Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Will World War III Be Between the U.S. and China?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    celticviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, August 24th, 2012 @ 09:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    New Zealand European
    Ancestry
    English, Scottish, Icelandic, Scandinavian, Irish
    Subrace
    Hallstatt Keltic Nordid
    Country
    New Zealand New Zealand
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Elvish monarch
    Religion
    Norse Heathen
    Posts
    1,241
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    23
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Question Will World War III Be Between the U.S. and China?



    China's vast military machine grows by the day. America's sending troops to Australia in response. As tension between the two superpowers escalates, Max Hastings warns of a terrifying threat to world peace.
    On the evening of November 1, 1950, 22-year-old Private Carl Simon of the U.S. 8th Cavalry lay shivering with his comrades in the icy mountains of North Korea.

    A patrol had just reported itself ‘under attack from unidentified troops’, which bemused and dismayed the Americans, because their campaign to occupy North Korea seemed all but complete.

    Suddenly, through the darkness came sounds of bugle calls, gunfire, shouts in a language that the 8th Cavalry’s Korean interpreters could not understand. A few minutes later, waves of attackers charged into the American positions, screaming, firing and throwing grenades.

    ‘There was just mass hysteria,’ Simon told me long afterwards. ‘It was every man for himself. I didn’t know which way to go. In the end, I just ran with the crowd. We ran and ran until the bugles grew fainter.’

    This was the moment, of course, when the armies of Mao Tse-tung stunned the world by intervening in the Korean War. It had begun in June, when Communist North Korean forces invaded the South.

    U.S. and British forces repelled the communists, fighting in the name of the United Nations, then pushed deep into North Korea. Seeing their ally on the brink of defeat, the Chinese determined to take a hand.

    In barren mountains just a few miles south of their own border, in the winter of 1950 their troops achieved a stunning surprise. The Chinese drove the American interlopers hundreds of miles south before they themselves were pushed back. Eventually a front was stabilised and the situation sank into stalemate.

    Three years later, the United States was thankful to get out of its unwanted war with China by accepting a compromise peace, along the armistice line which still divides the two Koreas today.

    For most of the succeeding 58 years the U.S., even while suffering defeat in Vietnam, has sustained strategic dominance of the Indo-Pacific region, home to half the world’s population.

    Yet suddenly, everything is changing. China’s new economic power is being matched by a military build-up which deeply alarms its Asian neighbours, and Washington. The spectre of armed conflict between the superpowers, unknown since the Korean War ended in 1953, looms once more.

    American strategy guru Paul Stares says: ‘If past experience is any guide, the United States and China will find themselves embroiled in a serious crisis at some point in the future.’

    The Chinese navy is growing fast, acquiring aircraft-carriers and sophisticated missile systems. Beijing makes no secret of its determination to rule the oil-rich South China Sea, heedless of the claims of others such as Vietnam and the Philippines.

    The Chinese foreign minister recently gave a speech in which he reminded the nations of South-East Asia that they are small, while China is very big.

    Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute described these remarks as the diplomatic equivalent of the town bully saying to the neighbours: ‘We really hope nothing happens to your nice new car.’

    This year, China has refused stormbound U.S. Navy vessels admission to its ports, and in January chose the occasion of a visit from the U.S. defence secretary to show off its new, sophisticated J-20 stealth combat aircraft.

    Michael Auslin, like many other Americans, is infuriated by the brutishness with which the dragon is now flexing its military muscles: ‘We have a China that is undermining the global system that allowed it to get rich and powerful, a China that now feels a sense of grievance every time it is called to account for its disruptive behaviour.’

    Washington was angered by Beijing’s careless response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan a year ago, followed by its shelling of Yeonpyeong island, a South Korean archipelago.

    When the U.S. Navy deployed warships in the Yellow Sea in a show of support for the South Korean government, Beijing denounced America, blandly denying North Korea’s guilt. The Chinese claimed that they were merely displaying even-handedness and restraint, but an exasperated President Obama said: ‘There’s a difference between restraint and wilful blindness to consistent problems.’

    Washington is increasingly sensitive to the fact that its bases in the western Pacific have become vulnerable to Chinese missiles. This is one reason why last week the U.S. made a historic agreement with Australia to station up to 2,500 U.S. Marines in the north of the country.

    Beijing denounced the deal, saying it was not ‘appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interests of countries within this region’.

    Even within Australia, the agreement for the U.S. base has provoked controversy.

    Hugh White of the Australian National University calls it ‘a potentially risky move’. He argues that, in the new world, America should gracefully back down from its claims to exercise Indo-Pacific hegemony, ‘relinquish primacy in the region and share power with China and others’.

    But Richard Haas, chairman of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, says: ‘U.S. policy must create a climate in which a rising China is never tempted to use its growing power coercively within or outside the region.’

    To put the matter more bluntly, leading Americans fear that once the current big expansion of Chinese armed forces reaches maturity, within a decade or so, Beijing will have no bourgeois scruples about using force to get its way in the world — unless America and its allies are militarily strong enough to deter them.

    Meanwhile, in Beijing’s corridors of power there is a fissure between the political and financial leadership, and the generals and admirals.

    On the one hand, Chinese economic bosses are appalled by the current turmoil in the West’s financial system, which threatens the buying power of their biggest customers.

    On the other, Chinese military chiefs gloat without embarrassment at the spectacle of weakened Western nations.
    As America announces its intention to cut back defence spending, the Chinese armed forces see historic opportunities beckon. Ever since Mao Tse-tung gained control of his country in 1949, China has been striving to escape from what it sees as American containment.
    The issue of Taiwan is a permanent open sore: the U.S. is absolutely committed to protecting its independence and freedom. Taiwan broke away from mainland China in 1949, when the rump of the defeated Nationalists under their leader Chiang Kai-shek fled to the island, and established their own government under an American security blanket.
    China has never wavered in its view that the island was ‘stolen’ by the capitalists, and is determined to get it back.

    Beijing was infuriated by America’s recent £4  billion arms deal with Taiwan which includes the sale of 114 Patriot anti-ballistic missiles, 60 Blackhawk helicopters and two minesweepers.

    When I last visited China, I was struck by how strongly ordinary Chinese feel about Taiwan. They argue that the West’s refusal to acknowledge their sovereignty reflects a wider lack of recognition of their country’s new status in the world.
    A young Beijinger named David Zhang says: ‘The most important thing for Americans to do is to stop being arrogant and talk with their counterparts in China on a basis of mutual respect.’ That is how many of his contemporaries feel, as citizens of the proud, assertive new China.

    But how is the West supposed to do business with an Asian giant that is not merely utterly heedless of its own citizens’ human rights, but also supports some of the vilest regimes in the world, for its own commercial purposes?

    Burma’s tyrannical military rulers would have been toppled years ago, but for the backing of the Chinese, who have huge investments there.

    A million Chinese in Africa promote their country’s massive commercial offensive, designed to secure an armlock on the continent’s natural resources. To that end, following its declared policy of ‘non-interference’, China backs bloody tyrannies, foremost among them that of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

    China, like Russia, refuses to endorse more stringent sanctions against Iran, in response to its nuclear weapons-building programme, because Beijing wants Iranian oil. Indeed, Chinese foreign policy is bleakly consistent: it dismisses pleas from the world’s democracies that, as a new global force, it should play a part in sustaining world order.

    If Chinese leaders — or indeed citizens — were speaking frankly, they would reply to their country’s critics: ‘The West has exploited the world order for centuries to suit itself. Now it is our turn to exploit it to suit ourselves.’

    A friend of ours has recently been working closely with Chinese leaders in Hong Kong. I said to his wife that I could not withhold a touch of sympathy for a rising nation which, in the past, was mercilessly bullied by the West.

    She responded: ‘Maybe, but when they are on top I don’t think they will be very kind.’ I fear that she is right. It seems hard to overstate the ruthlessness with which China is pursuing its purposes at home and abroad.
    The country imprisons Nobel prizewinners such as the political activist and writer Liu Xiaobo, steals intellectual property and technological know-how from every nation with which it does business and strives to deny its people access to information through internet censorship.

    The people of Tibet suffer relentless persecution from their Chinese occupiers, while Western leaders who meet the Dalai Lama are snubbed in consequence.

    Other Asian nations are appalled by China’s campaign to dominate the Western Pacific. Japan’s fears of Chinese-North Korean behaviour are becoming so acute that the country might even abandon decades of eschewing nuclear weapons, to create a deterrent.

    A few months ago, the Chinese party-controlled newspaper Global Times carried a harshly bellicose editorial, warning other nations not to frustrate Beijing’s ambitions in the South China Sea — Vietnam, for example, is building schools and roads to assert its sovereignty on a series of disputed islands also claimed by China.

    The Beijing newspaper wrote: ‘If Vietnam continues to provoke China, China will . . . if necessary strike back with naval forces. If Vietnam wants to start a war, China has the confidence to destroy invading Vietnam battleships.’

    This sort of violent language was familiar in the era of Mao Tse-tung, but jars painfully on Western susceptibilities in the 21st century. China’s official press has urged the government to boycott American companies that sell arms to Taiwan.

    The Global Times, again, demands retaliation against the United States: ‘Let the Chinese people have the last word.’

    Beyond mere sabre-rattling, China is conducting increasingly sophisticated cyber-warfare penetration of American corporate, military and government computer systems. For now, their purpose seems exploratory rather than destructive.

    But the next time China and the United States find themselves in confrontation, a cyber-conflict seems highly likely. The potential impact of such action is devastating, in an era when computers control almost everything.

    It would be extravagant to suggest that the United States and China are about to pick up a shooting war where they left off in November 1950, when Private Carl Simon suffered the shock of his young life on a North Korean hillside.

    But we should be in no doubt, that China and the United States are squaring off for a historic Indo-Pacific confrontation.

    Even if, for obvious economic reasons, China does not want outright war, few military men of any nationality doubt that the Pacific region is now the most plausible place in the world for a great power clash.

    Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute declares resoundingly: ‘America’s economic health and global leadership in the next generation depend on maintaining our role in the world’s most dynamic region.’

    But the Chinese fiercely dissent from this view. It is hard to exaggerate the threat which this clash of wills poses for peace in Asia, and for us all, in the coming decades.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...U-S-China.html

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Kauz R. Waldher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 @ 09:43 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    421
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Yet everything an american "picks up" is made in china. America has been asking for this for a long time. They have no one to blame but themselves and their greed. Nothing lasts forever, and when you have been pushing your weight around for so long and with so much force ... you're bound to make enemies. If we're supposedly against their way of life, why are we doing business with them?

    And if in 10 years this turmoil unfolds ... this government will enforce a draft i'm sure. And my sons will be of perfect age to join the military. It's not going to happen!
    "The mystery and secret of Wotan is not that "knowledge" of him is passed along through clandestine cults or even through the re-discovery of old books and texts--but rather that such knowledge is actually encoded in a mysterious way in the DNA, in the very genetic material, of those who are descended from him." - Secret of the Gothick God of Darkness

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ingvaeonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    English/German combo
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Posts
    1,755
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    14
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    53
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    This is what happens in a globalised world. The jobs that the Chinese have taken from the Americans, they will not hand back if and when the Americans can do it cheaper. American industry has been laid waste by China and America is losing its industrial skills, which for so long were its war-winning edge. If there is a war, I hope the US can muster the skills in what's left of its industrial base to fight it.

  4. #4
    New Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Online
    Monday, January 2nd, 2012 @ 12:51 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Ibero-Germanic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Bellow the tropic of capricorn
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    There are so many variables that its almost impossible to analyse without knowing the most specific details.

    If in one hand the Western production matrix was displaced to Chine, on the other hand, the West is the customer. I dont think China is willing to cut the these cables. Unless for expansionist purposes, but it must be noted, in the past 6000 years China have no experience or sucess in expansionist endeavours.

    The most likely scenario would be one of economic one-upmanship reinforced by military threat (wich is bad enogh).

    In such huge scale conflicts, the role of periphereal nations is not to be underestimated. I'm counting those that are strategical in the geographic location and resources disposability (Iran, Pakistan, and Turcomenistan in genral), and those of economic/industrial relevance (Brazil and India).

    And of course, there is Russia.

    Here and there you hear of renewed imperalist intents by the Rus, and KGB-bred Eurasian projects. I would have to consult myself with others on the subject, but the corridor-talk is about ambitions in eastern europe and a renewed interest in Poland (wich America is neglecting).

    I'm operating under the frame of three major blocks and projects: the american international oligarchy economical project; the universal calyphate islamic project; and the chinese military project. Namely, the three major forces in geopolitics today.

    There is a scenario that is far more scaring than a clash of civilizations, and that would be: an internationalist synthesis of the three. THAT is something that would make be sleep bad at night. And the reason why its doable is that all the three differ in nature to the point of being possible to coexist: one is military, the other is economic, the the other is cultural.

    Its a nightmare really.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Eccardus Teutonicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2012 @ 10:48 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Austro-British
    Ancestry
    Lothian, Cork, Donegal, Austria
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    The Wasteland
    Gender
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Scholar
    Politics
    Elitism
    Religion
    Medieval Catholicism
    Posts
    268
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    There will be no World War III. The so-called "World Wars" were European phenomena - not "World Wars" at all, but rather a second Thirty Years War that brought Civilisation crashing down. A World War would entail global involvement from individual nations voluntarily - but if you examine the two so-called "World Wars", the only non-European powers involved were the Turks and the Japanese - and the latter were a peripheral concern who were brought into this "global" conflict through American interference. We do not see India volunteering to fight the Germans, but being conscripted with Britain's other colonial troops. The British Empire being locked in war with another major power, a fifth column forms and her colonies begin to revolt - that's not indicative of a world war, that's just colonial uprisings being exploited by Germany. The war aims of Germany were not shared by her colonial "allies", which is a large part of the reason why they all failed.

    Ultimately, the focus of the World Wars were a conflict among European nations and America trying to kick-start her economy through instigating conflict in the Far East against a Westernised nation, Japan. The World Wars, though, were a single continuous conflict that constituted a Civil War among European nations - not dissimilar from the Thirty Years War in the destruction and the causes.

    Russia's involvement in the wars was likewise a result of being pulled in by the West - it is unlikely without the German invasion that Russia would have played any part at all, really. The Soviets were content to let Europe tear itself to shreds and then interfere with their international Bolshevist plans. If Germany had never invaded the Soviet Union, I would confidently assert that the Soviet Union would not have gone to war with Germany, but would have locked itself in a "Cold War" - which was their preferred tactic, i.e. infiltration of society (Cultural Marxists) and espionage against governments (the Rosenbergs).

    Therefore, there will be no "World War III", and certainly no War with China. conventional warfare is outdated in the West - we no longer fight real wars. We pick on smaller, less well-equipped countries now in a sad imitation of late-era Western colonialism. China is gaining ascendancy - an ascendancy that would end swiftly if they tried to engage in warfare of any sort, especially the proxy warfare that would most likely occur.
    οὐκ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογεῖν σοφόν ἐστιν ἓν πάντα εἶναί.
    Heraclitus

  6. #6
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    59
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,350
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    641
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    877
    Thanked in
    467 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Eccardus Teutonicus View Post
    the only non-European powers involved were the Turks and the Japanese - and the latter were a peripheral concern who were brought into this "global" conflict through American interference.
    The Pacific War was a major theater in its own right. The Japanese had been waging war of conquest against China since the 1930s the attacks of Dec 07 & 08 of 1941 caused that conflict to expand to include the US, Britain, France & the Netherlands. Even though Japan was defeated its actions lead to the independence of the former European possessions in Asia.


    Ultimately, the focus of the World Wars were a conflict among European nations and America trying to kick-start her economy through instigating conflict in the Far East against a Westernised nation, Japan. The World Wars, though, were a single continuous conflict that constituted a Civil War among European nations - not dissimilar from the Thirty Years War in the destruction and the causes.
    The European powers dominated the world at that time so naturally any Europe wide conflict had the potential to spread over the entire world. The one part of the globe that barely noticed the World Wars was Latin America because they were no longer colonies & were typically neutral in regards to European matters.

  7. #7
    New Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Online
    Wednesday, November 30th, 2011 @ 04:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Occupation
    software developer
    Posts
    2
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I believe we've seen the last of all-out wars between major, industrialized powers. In this day and age, such wars simply aren't feasible anymore. Our weapons have become so sophisticated and destructive that 2 roughly equal powers on the same level as the U.S. going at each other would result in all advanced military hardware (on both sides), all those shiny planes, ships and tanks destroyed or at least disabled in a matter of days. Both sides' economies would take such a massive hit that it would simply be national suicide to engage in another world war.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Eccardus Teutonicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2012 @ 10:48 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Austro-British
    Ancestry
    Lothian, Cork, Donegal, Austria
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    The Wasteland
    Gender
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Scholar
    Politics
    Elitism
    Religion
    Medieval Catholicism
    Posts
    268
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Æmeric View Post
    The Pacific War was a major theater in its own right. The Japanese had been waging war of conquest against China since the 1930s the attacks of Dec 07 & 08 of 1941 caused that conflict to expand to include the US, Britain, France & the Netherlands. Even though Japan was defeated its actions lead to the independence of the former European possessions in Asia.
    The Pacific Theatre was not terribly significant in terms of the entirety of the war - it was significant in that the US was involved and the anti-colonial movement was spearheaded by the US, but the conflict was not representative of the conflict which was unfolding in Europe. Further, the United States actively pursued an international policy that make war with Japan inevitable - we provoked the Japanese war as an effort to cover up the failures of the two "New Deals" Roosevelt had forced on the country.

    The independence of European possessions in Asia meant that the war had global consequences, but it was not of a global nature. It was a European war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Æmeric View Post
    The European powers dominated the world at that time so naturally any Europe wide conflict had the potential to spread over the entire world. The one part of the globe that barely noticed the World Wars was Latin America because they were no longer colonies & were typically neutral in regards to European matters.
    Here you see the principal point illustrated: the West ruled the world, but the World War was still a Western phenomenon - it was not in fact a world war because the world did not go to war, the West went to war and fought across the world, but it was still just Europe that was at war between 1914 and 1945. The sole exceptions are Turkey and Japan - this is my point.
    οὐκ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογεῖν σοφόν ἐστιν ἓν πάντα εἶναί.
    Heraclitus

  9. #9
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 28th, 2012 @ 07:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    temperate frequencies
    Gender
    Occupation
    Designer
    Politics
    urban shaman
    Posts
    60
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    China's main battle is ultimately going to be with its own people and polluted environment. Not that many people in China blindly follow their government or are arrogantly proud when there's such an indistribution of wealth. The factor that needs to be considered in China's rise to power is its own civil stability and environmental health (and environmental impact on adjoining regions). It's history is a long rise and fall of dynasties and there's a precedent and indeed a present climate for internal revolution. Americans that complain about loosing their jobs have only their own countries leadership and culture to blame (The american dream! In God we trust! The greatest country on earth!!) and no matter how bad they have it, they are still better off than most chinese. Americans 'loosing' their jobs tends to fall on deaf ears around the world.

    The US elite military industrial backers are not much different to the Chinese cadres. Both are somewhat Jewish backed crooks haha so a war would not be between the west and east but between two 'mafia' organizations intent on securing money, resources and power. If American troops came and bombed China they would be bombing Starbucks, McDonalds, GM plants and infrastructure design and planned by westerners. If China came and bombed America it would be bombing its Walmart MIC customers and MIT students. China still looks up to the west. The MSM can say whatever it wants to polarize china away from the west, back into the cultural revolution and cold war, or create a new terrorist enemy, but no one can shake the impact of 'americanization' and how China's rise to power could not have been possible without US, Japanese, european (particularly German and French) Taiwanese and Korean investment. The Chinese are not good innovators, they are good copiers. They've copied the cake and are eating it. I think that annoys a lot of Americans but that's the price America pays for corporatizing the world with its sugar coated recipes. But ya know the chinese don't really make good cakes at the end of the day. They are xenophobic and will retreat into themselves more likely than invading other countries outwardly like the US does.

    It's a hell of a propaganda clash that's for sure.

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. War with China “Inevitable,”
    By Roderic in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, September 19th, 2011, 05:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •