China: An Itch That Will Get Scratched - One Way or Another

[Sensei]

We have just begun a trade war with China. Granted it is a small trade war at this point, but the potential for greatness is there. Personally, I think this has bean a long time coming and was accelerated after the fall of the Soviet Union. Moreover, I think that it is inevitable that some bombs are going to be dropped and some people will need to die before anything gets better. China has been pouring a ton of cash building up its military in a manner designed specifically to counter the US and positioning itself to dominate the entire Pacific. Hell, they redrew their official maps to include Hawaii as part of their own territory - eerily similar to 1930s Japan.

Unfortunately, I foresee America half-assing this one too with a prolonged economic / military affair fought around the edges. We would want the Apple Store foot traffic to drop off now would we.

[GardoneVT]

We wouldn’t want the Apple Store foot traffic to drop off now would we.

Thankfully for families in both nations,neither does China.

[RevolverRob]

What we really don't want in terms of a shooting war with China is the impact it will have on Chinese-American citizens, who contribute a not insignificant portion of urban populations in some places.

I hope we can avoid a shooting war.

[Nephrology]

Are the odds of direct military conflict with China really that high? MAD seems to have kept a lid on direct conflict between nuclear powers for almost ~70 years... not sure why that would change now. Proxy conflict seems a lot more likely,

[LockedBreech]

Both China and the U.S. care about their economic gains way too much to jeopardize them with any actual violence.*

The U.S. wants the massive amount of cheap products the Chinese market produces, and if China loses our business massive sectors of their economy darken, which in a country that populous is a recipe for severe civil unrest. China is already pretty culturally unstable, they have staggering cultural differences region to region that are held in check by their prosperity (seriously, it makes the difference between New York liberals and deep south conservatives look minor). If that prosperity drops, so does that cohesion.

I think we are a long way off from any serious military conflict. I can see some incidents in the South China Sea, but the U.S. and China are both run first and foremost by businessmen. War costs too much in profit on both sides, even with the gains from wartime material production.

*Edit: Large-scale, I can see brushfire/proxy stuff if this goes on long enough.

[txdpd]

For more than a decade Chinese sponsored state hacking and the theft of intellectual property has drained trillions of dollars out of the US economy.

We've been in a trade war for some time, this is first time we've stood up for ourselves.

[Chance]

I don't see any large-scale military conflict in the works. Proxy skirmishes are already out there if you look close enough, but that's really not all that remarkable between countries of our size and reach.

[RevolverRob]

Are the odds of direct military conflict with China really that high? MAD seems to have kept a lid on direct conflict between nuclear powers for almost ~70 years... not sure why that would change now. Proxy conflict seems a lot more likely,


I don't see any large-scale military conflict in the works. Proxy skirmishes are already out there if you look close enough, but that's really not all that remarkable between countries of our size and reach.

Exactly. We've been in proxy wars with Communist China since 1951.

We were actors and Communist China were actors in - Chinese Civil War, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Malayan Emergency, ongoing war in Myanmar/Burma, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars)

The last time the United States and China were truly allied with one another was during the Sino-Japanese conflicts preceding and during WW2. After that and in particular after the rise of communism in China, we've been at odds with one another in nearly all cases (limited exceptions, for instance, Chinese and Americans both supported and trained the Mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion of A-Stan).

[Sensei]

Are the odds of direct military conflict with China really that high? MAD seems to have kept a lid on direct conflict between nuclear powers for almost ~70 years... not sure why that would change now. Proxy conflict seems a lot more likely,

I’d say that the chances of an armed conflict between China and the US or one of our allies in the next 20 years is actually quite high. China’s provocations toward countries like Japan and Australia is no joke. Imagine if Mexico had weaponized man-made islands in the Gulf and declared the entire Gulf of Mexico it’s soverign territory. Or, imagine if Russia declared the 1867 treaty with the US invalid and that Alaska belonged to them.

My point is that China’s actions over the past few years demonstrate an intention to take WTF they want until someone stops them. They are a criminal state willing to steal, intimidate, and bully. Personally, I can think of only one good way to stop bullies...

[NH Shooter]

But yet we (the American people) keep buying their shit - even when there are American-made alternatives available. That makes us part of the problem...

[hufnagel]

What we really don't want in terms of a shooting war with China is the impact it will have on Chinese-American citizens, who contribute a not insignificant portion of urban populations in some places.

I hope we can avoid a shooting war.

hyphens have no place in citizenship.

[hufnagel]

I’d say that the chances of an armed conflict between China and the US or one of our allies in the next 20 years is actually quite high. China’s provocations toward countries like Japan and Australia is no joke. Imagine if Mexico had weaponized man-made islands in the Gulf and declared the entire Gulf of Mexico it’s soverign territory. Or, imagine if Russia declared the 1867 treaty with the US invalid and that Alaska belonged to them.

My point is that China’s actions over the past few years demonstrate an intention to take WTF they want until someone stops them. They are a criminal state willing to steal, intimidate, and bully. Personally, I can think of only one good way to stop bullies...

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1824/7693/products/18592-A-Black-Heather_1600x.jpg?v=1521434783

[VT1032]

I don't see it happening. If there was a war, it would be a largely naval war and would be over pretty quick. If you compare the sheer numbers, equipment and training, it's no contest. If it were a ground war in say, North Korea, I'd say they would have a better shot, but at best might pull off a Korean armistice 2.0, not an actual victory. This is looking at things from a purely military perspective. Economically, the way I see it, we need their trinkets a lot less than they need our cash.

[LockedBreech]

For more than a decade Chinese sponsored state hacking and the theft of intellectual property has drained trillions of dollars out of the US economy.

We've been in a trade war for some time, this is first time we've stood up for ourselves.

While I’m not a big trump guy, I agree with this. I remember being infuriated about hacks of stuff like the F-35 project data and seeing absolutely no retaliation for it. China is overdue for some pressure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stephanie B]

Wars, trade or otherwise, have a nasty habit of spinning out of control. History is replete with national leaders who thought that the war they envisioned would be quick and easy, but turned out to be neither.

You can bet the farm that European leaders, in 1914, scarcely envisioned that they were starting a war that would be fought in two stages, over 30 years, would end in the destruction of all of their empires, ravage the continent and cost over 100 million lives.

Hell, we’re in a war, now, that some people thought would be over in 2002.

[TGS]

I don't see China wanting to get into a shooting war with us. Like VT1032 mentioned, they need our cash. Our economy is too valuable to them.

In addition, while China has thrown us some loops and has been making headway in several military aspects, their overall buildup is clearly aimed at muscling less capable countries. Their Navy is essentially being built out as a (mostly) green-water Navy for trade-routes...technically a blue-water Navy, but the force projection against a peer isn't there. They have aircraft carriers, but they're not what we think of when you think of an American aircraft carrier. It's more like an open ocean barge for helicopters and a few precious jets......it doesn't even class as an amphibious assault carrier like our MEUs cruise the world in looking for fights.

Remember that a single US aircraft carrier counts as equivalent to the worlds 7th most powerful air force. A single aircraft carrier under any other country doesn't even mount a full squadron of fighter jets.

The diplomatic war is already well underway in most of Africa between the US and China competing for influence in resource-rich regions. So whatever feelings you have about not wanting Chinese superiority to go unchecked, keep that in mind the next time you get pissy about why we are aiding/funding a country who isn't 100% inline with your WASP values.

[OlongJohnson]

Imagine the shelves of every Walmart nearly empty.

On the other hand, imagine canceling the Treasury bonds held by the Chinese government (because full faith and credit doesn't apply when there's a shooting war on).

I don't know what the cause or effects of either of these would be, but it would seem they are both within the realm of at least hypothetical possibility if they have a war and the US and China go.

[Paul D]

I would worry about my home country Vietnam. It is the king of proxy wars and foreign invasion: France, Japan, the US. China has been bossing them around as of late especially in regards to the oil field and islands off its coast. I know for certain that the average Vietnamese HATE the Chinese. I can totally image them planting oil rigs off the coast of northern Vietnam a la Russia/Crimea. They're gonna say: "Okay Japan, Australia, Taiwan...whatcha gonna do about it?" I can hear my distant cousin in old Saigon screaming" America #1! China #10!.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I can't say I'm specifically a fan of the current US administration but I think it is better suited than others in recent memory to dealing with China.

One major advantage (among many, obviously) that the US has is the degree of capital flight from China. If you've got enough money to get your money out, you get out. We really notice this here where I live because we're the world capital of Chinese money laundering; if I could somehow tally up just the Maseratis I have seen being driven by 17 year olds from Shanghai, that would probably be greater than the total number of high end luxury cars I have seen being driven by non-Chinese citizens in my entire life, anywhere.

Anyway this leads me to guess two things: one, the Chinese state is way more fragile than people realize; I suspect it's a house of cards that will collapse when you shake the base, and two, it's a much greater threat than most westerners realize, because Chinese industry has bought its way into US allies in a way most people don't understand. I would, in fact, argue that the Five Eyes is seriously compromised not only through NZ but also, in particularly under the current Canadian administration, via Canada as well. Intelligence sharing with allies should probably be tightened up but I suspect that's happening.

You (and the Western world in general) literally need a bull in a china shop, and that's what you got, so...good, I guess. I don't expect things to go smoothly but I do expect them to tilt in a favourable direction. I would expect ongoing, and increasing, proxy wars in Africa and South America, plus of course the middle east will continue to be an outlet for Asia into the west.

Thankfully I'm sure the Russians are equally or more concerned with Chinese development and will presumably also work against Chinese interests where it suits them. They seem to have a greater ongoing commitment to the global chess game than Westerners, I think because they are still fighting their way into the VIP room instead of relaxing inside with a drink.

[MistWolf]

History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen.
-Enoch Powell

[P30]

History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen.
-Enoch Powell
My point of view:

A war in the usual sense between US and CN will not happen because of the mutual assured destruction (nuclear triad). At least until the most mighty people in these countries become even more insane and want the destruction of most of "their" people. And by "most mighty people", I don't mean your President Trump primarily. I think more of some billionaire dynasties in the background (CFR and Trilateral Commission are also very supect to me). The persons who pushed Hillary Clinton for president. It's questionable that the US are still a real democracy, because 3 persons own more than the poorest half (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-warren-buffett-wealthier-than-poorest-half-of-us) of the country.

A war in an unusual sense could happen (e.g. cyber war).

Wars don't just happen. They are made. Made by greedy people who think they take advantage from it. It starts with propaganda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques) against their own people in order to produce hatred against the other people (cf. three poisons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons)).

[Stephanie B]

We’ve already surrendered a lot of influence in the world because, in part, of the people in this country who start screaming blue bloody murder every time the topic of foreign aid comes up. The Chinese are doing a fair number of development projects in Africa, and what are we doing (other than flying drones everywhere and bombing the shit out of people)? Not very much.

Hunter Thompson wrote, in Fear and Loathing On the Campaign Trail ‘72:
This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it—that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable . . . Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President? A lot lower than Dr. Thompson envisioned, it seems. One of the few things that I may have learned in my life is that nobody respects a bully. They fear a bully, they will do anything to stay out of the bully’s path, but should that bully fall from power, he will then be on his own.

The generation of Europeans and Asians who believe that they owe a debt of honor to us for not only liberating them from the Germans, but for helping to rebuild their countries after the war was over are dying out. We had been burning though our reserves of good will before Trump set them on fire. Should a war come, few countries will come to our aid because they are our friends.

[Hambo]

If only Thompson could have seen this coming he might have held on. There's so much more to write about now than the Nixon years.

[GardoneVT]

I have to laugh sometimes. At any given time the US military is fighting multiple organizations, most of which is done with professional obscurity. Not every serviceman writes a memoir which is then turned into a Michael Bay movie, after all. In order for most of this nation to believe we are at peace, that peace is secured through wars and conflicts fought elsewhere- thankfully out of ear and eyeshot of the public eye.

And now I see suggestions for more war and chaos. It’s almost like people think the DoD will turn into a pillar of salt if we aren’t fighting someone on CNN .

[Grey]

There is already a proxy war in SE Asia. The only problem is that China is winning because all we do is float ships around rather than blowing up their shit on the Spratlys.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[fixer]

Not too excited about this personally. I think one side or the other will cave long before it comes to arms.

However, I am wondering when we see the first hot war over hacking...

[Grey]

Not too excited about this personally. I think one side or the other will cave long before it comes to arms.

However, I am wondering when we see the first hot war over hacking...Hot war over hacking? I don't think it will happen unless one side takes out critical infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[5pins]

Unfortunately, a good economy is no grantee to peace. The European economy was doing very well in 1914 but WWI still happened.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/01/what-world-war-i-can-tell-us-about-international-commerce-and-war-today/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.21ae1675200e



World War I has been called the “Achilles Heel” of such theories (economic interdependence). In the decades before the war, Europe experienced unprecedented growth in international economic interdependence, both through trade and capital flows. Yet war not only broke out, but the scale of its destruction was unprecedented.

[Tabasco]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped ensured that no one really imagines a nuclear exchange between superpowers is a good idea. However, we transitioned from a unipolar to a multipolar world, where China and Russia are chomping at the bit to carve out their spheres of power and influence. Historically, these situations lead to lots of wars no one thought would happen. Think of the mindset of Europe (excluding Germany) and the US in the 1930's. With bitter memories of the trenches of WWI, the thought of worldwide all out war was unimaginable. Herr Hitler, while eccentric and kind of scary, was still reasonable and could be bargained with. Until he wasn't and invaded Poland. The Japanese? Well, most westerners thought them subhuman, and incapable of really challenging us militarily. Attack on Pearl Harbor? Impossible until it happened. Logically, both Germany and Japan's attacks on the west were illogical on many levels, yet they happened none the less. Logic doesn't always rule, and it looks to me like it's taking a back seat to passion at the moment on many levels.

My guess is that conflict will take the form of an attack on critical infrastructure via cyber weapons, with some military engagements, but no "The Day After" scenario. The US has built it's digital infrastructure on a shaky foundation and there will be a price to pay in the near future. Hopefully we will come out of this with lots of lessons learned and a robust digital infrastructure. Either that or the Amish will have to bail us out.

None of the combatants will come out of this unscathed.

That's my prediction, and it's worth what you paid for it. ;)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My take. China used to have hegemony over neighboring countries. They pretty much rules themselves internally but had to acknowledge China as the Throne of Heaven. That fell apart in the 1800's for Chinese internal reasons and the aggression of the Western Powers. Now, they want to re-establish that hegemony.

Can we fight that (economically or militarily) and do we want to? We had fits with Cuba and the Russians, we had the Monroe doctrine. We invaded the Central American countries quite a bit. We established our zone of control. If Chinese TU-16 clones and carrier fleets (on the way) started happily tootling at 13 miles off San Diego, we would have fits. However, we do that to them all the time.


What is the end goal of a war with them? We cannot go for unconditional surrender. The best would be a tie. We have 11 carriers - how many in action at a time? How long to replace one of those behemoths? The Chinese are building significant area denial weaponry and ships in the areas we would fight. I'm told that a lucky submarine shot or missile barrage and bye bye to a major, irreplaceable asset in real time.

I cannot see a conventional war having any utility against the march of history. Sorry not to beat the war drum but when I took military history, the prof stressed the strategic goal and is it doable?

Some say that our navy can beat theirs as they have little experience. If you take the long look - the Japanese went from feudal to naval superpower pretty quickly.

I'm for the jaw, jaw over war, war for the Spratly Islands. Let Japan build up for real - real carriers and a larger airforce, nukes if necessary.

[Grey]

You do not want to allow China to gain unilateral economic, political, and military dominance over SE Asia.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How to stop it? Blowing up the Spratly Islands? I'm serious as they march to real superpower status - what is a viable solution to their hegemony? I doubt they want to invade anything except Taiwan. So if the surrounding countries return to vassal status as in days of yore, is that a cause for war we cannot win? Could a war bring regime change so they all become American style capitalist yuppies? Doubt it.

We have 11 carriers. They have three in the immediate future. How many can we deploy on a long term full out war status near their coast? Given you face quite a lot of missile and sub resources? Can we replace shot down fighters in real time? NO. Can a WWII mobilization and construction program be done with the complexity of modern weapons - probably not.

And for what cost?

I know this sounds a little like Chamberlain at Munich but I'd like a game plan for war.

[Joe in PNG]

China's aid program really isn't getting them any friends in the third world. There's a whole lot of resentment on a grass roots level.
Some is based on PRC owned and staffed stores selling cheaply made goods at (relatively) exorbitant prices, which have crap longevity. No refunds!
Some is based on the use of overt bribery to buy resources for pennies on the dollar, little which gets back to the landowners.
Then there's the thing where Chinese overseas contractors import Chinese labor, while going back on agreements to hire national workers. And those who are hired are usually treated like crap.
I can go on.

[RevolverRob]

If China thought they could puppet-state control SE Asia, I'm sure they would try. As it is, the chances of them controlling any significant portions of it outside of Taiwan are pretty limited. But they are limited, precisely, because American support of Japan, S. Korea, and the Philippines. We really only need to lose control of the Philippines to get this party started in earnest.

But though China is large and powerful, their ability to influence regions surrounding them is limited. Why? Islam. Radical Islam, in particular, is as much a threat to China as it is anywhere. It's not just American or Russian interests that China is fighting against, it's the interests of Islamic groups that seek to control larger portions of southeast Asia. China only needs to get it a little wrong and they'll be dealing with terror bombings in Beijing and that may well be what shakes the tenuous cultural ties of modern China apart.

[Ed L]

How to stop it? Blowing up the Spratly Islands? I'm serious as they march to real superpower status - what is a viable solution to their hegemony? I doubt they want to invade anything except Taiwan. So if the surrounding countries return to vassal status as in days of yore, is that a cause for war we cannot win? Could a war bring regime change so they all become American style capitalist yuppies? Doubt it.

We have 11 carriers. They have three in the immediate future. How many can we deploy on a long term full out war status near their coast? Given you face quite a lot of missile and sub resources? Can we replace shot down fighters in real time? NO. Can a WWII mobilization and construction program be done with the complexity of modern weapons - probably not.

And for what cost?

I know this sounds a little like Chamberlain at Munich but I'd like a game plan for war.

I don't see us prevailing against them in the South China sea. They have bought and developed some very good anti-ship missiles, and I have serious questions as to whether our ships air defense systems are sufficient to stop them. These anti-ship missiles are shore-based, ship launched and air launched, and if we tried to take China on in the South China sea they would swarm us and overwhelm our ship's defenses.

Someone on the other page said something about wars beginning by miscalculation and and escalation and illogical thinking. That is exactly what could happen here.

[Sensei]

How to stop it? Blowing up the Spratly Islands? I'm serious as they march to real superpower status - what is a viable solution to their hegemony? I doubt they want to invade anything except Taiwan. So if the surrounding countries return to vassal status as in days of yore, is that a cause for war we cannot win? Could a war bring regime change so they all become American style capitalist yuppies? Doubt it.

We have 11 carriers. They have three in the immediate future. How many can we deploy on a long term full out war status near their coast? Given you face quite a lot of missile and sub resources? Can we replace shot down fighters in real time? NO. Can a WWII mobilization and construction program be done with the complexity of modern weapons - probably not.

And for what cost?

I know this sounds a little like Chamberlain at Munich but I'd like a game plan for war.

The least painful way to check China is economic. Don’t get me wrong, an expanded trade war or even sanctions in the distant future will be exceedingly painful for the US and may result in a deep depression. However, I’d much rather begin a gradual economic withdrawal from China that implodes their economy over the next 20 years rather than continue down our current trajectory. Keep in mind that we are talking about a country that has re-written its maps to lay claim to our territory and 70% of Chinese see their country as surpassing America as the world’s superpower.

[Stephanie B]

The least painful way to check China is economic. Don’t get me wrong, an expanded trade war or even sanctions in the distant future will be exceedingly painful for the US and may result in a deep depression. However, I’d much rather begin a gradual economic withdrawal from China that implodes their economy over the next 20 years rather than continue down our current trajectory. Keep in mind that we are talking about a country that has re-written its maps to lay claim to our territory and 70% of Chinese see their country as surpassing America as the world’s superpower.
A deep depression is nothing to wish for.

(What follows is not in response to your post.)

War has a lot of unknowns. Nobody has fought a large-scale war at sea for over 70 years. We don't really know how that may possibly go. China has a large military, but so far as I know, they've been used more for internal security for decades. Their last significant combat operation was slaughtering protesters by the thousands in 1989 (an action that our current president seems to have approved of). Their army didn't perform very well against Vietnam when China attacked them.

We may have a better feel for how our own weapons will work, as we've at least used the land-attack ones to blow shit up. How they'll work in a very hostile EW environment is sill unknown. Our ground forces have combat experience, but against enemies largely armed with rifles and IEDs. How will both sides' ASUW weapons work-- nobody knows. Neither side has had significant air-to-air fighting time in decades.

War may happen and I'm confident that there are intel types and planners working on it. I'm less confident that the exercises, whether "table-top" or live, are of much value. They have a tendency to have the rules massaged so Team Blue always prevails.

Back in the day, the Navy did a simulated exercise which was set in the western Pacific. The players on both teams were given the sort of information about the other that the people running the game thought that they might have for real. On the opening of the game, Team Red sank four of Team Blue's carriers. The folks running the game said 'whoa", stopped the game and tweaked the rules. The folks playing for Team Red were a little bit pissed off at that (I knew a couple of them).

[Wondering Beard]

China's currency depreciation should set off alarm bells (http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/396050-chinas-currency-depreciation-should-set-off-alarm-bells)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As long as money can be made by our economic elites trading with China, we won't engage in significant, regime changing economic warfare with China. Despite the tariff kerfuffle now, we love having our stuff made there and the degradation of our industrial capacity if it increases profits for the monied classes in the USA.

As far as an easy battle, here's another piece on our interdependence and inability to sustain a long conflict without a major redirection and rebuidling of our industries: https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/07/09/rebuild-the-us-minerals-supply-chain-before-its-too-late/

Aviation Week had a piece on how we frittered away our hypersonic capabilities while China, Russia and India went forward with developing them. Our farting around in Afghanistan and Iraq diverted longer range thought as a goal for the military.

[-ad-]

I don't have enough knowledge on the situation to form an opinion in whether or not I think that there will be a conventional war including China.

What I have observed though suggests that China has an opinion that they will be involved in a conventional war in the Pacific in the near future. Their "investments" in Fiji and Vanuatu (especially the upgrading of the wharf at Espirito Santo which the US Navy used in WW2) is something I don't take lightly - and that China appear to be preparing for a conventional war.

My question is - Would America risk getting involved in a nuclear exchange to defend other countries such as Fiji, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Australia, etc? If not - I can see China enlarging it's territory significantly. If they get some of the resources in those areas - a trade sanction may not hurt them as much as suspected, and frankly they may not care about taking on the USA then - there may be no need.

Sadly - I also suspect that if a full scale conventional war was to take place - we don't have enough real gutsy men and women like we used to earlier last century - but have a lot of OH&S nannied people that wouldn't go to war as they might risk breaking one of their nails. And I think China knows this too...

[MGW]

The word is China is gaining a lot of influence in Southwest Asia. That is a problem.

[OlongJohnson]

Aviation Week had a piece on how we frittered away our hypersonic capabilities while China, Russia and India went forward with developing them. Our farting around in Afghanistan and Iraq diverted longer range thought as a goal for the military.

Afghanistan: The Graveyard of Empires

[willie]

Isn't our military in sad shape with depleted equipment and over deployed troops? Do we have ample war planes and pilots? Are we still depending on reserve and Nat'l Guard deployments to supply numbers to the different services? Aren't we still at war? These questions aside, I doubt whether or not the American people or Congress or our allies would support us in hostile endeavors against China. And I assert that this statement is even more accurate when Trump's erratic behavior and diplomacy failures are considered.

[Drang]

The word is China is gaining a lot of influence in Southwest Asia. That is a problem.

Gaining influence... like a loan shark...
The Strategy Page: Philippines: Illusions And Delusions (https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/phillip/articles/20180709.aspx)

July 9, 2018: Filipinos are alarmed at the recent Chinese takeover of a major new port facility Chinese loans had financed in Sri Lanka. As many finance experts warned, Sri Lanka could not meet the payments on the loan and defaulted. Chinese firms took controlling interest of the port. Filipinos fear China has the same scam in mind for them. For example, earlier in 2018 a Chinese credit rating agency gave the Philippines an excellent (AAA) rating. This got different reactions in the Philippines. Some saw it as an accurate assessment of how things were going. The rating agency noted that tax and other reforms were underway and that GDP growth was expected to stay strong (at 6.8 percent) even though the Filipino government was seeking something between seven and eight percent. This upbeat assessment made it possible for China to approve large new loans to the Philippines. That made a lot of Filipinos uneasy. That’s because China is increasingly using its large foreign investments as weapons. Case in point is the tactic of loaning poor countries large amounts of money for huge development projects (like ports, roads and railroads). The loans are on terms that look attractive but eventually must be repaid by governments that find themselves unable to do so. When the debtor nation runs into trouble making payments China offers to reduce the load in return for control (if not majority ownership) of the ports, railroad, airport or whatever. With control of these facilities China can probably run them more efficiently, and profitably. But control means it is easier for China to use the facility for military or espionage purposes. This is called DTD (Debt Trap Diplomacy) and has been a favorite Chinese tactic for over a thousand years by virtue of China having been, until a few centuries ago, the wealthiest empire on the planet. Nations currently vulnerable (they have large Chinese debts) to DTD are Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, Pakistan, Venezuela and Tajikistan. Most nations are aware of the DTD trap but where there is a lot of corruption China can create a DTD situation anyway. Some of these DTD efforts go bad and cost China a lot of money, but on average DTD is a net gain for China as it acquires military, economic and diplomatic advantages without having to fight.

DTD is not the only Chinese tactic Filipinos are wary of. China has been protesting American naval FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) operations near Scarborough Shoal as China now considers this area part of China and since 2012 has posted warships (coastguard or navy) to enforce their claim. Yet China recently told the Philippines that China considers itself exercising joint control over the shoal with the Philippines. The Filipino government (or at least some diplomats) openly agree with that but most Filipinos don’t. In 2017 China built an environmental monitoring station on Scarborough Shoal, which is 220 kilometers from one of the main Filipino islands (Palawan) and 650 kilometers from Chinese territory (Hainan Island) and according to international law (and a recent international court decision) is Filipino. The Chinese say they have prior claim to most of the South China Sea and basically dares the rest of the world to try and stop them. This makes sense to most Chinese because the Chinese have long called China Zhongguo, which is usually translated into English as “middle kingdom”. But a more literal and accurate translation is “everything under the heavens.” Until the 21st century, this mainly meant adjacent land areas. But now China points out that “everything” means the South China Sea as well. Chinese media report these FONOPs as a violation of international law and most now trigger a response by Chinese warships or warplanes. In reality, China rarely opposes the American (or Australian and so on) warships. These exercises are meant to affirm that many of the Chinese claims to the entire South China Sea are invalid and that the right to free passage through China’s EEZ is assured. China rarely mentions “joint control” of Scarborough Shoal with the Philippines but when it does it is an indication that China will allow Filipino fishing boats to continue operating there.

[Joe in PNG]

The tricky bit about a conventional war between China, Russia, or the USA is that MAD is still in effect.
It would be rather difficult to keep a conventional war from turning into a total war, and the total war would become nuclear really quick.

I suspect that Cold War style proxy conflicts are about to come back into vogue, with a fair bit of sabre rattling and brinkmanship.

[Stephanie B]

Sadly - I also suspect that if a full scale conventional war was to take place - we don't have enough real gutsy men and women like we used to earlier last century - but have a lot of OH&S nannied people that wouldn't go to war as they might risk breaking one of their nails. And I think China knows this too...
You don't fight a major war without conscription. I submit that anyone who thinks that a large-scale war can be fought by a volunteer army is on crack.

Before muttering imprecations at today's young adults, one might do well with looking at how the previous generation did when they were called. Off the top of my head, draft-dodgers included John Ashcroft, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Sophisticated draft-dodgers got appointments into the Guard (Dan Quayle, George Bush).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The reason we don't have a draft nowadays, is in part because folks won't tolerate the excuses that were used for the elites to avoid the draft. Also, the issue of gender orientation and identity was a sticking point. One could avoid the draft by declaring oneself to be gay. If you did then, you were told you would be blacklisted from employment in government and other sectors. If such bans continued and given much of society didn't care about your sexuality anymore, you could have had a massive easy out against conscription. After the 'war' was over, you go to your minister or 'therapist' and get converted back to being straight. Amen!

Thus, we went to a volunteer force, mainly of the lower SES folks in the front line. Having a massive draft to preserve the Philippines might not be popular, ya think. The Japanese thought that we didn't have the guts to fight their control of SE Asia. Their mistake was thinking that we would settle after Pearl Harbor. If they didn't attack Pearl Harbor, would we have gone to war with them, if they just attacked SE Asia to get the Indonesian resources? They needed them as we cut off their supplies because of actions in China.

The Philippines were across their lines and thus we got the war. If we didn't take the Philippines from Spain (which was an afterthought of Manila Bay), who knows what would have happened.

In any case, fighting China unless we are truly threatened isn't a good proposition. Our current wars suffer from a lack of strategic clarity of outcome. What else is new?

[OlongJohnson]

Gaining influence... like a loan shark...
The Strategy Page: Philippines: Illusions And Delusions (https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/phillip/articles/20180709.aspx)


July 9, 2018: Filipinos are alarmed at the recent Chinese takeover of a major new port facility Chinese loans had financed in Sri Lanka. As many finance experts warned, Sri Lanka could not meet the payments on the loan and defaulted. Chinese firms took controlling interest of the port. Filipinos fear China has the same scam in mind for them. For example, earlier in 2018 a Chinese credit rating agency gave the Philippines an excellent (AAA) rating. This got different reactions in the Philippines. Some saw it as an accurate assessment of how things were going. The rating agency noted that tax and other reforms were underway and that GDP growth was expected to stay strong (at 6.8 percent) even though the Filipino government was seeking something between seven and eight percent. This upbeat assessment made it possible for China to approve large new loans to the Philippines. That made a lot of Filipinos uneasy. That’s because China is increasingly using its large foreign investments as weapons. Case in point is the tactic of loaning poor countries large amounts of money for huge development projects (like ports, roads and railroads). The loans are on terms that look attractive but eventually must be repaid by governments that find themselves unable to do so. When the debtor nation runs into trouble making payments China offers to reduce the load in return for control (if not majority ownership) of the ports, railroad, airport or whatever. With control of these facilities China can probably run them more efficiently, and profitably. But control means it is easier for China to use the facility for military or espionage purposes. This is called DTD (Debt Trap Diplomacy) and has been a favorite Chinese tactic for over a thousand years by virtue of China having been, until a few centuries ago, the wealthiest empire on the planet. Nations currently vulnerable (they have large Chinese debts) to DTD are Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, Pakistan, Venezuela and Tajikistan. Most nations are aware of the DTD trap but where there is a lot of corruption China can create a DTD situation anyway. Some of these DTD efforts go bad and cost China a lot of money, but on average DTD is a net gain for China as it acquires military, economic and diplomatic advantages without having to fight.

This strategy is exactly what Thomas Jefferson wrote would be the plan, and then actually was used, to take much of what became the United States from the native Americans. I have been saying for several years that it's what worries me most about the future and our national debt. Sooner or later, unless the debtholders collapse totally first and in such a way that their carcasses cannot be picked over to scavenge our debt obligations, I believe that the United States will ultimately be forced to surrender some degree of sovereignty and/or territory to clear that debt.

Corruption? The recipients of debt-fueled government payments today have found a way to funnel the earnings and welfare of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren into our bank accounts today. The politicians who make it so benefit greatly, and the businesses that spend to get them elected benefit even more bigly. So, yeah, there's corruption at work in this country, making a devil's deal with those who will ultimately use DTD against us.

[psalms144.1]

I've been out of the "China Business" for a long while now, but I will only add this:

What you're seeing China do today is based on plans they made 5-20 years ago. They have multiple redundant plans to accomplish their goals, and unlike our wonderful, 2-year election-cycle driven idea of "strategy," they have the political gumption to adhere to it and make it work. If you see ANY softening of China now, it's because an outright conflict with the US doesn't fit their plan wherein by 2050, the US is a bit player in the Chinese dominated world.

[Sensei]

This strategy is exactly what Thomas Jefferson wrote would be the plan, and then actually was used, to take much of what became the United States from the native Americans. I have been saying for several years that it's what worries me most about the future and our national debt. Sooner or later, unless the debtholders collapse totally first and in such a way that their carcasses cannot be picked over to scavenge our debt obligations, I believe that the United States will ultimately be forced to surrender some degree of sovereignty and/or territory to clear that debt.

Corruption? The recipients of debt-fueled government payments today have found a way to funnel the earnings and welfare of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren into our bank accounts today. The politicians who make it so benefit greatly, and the businesses that spend to get them elected benefit even more bigly. So, yeah, there's corruption at work in this country, making a devil's deal with those who will ultimately use DTD against us.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/05/16/chinese-investors-have-spent-300-billion-on-us-property-mbs-rosen-study-finds.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/22/emmanuel-macron-promises-stop-foreign-investors-buying-french/amp/

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-china-business-in-europe/

[Matt O]

I've been out of the "China Business" for a long while now, but I will only add this:

What you're seeing China do today is based on plans they made 5-20 years ago. They have multiple redundant plans to accomplish their goals, and unlike our wonderful, 2-year election-cycle driven idea of "strategy," they have the political gumption to adhere to it and make it work. If you see ANY softening of China now, it's because an outright conflict with the US doesn't fit their plan wherein by 2050, the US is a bit player in the Chinese dominated world.

Yes and no. The CCP has a lot of single-minded strategy attributed to it, in large part because it is extraordinarily difficult to peer behind the curtain. There are and have been quite a few factions within the Chinese government over the past several decades (e.g. Princelings 太子党，tuanpai 团派，etc.), though their allegiances and priorities are hard to discern and shift over time. In addition, Chinese politics since the founding of the PRC have been replete with political purges (either factional or personal), ranging from quiet to demonstrative to fatal. Xi Jinping's rise and assumption of power included its own purges of current and future rivals (e.g. Bo Xilai) which isn't terribly surprising. What is unprecedented is the amount of centralized control he has been able to assume and that is certainly a new wildcard from the Middle Kingdom that bears watching.

[OlongJohnson]

Yeah. The epiphany was when I was at lunch in LA and a small tour bus pulled in to the restaurant. I figured out that it was full of Chinese businessmen on a real estate shopping expedition.

[Nephrology]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/05/16/chinese-investors-have-spent-300-billion-on-us-property-mbs-rosen-study-finds.html



Chinese investment in both US and foreign property markets is really interesting, and something of a pet fascination of mine (as with the real estate market in general). It's generally thought that most of the money flowing out of China and into foreign real estate market is an escape mechanism that wealthy private citizens who are afraid about the stability of the Yuan or confiscation/taxation of liquid or domestic assets by the state.

Vancouver, Canada is considered to be an epicenter of chinese realty investment, and their influence has dramatically and famously warped real estate prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36369108) there for years, with predictable consequences (https://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/vancouver-luxury-property-is-continents-worst-performer). It certainly begs the question to what degree chinese investment is responsible for similar phenomena in SF, Seattle, and so forth...

[JRB]

Isn't our military in sad shape with depleted equipment and over deployed troops? Do we have ample war planes and pilots? Are we still depending on reserve and Nat'l Guard deployments to supply numbers to the different services? Aren't we still at war? These questions aside, I doubt whether or not the American people or Congress or our allies would support us in hostile endeavors against China. And I assert that this statement is even more accurate when Trump's erratic behavior and diplomacy failures are considered.

I'm a miltech at a Army Reserve unit that's overwhelmingly packed with never-deployed younger Soldiers that would jump at the chance to mobilize anywhere, and if given the chance, I'd be proud to go with them.

The over-deployed situation really hasn't existed since ~2012 or so, after the surge.

I can't speak on the situation with China specifically as I'm not as well read on it as I should be - but big Army has definitely been changing up the overall readiness narrative and the training to suit near-peer adversaries as well as keeping up with the old COIN doctrine.
My only fear with such an adversary is that politically minded senior officers will have to fail their Soldiers, painfully and obviously, before more appropriate 'fight and win' thinking and philosophy prevail over the lingering "political correctness and CYA over all else" mindset that plagues brigade & higher level commands.

[Matt O]

Chinese investment in both US and foreign property markets is really interesting, and something of a pet fascination of mine (as with the real estate market in general). It's generally thought that most of the money flowing out of China and into foreign real estate market is an escape mechanism that wealthy private citizens who are afraid about the stability of the Yuan or confiscation/taxation of liquid or domestic assets by the state.

That's my assessment as well. The US is viewed as a comparatively safe and stable place to park money.


Vancouver, Canada is considered to be an epicenter of chinese realty investment, and their influence has dramatically and famously warped real estate prices (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36369108) there for years, with predictable consequences (https://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/vancouver-luxury-property-is-continents-worst-performer). It certainly begs the question to what degree chinese investment is responsible for similar phenomena in SF, Seattle, and so forth...

It's a bit mind boggling to think about people arriving in the US with suitcases of cash to throw down on buying multi-million dollar homes outright, but then again I'm just a regular working joe who sheds a tear as I write my mortgage check every month.

[Sensei]

Trump plans to up the ante with another 10% $200B in new tariffs on Chinese goods according to multiple unnamed sources:

https://www.redstate.com/tladuke/2018/07/10/trump-ups-ante-200-billion-tariffs-china/

Part of me thinks this is just a bluff as it would be a marked escalation in the 25% on $34B already underway. A per dollar Chinese response would sting a little. While I agree that we could “win” a trade war with China (whatever that means), we cannot win trade wars against China and every other country where we face a trade deficit. Trump’s other proposed tariffs against Canada and the EU make me think that we’re in for a rocky ride.

[Nephrology]

It's a bit mind boggling to think about people arriving in the US with suitcases of cash to throw down on buying multi-million dollar homes outright, but then again I'm just a regular working joe who sheds a tear as I write my mortgage check every month.

There are lots of wealthy folks in America who would probably do they same if they weren't relatively happy with where there money is at.


Trump plans to up the ante with another 10% $200B in new tariffs on Chinese goods according to multiple unnamed sources:

https://www.redstate.com/tladuke/2018/07/10/trump-ups-ante-200-billion-tariffs-china/

Part of me thinks this is just a bluff as it would be a marked escalation in the 25% on $34B already underway. A per dollar Chinese response would sting a little. While I agree that we could “win” a trade war with China (whatever that means), we cannot win trade wars against China and every other country where we face a trade deficit. Trump’s other proposed tariffs against Canada and the EU make me think that we’re in for a rocky ride.

I have a lot of fears about what is ahead for the American economy. Personal consumer debt to income rations are the highest they have been since 2008 and publically traded companies are similarly heavily leveraged. Combined with an extremely frothy real estate market fueled by nearly a decade of basically free credit, I am extremely worried about who we are going to found out has "been swimming naked."

Like, Deutsche Bank (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-stresstests/deutsche-bank-fails-fed-stress-test-while-three-u-s-lenders-stumble-idUSKBN1JO33U), zum Beispiel...

[Sensei]

There are lots of wealthy folks in America who would probably do they same if they weren't relatively happy with where there money is at.



I have a lot of fears about what is ahead for the American economy...

I’d say a lot of people in the financial services community have been forecasting a recession in late 2018 / early 2019 regardless of the trade posturing. It goes without saying that after the mid-terms would be preferable.

I don’t have a big problem with Trump kicking China in the nuts - they deserve it. My concerns are of scope and timing. I’m not seeing where hitting Canada and the EU with tariffs is necessary or particularly desirable given the national security pretext. Timing is a concern for me in that we don’t need a big drop in GDP or hiring right before November, and this trade war threatens to produce just that mixture.

[Nephrology]

I’d say a lot of people in the financial services community have been forecasting a recession in late 2018 / early 2019 regardless of the trade posturing. It goes without saying that after the mid-terms would be preferable.

I don’t have a big problem with Trump kicking China in the nuts - they deserve it. My concerns are of scope and timing. I’m not seeing where hitting Canada and the EU with tariffs is necessary or particularly desirable given the national security pretext. Timing is a concern for me in that we don’t need a big drop in GDP or hiring right before November, and this trade war threatens to produce just that mixture.

We'll see. Personally I am actually less worried about the tariffs themselves (though I agree with you, the timing is poor and I particularly don't understand EU steel tariffs); my fear is that they might be a catalyst (one of many possible catalysts) that takes down a highly overleveraged US economy.

For those of you paying attention, subprime loans are back (https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/liquidity-crises-in-the-mortgage-market/), in the form of non-bank originated and serviced mortgages and auto loans. Non-bank lenders have soared from 25-30% of originated mortgages in the bottom of '08 housing bust to 65% of mortgages (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-30/america-s-mortgage-market-is-still-broken) as of March and also make a huge percentage of subprime auto loans, which are currently delinquent at their highest-ever rate (http://www.businessinsider.com/auto-loan-delinquency-rates-worse-now-than-during-the-financial-crisis-2018-4). The problem with these lenders is that they get all of their necessary liqudity from warehouse credit lines extended by the same bankers that got out of the subprime loan industry in 2008: Wells Fargo, BoA, Citi, etc...

My fear with the tariffs is that they are one of many possible catalysts to a disastrous shock to over-leveraged America. We've been high on cheap credit for nearly ten years and at some point we are going to pay the piper.

[GardoneVT]

We'll see. Personally I am actually less worried about the tariffs themselves (though I agree with you, the timing is poor and I particularly don't understand EU steel tariffs); my fear is that they might be a catalyst (one of many possible catalysts) that takes down a highly overleveraged US economy.

For those of you paying attention, subprime loans are back (https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/liquidity-crises-in-the-mortgage-market/), in the form of non-bank originated and serviced mortgages and auto loans. Non-bank lenders have soared from 25-30% of originated mortgages in the bottom of '08 housing bust to 65% of mortgages (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-30/america-s-mortgage-market-is-still-broken) as of March and also make a huge percentage of subprime auto loans, which are currently delinquent at their highest-ever rate (http://www.businessinsider.com/auto-loan-delinquency-rates-worse-now-than-during-the-financial-crisis-2018-4). The problem with these lenders is that they get all of their necessary liqudity from warehouse credit lines extended by the same bankers that got out of the subprime loan industry in 2008: Wells Fargo, BoA, Citi, etc...

My fear with the tariffs is that they are one of many possible catalysts to a disastrous shock to over-leveraged America. We've been high on cheap credit for nearly ten years and at some point we are going to pay the piper.

Sir , please calm down and step away from the panic button.;)

Before poor Nephrology kicks off an internet bank run and thus leaves me indirectly unemployed, a minor word on the subject Yes delinquencies have increased: because quite naturally when car sales increase year over year so do the loans people take out to buy them. Many alarmist clickbait articles cite the higher delinquency rate without providing the context.Even high risk auto loan portfolios are only a fraction of the overall lending market, and so long as money is being lent there will always be defaults.

As far as mortgage originations go, mortgage backed securities traditionally have been (recent history aside ) the safest investment vehicle by far. Unlike stocks or bonds you are buying an income stream attached to real property, not just a piece of valuable paper .
Note also that many “non traditional” banks for mortgages and other products are e-commerce banks which aren’t affiliated with “brick and mortar” firms like Wells Fargo, Chase ,etc.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled banking system conspiracy theorizing.

[TGS]

I thought the market corrected itself back in Feb/March with regards to "free credit".

It certainly affected the interest rate we got for our mortgage about a week or so after the market correction.

[UNK]

A deep depression is nothing to wish for.

(What follows is not in response to your post.)

War has a lot of unknowns. Nobody has fought a large-scale war at sea for over 70 years. We don't really know how that may possibly go. China has a large military, but so far as I know, they've been used more for internal security for decades. Their last significant combat operation was slaughtering protesters by the thousands in 1989 (an action that our current president seems to have approved of). Their army didn't perform very well against Vietnam when China attacked them.

We may have a better feel for how our own weapons will work, as we've at least used the land-attack ones to blow shit up. How they'll work in a very hostile EW environment is sill unknown. Our ground forces have combat experience, but against enemies largely armed with rifles and IEDs. How will both sides' ASUW weapons work-- nobody knows. Neither side has had significant air-to-air fighting time in decades.

War may happen and I'm confident that there are intel types and planners working on it. I'm less confident that the exercises, whether "table-top" or live, are of much value. They have a tendency to have the rules massaged so Team Blue always prevails.

Back in the day, the Navy did a simulated exercise which was set in the western Pacific. The players on both teams were given the sort of information about the other that the people running the game thought that they might have for real. On the opening of the game, Team Red sank four of Team Blue's carriers. The folks running the game said 'whoa", stopped the game and tweaked the rules. The folks playing for Team Red were a little bit pissed off at that (I knew a couple of them).

Can you expound on "Actions of president seemed to have approve of" I searched for quotes and all I could find was this,

Trump answered, “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world –”

[Nephrology]

Sir , please calm down and step away from the panic button.;)

Before poor Nephrology kicks off an internet bank run and thus leaves me indirectly unemployed, a minor word on the subject Yes delinquencies have increased: because quite naturally when car sales increase year over year so do the loans people take out to buy them. Many alarmist clickbait articles cite the higher delinquency rate without providing the context.Even high risk auto loan portfolios are only a fraction of the overall lending market, and so long as money is being lent there will always be defaults.

As far as mortgage originations go, mortgage backed securities traditionally have been (recent history aside ) the safest investment vehicle by far. Unlike stocks or bonds you are buying an income stream attached to real property, not just a piece of valuable paper .
Note also that many “non traditional” banks for mortgages and other products are e-commerce banks which aren’t affiliated with “brick and mortar” firms like Wells Fargo, Chase ,etc.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled banking system conspiracy theorizing.

I don't really understand your argument. Delinquency rate is, by definition, a percentage of all outstanding loans; not the total number of delinquencies. The fact that subprime auto loan defaults are the highest they have been in 20 years does, in fact, signify to me something.

the Brookings Institute (my first link) isn't exactly Alex Jones, so do not talk down to me. If you're going to be smug and dismissive, you could at least use actual sources to back yourself up.

[Nephrology]

I thought the market corrected itself back in Feb/March with regards to "free credit".

It certainly affected the interest rate we got for our mortgage about a week or so after the market correction.

Per the fed's minutes for their June 2018 meeting, we are due for another 3 rate hikes in 2018, which would bring us to a cumulative 10 since December 2015. Historically, we are still at all time low (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate) (2%).

[GardoneVT]

I don't really understand your argument. Delinquency rate is, by definition, a percentage of all outstanding loans; not the total number of delinquencies. The fact that subprime auto loan defaults are the highest they have been in 20 years does, in fact, signify to me something.

the Brookings Institute (my first link) isn't exactly Alex Jones, so do not talk down to me. If you're going to be smug and dismissive, you could at least use actual sources to back yourself up.

As a bank analyst who is literally paid to evaluate portfolio risk for a living...there isn’t a problem. Period.
My source is called real life- I don’t post links from WebMD and then lecture you about your profession. Please extend me the same courtesy.

[VT1032]

Isn't our military in sad shape with depleted equipment and over deployed troops? Do we have ample war planes and pilots? Are we still depending on reserve and Nat'l Guard deployments to supply numbers to the different services? Aren't we still at war? These questions aside, I doubt whether or not the American people or Congress or our allies would support us in hostile endeavors against China. And I assert that this statement is even more accurate when Trump's erratic behavior and diplomacy failures are considered.

I wouldn't say so, no. The guard and reserve are going to be necessary in every future war with the current way things are set up. The vast majority of the Army's logistics footprint is actually in the reserves and you can't go into a conventional war without those logistics.

Regarding equipment, it's really a mixed bag. My unit (FSC in a guard IBCT) has pretty old and out of date vehicles, but we wouldn't deploy with those anyhow, we'd fall in on new stuff. All of our m4's were just rebarrelled and converted to m4a1's. Most have peq15's and all have a cco or acog. We are getting M17's in November. Over the last year, we have all been issued brand new NBC gear. We were just issued brand new in package ocp pattern iotv's. We have thermals and other optics out the ass. One big shortage is comms. We don't have enough and they don't work well. Overall though, we are very well equipped. Equipment is less of a problem then training time, but thats a double edged sword. We're getting more of it, but that means more time away from jobs and family's so it cuts deep. We have an older unit, many of whom have deployed, but most would go again for sure.

[Stephanie B]

Pretty much that.

[willie]

Can anyone comment about the state of current air power assets in the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force? I think that budget constraints have hampered us in these areas but am not qualified to say more, or said another way, I haven't been studying the subject to the extent that I can substantiate viewpoints. Being slick(?), I already have figured out that our forum's ex squid from Missouri was most likely an intelligence analyst. Perhaps she will chime in and enlighten the rest of us.

[UNK]

Pretty much that.

I assume this is in response to a request for clarification. It escapes me how anyone could equate that statement with approval of China's actions.

[Stephanie B]

I assume this is in response to a request for clarification. It escapes me how anyone could equate that statement with approval of China's actions.

Because it seemed to me that Trump approved of the crackdown. The "they were horrible" language that he prefaced it with was reminiscent of people who say "I'm not a racist, but".

[UNK]

Because it seemed to me that Trump approved of the crackdown. The "they were horrible" language that he prefaced it with was reminiscent of people who say "I'm not a racist, but".

I can't agree with the "almost" part. There was no "almost blew it" involved in my opinion. It seems to me the second part of the statement is an entirely separate subject from the first part and would take quite a leap to tie the two togather. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your thoughts.