Chinese expansionism

[Enoch]

The government of the People's Republic (I'd call it an oligarchy more than anything else) has figured a few things out.

 

1) How to play the game of 21st-century mercantilism via the manipulation of currency prices.  (All the major players do this to differing extents-- the U.S. gets ultra-cheap government borrowing and other perks because of its status as the primary global reserve currency; the northern Eurozoners use the Southern EZ as a captive market for exports, etc.)

 

2) That its oligarchic structure carries some competitive advantages. They can have stable governance and respect for contractual commitments (with measurable-but-tolerable corruption levels, relative to the West) without suffering any threat of reforms that affect labor costs or environmental costs in the industries they most care about. 

 

3) That the combination of the above two points with the nature of the Chinese labor force make it ideal as an export-driven manufacturing power. 

 

4) That the viability of export-driven manufacturing is very dependent on the cost and safety of international shipping. 

 

5) That international shipping is safeguarded primarily by the U.S. Navy, and that this represents a huge strategic threat to the PRC.  If the USN were to, say, withdraw its fleet from the protection of Indian Ocean trade routes (a move which is made more plausible by the internal energy boom in the U.S.), the Chinese economy would be in danger of being cut off from a great deal of its energy and raw material inputs. 

 

6) As such, it is important for the PRC to develop as a naval power strong enough to safeguard the supply lines of the Chinese economy, in the event that U.S. support weakens or fails. 

 

 

All of this has happened rather quickly after the economic reforms and the achievement of full WTO/GATT membership in the '90s.  Given the long lead times in military R&D and procurement (especially true in shipbuilding), Chinese military development is lagging the needs of their economic well-being.  And before they can project power across Pacific and Indian trade routes, they need to establish that they can project power in their own backyard. 

[Meshugger]

What a nice and eloquent way to put it. I would've said, "they are just trying to be as much ***** as the other superpowers around. But they are just opening their zipper at the moment."

[Walsingham]

Mind you, I've got as far as reading about the build up to WW1, and thinking

 

"It's time we became a superpower by building a navy to threaten the existing superpower"

 

was a really funting bad idea.

 

It's not like passing a conch around.

[Meshugger]

True, but that's what they are doing anyway.

[Walsingham]

True, but that's what they are doing anyway.

 

But...

 

Developing this line of reasoning...

 

If one accepts the premise that Germany in ww1/2 was - by virtue of geography - completely incapable of winning a naval conflict with Great Britain.

 

Then isn't it analogous o suggest that China cannot possibly succeed in securing its sea-lanes by threatening all the nations which sit offshore, dominating those sealanes?

[BruceVC]

Boys times have changed, large and powerful countries don't fight wars against each other anymore. They are too expensive. Nowadays the battles are fought in the economic arena and who is the most influential and dominant financial powerhouse

[Walsingham]

Not only are the wars expensive, but we realised quite a long while back that economic prosperity is grown, not carved up. It's only ideology that won't share.

[Zoraptor]

 

True, but that's what they are doing anyway.

If one accepts the premise that Germany in ww1/2 was - by virtue of geography - completely incapable of winning a naval conflict with Great Britain.

 

Germany didn't really try and win a naval conflict with GB in either war though- even at Jutland it wasn't intended to be 'stand and fight'- and for the forseeable future China won't try it with the US either. China's navy isn't designed to fight the US one, just to project a certain amount of power which it lacks at present and to build up prestige. If they did have to fight the US one they'd lose, and they'd try asymmetric tactics/ rely on subs much as Germany did. But if they want to apply pressure to the Phils, or Vietnam, or Korea or Japan then it's a useful tool; and if they want to protect essential sea supplies from anyone other than the US it's essential.

[obyknven]

 

 

True, but that's what they are doing anyway.

If one accepts the premise that Germany in ww1/2 was - by virtue of geography - completely incapable of winning a naval conflict with Great Britain.

 

Germany didn't really try and win a naval conflict with GB in either war though- even at Jutland it wasn't intended to be 'stand and fight'- and for the forseeable future China won't try it with the US either. China's navy isn't designed to fight the US one, just to project a certain amount of power which it lacks at present and to build up prestige. If they did have to fight the US one they'd lose, and they'd try asymmetric tactics/ rely on subs much as Germany did. But if they want to apply pressure to the Phils, or Vietnam, or Korea or Japan then it's a useful tool; and if they want to protect essential sea supplies from anyone other than the US it's essential.

 

After invention of Nuclear weapon all other weapons become obsolete. Just for lulz, US yet armed by Nuclear weapons from Nixon's time's, all these wasting of money's (~700 billions dollars every year)  needed only for war against some  low-tech Ali-baba's from caves. Same story with China - for war against US they must have Nukes instead of fleets, but some people yet have thinking patterns from times of WW2. IRL country even with small amount of conventional weapons, but with nukes  just invulnerable against any agression. All these talks about: "My fleets is bigger than your's" is just sublimation of men's *********.

 

[Azarkon]

Mind you, I've got as far as reading about the build up to WW1, and thinking

 

"It's time we became a superpower by building a navy to threaten the existing superpower"

 

was a really funting bad idea.

 

It's not like passing a conch around.

 

I don't think the Germans were stupid. They acted in accordance with what they saw to be the order of the day. It must have looked rather dire, with British colonialism then owning a third of the world and German colonialism being nipped in the bud. There was, without hindsight, little cause to believe the British and the French weren't going to use their massive colonial empires to eventually bully Germans - and worse. Had we the mentality of a 19th century European, being taught that God is dead, that only the fittest survived, and that it was only natural that the strong preyed on the weak, who's to say we won't come to the same conclusion - that Germans had to expand to survive?

 

A lot of people today look back to WW 2 in black and white, but they fail to comprehend, I think, that the horror of it all is that what the Germans, the Japanese, etc. did - and here I'm talking about their geopolitical moves and designs, rather than their wartime atrocities - were not irrational, that indeed it was, in the eyes of a 19th century German / Japanese, necessary. Just because we don't, in the coziness of our contemporary bubble, sympathize with them, does not make them fools.

 

The same goes for China. It must look rather dire, with the US and its allies in complete control of the sea lanes that are your economic lifeblood, in a world suddenly made small, where another civilization and race controls 3/4ths of the planet and encroaches upon you on every side. In a way, China's situation is no different than that of Germany's and Japan's - it's caught in a bind where challenging the existing world order looks foolish, and yet not challenging the existing world order looks hopeless.

 

But there are differences, and ones that we are wise to preserve. From the deterrence offered by nuclear weapons, to the ability of market capitalism to lift all boats, to the smaller stomach for atrocities and the less stark ideologies, the contemporary world offers a way out that was not necessarily known to the 19th century Germans.

 

That, I think, is the one hope to hold onto for this and coming generations.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

I don't want to sound aggressive, Azarkon. But frankly the Germans WERE funting idiotic.

 

The logic was that Germany was a strong nation and needed an empire. But only a half-educated militarist could reach this conclusion.

 

Germany did not NEED and overseas empire precisely because she was so strong. Almost no German investment (<12%) went beyond Europe, yet she was growing in strength. Great Britain, meanwhile was transparently suffering from having an empire and many politicians were trying to divest her of one. Nor, given her location, could she possibly secure one by virtue of a Mahan-ite navy.

 

I re-emphasise my central point: China threatening the states along its vital sealanes will only precipitate the crisis it wants to avoid. It cannot possibly secure the lanes militarily without actively occupying those nation-states.

[Rostere]

Allegedly the first question that Dönitz was asked when interrogated by Allied commanders after the war was "Why the heck didn't you build more submarines?".

 

I don't think this can be compared to current Chinese behaviour, but German naval strategy until Dönitz took over was pretty stupid. They could as well have sent out giant shiny piñatas at sea. But then, we must compare with other nations at the time, you can also question a lot of stuff the British did. In hindsight, it would seem that the British at the time did not fully understand the particular advantages they had over the Germans at sea, relating to aircraft carriers and naval aviation. The British Navy's initial attempt at court-martialing the commanders of the Prince of Wales after their encounter with Bismarck would be one example.

 

When we think about the crazy German naval battleship projects, you have to keep in mind that when they were commissioned, their primary mission was interdiction of trade lanes to the British Isles. So there was a lot of sense in building a navy, it's just that it should have consisted of submarines and not battleships.

[HoonDing]

Boys times have changed, large and powerful countries don't fight wars against each other anymore. They are too expensive. Nowadays the battles are fought in the economic arena and who is the most influential and dominant financial powerhouse

+ Cyberwarfare.

[Azarkon]

I don't want to sound aggressive, Azarkon. But frankly the Germans WERE funting idiotic.

 

The logic was that Germany was a strong nation and needed an empire. But only a half-educated militarist could reach this conclusion.

 

Germany did not NEED and overseas empire precisely because she was so strong. Almost no German investment (<12%) went beyond Europe, yet she was growing in strength. Great Britain, meanwhile was transparently suffering from having an empire and many politicians were trying to divest her of one. Nor, given her location, could she possibly secure one by virtue of a Mahan-ite navy.

 

I re-emphasise my central point: China threatening the states along its vital sealanes will only precipitate the crisis it wants to avoid. It cannot possibly secure the lanes militarily without actively occupying those nation-states.

 

I have no issue with your disagreement, but my German analogy was directed towards its European expansion, not its initial overseas expansion. The argument that Germany was gaining in strength vis-a-vis the rest of Europe during the 19th century is offset by the observation that its economy was, in fact, stuck in dire straits at the time it launched its European expansion in the late 19th/early 20th. That phase of the European past is well studied and therefore needs no repeating. A maritime colonial empire was not the brightest idea the Germans ever had, but an overland empire, which was what the Germans eventually embarked on, is a logical response to the vast imperiums of its rivals, from the British, to the French, to the Russians, to the Americans, all of whom were imbued with vastly greater territorial possessions and resources. In retrospect, the age of colonialism was ending, but there was no cause at the time to believe that the British and the French colonies were without recourse, while the Americans and the Russians never did lose their overland imperiums.

 

The Germans did not foresee the age of European unity and American-led globalism, but then who, in continental Europe, did? The US was not such an almighty force back in the early 20th century, and from the German view America was both distant and peripheral to European competition. It was difficult to imagine, then, that the world was eventually going to be run by US trade and investments, further still because America's rise was precipitated by Europe's self destructive behaviour during the two World Wars.

 

To this end, I do not disagree that trying to establish a maritime empire was a bad idea from the Germans. But I was also not talking about this specific design, but rather the larger design of expansion that the Germans became preoccupied with in the years following the simultaneous collapse of their economy and maritime empire.

 

In China's case, their plan is simply to guarantee that they're able to deter rivals from casually blockading their sea lanes in the event of conflict. Again, a logical strategy for a country reliant on external trade for resources and export merchandise. Trusting the US for protection when you're not an US ally is irrational, and trying to become an US ally is impractical. Of course, I also disagree with your assessment that China has to take over other countries to secure its sea lanes. Here's a mental challenge: who's going to attack a Chinese carrier group out in the Pacific? There's only a few countries capable of doing so, and only one that's immune to escalation.

 

The Chinese economy is reaching that tipping period where rapid expansion on cheap labor alone is no longer viable. Rising labor costs are moving manufacturing off their shores, and yet they're not rich enough to transition into a service economy. To keep being the world's factory, they need resources, and to secure resources, they need maritime trade and a blue water navy. Chinese investments in the US, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East all stand to benefit from the ability to project power overseas. It beats spending money on empty skyscrapers.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Azarkon

[Wrath of Dagon]

Since we're China's biggest customer, it would be logical to make them suffer financial consequences every time they misbehave.

[BruceVC]

Since we're China's biggest customer, it would be logical to make them suffer financial consequences every time they misbehave.

 

This has already happened. Why do you think the Chinese had such a vested interest in the recovery of the USA economy?

End of the day the Chinese are an export driven economy, if large countries like the USA can't buy there goods they are in big trouble

[Orogun01]

 

Since we're China's biggest customer, it would be logical to make them suffer financial consequences every time they misbehave.

 

This has already happened. Why do you think the Chinese had such a vested interest in the recovery of the USA economy?

End of the day the Chinese are an export driven economy, if large countries like the USA can't buy there goods they are in big trouble

 

Look the sooner we realize that the economic collapse will inevitably lead to WWIII, the sooner we can build our own bunkers. End of the day if there isn't a massive change in the US the next economic down might be the one to kill us all. Plus with the political climate (rampant corruption) as it is, there will be no reforms that lead us out of this recession.

OTOH by the time this happens China might have found another customer on one of the emerging economies, which might end up balancing the equation.

Either way, interesting times ahead.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Since we're China's biggest customer, it would be logical to make them suffer financial consequences every time they misbehave.

 

This has already happened. Why do you think the Chinese had such a vested interest in the recovery of the USA economy?

End of the day the Chinese are an export driven economy, if large countries like the USA can't buy there goods they are in big trouble

 

Look the sooner we realize that the economic collapse will inevitably lead to WWIII, the sooner we can build our own bunkers. End of the day if there isn't a massive change in the US the next economic down might be the one to kill us all. Plus with the political climate (rampant corruption) as it is, there will be no reforms that lead us out of this recession.

OTOH by the time this happens China might have found another customer on one of the emerging economies, which might end up balancing the equation.

Either way, interesting times ahead.

 

 

That's the interesting thing, the USA isn't going anywhere despite the calls of doom and gloom from some circles. I don't want to mention any names (Republicans !!!  )

 

The USA economy is recovering, or you can argue is in a stronger position than most places around the world. The GDP for the USA for 2013 is almost the same as the total of the next 3 countries and those are China, Japan and Germany

 

http://exploredia.com/list-of-countries-by-gdp-2013/

 

The EU doesn't count as its not one country

[Walsingham]

I work with a fellah who believes in the Economic Collapse. and after several months of discussions I've reached the conclusion that it's roughly analogous to The Rapture. A huge disaster that no-one who cares about other people should desire, and which saves a non-specific group of 'right minded' people.

 

I also think it's something that's not going to happen.

 

The joy of the international system is that we are so interconnected that shocks in one area ripple out, and are cushioned by everyone else. To my mind the only time it goes completely balls-hoogly is when some well-intention fethwit tries to macro-engineer the system.

[BruceVC]

I work with a fellah who believes in the Economic Collapse. and after several months of discussions I've reached the conclusion that it's roughly analogous to The Rapture. A huge disaster that no-one who cares about other people should desire, and which saves a non-specific group of 'right minded' people.

 

I also think it's something that's not going to happen.

 

The joy of the international system is that we are so interconnected that shocks in one area ripple out, and are cushioned by everyone else. To my mind the only time it goes completely balls-hoogly is when some well-intention fethwit tries to macro-engineer the system.

 

Well you should tell him to research the financial crisis that started in 2008, that was the closest the world came to real global crash. And it was obvious to all that the impending results was something that no-one and no country wanted or would have benefitted from.

[Kroney]

 

I work with a fellah who believes in the Economic Collapse. and after several months of discussions I've reached the conclusion that it's roughly analogous to The Rapture. A huge disaster that no-one who cares about other people should desire, and which saves a non-specific group of 'right minded' people.

 

I also think it's something that's not going to happen.

 

The joy of the international system is that we are so interconnected that shocks in one area ripple out, and are cushioned by everyone else. To my mind the only time it goes completely balls-hoogly is when some well-intention fethwit tries to macro-engineer the system.

 

Well you should tell him to research the financial crisis that started in 2008, that was the closest the world came to real global crash. And it was obvious to all that the impending results was something that no-one and no country wanted or would have benefitted from.

 

 

That's not true. There are always people that make a ton of money from an economic crash.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I work with a fellah who believes in the Economic Collapse. and after several months of discussions I've reached the conclusion that it's roughly analogous to The Rapture. A huge disaster that no-one who cares about other people should desire, and which saves a non-specific group of 'right minded' people.

 

I also think it's something that's not going to happen.

 

The joy of the international system is that we are so interconnected that shocks in one area ripple out, and are cushioned by everyone else. To my mind the only time it goes completely balls-hoogly is when some well-intention fethwit tries to macro-engineer the system.

 

Well you should tell him to research the financial crisis that started in 2008, that was the closest the world came to real global crash. And it was obvious to all that the impending results was something that no-one and no country wanted or would have benefitted from.

 

 

That's not true. There are always people that make a ton of money from an economic crash.

 

 

Not a global crash, because every trading index and every economy would be effected.

[Gorgon]

I don't want to sound aggressive, Azarkon. But frankly the Germans WERE funting idiotic.

 

The logic was that Germany was a strong nation and needed an empire. But only a half-educated militarist could reach this conclusion.

 

Germany did not NEED and overseas empire precisely because she was so strong. Almost no German investment (Mahan-ite navy.

 

 

I believe the logic was that Germany would grow weaker realative to Britain and France. The British Empire might have been too large. Constantly darting to avoid one disaster or the other, but doubless a miitary asset. Imagine Britain fighting WW2 without its indiginous colonial forces. Germany didn't have the fleet to support the african colonies it did have. Cameroon, others ?. Lost in the WW1 peace treaty. 

[Kroney]

 

I believe the logic was that Germany would grow weaker realative to Britain and France. The British Empire might have been too large. Constantly darting to avoid one disaster or the other, but doubless a miitary asset. Imagine Britain fighting WW2 without its indiginous colonial forces. Germany didn't have the fleet to support the african colonies it did have. Cameroon, others ?. Lost in the WW1 peace treaty. 

 

 

 

All the help the Indians and Nepalese offered was offset by all them Antipodeans

[Walsingham]

 

 

I work with a fellah who believes in the Economic Collapse. and after several months of discussions I've reached the conclusion that it's roughly analogous to The Rapture. A huge disaster that no-one who cares about other people should desire, and which saves a non-specific group of 'right minded' people.

 

I also think it's something that's not going to happen.

 

The joy of the international system is that we are so interconnected that shocks in one area ripple out, and are cushioned by everyone else. To my mind the only time it goes completely balls-hoogly is when some well-intention fethwit tries to macro-engineer the system.

 

Well you should tell him to research the financial crisis that started in 2008, that was the closest the world came to real global crash. And it was obvious to all that the impending results was something that no-one and no country wanted or would have benefitted from.

 

 

That's not true. There are always people that make a ton of money from an economic crash.

 

 

That's kind of the point. There was an overall depression, but not every sector fell down. Agile businesses and investors did just fine.