China May Be Underestimating The US

[Kathianne]

I know history. I'm well aware of the pattern of US allowing its military to reach an abysmal low point basically daring an aggressive country or countries to attack-usually allies at worse, less than military response to US directly-i.e. hot air 'weather' balloon.

This article in WSJ is long, but a good recap of history and possible future with China-even a Taiwan take over that US can't respond to currently...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/challenging-the-u-s-is-a-historic-mistake-11675441152?st=zd6mencrv2omkk6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

The link will give an abbreviated article.


THE SATURDAY ESSAYChallenging the U.S. Is a Historic Mistake
Like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, today’s China is a rising power determined to dominate its region and convinced that American strength is waning. It runs the risk of experiencing a similar fate if it attacks Taiwan.

By Robert Kagan
Feb. 3, 2023 11:19 am ET

...

[Gunny]

I know history. I'm well aware of the pattern of US allowing its military to reach an abysmal low point basically daring an aggressive country or countries to attack-usually allies at worse, less than military response to US directly-i.e. hot air 'weather' balloon.

This article in WSJ is long, but a good recap of history and possible future with China-even a Taiwan take over that US can't respond to currently...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/challenging-the-u-s-is-a-historic-mistake-11675441152?st=zd6mencrv2omkk6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

The link will give an abbreviated article.The big difference to me between then and now is the makeup and attitudes of the people. Hopefully National identity/unity won't be tested (via war), but it's looking more and more likely.

Also, as I have pointed out before, "real time" back when was weeks/months/years. We had time to go from disrepair to fully functional while holding enemies at bay. Real time now is minutes/seconds while our industry is still not functional to support a war. We could come out on top of a short war, or a long, drawn out one (if we could remain focused long enough:rolleyes:). An intermediate one that depleted our supplies before we could get industry back up and running? Not so sure.

China's been gearing up to beat us for years. So has Iran. Russia is now gearing up to a war-time footing. What are we doing? Selling our strategic oil reserve to China:rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

The big difference to me between then and now is the makeup and attitudes of the people. Hopefully National identity/unity won't be tested (via war), but it's looking more and more likely.

Also, as I have pointed out before, "real time" back when was weeks/months/years. We had time to go from disrepair to fully functional while holding enemies at bay. Real time now is minutes/seconds while our industry is still not functional to support a war. We could come out on top of a short war, or a long, drawn out one (if we could remain focused long enough:rolleyes:). An intermediate one that depleted our supplies before we could get industry back up and running? Not so sure.

China's been gearing up to beat us for years. So has Iran. Russia is now gearing up to a war-time footing. What are we doing? Selling our strategic oil reserve to China:rolleyes:

I can't disagree, though the author addresses both societal divide comparisons and industry, as well as regime economic comparisons both then and now in economic terms.

[Gunny]

I can't disagree, though the author addresses both societal divide comparisons and industry, as well as regime economic comparisons both then and now in economic terms.Indeed he does address a lot of issues. I'm just not seeing some of his comparisons the same as he. In no specific order:

When we went into WWII, we were a people of one Nation, most having just survived the Great Depression. They were hardasses from the inside out. Now? We're going to need all those 3rd World immigrants who've had to scratch the ground to survive because Americans themselves now are a bunch of weak, pampered crybabies who don't even want to work. The ones that do, want to sit behind a desk 9-5. Whatever can be said for a society that works (or not) with its "brains not brawn", withstanding the hardships of life without end in the field is not a finer attribute.

Political divide being what it is, I'll go out on a limb and say there wasn't a couple of generations raised to hate this country and/or always find fault with us. The former is not that hard to overcome because it still holds the Nation as what brings us together. The latter? Selfish a-holes full of pseudo-critical theory excuses why not.

When we entered WWII, industry already had a jump start with lend lease. FYI: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/lend-lease-act#:~:text=Passed%20on%20March%2011%2C%201941,def ense%20of%20the%20United%20States.%22

All of the weapons we ultimately won with were designed and production begun, even if on a limited basis, mid-late 30s. Most of what we had on hand Dec 7th was obsolete and from a military perspective not as much a loss as propaganda made out.

Currently, the left began dismantling our industry in the 70s. An aside: ironic that the left is also the biggest supporter of labor unions whose industries it has destroyed yet the Dems drone right up and vote. What auto, coal, steel and oil industries do we have to switch to manufacturing the necessities of war?

We don't have to start from a standstill. We have to start by dismantling everything the left has put in place to dismantle the industry we need before we can get even there. We have the long-term capability. We don't have the intermediate logistics to get us there. Any fighting going on right now will be more or less with what we have on hand right now.

Being the aggressor, a lot of this rides on that flake, Pooh. In this regard, he's Asia's Trump. Can't get ahead because he's too busy stumbling over his own ego. I can see Pooh doing just what the author states the Japanese did: Fight a war he knows he's going to lose rather than accept playing second fiddle. Pooh is having a hard time sticking to the plan of patiently defeating us from within by our own hand.

Recently I mentioned that Pooh is getting way more mileage out of threatening Taiwan than he ever will trying to take it. Unless someone knows something I don't, China does not have the military capability to invade and occupy Taiwan AND take on the US, Japan, Australia (which everybody knows means the UK will be right along). That includes calculating the two Koreas cancelling one another.

Indigenous Taiwanese are not going to just roll over for this fluffball. The aboriginal Taiwanese are quite fierce and proud, even if smaller in scale :)

China has neither a self-sustaining economy nor industry. Not to mention the first act of war should have the US refuse to pay its debt to China. China cannot, at this point in time, win. Especially since despite his delusion, the Western World and most of the rest of the Eastern World doesn't trust Pooh worth a damn.

The models I have seen show the US winning, despite the aforementioned, but the price would be our World-wide capability. Our diminished presence may or may not embolden other bad actors to act. First country named is an unchecked Iran.

Lot of what if's. I'd prefer to not find out since that would take a war. On the other hand, we need to shut this a-hole down now, while we can.

[revelarts]

Public info on strength of USA vs China


https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=united-states-of-america&country2=china

....

I'm not sure how others think on this issue.
I get the impression that some folks beleive that if China or Russia thinks the US is "weak" by some standard.
That At that point they will want to start WW3 with the US.

maybe that's the way foreign leaders think. I guess that's possible.
I don't know why I have the idea that more factors may come into play than a belief that the US is not as ridiculously strong as it was 6 months 2 years ago.
War is a pretty huge deal and a weak US is like a "weak" grizzly bear.
Seems to me most animals would probably need to be pretty desperate before they decided to attack a "weak" grizzly bear.

It's always seemed to me that sometimes we act like a guy with a house full of weapons, ammo and booby traps getting worried if he finds a few of his guns in the basement have rusted.
Somehow now he thinks he's "weak" and "vulnerable".
seems a bit extreme to me.

I've never really had anyone explain to me the clearly the grave danger.
I just get ignored or call naive for NOT thinking that ANY lessening of our military spending or military strength, anywhere at anytime, puts us in grave danger of imminent attack.

[Kathianne]

Indeed he does address a lot of issues. I'm just not seeing some of his comparisons the same as he. In no specific order:

When we went into WWII, we were a people of one Nation, most having just survived the Great Depression. They were hardasses from the inside out. Now? We're going to need all those 3rd World immigrants who've had to scratch the ground to survive because Americans themselves now are a bunch of weak, pampered crybabies who don't even want to work. The ones that do, want to sit behind a desk 9-5. Whatever can be said for a society that works (or not) with its "brains not brawn", withstanding the hardships of life without end in the field is not a finer attribute.

Political divide being what it is, I'll go out on a limb and say there wasn't a couple of generations raised to hate this country and/or always find fault with us. The former is not that hard to overcome because it still holds the Nation as what brings us together. The latter? Selfish a-holes full of pseudo-critical theory excuses why not.

I don't know, I wasn't there, but the divides both post-WWI and post-early depression were deep. There was no 'feeling sorry' for the rich, indeed communism was on the rise, which previously had been limited to just the elite in universities. Wanting to stay here and let Europe eat itself, was still the primary opinion, in spite of FDR. It too Pearl Harbor. . .


When we entered WWII, industry already had a jump start with lend lease. FYI: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/lend-lease-act#:~:text=Passed%20on%20March%2011%2C%201941,def ense%20of%20the%20United%20States.%22

All of the weapons we ultimately won with were designed and production begun, even if on a limited basis, mid-late 30s. Most of what we had on hand Dec 7th was obsolete and from a military perspective not as much a loss as propaganda made out.

Currently, the left began dismantling our industry in the 70s. An aside: ironic that the left is also the biggest supporter of labor unions whose industries it has destroyed yet the Dems drone right up and vote. What auto, coal, steel and oil industries do we have to switch to manufacturing the necessities of war?

I share your concerns of the past 2 paragraphs. With that said, I also agree to a degree with the author on the 'potential' of US, though seriously have doubts about the left joining with most on turning the potential into reality. I see the extreme left much like the extreme Nazis in and after WWII, they truly want the destruction of the country in favor of their coming rule.


We don't have to start from a standstill. We have to start by dismantling everything the left has put in place to dismantle the industry we need before we can get even there. We have the long-term capability. We don't have the intermediate logistics to get us there. Any fighting going on right now will be more or less with what we have on hand right now.

I think we're both in agreement that will not happen, IF it is to ever happen, it would only be under extreme duress, just like WWII. We learn nothing from history, though the current generation has an excuse, they were never taught any history of US.


Being the aggressor, a lot of this rides on that flake, Pooh. In this regard, he's Asia's Trump. Can't get ahead because he's too busy stumbling over his own ego. I can see Pooh doing just what the author states the Japanese did: Fight a war he knows he's going to lose rather than accept playing second fiddle. Pooh is having a hard time sticking to the plan of patiently defeating us from within by our own hand.

Recently I mentioned that Pooh is getting way more mileage out of threatening Taiwan than he ever will trying to take it. Unless someone knows something I don't, China does not have the military capability to invade and occupy Taiwan AND take on the US, Japan, Australia (which everybody knows means the UK will be right along). That includes calculating the two Koreas cancelling one another.

As always, my military knowledge is academic at best, never was my area of expertise at that. Logic though, I usually have. What you say above resonates totally. Then there is their spending even more than admitted on holding down Hong Kong, defending N. Korea, and building their islands. They are actually making our spending spree look stingy.


Indigenous Taiwanese are not going to just roll over for this fluffball. The aboriginal Taiwanese are quite fierce and proud, even if smaller in scale :)

China has neither a self-sustaining economy nor industry. Not to mention the first act of war should have the US refuse to pay its debt to China. China cannot, at this point in time, win. Especially since despite his delusion, the Western World and most of the rest of the Eastern World doesn't trust Pooh worth a damn.

The models I have seen show the US winning, despite the aforementioned, but the price would be our World-wide capability. Our diminished presence may or may not embolden other bad actors to act. First country named is an unchecked Iran.

Lot of what if's. I'd prefer to not find out since that would take a war. On the other hand, we need to shut this a-hole down now, while we can.

[Gunny]

I don't know, I wasn't there, but the divides both post-WWI and post-early depression were deep. There was no 'feeling sorry' for the rich, indeed communism was on the rise, which previously had been limited to just the elite in universities. Wanting to stay here and let Europe eat itself, was still the primary opinion, in spite of FDR. It too Pearl Harbor. . . I share your concerns of the past 2 paragraphs. With that said, I also agree to a degree with the author on the 'potential' of US, though seriously have doubts about the left joining with most on turning the potential into reality. I see the extreme left much like the extreme Nazis in and after WWII, they truly want the destruction of the country in favor of their coming rule. I think we're both in agreement that will not happen, IF it is to ever happen, it would only be under extreme duress, just like WWII. We learn nothing from history, though the current generation has an excuse, they were never taught any history of US. As always, my military knowledge is academic at best, never was my area of expertise at that. Logic though, I usually have. What you say above resonates totally. Then there is their spending even more than admitted on holding down Hong Kong, defending N. Korea, and building their islands. They are actually making our spending spree look stingy.I can't really find anything to argue about. From an overall perspective, the differences of opinions between the author, you and me are minor and in a real World scenario where they might matter, easily workable.

It always comes back to history/lesson learned and there being nothing new under the sun. The jockeying for land that s currently Ukraine. Been going on for over a thousand years. China, in its various guises, trying to rule the World. Thousands of years. Impatient, greedy landgrabs. And always a coalition of "Western countries" waiting until the 11th hour to put a stop to the crap and 100 times the cost of just slamming the door up front.

People doing the same stupid, destructive crap expecting a different result. In the 30s we were dealing with the egos of Hitler, Mussolini and Togo on one side, and FDR and Churchill on the other. Now it's NATO dealing with the egos of Pooh, Putin, Khomeini and Un. They want it all now. Been the undoing of many a Nation/army since the Persians. Even the Mongols ran into a brick wall in Central Europe. They overextend and by then we can react.

And millions die and timeless/priceless pieces of history are destroyed. For what? Idiots who want to be famous :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Public info on strength of USA vs China


https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=united-states-of-america&country2=china

....

I'm not sure how others think on this issue.
I get the impression that some folks beleive that if China or Russia thinks the US is "weak" by some standard.
That At that point they will want to start WW3 with the US.

maybe that's the way foreign leaders think. I guess that's possible.
I don't know why I have the idea that more factors may come into play than a belief that the US is not as ridiculously strong as it was 6 months 2 years ago.
War is a pretty huge deal and a weak US is like a "weak" grizzly bear.
Seems to me most animals would probably need to be pretty desperate before they decided to attack a "weak" grizzly bear.

It's always seemed to me that sometimes we act like a guy with a house full of weapons, ammo and booby traps getting worried if he finds a few of his guns in the basement have rusted.
Somehow now he thinks he's "weak" and "vulnerable".
seems a bit extreme to me.

I've never really had anyone explain to me the clearly the grave danger.
I just get ignored or call naive for NOT thinking that ANY lessening of our military spending or military strength, anywhere at anytime, puts us in grave danger of imminent attack.
revelarts Didn't miss this.

The best defense is an overwhelmingly superior, unquestionable offense. When considering attacking the the US, the question isn't if we can or will respond, it's how badly we are going to blow your ass up. Currently, military attack on the US is not on anyone's table as any kind of option other than suicide. Which means it's probably still on Iran's or N Korea's tables because they're just that stupid.

Which is the perfect segue into: We don't control the thinking nor the behavior of these bad actors throughout the World by any other means than threat of brute force. Whether or not you, I, or anyone else likes it, these people exist and are a threat to not only whatever some wish to call "democracy", but the existence of Mankind. Pretending they aren't there doesn't make them go away for even a nanosecond.

Just an observation/opinion: No offense, but you "don't get why" because you don't want to. You not only don't see the forest for the trees, but you are usually looking for trees that aren't there. You have a real hard time differentiating between how you, in your opinion (not necessarily anyone else's), want things to be and how they actually are.

I hate violence. It does nothing but destroy. Unfortunately, more people than not see it as a means to an end and not stopping those people only emboldens and enables them to continue.

I can think of lots of ways I'd rather see money spent than just about anything the US government spends it on. In my perfect World. Where only I and my imaginary friends live :) In the real World? You have to deal with the real people in it, and that is where we live.

[revelarts]

@revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760) Didn't miss this.

The best defense is an overwhelmingly superior, unquestionable offense. When considering attacking the the US, the question isn't if we can or will respond, it's how badly we are going to blow your ass up. Currently, military attack on the US is not on anyone's table as any kind of option other than suicide. Which means it's probably still on Iran's or N Korea's tables because they're just that stupid.

Which is the perfect segue into: We don't control the thinking nor the behavior of these bad actors throughout the World by any other means than threat of brute force. Whether or not you, I, or anyone else likes it, these people exist and are a threat to not only whatever some wish to call "democracy", but the existence of Mankind. Pretending they aren't there doesn't make them go away for even a nanosecond.

Just an observation/opinion: No offense, but you "don't get why" because you don't want to. You not only don't see the forest for the trees, but you are usually looking for trees that aren't there. You have a real hard time differentiating between how you, in your opinion (not necessarily anyone else's), want things to be and how they actually are.

I hate violence. It does nothing but destroy. Unfortunately, more people than not see it as a means to an end and not stopping those people only emboldens and enables them to continue.

I can think of lots of ways I'd rather see money spent than just about anything the US government spends it on. In my perfect World. Where only I and my imaginary friends live :) In the real World? You have to deal with the real people in it, and that is where we live.

So bottom line, there are bad people in the world and we can't control how they think.
So we try to control how they think by spending as much money as possible on our war machine. And spreading our troops all over the globe.
So potential enemies will be afraid... but some are not smart enough to be afraid.
So we should live in fear and stack more and more weapons and never lessen our defense anywhere at anytime because bad people are unpredictable and we can't have too much defense.

Ok

But i guess for me, Forest and Trees .
I still see it as Overkill, and money better spent elsewhere.
Seems to me there should be SOME point where we can say, 'we have enough, we are enough to deal with the unpredictable bad people'.

BTW can someone tell me how many countries China has attacked or invaded or "liberated" in the past 40-50 years?
(how many have we?)
Russia is another story, but After Reagan & the fall of the USSR I kinda stopped worrying about Russia attacking the US to rule the world.
Maybe that's pollyanna, but seems to me that Russia is FAR weaker than the former USSR.

I have to say, What i hear you folks saying is that there is NO LIMIT on the amount of defense needed to attempt to protect the nation from unpredictable but admittedly weaker world players.

If I'm wrong, & you do think there is a limit please let me know.
2 times stronger 3, 4, 5, 10 times and more prepared to defeat the combo of the most powerful?
Even at 10 times there would be a limit based on comparison. At what point are we relatively "safe" or "secure" in the real world?
Especially since we can't control what they think anyway, how much stronger we are isn't the main factor in their decision.
right? or no?