China issues a Red Line to Obama

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Oct 9, 2015.

  1. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I'm not certain how much coverage this is getting but it has the potential to become a big deal.

    Most of you may be aware that China has been constructing man-made islands in international waters and constructing landing strips apparently for military purposes. China now claims those islands and is attempting to expand its sovereignty in terms of the 12 mile zone surrounding them. The United States has tried to persuade China to cease and has said we do not recognize these islands and will continue to consider the sea around them as international waters. The US has announced that it will send war ships into that zone and China has responded with a warning to stay out.

    Here's the story. Link.

    Interestingly, Obama has finally decided to give up arming the "rebels" in Syria and the US will pull out, thus allowing Russia to finish them off. In my opinion we never should have been involve with that in the first place. Regardless of one's position about US involvement in Syria, the point is that the US has backed down to Russia and is about to be involved with China in a situation where one side will have to back down. The US maneuvers are scheduled to take place within the next two weeks.

    Keep in mind that in Eastern countries everything is about saving face. The Chinese President has put himself in a position where if he does not respond to the US maneuvers, he will lose face. Similarly, if Obama changes course and aborts the naval maneuvers it reinforces the perception that the United States is willing to cede its position as a world power.

    In light of the scenarios unfolding in Syria and the South China seas, a larger question looms in the not too distant future. Should the United States give up the role as lone superpower, policeman of the world, and allow Russia and China to become regional powers? Alternately, should the US be willing to risk WWIII with one of the nuclear powers in order to maintain its hegemonic position in the world?

    Given that sometime a choice will have to be made, I would much rather take a step back and begin to reign in the gigantic military-industrial complex that has the United States trying to maintain a worldwide empire. Doing so should not substantially hurt our standing of living. Trying to sustain the status quo might easily bankrupt the country or in the worst case, lead to a nuclear confrontation.

    However, I believe our leadership - in both parties as well as the financial and industrial corporations that benefit from our status as sole superpower - will not want to pull back even if it means WWIII. And I believe a substantial amount of citizens, possibly even the majority, believe that the United States is destined to remain the sole superpower and many even believe it to be God's will.
     
  2. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    Couldn't disagree more. The U.S. tried that after WW1 and Japan and Germany jumped in to fill the void, just as Russia and China and ISIS are doing now that Obama has taken numerous steps backward.

    LBJ said we could have guns and butter. Obama says butter for the entire world's poor and we don't need guns in our population or for the military. The result is that the world is more dangerous than when he took office and God help us if Hillary or Bernie get the next 4 years.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2015
  3. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Should the US give up its role as a superpower? No. Whether or not it's the lone superpower is dependent on what other nations want to and are able to do. I would view Russia and China as regional powers, though not yet superpowers.

    First, for a nation with an economy as big as ours, our military-industrial complex isn't very big (about 3.5 percent of GDP and hasn't reached 5 percent in 25 years). If you assume they're being honest, Russia spends 4.5 percent, so at least in context, your comrades in Moscow maintain a bigger military-industrial complex.

    Second, it's popular (particularly by enemies of the US) to call the US an empire, but it's a bit of a misnomer. Most empires have large overseas possessions and have large foreign populations subject to their jurisdiction. As powerful as the US is, it doesn't really fit either of those criteria. Its influence comes mostly from its economic power.

    The "blame America" crowd (of both the Right and Left) always operate from the assumption that if the US cuts its military and plays less of a leadership role, the rest of the world will mostly get along and that even if they don't, it won't impact the US at home. I just don't understand where that silliness comes from. Was the world a peace-loving place before the US was a global leader? That's not what I remember from history class.

    In addition, the US economy relies heavily on international trade, and that relies heavily on our military. For example, South Korea and Taiwan are major trading partners with the US. If the US made it clear that it would not defend either of those countries, do you really think China would just let bygones be bygones with Taiwan? Do you think that freak show in North Korea would do the same with South Korea? Surely you aren't that naive. Would they invade them tomorrow? Who knows? Would they assert themselves enough to disrupt our trade with those nations? Hell yes.

    As for bankruptcy, 3.5 percent of GDP isn't going put us into bankruptcy or come even close to doing so. For about 50 years after WWII, we consistently spent double and sometimes triple that amount without putting us into bankruptcy. In fact, we were much further from bankruptcy then than we are now will a relatively smaller defense budget. The 14.6 percent (and rapidly growing) that we spend on social programs will bankrupt us a lot faster.

    Could we get into a nuclear confrontation? Over a few man-made islands? No chance in hell.

    A few things that need to made clear. First, I don't advocate jumping into whatever quagmire opportunity that comes along. If it's not our fight, we should stay out of conflicts. I also don't buy into the neocon myth that imposing democracy on a country will bring stability. However, if we draw red lines, we need to back them up. We look ridiculous and blow our credibility when we don't. Second, I know that not everybody that's involved in our military-industrial complex are choir boys. They aren't. There are colossal crooks and fraudsters involved at all levels - in the military, civilian bureaucrats, politicians, and especially defense contractors. However, the remedy isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater for the same reason you don't close the police department just because you find some crooked cops.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
  4. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    I have never seen before a summary of words that succinctly matches my own personal philosophy. I only want to add that "Pride comes before fall." What others outside of our country believe is not that important. So many times we get caught up in some believe that we are so wealthy and can afford to make mistakes. We are fortunate to have a currency that so many on this planet believe is so strong. It is our military strength that backs up the value of the USD. In making decisions on our foreign policy we need to first make the assumption that our soldiers could easily lose their lives. That decision on our course of action should be made with the priority being to answer the question whether "our cause is for a purpose worth the blood and treasury of this country?" Our standard of living depends so much upon what other nations believe is the worth of our dollar. We need to guard against decisions that will weaken our currency.
     
  5. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I'm glad you brought up the dollar and the reliance on military power to keep it strong. Deez stated that China would not dare challenge the U.S. Navy when they cross China's redline. Upon reflection, he is most probably correct in the sense there would be nothing to gain for either side. But the Chinese leader did say the action won't be tolerated. China will most likely retaliate in an asymmetric way.

    Should China's economy crater - and many analysts see the beginning of that as a result of massive debt induced spending - China would have nothing to lose anymore by unloading its vast amount of U.S. Dollar holdings. This would force a permanent state of QE. The eventual result of which would be destruction of the current global financial system based on the dollar.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Isn't that akin to China cutting off their nose to spite their face?
     
  7. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    As things have stood the past couple of decades, yes it would be. But the enormous growth period in China is ending, capital is fleeing the country, and what we have seen is unsustainable.

    China holds over $1 Trillion in US Treasuries. They are currently depleting these reserves already in order to hold their economy together. If and when China fails at saving their economy, civil unrest will be directed at the Communist regime. At that time, it would be logical to blow up the system and deflect blame on the US.
     
  8. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    They are putting airfields on these islands........Why would we even care, with technology these days, carriers, vertical lifting planes and drones, solar power, and whatever space weapons there are, why build an island to put a landstrip on it? There has to be more to it than an airstrip, this is not WWII.
     
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I take the airstrips as symbolic that these islands are occupied. The military presence is a weak deterrent. Based on the size of those airstrips I doubt those islands will have any significant military presence.
     
  10. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    Why not just build a similar island nearby? Buy up the oil platforms that are being discarded by the oil companies as a start. Drag them over nearby.

    China shouldn't mind since it is clear that international law doesn't matter to them anyway.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  11. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Well, tomorrow is the big day. We'll see whether or not crossing the Chinese red line results in any kind of reaction from China.
     
  12. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    What does international law say about building an island in international waters?
     
  13. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Per CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/asia/us-china-south-china-sea/index.html
    We sent a destroyer into China's new declared territorial waters. In the article above there is a map of the reefs that China has built these man-made islands of. If the map is truly representative of the geography, China's claim is even more laughable.

    As expected, China is escalating the rhetoric.

     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2015
  14. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    I don't see that we have a choice.
    China is playing us but we have to protect international waters
    not just for us
     
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not sure if I'd say that China was "playing us" but rather looking out for their own and only their own interests. There is potentially a lot of oil/natural gas reserves in the South China Sea. China is simply claiming it even though they really have no lawful claim.

    We have a duty to protect the Philippines in this instance. Besides, running a destroyer 12 miles from their newly minted air strip won't provoke a war. They might as well park a ship there just to show resolve that they are still in International waters.
     
  16. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    we ought to do likewise 201 miles away, when possible, in every direction from their new landing strip island. Just be sure to mint another fat trillion dollar Oprah coin to pay for the new territories.
     
  17. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    China has no desire to go to war with the U.S. This is simply testing Obama's will to confront them. When he does nothing, I believe they will attack Taiwan believing Obama will not defend the treaty where we agreed to defend them. Then they are one step closer to attacking Japan.
     
  18. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That's a big leap, IMHO. I think it's a power play to get control over energy resources which is a primary impediment to China's economic growth. They've been making deals with very bad people all around the world for resources. In this case, they are trying to lay claim to an area that they would hope to explore and put up oil rigs should they discover the reserves.
     

Share This Page