Is China a military threat to the US?

[K. A. Pital]

I agree that the whole thing will be a failure anyway (because half of Latin America hates the US but still has to deal with it, so even if all of Asia hates China they still have to deal with it too).

[Sidewinder]

The island disputes are too small to start a war, in my opinion.

We can only hope so. Of course, Japan and Korea have their own island disputes (see the Liancourt Rocks, a.k.a. "Dokdo", a.k.a. "Takeshima"); one can imagine Korea arranging a deal in which it diplomatically supports China's claims to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, if China diplomatically supports Korea in its dispute with Japan over Dokdo/Takeshima. One can also imagine the US government's headaches over such a deal.

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.

How so?

[MrDakka]

I agree that the whole thing will be a failure anyway (because half of Latin America hates the US but still has to deal with it, so even if all of Asia hates China they still have to deal with it too).

Only half of Latin America?

[Simon_Jester]

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.

To be fair, treaty allies can reasonably sign bilateral treaties of protection and mutual support with us as they please. And expect us to maintain the military means to provide protection and mutual support.

But such allies should reasonably be expected to pull their own weight, or we run smack into George Washington's warning against "entangling alliances."

Japan and South Korea pull their own weight, as does Taiwan: these countries maintain self-defense forces adequate to make China think long and hard about actually getting into a war with them. Even if China would win, that doesn't make it a good idea.

But it's stupid for the US to try and maintain a super-military capable of beating any two or three other militaries on Earth combined just because we're too stubborn to admit that maybe we cannot realistically prevent an economically powerful state from having "undue influence" over its own immediate neighbors- especially neighbors who have zero ability to defend themselves without our support.

Doing that is, again, part of what the "entangling alliances" warning is about. Because treating every single nation on Earth as an 'ally' we must defend against all comers forces us to overspend enormously. It also pointlessly antagonizes other major powers by making it totally impossible for them to do anything without banging heads with us.

[madd0ct0r]

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.

Stas - do you mean the island disputes are too small to start a war with Japan or S. Korea, or that they are too small to start a war generally?

[K. A. Pital]

Too small for a war between Japan, SK and China. Weaker states are at risk.

[Channel72]

Speaking of war with China:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29547621

Why is the US Navy practising for war with China?

The US prefers to talk about engaging with China, but it is clear its navy is now also practising for a potential conflict, reports the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes.

You don't get invited out on a US nuclear aircraft carrier all that often, and after writing this I might not get invited back for a while.

On the flight deck of the USS George Washington the noise is like nothing I've ever experienced. A few feet from where I am standing, 11 F/A-18 Super Hornets are lining up to be launched.

The first one is hooked on to the catapult; there is a massive crescendo as its engines roar to full re-heat. Then, in a cloud of white steam, the 15-tonne jet is thrown down the deck and off the end of the ship like a toy.

Seconds later, the deck crew in their multi-coloured smocks are calmly lining up the next one.

Control deck of USS George Washington
The crew of the USS George Washington are rehearsing an "anti-access, area denial" scenario
Watching the US Navy close up like this, it is hard not to be slightly awed. No other navy in the world has quite the same toys, or shows them off with the same easy charm.

But as I stand on the deck filming my report on how "the US is practising for war with China", I can see my host from the Navy public affairs office wincing.

You get used to hearing the PR rhetoric: the US Navy "is not practising for war with any specific country". But the US Navy has not assembled two whole carrier battle groups and 200 aircraft off the coast of Guam for a jolly, either. This is about practising what the Pentagon now calls "Air Sea Battle".

It is a concept first put forward in 2009, and it is specifically designed to counter the rising threat from China.

A few minutes later I am standing on the bridge of the George Washington with Rear Adm Mark Montgomery, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Five. The forces under his command are practising for what he calls an "anti-access, area denial" scenario.

Rear Adm Mark Montgomery
Rear Adm Montgomery says the US Navy has been ensuring stability in the region for the past 70 years
"When we talk about our capabilities," he says, "we are talking about our capabilities to operate in unrestricted way in the waters of our choice".

"As some countries have been developing increasingly complex anti-access weapons, we have to develop our tactics, techniques and procedures to continue to operate in an unfettered manner."

Rear Adm Montgomery won't discuss the specifics of the exercise. But his ships and aircraft face an increasingly complex web of threats, from beneath the water, from air, land, from cyberspace and from space.

"It's generally understood that some countries have the ability to remove satellites or to limit satellite communications," he says, "so we have to practise working in a communications-denied environment."

China's People's Liberation Army Navy is still no match for the US Navy, and won't be for a very long time. Instead, China has been developing other weapons designed to keep America's precious carriers far away from China's shores.

These include new quieter submarines, long-range hypersonic anti-ship missiles and, perhaps most worrying, very accurate medium range ballistic missiles that have been dubbed "carrier killers".

As if on cue, an alarm bell starts ringing. A voice comes on the public address system:

"This is a drill, this is a drill! Black smoke, black smoke!"

Are China's neighbours reassured by the US military presence in the region?
The George Washington is under simulated attack. Part of the ship is reported to be on fire. Teams rush to contain the damage.

For the last 10 years, China's most important, and oft-repeated, political slogan has been "peaceful rise". It is designed to reassure Beijing's neighbours its growing military might is no threat.

But since President Xi Jinping came to power last year, there has been a distinct change. China is now asserting claims well beyond its own coastline.

Its ships are aggressively patrolling the Senkaku, or Diaoyu, islands in the East China Sea, long controlled by Japan. It is spending billions building new islands in the South China Sea.

Senkaku/Diaoyu islands

The archipelago consists of five uninhabited islands and three reefs
Japan, China and Taiwan claim them; they are controlled by Japan and form part of Okinawa prefecture
The islands were also the focus of a major diplomatic row between Japan and China in 2010
How uninhabited islands soured China-Japan ties

In August a Chinese fighter jet confronted a US surveillance plane in international airspace over the South China Sea, repeatedly buzzing it and, according to the US Navy, closing to within 20ft (6m).

According to Rear Adm Montgomery, all this makes the US Navy's role in the region even more vital.

"The US Navy is one of the single greatest contributors to the security and stability of the Asia Pacific region," he says. "We have been for nearly 70 years".

"I think the US Navy plays a good role whether it is in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, the Philippine Sea, stabilising things, assuring partners and dissuading adversaries from taking actions that are non-transparent or illegal."

China's leaders would no doubt disagree. Beijing's long-term aim is to dominate the waters close to its shores. If the US Navy tries to stop it, might that not make conflict more likely?

But from Tokyo to Taipei, Manila to Hanoi, there are governments that are very happy to see America's great carrier battle groups sailing these waters.

Anyway, the US won't ever go to war with China, but we sure will wave our (nuclear powered) dicks around.

[K. A. Pital]

"When we talk about our capabilities," he says, "we are talking about our capabilities to operate in unrestricted way in the waters of our choice".

"As some countries have been developing increasingly complex anti-access weapons, we have to develop our tactics, techniques and procedures to continue to operate in an unfettered manner."

Exactly what I was talking about earlier.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It's good to be prepared, but let's face it, if China ever did decide to attack the US, they would attack our infrastructure digitally and we're too busy waving around our carrier-sized F-35 inch dicks to notice that everyone can count the polyps on our exposed cybersecurity assholes and we're crouched over an egg beater. I'm glad that the economic destruction is mutually assured and there doesn't seem to be a terrorist group that has its hackt together for a serious cyber-offensive, but the fact is that we're as unprepared for a cyber attack today as we were for hijackings before 9/11, and all those carrier groups aren't going to help us any more than they helped the WTC employees. Time to get real and prepare for actual threats while filing the Chinese naval assault scenario next to the equally-plausible extraterrestrial invasion ones.

[Channel72]

It's good to be prepared, but let's face it, if China ever did decide to attack the US, they would attack our infrastructure digitally and we're too busy waving around our carrier-sized F-35 inch dicks to notice that everyone can count the polyps on our exposed cybersecurity assholes and we're crouched over an egg beater. I'm glad that the economic destruction is mutually assured and there doesn't seem to be a terrorist group that has its hackt together for a serious cyber-offensive, but the fact is that we're as unprepared for a cyber attack today as we were for hijackings before 9/11, and all those carrier groups aren't going to help us any more than they helped the WTC employees. Time to get real and prepare for actual threats while filing the Chinese naval assault scenario next to the equally-plausible extraterrestrial invasion ones.

Just install FreeBSD everywhere and call it a day.

[Ace Pace]

Just install FreeBSD everywhere and call it a day.

I despise this shitty attitude that makes it appear as if computer attacks are a localised phenomenon specific to Windows or other large OSes, while the majority of problems are in security policies and applications built on top of operating systems.

[Elheru Aran]

Just install FreeBSD everywhere and call it a day.

I despise this shitty attitude that makes it appear as if computer attacks are a localised phenomenon specific to Windows or other large OSes, while the majority of problems are in security policies and applications built on top of operating systems.

Isn't it more likely that a cyber-attack would go after business and government servers, anyway, rather than personal home computers? I suppose those might run some variety of Windows, but server software tends to be different from PC in some fashions. And that's the extent of my knowledge, so I'll leave that train of thought to the experts

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I do not think China is a threat to the U.S., because I do not believe that China and the U.S. are enemies. Rivals, yes, but each benefits too much from the other to be more than that.

[Channel72]

Just install FreeBSD everywhere and call it a day.

I despise this shitty attitude that makes it appear as if computer attacks are a localised phenomenon specific to Windows or other large OSes, while the majority of problems are in security policies and applications built on top of operating systems.

Relax - I'm (mostly) kidding.

The vast majority of security problems these days are stupid bullshit like SQL injection attacks, XSS crap or shitty web applications that enable anyone to write to the file-system somehow.

But I don't think China is that interested in hacking the next Instagram or whatever. Unless you think maybe China is really concerned about what Americans are having for lunch or doing during their vacations in Cancun.

The reality is that most serious national-security-threatening cyber-security issues are old-school shit like buffer overflows and shell-code injection attacks - or even more dangerous, fundamental mathematical/computational break-throughs in cryptology that enable faster prime factorization. A recent version of the Linux kernel actually had a flaw in it that enabled anyone to gain root access, and a lot of widely-used open source libraries like OpenSSL (!) are giant piles of cruft-laden shit developed by thousands of distributed contributors that no one person really fully understands, causing these systems to be infested with god knows how many security problems. This is the sort of shit that is more important than high-level crap like SQL-injection nonsense that affects businesses or web-startups that don't know how to use a firewall or sanitize their inputs properly, but not so much national security.

[Nova Andromeda]

It's good to be prepared, but let's face it, if China ever did decide to attack the US, they would attack our infrastructure digitally and we're too busy waving around our carrier-sized F-35 inch dicks to notice that everyone can count the polyps on our exposed cybersecurity assholes and we're crouched over an egg beater. I'm glad that the economic destruction is mutually assured and there doesn't seem to be a terrorist group that has its hackt together for a serious cyber-offensive, but the fact is that we're as unprepared for a cyber attack today as we were for hijackings before 9/11, and all those carrier groups aren't going to help us any more than they helped the WTC employees. Time to get real and prepare for actual threats while filing the Chinese naval assault scenario next to the equally-plausible extraterrestrial invasion ones.

Agreed. If it came to an all out 'shooting war' (that didn't involve both sides with lots of large smoking glass fields) then it would be mostly digital / electronic. I'm not sure, but large scale EMP style attacks seem like a great tactic if possible - hardened military assets won't save you when your entire infrastructure is fried). In any event, the 'soft war' is already being waged (it's economic) and the US is losing badly.

[Darmalus]

Agreed. If it came to an all out 'shooting war' (that didn't involve both sides with lots of large smoking glass fields) then it would be mostly digital / electronic. I'm not sure, but large scale EMP style attacks seem like a great tactic if possible - hardened military assets won't save you when your entire infrastructure is fried). In any event, the 'soft war' is already being waged (it's economic) and the US is losing badly.

Normal business practices and competition count as war now? Does this mean everybody is at war with everybody, now and forever?

[Channel72]

It's good to be prepared, but let's face it, if China ever did decide to attack the US, they would attack our infrastructure digitally and we're too busy waving around our carrier-sized F-35 inch dicks to notice that everyone can count the polyps on our exposed cybersecurity assholes and we're crouched over an egg beater. I'm glad that the economic destruction is mutually assured and there doesn't seem to be a terrorist group that has its hackt together for a serious cyber-offensive, but the fact is that we're as unprepared for a cyber attack today as we were for hijackings before 9/11, and all those carrier groups aren't going to help us any more than they helped the WTC employees. Time to get real and prepare for actual threats while filing the Chinese naval assault scenario next to the equally-plausible extraterrestrial invasion ones.

Agreed. If it came to an all out 'shooting war' (that didn't involve both sides with lots of large smoking glass fields) then it would be mostly digital / electronic. I'm not sure, but large scale EMP style attacks seem like a great tactic if possible - hardened military assets won't save you when your entire infrastructure is fried). In any event, the 'soft war' is already being waged (it's economic) and the US is losing badly.

The US isn't losing in any meaningful sense. Most of the top 50 highest market caps are US companies. Rather, China is catching up... slowly but steadily.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

China regaining its position as the world's dominant economic superpower will simply be the end of a brief (relatively speaking) historical anomaly and a return to normalcy. It's nothing to fret about, not that this will stop my countrymen from working themselves into a mounting frenzy. The average British or French citizen is much better off living in a nation that isn't running around trying to impose its will on the globe, and after the American economic empire recedes, I suspect the average US citizen will be too.

[ralfy]

Probably moderate, but the U.S. will have difficulty in acting because of chronic economic crisis and the point that China is a main trading partner.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

That goes double for China, which is still an export-based economy that is far more dependent on the buying power of the US consumer than vice versa. We should take care to characterize China as an entity that will act in its own best interests and not a Fu-Man-Chu mustachioed yellow menace capable of wreaking havoc via actions that would ultimately harm its own economy worse than ours. It's also worth noting that never in the historical record has China attacked a Western power that wasn't invading its neighbor (Korea in 1950), while post-industrial Europe and America have been the most bellicose warmongers since the Mongols. The average US citizen should spend about 1 second worrying about military or economic attack from China for every 10,000 hours we spend worrying about our own government's meddling in the affairs of others to the detriment of all but a few corrupt insiders.

[Nova Andromeda]

That goes double for China, which is still an export-based economy that is far more dependent on the buying power of the US consumer than vice versa. We should take care to characterize China as an entity that will act in its own best interests and not a Fu-Man-Chu mustachioed yellow menace capable of wreaking havoc via actions that would ultimately harm its own economy worse than ours. It's also worth noting that never in the historical record has China attacked a Western power that wasn't invading its neighbor (Korea in 1950), while post-industrial Europe and America have been the most bellicose warmongers since the Mongols. The average US citizen should spend about 1 second worrying about military or economic attack from China for every 10,000 hours we spend worrying about our own government's meddling in the affairs of others to the detriment of all but a few corrupt insiders.

What makes China so different that it wouldn't 'flex its muscles' once it was top dog? The Chinese are bog standard human after all and its government doesn't appear to be vastly more enlightened than any other.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not so much enlightenment as grand strategic indifference. China will no doubt flex muscles at its own immediate neighbors, and a conflict of some kind with other regional powers (Japan chief among them) is to be expected. But I don't see them suddenly deciding they absolutely have to weigh in on events in, say, Algeria or Colombia, the way the US routinely gets involved in the affairs of countries on the other side of the world.

Not having risen to great power status in a time of massive, existential conflicts of ideology and total warfare will do that for you.

[Ralin]

China regaining its position as the world's dominant economic superpower will simply be the end of a brief (relatively speaking) historical anomaly and a return to normalcy.

Yeah, this is ahistorical crap. Comparing the economies of the more successful pre-modern Chinese dynasties and the modern Chinese state (or any other industralized country) is comparing apples and oranges.

It's nothing to fret about, not that this will stop my countrymen from working themselves into a mounting frenzy. The average British or French citizen is much better off living in a nation that isn't running around trying to impose its will on the globe, and after the American economic empire recedes, I suspect the average US citizen will be too.

The average British or French citizen is better off living in a country with a strong welfare state and legally backed civil rights and shit. Not seeing how they wouldn’t be better off with those things and the ability to vacuum out the wealth of a colonial empire and bring it back home.

We should take care to characterize China as an entity that will act in its own best interests and not a Fu-Man-Chu mustachioed yellow menace capable of wreaking havoc via actions that would ultimately harm its own economy worse than ours.

We should characterize China as a major entity that will act in what a whole bunch of people in various positions of authority think is their own best interests at differing time depending on who is making what specific calls. I don’t think the Chinese government’s foreign policy moves according to a coherent plan. They wouldn’t have pissed away all the good will they had not so long ago from all their investments by throwing their weight around in the South China Sea if they did.

It's also worth noting that never in the historical record has China attacked a Western power that wasn't invading its neighbor (Korea in 1950),

Xizang and Xinjiang provinces. And India in the 50s. 'Western' is a relative thing.

[Thanas]

It's also worth noting that never in the historical record has China attacked a Western power that wasn't invading its neighbor (Korea in 1950)

No.

Only the muslim success in 751 stopped a very aggressively expanding China and China tried to wage war against the Portugese and Spanish as well when they formed their colonies. Likewise, Korea, Vietnam etc. got a few things to say about Chinese nonaggression as well.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait you are seriously blaming China for fighting nations that were setting up colonies halfway across the globe? Simon is right in that China did not often attack Western powers (its own neighbors are not Western powers).

Waging war against colonialism, on the other hand, is commendable.