Why Doesn’t Anyone Care About the Rising U.S.-China Tension?

[mota bhai 2,675]

By Peter Beinart

December 16th 20135:45 AM

I read something terrifying Sunday. Turns out that 10 days ago, amid the rising tension provoked by China’s establishment of an air defense identification zone over territory also claimed by Japan, a Chinese aircraft carrier came within 200 yards of hitting an American cruiser. Had the two warships collided and sailors from both sides died, the two most powerful countries on earth would have found themselves contemplating war.

But that’s not the scariest part. The scariest part is that I read about the incident on page A21 of The New York Times. As of 11:30 a.m. Sunday, the story wasn’t visible on the Times’ homepage. That same morning, when CBS’s Bob Schieffer interviewed foreign policy big-mouth John McCain, the incident never came up ... In the history of international affairs, nothing is more predictable than war between rising and status quo powers—especially when they lack similar political systems and cultures.

...

On both left and right, the voices gaining the most traction ... question why America needs to be patrolling the Western Pacific at all. To people like Greenwald and Paul, who have expended vast energy battling post-9/11 infringements on personal liberty, tension with Beijing must look like another excuse to rev up the national security state. That means they’re unlikely to focus much attention on what happens in the South China Sea, either.

So the Obama administration finds itself in the odd position of making hugely consequential decisions about how strongly to resist China’s expanding reach in the absence of virtually any high-profile debate in Congress or the media. Would more public discussion improve Obama’s policies? Who knows? But it would force the administration to explain publicly why it’s worth risking war to ensure American access to bodies of water most Americans have never heard of. We’re better off hearing those arguments presented—and challenged—now, while our ships and theirs are still 200 yards away.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/16/why-doesn-t-anyone-care-about-the-rising-u-s-china-tension.html

[GandD 5,966]

In my mind this is posturing. I still think China is not belligerent enough to start a war with its biggest trading partner. In many ways they are the proverbial Chihuahua that snaps at the German Shepard.

The US needs two areas of superiority to cause a Chinese surrender. Air and Sea. They have both of those............... easily. China knows this and I doubt they would want the rest of the world to see how large the strength gap really is.

BTW, " a Chinese aircraft carrier came within 200 yards of hitting an American cruiser" should be this " THE OLD RETROFITTED SOVIET-Chinese aircraft carrier came within 200 yards of hitting an American cruiser" You guys remember when the Soviet union fell? Yeah me neither.

These are all the US Aircraft carriers built since the Soviet Carrier was initially commissioned:

Commissioned:

CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln 1989 Nimitz-class supercarrier

CVN-73 George Washington 1992 Nimitz-class supercarrier

CVN-74 John C. Stennis 1995 Nimitz-class supercarrier

CVN-75 Harry S. Truman 1998 Nimitz-class supercarrier

CVN-76 Ronald Reagan 2003 Nimitz-class supercarrier

CVN-77 George H.W. Bush 2009 Nimitz-class supercarrier

Scheduled:

CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford 2015 Ford-class supercarrier

CVN-79 John F. Kennedy ~2020 Ford-class supercarrier

CVN-80 Enterprise[3] ~2025 Ford-class supercarrier

Edited December 16, 2013 by GandD

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Chinese will win, eventually.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Christian Science Monitor:

“The Chinese are trying to make it clear that, if the US wants to operate in these waters, then it should be prepared to be operating under a high state of tension,” says Dean Cheng, senior research fellow for Chinese political and security affairs at the Heritage Foundation. “If the US doesn’t want tension, then it’s very simple: leave.”

The confrontation, he adds, was “a deliberate effort to intimidate.”

[GandD 5,966]

To beat the US in the conventional way, like with traditional Naval power, it would take a dramatic shift in Naval spending on both sides and many years. Now, the more realistic option is the obsolescence of traditional naval power with more advanced and long rage aircraft/missiles. This seems to be quote possible, but guess which country is leading (by far) the way in this area? Granted, china has made some headway with long range missiles and submarines, competitive aircraft (that is competitive with the US) seems to be quite out of their range for the moment. Still, none of this will matter and no clocks will start ticking until China begins to outspend the US militarily.

[mota bhai 2,675]

To beat the US in the conventional way, like with traditional Naval power, it would take a dramatic shift in Naval spending on both sides and many years. Now, the more realistic option is the obsolescence of traditional naval power with more advanced and long rage aircraft/missiles. This seems to be quote possible, but guess which country is leading (by far) the way in this area? Granted, china has made some headway with long range missiles and submarines, competitive aircraft (that is competitive with the US) seems to be quite out of their range for the moment. Still, none of this will matter and no clocks will start ticking until China begins to outspend the US militarily.

It seems to me all China wants to do (for now) is demonstrate that the US does not have free rein in their backyard.

[GandD 5,966]

It seems to me all China wants to do (for now) is demonstrate that the US does not have free rein in their backyard.

I agree with this. There's a lot China can do in this area and little the US can do without firing anything. If the US was to do similar things to China, China will play the victim of the bully superpower.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

China is the home team. The US is losing or has already lost, its strategic bases in the area. The ability of the US to keep a sufficient presence in the area is being further degraded by the economic crisis in the US, while China's economy is still developing. As the US economy continues to collapse, and the current political pressure to disengage from foreign entanglements continues, from both the isolationists and pacifists, China's inevitable victory is all but assured. If Vietnam could kick the US out of the region, then why not China?

[GandD 5,966]

China is the home team. The US is losing or has already lost, its strategic bases in the area. The ability of the US to keep a sufficient presence in the area is being further degraded by the economic crisis in the US, while China's economy is still developing. As the US economy continues to collapse, and the current political pressure to disengage from foreign entanglements continues, from both the isolationists and pacifists, China's inevitable victory is all but assured. If Vietnam could kick the US out of the region, then why not China?

China is only the home team on the ground. All the US cares about is the surrounding countries and water. The US would only need to defeat china on the sea and air. No need to take any cities.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

China is only the home team on the ground. All the US cares about is the surrounding countries and water. The US would only need to defeat china on the sea and air. No need to take any cities.

China is occupying every island, coral reef, and rock it can find above the high tide level. Unless the US wants to repeat WWII, the Chinese will win this one, as China continues to expand its territory. The Chinese presence in the Pacific is one of the least told stories, but has continued to expand. The Philippines is already all but a wholly owned subsidy of the Tan family.

[GandD 5,966]

China is occupying every island, coral reef, and rock it can find above the high tide level. Unless the US wants to repeat WWII, the Chinese will win this one, as China continues to expand its territory. The Chinese presence in the Pacific is one of the least told stories, but has continued to expand. The Philippines is already all but a wholly owned subsidy of the Tan family.

Every worthless island/coral reef, yes. In order to move troops actively, they must maintain sea and air superiority. They can't. That's where this ends. They want to take the Philippines, or Japan, they have to put troops there via ship or plane. These options will be available to them in an initial surprise attack, and then no longer available after the US comes to bear. The gap between the US navy and Chinese navy is much different than the gap between the Japanese and US navy in WW2. The Japanese navy was much stronger, but the US was able to throw ships and planes at them much faster and exploited their remaining assets (carriers) to their advantage which really changed naval warfare. I don't see the strategic advantage China can us against the US on the high-seas or air but I'm not a naval or air force strategist either.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It won't be a series of military battles that wins this one for the Chinese. Much like Israel, the end will be accomplished by establishing facts on the ground, or rather, within the seas contiguous to mainland China..

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I read a different story regarding this event. The escort of the Chinese carrier, not the carrier itself, was the vessel that forced the US ship to all stop to avoid collision.

Regardless, China is flexing its weak muscles, not sure that they are going to press a shooting war. And clearly Obama is not planning on backing down.

[mota bhai 2,675]

China just wants to raise the cost of us operating there. It's a calculated move, very Chinese.

[GandD 5,966]

I'm looking forward to this guy. If they ever get it finished: