China as a Super Power

solarz said:

I'd say you're more likely to find third-world neighborhoods in Detroit than in a small rural town.

Click to expand...

delft said:

Perhaps I was misled by articles in NYT about life in Mississippi and Alabama. But I heard this description first from a friend after her first visit to the US nearly forty years ago. In the mean time she studied in Madison, Wis., Steubenville, Pa. and Washington D.C. and, I understand, especially Steubenville is no place to live.

Click to expand...

delft said:

Perhaps I was misled by articles in NYT about life in Mississippi and Alabama. But I heard this description first from a friend after her first visit to the US nearly forty years ago. In the mean time she studied in Madison, Wis., Steubenville, Pa. and Washington D.C. and, I understand, especially Steubenville is no place to live.

Click to expand...

For all the uncertainties in this debate, three things are beyond dispute. First, China has already forced American ships to think about how and when they approach the Chinese coast. The closer American vessels come, the more missiles and submarines they face and the less time they would have to react to a strike. Anyone sailing a carrier worth $15 billion-20 billion with a crew of 6,000 would think twice about taking on that extra risk. To deny America possession of seas it has dominated for decades, China does not need to control its own coastal waters; it just has to be able to threaten American ships there. Hugh White, a former Australian security and defence official, foresees the western Pacific becoming a “naval no-go zone”.

Second, China’s ability to project power is improving. Its submarines, fighter aircraft, missiles, and cyber- and electronic warfare, once poor, now pose a threat. China’s weapons will continue to improve, and its forces will gather experience. Provided that the economy does not fall over, budgets will grow, too, absolutely and possibly as a share of GDP. Other things being equal, China can project power into its backyard more easily than America can project power across the Pacific Ocean. At risk is what Mr Gates has called “the operational sanctuary our navy has enjoyed in the western Pacific for the better part of six decades”.

Third, although the United States is able to respond to China, it will have to overcome some obstacles first. America’s military spending in Asia is overshadowed by the need to cut overall government spending and by other military priorities, such as Afghanistan. Jonathan Pollack, of the Brookings Institution, points out that some ideas, such as replacing aircraft-carriers with more submarines, would inevitably run into opposition from the navy and from politicians whose constituencies would suffer. “For many officers the navy’s core institutional identity is indelibly tied to carriers and the power-projection mission they perform,” he says. “Reducing their numbers is going to be a very painful process.” Above all, big shifts in military planning take decades: America needs to think now about China in 2025.

All this points to an important principle. Military planning is framed differently from diplomacy. Diplomats are interested in what they think states intend to do, but military planners have to work with what they think states can do. Intentions change and states can mislead. If you are charged with defending your country, you need to be able to meet even improbable threats.

That logic works in China, too. America has not been shy of going to war in recent years. Not long ago a retired Chinese admiral likened the American navy to a man with a criminal record “wandering just outside the gate of a family home”. American strength in the 1990s made China feel insecure, so it transformed the PLA to shore up its policy on Taiwan and protect its economically vital coastline. Yet by adding to its own security, China has taken away from that of its neighbours and of the United States. Perhaps China does not mean ever to use its weapons aggressively. But American defence planners cannot rely on that, so they must respond.

In this way two states that never intend harm can begin to perceive each other as growing threats. If you do not arm, you leave yourself open to attack. If you do, you threaten the other country. A British historian, Herbert Butterfield, called this the “absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma”. It is one reason why relations between China and America will probably sour.

Click to expand...

delft said:

I also mentioned recent articles in The New York Times.

Click to expand...

delft said:

The next Chinese president is said to be the first lawyer in that position.The Chinese must make sure, that lawyers remain in the minority at the top. Lawyers have often a different, to my mind lesser, creativity.
Is this my bankers and lawyers are paid more in the West than engineers and scientists? Bankers and lawyers measure their worth in what they earn, engineers and scientists in what they achieve ( or is this libel?).

Click to expand...

Bankers and lawyers measure their worth in what they earn, engineers and scientists in what they achieve.

Click to expand...