China Versus USA

[colddiesel]

Is China a fundamental security threat to the USA? I can see that idealogically they are no fit, They are clearly a trade rival, and the size of their economy is set to exceed that of the USA's within a decade. But a fundamental military/security threat, how do they in any sense threaten the US homeland.

 

[Lazaran]

Is China a fundamental security threat to the USA? But a fundamental military/security threat, how do they in any sense threaten the US homeland.

That ^ is the dumbest (apparently rhetorical) question ever posted on the PB.

Congratulations!!!



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[TheGxForum]

Is China a fundamental security threat to the USA? I can see that idealogically they are no fit, They are clearly a trade rival, and the size of their economy is set to exceed that of the USA's within a decade. But a fundamental military/security threat, how do they in any sense threaten the US homeland.

The same way any rival gang/government/pig culture group/cartel/syndicate is threatened when others don't submit to them the more they want to police them...

 

[ll74]

The war between the US and China is not military.

This is the war and the US is losing even as our President thinks he is winning

What to Know About China’s Halt of Rare Earth Exports​

Since early April, China has stopped almost all shipments of critical minerals that are needed for cars, robots, wind turbines, jet fighters and other technologies.

 

[Lance_Castro]

The Chinese already own the USA.
Lol

 

[ll74]

Insightful

 

[HisArpy]

Or, you know, because China has plans of total global conquest and domination...

 

[TheGxForum]

The Chinese already own the USA.
Lol

Nah they just own most of the US debt(bonds)...

 

[colddiesel]

That ^ is the dumbest (apparently rhetorical) question ever posted on the PB.

Congratulations!!!



We. Told. Them. So.

No it is not dumb in the slightest, unless your notion of rhetorical is bent out of shape. Currently China's military is largely restricted to its land borders and the sea within 500 miles of its coastline. On the other hand the USA has a string of bases and Allies in Korea, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, plus it controls the Chinese trade routes through the Straits of Malacca and the entrance to the Red sea from Diego Garcia with further US dominated bottlenecks in the Med, at Suez and Gibraltar. So long as the USA avoids a land war with China the air and sea superiority of the USA will remain. For this reason the USA will support Taiwan with arms and rhetoric but never get involved in actual fighting. China has a large number of ships but nowhere near enough in either number or quality to project power into the Pacific and no-where near the USA.

China's strongest card in dealing with the USA is not military at all but is the sheer size of its holdings in US Treasury Bonds. America had the Japanese as its required enemy in the 1940's then the USSR post war. China is definitely competition for the USA industrially and in Trade but militarily it just doesn't add up. But she does serve a useful purpose as a target to blame by US politicians for their own domestic failures.

It's also worth considering that China has recovered all the land (Hong Kong, Macau? and various treaty ports inflicted on them in the 19th century leaving only one area in dispute. Russia took 950,000Sq Km from China in the Amur Basin and has never handed it back. Should the USA encourage the Chinese to get stuck into a war in Eastern Siberia. It might make sense.

So yes Lazaran Chinese International interests are worth close study well beyond scapegoating and grievance whining.

 

[Lazaran]

No it is not dumb in the slightest, unless your notion of rhetorical is bent out of shape. Currently China's military is largely restricted to its land borders and the sea within 500 miles of its coastline. On the other hand the USA has a string of bases and Allies in Korea, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, plus it controls the Chinese trade routes through the Straits of Malacca and the entrance to the Red sea from Diego Garcia with further US dominated bottlenecks in the Med, at Suez and Gibraltar. So long as the USA avoids a land war with China the air and sea superiority of the USA will remain. For this reason the USA will support Taiwan with arms and rhetoric but never get involved in actual fighting. China has a large number of ships but nowhere near enough in either number or quality to project power into the Pacific and no-where near the USA.

China's strongest card in dealing with the USA is not military at all but is the sheer size of its holdings in US Treasury Bonds. America had the Japanese as its required enemy in the 1940's then the USSR post war. China is definitely competition for the USA industrially and in Trade but militarily it just doesn't add up. But she does serve a useful purpose as a target to blame by US politicians for their own domestic failures.

It's also worth considering that China has recovered all the land (Hong Kong, Macau? and various treaty ports inflicted on them in the 19th century leaving only one area in dispute. Russia took 950,000Sq Km from China in the Amur Basin and has never handed it back. Should the USA encourage the Chinese to get stuck into a war in Eastern Siberia. It might make sense.

So yes Lazaran Chinese International interests are worth close study well beyond scapegoating and grievance whining.

Two things:

1) Germany (and the two other Axis powers) on the eve of WWII.

2) The changing face of warfare and what constitutes a “fundamental security threat”..



“Is China a fundamental security threat to the USA?”



Um, YEAAAAAAHH!!!



Hope that ^ helps.