Is China's power overrated?

Is China's policy of claiming as much territory in the South and East China seas as it can sustainable or will it hand possible allies in the region over to the US?

 

Yes it is.

This is reality here.

We have the trump card we can't play because China uses our corporations as economic lobby groups for Chinese economic policy in the US.

If we could ever break this strangle hold, this plays out rather simply. The threat China supposedly has is to dump our debt is silly, as our FED pisses away a Trillion dollars when it wakes up in the morning. This has no real effect despite the propaganda that is out there today to the contrary.

Our economic hammer is trade tariff's. China can't consume what it produces. The day we apply tariff's, China's economy crumbles.

We are still militarily superior, and they can't fight a war without an economy anyways.

China is a paper tiger built on propaganda, and our for sale government!

 

And this is something I have been telling people for years, but they just don't get it.

China is currently the largest manufacturer in the world. But how much of what they actually manufacture did they make?

Not much. They have simply taken over the position held before by Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, and other Pacific Rim nations. Manufacture goods on contract for companies in other countries.

No more, no less.

This is not real power. And it has actually made their economy very fragile. How many times in recent years have we heard of incidents that have had many people question more expansion in China? Incidents like the recent Riot at Foxcon. All it takes is some kind of major incident (think Tiananmen Square), and I bet you will have companies fleeing China in droves.

And their entire economy is based upon a production-export model. If production takes a serious hit, their economy will collapse. And even their production is not very broad. Sure, they make good trinkets, but where are the Chinese Automobiles? The Chinese Aircraft? How about the Chinese Tractors? Most of their Heavy Industry is highly dependent on other companies overseas to make key componants that they have problems making (Engines and Transmissions).

There are many reasons why I do not worry overmuch about "Chinese Power". I see how shallow it actually is.

The PRC has only had 2 real conflicts since it became a nation, their own Revolution and the Korean War.

And in neither one did they come off very well. And even their minor conflicts (Vietnam), they performed pretty poorly.

I have seen them as a paper tiger for years, with most of their military designed mostly for internal use then for fighting a foreign enemy.



Behold, the most common tank in all of China, the Type 59. China still has almost 6,000 of these relics, designed in the mid 1950's. Good for suppressing her own unarmed population, but not good for much else (Iraq had 1,500 of them in 1990, almost all destroyed in the Gulf War).

 

So China will not succeed in it's territorial claims in the South and East China seas, and it is losing possible allies in the attempt. So it will be forced to go outside East and Southeast Asia for allies, to Africa and the anti American countries in South America.

 

Very few of those "allies" would be even willing to do anything, let alone be able to.

What could say Venezuela or Chad do in this kind of conflict? Not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing. Could you imagine even a nation like Brazil sending ships to help China against the United States and it's allies?

I don't think so. Heck, not even Iran would get involved in any of the conflicts the US has been in next door to them for the last 20 years. They may be crazy, but they are not stupid.

 

What about China selling weapons, planes and ship to these sorts of countries the future, and giving them economic aid. This can also mean problems for the US in Africa and South America. China using African countries like Chad supplied weapons to Gaddafi prolonging the Libyan civil war, costing the US and Europes billions of dollars in extra costs and depleting their stock piles of missiles. Argentina has also show an interest in buying future stealth jets and combat ships from China, not the Argentina will become a US ally, but it could mean problems for the UK.

 

OK, you are confusing a great many things here.

For one, it does not really matter who sells weapons to who. Nations will but weapons. Period. They will buy them from France, the US, Israel, China, Russia, even Argentina. Who they buy them from I could not really care less. And just because they buy weapons from them, that does not mean that they are "allies".

After all, for decades Iran had called the Soviet Union the "Lesser Satan". But that certainly did not affect their desire to buy Soviet weapons, or the Soviets from selling them to them.

Here you are confusing simple commerce with diplomacy. And the two could not be farther apart. A great many nations that really do not like each other (think the Soviet Union and the United States) will do business for various reasons. Be it simple trade, or even for humanitarian reasons.

But do not think that just because somebody buys weapons from China that they are their ally, or that because China sells them weapons that they are their ally. This is a business transaction, pure and simple.

And since China does not have a "Stealth Jet", this is all pretty laughable to be honest. Most of the real experts have estimated that the J-20 is closer to the MiG-25 or SR-71 in Stealth then it is the F-22 or F-117. While it may be "stealthy", it is not "stealth". And as far as Argentina and it's beliefs may be, I really can't take them seriously. They are a 3rd world nation, who also has asperations of being the leader of South America. But they can't seem to understand that they will always be a 2 bit nation, and that Brazil is really leading the way on the continent.

And big deal if Argentina buys the J-20. Unless there is another military junta, they will never do more then make ugly faces at the Malvinas. And if they did try another military action, I doubt the US will simply play supporter a second time.

Of course, the best estimate of the J-20 even being operational is still at least 7-8 years away. So I do not have many worries there, since it will likely be more like 10-15 years in reality.

Of course, this may simply end up being another MBT-2000. Where the final product is so bad that not even the Chinese military wants it, so all they can do is sell them off to some thried world nation, and then pretend it never existed.

 

Why would you buy crap when you can buy quality from EADS and Boeing?

 

It's not even about the planes and ships, it's about training their pilots and sailors for Argentina, China isn't going to sell it's latest military machines to a 3rd world second rate south American country like Argentina, it may sell current jets that have been in service for a while, like the J-10. Ships are less of a problem as the UK has the best attack submarines and good frigates, but if China did sell J-10's to Argentina and China helped Argentina with pilot training, it would a huge problem for the UK, without aircraft carriers. Enough people in Argentina want the Falklands, that even a democratic government could try and take them using force. It would be good for China if a major US ally was to lose a rather important training base and oil and gas reserves that China could then help Argentina extract. But then Argentina would have a problem with the rest of south America is it isn't going to happen, but the China would want it to happen. Mushroom knows much more about it than me, this is why I enjoy read his posts.

 

So you think China's inferior airplanes, and inferior pilots are better then an alliance with the west?

It just doesn't make sense.


BTW, I'm not in support of this system, just stating what aligned interests actually are.

 

Georgetown professor Phillip Karber, with his undergraduate students, assembled a lengthy study concerning China’s stockpile of nuclear weapons and Karber and his team concluded that China may have as many as 3,000 nuclear warheads. Although the study reveals much information about China’s secretive development of what it calls their “Underground Great Wall” to protect its nuclear arsenal, Karber’s claim that China may have 3,000 nuclear warheads has been the statement that has brought widespread national and international attention to the study.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/Karber_UndergroundFacilities-Full_2011_reduced.pdf

 

I really can not speculate on China's military strength and it really doesn't matter in a way. The United States, Britain, Rome, and all of them have been underestimated before. I'm sure loads of information and hearsay was generated about just how unlikely any of those nations could ever become viable powers, let alone superpowers, but they did. You really just can't plan or map these things out until they happen.

Economically, I am just as clueless. Most people see an enmity between east and west markets but there is evidently a history of economic cooperation. It's not like the government just found out it was in deb to China. We have been outsourcing for years. Whatever China's political situation, the economic sector was apparently fine with it. I'm not sure if China as a superpower is overrated, but I think China as a menace to America is overrated. At best, probably just a big distraction to take our eyes from other wars or whatever.

 

Will I am a Conservative British nationalist, more like Churchill than Thatcher. I support the system 100%. No I think what China has is much better than what most African and South American nations have right now, Chinese planes are much cheaper and can be bought in greater numbers than F-15's, F-16's, Rafale's and Typhoons.

 

Actually, not as big of a problem as you may think.

For one, CHina is willing to sell just about anything they have, as long as it makes them money and there is little chance it would be used against them. Just look at the MBT-2000. And the J-10 is really not all that old either, less then 6 years in service (although the only country interested in buying it has been Pakistan, they were shopped around to other nations even before it was operational).

And I could not care less about China training Argentine pilots. China can only teach them theory, if nothing else Argentina should be training China, since they have actual experience in aviation warfare. And it would not be a problem for the UK, since their pilots have a lot more experience then both of those nations combined.

Also, China has a carrier, but no aircraft. The UK still has their 3 Invincible class carriers in service, they are simply being used for Helicopter carriers until the Queen Elizabeth class enters service in 4 years (the same year the F-35 enters service). But do not make the mistake that if a conflict actually happened that the Royal Navy would have no carriers. If you think that simply because the Harrier has been removed from service, it could not be quickly re-introduced if needed?

And there is one thing that most people do not realize about Argentina, and that is that they are viewed with suspicious at best, and downright antagonistic or worse by most of their neighbors. A great deal of their equipment for decades has been US made, or Argentine made from US designs. Their main transport and fuelers are C-130s. Their main attack aircraft is the A-4AR Fightinghawk (a significantly upgraded A-4, designed and rebuilt by McDonnell Douglas and the US Air Force specifically for the Argentine Air Force in 1997).

Actually, I do not think much of their aircraft at all. After all, why would they have been trying so hard to buy a carrier based plane, if they could make one themselves that was even better? That simply defies logic, but people expect me to believe that. But I recognize propaganda when I hear it most of the time, and here it should be obvious.

Their pilots may be good, but also remember that for the last 11+ years NATO pilots have actually been operating in combat conditions. That gives them an edge no training can replace. And China has absolutely zero experience in carrier based operations. So in that area any opposition would have a hudge edge.

Nukes however are not power. They are nothing but a threat, nothing more and nothing less. You may threaten a non-nuclear power with one, but that would be rather foolish since that will be a sure way to get some very strong allies on the side of the nation you are trying to threaten.

And threatening another nuclear nation is the ultimate in stupidity. Because if they think you are serious, they may do their own preemptive strike based upon your threat.

Also China may have lots of warheads, but their number of missiles with enough range is rather limited. And their longest-range threat is really not a threat at all (Type 094 SSBN, 12-24 nuclear missiles), since their 5 ballistic submarines are almost never seen away from the dock, and never out at sea for more then a week or so at a time.

And I love how people try to claim that China is such a secretive nation, and that everything is a secret there. China is actually probably the most open nation on earth when it comes to military equipment. They make huge announcements before they have even made a prototype, selling it as being wonderfull because all of their systems are for sale. Want to own a J-20 once it is finished, China will sell them to you. One some of their newest generation tanks, China will sell them to you. Want a "Stealth Destroyer", China will sell them to you.

Actually, do not put down what a lot of South America has. The A-4AR is a modern and highly capable rebuilding of an aircraft that the US used for decades. It is the body of the A-4, but with brand new engines, avionics and other improvements. In short, this is not your grandfather's Vietnam era A-4.

And Argentina has a long history of building it's own aircraft. They built their own C-130s, as well as at least 2 fighters (FMA Pucara, and the FMA Pampa). And while Brazil uses a lot of US airfract (P-3 Orion, F-5 Tiger II, C-130), they also make a lot of their own aircraft (including their own AWACS).

And yes, Chinese aircraft are cheaper. But there is also a saying, "you get what you pay for". If that was not true, we would all be driving Ford Fiestas, Toyota Tercels, and Geo Metros.

 

HMS Invincible has been scrapped, Ark Royal laid up to be scrapped and out of service for about 18 months, HMS Illustrious has a main role of helicopter carrier and is to be decommission in 2014, so the UK only has HMS Illustrious but it would take weeks to make changes to fly mainly Harriers. The UK made a mistake getting rid of Ark Royal. Same people have said to me the UK could if use transport aircraft to get more Typhoons to the Falklands, so maybe no need for carriers in the Falklands case. Some people on facebook say the Type 45's could shoot down most of the Argentine airforce. But what the UK is banks on is that 4 Typhoons shooting down lots of Argentine aircraft making it not cost effect to even try and take the Falklands.

I agree with everything else about China and you get what you pay for.

 

OK, these are some changes I was not aware of. And yes, the Ark Royal has been slated for scrapping, but do not expect that to happen immediately.

And it is always foolish to try and rely on only a few aircraft, no matter how capable they are. There is always the chance of something going wrong, a freak accident, or something else rendering half your force out of service. And by the same token, I remember similar boasts prior to the last war between the UK and Argentina. I also remember the UK eating a lot of crow afterwards.

England may have won the war, but it also took some horrible damage. And from a "third world country" no less.

 

They can also be shot down in far greater numbers.

 

I agree it is foolish, also the 12 pilots in the Falklands aren't cleared to attack ships, but I quess they could do it if the needed to. Nobody in the military underrated the Argentina, maybe some politicians. I watched a video a few months ago some pilots I think it was were talking about which country would be a fair fight for UK military in 1981, they said Argentina, a few months later they attacked the Falklands. Also the Argentine exocet isn't the same threat is was in 1982, the Type 45's would see the Argentine Super Étendard's coming and fire some Aster 30's befor they get in range to launch the exocet, unless I am wrong and Argentina has made upgrades or got it's hands on newer exocet's. Our Typhoons are in my view the best fighter jets in the world flown by pilots training in the Falklands, I would like to think they could get a 10-1 kill ration. In 1982 Britain only had Harriers, and even against poorly trained Argentine pilots the fleet still lost ships. In 1982 Argentina had very poor troops apart from their marines, but the UK still lost over 100 men retaking the Falklands, I doubt Argentina would send poor troops again, they would only send their best.

The UK did take horrible damage, lucky Argentina didn't have any backbone.

 

Why the need to use force? Just copy Uncle Sam's favourite method of tightening economic pressure (in this case) on Japan.

Please refer to the queen and rook sacrifices in the game between Evans and Reshevsky, New York 1963 at http://www.politicalforum.com/warfa...ess-principles-applied-war-other-matters.html

 

EU, US, China, the three's pritty much control the world, it the US does anything to hurt China on economic terms it will hurt the EU, which will hurt the US. The only thing left is force. Chess has nothing to do with anything but Chess, Mushroon told you this.

 

Force is the last thing they want to resort to. Force is okay for countries like Iraq, Libya, and all that because they don't pose any real threat to the US. Their methods of retaliation are laughable. China may, at least, draw blood or make such an endeavor much more costly.

 

Until China's hard power greatly improves and their soft power is retooled, they will be an overrated global actor. I do not consider them to be a global power, but rather a global player. Their navy lacks an offensive blue-water access-denial capability. Acculturation efforts via Xinhua News Agency, CCTV, and Confucius Institutes have not done enough to significantly shift global perception. Lastly, a commitment to diplomatic non-interventionism is inadequate.

 

China couldn't hurt the US, the same way Russia could, that's why in a war they would back Japan, Japan maybe attacked but not the US, nobody in Europe is worried about China for that reason also. I am quite sure the US went into Libya and Iraq because of the UN and it was an international force not just the US. A few US carriers and defending ship and submarines could take out most of the Chinese navy and alot of the Chinese airforce, we may even get to see the F-22 in combat, but a full land invasion would be rather stupid.

 

anyone think few cvbg can destroy entire chinese fleet/air force need to research on china defense capabilities. for starter, a war can only occur in china backyard, thus give them better logistic. china has significant amount of anti-ship missile on different platform, a big threat to any navy. china has a very capable integrate air defense system, which only our stealth plane has chance to penetrate, but we don't have enough plane in the air to destroy all or even moderate amount of it.

 

I never said 3 US Carrier battle groups could destroy the entire Chinese fleet and air force, I said "a few US carriers and defending ship and submarines could take out most of the Chinese navy and alot of the Chinese air force". I also said the US and allies would be stupid to try a land invasion of China, this wouldn't be about hurting China's economy, but stopping any ability they have to project power and bully other nations in the region.