Expert: Tillerson's plan for the South China Sea would 'end up in a shooting war with China' - Polidicks

[quote]President-elect Donald Trump's secretary of state nominee, Rex Tillerson, made waves internationally on Thursday by suggesting that the US should "send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed." Suggesting China stop its building of artificial islands and militarizing them doesn't sharply break with the policy of President Barack Obama's administration, but suggesting a blockade — or forcefully stopping China from sailing to its land features in the South China Sea — does. China's response, at first muted, has come back strong, with Chinese media saying that "unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish." "Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories," the Global Times wrote in an editorial.[/quote] [url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-attempt-blockade-south-china-165626585.html[/url]

Yeah I don't see how they're going to forcefully stop military chinese ships or airplanes from going to the islands without actually firing on them, I can see China calling the US's bluff and not turning back on warning shots. [quote]"Tillerson did say that there would not be any change to the US position on recognizing China's sovereignty on land features in the South China Sea," Glaser told Business Insider. "If we don't object to China's land claims, do we have a legal right to deny China access to its sovereign territory?"[/quote] Fucking wow. "Nah we'll keep on recognizing the islands as being China's but we won't let China use them". What a clusterfuck.

Funny how "but Hillary will start a war with Russia!" kept getting pushed by Trump voters, now Trump and his people keep deliberately antagonising China. Is war with them better than war with Russia?

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51668617]Funny how "but Hillary will start a war with Russia!" kept getting pushed by Trump voters, now Trump and his people keep deliberately antagonising China. Is war with them better than war with Russia?[/QUOTE] A unilateral No Fly zone in Syria would have a significant risk of Provoking Russia by shooting down their planes "accidentally"

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51668617]Funny how "but Hillary will start a war with Russia!" kept getting pushed by Trump voters, now Trump and his people keep deliberately antagonising China. Is war with them better than war with Russia?[/QUOTE] IMO it's worse actually since even if no one fired nukes, it would end up horribly for everyone on the planet since the global economy would be fucked.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51668753]A unilateral No Fly zone in Syria would have a significant risk of Provoking Russia by shooting down their planes "accidentally"[/QUOTE] I don't know, relations between Turkey and Russia aren't exactly warlike even after the events of the last year or so.

I remember reading an article from a while back about why a war with China would be one sided. For China. US tanks, helicopters, planes, pretty much everything that has a screen or technology related to it, uses chinese components at some level. Screens are generally not made State side. Transistors and circuit boards? Same deal really. In the event of a war with China, the article made the argument that the lack of logistics and support for the army would be devestating in any form of prolonged conflict where repairs and replacements need to occur.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51668775]I remember reading an article from a while back about why a war with China would be one sided. For China. US tanks, helicopters, planes, pretty much everything that has a screen or technology related to it, uses chinese components at some level. Screens are generally not made State side. Transistors and circuit boards? Same deal really. In the event of a war with China, the article made the argument that the lack of logistics and support for the army would be devestating in any form of prolonged conflict where repairs and replacements need to occur.[/QUOTE] have you considered the absolutely massive amount of overwhelming force the usa has over china? [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0[/media] not to mention our 50+ allies worldwide, and our ability to chokehold china's economy

[QUOTE=Judas;51668798]have you considered the absolutely massive amount of overwhelming force the usa has over china? [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0[/media] not to mention our 50+ allies worldwide, and our ability to chokehold china's economy[/QUOTE] yes I did not write the article. IIRC someone well versed in military history, functions and tactics wrote it. I'll try and find it.

Posted CNN's take on this before: [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1548553[/URL]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51668775]I remember reading an article from a while back about why a war with China would be one sided. For China. US tanks, helicopters, planes, pretty much everything that has a screen or technology related to it, uses chinese components at some level. Screens are generally not made State side. Transistors and circuit boards? Same deal really. In the event of a war with China, the article made the argument that the lack of logistics and support for the army would be devestating in any form of prolonged conflict where repairs and replacements need to occur.[/QUOTE] It's a pretty dumb and uneducated assumption tbh (the article not you). If war occurs suppliers will simply change. Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and various other countries have major electronic components industries of various sizes manufacturing a variety components and subcomponents. Also, the DoD has made a habit of requiring major systems and existing system upgrades to use off the shelf components, it's practically an unwritten requirement at this point. More so, most of our equipment is older and most parts haven't been made since the 70s and 80s so circuit cards are litterally send back to a US contract to troubleshoot and refurbish a fucked component and then it's put back in our supply system for a retarded price. The only thing that would hurt us is the price increase to buy Japanese transistors instead of much cheaper Chinese ones.

[QUOTE=Judas;51668798]have you considered the absolutely massive amount of overwhelming force the usa has over china? [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0[/url] not to mention our 50+ allies worldwide, and [U]our ability to chokehold china's economy[/U][/QUOTE] The two economies are too much interconnected you wont be "chokeholding" anyone without hurting yourself. It's easy to attack Vietnam, Iraq, etc. who can be erased from the face of the Earth without having any effect on USA. This is completely different. The guy above talked about electronics in military, that is irrelevant, think about just what would happen to all USA tech companies like Google, Apple, Intel, Microsoft... all the Japanese and Korean companies that get parts from China. Then all the companies and economies around the world that rely on expanding to Chinese market like Hollywood movie industry(lame example, but you get the point), etc.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51668884]The two economies are too much interconnected you wont be "chokeholding" anyone without hurting yourself. It's easy to attack Vietnam, Iraq, etc. who can be erased from the face of the Earth without having any effect on USA. This is completely different. The guy above talked about electronics in military, that is irrelevant, think about just what would happen to all USA tech companies like Google, Apple, Intel, Microsoft... all the Japanese and Korean companies that get parts from China. Then all the companies and economies around the world that rely on expanding to Chinese market like Hollywood movie industry(lame example, but you get the point), etc.[/QUOTE] i'll tell you what happens the same shit that happened during ww2. people recycle items and it all gets made here in the usa. china goes down the shitter.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51668884]The two economies are too much interconnected you wont be "chokeholding" anyone without hurting yourself. It's easy to attack Vietnam, Iraq, etc. who can be erased from the face of the Earth without having any effect on USA. This is completely different. The guy above talked about electronics in military, that is irrelevant, think about just what would happen to all USA tech companies like Google, Apple, Intel, Microsoft... all the Japanese and Korean companies that get parts from China. Then all the companies and economies around the world that rely on expanding to Chinese market like Hollywood movie industry(lame example, but you get the point), etc.[/QUOTE] it would be much, much, much harder for china to be self-sustaining than the US, we would both be hit really hard but the us would survive the economic turmoil and china wouldn't

[QUOTE=Pops;51668894]i'll tell you what happens the same shit that happened during ww2. people recycle items and it all gets made here in the usa. china goes down the shitter.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Judas;51668919]it would be much, much, much harder for china to be self-sustaining than the US, we would both be hit really hard but the us would survive the economic turmoil and china wouldn't[/QUOTE] Well yes USA is in a much better position, no doubt about that. But remember China took a serious beating in WW2 and look at them today, from nothing to second economy in the world in 60 years. You are writing them off far to easily.

[QUOTE=Judas;51668798]have you considered the absolutely massive amount of overwhelming force the usa has over china? [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0[/media] not to mention our 50+ allies worldwide, and our ability to chokehold china's economy[/QUOTE] A purely military analysis lacking the analysis of logistics, asymmetrical warfare, political warfare, media warfare, cyber warfare and most of all the involvement or spill of conflict over the region? IMO it's a nice numbers game, but doesn't cut it. Personally I think there will be no direct conflict whatsoever. If anything at all, we'll see an increase in cyber warfare operations, weird stuff happening (Like the bulgarian journalist killed by ricin stuff like that) and economic espionage. Should things get hot, it could spill into the region.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51668983]Well yes USA is in a much better position, no doubt about that. But remember China took a serious beating in WW2 and look at them today, from nothing to second economy in the world in 60 years. You are writing them off far to easily.[/QUOTE] Does this mean that Japan can conquer Earth because they went from oblivion to second largest economy in about 20 years

[QUOTE=Perrine;51668998]Does this mean that Japan can conquer Earth because they went from oblivion to second largest economy in about 20 years[/QUOTE] Not the same case. Technically it wasn't oblivious. And well, during the time frame it industrialised it could be said it was the same case as they almost managed to own half Asia.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;51668990]Personally I think there will be no direct conflict whatsoever. If anything at all, we'll see an increase in cyber warfare operations, weird stuff happening (Like the bulgarian journalist killed by ricin stuff like that) and economic espionage. Should things get hot, it could spill into the region.[/QUOTE] This. Conventional warfare is not dead and will never die, it's the basis of human civilization. But things have changed with the modern era. It's too costly, too risky, and too unpopular to rely on using massive armies, fleets, and air forces to fight one's enemies except as a last resort-- unless it's against an extremely disadvantaged nation (i.e. the United States invading Iraq or Afghanistan). The war of the future however is going to be defined by infiltration, terrorism, assassination, manipulation and espionage, etc. This is the new way things are done. Cyberwarfare will be a bigger component than before, especially since so much of the world's infrastructure now relies on technology and the Internet. And yeah, economic warfare will also be important. If we went to war with China for example, we could cut our agricultural trade with them and deny them close to $20 billion worth of exports in grain, soybeans, fertilizers, equipment, etc.; in a country that has depleted large swathes of its arable land and has around 1.357 billion people to feed (while we have around 325 million), we could starve them to death if we wanted. [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2013/04/25/feeding-chinas-population/]They could not meet their agricultural needs without us[/url].

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51668753]A unilateral No Fly zone in Syria would have a significant risk of Provoking Russia by shooting down their planes "accidentally"[/QUOTE] Which I always found to be bullshit especially after the incident with Turkey, Russia didn't do shit when Turkey shot their plane down besides some sanctions I think, they aren't going to do anything when an even more powerful country shoots their planes down, definitely not a war.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51668775]I remember reading an article from a while back about why a war with China would be one sided. For China. US tanks, helicopters, planes, pretty much everything that has a screen or technology related to it, uses chinese components at some level. Screens are generally not made State side. Transistors and circuit boards? Same deal really. In the event of a war with China, the article made the argument that the lack of logistics and support for the army would be devestating in any form of prolonged conflict where repairs and replacements need to occur.[/QUOTE] modern warfare on a scale of ww2 would be really really difficult tbh, our weapon systems today are not designed to be mass produced, they're designed to be stockpiled i mean in ww2 we could churn out a fighter every few hours, but most of the hardware was purely mechanical and was relatively easy to fabricate, just labor intensive fast forward today, our hardware is so complicated to manufacture that we aquire systems years even a decade in advance of anticipated need. NATO got a taste of this when many countries used up all their smart munitions against ISIS or when Israel expended all its iron dome missiles in one summer of bombardment ironically because we're all so integrated today, it would actually prevent long term global conflicts simply because we would run out of high tech weaponry to assault each other with. also while ITAR controls what military stuff we export, i'm willing to bet china has some ITAR restricted components that they'd be SOL to manufacture in the event of a shooting war

While the countries around the South China Sea are trying to settle the issue, the warmongers in US are trying to find another war to start. Classic. [B]China and Vietnam to 'manage' differences over South China Sea: communique[/B] [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-vietnam-idUSKBN14Y0JZ[/URL] [B]Philippines hopes South China Sea 'conduct code' ready this year[/B] [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-code-idUSKBN14V0KP?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews[/URL] [B]China deepens military ties with Malaysia [/B][url]http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/China-deepens-military-ties-with-Malaysia/article17020818.ece[/url]