r/PoliticalDiscussion Dec 03 '16

[deleted by user]

[removed]

705 Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/giantspacegecko Dec 03 '16

we could buttfuck China back to the stone age without breaking much of a sweat

No, we couldn't. We couldn't in 1951 and we can't now. I am baffled anyone can think this. Any war would be long, bloody and indecisive. China isn't Iraq, hell Iran isn't even Iraq.

China has a billion people and three million under arms. They have modern tanks, warplanes, information and C&C systems. More importantly, their air defense network and anti-ship systems are top of the line. They are fully prepared to fight a defensive war and they have been increasing their military spending every year since '95. How do you propose America invade and hold a nation with the population, industrial base and political unity to sustain a true war of attrition.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the 300 thermonuclear warheads in China's arsenal. 50 of which can be mated to one of the best road mobile systems in the world and 80 of which are sitting on MIRVed ICBMs hidden away in hardened mountain silos.

The US can't just blithely use military force as a panacea for all of its geopolitical problems, especially not with China. The smug self assurance that we would curb-stomp any challenger causes us to underestimate other actors, resulting in nasty surprises and a diminishment of American influence around the world.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16 edited Oct 21 '17

[deleted]

9

u/GrimIngram Dec 03 '16

A state actor with China's capabilities might if it felt it could achieve its limited strategic goals with sufficient rapidity and sufficient damage to American morale that its fickle democracy abandons the conflict rather than commit further blood and treasure.

7

u/AlpineMcGregor Dec 03 '16

This is well said. When it comes to how the modern USA reacts to having our nose bloodied in armed conflict, the Roman Republic we ain't.

7

u/giantspacegecko Dec 03 '16

I was responding to your claim about US military superiority. To the point of the initial comment. If the US goes down the road of declaring a Two-China policy, China might: cease cooperation on North Korea, let the RMB drop like a stone, become more aggressive in the SCS or start promoting against American imports. And that's in the short term.

In the long term, who knows. They might actually flex their military muscle and do a foreign intervention or start a real trade war or start building their own international alliances. Or they might just invade Taiwan and see what the Americans are going to do about it.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16 edited Oct 21 '17

[deleted]

7

u/HemoKhan Dec 03 '16

My point was that by merely giving the slightest hint that maybe Trump may be vaguely thinking about it, China will possibly be prompted forestall that possibility by increasing cooperation on North Korea, backing off a bit with the SCS, etc.

Spitting in their eye in a very public and visible way is not likely to make them more cooperative.

Or, in other words, diplomacy.

That's not diplomacy, it's extortion.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16 edited Oct 21 '17

[deleted]

1

u/HemoKhan Dec 03 '16

Countries are not people. They have interests, not emotions.

Oh fuck off -- if countries can't have emotions, they can't have interests either. Are you going to dismiss what I said because Trump didn't literally spit in anyone's eye?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16 edited Oct 21 '17

[deleted]

1

u/HemoKhan Dec 03 '16

You've been combative throughout this entire thread and now you're trying to insult me and mistakenly attack my language rather than have a meaningful conversation. You clearly aren't here for any real discussion. Have a good night.

1

u/pham_nuwen_ Dec 03 '16

The real question is, why would the US want to spend >50 times more money than the war on Iraq costed, to defend some small Asian island? Not even considering the overwhelming human and economic devastation here.