit by Obama to Saudi Arabia suggest that new templates are appearing in regional politics.

Clearly, the US sees the military bases in Afghanistan as invaluable strategic assets to project power into Central Asia. On the other hand, the open-ended western occupation of Afghanistan will fuel the ‘jihadi’ elements, and the implications are serious for regional security. Syria is a telling example of the danger of the ascendancy of extremists. Any rupture in the US-Russia cooperation will only complicate further the situation in Syria and make it more difficult to find a political solution.

The big question is whether the US imposes ‘sanctions’ on Russia. Any such move would have huge consequences for the world energy market and would, most certainly, draw forth retaliation by Russia. The result could well be a showdown over the situation surrounding Iran where Moscow has so far cooperated with Washington. Obama insists that 95 percent of the US sanctions against Iran will remain in place until a nuclear deal is concluded. But Russia is under no obligation to observe the US’ sanction regime against Iran. Iran’s integration with the international community can no longer be on American terms and the implications are profound for the security of the Persian Gulf.

Over and above, the understanding shown by Beijing to Moscow’s stance in the Ukraine crisis enriches the China-Russia strategic partnership. In comparison, Japan caved in to the US pressure to toe the G7 line and the Russia-Japan normalization process would get delayed. Thus, China becomes a crucial partner for Russia in its upcoming struggle to break out of the ring of political and economic isolation that the US threatens to impose on it. In the emergent scenario, Washington would be exceedingly foolish to cause any annoyance to Beijing.

In sum, the US’ capacity to push its ‘rebalance’ strategy in Asia becomes more doubtful than ever before. How these incipient tendencies in big power politics would crystallize remains to be seen, but the Ukraine crisis holds the potential to become a ‘game changer’ in the politics of the Asia-Pacific. India, in retrospect, did well by eschewing ‘bloc mentality’, which would have proved delusional, and instead opted for a process of normalisation with China.

Of course, implausible as it may seem, the new reality is also that the Liaoning could well choose to head northward to the East China Sea to test its prowess in the vicinity of the Diaoyu Islands – even by sailing by it and putting it on a navigation chart. If that were to happen, would Japan resist or retreat? Put simply, China is the winner in the US’s confrontation with Russia.

 

[revu]

But all that aside, this does not change the argument anyway. As indeed you cannot compare Iraq and Afghanistan to China. but you also cannot compare US Force to those of Iraqi and Afghani rebel. It may have been 10 or 20 times the cost, but it goes both way, the different again is, US will not be paying those 100 to 200 trillions alone (If you say 10 to 20 times) but China would have to fork them out of their own pocket, so....Even if I give you that, the argument stays the same. A war in this scale, China alone cannot pay for it.......Plus a war this scale if happened around Chinese coast, while Chinese cannot touch American Mainland Infrastructure, but every city and every Military target in China would have been open to attack, in exchange, China may or may not get some far away target in Guam, Japan or even Australia. Which largely have nothing to do with US economy, which mean they can bounce back almost immediately.

China can hit all cities in US soil

China boasts about new submarine fleet capable of launching nuclear warheads at cities throughout the United States | Mail Online

 

[Mighty Caty]

China can hit all cities in US soil

China boasts about new submarine fleet capable of launching nuclear warheads at cities throughout the United States | Mail Online

As I said, if China have to resort to tactical nuclear missile, then MAD will kick in and we are all dead, no point boasting anything

Or are you simply thinking the American will simply just sit and watch Chinese nuking their soil and do nothing?

 

[revu]

As I said, if China have to resort to tactical nuclear missile, then MAD will kick in and we are all dead, no point boasting anything

Or are you simply thinking the American will simply just sit and watch Chinese nuking their soil and do nothing?

It will only make thing back to square one or status quo. US had the capability to attack China soil and so is China, both won't go to war, there is too much at stake for both US and China.

 

[xunzi]

As I said, if China have to resort to tactical nuclear missile, then MAD will kick in and we are all dead, no point boasting anything

Or are you simply thinking the American will simply just sit and watch Chinese nuking their soil and do nothing?

Does shooting down US satellites considered part of tactical nuclear strike or conventional? That could been an option to defer the US from attacking our coast. Let not forget, the US Guam base is within range of our missiles. It will not be an easy cakewalk for the US to attack our coast defense without getting some serious wound when their pilots flying back to base, that is if they have a base to land or know their way back because we will destroy their satellite network. If the US brought their troop over to our mainland, that will be a suicide mission for US force.

And your over-simplification of Iraq War in connection with us is laughable. Iraq didn't have offensive capability to counter US's missile onslaught. I remembered the day when Bush's countdown to war with Iraq very clearly. Three, two, one... Baghdad was lit up in fire the moment the countdown got to zero.

 

[shuttler]

Here you have made two mistake,

One: Trade have nothing to do with Military Relationship. It did not dictate nor forbade anyone from trading with anyone.

Overruled
Where did I make a link between Military Relationship with trade?

The term "Free Market" is coin so that no one country can trade with only one country, of course, unless a certain pact was given.

Again I did not bring in "Free Market" nor did I said “Free Market” should have anything to do to China's trade with other nations. I just pointed out the competition inter se and inter alia there!
You created it "Free Market" and put it into my mouth

If you kindly read my comment on Kalu Miah. You would see the 4 country in question (For argument sake, Leave Vietnam, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand out of the equation), if you take out Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and India alone, You also take out 800+ billions trading figure from China, either those figure need to replenished with the other trading partner. Or that would be a Chinese Total lost. 500 Billions is about 1/5 of total Chinese Trade. It will be catastrophic if China indeed go ahead and trying to bankrupt them, as there are no replacement market.

No my writing was not pointing to the magnitude and size of the various impacts
YOU have overdone it!
On the trading perspective, I was just highlighting "trade competing" position of China vs other
nations respectively

And if all you said about the military and geopolitics have anything to do with Trading figure and economy, then EU, USA, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and India will not be the NO,1,2,4,6,7,9 on Top Chinese trade partner.

I have not denied that

Military and Geopolitics aside, country, any country needs to survive, and trade simply have to do without any political and militarily influence.

I havent denied this either nor I have tried to talk about these multi facet relationships in my post

The other things you got wrong is you believe a total war with US is the only way to bankrupt the US.

If you take a look at both US war in Iraq and US war in Afghanistan, you will see that both war cost about 10 trillions in 10 years. about 1 trillion dollar a year in 2 wars.

The problem is, the war is not bought and pay for by the US government. But rather the funding was digested by a combination local US Economy, US government, and Foreign government via the notorious US Treasury bond. IN effect, China, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and any country beside the US Business, Banking institution and US government whom bought the bond is paying for US to go to war, technically speaking, that's 40% out of those 10 trillions are pay for by foreign government.

You are wrong!
I said another protracted war will make USA bankrupt
If the usa is not seeing what the damage of wars have done to its economy why it has to withdraw its troops prematurely!
Have you taken into account the amount after war services!

Of course the printing of us greenbacks are for financing their economy
How is the 40% come about is something you need to further elaborate!

But in the Chinese case, if China indeed going to war with the American heads on, they will need to finance their war themselves. That would bring 2 changes on table.

1.) Majority of the Chinese money will be diverted to Fight the war, by either making planes and warship to actually paying for services render (Soldier's pays to maintenance paid)

2.) Majority of resource will be diverted to fighting a war, mostly iron, steel, and other material will be diverted for Military use and most importantly, Manpower.

While money come from trade, with China shift from a peacetime economy to a war time economy, there are not much trade goods production. If you are expected to fight a protracted war with US, China would need constant resupply of war material. That would draw down trade goods production, and that would draw down the money coming in.

And then you will have a manpower issue on hand, soldier are not made up with old man, children and women, they mostly made up with Serviceable strong and capable man at their prime age. If China is going to war with the US, China will lose a great deal of those and they will either be killed or disable and be out of the normal workforce forever, Without them and with no replacement worker since China is neither an immigrant country nor a country with high birth rate (roughly half of the US), the time for economic recover will be hinder to at least twice as long if you just factor in the Birth issue.

And then the more appropriate question is, if a war between US and China be fought, where will you fight them? The answer is, within the next 50 years, there are literally no to slim to none chance that the war will be fighting in US or near US Soil so that primary manufacture capability in Continental US will be threaten. The war, if it does happen are more than likely to be fought in the West Pacific, Near the Chinese border or actually in Chinese Border. That mean At best, China can take out US Bases in the Pacific, which do not have much of economic value and the US allies in the Area, which also does not have much economic value with the US. However, Chinese city will be bomb and Chinese sovereign will be violated. That would present a problem for Chinese economic development both during and after the war.

where did I say China should enter into a war with USA to make it bankrupt?

the only way to bankrupt US via a direct war is over-the-horizon war, which means a thermonuclear war. Then both China and US and possible the world would be gone, then we have no reason to talk about what's after after.

that is a comment after you have smoked enough!

 

[kalu_miah]

From the Chinese point of view, they SHOULD NOT expect Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan to bank up, those 4 countries combined have the same impact with China-US trade. Which is approximately 17-20% (About 850 billions) of total Chinese Trade.

If Japan(342.9 Billions -4th Trading partner), Taiwan(160 Billions - 7th Trading partner), South Korea (245 Billions - 6th Trading partner), India (74 billions -9th Trading partner) - and Singapore bankrupt from China, Chinese will be dealt with a big toll, not to mention if those are the case, US and EU would either imbalance the military situation or they will sanction China, so essentially, China will lose US (446 Billions -2nd Trading partner) and EU market (567 Billions - 1st Trading partner with China) too, that would be another 50-60%, which left China with only 20% of trade as of now. And the above figure does not include Part of ASEAN (Vietnam, Philippine and Laos) and also Australia and New Zealand

Essentially, if China bankrupt Japan, India, South Korea and Singapore, effectively, they are taking out 850 billions of trade, that number have to go somewhere else or they will be total lost. If it does, then China will not going any better than all those country. And that is if US and EU does not take any action, if they do, there will be another 1 trillion dollar trade goes down the drain. It will certainly bankrupt China in a sense as you take out No1, No2, No3 (Partially), No 4, No6 , No7 and No9 top trading partner with China......

If an Arms race happened in Near Far East, it will only draw the Asian Country more toward the America. it will not bring them closer to Chinese camp. And it will only do American a favor, it sap the Chinese Economic will and increase the Asian country reliance to the US.

I disagree with your line of thinking. Here are my views on the subject.

The train has already left the station. The US/West could hope to contain China if they never engaged China economically, but once they did decades back, it is now much too late to contain China at this stage. Chinese rise to the top is a freight train that is barreling down the tracks and no one will be able to stop them.

So this idiotic "Pivot" will amount to nothing but wasted time and effort for everyone who are banking on it. It would be better for them to accept the inevitable future and not waste resource and time on futile efforts.

What is my reasoning? China is in the middle of Asian land mass where there is billions of people. The economic center of gravity of the world is slowly shifting away from the West to East Asia. The US is a far away power and the isolation gives them some level of security, but being faraway from the Eurasian landmass is also one of her greatest weakness. So in vain the US tries to create division and conflict among nations in the Eurasian landmass, to divide and rule. But with China's rise, that is no longer possible. With the exception to EU, most other nations in Eurasian landmass will eventually submit to a China led order, because of:
- China's proximity to large population bases and growing markets in Asia
- China's mostly homogeneous population, with 1.2 billion ethnic Han majority
- China's population size which is 4 times that of the US
- China's ability to transform their society at a fast pace similar to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the earlier Asian Tigers

With economic rise China needs to step up with diplomacy and a more muscular interventionist foreign policy in nations that are allies and potential allies. That is what I would like to hear more about from Chinese posters. Nonintervention I believe is becoming an outdated and obsolete policy for China. Geopolitics abhors vacuum, left alone gaps are always filled by someone else, specially by undesirable and unwanted elements. And China can no longer afford to believe in nonintervention. The world belongs to those who reshapes it according to their ability and will.