War with China over Sudan et al

[DuncanONeil]

Outside of the military resources of China it might be a good thing.

After all China is engaging in actions in that part of the world that give it the appearance of a colonial power.

[Bren122]

Colonial Power is a bit strong; China has no particular morals about the governments it deals with for the resources it needs. It does not attach conditions to aid or development and is very free with the money it throws around. It is not seeking power or garrison rights; thus far the only military/paramilitary presence has been secret police training the secret police of these countries; and so far the Western press has been very careful to avoid the evidence that they are there.

As far as Australia is concerned, war with China will only be supported by us under two conditions- the Chinese attack somebody (Taiwan, Japan and South Korea in particular) and if they are drawn into a war with North Korea. We will most assuredly not go to war over a situation that is on the other side of the world given the difficulties in supporting one side or the other. Japan and Singapore are even less likely to do so, though I would not wish to present myself as an expert on either. As noted in another thread, France and Britain would be stretched so the US is effectively going to go it alone in this situation if it decides to go to war.
The fact is that China is in a strategically poor position, getting worse everyday as its bold armaments announcements in the late 1990s fail to materialise while the rest of the region is busy rearming their own militaries. The situation is further complicated by the massive US debt it holds in offshore accounts- defeat the US and it will lead to a run on US debt; try to attack anyone and it risks all of that money being forfeited. But a war with China holds its own risks for the West- like the end of the global economy as 10% of the world's manufacturing capacity is taken off the market. It suits everybody that the situation between China and the developed world stays exactly as it is and if that means the Darfurese and Zimbabweans have to suffer then so be it. Even if Darfur and Zimbabwe were found to be made of titanium and similar strategic metals floating on a sea of oil nobody is going to risk a collapse of the world economy.

[DuncanONeil]

Again I did not think I would need this info, but. The developments China is supporting in Africa is only those that support their own operations in those countries.
I am still trying to find the article!


Colonial Power is a bit strong; China has no particular morals about the governments it deals with for the resources it needs. It does not attach conditions to aid or development and is very free with the money it throws around. It is not seeking power or garrison rights; thus far the only military/paramilitary presence has been secret police training the secret police of these countries; and so far the Western press has been very careful to avoid the evidence that they are there.

As far as Australia is concerned, war with China will only be supported by us under two conditions- the Chinese attack somebody (Taiwan, Japan and South Korea in particular) and if they are drawn into a war with North Korea. We will most assuredly not go to war over a situation that is on the other side of the world given the difficulties in supporting one side or the other. Japan and Singapore are even less likely to do so, though I would not wish to present myself as an expert on either. As noted in another thread, France and Britain would be stretched so the US is effectively going to go it alone in this situation if it decides to go to war.
The fact is that China is in a strategically poor position, getting worse everyday as its bold armaments announcements in the late 1990s fail to materialise while the rest of the region is busy rearming their own militaries. The situation is further complicated by the massive US debt it holds in offshore accounts- defeat the US and it will lead to a run on US debt; try to attack anyone and it risks all of that money being forfeited. But a war with China holds its own risks for the West- like the end of the global economy as 10% of the world's manufacturing capacity is taken off the market. It suits everybody that the situation between China and the developed world stays exactly as it is and if that means the Darfurese and Zimbabweans have to suffer then so be it. Even if Darfur and Zimbabwe were found to be made of titanium and similar strategic metals floating on a sea of oil nobody is going to risk a collapse of the world economy.

[Bren122]

while it is true that China's "developmental aid" is directed at exploiting the resource acquisitions it has made, much of this network can be used for other purposes. The main exceptions appear to be in Sudan and Zimbabwe where weapons and bribes have been more important than dual use development.
Consider this, however; Ethiopia is currently going through an economic crisis engendered by having too much food- grain crops developed in the wake of the last famine, which could literally feed the entire region, are stuck on farms for want of transportation infrastructure. The response of Western Aid agencies has been a comprehensive programme to....grow more food. The major backer of the Ethiopian government is the USA, which threw around weapons and money to sponsor the 'intervention' in Somalia.

[DuncanONeil]

"At first glance, Beijing's extensive investment in Africa over the last decade in the booming trade between the continent and China might appear positive for the poverty-stricken, underdeveloped societies south of the Sahara. They are not. Behind the stadiums and cultural centers “donated” by the Chinese to African states that have minerals or markets to offer, Beijing's engagement, while huge boon for China is stunningly destructive and inhumane.

Despite some recent contraction in investment – due to the global economic downturn – china draws a third of its oil from African producers and has become the continent's second largest trading partner behind the United States (suppressing Britain and France). The new “China trade” will reach $100 billion in 2010.

It should be good news for Africans. But it isn't. China bribes freely in environments where corruption is already enemy number one. Beijing's addictive loans come with no strings attached – unlike Western loans, which insists on supervision of how the money is spent. This allows well-connected kleptocrats To pocket what the people will have to pay back. And China's policy of “non-interference in domestic affairs” is welcomed by dictators and thugs, from Sudan to Zimbabwe, who have been cut off from western funds and investment. China not only ignores atrocities, but can be counted on to veto UN Security Council measures meant to halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, and state brutality against citizens.

China needs metals, minerals, and oil. Africa has them in abundance. But the terms of trade are manipulated in Beijing's favor, on top of which much of the car or riding on Chinese container ships is either arms for rogue regimes (such as Equatorial Guinea on a entry Sudan and Zimbabwe) or tea products that undercut struggling domestic industries. In a basic clothing, an industry in which Africa seem to have a fighting chance, Chinese dumping is wiped out local businesses. Meanwhile, an influx of Chinese merchants has been shattering traditional market relations, a native shopkeepers and vendors into poverty.

The Chinese build roads, bridges, and railways. But those lines of communications lead to Chinese owned and Chinese operated mines or oil fields in which the locals labor in abysmal conditions - sometimes naked, diseased, and starving – with safety not even an afterthought.

The Chinese import their own skilled labor, rather than developing local talent, and their exclusive behavior and arrogance alienated local populations. But the contents “big men” have been bought, and the people have no power. So China continues to extract wealth, dump cheap products, corrupt struggling governments, abet atrocity and genocide, and destroy local industries. It's all part of Beijing's long-term vision to “own” the continent's resources, to addict states and societies to income from the sale of oil and valuable metals until they have no economic safety net, no diversification. Then Beijing can call in its “generous” loans and set even harsher terms of trade.

Inevitably, many in our foreign-policy community argue that any investment in Africa is good. Such intellectuals might have made a case for King Leopold of Belgium's murderous exploitation of the Congo.

While Chinese engagement isn't a direct threat to the security of the United States, it increases the flashpoint danger in the Indian Ocean region. China needs Africa from materials and, therefore, open sea lanes. But in a crisis the US Navy could close the Indian Ocean Chinese shipping (a long war with China would hinge on a vast blockade). Aware of the danger, Beijing is seeking naval bases and allies around the Indian Ocean littoral.

Finally, China's slow, methodical rape of Africa set back US efforts to help African populations achieve good government and the rule of law, to fight corruption, and gain self-sufficiency. China wants a corrupt, broken, impoverished Africa it can exploit. The US wants thriving democratic partners. And never the twain shall meet.

Watch: while African populations rebel against Chinese economic imperialism?

Crisis Watch Bottom Line: China has become our main competitor for natural resources, and China is unscrupulous and merciless. A confrontation, at some “distant outpost,” is only a matter of time."
(China's Rape of Africa, Ralph Peters)

[Bren122]

It still does not change things- the US won't go it alone and it's regional allies won't go to war with China over a situation in Africa.

[MMI]

Are we talking about war in the Far East/Pacific, or one in Africa?

Or are we talking about WWIII?

If the last, then why wouldn't Britain and France be involved? We have the "humanitarian interest" (although that has not been important to us before), we have historical ties, we have economic and political interests, and we have the interests of allies, all of which would tend to bring us in. OK, it would mean massive re-arming and conscription and so on, but there are even benefits to be had from that.

Besides, we haven't missed one yet.

[Bren122]

The problem with a war with China is not if we win or lose on the ground (air and sea) but what happens in the financial sphere. China is the US largest creditor. The Chinese sold almost $4billion of US bonds before Christmas and the markets freaked- imagine if there was a war only between the US and China. $600billion in debt dumped on the world markets at the same time that 10% of the world's manufacturing capacity is taken away, regardless of how long, means a depression. The war probably (99%) wouldn't last long enough for arms production to revitalise the American economy as it did in WW2. More likely the US would go even deeper in debt.
There is little chance of nuclear escalation; the US does not have the stomach for a China campaign and China does not have the capacity for a US campaign. The US can deploy subs and carriers to cut off Chinese support for Venezuala and Ecuador and Cuba. Only the Cubans have a good military; Venezuelans and Ecuadorans have maintenance issues on everything (aircraft in particular) and would struggle to attack Columbia (as threatened). Any attack would likely bring Brazil in as an ally to Columbia if not the US.
Africa is just as complex; Chad is dirt poor- it has three infantry battalions and a few transport aircraft. Yet, somehow, it has fought off two known invasions by Libya and a longterm campaign of crossborder raids, etc. Officially there are no French forces in Chad- but if the French are ready to move into Darfur 'expeditiously' there has to be a sizeable force there- big enough to fight off two invasions by Libya? If Libya, which does have ties to China, saw that the French were moving in to secure Darfur, they might widen the war to try and take Chad.
In southern Africa, only Botswana has been openly critical of the Mugabe regime; even Zuma in South Africa has been using backdoor channels to push his agenda. Britain can't overfly several nations to build up in Botswana- it would have to be an entirely sea-borne enterprise that would make the Falklands look easy by comparison-and Labour has gutted the capacity of the Royal Fleet Auxillery in order to appear to be maintaining capacity on the gun-line. If it barely coped in 1982 it is going to fall over now- or to put it another way, if the Argentine's invaded the Falklands today they would win.
The French, in particular, but also the British have issues with any sort of re-armament programme- mainly an issue of capacity. The French have been criticised for not engaging in night combat in Afghanistan but the truth is that they don't have the capability. Pistols, rifles, tanks, ships, air-craft, uniforms- the French are updating an entire era's worth of equipment and doing a worse job than the Chinese. Britain needs 3 carriers to meet government policy but can only afford two- it is the same in every branch.
There is also a further issue of doctrine- Britain is not so bad but Europe has gone backwards in terms of war-fighting skills. Even a task force with only British and French participation poses a risk. There would also be an expectation by both nations that their 'historical' importance would mean a command appointment that other nations no longer think that their current skills justify.
In West Asia nothing much changes; the Uighars would probably see it as an opportunity to hit the central government hard and the Chinese are unlikely to send an army into the mountains at the same time they're fighting on other fronts. Russia is an unknown- it not likely to go to war but it might use the distraction to push its agenda against Georgia or Ukraine or in Central Asia. The Tibetans are likely to rise up meaning that a push, overland, into India is unlikely except in major force that practically wipes out the Tibetans along the way. Myanmar and Pakistan are not likely to take on India without the Chinese pouring down into India.
Singapore and Indonesia, with some Australian support, closes the straits of Malacca. Viet Nam closes the southern route out of the South China sea- it has just bought a shed load of anti-shipping missiles from India and signed onto India's new one-seat fighter and is considering purchase of the new Indian tank. Taiwan and Phillipines close the South East approaches; Taiwan has bought a new tranche of F-15s and Israeli ASM and German subs- Phillipines would be a base for US F-15s. Japan closes the North and North-East with home-made F-15s and and a destroyer screen- plus F-22s and F-15s of the US out of Okinawa. That means the Chinese have to deploy straight East- right where about 4-6 US Carriers and numerous attack subs would be waiting. China does not have the surface capacity to take on the US and its subs are old Russian designs the US has had a lot of practice finding.
The US stages B-2s and B-52s out of Guam and probably Okinawa; combined with the F-18s off the carriers, and Jamming and AWACS, protected by several squadrons of F-15s and F-22s smashes everything military in China.
China has hundreds of long-range missiles but very few in hardened shelters or even on armoured launchers- essentially a missile loaded on the back of trucks- susceptible to canon fire much less bombs and missiles. An army of 100million without air-cover is target practice.

The limiting factors are 1) ammunition; China will lose heaps in US-led strikes and the US and its allies will be relying on advanced weaponry to minimise civilian casualties. The most likely scenario for a nuclear conflict in the 1970s and early 1980s in Europe was NATO running out of ammunition- in some scenarios in as little as a week. Reserves are much larger but usage rates in a general war are thought to be underestimated- production lines may not be geared up sufficiently before one or both sides run low- or run out. The US and allies can fall back on 'dumb bombs' but then the liberals will start to complain about civilian casualties that would increase exponentially- the West does not practice the techniques to use non-smart weaponry to limit casualties as it would in the 1980s or 1990s for example.

2) Money- the US has debt and budgetary issues and the Chinese hold most of its reserves offshore to protect its trading position- neither is in a position to go to war much less let it last long.

[MMI]

What a state of impotence we are in!

[DuncanONeil]

It still does not change things- the US won't go it alone and it's regional allies won't go to war with China over a situation in Africa.

As suggested in the article a confrontation at some distant outpost may occur in the future. These kinds of things have occurred in the past.
"Crisis Watch Bottom Line: China has become our main competitor for natural resources, and China is unscrupulous and merciless. A confrontation, at some “distant outpost,” is only a matter of time."

[DuncanONeil]

I will give you this! You seem to understand the complexities of global actions.

There is one thing that does bother me a bit in your treatise. With an open conflict and the likely composition of the allies, to whom would China be able to sell those debentures? Most of their allies would not have the resources!


The problem with a war with China is not if we win or lose on the ground (air and sea) but what happens in the financial sphere. China is the US largest creditor. The Chinese sold almost $4billion of US bonds before Christmas and the markets freaked- imagine if there was a war only between the US and China. $600billion in debt dumped on the world markets at the same time that 10% of the world's manufacturing capacity is taken away, regardless of how long, means a depression. The war probably (99%) wouldn't last long enough for arms production to revitalise the American economy as it did in WW2. More likely the US would go even deeper in debt.
There is little chance of nuclear escalation; the US does not have the stomach for a China campaign and China does not have the capacity for a US campaign. The US can deploy subs and carriers to cut off Chinese support for Venezuala and Ecuador and Cuba. Only the Cubans have a good military; Venezuelans and Ecuadorans have maintenance issues on everything (aircraft in particular) and would struggle to attack Columbia (as threatened). Any attack would likely bring Brazil in as an ally to Columbia if not the US.
Africa is just as complex; Chad is dirt poor- it has three infantry battalions and a few transport aircraft. Yet, somehow, it has fought off two known invasions by Libya and a longterm campaign of crossborder raids, etc. Officially there are no French forces in Chad- but if the French are ready to move into Darfur 'expeditiously' there has to be a sizeable force there- big enough to fight off two invasions by Libya? If Libya, which does have ties to China, saw that the French were moving in to secure Darfur, they might widen the war to try and take Chad.
In southern Africa, only Botswana has been openly critical of the Mugabe regime; even Zuma in South Africa has been using backdoor channels to push his agenda. Britain can't overfly several nations to build up in Botswana- it would have to be an entirely sea-borne enterprise that would make the Falklands look easy by comparison-and Labour has gutted the capacity of the Royal Fleet Auxillery in order to appear to be maintaining capacity on the gun-line. If it barely coped in 1982 it is going to fall over now- or to put it another way, if the Argentine's invaded the Falklands today they would win.
The French, in particular, but also the British have issues with any sort of re-armament programme- mainly an issue of capacity. The French have been criticised for not engaging in night combat in Afghanistan but the truth is that they don't have the capability. Pistols, rifles, tanks, ships, air-craft, uniforms- the French are updating an entire era's worth of equipment and doing a worse job than the Chinese. Britain needs 3 carriers to meet government policy but can only afford two- it is the same in every branch.
There is also a further issue of doctrine- Britain is not so bad but Europe has gone backwards in terms of war-fighting skills. Even a task force with only British and French participation poses a risk. There would also be an expectation by both nations that their 'historical' importance would mean a command appointment that other nations no longer think that their current skills justify.
In West Asia nothing much changes; the Uighars would probably see it as an opportunity to hit the central government hard and the Chinese are unlikely to send an army into the mountains at the same time they're fighting on other fronts. Russia is an unknown- it not likely to go to war but it might use the distraction to push its agenda against Georgia or Ukraine or in Central Asia. The Tibetans are likely to rise up meaning that a push, overland, into India is unlikely except in major force that practically wipes out the Tibetans along the way. Myanmar and Pakistan are not likely to take on India without the Chinese pouring down into India.
Singapore and Indonesia, with some Australian support, closes the straits of Malacca. Viet Nam closes the southern route out of the South China sea- it has just bought a shed load of anti-shipping missiles from India and signed onto India's new one-seat fighter and is considering purchase of the new Indian tank. Taiwan and Phillipines close the South East approaches; Taiwan has bought a new tranche of F-15s and Israeli ASM and German subs- Phillipines would be a base for US F-15s. Japan closes the North and North-East with home-made F-15s and and a destroyer screen- plus F-22s and F-15s of the US out of Okinawa. That means the Chinese have to deploy straight East- right where about 4-6 US Carriers and numerous attack subs would be waiting. China does not have the surface capacity to take on the US and its subs are old Russian designs the US has had a lot of practice finding.
The US stages B-2s and B-52s out of Guam and probably Okinawa; combined with the F-18s off the carriers, and Jamming and AWACS, protected by several squadrons of F-15s and F-22s smashes everything military in China.
China has hundreds of long-range missiles but very few in hardened shelters or even on armoured launchers- essentially a missile loaded on the back of trucks- susceptible to canon fire much less bombs and missiles. An army of 100million without air-cover is target practice.

The limiting factors are 1) ammunition; China will lose heaps in US-led strikes and the US and its allies will be relying on advanced weaponry to minimise civilian casualties. The most likely scenario for a nuclear conflict in the 1970s and early 1980s in Europe was NATO running out of ammunition- in some scenarios in as little as a week. Reserves are much larger but usage rates in a general war are thought to be underestimated- production lines may not be geared up sufficiently before one or both sides run low- or run out. The US and allies can fall back on 'dumb bombs' but then the liberals will start to complain about civilian casualties that would increase exponentially- the West does not practice the techniques to use non-smart weaponry to limit casualties as it would in the 1980s or 1990s for example.

2) Money- the US has debt and budgetary issues and the Chinese hold most of its reserves offshore to protect its trading position- neither is in a position to go to war much less let it last long.

[Bren122]

I will give you this! You seem to understand the complexities of global actions.

There is one thing that does bother me a bit in your treatise. With an open conflict and the likely composition of the allies, to whom would China be able to sell those debentures? Most of their allies would not have the resources!

That's the point- it costs Beijing nothing to ruin America's economy (in a war scenario) by dumping 1/7 of the US national debt on the markets for next to nothing- the other creditors, faced with ruin, would begin to dump theirs or demand payment or rescue (50% of government debt is held in private hands- a lot of that in the US itself).
The other scenario is that off-shore governments seize Beijing's assets- Singapore would be a likely ally of the US and is home to about a quarter of Chinese holdings; the UK is home to somewhere between 1/6 and 1/5. Even a neutral country like Russia might take advantage of the situation and seize Chinese assets.
When dealing with China's economy it must always be remembered that it relies on the US to spend, spend, spend. It keeps at least 50% of its reserves (valued at nearly $US3trillion)offshore to keep its domestic economy under control- it buys US dollars on all markets to keep its own currency artificially depressed- it buys up US debt in all markets in order to keep US enemies from threatening the US economy. China's is an export economy with little domestic consumption (relatively speaking) so if it could not export the economy is ruined regardless of whether it holds or liquidates its debt holdings. America would probably (90%) win any war with China, but its economy would be in tatters.

[DuncanONeil]

I think you missed the point. In a "war" scenario what good would it do China to "dump" any assets if no one is going to buy them?
Those that would support China do not have the assets to buy what they would "dump".


That's the point- it costs Beijing nothing to ruin America's economy (in a war scenario) by dumping 1/7 of the US national debt on the markets for next to nothing- the other creditors, faced with ruin, would begin to dump theirs or demand payment or rescue (50% of government debt is held in private hands- a lot of that in the US itself).
The other scenario is that off-shore governments seize Beijing's assets- Singapore would be a likely ally of the US and is home to about a quarter of Chinese holdings; the UK is home to somewhere between 1/6 and 1/5. Even a neutral country like Russia might take advantage of the situation and seize Chinese assets.
When dealing with China's economy it must always be remembered that it relies on the US to spend, spend, spend. It keeps at least 50% of its reserves (valued at nearly $US3trillion)offshore to keep its domestic economy under control- it buys US dollars on all markets to keep its own currency artificially depressed- it buys up US debt in all markets in order to keep US enemies from threatening the US economy. China's is an export economy with little domestic consumption (relatively speaking) so if it could not export the economy is ruined regardless of whether it holds or liquidates its debt holdings. America would probably (90%) win any war with China, but its economy would be in tatters.

[SadisticNature]

"At first glance, Beijing's extensive investment in Africa over the last decade in the booming trade between the continent and China might appear positive for the poverty-stricken, underdeveloped societies south of the Sahara. They are not. Behind the stadiums and cultural centers “donated” by the Chinese to African states that have minerals or markets to offer, Beijing's engagement, while huge boon for China is stunningly destructive and inhumane.

Despite some recent contraction in investment – due to the global economic downturn – china draws a third of its oil from African producers and has become the continent's second largest trading partner behind the United States (suppressing Britain and France). The new “China trade” will reach $100 billion in 2010.

It should be good news for Africans. But it isn't. China bribes freely in environments where corruption is already enemy number one. Beijing's addictive loans come with no strings attached – unlike Western loans, which insists on supervision of how the money is spent. This allows well-connected kleptocrats To pocket what the people will have to pay back. And China's policy of “non-interference in domestic affairs” is welcomed by dictators and thugs, from Sudan to Zimbabwe, who have been cut off from western funds and investment. China not only ignores atrocities, but can be counted on to veto UN Security Council measures meant to halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, and state brutality against citizens.

China needs metals, minerals, and oil. Africa has them in abundance. But the terms of trade are manipulated in Beijing's favor, on top of which much of the car or riding on Chinese container ships is either arms for rogue regimes (such as Equatorial Guinea on a entry Sudan and Zimbabwe) or tea products that undercut struggling domestic industries. In a basic clothing, an industry in which Africa seem to have a fighting chance, Chinese dumping is wiped out local businesses. Meanwhile, an influx of Chinese merchants has been shattering traditional market relations, a native shopkeepers and vendors into poverty.

The Chinese build roads, bridges, and railways. But those lines of communications lead to Chinese owned and Chinese operated mines or oil fields in which the locals labor in abysmal conditions - sometimes naked, diseased, and starving – with safety not even an afterthought.

The Chinese import their own skilled labor, rather than developing local talent, and their exclusive behavior and arrogance alienated local populations. But the contents “big men” have been bought, and the people have no power. So China continues to extract wealth, dump cheap products, corrupt struggling governments, abet atrocity and genocide, and destroy local industries. It's all part of Beijing's long-term vision to “own” the continent's resources, to addict states and societies to income from the sale of oil and valuable metals until they have no economic safety net, no diversification. Then Beijing can call in its “generous” loans and set even harsher terms of trade.

Inevitably, many in our foreign-policy community argue that any investment in Africa is good. Such intellectuals might have made a case for King Leopold of Belgium's murderous exploitation of the Congo.

While Chinese engagement isn't a direct threat to the security of the United States, it increases the flashpoint danger in the Indian Ocean region. China needs Africa from materials and, therefore, open sea lanes. But in a crisis the US Navy could close the Indian Ocean Chinese shipping (a long war with China would hinge on a vast blockade). Aware of the danger, Beijing is seeking naval bases and allies around the Indian Ocean littoral.

Finally, China's slow, methodical rape of Africa set back US efforts to help African populations achieve good government and the rule of law, to fight corruption, and gain self-sufficiency. China wants a corrupt, broken, impoverished Africa it can exploit. The US wants thriving democratic partners. And never the twain shall meet.

Watch: while African populations rebel against Chinese economic imperialism?

Crisis Watch Bottom Line: China has become our main competitor for natural resources, and China is unscrupulous and merciless. A confrontation, at some “distant outpost,” is only a matter of time."
(China's Rape of Africa, Ralph Peters)

So basically god forbid China should do what every westernized nation did to make its economy succeed.

[SadisticNature]

I think you missed the point. In a "war" scenario what good would it do China to "dump" any assets if no one is going to buy them?
Those that would support China do not have the assets to buy what they would "dump".

Actually the Chinese can set up economic warfare by dumping US debt quite easily. If they put the entirety of the US debt they own on the market the US currency will crash, making it harder for the US to import strategic resources like oil.

Since the US has already been using the strategic reserve to fuel the local economy this could lead to a situation where they have a lot of difficulty maintaining supplies of things like jet fuel and tank fuel. It would also be crushing for morale to see the dollar tank, and being faced with the economic consequences.

Nuclear powers don't end up outright at war because of the catastrophic consequences. But a little currency manipulation here, a little support for insurgents there...

[DuncanONeil]

So basically god forbid China should do what every westernized nation did to make its economy succeed.

Wow! Great argument!
Because the western nations did bad things in their youth China shoulod be allowed to do so now.

BTW the article was an editorial presenting a view of what is happening. Before there can be a solution people have to be aware of the problem.

[DuncanONeil]

That is a completely different situation that originally presented.


Actually the Chinese can set up economic warfare by dumping US debt quite easily. If they put the entirety of the US debt they own on the market the US currency will crash, making it harder for the US to import strategic resources like oil.

Since the US has already been using the strategic reserve to fuel the local economy this could lead to a situation where they have a lot of difficulty maintaining supplies of things like jet fuel and tank fuel. It would also be crushing for morale to see the dollar tank, and being faced with the economic consequences.

Nuclear powers don't end up outright at war because of the catastrophic consequences. But a little currency manipulation here, a little support for insurgents there...