|
On August 10 2012 19:37 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 19:22 Aelonius wrote:On August 10 2012 19:17 zalz wrote:
On an economic level, China needs America more than vice versa. America can produce its own goods, China can't buy its own goods. It wouldn't be good for the world economy, but China would suffer a great deal more instability than America would.
I disagree. China is currently the factory of the world. A vast majority of parts in the world are made in Chinese factories. While the USA has the capability to generate their own production, it would be facing two major issue's 1. The Chinese will have a much larger labour force by definition 2. The USA hasn't got many factories for parts, seeing they build in China. This means they first need to build new factories while China is just using those they have. In the time that a war would break out, the natural reserves of China, combined with the labourforce and the production capabilities would make the difference. They shift to production for war efforts and they haven't got to worry about product sales. China's industry in this regard is often vastly overrated. The US is not some pure service-based economy. It is still an extremely industrial nation with plenty of factories running just fine. China's larger labour force is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. The Western Chinese are not going to enjoy being drafted to the other end of the country, leaving their farms behind so they can work for people that have, so far, done little to "share the wealth." Building factories in western China, given its infrastructure, is also begging for a disaster. America on the other hand doesn't have such a gigantic blindspot. America can very easily scale up its industrial output in case of war. Contrary to popular belief, they do still have a production industry.
Very much this. China employs far more people than the US in manufacturing, but for the most part that is a ridiculous comparison, as most of US's manufacturing is completely automated.
http://www.shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufacturing-remains-worlds-largest/18756
http://io9.com/5837667/will-manufacturing-automation-finally-eliminate-the-need-for-any-human-workers
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/bg2476.pdf
The US is kicking more and more manufacturing butt every day, almost getting to the point where we might soon see more production shift back to the US as it will be cheaper for even very expensive robots to build stuff than even Chinese sweatshops. As someone who works a lot with automation and manufacturing myself, it's only getting easier and easier to program and use a lot of the newer equipment and programs. US manufacturing is HUGE, and only going to get bigger.
|
On August 12 2012 13:28 YODA_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 19:37 zalz wrote:On August 10 2012 19:22 Aelonius wrote:On August 10 2012 19:17 zalz wrote:
On an economic level, China needs America more than vice versa. America can produce its own goods, China can't buy its own goods. It wouldn't be good for the world economy, but China would suffer a great deal more instability than America would.
I disagree. China is currently the factory of the world. A vast majority of parts in the world are made in Chinese factories. While the USA has the capability to generate their own production, it would be facing two major issue's 1. The Chinese will have a much larger labour force by definition 2. The USA hasn't got many factories for parts, seeing they build in China. This means they first need to build new factories while China is just using those they have. In the time that a war would break out, the natural reserves of China, combined with the labourforce and the production capabilities would make the difference. They shift to production for war efforts and they haven't got to worry about product sales. China's industry in this regard is often vastly overrated. The US is not some pure service-based economy. It is still an extremely industrial nation with plenty of factories running just fine. China's larger labour force is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. The Western Chinese are not going to enjoy being drafted to the other end of the country, leaving their farms behind so they can work for people that have, so far, done little to "share the wealth." Building factories in western China, given its infrastructure, is also begging for a disaster. America on the other hand doesn't have such a gigantic blindspot. America can very easily scale up its industrial output in case of war. Contrary to popular belief, they do still have a production industry. Very much this. China employs far more people than the US in manufacturing, but for the most part that is a ridiculous comparison, as most of US's manufacturing is completely automated. http://www.shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufacturing-remains-worlds-largest/18756http://io9.com/5837667/will-manufacturing-automation-finally-eliminate-the-need-for-any-human-workershttp://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/bg2476.pdfThe US is kicking more and more manufacturing butt every day, almost getting to the point where we might soon see more production shift back to the US as it will be cheaper for even very expensive robots to build stuff than even Chinese sweatshops. As someone who works a lot with automation and manufacturing myself, it's only getting easier and easier to program and use a lot of the newer equipment and programs. US manufacturing is HUGE, and only going to get bigger.
Again, these comparisons don't make sense in the type of warfare we're talking about.
Manufacturing capability only factors into military strength when the nation faces protracted large-scale warfare. In short-duration, high-intensity wars, even the largest manufacturing bases will have difficulty keeping the army in the field fully supplied and operational. (The US, for example, ran out of GPS guidance systems for smart bombs barely 4 weeks into bombing Iraq. For a country with C4ISR systems and an A2AD network at least 10x bigger and more advanced, like China, the US would burn through its stockpile of advanced weapons in a matter of days--and the same would happen for the Chinese side.)
What's more, if a war between advanced nations ever gets to the stage where nations have to replenish their precision munitions while desperately fighting on, there will literally be no incentive not to go nuclear, or to sue for peace. So basically, it's not the strength of a manufacturing base that determines military strength. The things that will matter the most are:
1) The strength of the national communications network and infrastructure
2) Leadership capability and response time
3) Troop training
4) Targeting and identification systems, on both sides
5) Long-range precision strike capabilities
Those are the only things that will matter. Manufacturing capability is not an important arbiter of national strength under a short-duration high-intensity war.
|
I feel considerably smarter/better-learned after reading through this thread. It's like general but with only intelligent and well-articulated opinions for the most part. Some posts I do disagree with, but overall really interesting thread 
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On August 11 2012 07:01 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 21:24 zatic wrote:On August 10 2012 21:01 Shady Sands wrote:
To recap: the argument here is that the new US naval warfare plan relies upon blinding the entire Chinese land-based command network even if the Chinese haven't launched a single nuclear weapon, meaning that the Chinese will have an incentive to launch their nukes in the event of conventional war with the US, as they will lose the capability to launch nukes at all, or detect a US launch, if the US blinding effort is successful. I am not entirely sure what you want to discuss. As the linked article prominently features, the "blinding" part of the AirSea strategy is at this point entirely hypothetical (outside of the use of nuclear weapons), and would require, to quote the article, "disproportionately costly (and vulnerable)" investments, and further: "[..] the cost of AirSea Battle is likely to be prohibitive. [..] it remains a largely notional concept". The idea of an conventional anti naval access denial system is ludicrous and as realistic as SDI was in the 80s. I understand your argument of a risk of escalation into nuclear use. However the reasoning appears to be way too complicated. Rather than a hypothetical, ridiculously sophisticated conventional anti denial system, a comparatively much cheaper nuclear strike in space is more likely to escalate a possible conventional war. Paradoxically, nuclear attacks in space are actually the least likely nuclear action for escalation, because most rockets have limited fueled ranges, which means that if you launch a rocket on any trajectory that doesn't fly on an optimal path towards the other country, it's very easy to see (within 20-30 seconds of launch, in fact) that the strike is not directed at the other country.
I didn't mean it would trigger a full out second strike. But both China and the US could consider a nuclear strike in space against the other communication infrastructure. Which would then lower the restraint against surface strikes, for example for area denial in little / not populated ares, or warning shots.
I was talking more about gradual escalation from a conventional into a nuclear war, not instant MAD.
|
On August 14 2012 17:16 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 07:01 Shady Sands wrote:On August 10 2012 21:24 zatic wrote:On August 10 2012 21:01 Shady Sands wrote:
To recap: the argument here is that the new US naval warfare plan relies upon blinding the entire Chinese land-based command network even if the Chinese haven't launched a single nuclear weapon, meaning that the Chinese will have an incentive to launch their nukes in the event of conventional war with the US, as they will lose the capability to launch nukes at all, or detect a US launch, if the US blinding effort is successful. I am not entirely sure what you want to discuss. As the linked article prominently features, the "blinding" part of the AirSea strategy is at this point entirely hypothetical (outside of the use of nuclear weapons), and would require, to quote the article, "disproportionately costly (and vulnerable)" investments, and further: "[..] the cost of AirSea Battle is likely to be prohibitive. [..] it remains a largely notional concept". The idea of an conventional anti naval access denial system is ludicrous and as realistic as SDI was in the 80s. I understand your argument of a risk of escalation into nuclear use. However the reasoning appears to be way too complicated. Rather than a hypothetical, ridiculously sophisticated conventional anti denial system, a comparatively much cheaper nuclear strike in space is more likely to escalate a possible conventional war. Paradoxically, nuclear attacks in space are actually the least likely nuclear action for escalation, because most rockets have limited fueled ranges, which means that if you launch a rocket on any trajectory that doesn't fly on an optimal path towards the other country, it's very easy to see (within 20-30 seconds of launch, in fact) that the strike is not directed at the other country. I didn't mean it would trigger a full out second strike. But both China and the US could consider a nuclear strike in space against the other communication infrastructure. Which would then lower the restraint against surface strikes, for example for area denial in little / not populated ares, or warning shots. I was talking more about gradual escalation from a conventional into a nuclear war, not instant MAD.
That's a good point, but generally speaking, reaching towards nuclear strikes in space is less likely than conventional strikes against the other nation's communications infrastructure. It's those sorts of conventional strikes that we should be worried about.
|
On August 14 2012 17:02 Aerisky wrote:I feel considerably smarter/better-learned after reading through this thread. It's like general but with only intelligent and well-articulated opinions for the most part. Some posts I do disagree with, but overall really interesting thread
Thanks!
|
A full on war will probably not happen between USA and China. It will be more of an economic war, war of attrition and war on geopolitical dominance. A war involving the military will probably favor the US because China's military technology is not nearly as advanced as the US.
|
Wouldn't China just need to ask for the money that USA owes? That would instantly win a war. US bankrupt, gg
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
