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

[John]

19-Jan-13 World View -- China's directive to the People's Liberation Army: Get Ready for War


China's historic mistake

** 19-Jan-13 World View -- China's directive to the People's Liberation Army: Get Ready for War
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 19#e130119


Contents:
China's directive to the People's Liberation Army: Get Ready for War
China steps up nationalistic war-like rhetoric
China's historic mistake
146 lines, 1183 words, 7376 characters


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, China, People's Liberation Army,
Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Dai Xu,
India, Neville Chamberlain

[Trevor]

At one time, I thought they were going to wait a couple more years while we disarm. Now I'm getting less and less confident of that.

Our key vulnerability is cyberattack. We're still not doing as much as we should to protect ourselves, but we're finally taking action and it looks like some of our leaders are realizing how dangerous it is. That'll be the primary method to take down our capabilities. I would say it would set us back at least a couple months, probably longer than that. Their optimum time to strike in that theater would be in the near future.

Our satellites will be the next mode of crippling us. I read in the 2007 about their anti-satellite and I'd bet that by now they've got hundreds of anti-satellite missiles ready for use. It won't take more than a day or two.

Actual personnel losses to this country, I think, will only be secondary. Obviously, whatever naval forces we have within, say, 1000 miles will be targeted, if any.

[tim]

Anyone making plans on how to survive the Chinese attack?

Obviously its impossible to know what will happen.

Say you wake up tomorrow and see on the news China has invaded Vietnam/Japan/etc., are you going to try to get away from major cities or nuclear targets because of impending attack?

Will you wait until China directly attacks us? Perhaps Obama will be Neville Chamberlain and avoid getting the U.S. involved for some time.

Had I posted this anywhere but this forum I would be called insane or paranoid...

Curious to hear anyone's thoughts.

[Reality Check]

Today, China and India and America are in generational Crisis eras. The survivors of World War II are all gone. Today's leaders have had an easy life where their worst crisis was a sex scandal. They have no personal memory of the horrors of WW II, and the Gen-Xers think that any older generation who even talks about it is completely full of crap.

The Chinese, as well as many Americans, believe that President Obama would not strike back if China launched one of these "short, sharp wars" against one of its neighbors. Obama, according to this view, would be like Neville Chamberlain after Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia.

This view overlooks the extreme nationalism of a generational Crisis era. President Obama would not have any choice if Congress declared war, which might happen within hours of any Chinese attack.

This view also overlooks the hard lesson that came out of the Neville Chamberlain episode. Britain excused Germany's attack on Czechoslovakia, but also warned that any further aggression would lead to war. So Obama may have his Neville Chamberlain moment, but it would only delay war.

China today is giddy with military power to the point of mass hysteria, and way overconfident. They're ready for war, and they're anxious to go to war. They have a military strategy of attacking America's weak points that they believe will lead them to a quick victory, because America won't risk having its cities attacked. Nothing can be further from the truth. Generational Dynamics predicts that when China makes its move, and that day seems very close, then the war won't end until every nuclear weapon on all sides has been launched against some enemy's targets. By the end of the war, will be some 3 billion deaths, leaving 4 billion of so survivors to carry on and try to rebuild the world.

These are cohesive and persuasive arguments that a world war started by China is coming.

They also make a reasonable case that such a war will come this year based solely on a mis-reading by the Chinese of both the will and the ability of the United States to destroy China militarily.

The 2013 prediction might prove to be correct, but it might also prove to be incorrect.

A perfect storm must occur for the 2013 prediction to be correct, while only one assumption need to be wrong for it to be incorrect.

China could achieve transitional regional hegemonic goals in 2013 such as excluding all non-Chinese development from the South China Sea without going to war.

China might alternatively pick Vietnam as the dog to be killed. Vietnam does not have a defense pack with the United States and the U.S. might seek to provide only indirect assistance to Vietnam. Vietnam might also refuse to surrender and be impossible to pacify in a "quick war".

China could find itself at war with a minor power and not with any major power for a number of years.

A Democratic controlled Senate run by Harry Reid might refuse to even vote on a declaration of war if the President of the United States opposed such a declaration.

While the defense pact with Japan is unlikely to be ignored by the United States, Obama and his Generation X allies in Congress might indeed refuse to hold China accountable for an attack on the Philippines or Taiwan just like they refused to hold bankers accountable.

Finally, despite the fact it is not being discussed on this forum in any depth, Strategic and Conventional Disarmament of the United States is in progress and Obama has called for accelerating both the strategic disarmament and the Conventional Disarmament of the United States, and he has the power to do so.

China might be smart enough to let that play out for a couple more years.

[OLD1953]

At one time, I thought they were going to wait a couple more years while we disarm. Now I'm getting less and less confident of that.

Our key vulnerability is cyberattack. We're still not doing as much as we should to protect ourselves, but we're finally taking action and it looks like some of our leaders are realizing how dangerous it is. That'll be the primary method to take down our capabilities. I would say it would set us back at least a couple months, probably longer than that. Their optimum time to strike in that theater would be in the near future.

Our satellites will be the next mode of crippling us. I read in the 2007 about their anti-satellite and I'd bet that by now they've got hundreds of anti-satellite missiles ready for use. It won't take more than a day or two.

Actual personnel losses to this country, I think, will only be secondary. Obviously, whatever naval forces we have within, say, 1000 miles will be targeted, if any.

There are just too many variables to judge what and how things go down first. Military networks are hardened and quite a few aren't connected to any civilian network directly. All networks of all kinds are subject to disruption via physical destruction or EMP. EMP attack can be devastating (at least in theory) and is very possible.

http://www.empcommission.org/
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... shortfalls

That's going to take a lot of money. And if it isn't done, we are talking potential deaths of up to half the US population, from a single short attack. The military has done it's own thing in preparation for EMP, but an awful lot of military resources would get diverted to civilian rescue during the first days following such an attack.

But John's dead on with history, it's almost unheard of for a major war to start with a killer knockout blow. Instead, they begin with attacks on small countries and ramp up over time. I honestly expect the US to be offering support and aid for a considerable period after the war begins, advisors and material aid but not boots on ground, unless it starts as something like a fast attack on South Korea or Taiwan. And that probably won't happen for several months into this, when the Chinese get frustrated about not making gains as they projected, so then they start going all out to gain something and save general whoever's career. And that's when it'll hit the fan.

I don't think we've signed a defense pact with Vietnam. This is about as far as it is at present, AFAIK, which is why I've kind of assumed the Chinese would attack Vietnam first. This would give their troops valuable training, the US would not be likely to get in the middle of it (doubtless to go down as a "Chamberlain" moment) and there would be many many people against involvement on the grounds that "they didn't want us in there until their big Commie buddy burned them, let the Commies deal with each other".

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... lationship

Honestly, just how would you expect Congress to react at the news of China going to war with Vietnam? I'd not expect much involvement besides selling them arms and perhaps advisors.

[Reality Check]

Military networks are hardened and quite a few aren't connected to any civilian network directly. All networks of all kinds are subject to disruption via physical destruction or EMP. EMP attack can be devastating (at least in theory) and is very possible.

For the record not all electronics, nor all semi-conductors, nor all networks are vulnerable to EMP.

Until the last few years the military avoided using EMP susceptible semi-conductors in many applications.

But all civilian semi-conductors and all civilian networks are highly susceptible to EMP.

EMP weapons will, without a doubt, be used in any nuclear conflict between the major powers.

[Reality Check]

India and Japan would each be very tough dogs for China to target as their first quick war.

Actually killing either of those two dogs off quickly would be an iffy proposition, even if China won several major battles.

Taiwan or the Philippines would be the smallest dogs and Korea or Vietnam would be substantially harder than either Taiwan or the Philippines,

If one was seeking a quick victory the Philippines or Taiwan would seem to be a good choice.

Avoiding U.S. intervention would lead one toward Vietnam.

The Philippines would be the best chance of separating a weak ally of the U.S. from the U.S. thus achieving China's regional goal.

Starting a a full blown war with any of them has major negatives for China compared with China simply continuing to win the peace.

[Reality Check]

I, for one, do not see Obama or the Democrats going to war over the Philippines.

China might believe the same thing. China and I could both be wrong and World War III could start if a war between China and the Philippines erupts.

But, I still do not see Obama, going to war over a few Islands belonging to the Philippines nor going to war over oil in the South China Sea.

The U.S. going to war over Vietnam is even less likely.

[solomani]

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. This would be best case IMO outside of peace of course.

I couldn't see the martinet armed forces of China overcoming the USA even with nukes.

[shoshin]

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?