"The Sino-American War of 2025" Topic

"The reasons why the United States and the People's Republic of China (PRC) avoided total war, let alone a nuclear exchange, during their armed conflict in the autumn of 2025 remain a source of dispute. What is clearer is why the Sino-American Littoral War broke out, and what course it took. The United States lost part of its position in Asia, while China found its gains an unexpected burden. The resulting cold war between the United States and China became the defining feature of geopolitics in the Asia-Pacific in the middle of the 21st century. To understand what happened and why, we must start with the political environment between Washington and Beijing in the years leading up to the war, look at their military assets and assess the balance of power in the western Pacific at the outset of hostilities. Only then will analysts be able to interpret the political and military decisions taken by both sides.

With the end of the Cold War between the West and the Communist East, American policymakers turned to constructing a new great-power relationship with China despite growing strains between the two countries. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Washington steadily attempted to integrate China into what liberal internationalists called the ‘rules-based international order'. While the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations midwifed the PRC's entrance into the World Trade Organization, successive presidents ignored growing evidence of China's industrial and cyber espionage against both the US government and private American businesses. It was, however, during the Barack Obama administration that the real seeds of the 2025 Littoral War were sown.

The Obama administration developed the Bush administration's high-level bilateral talks into a ‘Strategic and Economic Dialogue' and energetically engaged the Chinese government. Yet serious challenges to Asian regional stability emerged during Obama's two terms. Most egregiously, Beijing decided to build and fortify islands in disputed maritime territory in the South China Sea. Ownership of various coral reefs and shoals in the Spratly and Paracel island chains had long been contested between China and a host of Southeast Asian countries, many of which had built modest defensive installations on some of their possessions. Yet Beijing claimed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comments at a regional security meeting in 2010 demonstrated US antagonism toward China's rightful claims…"
From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I fear this a reasonable forecast.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

This is practically a game plan for what will happen.

Agree!.

Amicalement
Armand

Let's hope not!

Except what if the PRC miscalculates and a nuclear exchange results? China would be reduced to a ruin. The United States would survive do to it advantageous superior position in delivery systems. . But I do not believe it would stop with America and China as other nuclear powers would be likely drawn in. China's rightful claims are just window dressing on good ole aggression by an old fashioned totalitarian bully. It should not be surprised by the pushback it is getting. It best the PRC think how far it wants to push this course it is on. America needs to be certain how far it wants to go to discourage the PRC.

Neither Beijing nor Washington want war and will actively avoid it, even in Chinese propaganda tries to project militaristic strength. They are both imperialist powers trying to balance their own national interests. Both are heavily invested in the other to the degree that anything other than rhetorical blows would be self-injurious, and even rhetoric can get there.

China, as a rising power is expanding it's regional and global influence as the overextended empire of the US continues to withdraw. It is important to remember, however, that even though US hegemony is in decline, they still remain the dominant world superpower, just less so.

Calling China a bully while ignoring the US's history is laughable- of course they are a bully. That is what the history of nation states is! The line that the US somehow spreads freedom and democracy by destabilizing foreign nations is propaganda to cover siphoning up of resources and propping up horrific regimes friendly to US interests. Even in the best of circumstance, US intervention generally results in horrific results. Look no further than the debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Hell, we spent the better part of a century supporting the extermination of anything moderately leftist in our "backyard" of South and Central America.

Can you imagine if another nation had tried to put a military presence there like we have in the South China Sea? Were the US in China's place, would it tolerate any more? How many Chinese warships patrol the US Pacific coast?

Jamemurp. For an American you are very pro China. China has several thousand years of actions like this in her past. She has always done this to her neighbors. The United States has always sought to defend her national interests. If China wishes to make the same mistakes of all colonial powers it will nor end well for her.

Well said jamemurp. I agree to 100% with what you said.

@ NavyVet, I don't think he is pro China. It's just a rational analysis.