Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

so here
side A - Chinas growing power should give the EU (and not just the US and Japan) pause, as they may use that power to coerce the region, and threaten the interests of the EU.
Side B - theres virtually zero change that China will ever annex any territory other than Taiwan.
Side A - WTF?

Actually, the discussion is:

OP- OMG!! EU will seel weapons to the Evil chinese who have aggresive tendencies!!!
S1: Stupid article, no they don't.
S2: The EU should not seel to China
S1: Its silly to see Cina as inherently aggresive
S2: WTF?

Maybe side 2 should have looked at the OP and seen what the thread was about, and not assume that once they get in, somehow, magically they set the debate. Also, side 2 should also keep Nepal out of it.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

As for your last notion- a USSR invasion of Pakistan, a nation of 100 Million people at the time, would hardly ever have been in the cards

They wouldnt have had to occupy it, theyd just have had to punish it sufficiently to get it to back off supporting the insurgents. Not at all the same thing.

Empires have been in the retreat since 1945- if anything we get increasing fragmentation of states, NOT amalgmations anymore. Its a pattern as clear as the nose on our faces.

formal empires. The french largely retained informal empire of much of their african holdings, and the USSR established an empire in eastern europe after 1945. When i was young "neo-colonialism" was the buzz word - why are you so hung up on formal annexations - we're not playing Europa Universalis here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Certainly - we need to integrate China into the world system, NOT isolate her. We should NOT A. Encourage Taiwan to declare independence or B. Keep China out of the WTO, etc. or in other ways isolate her, or ignore her legitimate security needs. But for Western countries to CHOOSE to not sell weapons to China is NOT to isolate China - in the case of the EU, its a continuation of a policy that has been followed even as CHina HAS integrated in the world system.

So what then if the Eu decides that another way to bring China into the system is to continue to expand commercial relations, icnluding in weapons?

This is the crux: the OP rants about how the EU selling weapons to China is this horrible anti-US action because US troops will then face NATO equipment. This only washes if people in Washington think a war with China is a possiblity or probability.

[Zulu Elephant]

we're not playing Europa Universalis here.

I wonder what the US's badboy rating would be?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that things are not just linear, and Syrians entry into Lebanon, as well all know, occured while the country had fallen apart. Syria came in when there was no Lebanon to speak off, and stayed while it was being glued together.

So maybe Vietnam will break into a horrible civil war and China will come in to aid one side, and then, after decades of conflict, will keep troops in to ensure that its previous costs bear fruit....

Maybe the EU should prevent the nasty civil war in the first place.....

Just out of curiosity, how do you figure, should VN decided to descend into a horribly civil war, would the EU go about to prevent it?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, the discussion is:

OP- OMG!! EU will seel weapons to the Evil chinese who have aggresive tendencies!!!
S1: Stupid article, no they don't.
S2: The EU should not seel to China
S1: Its silly to see Cina as inherently aggresive
S2: WTF?

Maybe side 2 should have looked at the OP and seen what the thread was about, and not assume that once they get in, somehow, magically they set the debate. Also, side 2 should also keep Nepal out of it.

There are more than two sides in this argument, and I have not expressed argeement with the OP except on some very general points.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

The US is the only power than can claim to be a regional hegimon in most regions of the world- The Us can call itself a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, in Europe, in the Pacific, and in the ME. NO other state can claim that.

we're not the hegemon in the Pacific, and we are barely an independent player militarily in Europe. The ME is debatable, but lets not debate that here.

Oerdin's military spending figures tell the tale- the US has about 20-25% of the worlds eocnomic activity, yet accounts for 49% of its military spending.

Cause we're trying to maintain kinds of capabilities others are not. Yet that 49% doesnt allow us to assert our will without regard to alliances, or even with alliances in many places. And its spread around the world - in any locality theres a limit to what we can bring to bear.


The US is the ONLY state that has multiple large aircraft carrier battle groups in all the oceans of the world (save the artic)- we are the only state that patrols all oceans of the world regualrly, and has the ability to land troops in hostile situations anywhere in the world probably within a couple of months of hostilities begtinning. We are the only power in the world with a startegic bomber force capable of hitting any spot on earth.

Militarilly, it is pretty obvious that the US is a global
military hegemon.

All that says is that no one else can project power globally in the same way - but regional powers can still overawe is in given regions, depending on the local diplomatic balance. We beat Iraq, but then NO ONE, not even those who most opposed us, came to Iraqs aid. Scenarios that show us winning, or even just matching China in the straights assume no one else on Chinas side, and that Japan provides at least logistical support. If say, Japan AND China were to oppose the US, in response to US overreaching, the US could not act. Carriers and all, theyd be defeated by local land based air, subs, etc. Thats not a hegemon.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
They wouldnt have had to occupy it, theyd just have had to punish it sufficiently to get it to back off supporting the insurgents. Not at all the same thing.

To sufficiently chastise Pakistan would have taken a serious commitment for forces, probably far more than it took to go into Afghanistan- so, to maintain the Afgnanistan operations, lets get involved in a MUCH BIGGER conflict with Pakistan....

Yeah, makes perfect sense :crazy:

formal empires. The french largely retained informal empire of much of their african holdings, and the USSR established an empire in eastern europe after 1945. When i was young "neo-colonialism" was the buzz word - why are you so hung up on formal annexations - we're not playing Europa Universalis here.

What the USSR set up in 1945 was a large bunch of puppet states to have a buffer zone- and as we know, these were lands they won from a real annexer, Nazi Germany.

As for the Hang-up on formal annexation, return to the crux of this thread- that China is an agrgesive power- most issued mentioned, like teh Spratleys, any other islands, and territorial disputes of land with India and China would all mean territorial expasion and the direct annexation of lands (even if not entire states)- heck, Western Sahara was a land grab, NO? So was Kuwait, or the attack by Iraq on Iran, so looking for examples of one nation state seeking to expand territorially by war was the first issue brought up, prior to your arrival.

[Zulu Elephant]

very bad jokes aside

This is the crux: the OP rants about how the EU selling weapons to China is this horrible anti-US action because US troops will then face NATO equipment. This only washes if people in Washington think a war with China is a possiblity or probability.

Do we know what sort of weapons the EU would be likely to sell to China? Hi-tech? Components or fully made tanks and planes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that things are not just linear, and Syrians entry into Lebanon, as well all know, occured while the country had fallen apart. Syria came in when there was no Lebanon to speak off, and stayed while it was being glued together.

So maybe Vietnam will break into a horrible civil war and China will come in to aid one side, and then, after decades of conflict, will keep troops in to ensure that its previous costs bear fruit....

Maybe the EU should prevent the nasty civil war in the first place.....

yup, but they may not be able to.

[pchang]

Originally posted by GePap




Yes, gloabl trends must be the same everywhere...

Hong Kong was on elase to the UK- everyone knew were that was going.

Taiwan is part of China at least on paper.

So, NO.

The collapse of the Britsh, French, and Soviet empires are the reason for this pretty clear trend, as well as the fragmentation in Europe.

Simple line- more states in 1965 than 1945, more in 1985 than 1965, and more in 2005 than 1985.

Exactly! Thus, China must be actively trying to buck this trend.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap
This is the crux: the OP rants about how the EU selling weapons to China is this horrible anti-US action because US troops will then face NATO equipment. This only washes if people in Washington think a war with China is a possiblity or probability.

Do you think Washington does not think that a war with China is a serious possibility? That's not the impression I'm getting.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
very bad jokes aside



Do we know what sort of weapons the EU would be likely to sell to China? Hi-tech? Components or fully made tanks and planes?

What Washington is concerned about is surveillance and communications kit. The PLA's weakness isn't in firepower, but in accuracy and coordination.

[Zulu Elephant]

surveillance and communications kit

what exactly are we talking about? to be used in conjunction with what?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


what exactly are we talking about? to be used in conjunction with what?

They want the wherewithall to identify targets and tell their heavy artillery to shoot at them.

I you want to know of specific system, you'll have to google it.