Who would be hurt more in a US-China ECONOMIC confrontation over Taiwan?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


GePap finds a way to get in a dig at a recent controversial admin policy. 9.5 out of 10, very good.

IIUC using tactical nukes against warships isnt all THAT simple. And while Im sure GePap wishes it were so, I dont think the rest of the world will equate Chinas actual crossing of the firebreak against nukes with an as yet theoretical policy statement from the US, no matter how unpopular the latter is. In any case, this should help Susie Homemaker accept higher prices at Walmart.

I WIN!

As for how simple it is to use nukes, I am sure it is not, but unlike with conventional warheads, a "close" miss is very good, and you only need one succeful hit to sink any ship with one of those- plus the Chinese have more than enough material for these smaller nukes (15-40 kiloton range), so they certainly get more than 12 tries, which is the number of carrier battle groups we got.

As for a supposed "firebreak" on the use of nukes, there is no such thing. I mean, the US is the ONLY state that has never pledged never to be the first to use nukes, and I seriously doubt the world would care much about someone being upfront and delcaring tactical situation in which they think nukes are fair game. It sets a set of expectations, plus the point of it would be to make the US think twice of what helping to defend taiwan would entail, and what the cost could be.

Its just the sort of raising the game that makes international relations work, plus again, if we say we want to develop new types of nukes to hit rogue regimes, I fail to see how saying nukes are fair game for hitting targets far out at sea where civilian deaths were collateral damage will be manageable is so radical.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I WIN!

As for how simple it is to use nukes, I am sure it is not, but unlike with conventional warheads, a "close" miss is very good, and you only need one succeful hit to sink any ship with one of those- plus the Chinese have more than enough material for these smaller nukes (15-40 kiloton range), so they certainly get more than 12 tries, which is the number of carrier battle groups we got.

As for a supposed "firebreak" on the use of nukes, there is no such thing. I mean, the US is the ONLY state that has never pledged never to be the first to use nukes, and I seriously doubt the world would care much about someone being upfront and delcaring tactical situation in which they think nukes are fair game. It sets a set of expectations, plus the point of it would be to make the US think twice of what helping to defend taiwan would entail, and what the cost could be.

Its just the sort of raising the game that makes international relations work, plus again, if we say we want to develop new types of nukes to hit rogue regimes, I fail to see how saying nukes are fair game for hitting targets far out at sea where civilian deaths were collateral damage will be manageable is so radical.

Historically we refused no first use cause we didnt want to take tactical nukes off the table in case the Soviets were winning a conventional war in Europe (BTW France and UK had similar policies,IIRC). I suppose to those for whom the 1st Ukrainian Guards Army in Paris was not a major problem, that was justification for ANYONE to go first use in any circumstances. Clearly the West saw it as an action of last resort, a save the world kind of thing.

Clearly the notion of using a mininuke against say a North Korean nuke site is seen by those who are formulating such policies in the same light. Just as clearly many disagree. Certainly, when push comes to shove, the US will have to weigh the cost, depending on the nature of the threat, and also weigh how others view the threat - will the world see it as justified to avoid the horror of Nkor nukes, or will it see it as an overreaction in a situation where deterrence would have been preferred (BTW im NOT asking for a debate of that, merely pointing out that would weigh on decision makers) The fact that the US asserts a right to cross the firebreak in that instance is something Nkor must consider. But just as surely that the rest of the world still sees a firebreak is something the US must consider. That the US is ALSO intently developing CONVENTIONAL bunker busters, suggests that the US IS very much considering it.

Similarly, that China MIGHT cross the firebreak, is something for the US, and Taiwan to consider. That the world will likely see Taiwan as less of threat to the rest of the world than North Korea, and may not see the urgency of China going to war with Taiwan, and thus certainly not see the urgency of crossing the firebreak for it, is something that the PRC must consider.


All of this of course assumes that the US responds militarily, which violates the assumption of my first post, that the US responds economically. Let me relate it.
I think economic costs ALONE will deter PRC in most circumstances, even with NO US military response. A US military response adds to the costs to China. Using tactical nukes may well ease the military costs to China, but will they not lead to even greater economic isolation? What will be the response in Japan to Chinese use of nukes? Is taking Taiwan worth a cold war with Japan? A nuclear armed Japan?

[GePap]

The thread moved from economic to military issue in a few post. That being said, the reason I said I found your hypothetical wrong was because I don;t think the Chinese will rock the boat UNLESS Taiwan does something dramatic- if Taiwan does, then something more important to the regime than even economic growth is endangered, the rampant nationalism it uses as a replacement for Communist ideology- and no economic consequence will keep China from acting.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The thread moved from economic to military issue in a few post. That being said, the reason I said I found your hypothetical wrong was because I don;t think the Chinese will rock the boat UNLESS Taiwan does something dramatic- if Taiwan does, then something more important to the regime than even economic growth is endangered, the rampant nationalism it uses as a replacement for Communist ideology- and no economic consequence will keep China from acting.

If Taiwan does nothing beyond what its done, PRC wont act, I agree. If Taiwan declares independence, PRC will act, economics be damned. I also agree.

I think there is, however a grey area, where Taiwan may take actions that PRC will dislike enough that theyd attack IF they could get away with it, but wont if the consequences are too great. There are a range of such actions Taiwan can take, all falling under the general heading of "gradual desinification" They wont establish Taiwans de facto independence in international law, but they will make the gradual and peaceful integration of Taiwan into China less likely.

I assume that for this grey area, PRC's response will depend very much on the consequences, military, political, and economic.

This was all in response to your response to Ned.

A = Russia and China are cooperating militarily US should worry
B = Dont matter, US can hurt China economically
C = No, China would hurt US back economically harder

My point, is that in any almost any realistically conceivable crisis between the US and China, the economic damage WOULD hurt China sufficiently to deter. I dont think its realistic that Taiwan will declare UDI. Anything short of that, and my thesis holds. In a crisis away from Taiwan, where Chinas position in international law would be weaker, this would be even more true. Ergo, the US does not need to worry about Russian Chinese military cooperation, at least not under current conditions. QED.

[GePap]

I never said China would hurt the US MORE, I pointed out that the economic card is fraught with consequences to the US, large consequences. I said this because you always hear people act as if cutting of eocnomic relations with China is something the US can do willy nilly, and hence, look hjow much more power we have. Well, that is not true. yes, we can hurt China badly by cutting of economic relations, but economic realities are such, that it will be painful for the US as well, and hence, I do not think US policy makers would take than step lightly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I never said China would hurt the US MORE, I pointed out that the economic card is fraught with consequences to the US, large consequences. I said this because you always hear people act as if cutting of eocnomic relations with China is something the US can do willy nilly, and hence, look hjow much more power we have. Well, that is not true. yes, we can hurt China badly by cutting of economic relations, but economic realities are such, that it will be painful for the US as well, and hence, I do not think US policy makers would take than step lightly.

the consequences would be no more than going to war, and many consider that a very real option. If a great power war, with all its costs and risks is an option, than a fortiori economic warfare is an option. ANY option in a straights crisis is fraught with risk for the US. The presence of US economic power is a MAJOR consideration for all concerned, and any discussion of, say Russian Chinese military cooperation, can RIGHTLY be seen in that context.

[Mr. Harley]

I think why the military option comes up is that trying to seperate it from the economic issues is unrealistic. The PRC is not a democratic country, has internal problems, and will consider using military assets as a viable option. Under international law it could be argued (coud, people, could, I am not saying that I agree with this) that the PRC actually has more legitimacy using force than the US did in Iraq.

The most interesting thing from these posts are both options, military and economic, are unknowable with some very bad worst case scenarios for both countries. GOOD. The leadership in neither country, the US and PRC, is going to risk anything like this unless something internal occurs that changes the equation. Conservative (as in wanting the status quo) leadership and unknowables are good for peace.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I think why the military option comes up is that trying to seperate it from the economic issues is unrealistic. The PRC is not a democratic country, has internal problems, and will consider using military assets as a viable option. Under international law it could be argued (coud, people, could, I am not saying that I agree with this) that the PRC actually has more legitimacy using force than the US did in Iraq.

The most interesting thing from these posts are both options, military and economic, are unknowable with some very bad worst case scenarios for both countries. GOOD. The leadership in neither country, the US and PRC, is going to risk anything like this unless something internal occurs that changes the equation. Conservative (as in wanting the status quo) leadership and unknowables are good for peace.

Er, I assumed that CHINA would use force. And of course Taiwan would defend itself with force. My assumption, for the scenario, was that the UNITED STATES would NOT use force, but WOULD use economic warfare.

It so helps when people read the original post.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the consequences would be no more than going to war, and many consider that a very real option. If a great power war, with all its costs and risks is an option, than a fortiori economic warfare is an option. ANY option in a straights crisis is fraught with risk for the US. The presence of US economic power is a MAJOR consideration for all concerned, and any discussion of, say Russian Chinese military cooperation, can RIGHTLY be seen in that context.

The US has a greater trump card militarilly, assuming China rules out my idea, than we do economically vs. them. I think if China acted up, a military action, like moving towards the region to confront China, would in fact be the first step, given the gravity of the economic option, and its higher cost overall.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The US has a greater trump card militarilly, assuming China rules out my idea, than we do economically vs. them. I think if China acted up, a military action, like moving towards the region to confront China, would in fact be the first step, given the gravity of the economic option, and its higher cost overall.

Send the carriers over and hope they dont fight, which sometimes works. The question is what you do if your bluff is called. Surely you dont think that wed continue trade with China while fighting a war against them? Wouldnt going to war entail economic warfare as well?

[GePap]

O course trade with China would stop if we were at war-BUT we would wait until at war to do so-maybe that would be part of the idea of sending the carier in- attack and the trade ends, but it would NOt be the other way around.

[Whoha]

China does not have an economic card to play as of yet, If they dump what they have that just means no and or significantly lessened "non-discretionary" spending that year, and probably a tax hike, the latter is in the cards in any event. If you are worried about low-low prices don't. There are plenty of slaves all over the world to build cheap plastic crap to send to America.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
China does not have an economic card to play as of yet, If they dump what they have that just means no and or significantly lessened "non-discretionary" spending that year, and probably a tax hike, the latter is in the cards in any event. If you are worried about low-low prices don't. There are plenty of slaves all over the world to build cheap plastic crap to send to America.

A tax hike is coing? Since when?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap


A tax hike is coming? Since when?

Since we are taxing ~16.5% of gdp and spending ~23.4% of gdp. Economic growth isn't going to cover 8 percentage points. Perhaps if we were taxing 18% and spending 18.4%, but that just isn't the case. We will not be able to continue this, though it will probably fall on Hillary in 08 to do it.

[Kuciwalker]

[JCC]Since Kerry won the election. Didn't you know?[/JCC]