"Can USA Fight a Cold War With China?" Topic

"The coronavirus has united Americans against Beijing's aggressions, but it will also devastate the Pentagon budget.

America seems to be on the verge of declaring cold war on China, while simultaneously weakening its own ability to wage such a conflict. Across the ideological spectrum, U.S. hostility to China has surged just as financial fallout of the pandemic threatens to harm the U.S. defense budget for years to come…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Ummmmm, we're already doing it, and have been for some time.

Not with the present leadership/strategy. Last admin was ineffective in this area too and the seeds were sown under W's watch. In fairness I don't see foreign policy being driven from the Oval office. The Commander-in-Chief is more ironic than anything. Strategic necessity is stronger than political rhetoric.

An analogy with the Cold War is unhelpful too. It didn't end so well [if it ever did end – looks like it has stated up again lately] and it was HUGELY expensive to fight.

So – we need a new strategy tailor-made to confront China.

We have to agree what is a reasonable claim for China to make or reasonable action for them to take and what is not – then act accordingly.

Bluster and sabre-rattling will not help. Walk quietly and carry a big stick seems a good motto.

China is the undisputed master of the frog in a pot strategy. They take tiny baby steps that the West is very poorly positioned to oppose. So China turns up the heat, oh so slowly and oh so steadily. Reasoned opponents are powerless to react because no one step is objectionable enough to take real action against. So along they go, steadily raising the heat and slowing the rise just enough when there is grumbling to cause everyone to back down. However, the heat does continue to rise, inexorably, toward China's goals.

Frankly there is no real way for the West to stop this. Our systems are geared for the here and now, and subject to the public mood and inability to focus on anything for very long. China can afford to play the long strategy so they do. Eventually we'll be too far boiled in the pot to do anything and no Western politician would do anything meaningful to stop them as the public would vote them out for taking a stand.

Churchill wasn't brought back into the government until the WWII was well underway and almost too late to do anything about it. China is much smarter than WWII Germany and with more resources and population. They will likely gain domination as the world superpower without conflict as they already are demonstrating just by maintaining their slow steady pace.

Even if we did have a Churchill like figure in the wings to show some spine, it is unlikely that things will ever boil over enough at any given point for that person or persons to step in.

Sure the US can fight a cold war with China – if they lend us the $$ first

China has major internal issues facing them in the next few decades. An aging population, environmental issues that are increasing, rampant corruption along with an economy that is dependant on foreign partners. It's not all wine and roses for the the PRC.

Thanks,

John

Lol redroom sad but true.

Given the interdependent nature of the economic interrelationship and the difficulties in decoupling despite all the hawkish rhetoric, it'll be more of a lukewarm war (as in half-hearted Cold War) I think.

Begs the question, will China sell us the rope we will hang them with?

Fighting it isn't important, winning it is. Of course how you define "winning" is probably even more important.

Of course the US can; the real question is Should?

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I'd just as soon not spend ourselves to death. I'd also not like to see Chinese hegemony over the Asia-Pacific. And Africa. And…and…and…

John Leahy, westerners have been predicting the fall of China's Communist Party for over 30 years now. Yet they go from strength to strength and the West dies a slow death.

In fact democracy is in retreat across the globe including in key countries such as USA, Japan and Australia which are increasingly less free (indeed illiberal democracy is now being promoted as a new model by increasingly authoritarian governments in East Europe but the same can be said elsewhere).

---

The Cold War analogy really doesn't fit – unlike USSR China is a critical component of the global economic system.

If China dies the world goes into a worse depression that 1929 or 2020 could ever be.

Though setting must be done to contain China though the answer must include a few economic sacrifices to western business and consumer interests and the West needs to realign itself on a more democratic and morally ethical path.

I did not say anything about the Party. I'm not making any predictions. Strength to strength? Their economy is what supports their moves. It IS in decline due to Covid and other factors. Time will tell. But the factors I mentioned are ongoing issues. Aging population is a major deal for them. Projecting their power other than locally is not really possible currently.

Thanks.

John

Given the interdependent nature of the economic interrelationship and the difficulties in decoupling despite all the hawkish rhetoric, it'll be more of a lukewarm war (as in half-hearted Cold War) I think.

I hope so. I recall reading about the late 19th/early 20th century political and economic thought that major European wars were a thing of the past given interdependent nature of European economies. That was just before 1914.

John,

Their economy was struggling before COVID but so was the rest of the world be it Europe or the rest of Asia or Latin America.

You seem to underestimate how much of global manufacturing they have and how much of the global economy they control.

Aging population is a major deal for them

Ageing is a much bigger problem for the whole western world including the USA!

Indeed Japan's population is in terminal decline (population peaked in 2011 and since then it began falling)!

Even Australia with its massive immigration program can't reverse the issues of ageing (and indeed the migrants often don't help because they bring elderly relatives with them or are already middle aged).

Median ages by country:

link

China ranked 67 with median age of 37.4

Compared to major western countries and China is on average younger than all of them!

Japan rank 2 (47.3)
Germany rank 3 (47.1)
Italy rank 5 (45.5)
EU as whole rank 20 (42.9)
Canada rank 29 (42.2)
UK rank 50 (40.5)
Russia rank 53 (39.6)
Australia rank 58 (38.7)
USA rank 61 (38.1)

Note all the western countries have massive immigration programs and even these aren't doing anything to keep ageing problem down.

Also note the American healthcare system is so poorly developed and in such a state of decay that ageing workforce will probably impact them far more than other countries (indeed USA has far less hospital beds per 1000 people than even China).

link

I guess on the plus side American life expectancy has been falling since 2014,so that should help the ageing problem by the simple expedient of people dying younger:

link

Projecting their power other than locally is not really possible currently.

Economically they project their power throughout the world. Indeed why do you think Taiwan is still not a sovereign country? Why do you think that Belt and Road initiative has been embraced by so many countries?

The US military superiority is largely hollow because the USA does not have a willingness to use it against even third rate powers like Iran.

Not a Cold War like between the USA and Soviet Union. Everything is jumbled together in the international market place now. There will inevitability be a series of crises that pop up on occasion that will have to be resolved. Big wars are bad for business. And I don't know of any modern nation which is truly unified internally at this point. All governments are facing ever increasing dissatisfaction from their own citizens which are better informed (often misinformed, or even manipulated) then ever before. So actually, world history has always been a mess and will continue to be so. Just because we are living now doesn't make us any more special than those who came before us. Ten steps forward, nine steps back.

USAFPilot, I totally agree.

Globalisation ruined national sovereignty and disempowered not only national governments but the people as well.

There was an assumption access to cheap sweat shop built consumer goods would make the people happy and thus happy to ignore everything else being done in the name of globalisation including loss of employment opportunity, loss of publicly funded services etc etc.

Seems things worked out a bit differently.

The Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West, with David Kilcullen and Carl Miller
link
Things might ge much more subtle and needing different thinking.

"Globalisation ruined national sovereignty and disempowered not only national governments but the people as well".

Worked very well for those seeking "one world order" under their "globalization" plans.

Globalization is a logical byproduct of capitalism, which dictates division of labor based on cost of labor, profit margin and efficiency. Western liberal democracies, with their high living standards and costs of living, simply can't compete in the area of labor-intensive everyday low end products because it's not cost-effective. They can still manufacture high tech (e.g. commercial/military jets and Teslas) and expensive designer niche products, but they're essentially service industries now.

Globalization is a bad word and is opposed by both the left and right for different reasons, the former because it's exploitative, causes socio-economic disparities and negatively impacts climate change, the latter because it makes us more dependent on others whom we don't agree with and gives them leverage against us.

Let me laugh….