19-Jan-13 World View -- China's directive: Get Ready for War

[John]

How much of China's nationalistic rhetoric is used to quiet internal insurrections and revolt?

Does it matter?

Could a strategy be to "help" the most powerful of those groups?

My guess is that any such attempt would infuriate the Chinese,
who scream most loudly when someone "interferes with their
internal affairs."

[John]

This discussion has highlighted something that hadn't occurred to me
before: That an attack on Vietnam is the "logical" choice for China.
From China's point of view, these would be the advantages:

• It would raise far less nationalism in the United States than
  would attacks on Japan or the Philippines.
• China has a score to settle with Vietnam, following the 1979
  China-Vietnam war.
• The motive would be "kill a chicken to scare the monkeys."
• It would assert complete control over the South China Sea.
• China claims that America has been a troublemaker in the South
  China Sea, because these coutries have been confronting China in the
  confident belief that they would be defended by the U.S. If the
  U.S. does not defend Vietnam, then the other countries would no longer
  feel confident, and would no longer challenge China.
• It would scare Japan, so that China could take control of the
  Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, and Japan would retreat.

(The last reason, of course, is sheer fantasy, but it's possible that
Chinese hawks believe it.)

The following is a very interesting pictorial summary of the 1979
China-Vietnam war:

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0 ... 49,00.html

That was an Recovery/Awakening era war, which ended very quickly, as
one would expect. China made some serious mistakes in that war.
Those mistakes would not be repeated in this crisis era. Vietnam
would be crushed, probably very quickly.

(Note: Vietnam was entering a Recovery era in 1979, and is currently
in an Awakening era.)

It's possible that a Chinese invasion of Vietnam would lead to
President Obama's "Neville Chamberlain moment." But, as in that case,
any further aggressive action by China would lead to full-scale war.

[Raptor17]

How much of China's nationalistic rhetoric is used to quiet internal insurrections and revolt?

Does it matter?

Could a strategy be to "help" the most powerful of those groups?

This in my view, is what will push the PRC into moving militarily sooner rather than later. The Chinese economy
is slowing down, factories are closing and moving to even lower wage countries. Add this to the things reported
in the web log and a scary picture comes into view. A "Neville Chamberlain moment," would be unfortunate as it
would add to the PRC militarys overconfidence and lead to larger aggressive actions.

[solomani]

Looking at the alternatives on a purely strategic front I agree:

• Japan is tough and would suck in the USA and Western Allies.
• Philippines is weak but it has a much stronger chance of drawing in Japan and the USA at a minimum. It may not, but its risky.
• Taiwan I don't think is an easy target. They seem to have a formidable defense force and, again, it risks activating the USA.
• Vietnam would likely have no support. Its certainly not the weakest or the toughest and China does have a historical bone to pick. I am not sure I agree Vietnam would be an "easy win" - though the Chinese may think so. Vietnamese effectively resisted and ousted occupiers over a 200 year period. No reason to believe they couldn't do the same again. And a bit of a military folly my be a good thing long term humbling the Chinese hawks.

[Trevor]

I'm expecting either Vietnam or the Philippines. China could defeat Japan, but it would be a very difficult fight and would likely drag us in. The others are more likely to stay a local war and thus, can be used as a method of intimidation and a training exercise.

Another thing I'm wondering is how much material they have, modern tanks, aircraft, and ships they've built up in secret that they don't know about. We know they've got thousands of miles of underground tunnels, easily enough for their opponents to underestimate their capabilities. "When able to attack, appear unable." The extent of Germany's buildup was unknown until almost before the war began.

[Marshall Kane]

If China was going to war with anyone ( and I do not wish war on anyone ) I'd prefer they attack Vietnam. This wouldn't suck the Western Allies in and it could teach China a good lesson of being bled dry by a tenacious enemy.

Keep in mind that our view of Vietnam as tenacious is based on their fighting in what was for them a crisis war 45 years ago. It'll be much different with Vietnam in an Awakening and China in Crisis.

I do agree that Vietnam would clearly be the best choice for China to avoid US involvement. No American politician is going to have himself associated in anyway with "Another Vietnam" that actually involves Vietnam! Especially if it involves the worlds only other superpower.

Even so, if China oversteps and, say, wantonly massacres civilians I wonder if it would spur action from the world.

What are the odds of other Asian nations joining forces to counter China in Vietnam?

Would this type of Chinese aggression finally put the UN out of its misery? China's permanent Security Council veto would pretty much render the UN officially useless (it's been unofficially useless for a long time). Or, perhaps we would just give their seat back to Taiwan.

[OLD1953]

Vietnam would likely fall very quickly, I don't know how long resistance would be active nor how active. Remember that China is not part of the Western civilization, they have a totally different tradition as regards conquered countries. Repression of resistance is very brutal and they are willing to undertake this over a very long term, much longer than any modern Western nation has in a century or longer. And they really don't care what the press says about them in Western countries.

A friend who read a copy of Beasts, Men and Gods by Ferdinand Ossendowski that I gave him was astonished that the same repressive actions in Mongolia and Tibet we hear of today actually were mentioned in the book which was written nearly a century ago.

Heavy sanctions against China would be interesting to say the least, they'd cause the lineup John has described to fall into place fairly rapidly. That would be a strong push towards Iran moving to ally with the US. It would force Arab nations to choose between enforcing or defying the sanctions as well.

No IPADS or IPODS and new computers hard to get, WalMart struggling to put anything on the shelves - this would be the beginning of a new era of shortages for the USA.

[solomani]

No IPADS or IPODS and new computers hard to get, WalMart struggling to put anything on the shelves - this would be the beginning of a new era of shortages for the USA.

I think you underestimate the USA's ability to retool. IPADS and what not would become more expensive after a short period of shortage but the USA still has the capability to produce such things. Though I am not sure how high up the list they would be in a war.

My view of Vietnam is not related to the last war. Its related to a long history of resistance to occupiers - both benign and oppressive - and they have been effective at this intergenerationally.

[utahbob]

With the coming soft or hard landing in China's economy, using war with a small neighbor, is a sure fire way to divert the attention of the common person. Look at Argentina did during the Falkland Island war and ready to do it again. Only a mistake or believing their own public relations spin will start a war between the US and PRC.