Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chances of a contemporary Hapsburg like ultimatum in Asia ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chances of a contemporary Hapsburg like ultimatum in Asia ?

    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    the US will try to destabilize the inevitable rise of China. .. Given the US's increased likelyhood of decline I just want the US to retire gracefully which they are now less likely to do.
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    What the Dems will guide is a far greater welfare dependence and a hard landing rather than a soft landing. That point, 10 - 20 years out, is the moment of greatest potential conflict.

    If it were the rise of the Nazi's or the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere I would agree with you. I do not however see either China nor the US in those terms.

    Edit to add: I do however see far greater possibility of a modern form of the Hapsburg Ultimatum, with attendant consequences.
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    As I've already said several times and most pundits agree, this was a watershed election, not business as usual.

    It has defined American economics and social policies for a generation.

    When those economic policies don't work out for you, just as they haven't worked out for empires in the past, you will try to use coercion, just as previous empires have.

    We are fortunate in NZ that we are small and isolated and I plan to encourage my country to use that isolation to maximum advantage.

    If you can convince me that China is the new Nazi party then we're all yours but if you wish to increase regional tensions, as you have already started doing, simply through a sense of entitlement then it's in our strategic self-interest to stay the hell out of it.
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    All I'm saying through the opprobrium is I don't want my country to be in a situation where a Serbian assassinates a Hungarian Duke so Germany invades Belgium so we have to declare war on Turkey.
    Good, was waiting for you to explicitly bring this up.

    Now show me the alliances (as with pre-WW1 in Europe) in place in Asia for the above to transpire.

    There are various economic groupings but the only military alliance is Japan-S.Korea-Taiwan-US and that's 50+yr old legacy. Aussies got some american nukes placed on their soil recently. The US base in the Phillipines closed some time back.

    Now, what i want to know is whether an attack on any one of the above will be considered as an attack on all ?

    Because as I see it the US has a 1:1 relationship with all of them. The US will assist if any one of them gets attacked. I'm not seeing others joining the fray unless also provoked which seems unlikely.

    The other countries are pretty much on their own. Alliance building within Asia is still yet to begin and I'm not holding my breath.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Nov 12,, 13:18.

  • #2
    Is there Russia somewhere in the equation?

    Asia is such a big continent, you could drag a lot of equations.

    Or you focus on the Pacific region?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #3
      Indo-Pacific region (to coin an Aussie term) is where i think Pari is getting at. This is the fastest growing region in the world and theoretically the one with the best chance for future conflict.

      Russia adds another dimension again. Though Russia seems to be more focused on the European side than the Far East.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Nov 12,, 13:15.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        Good, was waiting for you to explicitly bring this up.

        Now show me the alliances (as with pre-WW1 in Europe) in place in Asia for the above to transpire.

        There are various economic groupings but the only military alliance is Japan-S.Korea-Taiwan-US and that's 50+yr old legacy. Aussies got some american nukes placed on their soil recently. The US base in the Phillipines closed some time back.

        Now, what i want to know is whether an attack on any one of the above will be considered as an attack on all ?

        Because as I see it the US has a 1:1 relationship with all of them. The US will assist if any one of them gets attacked. I'm not seeing others joining the fray unless also provoked which seems unlikely.

        The other countries are pretty much on their own. Alliance building within Asia is still yet to begin and I'm not holding my breath.
        Haven't nuclear weapons and a interconnected, global market/world basically made the prospect of high intensity military conflict between the great powers extremely unlikely? Neither side can afford to push too hard since the other will potentially retaliate with nuclear weapons if and when their backs are to the wall. For a war to be declared the initiator would have to "gain" something that would negate the massive trade war that would proceed to cripple its economy given the degree of entwinement it would have with a belligerent. It's a foregone conclusion that wealth is flowing to population bases,

        Paris description is interesting because it places the U.S in the position of aggressor, not the Chinese (which is usually the case). Most scenarios I've heard regarding the potential 21st century war involve China attacking Taiwan or supporting an angry DPRK.

        Where and how would the U.S try to destabilize a rising China?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
          Well firstly no one is as insane as the Europeans circa early 20th century. There was an enormous legacy of tribalism that coincided with the tribal leaders being handed weapons that far outstriped in killing power the ability of those tribal leaders to rationally utilise them.
          As China become more powerful the neighbouring states will be compelled to arm themselves appropriately to balance her. So you already have a growing situation with countries having more arms than what they can rationally do with them.

          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
          To look at your scenario, lets say Taiwan goes hot. The US can base from Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore and if need be the Phillipines. Is China likely to view those countries as off limits despite supply and command and control operating from them?
          For a war with Taiwan, that means China has to cover a very large area. The limiting factor really is China in this case. If China has the capability then it will not view those countries as off limits. The US being able to base makes it much more costly for China to enlargen the conflict. Presently US effectively keeps China penned in for not too much cost.

          But that is today, you say 10-20 years into the future. US continues to do the same, China even if its economy is the same size as the US still has a technological barrier to get over. Will that barrier be crossed in just 10-20 years, i doubt it. Recall Dred saying it takes a long time as well as experience to build up a blue water navy.

          There would have to be a significant decline in the US along with a growing China to make the venture feasible. China's growth rate is expected to halve by 2020, this will add even more time for China to match the US economy. All the US has to do is grown by a measly 1-2% to stay ahead.

          Taking geography into account any conflict with China will affect fuel supplies to Korea & Japan so they will automatically be drawn in as well. Those south of the conflict will manage to avoid it provided China does not enlargen the sphere of conflict.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Nov 12,, 22:34.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            As China become more powerful the neighbouring states will be compelled to arm themselves appropriately to balance her. So you already have a growing situation with countries having more arms than what they can rationally do with them.


            For a war with Taiwan, that means China has to cover a very large area. The limiting factor really is China in this case. If China has the capability then it will not view those countries as off limits. The US being able to base makes it much more costly for China to enlargen the conflict. Presently US effectively keeps China penned in for not too much cost.

            But that is today, you say 10-20 years into the future. US continues to do the same, China even if its economy is the same size as the US still has a technological barrier to get over. Will that barrier be crossed in just 10-20 years, i doubt it. Recall Dred saying it takes a long time as well as experience to build up a blue water navy.

            There would have to be a significant decline in the US along with a growing China to make the venture feasible. China's growth rate is expected to halve by 2020, this will add even more time for China to match the US economy. All the US has to do is grown by a measly 1-2% to stay ahead.

            Taking geography into account any conflict with China will affect fuel supplies to Korea & Japan so they will automatically be drawn in as well. Those south of the conflict will manage to avoid it provided China does not enlargen the sphere of conflict.
            Firstly the US economy. They currently carry a large debt burden and I'm yet to see any rational thesis as to how this can be either contained or reduced given their current commitments or the Democrats party's proclivities. Any number of EU economists would have ridiculed me in the late nineties/early 2000's if I'd said their debt burden was unsustainable, just as now when i say the US debt burden is unsustainable. 1.5 - 2% growth, all going well, is not enough to curtail the growth in, or reduce that debt. All that is required is a tightening of the money supply et voila. In the last crash they were able to borrow more money at no interest, will that continue in the future?

            Secondly, you say China would have to cover a very large area but in considering the US's global reach and ambitions/commitments it is in comparison just China's back yard. Would the US have to denude other areas to contain China, and if so, at what cost elsewhere?
            Last edited by Parihaka; 08 Nov 12,, 22:50.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #7
              They currently carry a large debt burden and I'm yet to see any rational thesis as to how this can be either contained or reduced given their current commitments or the Democrats party's proclivities.
              S-B, as problematic as it is, would do just fine. i am quite willing to bet you that the final Grand Bargain will be something similar.

              Would the US have to denude other areas to contain China, and if so, at what cost elsewhere?
              see DE's post above. the US is already beginning to shift military resources away from CENTCOM to PACOM, and is strengthening her pacific alliances.

              ask any of the military professionals on this board whether or not the US has much to fear from china for the next 20-30 years (OoE in particular will have a great time explaining this one to you.)...and frankly, chinese power relative to the US will peak in 10-15 years.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                S-B, as problematic as it is, would do just fine. i am quite willing to bet you that the final Grand Bargain will be something similar.



                see DE's post above. the US is already beginning to shift military resources away from CENTCOM to PACOM, and is strengthening her pacific alliances.

                ask any of the military professionals on this board whether or not the US has much to fear from china for the next 20-30 years (OoE in particular will have a great time explaining this one to you.)...and frankly, chinese power relative to the US will peak in 10-15 years.
                And yet IIRC you said earlier that China would overtake the US economically in 20 years. Under your economic scenario, can the US maintain it's current military strength and qualitative edge?
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #9
                  pari,

                  Under your economic scenario, can the US maintain it's current military strength and qualitative edge?
                  yes, for at least the next 20-30 years.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ANZUS kinda makes Australia and NZ part of any offensive and defensive aspect US initiates in the Pacific.

                    Russia hopefully stays out and simply puts enough power in the Pacific to protect its' own areas.

                    The interesting factors are Vietnam and India.

                    Economic factors and interruptibility are by far more useful as leverage prior to any conflict than the actual conflict division of powers. The curious thing is how they would be used, and China thus far harnessed economic contraction for steering populous into 'home economy' support via nationalistic jingoism(yep that word).

                    What is problematic besides the supply lines for China is the terms of trade. It may export everywhere but the raw materials and other supplies that are coming in are actually becoming more and more expensive (in real terms vis a vis the yuan) in those nations' currencies. So margins are consistently under pressure not just from the supply chain that distributes it but from the raw material procurement side. Chinese Buyers Defaulting On Commodity Shipments As Prices Plunge | zerohedge.com
                    Notice the commodity warehouse defaults...
                    Originally from Sochi, Russia.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So all things being equal your estimate of military dominance is 20 to 30 years. Mine is the lower of that figure but that's neither here nor there. Why do you suppose the Democrats have retasked 60% of your total fleet to the Pacific over the next 7-8 years? Is there a threat other than China in the region?
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by cyppok View Post
                        ANZUS kinda makes Australia and NZ part of any offensive and defensive aspect US initiates in the Pacific.
                        New Zealand is no longer a part of ANZUS. Historically i have fought against this rupture within my own country, I am now rethinking that strategy which is essentially the kicker for this whole conversation.
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          to further get into detail:

                          china will wax to her strongest economic position vis-a-vis the US in ~10-15 years' time.

                          this is a combination of several factors: china's continued high economic growth from continued gains in efficiency, as well as urbanization/modernization. the US, on the other hand, is coming off a painful financial crisis, which has stunted growth badly for the last (almost) half-decade.

                          looking out to the medium-term, though, china has several serious economic issues she needs to contend with-- her banking system, her IP protection system, and her housing bubble. none of these, even in combination, will cause a Gordon Chang-esque collapse of China. they will, however, stunt her medium-term growth as the easy gains from infrastructure, efficiency, and exports peter out.

                          in the long-term, china has a far poorer demographic situation than the US (even assuming the CCP fully abolishes the tattered one-child policy). its population will peak by 2030-2040, and even more seriously, her proportion of elderly will be significantly greater than that of the US. these trends accelerate far faster beyond this time period. by 2100, china will have roughly 940 million people while the US will have 480 million, compared to 1.3 billion and 320 million today.

                          i also expect china to follow in the footsteps of the previous Asian dragons, which saw their GDP per capita increase exponentially before rather mysteriously stalling at the 20-25K (US$) per capita that we see for the likes of korea and taiwan (probably due to crappy demographics as well).

                          given the population differential, china will catch up (based on GDP size) to the US by 2025 or so, but will most likely not become significantly bigger afterwards. the US, of course, has the advantages of all the previous years where it was #1. it's pointless to really prognosticate beyond this timeframe but it's pretty clear based upon what we know about budgets, technology, and acquisition cycles, that china will not become a major threat to the US for a good long time.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Why do you suppose the Democrats have retasked 60% of your total fleet to the Pacific over the next 7-8 years? Is there a threat other than China in the region?
                            the US would be stupid to ignore china's rising strength. moreover, as trade between the pacific nations is expected to continue to expand a lot faster than the trade between the atlantic nations (the US is both), a basic reading of US interests would have the US place more combat power there, even if China was as friendly as the UK.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              the US would be stupid to ignore china's rising strength. moreover, as trade between the pacific nations is expected to continue to expand a lot faster than the trade between the atlantic nations (the US is both), a basic reading of US interests would have the US place more combat power there, even if China was as friendly as the UK.
                              Do you see a role in China continuing to develop its blue water capability to carry the load protecting sea lanes etc, given your role in encouraging China to become a better international citizen?
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X