Help support TMP

"A Near Future Sino-American War? Likely? Inevitable?" Topic

80 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 15mm Sci-Fi Message Board

Back to the Post-Apocalypse Discussion Message Board

Back to the Modern What-If Message Board

5,003 hits since 30 May 2014
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Cacique Caribe31 May 2014 4:08 p.m. PST

The game Fallout mentions a Sino-American War that begins in 2066, ending in a mutual nuclear annihilation of both China and the US in 2077:



And I wonder if the Joss Whedon flag and military insignia for the Alliance (Union of Allied Planets) in Firefly/Serenity, and the Sino-American cultural and linguistic blending in the Core Planets, was the result of a Chinese invasion of the US long before humans used up Earth:




TMP link
TMP link

kyoteblue Inactive Member31 May 2014 4:24 p.m. PST


Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut31 May 2014 4:31 p.m. PST

I think a China vs. USA hot war is unlikely anytime soon. We are too economically tied to each other. Most likely, we will attack each other economically. Imagine if China stopped supplying Wal-Mart!

Personal logo Dan Cyr Supporting Member of TMP31 May 2014 4:39 p.m. PST

For all that we are and have been enemies, we've also several hundred years of trade, people investments (schools and church) and no real points of conflict unless we get dragged into them by our "allies".

Add to the fact that we are each others' main trading partners, bankers (debt and investments) and that China is going to have its hands full for decades or longer with its growing population and their social, economic and political demands.

I'd lean towards the resource limited Chinese to be pushing the Soviets in their far east where there is a growing Chinese interest in territory that once was owned and claimed by Imperial China, as well as the small Russian population.

Russia strikes me more as an expansionist state than China.


Sobieski Inactive Member31 May 2014 4:45 p.m. PST

China's buying so much SE Asia, whose people have so little success at running their own existence, and there are so many Chinese expats here, that I fear I could be living in the next Tibet.

KTravlos Inactive Member31 May 2014 4:56 p.m. PST

Well friend. let my put my academic motorbaord on and tell you what I and other scholars have gleaned. Now the probability is non-zero but very small.

But so you can make your own judgement here is a list of the war inducing and peace-inducing factors in the US-China relationship

War inducing

1) Positional Rivalry (rivalry over respective roles in the management and creation of international regimes (broad concepts that includes informal and formal rules, and informal and formal institutions + international law)(See Colaresi, Thompson and all for more on this)

2) Mixed regime dyad (Democracy and Non-Democracy). These dyads tend to be more war inducing than demcoratic dyads, or autocratic dyads) (see the research on democratic peace for more)

3) Rivalry and Issue linkages. Because of the US role in the international system and specifically in the system in S.E Asia, the US is party whether it likes it or not to the Chinese-Japan, Chinese-Vietnam,Chinese-ROK, and ROK-DPRK rivalries. Each of those is more dangerous than the US-China one, and complicates the US-China relationship.(See Vasquez and Senese for more)

4) Different political cultures. Similar but a bit different from regime differences, they are important in that they increase the chance of misperception which may contribute to crisis onset and crisis escalation and inhibit pacific conflict management. (cant remember citations)

4) Power Transition: China is becoming closer to the US in material capabilities, though still far from overtaking. That said the coming close period tends to be dangerous.(See Organski and Kugler for more)

5) Mutual military buildup: Both the US and China are building up their militaries which tends to be a war-inducing factor especially in the context of rivalry (Rider, Diehl and al)

Peace Inducing factors

1) Economic interdependence. While there are some studies that indicate that economic interdependence can foster conflict, most studies tend to indicate it fosters peace. (See I think Oneal and Russet for more)

2) Contract intensive states. Both the US and China are contract intensive states, though China is still in the process of transformation. Mousseaou has provided evidence that contract-intensive states tend to avoid war.

3) Lack of Militarized Disputes. While the US and China are positional rivals, since the 2000s they have avoided direct military confrontations that can build a enduring militarized rivalry that tend to birth wars.(See Goertz and Diehl for more)

4) Lack of Territorial Issues.The big whammy and the main driver of war in the 19th and 20th century. The US and China have no direct territorial issues. Though do note rivalry and issue linkages (See Vasquez for more)

5) Nuclear armed dyad (when both states posses nuclear arsenals it tends to inhibit war)

6) Lack of open adversarial alliance. both the US and China are not members of alliances that openly target the other. Adversarial alliances tend to be a war inducing factor

7) Multiple joint memberships in International Organisations. This tends to be peace inducing.

8) Generally speaking ok economics. Both China and the US are doing ok economically. Economic collapse tends to foster war.

9) Crisis diplomacy experience. Both the US and China have experience with managing their past crises in a pacific manner which fosters avoiding crisis escalation.

None of this factors by themselves will lead to peace or war, and indeed the domination of either group is not guarantee for either outcome. Its all probabilistic. Right now I would say the peace inducing factors are stronger than the war-inducing ones, though this is no reason to be complacent.

That said most great power wars since 1816 tend to begin because of the diffusion of a great power-minor power conflict to great power-great power conflict. The inability of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam to manage their territorial issues in a pacific manner is a danger for US-China relations and a lot will depends on the ability of the US to balance the need to support its allies, but also manage its relations in china in a pacific way. Also a lot will depend on the ability of the Chinese governing elite to rein in war-party members, and to avoid a situation where the war party becomes dominant or autonomous.

Bad things that could contribute to war : a incomplete transition of the Chinese system to democracy (you get mass politics but without democratic checks and balances, think Bo Xi Lai on steroids), an attempt of the Chinese military to emulate the Japanese military politically wise in the 1930s. Right now the civilians seem to have the situation under control, but you never know, an idiotic US president or bad crop of top Chinese leaders (we have been very very very lucky on who has run China since Deng Xioping got rid of the Maoists). All of these are nasty things to get, and not totally unlikely.

In another word, the game is on. There is no deterministic story that dooms the US and China to fight a war, but peace is also frail. The US needs to work seriously on helping resolve those territorial issues in SE Asia, otherwise we will be in a scary place.

That is what my research and that of others indicates. You can come to your own conclusions.

McWong7331 May 2014 4:57 p.m. PST

Not in the immediate future, but push it out 100 years and anything is possible.

KTravlos Inactive Member31 May 2014 5:04 p.m. PST

I wish to be clear that all I said applies to the next 20 years at most. No good social scientist should make predictions beyond that. But it seems common sense and social science here agree. That is rare :p

KTravlos Inactive Member31 May 2014 5:14 p.m. PST

See Dan Cyr, that is what scares me. I get visions of a Kwatung army style situation in Siberia. Not good not good. Pray for good Chinese leaders!

Only Warlock31 May 2014 5:25 p.m. PST

I saw an intelligence analysis about 10 years ago that put the actual PRC nuclear stockpiles at more than 2,500 warheads.

People often forget that we have already fought a rather bloody conflict with the PRC within living memory. So yes, I think it is entirely possible.

KTravlos Inactive Member31 May 2014 5:31 p.m. PST

That is close to the numbers I have seen also. The major issue for the Chinese is that they lack the good nuclear subs that would guarantee MAD. Most of their platforms are land based or air based. We know where their stuff is and we can track it, which in a major escalating crisis may lead them to fire first because they fear us hitting their platforms with conventional weapons. They need SSBNs to feel secure, once that can reach the polar ice without US hunter killers tracking them. Once under the ice-cap they are safe from us and we have MAD. Though my reserach on that is rusty (5 years ago at UChicago) and they may have gotten some serious SSBNs by now. That is good.

Well sure we have fought them in Korea, and had a ton of Militarized Disputes in the period between 1949-2000, but again these are not deterministic things. The last 10-15 years have been good on that front.

kyoteblue Inactive Member31 May 2014 5:44 p.m. PST


Personal logo Wyatt the Odd Supporting Member of TMP Fezian31 May 2014 6:34 p.m. PST

If war does happen, it will be because someone didn't realize how dependent the Chinese economy is on the US customer.

The Chinese Communist Party is absolutely scared of instability. If you get to the point where the US and Europe stop buying Chinese products, there's only so many ghost cities that they can commission to keep the population employed.

Because there's still a fair amount of cronyism between the government and industry, it is estimated that 20-30% of the loans on the books of Chinese banks won't get paid. There have been some rumbles as certain investment funds have defaulted. Those may be the just the first signs.

But, on a demographic side of things, you now have a population seriously out of balance – both in gender and age groups. The One Child policy worked too well. The policy was intended to keep the population steady at 1.2B. They hit 1.26B in 2000, but with a current birth rate of 1.5 per woman, the population will start declining in 2030. The second issue is that you are going to have a large number of older people being supported by fewer workers. Japan experienced that late last century and is still feeling the effects.

Right now, there's a "stealth invasion" of the Soviet far east as Chinese guest workers do most of the agriculture in that area. Give it another 10-15 years and you could see the Chinese Premier invoke the Putin Doctrine of intervening to protect Chinese populations outside of its border.

Until then, they need to worry that the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and other countries join together to take their grievances to the World Court. ASEAN is out of the picture because as long as China keeps Cambodia in its camp, that organization can't achieve unanimity needed to make a declaration.


Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP31 May 2014 6:36 p.m. PST

Don't forget the effects of the "One Child" policy. As a result, China has a severely lopsided sex ratio of men to women; there aren't enough young women available to marry young men, by the millions in some estimates. You want a recipe for war, China's been brewing it for decades.


Now, I don't think that means that anyone's going to launch an invasion across the Pacific to grab some California girls, but it could touch off regional strife with the Koreas, Japan, or other populous areas, and that could draw in the US. Even if Beijing just decides to do the world a favor and annex North Korea as a source of brides, South Korea isn't going to be happy.

In any case, if a remake called Seven Million Brides For Seven Million Brothers hits Chinese cinema, watch out!

Cacique Caribe31 May 2014 6:58 p.m. PST

Parzival: "In any case, if a remake called Seven Million Brides For Seven Million Brothers hits Chinese cinema, watch out!"


I don't know why, but I suddenly remembered that quote from Braveheart, when the king says, "the problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots!"

If there was suddenly a new and highly virulent epidemic in China, that could prompt a sudden regime change. Being that so many viruses originate from that part of the world … they would be at ground zero, while the rest of the world has weeks or months to come up with the latest vaccine.


Legion 431 May 2014 7:33 p.m. PST

Ain't going to happen, the US, Russia and China who all have large militaries, all some of the largest in the world. Know in the 21st Century it is not worth the "blood and treasure" to go into a shooting war, with one another …

Gunslinger31 May 2014 9:01 p.m. PST

Finally a thread Kyotebluer doesn't think belongs in the fez!

kyoteblue Inactive Member31 May 2014 9:18 p.m. PST


Cyrus the Great31 May 2014 9:56 p.m. PST

China and the USA are mutually dependent junkies hitting each other up.

28mm Fanatik31 May 2014 10:02 p.m. PST

I don't see a direct war between China and the US, but indirect proxy wars similar to those during the Cold War are certainly possible. The US is declining in power relative to other countries so the world order may be different in the next 40 to 50 years or so.

panzersaurkrautwerfer Inactive Member01 Jun 2014 2:17 a.m. PST

China and the US are competitors. They're not enemies. By no means ideologically or even in terms of practicality are our way of life, or their way of life dangerous to each other to the degree where armed conflict would be required.

We are certainly at the point where we'll do all sorts of nasty stuff to each other under the table, or things that much with our respective spheres of influence, but those are things we both do to France for christ's sake.

The Russo-Chinese conflict seems more likely given the state of both of those country's force projection abilities.

Legion 401 Jun 2014 4:55 a.m. PST

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Sun Tzu

Richard Gaulding Inactive Member01 Jun 2014 8:01 a.m. PST

If you want to set up a "seems plausible" scenario for a war in the relatively far future (late 21st century), you could imagine a resumption of the Great Game of the 19th century, played by Russia, China, and the US. They jockey for cheap resources and markets by supporting or destabilizing regimes in the developing world and using military force as "peacekeepers" while also keeping the UN from intervening, like what Russia did when it annexed Crimea, or China and Russia both preventing any serious UN intervention in Syria.

This sets up a scenario where, late in the 21st century, the UN is a non-entity and China and the US, at least, are equals in military power and prone to more open interventions rather than pretending that the masked gunmen running the streets are local militias or "patriotic foreign volunteers," and at some point these shenanigans wind up with US and Chinese troops shooting at each other.

Maybe a lot of this maneuvering is specifically to reduce US Chinese interdependence because neither nation likes having its fate tied so strongly to the other?

Zargon Inactive Member01 Jun 2014 8:22 a.m. PST

KTravlos seems to have it, even if it was long winded. My take, the more less reliant the Chinese political establishment needs from the traditionally western markets the more belligerent they will become. This is their course and an example is the securing of the Russia/China gas deal (took 20 years but now signed_ with help from the US and the EU over the Ukraine and NATO push ( so there is actually a more positive link between China and Russia) the sooner the Chinese feel they can be masters of their own destiny the sooner they will ratchet the feeling that they are the dominant nation in the South China Seas.
It will all be diplomacy for a while still unless the 'allied alliance' can jangle an early action, thus getting the show going with China half cocked (what I'd do) and thus not fully capable. The Russians, right now they are happy with the play of cards. So war? Tommorrow maybe next month/year or never. Cheers

Stealth1000 Inactive Member01 Jun 2014 8:56 a.m. PST

I don't see a war between Chine and the west. Or Russian and China. What I see is Russian China and the West at war with the Ottoman Caliphate. Russian the USA chins all have too much to loose from total war. All these nations would be willing to negotiate before an all out war. When the Turks re-build the Ottoman empire again they will not be reasoned with. It will be a case on we convert or die. We will find China and Russia as allies when that happens. Just my 2 pence worth.

Legion 401 Jun 2014 9:29 a.m. PST

For gaming purposes, I have to agree with Richard …

Cacique Caribe01 Jun 2014 10:53 a.m. PST

Legion: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. -
Sun Tzu"

More so if it seems inconceivable that you could ever be an enemy.

YouTube link


War Monkey01 Jun 2014 10:59 a.m. PST

You could go with an pandemic, that started in China as a means to reduce the population of some 20 million single males (last report I heard) has a means to head off a revolt, that in turn goes worldwide and nukes start to fly as a means to sterilize and stop the spreading of the pandemic, and ground war in sue as means of gaining control of certain territories.

Cacique Caribe01 Jun 2014 11:06 a.m. PST

Or a pandemic initially reported to kill only women (perhaps it starts at an all-girls school environment), but that's enough to start a panic among the 20M men? :)


Char B1 bis Inactive Member01 Jun 2014 4:57 p.m. PST

I don't like the flags…too busy.

Lion in the Stars01 Jun 2014 5:29 p.m. PST

I think a China vs. USA hot war is unlikely anytime soon. We are too economically tied to each other.
The great minds of Europe said that in 1913, and look what happened in 1914.

Any event that seriously destabilizes the Chinese Communist Party's control is a possible war-starter. Wag the Dog theory, backed up by behavior of Spain and Argentina. And the Chinese are sitting on some *nasty* destabilizing time-bombs. Demographically, environmentally, and economically.

- The One Child policy has already been mentioned, but what really makes that such a destabilizer is that it threatens the "immortality" of the elderly. No brides means no grandchildren, no grandchildren means no-one to care for them after they are no longer able to work.

- Environmentally, there are massive troubles. Spreading deserts, poisoned farmlands, and horribly toxic smog killing the cities. A population that cannot feed itself will very quickly look for someone who promises food. Even if that food must be stolen from the fields of America directly.

- Economically, there are already companies moving their factories out of China as Chinese workers demand better pay. The bad loans is another area that could provoke unrest against the Party.

Let's not forget that the US is treaty-bound to back the South Koreans, Japanese, and Taiwanese, so if those flare up severely there's another way to drag the US and China to war, which could even be blamed on a 'rogue' General.

kyoteblue Inactive Member01 Jun 2014 6:53 p.m. PST


Fritadas Inactive Member01 Jun 2014 8:42 p.m. PST

I tend to agree with those who say that the next war China fights against a fellow great power is more likely to be fought against Russia than us. With the exception of Taiwan which was only claimed by Chinese Emperors in the latter years of the Ming Dynasty, if memory serves, though current political reality makes that a moot point there are parts of Russia once claimed by the Chinese. I'm a historian, not a social scientist like KTB; while I would include many of the factors that he did in his answer, I would also use more abstract concepts such as national pride and national imaginaries. For example, I was in a sociology class about the collapse of communism, and the professor asked the class about why Russia would absorb the Crimea, everybody gave answers having to do with economics, post-collapse politics, etc. Mine was simply that Russia has wanted the Crimea since the days of Peter I, and that they, the poles, and the ottomans had all clashed over suzerainty over the Right and Left Banks of the Ukraine frequently.
So, when it comes to China, I would simply remind others that China, historically speaking, whenever they have the territory they have pretty much always considered Chinese, lose all interest in external conflict for whatever end.

@ Stealth100 [just a disclaimer, I thesised on the Ottomans and welcome any chance to spout about them]

Considering the close relations the US has with Turkey, I doubt a re-established Ottoman Empire (the Imperial family still exists in exile; some say all they need are new Janissaries) would be high on our list of enemies, especially since we carefully cultivate a good relationship with the Turks and many Turks are 'westernized,' enjoying mini-skirts and booze. This despite the shamefully inaccurate title of the recent Polish/Hungarian/Italian movie about the relief of the second siege of Vienna in 1683 the movie is called '11 September 1683' when it is a historical fact that the battle occurred on the 12th that represents a clear attempt by some to turn an ancient rivalry into some part of the States' ongoing operations in the Mid-East, and to make us see our allies as wolves in sheeps clothing.

No, I could see them or hell, just the Republic of Turkey clashing with Russia, and where the EU would land in that war is a hell of a close call; on the one hand, there's the traditionally autocratic russian bogeyman to the north, and the 'Terrible Turk' to the south two traditional enemies of western europe. The United States was allergic to war in europe before WW1, more allergic after, and even more after WW2 (well, really in memory of the world wars after the cold war, but our bases in Europe have never been exactly unanimously popular). Our attitude seems to be "since you guys like slaughtering each other so much, go for it, but no Nazis or Reds this time, 'cuz the we'll step in."

All of that said, in a hypothetical war involving the US, China, the EU, Russia, and 'Neo-Ottomans,' I'd hope to have the Ottomans on my side. A friend of my dad's was a Rakkasan in Korea (he was also in ww2, but I don't know that he was in the 187th for that, as he was in Europe), and he said the finest infantry in the world were Scots and Turks.

Here's some Ottoman marching music (b/c cool):
YouTube link

EDIT: Oh,, and despite declarations of war involving promises of forced conversion, the Ottomans preferred to avoid it, as there were more sources of (higher) tax revenue from non-Muslims (i.e., taxing booze production). So, historically, they would be more interested in uniting nations under the banner of the prophet in a physical, literal sense, and not the metaphorical. But hey, things change (though I really do hope to see the Turks restored to at least some of their former glory)

goragrad01 Jun 2014 10:44 p.m. PST

Sorry Fritadas, my ancestors were in the path of the Ottomans during their 'glory days' to wish to see those return. Besides per a recent article on the current and recent past their political system is still too close to the old corrupt Ottoman model.

Insofar as a near future 'hot war' between the US and China there was an interesting comment last week on an column at NRO on the recent pronouncement by former generals on the strategic impact of CAGW/CCC/Climate Weirding. The commenter noted that if the predicted consequences of continued CO2 emissions are so dire then the only logical course of action is to conquer India and China or to destroy their industrial capacity. Neither country is going to voluntarily destroy their economies based on climate models and it will take outside intervention to change their policies.

This would tie in with a US military swing to a Pacific Strategy, however there would need to be a recognition that ground force would have to be increased.

As China and India have experienced friction in the recent past it could be possible to (at least temporarily) ally with one to defeat the other. India would be first choice due to their more Western outlook. This would also have the advantage of taking out the larger opponent first with an ally capable of absorbing significant losses.

P.S. In recent years I have celebrated the anniversary of the Relief of Vienna on the 12th (although several histories note the 11th and 12th as the days for the battle) as the appropriate anodyne to September 11th.

Veni, Vidi, Deus Vincimus.

keeper Nilbog Inactive Member02 Jun 2014 4:27 a.m. PST

Wasn't there a prediction that the 'Eagle and the Bear will unite against the Dragon' by that Frenchman.

Legion 402 Jun 2014 6:19 a.m. PST

More so if it seems inconceivable that you could ever be an enemy.

The US/UN fought a lot of Chinese '50-'53 in the Korean War … Mandy Potemkin and Andre' the Giant not withstanding …

KTravlos Inactive Member02 Jun 2014 7:39 a.m. PST


"The great minds of Europe said that in 1913, and look what happened in 1914." Only Angell really made that case, and if you carefully read his book he made a probabilistic not deterministic point. Also the war stared in the least capitalist part of Europe (the Balkans) and by the two least capitalist great powers in Europe (Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire)

Some recent social scientific reserach point that the economic interdependence argument depends on the type of economic ties as opposed to just high cross border trade activity. The exact argument right now escapes me, but essentially while the capitalist powers in 1913 did trade a lot with each other, FDI was weak between them. This is a different idea to the US-PRC relationship.
Again none of this guarantee peace, but nor to they doom to war.

"Environmentally, there are massive troubles. Spreading deserts, poisoned farmlands, and horribly toxic smog killing the cities. A population that cannot feed itself will very quickly look for someone who promises food. Even if that food must be stolen from the fields of America directly."

To Malthusian to make sense in a industrial society. I can see such a policy enacted by a reactionary quasi-facist movement that tries to challenge the mainstream-PRC(itself a very authoritarian and totalitarian party, but one that is more and more transforming to a economic oligarchy)but that would not be due to necessity but due to politics (like Hitler's and Tojo's leberstantum politics firmly rooted on a rejection of industrial capitalism). But even in that case, why go to American fields, Central Siberia is much more fertile than people think.

Fridatas, while I agree with you, I think you may be underestimating the transformative potential of the industrial revolution, which is what China is really finally going through. Confucian China may had acted that way, but Confucian China has been swept away in gulags and now smoke stacks. I am not saying culture does not affect foreign policy, but I fear we once more forget how trans-formative capitalism (even the state crony one of the PRC/ industrial revolution is)

"Mine was simply that Russia has wanted the Crimea since the days of Peter I, and that they, the poles, and the ottomans had all clashed over suzerainty over the Right and Left Banks of the Ukraine frequently." That was also mine :p

Anyway good contributions by most (some I did not like at all but I am not telling you :p)

Lion in the Stars02 Jun 2014 9:07 a.m. PST

@KTravlos: Points taken, and I will defer to the historians on the details. I'm a business major, history is a hobby.

On the industrial side, did you know that Chinese factories are some of the most inefficient in the entire world? They consume the most power and most raw materials per unit of production. Apparently, power and raw materials are still significantly cheaper than installing pollution scrubbers, but there are ways around that. While the World Trade Organization won't let you get away with a blanket restriction on products not made a certain way, you can require labeling as to the method of production.

"This product was made in a factory that does not abide by US or EU environmental regulations"

Can you imagine how fast the PRC would enforce the installation of pollution scrubbers if they couldn't sell any products because of the labeling?

Cacique Caribe02 Jun 2014 9:22 a.m. PST


Do you guys think that a marked increase in cyberterrorism by China, against US agencies and military, could ever result in open hostilities from retaliation by the US?



kyoteblue Inactive Member02 Jun 2014 10:17 a.m. PST


Cacique Caribe02 Jun 2014 12:08 p.m. PST

Lol! You're probably right.


Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP02 Jun 2014 12:23 p.m. PST

If China hacks Facebook for a day, we ought to give them most favored nation status for at least a decade!

CzarBLood Inactive Member02 Jun 2014 3:30 p.m. PST

no , the Britsh FO will all sit them down and have a word…

KTravlos Inactive Member02 Jun 2014 4:56 p.m. PST

Lion: I knew a bit about that issue. I see China as the UK in the 1840s, Dirty and getting rich :p Good point on the labeling, and such non-tariff restrictions are the bread and butter of IPE people in Social Sciences. No question the US could make China's life terrible. John Mearsheimer would like us to do so. Then again he used to like us to go to war with China ASAP :p But I do not see any reason why we would turn a capitalist oligarchic state to a populist uber-totalitarian one!

Cacique Caribe: On that question social scientists and policy scholars are divided. The social science says no, the policy scholars say yes. I say the data points are too few to make any predictions on this. Keep your eye out for the forthcoming book "Cyber Hype versus Cyber Reality :Restraint and Norms in Cyber Conflcit by Brandond Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness.

Fritadas Inactive Member02 Jun 2014 9:10 p.m. PST

@ gorograd:
I have never read a history that placed the Battle of Kahlenberg on the 11th, and history is my job. Any history that you read placing the battle on that day is suspect at best.
Although he makes much of Ottoman atrocities and conveniently fails to mention the Hapsburg ones (matters of politics and religion aside, it seems that no war is as brutal as that fought between two Imperial houses – or just 2 'normal' megalomaniacs, a la Hitler and Stalin) I highly recommend Thomas M. Barker's "Double Eagle and Crescent: Vienna's Second Turkish Siege and Its Historical Setting." Even though it is a bit dated at this point, he still provides the best coverage I've read of what weapons were *actually* present for the siege and subsequent battle, as well as the most concise description of Vienna's defenses. Plus it's well-organized and well-written.
If you would prefer something more recent, I would recommend Andrew Wheatcroft's "Enemy at the Gate," though he is not a historian by training and his methodology leaves something to be desired.

Russell120120 Inactive Member04 Jun 2014 4:40 p.m. PST

U.S.- China is much more likely as a low burn economic-proxy war than as full out bombs away scenario. Both countries have their share of vulnerabilities. But the damage from that affair could seriously tank both countries economies to the point that the situation seems a bit apocalyptic.

On a second note, I have seen a fair amount of discussion off and on by the foreign affairs folk of future Indian – Chinese tension. I am guessing that that would certainly be a tough naval fight.

tkdguy04 Jun 2014 5:27 p.m. PST

Thanks for the link. I have a similar scenario in my SF games set about that time period. I ran a few battles, but I have a lot of gaps in my future history. Maybe I can get some inspiration from the website.

goragrad05 Jun 2014 9:40 a.m. PST

Fritadas – thanks for the recommendation.

In the past I had always read that the battle occurred on the 12th. Finding that some references have the battle occurring on the 11th & 12th, my presumption is that these histories are considering the preliminary tactical movements to be the opening of the battle. Insofar as I am aware the combat all occurred on the 12th and that is my own criteria.

Cacique Caribe06 Jun 2014 4:39 p.m. PST

If, somehow, they succeeded in interfering with wall street for a day or two … freezing some funds here and there, and diverting some other money …

Would they ever admit it? And regardless, would the US ever take any real action?


grommet37 Inactive Member06 Jun 2014 9:41 p.m. PST

This is a very interesting thread.

I'd like to thank the many respondents for their insight and input.

Pages: 1 2