Trade War with China

Equation · Jan 16, 2019

Faithlock said:
Thanks for bring the conversation to a more even keel level.

Give me some times to write up on what are the specific measures. Hopefully, tomorrow this time, I will write something up.

Wait, you've been talking like this this whole time without actually knowing what you want to see done? You're joking. Next time you criticize other's plans, maybe you should already have an alternative in place. This time tomorrow? You just said anyone with a few minutes thinking could have a better plan. Guess that's not true, is it? OK whatever, let's see what you cook up. See you in these 24 hours.

Remember the 3 components to the plan:
1. Do not antagonize the US to a point where the parties unite.
2. Do not cause perpetual pointless retaliation.
3. Compel the US to leave Chinese tech employees alone, and/or release Meng.

If you don't have these 3, it's pointless.

Biscuits · Jan 16, 2019

The best way would be to just stay put, but put the country on high alert. The attacks don’t appear to have any impact on the societal levels.

Even if the kidnapping of civilians is a despicable terror tactic, it does not hurt the society at large and might actually galvanize support for the govt.

The moment attacks are starting to deal damage, something radical like a ban on multiple US companies can be considered.

Much like the Soviet Union, US is unstable and has a questionable economy & government loyalty. This means that they can be outlasted economically and politically.

The real threat comes from their military. With a large numbers advantage on the PLA, they might decide to declare war or invade allies while China is in peacetime spending mode.

As long as China can deter the US from overt aggression, the path ahead is safe.

The trade war is a good wake up call for the shipbuilding industry, which should really take a break from building cargo ships.

A rapid military buildup (on the scale of post Pearl Harbor America) is needed in order to present overwhelming force and prevent war.

US is spending 15% of the federal budget on the military. Just by matching these numbers, the PLA budget would be ~20% larger given the difference in total gdp.

CSIC and CSSC both have a total build capacity of over 300 000 tons. And China is not lacking in funds to build larger docks.

The buildup would also revitalize parts of the economy, create jobs, create technology etc.

getready · Jan 16, 2019

Equation said:
Wait, you've been talking like this this whole time without actually knowing what you want to see done? You're joking. Next time you criticize other's plans, maybe you should already have an alternative in place. This time tomorrow? You just said anyone with a few minutes thinking could have a better plan. Guess that's not true, is it? OK whatever, let's see what you cook up. See you in these 24 hours.

Remember the 3 components to the plan:
1. Do not antagonize the US to a point where the parties unite.
2. Do not cause perpetual pointless retaliation.
3. Compel the US to leave Chinese tech employees alone, and/or release Meng.

If you don't have these 3, it's pointless.

I think that guy is trying to stir things up or just plainly trolling.

AndrewS · Jan 16, 2019

Air Force Brat said:
Actually I do know you Byron, because of a very nice PM you once sent me Bub, and sorry, your name is NOT Equation, that's kinda something you made up, like the rest your story here....

I most certainly did NOT put down any Brazilian, ever, but you like to make up stories, kind of a bully now aren't you.... sad

You most certainly did put down Brazilian beans.

You ignored what the article actually said about Brazil taking soybean market share from the USA, and focused on what was obviously a "stock" photo that the journalist just found convenient, which showed "inferior" beans.

And if we look at stock photo libraries, they are more likely to show US soybeans than Brazilian beans.

AndrewS · Jan 16, 2019

Biscuits said:
The best way would be to just stay put, but put the country on high alert. The attacks don’t appear to have any impact on the societal levels.

Even if the kidnapping of civilians is a despicable terror tactic, it does not hurt the society at large and might actually galvanize support for the govt.

The moment attacks are starting to deal damage, something radical like a ban on multiple US companies can be considered.

Much like the Soviet Union, US is unstable and has a questionable economy & government loyalty. This means that they can be outlasted economically and politically.

The real threat comes from their military. With a large numbers advantage on the PLA, they might decide to declare war or invade allies while China is in peacetime spending mode.

As long as China can deter the US from overt aggression, the path ahead is safe.

The trade war is a good wake up call for the shipbuilding industry, which should really take a break from building cargo ships.

A rapid military buildup (on the scale of post Pearl Harbor America) is needed in order to present overwhelming force and prevent war.

US is spending 15% of the federal budget on the military. Just by matching these numbers, the PLA budget would be ~20% larger given the difference in total gdp.

CSIC and CSSC both have a total build capacity of over 300 000 tons. And China is not lacking in funds to build larger docks.

The buildup would also revitalize parts of the economy, create jobs, create technology etc.

You do realise a post Pearl Harbour military buildup is actually a total war situation, where literally everyone and everything was mobilised?

Such an extreme level of mobilisation would be counterproductive to stability in Asia.
It would trigger alarm across the region, and actually spur a huge increase in military spending in the region.
Such levels of military spending are unsustainable, and would eventually trigger an economic/political crisis where a decision to go to war becomes rational.

---

Ultimately, what will deter the hawks in the USA from advocating a war with China?

China building up a huge conventional military force won't do the trick due to US geographical isolation from Asia.
But what will work, is China having a robust nuclear missile deterrent with hundreds of warheads that can reach the continental USA.

To build such a force, China can maintain its current modest levels of military spending (approx 2% of GDP).
At the same time, this still means a very formidable conventional military buildup in the next 5 years and beyond.

If China wants to spend money, it is better to spend on cutting edge high-technology research AND on internal development challenges instead.
That is sustainable spending, and is ultimately what will make China a hi-tech wealthy society.

Biscuits · Jan 16, 2019

@AndrewS

It is already near a total war scenario.

US just kidnapped a civilian and has still refused to release her. US economy is stretched to the brim in order to accomandate their huge military, which is used to threaten others into obeying.

There’s no alarm that can be triggered that has not been triggered. US has been sending spies/spreading fake news/sponsoring terrorism since Mao.

There is nothing that can change for the worse, only ways to prepare for what will happen.

China already has a stable nuclear deterrent, it’s of no use when US targets allied countries, tourist civilians, uses covert terror and small escalations.

A large conventional force would ABSOLTELY deter US hawks. Most US hawks are draft dodgers, like Bolton. They want glory, not a premature death from hypersonic missile.

Drawing up a 60 major ship fleet alone would seriously hamper the US, even outside Asia. Building 30 DDGs over a few years is within capacity for Chinese dockyards.

What is US going to do if China decides to build out the fleet? End the world with nukes?

Not only would a properly budgeted PLA deter overt US action, it would also deter US from covert action, knowing that consequences will be guaranteed.

If the PLA is strong enough that Beijing could shoot someone dead outside the White House daytime without US even daring to contemplate a military response, then US will immediately cease it’s sponsorship of terror, underhanded trade practices and other crimes.

US elites don’t cause suffering for the sake of suffering. They do it for profit. If there is a stabilizing power strong enough to make them think twice about exploiting and cheating outsiders, they will turn inwards and be satisfied with eating their own. At that point, the threat would be completely contained.

AndrewS · Jan 16, 2019

It is nowhere near a total war scenario, despite what you think.
That would involve active proxy wars, overt trade bans, dollar/economic sanctions on everything Chinese etc etc

So get a grip.

---

The US economy can sustain current levels of military spending, again, despite what you think.
It's at roughly 3%-4% of GDP, which is less than the 6%+ that was routinely spent during the cold war.
And the Soviets were spending somewhere between 15%-25% of their economy during the cold war.

---

China doesn't actually have a large nuclear deterrent, despite what you think.

There's only the vulnerable liquid fueled DF-5 missiles in fixed silos along with a handful (<6?) DF-41 missiles that can reach the USA.

A credible nuclear deterrent would be 50 road mobile DF-41 missiles with 500 warheads.
So they would always remain China's trump card in the event of a conventional war, which would surely escalate upwards.
Building and fielding such a force is actually pretty cheap.
And it is that mutual assured destruction which will deter against an overt war.

And you think building 30 Destroyers in a few years requires China to massively increase military spending?
China maintaining the CURRENT build rate of 6 destroyers per year brings you to a total of 30 destroyers in a 5 year timespan.

Yet China still accomplishes this with a very modest military budget of around 2% of GDP.

If China chooses to maintain construction of 6 destroyers per year, that would result in a fleet size of 180 destroyers in 30 years time.
Again, this is within the bounds of China spending 2% of GDP on the military.

Biscuits said:
@AndrewS

It is already near a total war scenario.

US just kidnapped a civilian and has still refused to release her. US economy is stretched to the brim in order to accomandate their huge military, which is used to threaten others into obeying.

There’s no alarm that can be triggered that has not been triggered. US has been sending spies/spreading fake news/sponsoring terrorism since Mao.

There is nothing that can change for the worse, only ways to prepare for what will happen.

China already has a stable nuclear deterrent, it’s of no use when US targets allied countries, tourist civilians, uses covert terror and small escalations.

A large conventional force would ABSOLTELY deter US hawks. Most US hawks are draft dodgers, like Bolton. They want glory, not a premature death from hypersonic missile.

Drawing up a 60 major ship fleet alone would seriously hamper the US, even outside Asia. Building 30 DDGs over a few years is within capacity for Chinese dockyards.

What is US going to do if China decides to build out the fleet? End the world with nukes?

Not only would a properly budgeted PLA deter overt US action, it would also deter US from covert action, knowing that consequences will be guaranteed.

If the PLA is strong enough that Beijing could shoot someone dead outside the White House daytime without US even daring to contemplate a military response, then US will immediately cease it’s sponsorship of terror, underhanded trade practices and other crimes.

US elites don’t cause suffering for the sake of suffering. They do it for profit. If there is a stabilizing power strong enough to make them think twice about exploiting and cheating outsiders, they will turn inwards and be satisfied with eating their own. At that point, the threat would be completely contained.

Biscuits · Jan 16, 2019

AndrewS said:
It is nowhere near a total war scenario, despite what you think.
That would involve active proxy wars, overt trade bans, dollar/economic sanctions on everything Chinese etc etc

So get a grip.

---

The US economy can sustain current levels of military spending, again, despite what you think.
It's at roughly 3%-4% of GDP, which is less than the 6%+ that was routinely spent during the cold war.
And the Soviets were spending somewhere between 15%-25% of their economy during the cold war.

---

China doesn't actually have a large nuclear deterrent, despite what you think.

There's only the vulnerable liquid fueled DF-5 missiles in fixed silos along with a handful (<6?) DF-41 missiles that can reach the USA.

A credible nuclear deterrent would be 50 road mobile DF-41 missiles with 500 warheads.
So they would always remain China's trump card in the event of a conventional war, which would surely escalate upwards.
Building and fielding such a force is actually pretty cheap.
And it is that mutual assured destruction which will deter against an overt war.

And you think building 30 Destroyers in a few years requires China to massively increase military spending?
China maintaining the CURRENT build rate of 6 destroyers per year brings you to a total of 30 destroyers in a 5 year timespan.

Yet China still accomplishes this with a very modest military budget of around 2% of GDP.

If China chooses to maintain construction of 6 destroyers per year, that would result in a fleet size of 180 destroyers in 30 years time.
Again, this is within the bounds of China spending 2% of GDP on the military.

You think they wouldn’t try dollar sanctions if it actually works? Goods not money is what makes the world run. Dollar sanctions would just lead to everyone using RMB in order to get the latest stuff from China.

Ofc right now US is in a better economical position than the former Soviets, but they have still got a “leaking money” (corruption) problelm and their government is prone to acting up.

The public numbers of nukes is 100% bull. China isn’t restricted in building nukes by any treaty and it has a metric shit ton of nuclear power plants. They have exactly as many nukes as they would like to have, and have a vested interest in massively understating their total warhead count due to proliferation concerns from India, Pakistan and North Korea.

If China could achieve 30 new ships in 5 years (believable), it wouldn’t hurt to devote twice the money and have 60 ships would it?

By thirty years time, the showdown would already be finished or at it’s end. Actually, the PLA does not need to grow much larger to be unassailable within Asia. But an extra layer of safety wouldn’t hurt, and it would also provide jobs.

What’s really bad now is if the US declares war or uses other aggressive actions. Then there won’t be enough people to fight them off. You know this as well as I do. Even if individual platforms are in many ways superior, how would 20ish destroyers stand against the US armada? US has as many Ticons as China has large ships, and then add all the Burkes and carriers and submarines to that.

So it’s important to make sure the defenses get a boost as quickly as possible.

AndrewS · Jan 16, 2019

And China doesn't have its own corruption issues?

Plus you didn't read the point about Chinese nuclear deterrent. It's that China currently lacks missiles with enough range to reach the USA, not a lack of warheads.

But that is going to be remedied anyway as the DF-41 is starting its production run.

What would be the point of building 60 destroyers instead of 30 destroyers over the next 5 years?

China's 2 destroyer construction shipyards are already running at full capacity.

Of you want to double production ( to an unsustainable level), then you're going to have to ramp up completely new shipyards which will take a few years. Then ramp them downwards after a few more years.

That will take more than twice the money.

And for what?

There are already 20 destroyers in service.

Doubling the current rate of construction to 12 per year temporarily doesn't actually make much difference to deterrence level over the next 10 years.

China building its surface fleet (including the new destroyers) is about creating a sea control navy and power projection.

If you're really concerned about a US armada attacking China, then increased spending on A2AD is better.

Those systems are faster to build and deploy. Because they rely on the US military entering the waters of the Western Pacific next to China, they are also cheaper and more cost effective so more can be built to deny access.

Biscuits said:
You think they wouldn’t try dollar sanctions if it actually works? Goods not money is what makes the world run. Dollar sanctions would just lead to everyone using RMB in order to get the latest stuff from China.

Ofc right now US is in a better economical position than the former Soviets, but they have still got a “leaking money” (corruption) problelm and their government is prone to acting up.

The public numbers of nukes is 100% bull. China isn’t restricted in building nukes by any treaty and it has a metric shit ton of nuclear power plants. They have exactly as many nukes as they would like to have, and have a vested interest in massively understating their total warhead count due to proliferation concerns from India, Pakistan and North Korea.

If China could achieve 30 new ships in 5 years (believable), it wouldn’t hurt to devote twice the money and have 60 ships would it?

By thirty years time, the showdown would already be finished or at it’s end. Actually, the PLA does not need to grow much larger to be unassailable within Asia. But an extra layer of safety wouldn’t hurt, and it would also provide jobs.

What’s really bad now is if the US declares war or uses other aggressive actions. Then there won’t be enough people to fight them off. You know this as well as I do. Even if individual platforms are in many ways superior, how would 20ish destroyers stand against the US armada? US has as many Ticons as China has large ships, and then add all the Burkes and carriers and submarines to that.

So it’s important to make sure the defenses get a boost as quickly as possible.

antiterror13 · Jan 16, 2019

AndrewS said:
It is nowhere near a total war scenario, despite what you think.
That would involve active proxy wars, overt trade bans, dollar/economic sanctions on everything Chinese etc etc

......
....

China doesn't actually have a large nuclear deterrent, despite what you think.

There's only the vulnerable liquid fueled DF-5 missiles in fixed silos along with a handful (<6?) DF-41 missiles that can reach the USA.

A credible nuclear deterrent would be 50 road mobile DF-41 missiles with 500 warheads.
So they would always remain China's trump card in the event of a conventional war, which would surely escalate upwards.
Building and fielding such a force is actually pretty cheap.
.......
......

If China chooses to maintain construction of 6 destroyers per year, that would result in a fleet size of 180 destroyers in 30 years time.
Again, this is within the bounds of China spending 2% of GDP on the military.

you seem forget that China has another ICBM types that can reach the US .. DF-31A and DF-31B/G .. all US continent is within these ICBM and China has about 60 of them already and all are MIRV with decoys and BeiDou guidance system and old Inertial ... it is quite a deterrent obviously
and of course "old but powerful" 20-30 DF-5A/B and already in service of about 12-16 DF-41 and growing with of course MIRV

Trade War with China

Equation

Lieutenant General

Biscuits

Major

getready

Senior Member

AndrewS

Brigadier

AndrewS

Brigadier

Biscuits

Major

AndrewS

Brigadier

Biscuits

Major

AndrewS

Brigadier

antiterror13

Brigadier