Is war between China and the US inevitable? The Thucydides Trap.

[filghy2]

nothing that could potentially cause wars. there has been tensions between the West and Russia. Do YOU remember the poisonings in the UK, or warning shots? doesn't mean a war is imminent. shit like that happens all the time. comparing it to WWI is pretty silly at this point.

WWI was triggered by a relatively minor incident - the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne by a Serbian. There was no rational reason why this should have led to a world war involving almost every major power.

I'm not saying war is imminent. I'm saying that if you have a build-up of tensions between two rival powers there is a risk that some spark will eventually trigger a conflict. It may not be that either side intends a war. It may just be a series of miscalculations where neither side wants to lose face by backing down, which seems to be how WWI started.

[Stavros]

In the cases of both the South African War (1899-1902) and the First World War, the Generals argued that the aims of the war would be met within a short period of time without major casualties or financial distress. The opposite happened, indeed, just as the British failed to understand how the Guerilla tactics of the 'Boers' would drag them into interminable mini-conflicts notably in the Transvaal, that the Generals had not planned for, so the cost of the war spiralled out of control =£25 billion in today's money, with 120,000 terrible casuaties and 22,000 dead.

In spite of the damage caused to the reputation of the Imperial Army, the Generals continued to plan wars based on 19th century strategic thinking, but again, underestimated the extent to which they lost control of the 'Plan' which had not expected the German 'Blitzkrieg' -the dual attack on France and Russia. Crucial to the outbreak of the war was the breakdown of the diplomatic system that had been created after the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, the so-called 'Concert of Europe', and the rigid beliefs that meant the Austro-Hungarian Empire regarded Serbian Nationalism, that had already laid waste to thousands in two wars, with contempt.

Today, the Chinese have imperial ambitions much as Kaiser Wilhem did in 1914, though they claim they are 're-unifying' China, as with Hong Kong, and its long term view of Taiwan. There is some sort of international order in the UN, but China has demonstrated its indifference to the UN and International Law with regard to the 1999 Treaty with the UK on the special status of Hong Kong, and the physical presence on the Spratly Islands. The key here is that the 'rest of the world' has not take any military action against China and does not appear to be preparing for it, as far as the Islands go, though the assumption is that the USA's security guarantees to Taiwan deter the Chinese, though we don't know if the Chinese Govt has a plan or just talks about re-unification as standard political rhetoric.

It is possible a small incident could spark 'a prairie fire', as Mao used to say, but right now the costs of such a conflict are pertinent to decsion makers, for the Generals are not supposed to recommend military action unless they are confident the objectives will be reached with minimum casualties and at low cost, though one doubts the loss of life is going to trouble the Chinese Government.

[filghy2]

The Chinese government is now communist in name only, so their only real ideology is Chinese nationalism - restoring China to what they see as it's rightful place in the world. If the Chinese economic miracle starts to falter they will want to play the nationalist card even more.

The problem is that the more they talk about reunification of Taiwan, the more they lose face by not acting on it - and voluntary reunification is now out of the question due to China's shift toward autocracy. The may calculate that the US has lost it's appetite for foreign wars after Iraq and Afghanistan. That seems the most likely source of possible miscalculation.

It's hard to place much confidence in accurate assessments of the achievability of military objectives when we have so many examples where this hasn't happened. In fact, miscalculation seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Over-confidence is probably built into the military DNA because their access to resources depends on convincing politicians that objectives can be achieved by military means.

[Stavros]

You make two important points. One concerns the actuality of military failure, given that successes are few, and even then have consequences- the UK did expel Argentina from the Falkland Islands, with the added benefit that the military junta collapsed, but it did commit resources to the Falklands that the UK Government had been trying to limit the decade before the invasion.

Again, the 'Coalition of the Willing' did expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, even though King Hussein had reached an agreement with Saddam that Iraq would withdraw his forces -a proposition rejected by the US. But the consequence was a disaster for the opposition in Iraq which faced the wrath of Saddam, while the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was the direct cause of al-Qaeda declaring war on the US (perhaps it should have declared war on the Wahab Government in Riyadh that permitted that infidel presence in the 'Holy Land of Islam?).

The second point is the more worrying, because Xi is a man with a mission, to change China's global status. Here, he is in the same company as Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Boris Johnson, and what unites these men is a fanatical belief in themselves and the passion for change -in Johnson's case not just the radical transformation of the UK, but the promotion of a 'Global Britain' outside the EU, a campaign that so far looks as ridiculous as it sounds, given that Johnson competes with Trump as the democratic world's most relentless bullshitter. That he claims to be a Conservative suggests that the term no longer has any meaning, though when it comes to change, Johnson is keen (we assume) to Conserve the Monarchy and the Military, though his faith in the Judiciary and Parliament seems insecure; just as Trump is only Conservative in conserving the wealth of the richest Americans.

I rate Putin the most dangerous -he has attacked the UK twice with impunity, he has annexed the Crimea, invaded and occupied the eastern Ukraine, has extended Russia's military presence in Syria, and may be about to forge a united military force with Belarus. Xi is also a threat, but your point on his bravura rhetoric requiring some proof of action is a concern. I believe Hong Kong will never be the same again.

You may be aware there was some sort of ill-tempered conflict in the Trotskyist movements in the 1960s when they couldn't agree among themselves if China and Cuba were Communist -in the case of China, their fidelity to Stalin and his ruthless state machine has underlined the Nationalist aspect of China, something that is clear to see when you go there, in particular Mao's Mausoleum. It is a matter of idle curiosity that he looks smaller than Lenin, who looks just as creepy now as he must have been when Bertrand Russell met him, and as far as I know, Lenin but not Mao spoke English.

As to the cost, Simon Tisdall claims the US alone has spent $8 Trillion on its military adventures since 2001-
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-cost-of-911

Here is Russell on his meeting with Lenin in 1920

[filghy2]

The Chinese system is really a form of nationalist authoritarian state capitalism, and the same can be said of Russia. Rich capitalists are accepted as long as they serve the interests of the regime. As such, they have more in common with the fascist regimes of the past. We even have a racialist element in China with the persecution of the Uyghars and Tibetans.

I always find it strange that so many right-wingers (especially in the US) who are anti-Chinese are relatively tolerant towards Russia. Both are seeking to dominate their neighbourhood and, as you note, Russia has the worse record in terms of overt aggression outside of its borders.

[Stavros]

Do you have any thoughts on the potential North Korea has to provoke a military incident? They claim to have tested cruise missiles wihich can travel 1,000 miles below radar, but we don't know how good they are, and the opportunity for a bad accident is there. Unlike his predecessors, Trump proved he was reluctant to take military action when the US or its forces were attacked, as they were in Iraq after the assassination of Qasem Suleimani, and Biden on the face of it doesn't look like someone keen to order any kind deployment -is someone going to see how 'tough' he is? Could it be somewhere else, such as Venezuela where China has invested billions, and the Iran has a 'strategic partnership' with the Government there...or must we wait for a second Trump Presidency, assuming he has the balls, given his priority is money and his gargantuan ego?

[filghy2]

These things are inherently unpredictable. We may know when conditions are such that a spark could set off a wildfire, but we can't know that the particular spark might be. The pre-existing conditions are arguably more important, because if it's not one spark it may be another.

It's ironic that 30 years ago people were celebrating the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. That was a more stable world in the two dominant players accepted that their rivalry had to be conducted within certain constraints. A multi-polar world in which many players are unhappy with the status quo and the lead power is less willing and able to defend it is inherently less stable.

[Stavros]

Does the new US-UK-Australia 'strategic alliance' change the paramenters?

"The former British prime minister [Theresa May] asked Johnson: “What are the implications of this pact for the stance that would be taken by the United Kingdom in its response should China attempt to invade Taiwan?”
In reply, the prime minister was careful not to rule anything out. “The United Kingdom remains determined to defend international law and that is the strong advice we would give to our friends across the world, and the strong advice that we would give to the government in Beijing,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...k-china-taiwan

This from a man, Boris Johnson, whose Government freely admitted it intended to break international law with regard to Brexit and Northern Ireland....China must be like, so scared....

[filghy2]

Does the new US-UK-Australia 'strategic alliance' change the paramenters?

I doubt it. It's really an agreement to share nuclear submarine technology with Australia and there was already a de facto strategic alliance. After Iraq and Afghanistan would anyone be in any doubt that the UK and Australia are auxiliaries of the US military? I know the objective is deterrence, but it's striking that barely 2 weeks after the end of one US-led military debacle our governments are eagerly signing up for another adventure.

The real story from the Australian perspective is the debacle of the previous project to replace our aging submarine fleet, on which we've wasted many years and many billions of dollars only to start again. It's like something out of Yes Minister. "What should we do about this disastrous project that is running way behind schedule and over budget?" "Why don't we announce a new project that will be more complex, take much longer and cost even more?"

[broncofan]

Does the new US-UK-Australia 'strategic alliance' change the paramenters?

From the standpoint of Australia, perhaps the prestige of having nuclear powered submarines is attractive but it comes with the strings of having to serve as bait should there be some kind of provocation or threat. For the U.S it's a greater commitment to deter China militarily from invading Taiwan but is this a case where military deterrence even makes sense?

What would be the financial threat to China if it tried to annex Taiwan? China is committed to its economic growth. How catastrophic would it be for China to be cut off from world markets? How catastrophic would it be for countries to be cut off from China as a market?