Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



And do you have the plans of the Chinese military laying around? Care to share them, oh wise knower of Chinese military positioning and planning?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...997/Pagano.htm

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

I never stated China would be aggresive, so I don;t know where you get this from.

I did not state that you said they WOULD be aggressive. Nor have i stated any such thing. I was merely analyzing what would be the case IF they became fascist. Which was a theoretical POSSIBILITY you had raised.

The problem is that the US has an inherently selfish (much like China) policy, in which it is trying to get Europe to back it in the continuation of US global military Hegemony

No.

, under the idea that the US is the best and nicest steward of world politics, and hence, things under OUR control is the best world possible.

No.

Current Us concerns are "terrorism"

no the current US concern is with terrorism. We are not concerned with"terrorism".

maintianing its soverignty

well ,d'oh.

, and maintaining its military hegemony

no.

I would rather hear from Europeans about Europes goals wrt China, Taiwan, Japan, rather than speculate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...997/Pagano.htm

From the article:

In conclusion, there exists in China a commitment on the part of the national leadership for the PLAN to become the preeminent regional seapower. Despite the recent shakeup in the PLAN's top-level leadership, the goal of becoming a regional blue-water navy is still supported by Jiang Zemin, Deng's heir-apparent. China's current seapower is more potential than actual. There exists major shortcomings in the areas of anti-submarine warfare, anti-air warfare, and electronic warfare. Correcting these shortcomings will require a major commitment in financial capital. In the meantime, China's naval strength lies in its numerical advantage vis-a-vis other regional actors.

Wow, so the state that will soon be the eminent economic power of the region has neferious plabns to also become the naval power of the region, giving it unprecedented power to control and protect its boming international trade and its hunger for resources, and its commenrial interests arounds the world. This will make China just like the UK, the Dutch, the US, the Byzantines, the Cartheginians, the Romans, so forth and so on before them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it?

The period of Soviet weakness was the late 1970's through 1990. The Soviet's had crippling food shortages, a lack of capitlal to keep state owned industries runing, and the inability to both create the next generation of weapon systems & fix its structural problems. What did the Reagan and Thatcher do? The gave free food aid to the Soviets (up to 25% of the Soviets grain supply) and they gave loans with strings attached that glasnost and peristroka would be expanded.

They were afraid of what wold happen if the Soviets really had their backs against the wall with millions of people starving or with much of their industry nonfuctional so they gave some pretty generous terms. I wouldn't call that taking advantage.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I would rather hear from Europeans about Europes goals wrt China, Taiwan, Japan, rather than speculate.

Cause the European posters here are running European government...right. Yes, Spiff is reall Chirac, and Bebro, even if he has not been telling us, is Schroder, and llest not forget that all Europeans think alike, just look at Laurentius and Winston- why, the two are two peas in a pod.

Oh, and care to offer any greater arguementation that "no"?

You are free to say no, as well, of course, but that would show the depth of your commitment to actual intellectual debate, as opposed to simply posting opinions devoid of the ability to try to defend them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Protecting Skor and Japan is costly to the US, and will grow more burdensome as China grows relative to the US. At some point the US and Japan will need additional allies. If the EU is unavailable, they will have to find them elsewhere, which may be uncomfortable for the EU. If the EU IS going to someda,y join in the defense of Japan, the EU would be wise to think if abandoning the prosperous democracy on Taiwan will make the task of defending Japan easier or not.

Unless the EU turns into a great power (which is not obvious, because many European people want to see it as an economic powerhouse who doesn't go to war), such an alliance over Japan is not going to happen, simply because the EU will be unable and unwilling to project power outside its traditional sphere of influence (francophone Africa and the Commonwealth, mostly).

However, diplomatic tides may turn fairly quickly once China becomes a tangible threat. The EU will prbably choose to side with the US on that day, and pretty much in a heartbeat. There's the remote possibility that the US has sunken to abyssal levels of paranoia and bullyism, to the point that China looks like a more attractive ally, but I think it is very unlikely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

LOTM, if you don't think the US wants to continue its global hegemony and wants Europe on board than you are smoking something stronger than I've ever seen!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The period of Soviet weakness was the late 1970's through 1990. The Soviet's had crippling food shortages, a lack of capitlal to keep state owned industries runing, and the inability to both create the next generation of weapon systems & fix its structural problems. What did the Reagan and Thatcher do? The gave free food aid to the Soviets (up to 25% of the Soviets grain supply) and they gave loans with strings attached that glasnost and peristroka would be expanded.

Interesting notion. Of course, a starving population as such does not equal miliatr weakness on the field of battle, as North Korea has shown us. And as for "the next generation" of weapon systems, what does that have to do with a battle in this generation? The Soviet Union in the mid 80's was not military weak, anymore than you could say NATO was militarilly weak in the 60's and 70's (certain people would argue as such, but then, how would they argue away the reposte that the Soviets showed immense self-restrain of their basic aggresive tendencies by not attacking when NATO was weak).

That being said, in the first term of the Reagan admin. the Soviets were very scared about a possible US attack to take advantage of any percieved Soviet weakness, and of course one of the reasons the Soviets feared missle defense, because they saw it as an attempt by the US to remove their trump card (nuclear retailation) and thus open them up to direct attack.

They were afraid of what wold happen if the Soviets really had their backs against the wall with millions of people starving or with much of their industry nonfuctional so they gave some pretty generous terms. I wouldn't call that taking advantage.

As I said above, the Soviets were not militarilly weak in the mid 80's, i so far as a real war and having the real ability to turn the US into glass was concerned. But as I said above, they were fearful of aggresive US intentions, at least in the early Reagan term, and I would not be surprised to find people in the US who at the time, just like in the late 50's, early 60's, and in the late 40's, arguing the US should strike at the soviets.

[DinoDoc]

But I don't think these humanitarian concerns have anything to do with the American position on the matter, and I am quite surprised that it has to do with yours, as I considered wou to be a hardcore realist.

I thought I told you that you were free to ignore the trollish part.

[Spiffor]

I would rather hear from Europeans about Europes goals wrt China, Taiwan, Japan, rather than speculate.

Sorry to disappoint, but I can do no more than speculate myself

The only light I (and other Europeans) may shed on this discussion is a better knowledge of European beliefs (and even that is not sure), and a better knowledge of the way the EU works.

The way I see it, some weapon exporting countries wanted to gain markets by repelling a weapon embargo whose official cause os outdated. Chirac may have been instrumental in raising the issue and uniting the European countries about it, because he really wants a multipolar world, and because he remembers the slap in the face he got, when he and Schröder unilaterally declared the "European" opposition to the war in Iraq.

That semi-forced unity probably explains the awkward position of Britain, which looks more sympathetic to American arguments but defends the European motion anyway.

I think the "great ambition" behind it is none other than creating a multipolar world by strengthening the bonds with tomorrow's giant, and by helping it become a giant. But that "great ambition" weights extremely little in the fact that this policy came on the agenda. It's only the "great ambition" because I don't think any other involved country has other than short-term goals.

The short term goal is pretty straightforward. Them Chinese want weapons. We Euros sell weapons. We take the money. That's reason enough for plenty of countries to join the fray. In a typical Euro fashion, we saw a common opportunity to make money, and we reached a consensus about it.

I don't think the European position sees any further than that money grabbing, and maybe see France make unrelated concessions as a price for stroking Chirac's ego.

There are certainly "big picture" thinkers in national diplomacies. However, I don't know their long term goals about the region any more than the average Apolytoner.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

But I don't think these humanitarian concerns have anything to do with the American position on the matter, and I am quite surprised that it has to do with yours, as I considered wou to be a hardcore realist.

I thought I told you that you were free to ignore the trollish part.

[DinoDoc]

Well I do have to thank you for the informative posts though. It was enlightening. I do have to ask though how much serious opposition is there to removing the embargo within the EU?

[DaShi]

How much do most of you actually know about China? China has done a fairly good job of keeping itself mysterious and projecting certain images about itself. Image is very important in China culture. More important than truth or reality.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
How much do most of you actually know about China? China has done a fairly good job of keeping itself mysterious and projecting certain images about itself. Image is very important in China culture. More important than truth or reality.

Well, its easy enough to know Chinese history.

Thought, of course, the many westerners in China, like you or mindseye, could go ahead and post things about general Chinese feelings, if you think people outside of the Middle Kingdom are unable to see inside it. Then of course, how are you guys able to pierce throught the veil of Chinese secrecy?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, so the state that will soon be the eminent economic power of the region has neferious plabns to also become the naval power of the region, giving it unprecedented power to control and protect its boming international trade and its hunger for resources, and its commenrial interests arounds the world. This will make China just like the UK, the Dutch, the US, the Byzantines, the Cartheginians, the Romans, so forth and so on before them.

That is an interesting argument.

Now, if China, a rising power, went to war to gain control of Taiwan, a place they see as rightfully theirs, they'd be following in the footsteps of Great Britain, the US, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Assyrians and alot of other people. Would you therefore think that that, too, is therefore OK?