Economic not Political Question:

[AntonioFP45]

Hello guys and ladies.

Normally I wouldn't post this here but it struck my curiosity strongly. When I hear rumors, I like to see them either proven or eradicated.

As I was listening to the radio, an intelligent speaker commented that one of the reasons that a lot of materials like concrete, and parts components are in short supply is that there is a possiblility that China in the long term may be preparing for war, possibly with us. [%-)] I thought that this "Radio Person" was absolutely ridiculous especially since the U.S has become China's "Cash Cow". I can imagine that our railroads would be decimated if our economic ties were to be "strained" or even "severed".


In looking at how much Chinese imports are shipped around by U.S and Canadian Railroads once the containers come in, it wouldn't make sense for China's government to hurt their own economy. But then again, it was also reported that China has been selling weapons to terrorists and there is Korea sitting there also. The Chinese leadership is still reputed to be far more ruthless than our Democrat & Republican leadership combined.

If this topic is inappropriate, then please ignore it. I can understand. But, If you have some knowledge that can clarify this it would be very much appreciated. Many of you are sharp and keep up with events and could perhaps shed some info on this.

Peace and High Greens!

[kevarc]

China is in the middle of a huge spurt of economic growth. It has nothing to do with war preperations, but with dragging themselfs into the here and now. For many years China was economically backwards. But with their desire to become a major player in the world, they are re-inventing themselfs, yet again. They have dramatically expanded factories and infrastructure in the last few years. This has caused a widespread drain on resources throughout the world. The demand for steel in China, for example, has skyrocketed, causing a spike in scap iron, iron ore, and met coal prices in the year or so.

[Junctionfan]

I doubt that China is even slightly interested in war with the U.S. They seem to be more interested in perfecting what they have so they wouldn't want to get into a war that could mess up their hard work.

[route_rock]

Trust but verify.I wouldnt trust them any further than I could throw a Big Boy.But I doubt if they are preparing for full scale war with us cause they now they would lose.No I am not being cocky just being truthful.We have long range nukes they dont.Plus the logistical nightmare of getting their army one over here then two supplying them would boggle the mind.I am guessing they would stay in their little sandbox but we would probably wind up going to help whoever they decided to attack.

[gabe]

Antonio,

Your topic is one of great interest to me. I am not asserting I believe this argument, but:

(1) China is buying scrap metal like there is no tomorrow, despite the fact that their excellorated buying is hurting them. China is buying scrap metal at a hugely inflatted price, and when the buble bursts (which it has to, there is just not enough world demand to sustain it) they are going to be stuck with a huge amount of scap that will be worth 1/5 what they paid for it.

(2) China is buying crude in much the same fashion.

(3) China knows the U.S. is currently over committed militarily.

(4) Two months ago China warned Tiawan that if the independent military spending bill was passed, "grave consequences would follow."

(5) Tiawan's President and Vice President, who champion the separatist policy, were recently shot by an unknown assasin (in a country that has no history of such actions).

(6) Ten years from now, I don't think this will be the case (because Mexico is starting to become more industrialized and educating its population), but--for inflationary reasons--the U.S. would suffer from an embargo of China much more than China would suffer. Many contend that China was the true impetus for NAFTA.

The good news, is this argument does not suggest that China is preparing for an all out war. It is suggestive that China wants to invade Formosa (AKA Taiwan) and bring it under Mainland China's rule. China considers Tiawan's independence to be a remanant of western imperialism and a national insult. Ergo, the argument suggest China is going to invade Taiwan and then buckle down for the insuing economic boycott from the west.

The "theory" is that--for the above stated reasons--the likely consequence of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan/Formosa would be a U.S embargo and the only reason it makes sense for China to buy raw materials at an inflated price and risk hyperinflation and "red lining" its economy is because China knows of the possibility of such an embargo.

Like I said though, that is just "a theory." It doesn't mean that it is true. Like Kevarc said, China's recent incredible economic growth is just as likely an explanation. Those who say war is coming would note that it still doesn't make sense, because of the obvious and hyper inflated prices China is buying raw materials--a price that could not possibly justify a positive economic return.

To answer your question: I don't know. It is an interesting theory that I follow closely. I guess it comes down to something like this: "I don't believe in ghosts, but I am scared of them." I don't believe the theory, but it is plausible enough to make me scared of it.

Such a war, or even an embargo, would not only devastate U.S. railroading, it would devastate all of the American economy--as China is a major check on inflation in the U.S. The inflation that would arise from such a happening could very well cause a "real" economic problem.

Gabe

[gabe]

One other thing. With regard to the "countries wouldn't dare go to war with us because we have nukes" theory. I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it holds a lot of weight. I pray that if China goes to war, our first, second, third, or last response is not to bring out the nukes.

Assuming for the sake of argument we could do this successfully, without retaliation--and still be able to live with ourselves for killing a billion people, one nonetheless needs to consider the amount of plutonium it would take to subdue a country the size of China, the half life of plutonium, and the length of time it would take the jet stream to carry the radioactive material to the United States.

It is the ultimate cut off your hand to spite your finger.

Gabe

[Junctionfan]

If God for bid, a war between China and the U.S were to be; I would think that both sides would not use nuclear weapons because they knew if one person starts the other must also.

I don't think nuclear weapons would be used. Last time the U.S and China butt heads (Korean War), nothing nuclear happened than.

[railman]

If there is a flash point, it will start in Korea, not China. The regime in N. Korea is unstable, and has a large conventional (and nuclear, possibly) military force. If at some point they decided to take the south, that is where the war would begin.

From there, knowing the US has committments to defend South Korea (which I think the US would), if China was looking for a time to invade Taiwan, that would be it. By the time we could mobilize (i.e. draft) an force large enough to not only oust them from Taiwan AND push back the North Koreans, they could have occupied the territory and have strong defensive positions for our response. It would be weeks, even months before our aircraft carriers and other ships ( re-activated battleships, perhaps?) could bring in the sea muscle to ensure air supremacy and ocean passage.

All this said; we buy a lot of junk that is junk from China, and they buy our junk that is treasure to them, and our junk could make a lot of other valuables. So I guess it's something to think about. And by my comments about our military forces, the troops we have right now are doing a great job. All I'm saying is that we would need a lot more than 500,000 troops to win a war on the Korean front or in China, or both.

Remember that in 1941 the Japanese were flying planes and sailing ships of British heritage and design, made out of American scrap iron and fueled by Dutch East Indies and American oil.

I'm afraid that at some point it would go nuclear, because even if we wouldn't use ours, China, or Korea, if that's all they had left, would have to use them. In a winner take all war, there would be no inhibitions if the fate of a nation was at stake.

To make a gasp at keeping this on topic, if there was a war, railroads would obviously have to shift to supplying wartime needs.

[gabe]

I am pretty sure the 7th Fleet would have something to say about China invading Taiwan in any set of circumstances. That is and will always be the true stumbling block for China. But, as you say, if they ever get in, it would be awfully hard to get them out. Also, given our "One China Policy" would we even try?

As I mentioned above, the economic problem (that would dramatically affect railroads) is not the "junk" that we could or could not get from China. It is the inflation that would follow such a war. That is China's equivelant to the 7th Fleet. Truth of the matter, we need China as a trade partner more than they need us. Sure their modernization process would ground to a hault if their economy didn't have our markets to support it; but their underdeveloped market could survive in stacis much longer than ours, which would simply implode under the inflationary weight without serious price controls and rapid responses from Mexico and South America.

Gabe

[csxengineer98]

keep in mind that china has nukes...and has an army that is at least 5 times larger then ours....also..they have 1/5th the words population...should a conventinal war erupt with us and china... they have a 5 to 1 advantage man per man....
do not underestimate the chines threat!! it is real...
csx engineer

[Junctionfan]

U.S shouldn't under estimate the power of China. They are very strong and could pose a very strong defense in conventional warfare. I did a study on them in school on their military capabilities before the U.S scientist sold the U.S military secrets to China.

Even than a Harvard University study sited that China was virtually impossible to attack short of nuclear attack. Unlike the Soviet Union, China has its act together for mobilization. It is very disiplined and stubborn force with many mountainous regions that could have dozens of secret nuclear silos as well as SAM batteries. Also, it has more NORAD bunker style places (because of the mountains).

In terms of jungle guerrila warfare, as far as I know the U.S is still inefficient at it. In fact the only force that is good at it is the British forces and the only reason why is because the British have the Gurka tribesmen unit. I must say though, the Navy Seal unit could adapt the best in the jungle conditions if invasion was to occur. However with regular forces, I don't think the U.S forces would do so well without a lot of casulties.

The missle defense Star Wars is a waste of money and doesn't work according to scientists. The only thing it would do is weaponize space and most definately cause another arms race which is not advisable speaking from a strategic point of view.

Best bet for the U.S military's might is increase overall forces of the U.S; double if not triple the special forces (Delta Force, Green Beret, Navy Seals, any others I forgot); equip the army regulars with better equipment, and more training overall for the regulars.

This is the best way to stay on top of the world in military might. Laser weapons and encounter suit technology is being developed which could also be a great asset to the U.S arsenal.
But.......China would still be a major challenge to the U.S; diplomacy is the best tactic here.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget that China is half the reason crude oil went above $50 a barrel because of their large demand.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the military and nuclear technology that Clinton handed over to China on a silver platter ends up being used against us?

BTW, did anyone else catch one of Kerry's lines during the first debate where he stated something to the effect of giving nuclear materials to Iran and giving them a chance to prove they won't convert it to military use?!

The moral: Let's not make the same mistake twice.

[Junctionfan]

I don't think Kerry said that. He said he wanted to oversee what they were doing with the materials or something like that.

[Anonymous]

It is far more important to retain our freedoms here at home. Fair trade with other nations is good. War is avoidable, especially when a nation minds its own business. All Americans should read the farewell addresses of two great presidents: George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower. Our current leader would do well to to read and re-read these passages.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

[Junctionfan]

Technically speaking, Taiwan does belong to China. Taiwan was an agreement (kind of) for the aristocrats to take refuge there; that was a long time ago. I think all of them are dead now and the generation of today in Taiwan, is the product of the aristocracy's forced exile. Therefore with the aristocracy not being there anymore, the agreement would be dissolved.

I wonder if that is what China's explaination is.

[railman]

I think a lessons we can learn from all of this is that:

The world is not a naturally happy place, and we need to keep our wits about us. (As a nation.) Be aware of what is going on, at home and abroad. State our beliefs clearly, our values plainly, and other nations will take heed. When other countries see weakness or confusion on our part, that's when they can jump in and stir up the pot.

[Anonymous]

Also, remember that 911 was judo - skill, technique, and timing rather than the use of brute strength. Don't underestimate our enemy.

[gabe]

It is really interesting to see that train fans come from a very wide background of values and political beliefs.

Gabe

[route_rock]

Sorry but Nukes would be it in a 5 to 1 battle,The US wouldnt invade China but would stop them from taking over Taiwan as would the brits.Lets remember also that the Chinese are still petrified of the Mongolians.Maybe we can talk a few of them into coming into play [:D]and last I heard Kerry did say that about Iran but you know what it doesnt matter I have never liked him since the day he called reservists cowards(yet he was one himself)and guardsman as duty shirkers.I was a reservist and my uncles and father in law were in the guard.To add insult to injury he calls any in Nam at the time baby killers or Ghengis Khans(my dad and uncle were there when he did this)So the man is just standing there flapping his lips whenever I watch him.But Mark is right about trade.We traded with the *** till we were brought into the war on Dec 7th.

[gabe]

I don't think that Mark said we traded with the *** until we were brought in the war. We were not allowed to--due to the British blockade of Germany. The Germans actually developed a "trade summarine" capable of transporting cargo. However, the first time it went to New York, stories miraculously appeared about the attrocities committed by the crew. An interesting little story. In any event, for all practical purposes, after the invasion of Poland in 39, we didn't trade with the ***.

[MP57313]

China has already made a "beach head" at the LA-Long Beach harbor, where an old navy base was scapped (or scraped, take your pick) and China Ocean Shipping Co. moved in. Some folks are still a bit nervous and angry about it.

And how about the predictions are that China's economy (GDP) will pass by the US by mid-Century. The US would remain strong but in 2nd place. Maybe that's the "war" that was being discussed on the radio...the battle for economic leadership.

[gabe]

I think caution should be exercised in not allowing some of these theories to be misconstrued as reality. I will be the first to admit that I find them interesting--they are, and teach you a great deal about the world we live in. However, no good will ever come out of reading too much into such theories. If that constitutes a beach head, let me assure you we have more beach heads in China than they have here.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
teach you a great deal about the world we live in.

Indeed. We have traveled on occasion to other countries, but never the far east. Overseas, we always saw references to the US, US companies, US stock market, and currency exchange rates with the US$. No, we weren't on an economics tour. But far and away, foreigners are much more aware, and interested, in what the US is doing. TV and movies have something to do with it. In the US, many people we know are not all that interested in other countries, despite all the billions of dollars of imports pouring in each year.

[Junctionfan]

First person to use nukes would end up starting world war 3. If the U.S nuked China, you would end up alienating Russia which might ally with China than, Iran, India , Pakistan, the rest of the middle east, North Korea, and even some of the African nations.

I don't know why the first thing that come to peoples mind is nuke them. It would cause a war unlike any has seen before; even world war 2 would pale in comparison. We can't be war mongerers here. This potential enemy is not as weak as some of you suppose. It has teeth and has been sharpening them since the days of Mao Tse-Tung. It can and will be brutal with its own people (Tienemin Square) but overall has the control. Unlike in the middle east where the leadership can be topple, China is a working and efficient government; make no mistake, they are in charge and their people no it to be absolute. The U.N made China a member of the security council for a reason; they have the means and the discipline to effectively wage war with anybody they think will attack them. The U.N essentially is trying to keep China on a short leash because they knew that if the Soviet Union and China wasn't going to go at it, the U.S and China would and the U.N along with all of its members feared that.

China does respond to prolonged diplomacy. Look how successful the meetings between Clinton and Zhiang Zamin were. This how to keep the peace; prolong by showing the leader a good time, take him out for a beer or something. Bottomline is keep him so happy and change the subject from war to peace. That is how you achieve victory-strength in friendship not strength in arms.

Pardon me while I get off the lecture hall podium.

[Anonymous]

Well, this thread is hopelessly OT already so I may as well throw in a few observations of my own.

- Star Wars missile defense system only exists/existed on paper but it scared the paranoid leaders of the USSR so badly that they drove their country into bankruptcy in an attempt to "defeat" it.

- If nukes are used it won't be the start of WW-III, the war will already be in progress and the first nuke strike will be launched by the party fearing defeat.

- China may have a large army and many people but it lacks the capacity to deliver their forces any farther than they can walk or swim.

- Prolonged diplomacy is working. It was started by Richard Nixon in 1972 when he became the first US president to visit China.

[StillGrande]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks


- If nukes are used it won't be the start of WW-III, the war will already be in progress and the first nuke strike will be launched by the party fearing defeat.

I'm not convinced this is true. The US was in no danger of losing WW2 when it nuked 2 cities. It was to bring the war to a quick end and reduce US casualties.

Most of the scenarios I have run through with military and civilian officials have nukes used at the end of the conflict to finish off the opposition. It is rare for the losing side to just use what they have just because they are going to lose (can't think of an example). It is a good way to lose any bargaining chips you have with the rest of the world (Germany was sitting on tons of chemical weapons in WW2, but they went ahead and lost rather than deploy them, knowing they would get it worse if they did).

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks

Well, this thread is hopelessly OT already so I may as well throw in a few observations of my own.

- Star Wars missile defense system only exists/existed on paper but it scared the paranoid leaders of the USSR so badly that they drove their country into bankruptcy in an attempt to "defeat" it.

- If nukes are used it won't be the start of WW-III, the war will already be in progress and the first nuke strike will be launched by the party fearing defeat.

- China may have a large army and many people but it lacks the capacity to deliver their forces any farther than they can walk or swim.

- Prolonged diplomacy is working. It was started by Richard Nixon in 1972 when he became the first US president to visit China.

I disagree. As longs as no nukes were used, it should stay a U.S / China War; but if nuclear weapons are used, the world will take sides and you'll end up with a NATO vs Warsaw Pact like war (hence a world war).

China's technology has come a long way thanks to a certain scientist who gave away secrets. Unless you work for the Pentigon or Norad, we really can't say what China really has. Keep in mind that China is a major importer and is heavily industrialized. There are reaping the benefits of Hong Kong too. We don't really know what China could have in store for the U.S if they were attacked. Keep in mind that China already warned the U.S not to interfear when they were rattling their sabres saying they were going to take back Taiwan the first time. China didn't go through with it than because maybe then they weren't ready plus they didn't have the U.S secrets then too.

[Anonymous]

We are never going to war with china. Walmart would have nothing to sell. Customers would riot!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by StillGrande
I'm not convinced this is true. The US was in no danger of losing WW2 when it nuked 2 cities. It was to bring the war to a quick end and reduce US casualties.

This is a common misconception. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to prevent the annihilation of the entire population of Japan. The cliffs and hills at the entrance to Tokyo Bay were honey combed with fortifications and the entire population had been brainwashed to fight to the last person. Remember that in Japan the Emperor was God and the Japanese would follow him without question. Some dramatic and shocking event had to happen to convince the Emperor and the populace that there was no hope of winning or even fighting to a draw.

The US had already encountered this mind-set when capturing islands in the Pacific so the intelligence they received from the Japanese homeland was not surprising.

Remember the Kamikaze Zeros? Also, the last Japanese soldier on Guam finally surrendered in 1972. There was a similar incident in the Phillipines in 1974.

When the final plans were being made the first phase, the invasion of Kyushu, the southern-most island of Japan, was estimated to cost 63,000 US casualties. After we took over the country and saw what defensive measures were in place that estimate was raised to between 500,000 to 1,000,000 US casualties. Japan's army strength at this time was ~ 5 million, and most of them would have been casualties of a conventional invasion.

At some time prior to the dropping of the first atom bomb J. Robert Oppenheimer said "this is a weapon with no military significance. It will make a big bang - a very big bang - but it is not a weapon which is useful in war."

The US infrastructure, not the least of which were the railroads, was simply undefeatable. The only questions were, how many US lives were we willing to lose and how many Japanese were we willing to kill.