The greatest threat to America’s national security is hiding in plain sight: China is the real enemy

[LeveragedBuyout]

This Cartoon explain very much about what is the China Threat Theory

The papers hold by the dogs say "China Threat".

What's your view about that @LeveragedBuyout

Where's the part where the US fights a world war to protect China from Japan, or is attacked by China in the Korean War, or the US putting hostilities aside to open diplomatic relations and beginning a massive manufacturing outsourcing effort to China in order to split it from the USSR?

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

Where's the part where the US fights a world war to protect China from Japan, or opens diplomatic relations and begins a massive manufacturing outsourcing effort to China in order to split it from the USSR?

All the things you just said are however beneficial to each other , these are our cooperation , we help each other . BUt the center of topic is the threat .

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

All the things you just said are however beneficial to each other , these are our cooperation , we help each other . BUt the center of topic is the threat .

Perhaps I was a bit too sarcastic. I was indirectly pointing out that, contrary to the propaganda, our sense of fear towards China isn't entirely unfounded (i.e. it's not simply a function of the military-industrial complex, or an American need to destroy rising competitors).

From the American perspective, we have historically been relatively kind towards China (I could go on and on: we were not a significant part of the century of humiliation, we pushed to include China in the WTO, we have been very tolerant of Chinese currency manipulation and IP theft, etc.), but despite everything we perceive we have done for / on behalf of China, China has treated us with hostility. China has never defined what it wants (no definition of the 9-dash line, no definition of the "Chinese Dream," etc.), so how can we know China will not continue to pocket concessions and then demand more? That's why the "China threat" arose, because like the USSR, we feel that no matter what we do, China will demand more.

On a side note, I recognize that China has some grievances, like the Serbian embassy bombing, or the perception that it is being encircled. But in contrast to the cartoon you presented, China has hardly been a helpless, passive infant in international relations (Korean War, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, the SCS, etc.) A sense of victimhood is easy and comfortable, but does not suit a great power like China.

 

[Zsari]

But the short take-away is that China and the US are engaged in a struggle for dominance based on economics, and from our economic systems flow our view of how the world should function. I don't believe that America's trepidation towards China's rise is driven by a militaristic nature, but rather by the desire to compete and win economically. We have created a regime (liberal free trade, rule of law, favoring democracy) that allows us to prosper. Under China's system (based on concepts of racial supremacy, rule by law with favored groups above the law, lack of respect for property rights), our success is not assured.

That's why we cannot allow China to reshape the global order--not because it's China specifically that is challenging us, but because the CCP's way of doing things is not compatible with/anathema to our own. Japan's rise caused anxiety in the US, but never the level of fear that China's rise has created; and that is because Japan's system was different, but still recognizable to us. China's is not.

If China further converges with Western standards and becomes the Singapore writ-large that I have been predicting, then you will see the "China threat" stance dissipate, because our systems will have become compatible. This is how Pax Britannica peacefully transitioned to Pax Americana, and it is still a possibility for the transition to Pax Sinica. But that's up to China.

Your theory is just the economic version of "democracy don't fight democracy", whereas if China become democratic, all the animosity would evaporate overnight, which is far from the truth. Just by the virtual of its economic size, the conflict of interest between the US & China will be unavoidable, and while unlike Japan, US cannot order China to yield to its dictation.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Your theory is just the economic version of "democracy don't fight democracy", whereas if China become democratic, all the animosity would evaporate overnight, which is far from the truth. Just by the virtual of its economic size, the conflict of interest between the US & China will be unavoidable, and while unlike Japan, US cannot order China to yield to its dictation.

If China and the US can come to an agreement about how the world order should be structured (whether China is a democracy or not), then the tensions will dissipate. The size of China's economy isn't relevant, just as it isn't relevant in discussions between the EU and US, the two largest economic blocs. That's because we (the US and EU) have a generally compatible view of how trade and law should be structured.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that our (China's and America's) views will converge--history has shown that straight-line extrapolations of the future are a fool's game: before WWII, we were friends. Then we were enemies. Then Nixon went to China, and we were friends again. And now it appears we are becoming enemies again. Do you have the confidence to predict what will happen in the next 30 years, given this cycle? If so, why are you so confident?

As an aside, the reason why the US has such leverage over Japan is because Japan fears China, and will make large concessions to the US in order to ensure American protection. The most incompetent part of the CCP has been its foreign policy, making enemies of most of its neighbors. Had the CCP continued its gradualist approach, the world order would have naturally transitioned to China (just as it did from the British Empire to the US). The CCP (or is it just Xi?) got impatient and reached for glory at the expense of the other Asian countries, and now the US is probably more popular in Asia than we've ever been.

Australia's (and increasingly, the UK's) close relationship with China demonstrate that this does not have to be an East-West issue. Indeed, Japan has long been one of China's largest investors, and the DPJ was overtly pro-China and anti-US, but the CCP screwed up with its Diaoyu nonsense, and now Japan is moving back to the US and re-arming as well.

My point: China controls its own destiny, and if it wants to create hostilities, it can continue to blunder in the SCS and ECS. If it wants a peaceful transition, resulting in its own supremacy, it can return to the "peaceful rise." Nothing is determined, and conflict is not inevitable. But it's up to China to decide, not us. What changed in the region was China's policy, not ours.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

US is the true inheritor of the original western civilization: Rome.

Just like Rome, it has an economy built upon ruthless exploitation of its world, both people and natural resources.

Just like Rome, if it cannot expand, it must contract. Rome only was able to control central Europe and the middle east through overwhelming military force, generations of forcefeeding Latin culture down the people's throats and absolute control over vassal rulers. Once it lost control, the vassal rulers quickly were overrun by barbarians and the people switched their loyalty.

Just like Rome, its society is divided amongst the elite Patricians who control the senate, most of the wealth and the means of production, the common plebs and the slaves - people working in its occupied territories, illegal immigrants, etc.

The patricians deal with the government in practice, while the plebs are placated by colloseum games, circuses and gladiator shows. Kind of how football games and reality TV does the same today.

And just like Rome, there is a supreme arrogance in both the state and its citizens from the highest of senators to the lowest homeless pleb - "civis romanus sum" was the phrase uttered by Romans to its occupied peoples, just as "but I'm an American" is said today to the occupied peoples of Southeast Asia who fawn over them.

Rome saw no equals. Other states were either enemies or vassals. It had to make peace with them, of course, but only after Rome were defeated militarily - such as with the Parthians.

PRC is also the true inheritor of Han, Tang, Song and Ming as the 5th Han dynasty, but the foreign affairs is more like Three Kingdoms. Wu was always vigilant against Wei and ready to both ally with Shu Han, and guard against Shu Han's treachery.

 

[TheTruth]

Dude, fighting is fighting, it does not matter who you fight, but it does matter WHY you fight

No, it doesn't. What matters to foreign countries is whether or not you will attack them or your own instability will spill into their borders.

If you rape enough people, it does not matter if you only rape prostitute or your own friend, you would be a risk to rape anyone. Is that clear?

This is a shit analogy.

 

[Jlaw]

This Cartoon explain very much about what is the China Threat Theory

The papers hold by the dogs say "China Threat".

What's your view about that @LeveragedBuyout

of all the dogs here, which one is Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Philippines? My guess is,

white dog is Japan
bulldog is philippines
brown dog is S Korea
and scrawny dog is Vietnam

 

[TheTruth]

Where's the part where the US fights a world war to protect China from Japan

You mean the part where the US armed and financed Japan until they realized the Japanese weren't exactly their friends?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

You mean the part where the US armed and financed Japan until they realized the Japanese weren't exactly their friends?

Are you really that gullible, or do you simply feel that it's your patriotic duty to brainwash your fellow Chinese citizens into thinking that?

 

[TheTruth]

Are you really that gullible, or do you simply feel that it's your patriotic duty to brainwash your fellow Chinese citizens into thinking that?

United States freezes Japanese assets - Jul 26, 1941 - HISTORY.com

President Roosevelt swung into action by freezing all Japanese assets in America. Britain and the Dutch East Indies followed suit. The result: Japan lost access to three-fourths of its overseas trade and 88 percent of its imported oil. Japan’s oil reserves were only sufficient to last three years

You saved who, again? Ah, you saved the Japanese army as they needed oil to run the machines of war killing Chinese civilians for nearly a decade.

Appreciate the intent, but do you think we're idiots? What I wrote is well-known among East Asia historians. It's not true that only China's policy in Asia has changed. The balance of power has changed. China was more "aggressive" in the SCS in the past. Likewise, most of China's neighbors like China, especially Russia nowadays.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

United States freezes Japanese assets - Jul 26, 1941 - HISTORY.com

President Roosevelt swung into action by freezing all Japanese assets in America. Britain and the Dutch East Indies followed suit. The result: Japan lost access to three-fourths of its overseas trade and 88 percent of its imported oil. Japan’s oil reserves were only sufficient to last three years

You saved who, again? Ah, you saved the Japanese army as they needed oil to run the machines of war killing Chinese civilians for nearly a decade.

Do you think we're idiots?

I don't think all Chinese are idiots, I just think you're an idiot. Saved the Japanese army? I thought opium use was no longer a problem in China. Dear G-d, what are you smoking?

The US could have continued supplying oil to Japan if it did not care about China (business is business, after all), but instead, it imposed an oil embargo on Japan meant to sever Japan's jugular and stop its war machine. Japan, in turn, felt compelled to bomb Pearl Harbor to knock the US navy out of the Pacific and allow Japan unfettered access to oil resources in southeast Asia.

What was America fighting for in the Pacific, if not to stop Japan's expansion in Asia? While American soldiers were fighting and dying, the CCP was busy cowering in the countryside. Communist China has nothing to complain about when it comes to American behavior in WWII.

 

[TheTruth]

The US could have continued supplying oil to Japan if it did not care about China (business is business, after all), but instead, it imposed an oil embargo on Japan meant to sever Japan's jugular and stop its war machine. Japan, in turn, felt compelled to bomb Pearl Harbor to knock the US navy out of the Pacific and allow Japan unfettered access to oil resources in southeast Asia.

Idiot. The US was supplying Japan oil for four years, the time in which it achieved most of its military victories against the KMT. The only reason you cut off supplies was because Japan was starting to turn toward white-owned colonies in the Pacific, which meant they would have obtained in short order the materiel means to challenge US interests in the Pacific.

The fact that the Japanese were stupid enough to attack China was a godsend for the West.

What was America fighting for in the Pacific, if not to stop Japan's expansion in Asia? While American soldiers were fighting and dying, the CCP was busy cowering in the countryside. Communist China has nothing to complain about when it comes to American behavior in WWII.

America was fighting for America. In particular, you got bombed by Japan. Japanese expansion in Asia was contrary to American interests. Morality or (lol) sympathy for the Chinese was not even a tertiary consideration.

And look at my flag, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

America was fighting for America. In particular, you got bombed by Japan. Japanese expansion in Asia was contrary to American interests. Morality or (lol) sympathy for the Chinese was not even a tertiary consideration.

And look at my flag, you're barking up the wrong tree.

We got bombed by Japan because of our attempts to deter Japan from expanding in China and elsewhere in Asia. You have a poor understanding of logic and linearity. I'm sure you believe or were taught that Japan decided to randomly bomb Pearl Harbor after an extended cocaine party, in response to nothing in particular. In the real world, Japan bombed the US in response to the US reaction to Japan's expansion in Asia, foremost of which was its aggression in China.

The fact that the Japanese were stupid enough to attack China was a godsend for the West.

Now I'm quite convinced that you are under the influence.

Idiot. The US was supplying Japan oil for four years, the time in which it achieved most of its military victories against the KMT. The only reason you cut off supplies was because Japan was starting to turn toward white-owned colonies in the Pacific, which meant they would have obtained in short order the materiel means to challenge US interests in the Pacific.

America was supplying Japan with oil... and supplying weapons and aid to the KMT.

Let me demonstrate how insane your "logic" is: since China didn't aid America in its fight against the British Empire, and continued to trade with the British Empire, China in essence funded the British war effort against the US. How do you like that?

The US had no ethical obligation to start a war with Japan to protect China (we had no colony in China). The US condemned Japan's actions, and then used economic sanctions to try and deter Japan. That is far more than what most Western countries did, and the US was not obligated to do so, especially in its isolationist state at the time.

Since you are not clever enough to use the contemporaneous standards to judge the US, and instead use today's standards to judge the US of the 1930s, it's a waste of time arguing with you. You can go ahead and parrot whatever propaganda you've absorbed as your final word. I won't see it, because you'll be on my ignore list.

 

[Shotgunner51]

I already addressed this more comprehensively in the following post:
The Death of a Superpower? | Page 2

Almost miss that amazing post of yours, an excellent one!

But the short take-away is that China and the US are engaged in a struggle for dominance based on economics, and from our economic systems flow our view of how the world should function. I don't believe that America's trepidation towards China's rise is driven by a militaristic nature, but rather by the desire to compete and win economically. We have created a regime (liberal free trade, rule of law, favoring democracy) that allows us to prosper. Under China's system (based on concepts of racial supremacy, rule by law with favored groups above the law, lack of respect for property rights), our success is not assured.

That's why we cannot allow China to reshape the global order--not because it's China specifically that is challenging us, but because the CCP's way of doing things is not compatible with/anathema to our own. Japan's rise caused anxiety in the US, but never the level of fear that China's rise has created; and that is because Japan's system was different, but still recognizable to us. China's is not.

If China further converges with Western standards and becomes the Singapore writ-large that I have been predicting, then you will see the "China threat" stance dissipate, because our systems will have become compatible. This is how Pax Britannica peacefully transitioned to Pax Americana, and it is still a possibility for the transition to Pax Sinica. But that's up to China.

I agree with you that the nature of rivalry is a competition for economic dominance, that includes dominance on energy, resources, tech, trade routes and markets. However I also believe that the competition shouldn't be a zero sum game, the world is big enough for co-existence, co-prosperity. Even if China has surpassed US in few macroscopic indicators, it's very normal given China is a lot more populated, US need not worry. The dollar hegemony, Bretton Woods system will continue to assure US economic advantage in the forseeable future.

It's interesting that you mentioned the example of Singapore writ-large, since that model possess both challenge and opportunity for contemporary Chinese socio-political system. Whatever the future direction will be, it's going to have significant impact on China's relationship with the world including US. The future is full of uncertainty, history is a testament to that.