China, USA, and the next war

IronDuke

Ancient Mariner
So I heard yesterday that the PRC is finally unpegging its currency from the US dollar. For now, they're going to measure it against a bundle of world currencies (USD, Euro, Yen, and GBP, I believe)

This is the first step to allowing the Yuan to be exchanged at its actual value, and will essentially make Chinese imports in the West more expensive. This has two immediate effects:
1- Trade deficits with China, especially the US's, will shrink.
2- Domestic manufacturers will have a better chance of surrviving unfair Chinese practices. (production costs in PRC are lower due to no worker/environmental protection laws)

Long term, it will mean China will be able to dump its US currency in favour of other money, which will lead to a devaluation of the US dollar. This will make imports to the US less competitive - countries which depend on the US market to take their excess (almost every country EXCEPT China) will feel it in the yinyang.

So basically, China is one step closer to gaining super-power status. I'm reminded of the rise of Germany in the 1880'sw and 1890's. Britain had gone unchallenged for most of a century, and all of a sudden they had a rival who could match and beat them industrially and economically. Friedrich von Bernhardi saw what was happening and wrote his famous "Germany and the Next War", which accurately predicted that there would be a huge clash between the two super-powers, and both would be forever weakened because of it.

The US has gone virtualy unchallenged since 1945 (let's face it...the USSR was too incompetant to challenge the US. Most of the Cold War hype was engineered). Now they will have another power with which to contend, and the results could be very good or very bad.

Very bad scenario:
North Korea goes nuclear and China, naturally, gets worried. WOuldn't you be scared of a batshit insane little man who can destroy millions of people on a whim?
CHina invades North Korea, US builds up in the South and in Taiwan, and the two clash, precipitating a World War. The NATO-led West would be pitted against China and and Muslim allies of convience they could pick up.
Probable battle grounds: Korea, Siberia, Japan, Kashmir, and maybe even Australia.
It's doubtful if it'd go nuclear between the two, (Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD) but even a conventional war would kill millions. In the end, both powers would be weakened and a new emerging order would eventually achieve equal status - India, South Africa and Brazil would be my picks, if they ever get their acts together.

Very Good scenario:
Cmpetition is the source of all achievement. With nobody to challenge you, you have no motivation to improve. The new competition could bring back what America has steadily lost since the end of World War II - the 'can do' spirit which trekked across a continent, which invented powered flight, which put a man on the moon. The arrogance and complacency would be lost and replace with a more world-wide view of events.
Science and technology could prosper once more. Since there will be no chance of complete dominance in the Middle East by the USA anymore, they will NEED to find an alternative fuel. Solar, wind, hydrogen, ethenol, etc all could beocme viable alternatives with more research.
We might actually return to the stars! The possibilities are endless. In less than a single life time we went from not being able to fly through the air to having a human being walk on the moon. (Ponder the significance of that). Think about what that kind of spirit could do with today's technology.


I'm an optimist, and am inclined to believe the second scenario is more likely. bothe the PRC and USA have people far smarter than me working for them, therefore know all this already. Both know that it's in their own best interests to keep the peace. (Or so I pray).
All eras must end. The Pax Romana ended with barbarian invasions. The Pax Britannia ended with the most bloody and barbaric war in human history. Hopefully, Pax Americana will not 'end', but rather become the Pax Terra - The World Peace.

Duke.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-IronDuke+Jul 22 2005, 04:32 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Jul 22 2005, 04:32 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]All eras must end. The Pax Romana ended with barbarian invasions. The Pax Britannia ended with the most bloody and barbaric war in human history. Hopefully, Pax Americana will not 'end', but rather become the Pax Terra - The World Peace.
[snapback]112755[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Well said. Although unlikely.
 
Hmmm, economical engeneergn always gives me a head-ache. It's harder than politicall schemes, wich I (like to say) I understand.

But I d understand this much, America's time as a superpower is running out. Even if the EU or the PRC would become the next superpower, it would be a good thing. Even after a new war, however bloody ( I always thoguht that the myth of the Phoenix simbolises humanity) humanity will ahve learned something.

Not to forget, what a huge impact WWII had on the development of technology.

Food for toguht, people. I love it being here again [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Well, like always Duke beat me to it, I wasn't going to post exaclty that, but an article I read in America: The Catholic Weekly (a Jesuit magazine). Now Don't let that scare you off, it is a very interesting article and I find it very relevant to what Duke posted above, so instead of starting a new thread I decided to transcribe it on this one. PLEASE READ IT and read THE WHOLE THING. It's short (a three column, one page article in a standard size magazine)


Consuming Life
'Capitalism may eat us up.'

I WRITE ON A HOT SUMMER day in Saint Louis. The newspaper notes that Communist China, the great new rising capitalist and consumer society, has made a bid to buy a mid-level American oil company for $1.5 billion more than offered by Chevron. The networks announce that crude oil has reached $60 a barrel. Some forecasters think it will hit $80 before it drops back to $40. The Supreme Court decided this day that any lustful corporate enterprise could take your house at "fair market prices," even if you've lived there for 50 years.

Does anyone else wonder where we are heading?

The initial architect of China's move to capitalism, Deng Xiaoping, is often cited for his proclamation, "To get rich is glorious." Imagine what happens when 1.3 billion Chinese start believing this. Perhaps they want to live the way we 285 million Americans live. But figure it out. What happens when China's 20% of the world consumes at the same rate as the United States (5% of the world), which now consumes 20% of the world's natural resources? No world.

Of course that's an oversimplification. So many variables, we are told. But the Chinese are not known for being oversimplying people. That's why they want the oil. That's why they allow us to owe them $217 billion. Maybe they look forward to a time when they can just buy us at "fair market value." All that needless worry about being taken over by atheistic Communists; we'll just be taken over by freindly capitalists.

Capitalism has not only eaten up Communism. It may also consume us. This is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court decision is so troubling. State socialism does not threaten our home-castles. State capitalism does. Alll you need is "public purpose."

the old notion of "eminent domain," whereby private property could be taken (and paid for fairly) in the name of serious and strategic public use, has been expanded to include "public purpose." Translation: we can make more money.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transfrred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded... Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."

But we are stuck with a president who believes in capitalism's freedom, especially the freedom to spend our money the way isolated individuals want to. He can accept private investment on embryonic stem cell research. He wants to privatize social security. And of course, he wants to put tax money back into our pockets to do with as we see fit. After all, it's ours.

Taking office after the great boom and surplus of the 1990's, President George W. Bush, rather than invest the national treasure in infrastracture, health, education and military requirements in a time of war, pushed through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has estimated that if the tax cuts for earners over $200,000 were repealed and the reformed inheritance tax were continued rather than eliminated, over 75 years the savings would cover the Social Security shortfall. Instead we got the tax cut and a mountain of deficits.

If some of you readers are upset at what I write here, please consider the following remarks culled from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, "Cheer Up Conservatives, You're Still Winning":

The essential conservatism of Mr. Bush's approach is all the clearer if you compare it wih the big-government liberalism of the 1960's... Mr. Bush is not using government to redistribute wealth (unless you own an oil company), to reward sloth or to coddle the poor. And government in America remains a shriveled thing by European standards. Some 40 years after the Great Society, America still has no national health service; it asks students to pay as much as $40,000 for a university education; it gives mothers only a few weeks of maternity leave.

These "gains" are supposed to make us feel proud. It shames me. And I wonder how it affects all those who voted for this president.

Two questions haunt me. Am I living in a time where our government decisions will destabilize the world and empty the national treasury? More troubling: If we are succesful in remaking the world in our own image, will the earth survive?

What then, might a less reckless President Bush do? He might cancel his improvident tax cuts. He might call us to conservation rather than extravagance. He might wage peace rather than war. He might ask us whether we are willing to lead the world as an example of constraint on economic freedom rather than of the wild celebration of it.

The developing world must go through its narrative, as all nations will. But it would be a boon to humanity if there were a model of civil community that had discovered the truth that being rich is not "glorious." Having unmasked the delusion that objects bring happiness, there would be a nation living the truth that once our basic needs are met, the joys of contemplation, relationship and service are the things that lift the human heart.

Our present president will not do this. we can only hope that someone, some day, will.
John F. Kavanaugh
America, July 18-25, 2005
 
one of the most intresting threads I've read lately. And I read the whole thing
 
SO it shall be written..

SO it shall be done..


Live at your fullest....don`t worry about things you can`t change....


ENJOY AND ROCK A LITTLE.....
 
[!--QuoteBegin-pirryharris+Jul 24 2005, 04:35 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(pirryharris @ Jul 24 2005, 04:35 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]don`t worry about things you can`t change....
[snapback]112934[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Attentive readers of my previous posts may have detected that I'm not a religious person. Nonetheless, your statement reminds me of a famous prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.


In other words, pirryharris is partially right. But most of the topics under discussion here are about human actions, not forces of nature. These are things that we can attempt to change.

I don't know enough about Chinese politics to have the first clue about what Chinese people can do to work for peace in their country. But with regard to the article Onhell posted, Americans have the ability to vote for politicians who oppose the insane policies of the Republican party. Nearly half of us did so a year ago, but we didn't quite have enough support.

It is not entirely correct to view political developments or wars as things that nations do. These are actions that are taken be people. They may be done in the name of a nation, but it's human beings who do it. And every person who feels they can't affect international politics - and therefore doesn't even try - just makes it easier for those with more ambition to push them around.

The Duke spoke of two extremes: WW3 or world peace. Which one of those comes true is largely dependent on how many people get involved in making the choice.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-SinisterMinisterX+Jul 24 2005, 06:43 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Jul 24 2005, 06:43 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Attentive readers of my previous posts may have detected that I'm not a religious person. Nonetheless, your statement reminds me of a famous prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.


In other words, pirryharris is partially right. But most of the topics under discussion here are about human actions, not forces of nature. These are things that we can attempt to change.

I don't know enough about Chinese politics to have the first clue about what Chinese people can do to work for peace in their country. But with regard to the article Onhell posted, Americans have the ability to vote for politicians who oppose the insane policies of the Republican party. Nearly half of us did so a year ago, but we didn't quite have enough support.

It is not entirely correct to view political developments or wars as things that nations do. These are actions that are taken be people. They may be done in the name of a nation, but it's human beings who do it. And every person who feels they can't affect international politics - and therefore doesn't even try - just makes it easier for those with more ambition to push them around.

The Duke spoke of two extremes: WW3 or world peace. Which one of those comes true is largely dependent on how many people get involved in making the choice.
[snapback]112938[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Men are getting more vicious and greedy everyday.....THEY WANT POWER ......

they dont want to help the needy or give more to the poor .........

THEY WANT POWER..... NO MATTER WHAT ............\

The world will see others like " HITLER .................maybe we dont get to see it ,but some will do.


So please... LIVE and ROCK.....and die HAPPY....... [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]




so no matter who we vote for, that man will change for
 
SMX's statement is right in theory. To give you a clue, this is a quote taken from The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, Art.20, §2:

All state authority is derived from the people.

The quote continues, however:

It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.

Now, some people may notice that I'm quoting the Basic Law quite often these days, and the reason for that lies within this quote. Let me elaborate.

I firmly believe in the [a href=\'http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#38\' target=\'_blank\']Basic Law[/a], and I think it is one of the best, according to my knowledge even the best constitution worldwide. Granted, I suppose the constitutions of most other western countries are not too different, but I think this one is the most modernly articulated and comprehensable of these days. As far as I know, it serves as a model for constitutions of countries that either recently became independent or recently became democratic.
Sadly, this constitution proves to be worth about as much as the paper it is written on these days. See [a href=\'http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?showtopic=9146&st=0\' target=\'_blank\']this[/a] thread for the reason of my discontentment with the state of German politics (and for a more detailed statement of my beef with "democracy" pointed to later in this post).

SMX is right in saying that, theoretically, all people of democratic nations have the right and possibility to take influence on the political development of their countries. Sadly, more often than not, this does not seem to apply for the real world. The most spectacular example is the Third Gulf War (or Second Iraq war or whatever you want to call it); millions of people worldwide publicly protested against the US-led invasion of Iraq well before it was even officially planned. What happened? the "Coalition of the Willing" just marched into Iraq, and as we speak, the country is crumbling. Do I need to elaborate about what's happening there at the moment? Certainly not.

The people of democratic nations have two basic possibilities of expressing their political will. One is quoted above, the other one is described in the Basic Law (Art. 5, §1) as:

Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

Now, without further talking-around, we see the governments in this world, which are supposed to act for and represent the people acting against the people. The scandal that is the Iraq war is perhaps the dirtiest and most disgusting example. No reasonable person in the world wanted this war, and those who did and do support it were manipulated by propaganda issued by a government that is supposed to represent themselves- in short, according to theory they manipulated themselves. Strange how they noticed, huh?
But not enough. According to polls that vary in the numbers, ca. 80% of the German people were and are outspoken opponents against the war in Iraq. The government reacted in declaring not to participate in the war. No soldier was sent by the German government, but the support given to the pro-war coalition proved to be worth more than some actual members contributed. I'm talking about Germany granting the right to use airbases, airspace, protection of forces on German territory... you get the picture.

So, before you are praising the countries and governments hypocritically calling themselves "democracies" (Democracy, from Greek demokratia- "Rule by the people"), take into consideration how many people actually do rule, and what say the rest of the people have.
 
For all those patient and tolerant enough to read my above rant, here is a little cartoon to lighten it all up a bit:

[img src=\'http://nucite.net/isWext.php/5002/81076.jpg\' border=\'0\' alt=\'user posted image\' /]
 
Now, back to the threads original subject.

One possible scenario I am afraid of is this:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is deprived of the ressources it demands. A reasonable thing, considering the addition of 1,3 billion people to the drip of natural ressources such as oil is a very apocalyptic scenario. No need to mention that oil is getting scarcer by the minute, the economical and ecological prospects are, mildly speaking, awful.

From the PRC perspective, banning the country from these ressources, which the western-world countries are happily consuming shitloads of daily, is, of course, unfair. Why do the westerns get to burn as much oil as they want, while the PR-Chinese get nothing of it? A hypocritical behaviour that is likely to influct hatred.

There are several possible outcomes for this scenario.

1.) The "if-we-had-rainbows-in-the-sky-and-rabbits-and-leprechauns-were-making-love" scenario. The western world agrees to reduce their usage of fossil ressources, head for alternative energies and let everyone have a piece of the pie. Scenario best used for public amusement.

2) The "if-rabbits-and-leprechauns-aren't-making-as-much-love-and-there-are-not-so-many-rainbows" scenario. The PRC decides to show the world how good it really is and withdraws its claim, perhaps to invest more in research for alternative energies and become the pet of reasonable economists and ecologists in the world. Not as illusoric as scenario #1, considering the PRC does in fact make usage of alternative energies on a high level, but still funnier than Leslie Nielsen.

3) The horror scenario. The PRC decides to take these ressources by force. This can culminate in one of several sub-scenarios.

3a) The diplomatic variant. The PRC does not "invade" any countries, but instead convinces them to hand over these ressources using some "real good arguments". Even if the manpower of the PRC alone is enough crush most other countries, I think this is the most favourable of options for the government. Dead people are dead, their families may be angry. Possible targets for the PRC may be Russia, Kazakhstan or Indonesia, perhaps even Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela.
Not unlikely.

3b) The "You didn't hear it, you didn't see it" variant. The PRC takes over these ressources using any means it deems necessary. Not wanting a war with the most populous country in the world, the western powers look away. Possible targets for the PRC could be Russia, Kazakhstan or Indonesia. Not very likely.

3c) The video-game variant. The PRC goes berzerk, invading Russia, Kazakhstan, Indochina, and, as bonus challenge, the Republic of China and maybe even the Republic of Korea (consider The Democratic Republic of Korea as something like the game's arse) or even Japan. The USA and many European countries declare war on the furious dragon. Not likely, though Firaxis may become rich with an equivalent game, and I might become richer after suing them.

4) The boring scenario. The PRC and its opponents make a series of economic deals allowing them to use the ressources to their estimation while "working out" a long term sollution. Brad and Angelina will be more interesting, though a few radical terrorists may spice it up a little. Likely. The whole thing may change face in a couple of years.

5) The "good-for-us, bad-for-them" scenario. The dragon loses steam and sinks back into economic and politial mediocrity, proving brokers and businessmen all over the world that they overrated the PRCs potential. Very likely.

In case things turn out bad for "us", the question is, what can we do?

-If you are such a worried anti-"Communist", don't buy products made in "China". Yeah, that showed them!

-Chill out! Quite honestly, nobody is stupid enough to fight a giant. A war between the west and the PRC is fiction at this moment in time.

-Keep watching. Read the newspapers or browse the internet to keep yourself informed. Don't trust everythig they say on TV. Try to get both sides to build your own opinion.

-Whatever happens, don't look for anyone to blame. It is too easy to find someone whom you can give the burden of responsibility. Fact is, the people who are responsible for this situtation are all dead. They are the guys who thought it would be a good idea to make ourselves dependant of energy won from burning what our mother produces. Show your discontentment in taking a whiss on their graves or not using electricity. Did that satisfy you? Me neither.

-Don't forget your duties. They are not hard. Keep informed about and in touch with the happenings in this world. Go to elections. And, most importantly, fill your life with meaning. The best way of becoming immortal is sharing ourselves, our lives and our knowledge, with others.

-Enjoy life. Despite the poor grammar and offending structure of pirryharris' post, we should not dismiss his message. There's no point in whining about the sorry state of the world. If there is something we can't change, we should try not caring about it. If there is something we can change, we should do it. All the while, we should not forget that we have only one life. It lasts approximately 75-80 years and we should do our best with it. Even if there is going to be a third world war in our lifetimes, there is no excuse for not enjoying the time till then. If it is our fate, or our inevitable future, we should make the best out of what happens until we meet our demise. Even if the political system sucks, we can still go to a bar of our choice on a Friday evening, and we can still waste our precious, hard-earned money on a ridiculously overpriced beer at a metal concert. This will most likely not be that way forever, and no matter if we see the end of this in our lifetime or not, there is no excuse for not using these opportunities. Just consider our lives as a microsopic fraction of the long timeline of the history of mankind, and you will see why it is useless to grieve.

*Goes back to work humming "Die With Your Boots On"*
 
Perun, you must be close to wearing out your keyboard [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]


Great post, btw
 
Naw, I wrote all that at work [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

Thanks, btw
 
Twice I witnessed pirryharris attempt something that resembled writing and twice some intelligent person rescued his obscure words and made sense of them.... if that is possible... hell anlything is. Honestly I enjoyed Duke's "Cold War" scenario more than Perun's one-more-depresing-than-last scenarios. As he said the possitive ones are way to idealistic. But one that will spark competition between the West and China is more likely. Nobody is going to mess with China (even if they are not as technologically advanced as the U.S they have the largest army in numbers), And just like the USSR and the U.S engaged in a Space Race, along with Armament and other crazy shit i believe it will happen again.

Nobody wants to die (even though they will eventually) so MAD will keep the beasts at bay and instead we may see a technological boom in alternate fuels and power (I dream to see the american southwest covered in solar panels). So I wouldn't bet on a war unless the U.S is eager to "tryout" new military technology.
 
Yes, the pre-PostWWII USSR that was still trying to make sense of the bulshevik revolution, a USSR that hadn't been awarded all of eastern Europe and half of Germany, a USSR that didn't have Nuclear weapons or submarines... you get the picture.
 
The Winter did it for them [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
All I have to say is that in a situation where China decided to seize natural resources the obvious targets are 1) the Siberian oil fields (the largest in the world), 2) the Indian coal mines, 3) the Indonesian oil fields.

This means that the Chinese would likely have other such countries as North Korea and Pakistan on their side. Because these are really the guys we want teaming up against us.


The thing that really worries me is that if invaded, Russia will fire off their nukes. Simply because that's all they have left. Most of their military is either third rate or is in Chechnya.

And the Russian nukes are so old that it's a fifty-fifty chance that they'll even go...
 
also, aren't they so old they won't cause apocalyptic destruction like the new U.S nukes that can destroy half the world (I could be exagerating)? Even if it doesn't come true it makes for great fiction, the New Axis powers: China, North Korea and Pakistan (throw in Japan for added Drama, they want revenge hehe) The U.S led NATO is the new Allied power... WWIII coming to a theater near you!
 
Back
Top