War hawk former Deputy Undersecretary of US Navy predicts war with China is 'inevitable'

[T-Rex]

In an editorial on Saturday, the retired naval officer, writing on behalf of the neoconservative think tank The Hudson Institute, predicted that a bloody naval conflict with China was imminent.

The Former Deputy Undersecretary of the US Navy under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush penned a troubling editorial on Saturday calling on the Obama administration to taking a more hawkish stance against Chinese expansionism predicting that war with Beijing is inevitable and that the United States should do everything necessary to limit China's strength in the meantime.

"A key component of the next president's foreign policy must be to compel China to respect international law. Otherwise, we may be faced by a conflict with a growing navy at a time when ours is decreasing in size," said Seth Cropsey. "Obama has not made this imperative any easier."

The naval officer turned think tank war hawk contested Beijing's claim to the South China Sea's disputed islands citing the decision by the international tribunal at The Hague on July 12 and blasted the Obama administration's response to the decision saying it "wholly ignored the military character of China's actions to date in the South China Sea."

Cropsey contends that contrary to a statement made by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015 to President Obama stating that the islands of the South China Sea would not be militarized, China has nonetheless "continued construction of hardened hangars demonstrat[ing] Beijing's intent to deploy combat aircraft to the islands."

He surmised that China's foreign policy is one of expansionism and imperialism where might makes right citing Beijing's former Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi out of context who said, "China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that's a fact."


Comment: Cropsey speaks from US experience.


Cropsey argues in his piece further that China has its own brand of exceptionalism, distinct from American exceptionalism, that is somehow not predicated on the "rule of law" or "accepted norms of international behavior," but rather the country's power to ignore international law altogether. The position that he lays out somewhat astoundingly is that of former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, whose name has been floated as the next Secretary of State, who wrote in a 2000 article that apart from the words expressly laid out in treaties international law does not exist at all because, essentially, it is based on custom and if you violate that custom repeatedly then the customary international law changes.

Nonetheless, Cropsey returns to his opinion that "China does not respect international law" whereas "Japan and the United States do" before calling for a more adversarial posture towards Beijing because "the next US administration needs to understand that our fate as a great power is inseparable from America's continued role as a great Pacific power."

As tensions continue to mount on the high seas at least some American military officials believe it is wise to provoke and isolate China just short of military conflict in order to limit the consequence of an inevitable war - a frightening reality for the wellbeing of the world that was once unthinkable.

https://www.sott.net/article/327325...US-Navy-predicts-war-with-China-is-inevitable

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

In an editorial on Saturday, the retired naval officer, writing on behalf of the neoconservative think tank The Hudson Institute, predicted that a bloody naval conflict with China was imminent.

The Former Deputy Undersecretary of the US Navy under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush penned a troubling editorial on Saturday calling on the Obama administration to taking a more hawkish stance against Chinese expansionism predicting that war with Beijing is inevitable and that the United States should do everything necessary to limit China's strength in the meantime.

"A key component of the next president's foreign policy must be to compel China to respect international law. Otherwise, we may be faced by a conflict with a growing navy at a time when ours is decreasing in size," said Seth Cropsey. "Obama has not made this imperative any easier."

The naval officer turned think tank war hawk contested Beijing's claim to the South China Sea's disputed islands citing the decision by the international tribunal at The Hague on July 12 and blasted the Obama administration's response to the decision saying it "wholly ignored the military character of China's actions to date in the South China Sea."

Cropsey contends that contrary to a statement made by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015 to President Obama stating that the islands of the South China Sea would not be militarized, China has nonetheless "continued construction of hardened hangars demonstrat[ing] Beijing's intent to deploy combat aircraft to the islands."

He surmised that China's foreign policy is one of expansionism and imperialism where might makes right citing Beijing's former Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi out of context who said, "China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that's a fact."


Comment: Cropsey speaks from US experience.


Cropsey argues in his piece further that China has its own brand of exceptionalism, distinct from American exceptionalism, that is somehow not predicated on the "rule of law" or "accepted norms of international behavior," but rather the country's power to ignore international law altogether. The position that he lays out somewhat astoundingly is that of former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, whose name has been floated as the next Secretary of State, who wrote in a 2000 article that apart from the words expressly laid out in treaties international law does not exist at all because, essentially, it is based on custom and if you violate that custom repeatedly then the customary international law changes.

Nonetheless, Cropsey returns to his opinion that "China does not respect international law" whereas "Japan and the United States do" before calling for a more adversarial posture towards Beijing because "the next US administration needs to understand that our fate as a great power is inseparable from America's continued role as a great Pacific power."

As tensions continue to mount on the high seas at least some American military officials believe it is wise to provoke and isolate China just short of military conflict in order to limit the consequence of an inevitable war - a frightening reality for the wellbeing of the world that was once unthinkable.

https://www.sott.net/article/327325...US-Navy-predicts-war-with-China-is-inevitable

Americans always looking for war...Is this retired naval american a front man of MIC? Very shameful of him...Looking to acquire budget from Pentagon/Washington for military?

 

[Beast]

In an editorial on Saturday, the retired naval officer, writing on behalf of the neoconservative think tank The Hudson Institute, predicted that a bloody naval conflict with China was imminent.

The Former Deputy Undersecretary of the US Navy under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush penned a troubling editorial on Saturday calling on the Obama administration to taking a more hawkish stance against Chinese expansionism predicting that war with Beijing is inevitable and that the United States should do everything necessary to limit China's strength in the meantime.

"A key component of the next president's foreign policy must be to compel China to respect international law. Otherwise, we may be faced by a conflict with a growing navy at a time when ours is decreasing in size," said Seth Cropsey. "Obama has not made this imperative any easier."

The naval officer turned think tank war hawk contested Beijing's claim to the South China Sea's disputed islands citing the decision by the international tribunal at The Hague on July 12 and blasted the Obama administration's response to the decision saying it "wholly ignored the military character of China's actions to date in the South China Sea."

Cropsey contends that contrary to a statement made by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015 to President Obama stating that the islands of the South China Sea would not be militarized, China has nonetheless "continued construction of hardened hangars demonstrat[ing] Beijing's intent to deploy combat aircraft to the islands."

He surmised that China's foreign policy is one of expansionism and imperialism where might makes right citing Beijing's former Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi out of context who said, "China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that's a fact."


Comment: Cropsey speaks from US experience.


Cropsey argues in his piece further that China has its own brand of exceptionalism, distinct from American exceptionalism, that is somehow not predicated on the "rule of law" or "accepted norms of international behavior," but rather the country's power to ignore international law altogether. The position that he lays out somewhat astoundingly is that of former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, whose name has been floated as the next Secretary of State, who wrote in a 2000 article that apart from the words expressly laid out in treaties international law does not exist at all because, essentially, it is based on custom and if you violate that custom repeatedly then the customary international law changes.

Nonetheless, Cropsey returns to his opinion that "China does not respect international law" whereas "Japan and the United States do" before calling for a more adversarial posture towards Beijing because "the next US administration needs to understand that our fate as a great power is inseparable from America's continued role as a great Pacific power."

As tensions continue to mount on the high seas at least some American military officials believe it is wise to provoke and isolate China just short of military conflict in order to limit the consequence of an inevitable war - a frightening reality for the wellbeing of the world that was once unthinkable.

https://www.sott.net/article/327325...US-Navy-predicts-war-with-China-is-inevitable

Talking about imperialism and not respecting international law. US is the last in line qualify to talk about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

US wants war with China? Bring it on. We will send USN CVN directly to bottom of sea with 3200crew all onboard with DF-21D.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Talking about imperialism and not respecting international law. US is the last in line qualify to talk about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

US wants war with China? Bring it on. We will send USN CVN directly to bottom of sea with 3200crew all onboard with DF-21D.

And don't forget the even more powerful DF-26 and DF-ZF.

 

[hoangsa74]

Talking about imperialism and not respecting international law. US is the last in line qualify to talk about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

US wants war with China? Bring it on. We will send USN CVN directly to bottom of sea with 3200crew all onboard with DF-21D.

First, try to pick out which is the U.S carrier among a bunch of fishing trawlers/container ships on the radar screen. Second, try to put the missile lock on the carrier while it moves. Third, try to get past the Aegis defense shield, THAAD, shipborne guns, electronic counter measure. Fourth, pray...

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

First, try to pick out which is the U.S carrier among a bunch of fishing trawlers/container ships on the radar screen. Second, try to put the missile lock on the carrier while it moves. Third, try to get past the Aegis defense shield, THAAD, shipborne guns, electronic counter measure. Fourth, pray...

The DF-ZF cannot be intercepted because it has no ballistic trajectory.

 

[terranMarine]

If the secret government is itching for a fight with the behemoth herself then by all means give it your best shot. China is already fully prepared to shower the SCS or the East Sea with DF-21 and DF-26, the first ones to suffer are the neighbors hosting US forces. With our armada of > 60 subs, we can sink US warship into the depths of our seas along with a fleet of H-6Ks each armed with 6 ALCM is a mighty force to be reckoned with. The destruction of Pearl Harbor pales in comparison to the destructive power of our Guam killers. Okinawa shall not be spared either in the event of hostilities initiated by the US against China. I hope Kim is reading this piece of news and getting prepared for a hostile takeover of South Korea because that's the perfect timing for their long time dreams of unification. Our hypersonic missiles shall reach US homeland in no time and there's nothing the US can do to stop it.

 

[gambit]

Wow...If words are ammo, then the US just lost.

 

[terranMarine]

Wow...If words are ammo, then the US just lost.

It already has you just haven't realized it yet but your government is keeping ya folks in a coma state that's why the average joe has no clue at all.

 

[gambit]

It already has you just haven't realized it yet but your government is keeping ya folks in a coma state that's why the average joe has no clue at all.

Your PLA is filled with 2-yr conscripts, struggling to reform itself, rife with corruption, and untrialed even in exercises let alone real combat.

Who is in the real coma, here ?

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

In an editorial on Saturday, the retired naval officer, writing on behalf of the neoconservative think tank The Hudson Institute, predicted that a bloody naval conflict with China was imminent.

The Former Deputy Undersecretary of the US Navy under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush penned a troubling editorial on Saturday calling on the Obama administration to taking a more hawkish stance against Chinese expansionism predicting that war with Beijing is inevitable and that the United States should do everything necessary to limit China's strength in the meantime.

"A key component of the next president's foreign policy must be to compel China to respect international law. Otherwise, we may be faced by a conflict with a growing navy at a time when ours is decreasing in size," said Seth Cropsey. "Obama has not made this imperative any easier."

The naval officer turned think tank war hawk contested Beijing's claim to the South China Sea's disputed islands citing the decision by the international tribunal at The Hague on July 12 and blasted the Obama administration's response to the decision saying it "wholly ignored the military character of China's actions to date in the South China Sea."

Cropsey contends that contrary to a statement made by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015 to President Obama stating that the islands of the South China Sea would not be militarized, China has nonetheless "continued construction of hardened hangars demonstrat[ing] Beijing's intent to deploy combat aircraft to the islands."

He surmised that China's foreign policy is one of expansionism and imperialism where might makes right citing Beijing's former Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi out of context who said, "China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that's a fact."


Comment: Cropsey speaks from US experience.


Cropsey argues in his piece further that China has its own brand of exceptionalism, distinct from American exceptionalism, that is somehow not predicated on the "rule of law" or "accepted norms of international behavior," but rather the country's power to ignore international law altogether. The position that he lays out somewhat astoundingly is that of former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, whose name has been floated as the next Secretary of State, who wrote in a 2000 article that apart from the words expressly laid out in treaties international law does not exist at all because, essentially, it is based on custom and if you violate that custom repeatedly then the customary international law changes.

Nonetheless, Cropsey returns to his opinion that "China does not respect international law" whereas "Japan and the United States do" before calling for a more adversarial posture towards Beijing because "the next US administration needs to understand that our fate as a great power is inseparable from America's continued role as a great Pacific power."

As tensions continue to mount on the high seas at least some American military officials believe it is wise to provoke and isolate China just short of military conflict in order to limit the consequence of an inevitable war - a frightening reality for the wellbeing of the world that was once unthinkable.

https://www.sott.net/article/327325...US-Navy-predicts-war-with-China-is-inevitable

All these warmongering neocons failed their maths test. Wars are costly and GW Bush's War on Terror almost bankrupted USA. Now the joke is to FIGHT CHINA, USA must send their Sec.of State there to convince the Chinese to buy more of their useless BONDS or in other words, BORROW more money.
Why is for? To acquire more new weapons to fight with China.

That is why ASEAN is completely DIVIDED today between Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia and the rest of the groups who are not involved in sea territorial spate with China.

The ancient Chinese should have been more expansionist in their policy e.g. if they have colonialised all these islands and the claimant states e.g. Surobaya, Sultanate of Malacca, Sultanate of Sulu, etc. the entire picture or outlook would have changed today. Which is precisely what the 9 dash line is based on, their sphere of influence?

BTW USA war heroes only existed in Hollywood today. IMO In a real war, they will be wipe out. They could not even stopped the onslaught of the peasant volunteers army of Mao who were basically armed with swords, spears and terrifying bugles during Korean war. Half of US soldiers were ridden MAD by the sound of the these bugles.

USA military are so lack of discipline e.g. as occupying forces, they are quickly branded as rapists, murderers, etc.

During NAM, the average of US soldiers was only 19 years.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

LOL America still refuses to fulfill their "mutual defence treaty" with the Philippines after we seized their territory in 2012.

It's been 4 years since then, but never too late for them to remember their mutual defence treaty and come to seize that territory back for the Philippines.

Don't wait too long this time.

 

[Beast]

First, try to pick out which is the U.S carrier among a bunch of fishing trawlers/container ships on the radar screen. Second, try to put the missile lock on the carrier while it moves. Third, try to get past the Aegis defense shield, THAAD, shipborne guns, electronic counter measure. Fourth, pray...

http://www.popsci.com/gaofen-4-worl...ontinues-chinas-great-leap-forward-into-space

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2016/05/live-video-from-chinese-commercial.html#.V80DS_l97IU

DF-21D speed is Mach 10 while CVN traves the most 32knts which is 65km/h.

Shipborne gun can't take out ballistic missile. I doubt electronic counter measure has much use. And finally, Chinese will be nasty to fire at least a dozen DF-21D at just one CVN alone. Has THAAD or whatever BS you can come up ever demonstrated taking on 12 DF-21D couple with evasive technique and decoy successfully?

 

[T-Rex]

All these warmongering neocons failed their maths test. Wars are costly and GW Bush's War on Terror almost bankrupted USA. Now the joke is to FIGHT CHINA, USA must send their Sec.of State there to convince the Chinese to buy more of their useless BONDS or in other words, BORROW more money.
Why is for? To acquire more new weapons to fight with China.

That is why ASEAN is completely DIVIDED today between Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia and the rest of the groups who are not involved in sea territorial spate with China.

The ancient Chinese should have been more expansionist in their policy e.g. if they have colonialised all these islands and the claimant states e.g. Surobaya, Sultanate of Malacca, Sultanate of Sulu, etc. the entire picture or outlook would have changed today. Which is precisely what the 9 dash line is based on, their sphere of influence?

BTW USA war heroes only existed in Hollywood today. IMO In a real war, they will be wipe out. They could not even stopped the onslaught of the peasant volunteers army of Mao who were basically armed with swords, spears and terrifying bugles during Korean war. Half of US soldiers were ridden MAD by the sound of the these bugles.

USA military are so lack of discipline e.g. as occupying forces, they are quickly branded as rapists, murderers, etc.

During NAM, the average of US soldiers was only 19 years.

There's a powerful group in the US which believes that the US can win a limited conventional war against China. Deployment of weapons like the F-22 and ASBM have added to their misgivings. They are literally itching to see China's military crushed by their new weapons. They want the real thing, for too long they have been(t he entire US generation) playing the video games, this way they have already indoctrinated the young generation. Now they are eager to apply those techniques they learned in the video games in real life. Remember they are addicted to bungee diving, in other words they would do anything for excitement.

 

[footmarks]

War between US and China is a nightmare, whichever way you look at it. It will be too costly for both the countries. And I highly doubt, if it happens, it will remain conventional.

World must remember, US was the first, and till date only country to USE nuclear weapons against another country, knowing how devastating it is. And US is decades ahead in advanced weapon systems than the next in line.