Monday, January 21, 2013

China? Now??

John Xenakis reports on Breitbart that China's general staff has issued orders to the PLA to prepare for war.  They point out that the document uses the specific word for war that means "real, shooting war", not struggle, or "war on poverty" type of "moral equivalent of war".
Although past directives have directed soldiers to be prepared in case of war, this year's directive, for the first time, uses the Chinese word "dazhang," which means "fighting war," and uses it 10 times in the 1000 word directive.
To be plain spoken about it, they don't believe the US would do anything:
Dai Xu, a Chinese Air Force Colonel, is arguing for a short, decisive war with one of China's neighbors--Vietnam, the Philippines, or Japan--in order to establish sovereignty over the Pacific region without risking war with the United States. This is the "kill a chicken to scare the monkeys" philosophy. 
The colonel continues
Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real.

This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia. We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel.
International diplomacy ebbs and flows with time.  The author is from, an organization that specializes in studies of these sorta-cyclical ebbs and flows, like Kondratiev cycles or Elliott waves.  He gives this little piece of generational philosophy:
China's 1962 border clash with India did not lead to a wider war because the countries were in a generational Awakening era; with both countries being run by survivors of World War II and, respectively, Mao's Communist Revolution civil war and the bloody Hindu/Muslim war that followed Partition. Each of these wars were extremely brutal, creating tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees, and no one who survived either of those wars would ever allow it to happen again.

Today, China, India, and America are in generational Crisis eras. The survivors of World War II are all gone. Today's leaders have had an easy life, where their worst crisis was a sex scandal. They have no personal memory of the horrors of WW II, and the Gen-Xers think that any older generation who even talks about it is completely full of crap.
In summary, they have no idea how ugly war can be.  They think hardship is when cellphone service is down, or they have to wait 30 minutes for Domino's to deliver.  What's wrong with a little war to stir things up and get the Chinese century going for real?

I've had conversations with Gen-Xers along those lines.  They do, indeed, think any comparisons to the past are stupid.  If I try to tell my own son that the US is more divided than at any time since about 1859, and civil war seems to be a real possibility, I can tell he thinks I'm the "right wing extremist" the feds have been warning him about.  Well, he got that part right...
You should go read Xenakis' whole piece, and how he predicts things could go. 


  1. The huge economic bubble that they have created, has come to the point of un-sustainability, IMHO.

    It is about ready to pop. What a better way to divert the attention of the PRC masses, than a nice big messy conflict.

  2. Am I the only person who thinks it would be great if China decided to attack Vietnam? Especially since it might have been the Chinese who supplied the NVA and Viet Cong back in the sixties?

    Shit, son, you give me two commies about to fight and not only will I *not* interfere, I will sell popcorn and soda to the onlookers.

    1. I like they way you think, Erin!

      Ignoring the irony of attacking a nation they backed, it's a truism that "when your opponent is doing something stupid, don't stop them!"

      To be serious, though, it's probably either Taiwan, as RegT says, or Japan they're after. China and Japan have been invading each other since long before the US was even a country.

    2. China and Vietnam did fight from February to March 1979. There's no love between them that's for sure.

    3. China and Vietnam have been enemies for centuries. China invades, and the Vietnamese throw them back out on their asses. I'd have to take Vietnam.

      Of course, this was all pre-nuclear. Would China risk a tactical nuclear response to stave off a rout?

    4. I must have had my head too far up my butt to be aware of China and Vietnam fighting in 1979. Too busy with something, but that's an interesting viewpoint I never knew. As to whether or not China would nuke them... how big a problem is losing face for the leaders?

    5. If you look at the calculations involved, you might come to the following conclusions:
      Japan - The country that would most likely provoke the US to intercede on their behalf. Even though mostly neutered by western influences, the Japanese have the capability to still instill fear in the ChiComs. They would have to kill every last one of them.

      Philippines: Another country that the US might intercede on behalf of but there are active fighters, government and rebel that would make conquest extremely costly.

      Vietnam: A recent "frenemy" that would be extremely difficult to roll over. The likelihood of the US interfering are are much slimmer given that there are still a large number of veterans that would not shed any tears to see them punished for our political cowardice.

      However, in the homeland of Sun Tzu, anything is possible.

    6. The VC were primarily supplied by the Soviets. The Viet hatred for the Chinese runs deep and wide. IIRC they have fought twice since 1973.
      If avoiding American involvement is the primary concern then attacking Vietnam is the best bet due to the sentiments Erin wrote. Keep in mind that this all to do with economic control of the riches under the South China Sea. (oil). I prefer a small enemy who is content to enslave his own people to a 1.3 billion strong enemy with global aspirations who won't mind enslaving me and mine. Save that popcorn Erin, I think we have a dog in this fight.

  3. Im a big Strauss-Howe fan, and the author is dead on in his assessment. The one thing he ignores, and a real possibility, is that China makes their move once our own dirty civil war gets started at home.

    Already there is talk in New York of actively resisting any attempts at registration or confiscation. Any such action would take a year or two to play out. During that time, America would effectively be off the world stage. I know some people fear UN action if that happens, but I honestly dont see that in the cards. The rest of the world will be dealing with the Chinas and Irans...not to mention financial turmoil.

    My guess is that once Civil War 2 goes hot, the rest of the world will pause for a month or so and then start tearing apart at the seams. A-stan and Iraq (not to mention South Korea, Japan, Israel, and hell half the rest of the ME) will suddenly experience huge power vacuums and be sucked up by whoever jumps first...likely claiming to be white-hatting so as to remove the Taliban that will take over instantly, but without our RoE to handicap them. China will make good on the above story. Europe will devolve into some quasi-civil cold war without American backing for bad debt, if not out-right hostilities.

    To quote Armageddon: "Basically the worst parts of the Bible."

    1. I think you're about as right as anyone can get at predicting the big picture. Important details, like does Civil War 2 come because of economic collapse, does it cause the collapse, or are they independent; does Europe go first, and a few other questions are important, but I think you've got the big picture down.

    2. I pray the New Yorkers resist everything, and keep their firearms.

  4. Anyone consider that this might be disinformation, that the PRC actually intends to invade Taiwan, which they have been wanting to reacquire for many years now? They know damn well that Obama would never approve getting involved in protecting the people and government of Taiwan. He wouldn't even commit a single jet to save American lives in Benghazi or Algeria.

    Then, when Obama proves how spineless he is, and ignorant of the consequences of not responding, they could/would move on to either Japan or Vietnam. Japan being more likely in my "guesstimation", as there is more to grab there than in Vietnam.

    1. The only way to take that island is to burn it clean first. For a counter punch, Taiwan could simply send it's diesel subs to the straits of Malacca and start topedoing tankers. They'd strangle China for oil in a matter of weeks, if that.

      China doesn't have enough force projection reach to protect their supply lines.

    2. But in Japan, everything has been ruined by Fukushima.

      Everything is contaminated.

    3. LFMayor,

      I have to disagree with you. First, get ahold of the Naval War College China Maritime Study #3, June 2009, that discusses China's Assassin's Mace capability. They've put a lot of effort into mine warfare and expect they can isolate Taiwan in less than a week. Two weeks after that Taiwan will be strangled into submission. The USN is relatively weak when it comes to anti-mine capability and our sub fleet in particular would be very vulnerable. Even if we had the will we'd have a hard time breaking that blockade before ROC gave in. All with minimum destruction and bloodshed.

      Second, find John Poole's Dragon Days. It lays out China's String of Pearls strategy that eliminates their need for the Malacca Strait. Both are interesting reads and show how China is quite ready to pull this off.


  5. Talk about an experiment with an infinite number of variables.....well, not infinite, but close, and those variables are more analog than digital.

    One disturbing thing about this is I suspect His Royal Idiocy fails to understand the ramifications as well as how fast the decision tree becomes overwhelmingly complex should anything along these lines comes to pass. I think it's a given that he'll be perpetually behind the curve, and get behinder by the day, which will lead inexorably to a plethora of wrong decisions. Asians play the long game, which impatient westerners have trouble with, and anyone who's read Sun Tzu is aware how that long game benefits the search for, and utilization of, weaknesses. And, boy, howdy, does us gots weaknesses now.

    My take is all of the commenters above are each substantially correct, and I wonder if we have time to accommodate moderate to severe disruption in the Pacific. I doubt the PRC will go after Japan first, but a Pacific conflict offers the opportunity to economically isolate Japan (which, with South Korea, is part of the strongest and most stable axis in the western Pacific, despite Japan's long term economic troubles), offering the opportunity for the PRC to "help" Japan after that isolation increases the stress on Japan's economy.

    So, while I stock up on Toyota parts......

    1. might want to move if you live in Hawaii.

  6. regT, You might want to pull Algeria out of your calculus. The Algerians effectively told EVERYONE that this was their issue... We weren't in more than an information loop, and that's how we would have done it.

    Benghazi is the best example of Barry the Nutless's voting present (unless he was just getting of on the snuff pics....for which there is ample (barf) evidence).

    defending Japan or Taiwan?? Good question. there are enough Flag rank guys who have had enough experience in both countries to generate a reasonable lobbying effort in their behalf. I KNOW I would rather not see it, but it will be "interesting times" when we get to find out.

    1. I think you are basically correct, but I can recall a time when America would have gone in to protect Americans regardless of the third-world country's feelings on the matter. Like the Israelis did at Entebbe. Maybe not since Reagan, but I feel pretty comfortable saying he would have sent Delta in to pull the Americans out.

      It seems appropriate that "May you live in interesting times" is reputed to be a Chinese curse, don't you think?

  7. I find it hard to believe that domestic public opinion in the US would allow 0bama to sit on the sidelines if Japan was attacked. How much lingering bitterness is there over Pearl Harbor? Not much more than that over their women's soccer team beating us in the finals last summer, I'd guess.
    Of course, it's not my read on the situation, it's the Chinese "leaders'" read that matters.

  8. Congress declares war, not the President.
    If domestic public opinion were strong enough, and Congress declared, the C-I-C would be forced to act.

    1. Yeah.. he'd bow and send them gold.

      Yank lll

  9. "....the C-I-C would be forced to act."

    And act very badly indeed, would he. What would he do? Obfuscate, delay, interfere, fire any flag rank who got uppity, lie, etc etc. You know, just like he does now.

    1. The C-I-C has demonstrated nothing but disinterest - or downright contempt - for the congress and what they ask for. They are merely another obstacle to be overcome.

      "Interesting times" indeed.

  10. They probably have a deal with the Obamunists to mange the nation for them after they sell us out.. no matter what happens none of it will be any good for us.. unless.. never mind.

    Yank lll

  11. This situation we find ourselves in is the fault of the Truman Ego and the communist influence in our government immediately after WWll thanks to Roosevelt.. we should have nuked Peking and Moscow.. this would be a different world except for our in house quislings.

  12. Why would China be so impatient, why take such a risk when its own economy and global power will be consolidated within only a few years, even as that of the US collapses. US manufacturing job total: 12 million. At the current rate of loss ALL manufacturing jobs in the US will disappear within 20 years. Its collapse will happen much sooner. All China has to do is sit tight & keep its economy humming along ... Some depressing stats on US vs PRC:

    16. The US has lost 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

    17. The US has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the WTO in 2001.

    18. Overall, the US has lost a total of more than 56,000 factories since 2001.

    19. According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.

    20. Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38% of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42% in North Carolina were lost and 48% in Michigan were lost.

    21. In 2010, China produced more than twice as many automobiles as the United States did.

    22. Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States.

    23. After being bailed out by U.S. taxpayers, General Motors is currently involved in 11 joint ventures with companies owned by the Chinese government. The price for entering into many of these “joint ventures” was a transfer of “state of the art technology” from General Motors to the communist Chinese.

    24. Back in 1998, the United States had 25 percent of the world’s high-tech export market and China had just 10 percent. Ten years later, the United States had less than 15 percent and China’s share had soared to 20 percent.

    25. The United States has lost more than a quarter of all of its high-tech manufacturing jobs over the past ten years.

    26. China’s number one export to the U.S. is computer equipment.

    It goes on & on ... at