StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm having an argument with another artist on deviantART, where I post as ArmamentDawg. The other artist, CrimsonFALKE, believes the People's Republic of China (Communist China) is a direct military threat to the US, and stated so in a journal entry here.

ArmamentDawg (me) wrote:As a writer, you must have the answers, because an intelligent reader will ask the same questions. The writers I denounced as "talentless hacks," never have satisfactory answers. To use Garth Ennis as an example (in http://www.amazon.com/Punisher-End-1/dp ... 304&sr=1-1 ), China decides to use nuclear weapons to launch a surprise attack on the US, because... why? Even if you believe China will violate its own "No first use" policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons, the US is a major trading partner, meaning if China manages to destroy the US, it will effectively flush its own economy down the toilet, which will make its people starve, which will make the people riot and rebel against those responsible (the Chinese government)... You can guess what happens next. (For Japan's talentless hacks, you can use the same exact example; just replace "China" with the US, and the "US" with Japan.)

CrimsonFALKE wrote:Well I have done that, before with my ULS piece the Chinese made a bet that they thought would land them the right to put troops on US soil by playing both sides. They funded the USA and provided technology and information support to the ULS side thinking neither side would win so when they promised hte ULS to void the dept if they win they thought the USA would come to China asking for Peace Keepers and in turn securing US trade as well as occupying the mainland.

(CrimsonFALKE is referring to this fictional event, in which the United States of America is embroiled in another civil war, one the "United Libertarian States" eventually won.)

ArmamentDawg wrote:China may send "military advisors" (fighter pilots, maintenance and logistical personnel, and Special Forces operators) to prop up a puppet government- I mean "support an ally and a brother in the Socialist fraternity,"- but "peacekeepers" (regular infantry) are unlikely.

Put yourself in a Chinese government leader's shoes. "Why should Chinese blood be spilled to clean up an American mess?" "Why should I put my son- a patriot serving in the People's Liberation Army- at risk to clean up an American mess?" (The one-child policy did not exist when China intervened in the Korean War. By the time the F-22 saw its combat debut, it has been in place for DECADES, meaning if a Chinese soldier dies, his father will have no one to carry on his name- very important, in Chinese culture- and his mother will be too old to have another child.)

The "stealth invasion" Russia conducted in Georgia and Ukraine (which had Russian soldiers posing as "peacekeepers" between two warring sides, when they're actually allied to one side, as seen at https://medium.com/war-is-boring/maskir ... 6a304d5fb6 ) will not work for a Chinese invasion, because the US and China do not share a border. That means any invasion force will have to be moved by air and by sea, a very expensive proposition; any loot will also have to be moved by air and by sea, decreasing what profit can be made by selling it. If you were a corrupt member of the Chinese government, I'm sure you can think of better ways to spend Chinese taxpayers' money (corrupt members of the US government will always direct pork towards businesses in their own states, "creating jobs" for their own constituents to silence objectors as they skim money- they will NOT direct pork towards other states, and certainly not towards foreign nations). Better to just send some Special Forces operators to support American allies, and fighters to conduct air strikes; this minimizes the human and financial costs of Chinese military intervention.

CrimsonFALKE wrote:Well I honestly thought the Chinese would be far more willing to become the world police given the chance. Not to mention how else would they secure land and resources for their dept investments.

ArmamentDawg wrote:Look at Africa. The Chinese secure land and resources by making deals with African governments, not by sending the People's Liberation Army to seize them. That means if these lands and resources come under attack- say, from anti-government insurgents- it's African military and police personnel who must fight (and take casualties) to protect them. If the anti-government insurgents win, they'll have to form a new government, and China will just make deals with them.

The Chinese are learning from others' mistakes- including America's. They know being "world police" is more trouble than it's worth.

CrimsonFALKE wrote:The PLA's massive numbers of guns and tanks and military spending is all for what defense? Please those fuckers are looking to expand through force.

ArmamentDawg wrote:"Expand" in which direction? Any invasion will cost a lot of money, and the subsequent occupation even more so; even if they face no armed opposition, it'll cost a lot of money to transport the guns and tanks to where they're needed, and then to transport the ammo, food and water, fuel, spares and replacement parts for the engines and other systems you're wearing out, to where they're needed...

Again, put yourself in a Chinese government leader's shoes. The Chinese public isn't that different from the American one; if they think their tax money is being wasted, they'll protest; if their "one child" dies in what they feel is a pointless war, they'll DEFINITELY protest, and good luck trying to suppress this when China's own government and military leaders have also lost their "one child," and thus, share their pain.

CrimsonFALK wrote:In the direction of Japanese territory and to boot fictionally by after 2034 the one child policy was repealed after they lost a third of their population when they dropped an asteroid fragment by mistake on themselves not to mention their plan in universe was to have the USA provide them with transport and bases. Like the Lend lease results of 99 year leases on British Empire territory. When WW3 comes about the Chinese finally went to the south west instead of going to the middle east for supplies.


What I want to know is if they are soooo fucking pieceful what the fuck are they doing building up so many god damn warships tanks and Amphibious warfare type vehicles. Thats not the actions of a peace loving nation who just wishes to be left alone thank you.

(Further comments are posted here.)

ArmamentDawg wrote:You could say the same about every damn nation on the planet. The US, UK, South Korea, Japan, and France all have amphibious warfare ships, so why shouldn't China? Even if none of these nations have ambitions to invade their neighbors, all of them have island territory, territory they very much would like to keep their hands on, and if an enemy launches an amphibious assault to seize these islands, then amphibious warfare ships are needed to take them back.

Again, put yourself in someone else's shoes, so you can know how they think. As Sun Tzu said, you must know the enemy to achieve victory.

CrimsonFALKE wrote:Yeah and the Chinese are violating airspace of South Korea and Japan. The Korean peninsula is large swaths of marshland amphibious war machines is to make crossing the damn field a possibility. Not to mention China is the only nation supporting North Korea, constantly claims harassment from the US despite the fact its actually harassing an entire region, and supporting Kim Jung Un's egotistical temper tantrum. So either the PLA forces are acting independently of the government or the Chinese are aggressive and looking to get payback on the Japanese for WW2. There is no way in hell China wants peace its looking to start a war and gain room to expand since its got 1billion people and almost no room for them. I get it you're Chinese and that I'm some dumb white American but there is no logical way the Chinese are just strutting their offensive might as a good defense is a strong offense. They want resources the west has and I'm sure losing your one child for the good of the state is more than something people there will endure.

Its one reason why my defense for the Chinese is less about macro weaponry and more microbial weapons. Think about it if you can develop a germ that kills or preferably sterilizes all Chinese or Arab people. You have literally ended a need for aircraft carriers and stealth fighters.

ArmamentDawg wrote:What guarantee do you have that the "germ that kills or preferably sterilizes all [enemy] people," will ONLY kill or sterilize enemy people? Blame international trade and travel for the fact there are likely mixed race people living not only in the US, but in Europe, Israel, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines... nations that are currently US allies, but will become US enemies the moment it's revealed an American-made bioweapon killed and/or sterilized a significant number of their people.

Also note that Iranians are Aryans- the words "Iran" and "Aryan" share the same linguistic root- meaning a bioweapon that targets Arabs, will either have no effect, or (if it effects mixed race people) will also target a lot of people in the US and Europe as well. The same questions regarding this bioweapon's effectiveness, also exists for African Muslims (see the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, as described in 'Black Hawk Down'; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear Bomber"), and Chechen people (see Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings).

You better put this bioweapon in a nanomachine with an integral GPS system, programmed to activate only in targeted areas, so it won't kill anyone outside the war zone. Otherwise, you'll give every nation on Earth a very good reason to nuke the US into nonexistence.

(I'm referring to an idea that CrimsonFALKE posted here, regarding ways to improve a biological weapon's effectiveness.)

CrimsonFALKE wrote:Did miss the part that said "all Chinese" people as in only? I am glad you stopped ranting about the peace loving and ever expanding Chinese People's Liberation Army. Not to mention its a WMD so I figure humans will use this in the same MAD protocol of the Cold War's nuclear weapons holders.

Did I make logical arguments regarding China's reluctance to get embroiled in a foreign war? Or are CrimsonFALKE's concerns justified?

Will China eventually attack the US for the same reasons Japan attacked the US in 1941, i.e., to prevent the US from intervening in wars of conquest that China will launch against other nations in Asia (China will not attempt to conquer the US itself, as the logistical difficulties are insurmountable)? Or is that the paranoid delusion of a racist cunt?

China's not going to become a military threat to the US simply because China is on the other side of the globe with an ocean in either way. The logistics alone would be staggeringly expensive.

I'd sooner be wary of China's economic power than their military.

China doesn't have the fleet strength nor the in flight refueling capability to be anything close to a threat to the USA in a war propagated by conventional means. In a nuclear war both sides, as well as every other side, loses in a big way. Thus China would be stupid to attack the US because either way it hurts them far more deeply than it could ever help them. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to lay off the thriller novels and console shooters.

China lacks the Fleet Strength to engage the American fleet. The reverse is not true in that American can stomp the shit out of the Chinese fleet.... and then stalemate since the Chinese military can stomp the shit out of the American military because America lacks the fleet resources to put anywhere near enough soldiers up against the Chinese military. If we wanted to have the ability to invade China or China wanted to invade America both sides would need to spend a few hundred billion just to get the military in place so that we could have a 2 on 1 fight or they have a 1 on 1 fight....

Which considering both sides have nuclear weapons... well that's not going to happen.

American is not a threat to China, China is not a threat to America. Neither side can have a conventional war with the other side unless both sides want to agree to meet someplace half way.

The only way the two might come into military conflict would be cold-war style proxy wars, and honestly I think we should be far more worried about economic shenanigans than military conflict.

I'd rather spend resources making sure we (the USA) are buddies with China than antagonizing them.

The main problem is CrimsonFALKE believes China wants to conquer and rule areas the US considers to be within its "sphere of influence," while I believe China does NOT want to conquer and rule these areas. China would like those areas to move within its "sphere of influence," but this would most likely be accomplished via trade and other economic incentives; no need to risk human lives when money would suffice. (The US didn't need to invade or conquer Canada to move it into its "sphere of influence" during the 20th century, after all; free trade agreements accomplished this more easily than military force.)

I must admit, however, that even when I "put myself in China's shoes," I'm still using a heavily Americanized POV, and judging things via a largely Americanized value system. (I was born in Taiwan, and immigrated to the US at age five; with the exception of two years, the rest of my life was spent in the US.) If anyone has a more accurate view of China and its value system- preferably one gained via years of LIVING IN CHINA- I'm willing to listen.

The big counterpoint can be simplified thus: why would China, given the choice, want to ever war with the US when simple commerce can gain most of conquest's benefits without any of the downsides?

Eulogy wrote:The big counterpoint can be simplified thus: why would China, given the choice, want to ever war with the US when simple commerce can gain most of conquest's benefits without any of the downsides?

The kind of people who propagate such paranoid delusions, have already passed the point where they can give such an argument the logic and consideration it's due, because they're no longer able to see through another's POV. I learned that the hard way.

Military threat to the US? None. Military threat to the so-called US interests: in 10 years or so.

Stas Bush wrote:Military threat to the US? None. Military threat to the so-called US interests: in 10 years or so.

Which US interests are you referring to? Support of nations the US considers to be its enemies, such as North Korea or Iran? A military threat to nations the US considers to be its allies, such as South Korea or Japan? Interdiction of trade- specifically, what the Germans did when they declared unrestricted submarine warfare, during World War I? (The latter is unlikely, in my opinion, because the US and China are major trading partners to each other, so disrupting the other's trade would cause self-inflicted damage to its own economy.)

I think a military threat in the less developed parts of SEA, like Myanmar. There can be proxy wars to retain/expand influence, regardless of who initiates them.

Sidewinder wrote:The main problem is CrimsonFALKE believes China wants to conquer and rule areas the US considers to be within its "sphere of influence," while I believe China does NOT want to conquer and rule these areas. China would like those areas to move within its "sphere of influence," but this would most likely be accomplished via trade and other economic incentives; no need to risk human lives when money would suffice. (The US didn't need to invade or conquer Canada to move it into its "sphere of influence" during the 20th century, after all; free trade agreements accomplished this more easily than military force.)

See, that's the problem right there. Things go off the rails when a man starts babbling about "spheres of influence" and saying that Major Power A has the right to dominate events everywhere right up to the border of Major Power B.

Why should the US have more say in what happens in, for example, Korea or Vietnam than China does? Those countries are literally right on China's border, they're like 20 times closer to China than to the US. They share far more history and culture with China than with the US.

What this comes down to is your friend's bizarre notion that the American "sphere of influence" is basically "the set of all countries in the world, minus Russia." That was never fully true historically. It's certainly not true now as the developing nations finally become capable of sticking up for themselves, rather than having to lie back and put up with imperialist bullshit happening in their backyard.

There is no logical reason for armed conflict between China and the US- disagreement yes, war no. It does happen to be true that China has ambitions to influence events that we were hoping to influence. But China is a nation of over a billion people, with (now) an industrial economy and a strong national identity. Sure, they try to influence events that take place in nations that literally border them or are much closer to them than to us. But it's stupid to pretend that this is somehow a terrible disaster that MUST BE STOPPED AAAAAH.

Sidewinder wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Military threat to the US? None. Military threat to the so-called US interests: in 10 years or so.

Which US interests are you referring to? ...

Again, the key issue here is that the US has defined its "interests" along the following lines:

"Anything I want to happen, anywhere in the world, is my 'interests' happening on my 'sphere of influence.' Interfere and it is as if you had invaded my home and slaughtered my own people, and there must be war between us."

Essentially, the idea here implicitly is that the US rules the world. If that's not true and it's not our planet to rule, then we cannot reasonably assert that Burma is in the American sphere of influence and not the Chinese. Or that the Ukraine is in the American sphere of influence and not the Russian. The idea is just laughable if you look at a map or read a history book.

One thing that may not have been mentioned in your discussion is the increase in the influence of certain US allies in the region, especially Japan. They have been increasing the size of their Navy recently including building their first carriers since World War 2. If China starts anything, they won't have to contend with just the US and the know it.

Question for the person who voted a Sino-American war "is inevitable." Why do you think it's inevitable? When do you think this war will start? Within the next 10 years? The next 20? The next 50 years? 100? 1000?

Absolutely not. However China's treat level should not determine our state of preparedness.

And what the fuck... It's called DeviantArt not DeviantMakeMeReadYourFanFiction

Havok wrote:And what the fuck... It's called DeviantArt not DeviantMakeMeReadYourFanFiction

Isn't fiction art?

Havok wrote:And what the fuck... It's called DeviantArt not DeviantMakeMeReadYourFanFiction

Well they've implemented #hashtags just like Tumblr (only this completely broke the Browse function and they still haven't fixed it) and they're about to implement an Activity Feed just like Facebook, plus a whole load of other useless shite that no one actually wants - get updated every time someone you're watching adds another favourite! - and pretty soon it'll be called DeviantBook or FaceArt.

At worst, there will be a "cold war" lite with China - probably nowhere near as intense or scary as previous tensions with the USSR. The US and China are simply too intertwined economically.

Sadly, the next umpteen installments of Bond movies will have to stick to international terrorists as their main bad guys.

China should run their own film series with detective Ma exposing the sinister schemes of the Western greedy imperialists. With kung-fu and Zhang Yimou directing.

'Look, this is the so-called US ABM system, in fact a sinister plot to dominate the world by Dr. Blitzschlag, a covert Nazi inside the US government who was part of operation Paperclip and manipulated the US from the shadows...'

'Look this is a US military moonbase that threates the totally peaceful Chinese moonbase. Detective Ma, only you can blow it up.'

And so forth. Give 'em a taste of their own pill.

I'd watch it.

Economic threat certainly in the broad sense that they now have a bigger economy by PPP terms, and are ahead on some metrics like steel production for example. However even then they are quite interdependent such that a collapse of one country would be only desirable to the Crazies on the other side.

Military threat? Unlikely. While the US can clearly reach further into China than the other way round, its unlikely they would be able to get enough troops into China to make a difference. Unless Sidewinder's debate partner thinks military threat now constitutes defending themselves from US attacks....

Simon_Jester wrote:
"Anything I want to happen, anywhere in the world, is my 'interests' happening on my 'sphere of influence.' Interfere and it is as if you had invaded my home and slaughtered my own people, and there must be war between us."

Essentially, the idea here implicitly is that the US rules the world. If that's not true and it's not our planet to rule, then we cannot reasonably assert that Burma is in the American sphere of influence and not the Chinese. Or that the Ukraine is in the American sphere of influence and not the Russian. The idea is just laughable if you look at a map or read a history book.

Your analysis falls a bit flat when places like South Korea and Japan are treaty allies of one sort or another for instance. We are not there just because we want to be there, we are there because these advanced democratic countries want us there. In this neighborhood, especially with the SCS shenanigans of China, the Philippines will be the same shortly and even countries like Vietnam are getting cozy with the US. Again, as their choice.

Treaty alliances would only mean something if a treaty member is attacked. China attacks Japan or South Korea? No. The island disputes are too small to start a war, in my opinion. However, the US tries to make inroads - with methods which hardly have anything to do with 'treaty alliances' - into countries like Myanmar. I would say that these are a better candidate for a hot point.

It is not helping that the US made the first aggressive moves in SEA by announcing a strategy of 'Asia Pivot' which is a not-so-clever euphemism for 'containment of China' which in practical terms means forging an anti-Chinese military alliance.

The US' political shenanigans in Asia won't amount to much. China is setting up to become a serious economic superpower of private enterprise. Ali Baba's IPO was the largest ever, and Chinese companies will eventually rival Google and Facebook in terms of market cap. The next "cold war" will be between Baidu and Google, or Renren and Facebook. US Shareholders in Chinese companies will lobby in Washington to ensure the US doesn't try to do anything to piss off China too much.