http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/04/economic-failure-could-lead-to-protectionism
QuoteIn all the comparisons between the Great Recession of the past three years and the Great Depression of the 1930s, one comforting thought for policymakers has been that there has been no return to tit-for-tat protectionism, which saw one country after another use high tariffs in an attempt to cut the dole queues.
Yet the commitment of governments to keep markets open was based on the belief that recovery would be swift and sustained. If, as many now suspect, the global economy is stuck in a low-growth, high-unemployment rut, the pressures for protectionism will grow.
The former chancellor, Ken Clarke, aptly summed up the downbeat mood when he said in yesterday's Observer that it was hard to be "sunnily optimistic" about the west's economic prospects. Adam Posen, a member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, made a similar point last week in a speech last week advocating more quantitative easing.
Despite a colossal stimulus, the recovery has been short-lived and, by historic standards, feeble. The traditional tools – cutting interest rates and spending more public money – were not enough, so have had to be supplemented by the creation of electronic money. In both the US and the UK, policymakers are actively canvassing the idea that more QE will be required, even though they well understand its drawbacks and limitations.
There is the sense of finance ministries and central banks running out of options. They can't cut interest rates any further; there is strong resistance from both markets and voters to further fiscal stimulus, and so far QE has had a more discernible effect on asset prices than it has on the real economy. The reason for that is that the money created by allowing commercial banks to sell bonds has tended to be used for speculative purposes rather than lent to businesses and individuals.
So what's left? The answer is that countries can try to give themselves an edge by manipulating their currencies, or they can go the whole hog and put up trade barriers. It is a sign of the etiolated nature of the recovery that both options are currently "in play".
Guido Mantega, Brazil's finance minister, warned that an "international currency war" has broken out following the recent moves by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to intervene directly in the foreign exchange markets. China has long been criticised by other nations, the US in particular, for building up massive trade surpluses by holding down the level of its currency, the renminbi.
It is not difficult to see why individual nations are pursuing this strategy. The lesson from the 1930s is that those countries that devalue their currencies early steal a march on their rivals. So Britain, the first nation to come off the gold standard in September 1931, recovered more quickly than France, which stuck it out to the bitter end.
A second lesson, of course, is that for the global economy as a whole, competitive devaluations represent a zero-sum game, since for every currency that depreciates there has to be a currency that appreciates. As things stand, the currencies that are under most upward pressure are the Japanese yen and the euro. Why? Because the Chinese have all but pegged the renminbi to a US dollar that has been weakened by the prospect of more QE over the coming months.
But currency intervention is one thing, full-on protectionism another. The existence of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), with its strict rules for what is permissible and sanctions for countries that transgress, has made it more difficult to indiscriminately slap tariffs on imports. What's more, there is still a strong attachment to the concept of free trade; it is the one piece of the so-called Washington consensus that has survived the crisis.
Policymakers still recoil in horror at mention of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, introduced in the US in 1930 and blamed for turning the Wall Street Crash into the Great Depression. Paul Krugman has shown that the collapse in US production could not have been caused by protectionism, but the myth that the slump was caused by a trade war is an enduring one.
The most that could be said is that beggar-my-neighbour policies eventually added to the problems caused by ill-conceived monetary and fiscal policies: the failure to cut interest rates quickly enough, the failure to keep credit flowing, the failure in the US to keep banks in business and the insistence on running balanced budgets.
In Britain, protectionism in the form of "imperial preference" – for goods from within what we would now know as the commonwealth – was one of the three factors that helped the economy recover after 1931: devaluation and cheap money were the other two.
The question now is whether the commitment to free trade is as deep as it seems. The round of trade liberalisation talks started in Doha almost nine years ago remain in deep freeze. Repeated attempts to conclude the talks have run into the same problem: trade ministers talk like free traders but they act like mercantilists, seeking to extract the maximum amount of concessions for their exporters while giving away as little as possible in terms of access to their own domestic markets.
The approach taken by countries at the WTO talks also governs their thinking when it comes to steering their countries out of trouble. There are plenty of nations extolling the virtues of export-led growth, but very few who are keen on boosting their domestic demand so that those exports can find willing buyers. The global imbalances between those countries running trade surpluses and those running trade deficits are almost as pronounced as they were before the crisis, and are getting wider. This is a recipe for tension, especially between Beijing and Washington.
This tension manifested itself last week when the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow US companies to apply for duties to be put on imports from countries where the government actively weakened the currency – ie China.
The Senate will debate its version of the same bill after the November mid-term elections, but it was interesting that the House bill was passed by a big majority and with considerable bipartisan support. China responded swiftly and testily to the developments on Capitol Hill, arguing that the move would contravene WTO rules and quite deliberately tweaking its currency lower.
It's not hard to see why Beijing got the hump. It introduced the biggest fiscal stimulus (in relation to GDP) of any country and helped lift the global economy out of its trough. It can only fulfil its domestic policy goal of alleviating poverty if it can shift large numbers of people out of the fields and into the factories, and that requires a cheap currency. It has been financing the US twin deficits. Unsurprisingly, then, its message to the Americans was clear: it's not smart to get on the wrong side of your bank manager, so don't mess with us.
What happens next depends to a great extent on whether the global economy can make it through the current soft patch. There are plenty of analysts who believe that policy is working – and that what we are seeing now is but a small blip. But imagine that the next three months see the traditional policy tools becoming increasingly ineffective, that the slowdown intensifies and broadens, and that the Democrats get a pasting in the mid-term elections. In those circumstances, a trade war would be entirely feasible.
This has been on the cards for a while, and tit-for-tat reactions by the US Treasury and CCP are the engine currently driving the possibility of a trade war occuring.
If a trade war occurs, who wins? By my -unknowing of economic matters- logic, it would be a third party, not the USA nor China, perhaps the UK?
If things get out of hand, arms dealers.
If everyone isn't locked into a system whereby they benefit more from not going to war than by going to war, then that system predisposes them towards conflict, reversing the trends (at least amongst the major players) of the last thirty plus years. It doesn't make war a necessary conclusion, but tilts the scales in that direction.
Aside from that, it's hard to say. Things like this tend to spiral out of control pretty quickly...everyone has their pet greivances when it comes to free trade, but because, by and large, the benefits are shared amongst everyone, they keep their mouths shut and don't act on them. Once big players start defecting, everyone else will follow, trying to min-max their economic policies to benefit themselves as much as possible while screwing everyone else.
All China would have to do is dump their Treasury bonds.
We'd be fucked economically, and there's no way we'd ever win a land war against them.
that may be simplifying things, as I'm sure we have some strategies thought out on how to counter such an event, but the pain in the short term would be devastating.
China would rather get paid, I suspect. While they have a few incredibly good ideas concerning how to cripple the USA should a war have to be fought (Google "Assassin's Mace" for more) their overall grand strategy involves avoiding conflicts and getting paid until they can build up the best military possible, letting the warring factions bleed each other out, then marching in, saving the day, and establishing the new global consensus with them at the centre.
Or, failing that, buying up everyone's debt to the point no-one would even want to raise a hand against them, while providing other nations citizens with cheap consumer goods, and their economic elites with healthy profits.
I very much doubt a US-Chinese trade war would devolve into a shooting war, unfortunately it isn't that simple. It's the unintended side effects I worry about, protectionism leading to autarky leading to the increased use of military force in international disputes because, quite frankly, there is no payoff in settling things peacefully. That is my concern.
Wars also keep people employed. A lot of people.
In other words Conventional Warfare™ is a cats-paw for industry, or to simplify it further, Military-Industrial Complex.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
and there's no way we'd ever win a land war against them.
Yeah, that's why we lost Korea.
:hosrie:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
and there's no way we'd ever win a land war against them.
Yeah, that's why we lost Korea.
:hosrie:
:lol:
We fought against Soviet provided weapons and air support, against both the North Koreans and the Chinese.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
and there's no way we'd ever win a land war against them.
Yeah, that's why we lost Korea.
:hosrie:
is that a pwny?
The Pickle is unfamiliar with the proper use of this emote.
DP, here's a good read for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pork_Chop_Hill
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:03:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
and there's no way we'd ever win a land war against them.
Yeah, that's why we lost Korea.
:hosrie:
is that a pwny?
The Pickle is unfamiliar with the proper use of this emote.
It signifies massive self-ownage. In this case, on your part.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:18:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:03:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
and there's no way we'd ever win a land war against them.
Yeah, that's why we lost Korea.
:hosrie:
is that a pwny?
The Pickle is unfamiliar with the proper use of this emote.
It signifies massive self-ownage. In this case, on your part.
*looks at the war that followed it and the current state of relations in the country*
our definitions of win differ.
good link Charley, thnx. I've done more down and dirty research on Vietnam than The Korean War, as far as battles goes.
Grandfather was in Vietnam, but not Korea, so it isn't as personal a war for me. I'll get to it all eventually though.
The Battle of Pork Chop Hill was a dick measuring contest of epic stupidity.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:27:05 PM
our definitions of win differ.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Dok,
Will be ignoring your drivel in the future.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:27:05 PM
our definitions of win differ.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Dok,
Will be ignoring your drivel in the future.
Wow. Is he saying that all of Korea should be under that maniac from the north? :?
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 06:33:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:27:05 PM
our definitions of win differ.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Dok,
Will be ignoring your drivel in the future.
Wow. Is he saying that all of Korea should be under that maniac from the north? :?
No, he's saying he owned the fuck out of himself, and now he's going to dig his heels in and redefine the English language to avoid admitting he may have been wrong about something.
Diagnosis: He's a howler monkey, not an actual person.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:18:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:03:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
and there's no way we'd ever win a land war against them.
Yeah, that's why we lost Korea.
:hosrie:
is that a pwny?
The Pickle is unfamiliar with the proper use of this emote.
It signifies massive self-ownage. In this case, on your part.
*looks at the war that followed it and the current state of relations in the country*
our definitions of win differ.
good link Charley, thnx. I've done more down and dirty research on Vietnam than The Korean War, as far as battles goes.
Grandfather was in Vietnam, but not Korea, so it isn't as personal a war for me. I'll get to it all eventually though.
Explain please.
What do they teach in history classes these days? :?
You know, it often seems to me like the problem is that nobody is bothering to explain what the hell they're talking about.
For example: DP, so what is your definition of 'win', and how does it contrast with what you think Dok Howl's is?
I mean, for fuck's sake. You totally open yourself up to this shit when you say that there's a difference of terms, and then don't go on to explain what they are.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 06:37:19 PM
What do they teach in history classes these days? :?
America = always bad.
Granted, we've done more than our share of misbehaving, but the trend for the last 25 years has been to discount anything we've actually accomplished, and blame us for EVERYTHING, no matter what.
So, for example, we "lost" Korea, even though we obtained all of our objectives in the war (return the North across the 38th parallel), and even though we fought a million or so Chinese to a standstill, and then pushed them back all the way to the 38th parallel.
And not only did we lose it, we were big meanies for picking on the helpless North.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 04, 2010, 06:38:32 PM
You know, it often seems to me like the problem is that nobody is bothering to explain what the hell they're talking about.
For example: DP, so what is your definition of 'win', and how does it contrast with what you think Dok Howl's is?
I mean, for fuck's sake. You totally open yourself up to this shit when you say that there's a difference of terms, and then don't go on to explain what they are.
See above.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:42:07 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 06:37:19 PM
What do they teach in history classes these days? :?
America = always bad.
Granted, we've done more than our share of misbehaving, but the trend for the last 25 years has been to discount anything we've actually accomplished, and blame us for EVERYTHING, no matter what.
So, for example, we "lost" Korea, even though we obtained all of our objectives in the war (return the North across the 38th parallel), and even though we fought a million or so Chinese to a standstill, and then pushed them back all the way to the 38th parallel.
And not only did we lose it, we were big meanies for picking on the helpless North.
I suppose it would be redundant to point out that as per treaty agreement with the Soviets on Apr 10, 1945 that we all agreed to divide the country at the 38th parallel? I mean, since Korea was a Japanese colony and all. This was done 5 days before Japans surrender.
History, it's in print.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:34:55 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 06:33:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:27:05 PM
our definitions of win differ.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Dok,
Will be ignoring your drivel in the future.
Wow. Is he saying that all of Korea should be under that maniac from the north? :?
No, he's saying he owned the fuck out of himself, and now he's going to dig his heels in and redefine the English language to avoid admitting he may have been wrong about something.
Diagnosis: He's a howler monkey, not an actual person.
OOK!
I said said there's no way we'd win a land war against mainland china. Granted, I didn't site any proof to back up this assertion, so take issue with that if you want.
Charlie: nope, didn't say anything even resembling that. A cease fire that is still bringing tension after a decade of wars that happened almost half a century ago does not equal win as far as I'm concerned. Take issue with that as well if you want.
at least no definition of win that I've ever heard of.
I can't hardly recall what was taught to me in high school regarding Korea and Vietnam. I started getting into Vietnam because of what my Grandfather had to say about it, and read a few books about the subject.
Howl, didn't say America was bad at all. Haven't even implied it.
What would my definition of win have been? After the war broke out, pushed the Chinese and Russian communists out that occupied the north after WWII and actively supported turning the government of North Korea over to the South.
of course, this in the mindset of the time. I don't personally advocate for war and regime change through foreign intervention.
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations. Kind of like the way Israel lost during the First Intifada. You can achieve your goals and half of the planet will still think your asshats if all they see are big bad soldiers vs helpless innocent kids with rocks.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:58:06 PM
What would my definition of win have been? After the war broke out, pushed the Chinese and Russian communists out that occupied the north after WWII and actively supported turning the government of North Korea over to the South.
So, obtaining the objectives set forth by the political body authorizing the war (the UN) wasn't good enough. We had to turn it into an act of aggression, instead of simply returning things to the status quo ante bellum.
And why couldn't we win a war against China? I mean, other than your bald, unsupported statement?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:58:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:34:55 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 06:33:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:27:05 PM
our definitions of win differ.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Dok,
Will be ignoring your drivel in the future.
Wow. Is he saying that all of Korea should be under that maniac from the north? :?
No, he's saying he owned the fuck out of himself, and now he's going to dig his heels in and redefine the English language to avoid admitting he may have been wrong about something.
Diagnosis: He's a howler monkey, not an actual person.
OOK!
I said said there's no way we'd win a land war against mainland china. Granted, I didn't site any proof to back up this assertion, so take issue with that if you want.
Charlie: nope, didn't say anything even resembling that. A cease fire that is still bringing tension after a decade of wars that happened almost half a century ago does not equal win as far as I'm concerned. Take issue with that as well if you want.
at least no definition of win that I've ever heard of.
I can't hardly recall what was taught to me in high school regarding Korea and Vietnam. I started getting into Vietnam because of what my Grandfather had to say about it, and read a few books about the subject.
Howl, didn't say America was bad at all. Haven't even implied it.
What would my definition of win have been? After the war broke out, pushed the Chinese and Russian communists out that occupied the north after WWII and actively supported turning the government of North Korea over to the South.
of course, this in the mindset of the time. I don't personally advocate for war and regime change through foreign intervention.
Please see my earlier post concerning the
Treaty with the Soviets concerning the division of Korea.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations.
It's a good thing that public relations were pretty much irrelevant in that war.
We lost in the minds of American yahoos that think of WWII as the standard for wars, rather than a very obvious exception.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:01:45 PMPlease see my earlier post concerning the Treaty with the Soviets concerning the division of Korea.
Bah...What's article VI of the US constitution, when we could be welcomed by millions of grateful, American flag-waving
Iraqis North Koreans?
Also to point out the blatantly obvious, the soviets were our allies in the war. Allies. Not enemies.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:03:37 PM
Also to point out the blatantly obvious, the soviets were our allies in the war. Allies. Not enemies.
In reality, the Soviets were allied with the Soviets.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:03:18 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:01:45 PMPlease see my earlier post concerning the Treaty with the Soviets concerning the division of Korea.
Bah...What's article VI of the US constitution, when we could be welcomed by millions of grateful, American flag-waving Iraqis North Koreans?
We are
revising history ITT. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:03:37 PM
Also to point out the blatantly obvious, the soviets were our allies in the war. Allies. Not enemies.
In reality, the Soviets were allied with the Soviets.
In fact of truth, yes. But they did kill one hell of a lot of Germans.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:03:37 PM
Also to point out the blatantly obvious, the soviets were our allies in the war. Allies. Not enemies.
In reality, the Soviets were allied with the Soviets.
In fact of truth, yes. But they did kill one hell of a lot of Germans.
Yep. And we did in fact sign a treaty with them concerning Korea.
The fact that Korea (and Vietnam) had little to say in these matters is another story, but hardly atypical in a situation like that.
I think in my next life I want to be a history professor.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
I think in my next life I want to be a history professor.
In Kansas? :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:02:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations.
It's a good thing that public relations were pretty much irrelevant in that war.
We lost in the minds of American yahoos that think of WWII as the standard for wars, rather than a very obvious exception.
I think they were irrelevant to the military objectives in the short term. However, you can trace the anti-war American mindset from Korea into Vietnam and through to now. And you're right about the failed understanding of War, WWI and WWII, American Revolution and Civil War were nice neat bundles and thats what people remember. They forget the many military events that look more like Operation: Iraqi Freedom (where we quietly wander off in the middle of the night), than ticker tape parades.
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:10:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:09:48 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
I think in my next life I want to be a history professor.
In Kansas? :lulz:
OH HELL NO.
"...And then George Washington thanked Baby Jesus, and jumped on his velociraptor, and rode off into the sunset."
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
Tojo was more hated in America than Hitler ever was. Just saying.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
Tojo was more hated in America than Hitler ever was. Just saying.
Well, I wasn't alive then so I'll have to defer to you ancients :)
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:02:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations.
It's a good thing that public relations were pretty much irrelevant in that war.
We lost in the minds of American yahoos that think of WWII as the standard for wars, rather than a very obvious exception.
I think they were irrelevant to the military objectives in the short term. However, you can trace the anti-war American mindset from Korea into Vietnam and through to now. And you're right about the failed understanding of War, WWI and WWII, American Revolution and Civil War were nice neat bundles and thats what people remember. They forget the many military events that look more like Operation: Iraqi Freedom (where we quietly wander off in the middle of the night), than ticker tape parades.
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
Point of interest. Jews are not Christians. But that said, I do see where your intention was.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
Tojo was more hated in America than Hitler ever was. Just saying.
Well, I wasn't alive then so I'll have to defer to you ancients :)
Yeah, I was alive back then, and stumping my walker through the battle of the bulge. :crankey:
Dok,
Talked to WWII-era people once or twice, and has read a book or two.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:15:02 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
I had an uncle who was a machine gun sargent in the Battle of the Bulge. And he survived it.
Tojo was more hated in America than Hitler ever was. Just saying.
Well, I wasn't alive then so I'll have to defer to you ancients :)
Yeah, I was alive back then, and stumping my walker through the battle of the bulge. :crankey:
Dok,
Talked to WWII-era people once or twice, and has read a book or two.
My Uncle was in the Battle of the Bulge, a machine gun Sargent, and a survivor.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:14:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:02:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations.
It's a good thing that public relations were pretty much irrelevant in that war.
We lost in the minds of American yahoos that think of WWII as the standard for wars, rather than a very obvious exception.
I think they were irrelevant to the military objectives in the short term. However, you can trace the anti-war American mindset from Korea into Vietnam and through to now. And you're right about the failed understanding of War, WWI and WWII, American Revolution and Civil War were nice neat bundles and thats what people remember. They forget the many military events that look more like Operation: Iraqi Freedom (where we quietly wander off in the middle of the night), than ticker tape parades.
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
Point of interest. Jews are not Christians. But that said, I do see where your intention was.
Well, the Poles and French and Austrians were Euros... and remember the American public wasn't terribly aware of the Jewish plight (at least not the horrific enormity of it) until our troops were in there cleaning the mess up.
My grandfather was part of the ground forces and was at Dresden and then later one of the camps. After he came home, there were days that he would just go sit on the hill, watch the sun rise and watch it set and then grandma would have to go get him. He said that clean up was one day of work and two days before you could hold down water, then back to rotation and that was just the war side. He didn't talk much at all about what happened when they got into the camp.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations. Kind of like the way Israel lost during the First Intifada. You can achieve your goals and half of the planet will still think your asshats if all they see are big bad soldiers vs helpless innocent kids with rocks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:01:15 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 06:58:06 PM
What would my definition of win have been? After the war broke out, pushed the Chinese and Russian communists out that occupied the north after WWII and actively supported turning the government of North Korea over to the South.
So, obtaining the objectives set forth by the political body authorizing the war (the UN) wasn't good enough. We had to turn it into an act of aggression, instead of simply returning things to the status quo ante bellum.
And why couldn't we win a war against China? I mean, other than your bald, unsupported statement?
The act of aggression was when the North invaded the South. Returning it to the 1945 agreement did nothing to permanently stabilize the region as it's still in upheaval today. The superpowers using that country as a means of undermining each other for decades again, does not equal win in my mind.
as to military strength between us and China..
(http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/chinavsunitedstatesmilitary.jpg)
wallstats.com did this one. of course statistics are, as always, dependent on who gathers the info.
by land war, I meant invasion and holding of land in the traditional sense. This precludes the use of nuclear weapons to take out major population dense areas and dramatically lower their potential manpower recruiting abilities should they begin to sustain heavy losses.
I don't claim to know it all you old fucks, and if you have a book to recommend then by all means.
The Pickle is well aware you don't go from being a lowly cucumber to a real Pickle over night.
Im replying late because I have some work to do, sorry for that. I'll get out of the way if you guys are moving to other wars.
I've got to get this off my desk anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:15:02 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
I also think it was easier to sell "Kill Hitler" to the American people (after all he was hurting nice Anglo Saxon Christians!!) than a bunch of *insert slang here* in some jungle on the wrong side of the planet. On top of that, the resentment to the draft was taking hold while previously, mostly just religious freaks had balked at 'doing their duty'.
Tojo was more hated in America than Hitler ever was. Just saying.
Well, I wasn't alive then so I'll have to defer to you ancients :)
Yeah, I was alive back then, and stumping my walker through the battle of the bulge. :crankey:
Dok,
Talked to WWII-era people once or twice, and has read a book or two.
Dok, we know the truth... every time a body part fails, you replace it with some neferious device and tromp on. There's no way you could have come into existence over just a single lifetime :evil:
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
but they could keep them coming in wave after wave, long after we had exhausted our manpower. incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
And massive Jungles are good for breaking up the front lines ;-)
Besides, there's not likely to be a 'traditional' war anymore, the number of boots on the ground may end up mattering far less. Though, personally, I wouldn't like our odds vs China in a dust up.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
but they could keep them coming in wave after wave. incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?
No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.
And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are
having to send in wave after wave of troops.
Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
but they could keep them coming in wave after wave. incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?
No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.
And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are having to send in wave after wave of troops.
Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.
warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.
Most of my reading has been historical.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
You beat me to it.
What killed China in Korea is the same problem they have today...Too many useless troops, and no logistics train.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:26:55 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
And massive Jungles are good for breaking up the front lines ;-)
Besides, there's not likely to be a 'traditional' war anymore, the number of boots on the ground may end up mattering far less. Though, personally, I wouldn't like our odds vs China in a dust up.
Yeah, it would suck watching them all starve to death in month 3.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:36:18 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
but they could keep them coming in wave after wave. incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?
No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.
And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are having to send in wave after wave of troops.
Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.
warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.
Most of my reading has been historical.
On which planet?
Tactics are meaningless as a study. It's all about supply.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
but they could keep them coming in wave after wave, long after we had exhausted our manpower. incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?
Not if they starve on the way to the battlefield.
Christ.
And if we started a ground war where? North Korea or China?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:36:18 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:25:51 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Le Sigh Pickle.
At the time we were at war with China we were still facing the same odds. Logistics kind of prevent a mass the size of the Chinese Army to be in one place at one time.
but they could keep them coming in wave after wave. incidentally, if we were to start a ground war there, where would be the best points of entry in your opinion?
No where. Inchon Landing was possibly the worst insertion point in Korea, which is why it was successful.
And seriously study logistics. Unless your name is George S Patton you are not going to move an army anywhere very fast. Then remember to set up the basics first, housing (tents), latrines, food and fuel supplies. Then delve into command and communications and last but not leas morale, especially if you are having to send in wave after wave of troops.
Soldiers do not win wars, logistics do.
warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.
Most of my reading has been historical.
On which planet?
Tactics are meaningless as a study. It's all about supply.
Exactly. Logistics determine battle plans. Germany outran their supply lines. That didn't work out too good for them. Even though China borders Korea they still couldn't keep adequate supply lines open.
The best battle tactic is and ever will be to disrupt supply lines.
At this point in time, there isn't a military that could stand up to the states in a conventional war. Britain would give us a good run for our money, but as good as they are (I put the British Royal Marines at the top of the food chain, as far as conventional forces go), they'd be out of their weight class. Our entire strength is in our ability to move beans and bullets, which is how conventional wars are won.
Americans, of course, always interpret this to mean we can win ANY kind of war, so we go running off into 4th generation shit, which is like asking a proctologist to do brain surgery.
We're kind of dumb, that way.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 05:00:38 PM
Wars also keep people employed. A lot of people.
However, it is not as efficient as other economic activity, for reasons George Orwell outlines rather clearly in one of his essays (cant remember which, but he points out building a bomb, or manufacturing bullets, are essentially "dead investments" which create very little wealth, in comparison to other activities).
In the short term, it would probably help. That is, help enough to give a ruling political party a boost in the next elections. But it's not sustainable even in the mid-term. Total war
a la the 20th century would quickly wreck a nation if chosen as a purposeful policy without end. I mean, hell, even the current attempts at counter-insurgency, in two of the weakest countries on the planet, would be taxing the world's richest nation, if it were not deferring those costs to a future date.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:07:18 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:03:37 PM
Also to point out the blatantly obvious, the soviets were our allies in the war. Allies. Not enemies.
In reality, the Soviets were allied with the Soviets.
In fact of truth, yes. But they did kill one hell of a lot of Germans.
Yep. And we did in fact sign a treaty with them concerning Korea.
The fact that Korea (and Vietnam) had little to say in these matters is another story, but hardly atypical in a situation like that.
I think ultimately every nation is allied with itself. There are always elements in another nation which are in agreement with elements in the prior nation, but you only really get an alliance when both of those factions are in power and it is in their mutual interest (and even then, not always).
And yes, signing treaties between major powers without consulting those it actually affected is entirely the norm. Tibet's current status is the consequence of a deal between the British Empire and the previous (pre-Communist) Chinese government, for example. We've mostly learnt nowadays that it is better to actually consult the nation whose status is being determined, as to stop any conflict continuing, but in the past the overwhelming economic and military differences between the major powers and minor nations meant they could far more easily enforce their will.
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 07:54:16 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 05:00:38 PM
Wars also keep people employed. A lot of people.
However, it is not as efficient as other economic activity, for reasons George Orwell outlines rather clearly in one of his essays (cant remember which, but he points out building a bomb, or manufacturing bullets, are essentially "dead investments" which create very little wealth, in comparison to other activities).
In the short term, it would probably help. That is, help enough to give a ruling political party a boost in the next elections. But it's not sustainable even in the mid-term. Total war a la the 20th century would quickly wreck a nation if chosen as a purposeful policy without end. I mean, hell, even the current attempts at counter-insurgency, in two of the weakest countries on the planet, would be taxing the world's richest nation, if it were not deferring those costs to a future date.
I agree with you. However, do you see it as a trap? I mean if the US were to stop fighting right now, DX a shit ton of soldiers and slow down munitions plants where would we be?
Conservatively, this would throw another 300,000 jobless people into the fray.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
I think in my next life I want to be a history professor.
Historical sociology is probably the most interesting emerging field in the humanities this century. I would recommend looking into it. Charles Tilly and Michael Mann are good starting points.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 07:54:16 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 05:00:38 PM
Wars also keep people employed. A lot of people.
However, it is not as efficient as other economic activity, for reasons George Orwell outlines rather clearly in one of his essays (cant remember which, but he points out building a bomb, or manufacturing bullets, are essentially "dead investments" which create very little wealth, in comparison to other activities).
In the short term, it would probably help. That is, help enough to give a ruling political party a boost in the next elections. But it's not sustainable even in the mid-term. Total war a la the 20th century would quickly wreck a nation if chosen as a purposeful policy without end. I mean, hell, even the current attempts at counter-insurgency, in two of the weakest countries on the planet, would be taxing the world's richest nation, if it were not deferring those costs to a future date.
I agree with you. However, do you see it as a trap? I mean if the US were to stop fighting right now, DX a shit ton of soldiers and slow down munitions plants where would we be?
Conservatively, this would throw another 300,000 jobless people into the fray.
Oh yes, it'd be a shitstorm no matter which way it went. This is one of those amusing double-binds where whichever way you go, there are going to be hellishly difficult problems to solve. I believe this is why an economy reliant on military activity should be advised against, as a rule. The best way to avoid the trap is to not enter it.
Of course, this isn't very useful advice for the current situation.
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:07:18 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:03:37 PM
Also to point out the blatantly obvious, the soviets were our allies in the war. Allies. Not enemies.
In reality, the Soviets were allied with the Soviets.
In fact of truth, yes. But they did kill one hell of a lot of Germans.
Yep. And we did in fact sign a treaty with them concerning Korea.
The fact that Korea (and Vietnam) had little to say in these matters is another story, but hardly atypical in a situation like that.
I think ultimately every nation is allied with itself. There are always elements in another nation which are in agreement with elements in the prior nation, but you only really get an alliance when both of those factions are in power and it is in their mutual interest (and even then, not always).
And yes, signing treaties between major powers without consulting those it actually affected is entirely the norm. Tibet's current status is the consequence of a deal between the British Empire and the previous (pre-Communist) Chinese government, for example. We've mostly learnt nowadays that it is better to actually consult the nation whose status is being determined, as to stop any conflict continuing, but in the past the overwhelming economic and military differences between the major powers and minor nations meant they could far more easily enforce their will.
At the time Korea wasn't really a stand alone country though, they were a Japanese Colony, and we sure as hell weren't going to ask them. Russia ran to allay with us as an outright land grab, and it was politik to allow it. Without their efforts on The Eastern Front, the war would have taken a far different turn, I think.
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
I think in my next life I want to be a history professor.
Historical sociology is probably the most interesting emerging field in the humanities this century. I would recommend looking into it. Charles Tilly and Michael Mann are good starting points.
Archaeology makes me drool.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations. Kind of like the way Israel lost during the First Intifada. You can achieve your goals and half of the planet will still think your asshats if all they see are big bad soldiers vs helpless innocent kids with rocks.
Most people don't even think of the Korean War, as far as I can see. It is the truly forgotten war. And I'm not aware of anyone who believes the North were justified in their aggression or that the war was a failure (it wasn't a Platonic Eternal Success, either, but few things are, and WWII as the war most people learn about in any kind of depth seems to raise expectations that wars can be ended definitively, which is not usually the case).
As far as modern wars go, aside from a few odd events, it actually seems to qualify under the Just War Theorem as a Just War. Authorized by the correct political authority, in accordance with rules set down by that body and fought in a fair and limited way, achieving reasonable objectives....not many wars actually get that far on the list.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 07:02:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I think we lost Korea in the war of Public Relations.
It's a good thing that public relations were pretty much irrelevant in that war.
We lost in the minds of American yahoos that think of WWII as the standard for wars, rather than a very obvious exception.
Heh, I hadn't even read that when I wrote the above post.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:19:30 PM
as to military strength between us and China..
http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/chinavsunitedstatesmilitary.jpg
wallstats.com did this one. of course statistics are, as always, dependent on who gathers the info.
by land war, I meant invasion and holding of land in the traditional sense. This precludes the use of nuclear weapons to take out major population dense areas and dramatically lower their potential manpower recruiting abilities should they begin to sustain heavy losses.
I don't claim to know it all you old fucks, and if you have a book to recommend then by all means.
The Pickle is well aware you don't go from being a lowly cucumber to a real Pickle over night.
Uh, that graph is rather simplistic. Chinese logistics suck and nothing on here indicates the weakness of the Chinese Navy versus the American Navy. It also does not take into account American dominance in electronic warfare or their superior combat experience (the last time the PLA took part in actual combat was in the 1970s, when they invaded Vietnam).
America couldn't occupy China, but I doubt they'd be that stupid....well, for the most part. Eric Cantor would probably demand it, and call anyone who pointed out the utter stupidity of trying a traitor. A war would be fought over somewhere, like the Spratly Isles or, less likely, Taiwan. American allies would also be involved, namely Japan, who would, with American support, likely lay China's economically vital east coast to waste. Indeed, Clinton's military pact with Japan in the 1990s was designed precisely with this event in mind. Equally, America has been making moves to become closer with India in the past decade, and India are not on good terms with China, both because of past wars and because of suspected support for Maoist rebels in the country. India performed rather well in those wars, often despite them being intitiated by China and Pakistan and having to fight on two major fronts.
Finally, America has rather large airbases in Central Asia from where it could perform surgical strikes against Chinese infrastructure in Xinjiang, destroying their ability to produce crude oil internally. Through in an external blockade, and Chinese industry would be crippled.
Of course, it wouldn't go all America's way. China doesn't intend to attack where America is strong...and going by their Assassin's Mace program, that means they are focusing on highly unconventional warfare programs, including cyberwarfare, financial attack, terrorism and disinformation on a grand scale.
But in terms of conventional military methods, aiming to cripple rather than occupy a country, America does have the upper hand. Indeed, these are the kind of operations their military actually carries out rather well.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 08:11:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
I think in my next life I want to be a history professor.
Historical sociology is probably the most interesting emerging field in the humanities this century. I would recommend looking into it. Charles Tilly and Michael Mann are good starting points.
Archaeology makes me drool.
It sounds fun, but I'm reliably informed by archeologists I know to never, ever try it in Rome. Hell. On. Earth.
Sadly, I don't have much to say but you might be interested in reading this.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG524.pdf
U.S. defense analysts have become concerned in recent years about the
possibility of a U.S. adversary employing an "antiaccess" strategy—
actions that would impede the deployment of U.S. forces into the
combat theater, limit the locations from which those forces could effec-
tively operate, or force them to operate from locations farther from
the locus of conflict than they would normally prefer. China is often
proposed as a potential adversary that could employ such a strategy. To
date, however, there has been no published comprehensive assessment
of what specific types of antiaccess methods Chinese military strate-
gists are contemplating and that China might attempt to employ in a
conflict with the United States.
This report is the result of a project on "Chinese Antiaccess Con-
cepts and Capabilities," whose purpose was to determine what types of
antiaccess measures China might employ in the event of a conflict with
the United States, assess the potential effects of such measures, and
identify actions the United States can take and capabilities it should
acquire to reduce these effects.
It's a good paper, that one.
I am the kind of security studies guy who logs onto RAND pretty much every week and downloads the papers I haven't yet read. I have a huge backlog still, but I'm somewhere in late 2008 currently.
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:33:45 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 08:11:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
I think in my next life I want to be a history professor.
Historical sociology is probably the most interesting emerging field in the humanities this century. I would recommend looking into it. Charles Tilly and Michael Mann are good starting points.
Archaeology makes me drool.
It sounds fun, but I'm reliably informed by archeologists I know to never, ever try it in Rome. Hell. On. Earth.
I would much prefer open spaces I think.
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:19:30 PM
as to military strength between us and China..
http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/chinavsunitedstatesmilitary.jpg
wallstats.com did this one. of course statistics are, as always, dependent on who gathers the info.
by land war, I meant invasion and holding of land in the traditional sense. This precludes the use of nuclear weapons to take out major population dense areas and dramatically lower their potential manpower recruiting abilities should they begin to sustain heavy losses.
I don't claim to know it all you old fucks, and if you have a book to recommend then by all means.
The Pickle is well aware you don't go from being a lowly cucumber to a real Pickle over night.
Uh, that graph is rather simplistic. Chinese logistics suck and nothing on here indicates the weakness of the Chinese Navy versus the American Navy. It also does not take into account American dominance in electronic warfare or their superior combat experience (the last time the PLA took part in actual combat was in the 1970s, when they invaded Vietnam).
America couldn't occupy China, but I doubt they'd be that stupid....well, for the most part. Eric Cantor would probably demand it, and call anyone who pointed out the utter stupidity of trying a traitor. A war would be fought over somewhere, like the Spratly Isles or, less likely, Taiwan. American allies would also be involved, namely Japan, who would, with American support, likely lay China's economically vital east coast to waste. Indeed, Clinton's military pact with Japan in the 1990s was designed precisely with this event in mind. Equally, America has been making moves to become closer with India in the past decade, and India are not on good terms with China, both because of past wars and because of suspected support for Maoist rebels in the country. India performed rather well in those wars, often despite them being intitiated by China and Pakistan and having to fight on two major fronts.
Finally, America has rather large airbases in Central Asia from where it could perform surgical strikes against Chinese infrastructure in Xinjiang, destroying their ability to produce crude oil internally. Through in an external blockade, and Chinese industry would be crippled.
Of course, it wouldn't go all America's way. China doesn't intend to attack where America is strong...and going by their Assassin's Mace program, that means they are focusing on highly unconventional warfare programs, including cyberwarfare, financial attack, terrorism and disinformation on a grand scale.
But in terms of conventional military methods, aiming to cripple rather than occupy a country, America does have the upper hand. Indeed, these are the kind of operations their military actually carries out rather well.
our air superiority would certainly be debilitating to their war capabilities and supply lines.
Atrophy as a tactic, I think, would be easier for the US military to use with effect. Like Dok said, we're pretty damn good at getting supplies moved around quickly.
Where do you think Russia would stand in this hypothetical? Hands off but equipment supply to China? or is the "reboot" something they'd stick with considering our history working together post WWII?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:19:30 PM
as to military strength between us and China..
http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/chinavsunitedstatesmilitary.jpg
wallstats.com did this one. of course statistics are, as always, dependent on who gathers the info.
by land war, I meant invasion and holding of land in the traditional sense. This precludes the use of nuclear weapons to take out major population dense areas and dramatically lower their potential manpower recruiting abilities should they begin to sustain heavy losses.
I don't claim to know it all you old fucks, and if you have a book to recommend then by all means.
The Pickle is well aware you don't go from being a lowly cucumber to a real Pickle over night.
Uh, that graph is rather simplistic. Chinese logistics suck and nothing on here indicates the weakness of the Chinese Navy versus the American Navy. It also does not take into account American dominance in electronic warfare or their superior combat experience (the last time the PLA took part in actual combat was in the 1970s, when they invaded Vietnam).
America couldn't occupy China, but I doubt they'd be that stupid....well, for the most part. Eric Cantor would probably demand it, and call anyone who pointed out the utter stupidity of trying a traitor. A war would be fought over somewhere, like the Spratly Isles or, less likely, Taiwan. American allies would also be involved, namely Japan, who would, with American support, likely lay China's economically vital east coast to waste. Indeed, Clinton's military pact with Japan in the 1990s was designed precisely with this event in mind. Equally, America has been making moves to become closer with India in the past decade, and India are not on good terms with China, both because of past wars and because of suspected support for Maoist rebels in the country. India performed rather well in those wars, often despite them being intitiated by China and Pakistan and having to fight on two major fronts.
Finally, America has rather large airbases in Central Asia from where it could perform surgical strikes against Chinese infrastructure in Xinjiang, destroying their ability to produce crude oil internally. Through in an external blockade, and Chinese industry would be crippled.
Of course, it wouldn't go all America's way. China doesn't intend to attack where America is strong...and going by their Assassin's Mace program, that means they are focusing on highly unconventional warfare programs, including cyberwarfare, financial attack, terrorism and disinformation on a grand scale.
But in terms of conventional military methods, aiming to cripple rather than occupy a country, America does have the upper hand. Indeed, these are the kind of operations their military actually carries out rather well.
our air superiority would certainly be debilitating to their war capabilities and supply lines.
Atrophy as a tactic, I think, would be easier for the US military to use with effect. Like Dok said, we're pretty damn good at getting supplies moved around quickly.
Where do you think Russia would stand in this hypothetical? Hands off but equipment supply to China? or is the "reboot" something they'd stick with considering our history working together post WWII?
Don't confuse Russia with the former Soviet Union.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 08:44:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:19:30 PM
as to military strength between us and China..
http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/chinavsunitedstatesmilitary.jpg
wallstats.com did this one. of course statistics are, as always, dependent on who gathers the info.
by land war, I meant invasion and holding of land in the traditional sense. This precludes the use of nuclear weapons to take out major population dense areas and dramatically lower their potential manpower recruiting abilities should they begin to sustain heavy losses.
I don't claim to know it all you old fucks, and if you have a book to recommend then by all means.
The Pickle is well aware you don't go from being a lowly cucumber to a real Pickle over night.
Uh, that graph is rather simplistic. Chinese logistics suck and nothing on here indicates the weakness of the Chinese Navy versus the American Navy. It also does not take into account American dominance in electronic warfare or their superior combat experience (the last time the PLA took part in actual combat was in the 1970s, when they invaded Vietnam).
America couldn't occupy China, but I doubt they'd be that stupid....well, for the most part. Eric Cantor would probably demand it, and call anyone who pointed out the utter stupidity of trying a traitor. A war would be fought over somewhere, like the Spratly Isles or, less likely, Taiwan. American allies would also be involved, namely Japan, who would, with American support, likely lay China's economically vital east coast to waste. Indeed, Clinton's military pact with Japan in the 1990s was designed precisely with this event in mind. Equally, America has been making moves to become closer with India in the past decade, and India are not on good terms with China, both because of past wars and because of suspected support for Maoist rebels in the country. India performed rather well in those wars, often despite them being intitiated by China and Pakistan and having to fight on two major fronts.
Finally, America has rather large airbases in Central Asia from where it could perform surgical strikes against Chinese infrastructure in Xinjiang, destroying their ability to produce crude oil internally. Through in an external blockade, and Chinese industry would be crippled.
Of course, it wouldn't go all America's way. China doesn't intend to attack where America is strong...and going by their Assassin's Mace program, that means they are focusing on highly unconventional warfare programs, including cyberwarfare, financial attack, terrorism and disinformation on a grand scale.
But in terms of conventional military methods, aiming to cripple rather than occupy a country, America does have the upper hand. Indeed, these are the kind of operations their military actually carries out rather well.
our air superiority would certainly be debilitating to their war capabilities and supply lines.
Atrophy as a tactic, I think, would be easier for the US military to use with effect. Like Dok said, we're pretty damn good at getting supplies moved around quickly.
Where do you think Russia would stand in this hypothetical? Hands off but equipment supply to China? or is the "reboot" something they'd stick with considering our history working together post WWII?
Don't confuse Russia with the former Soviet Union.
I'm not, but I am still expecting that Russia will do what's best for Russia.
Which I suspect would not involve jumping in between 2 superpowers.
Russia would be quite happy to see both sides bleed each other out. It works with China now, but only to balance against US dominance. Their alliance is merely one of current mutual benefit, which would be discarded in a moment should it cease to work for them. And being dragged into a hot war between America and China would not be in their interest.
They may, of course, cause mischief in Central Asia, the Middle East and "Near Abroad", but it'd be taking advantage of and continuing the chaos to Russian benefit.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:36:18 PM
warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.
Most of my reading has been historical.
amateurs talk about tactics.
professionals talk about logistics.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 05, 2010, 12:47:31 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:36:18 PM
warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.
Most of my reading has been historical.
amateurs Players talk about tactics.
professionals GMs talk about logistics.
Quote from: Telarus on October 05, 2010, 02:43:53 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 05, 2010, 12:47:31 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:36:18 PM
warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.
Most of my reading has been historical.
amateurs Players talk about tactics.
professionals GMs talk about logistics.
NERD :lulz:
Quote from: Telarus on October 05, 2010, 02:43:53 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 05, 2010, 12:47:31 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 04, 2010, 07:36:18 PM
warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.
Most of my reading has been historical.
amateurs Players talk about tactics.
professionals GMs talk about logistics.
I think I just saw God.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 06:37:19 PM
What do they teach in history classes these days? :?
It's been a decade since I took any classes that covered the Korean War, but let me see if I can remember what happened after China got involved.
We went from controlling 90% of Korea, and being a stones throw away from creating a united democratic* Korea to controlling only half.
The Chinese managed to successfully reverse the theory of air superiority, taking airbases with land troops in order to keep our planes out of the sky.
*Or puppet state, but we're talking about what they teach in history classes.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2010, 03:14:57 AM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 06:37:19 PM
What do they teach in history classes these days? :?
It's been a decade since I took any classes that covered the Korean War, but let me see if I can remember what happened after China got involved.
We went from controlling 90% of Korea, and being a stones throw away from creating a united democratic* Korea to controlling only half.
The Chinese managed to successfully reverse the theory of air superiority, taking airbases with land troops in order to keep our planes out of the sky.
*Or puppet state, but we're talking about what they teach in history classes.
Yeah, and what was left of the Chinese force when we got back to the 38th parallel the second time?
Also, puppet state? I was unaware you were such a supporter of North Korea's enlightened regime.
I can hate both.
Quote
Yeah, and what was left of the Chinese force when we got back to the 38th parallel the second time?
Wasn't covered.
I don't remember being taught anything about the Korean War at all.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2010, 03:17:52 AM
I can hate both.
Quote
Yeah, and what was left of the Chinese force when we got back to the 38th parallel the second time?
Wasn't covered.
Thought as much. You're talking out of your arse.
Dok,
Forgot you were a fucking expert on all things.
On the puppet state thing: I don't think the US influenced government in Korea was anywhere near as bad as what north Korea turned into, but neither do I think the US is really going to get that involved in another country without at least trying to rig the game for the foreseeable future.
The question was 'what is taught in History classes', not what actually happened.
So, do you have any support for the argument, or was this just another failed attempt at pedantry?
What argument? :?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2010, 03:27:08 AM
What argument? :?
1. That we got beaten by the Chinese, and
2. That Korea is an American vassal.
Thanks.
I wasn't arguing for the first one, I was trying to give some perspective on where Pickle is coming from. I'm still processing new information from this thread and reevaluating my impressions from high school history.
On the second, no. That was more half joke and half the cynicism I developed hanging around here. Let's call it failed pedantry.
Okay.
Cliff's notes:
North invades, runs UN forces all the way to Pusan, which is a little zit on the bottom of Korea.
MacArthur holds them there by the nose, and invades behind them at Inchon, basically doing the same schtick he did to the Japanese about 50 times.
Without supplies, the North Korean army dies on the vine.
MacArthur chases the remains of their army all the way through the peninsula, toward the Yalu River.
The Chinese say, "Douglas, you better stop."
MacArthur says, "I think I wanna mess with bigfoot".
700,000 screaming Chinese beg to differ.
MacArthur freaks the fuck out, loses his shit, and demands the use of nukes.
MacArthur is sent to "spend more time with his family."
General Ridgeway beats his way back to the 38th parallel, the original starting point, in a long series of minor (and a few not so minor) engagements, after beating the mortal shit out of what passed for the Chinese supply lines.
Everyone gets sick of the whole thing, and an Armistice is declared.
Everyone forgets to formally end the war.
I have decided that the impression I got from history class (a draw) was simplistic. The US failed to capture North Korea, but the main reason for being there was to protect South Korea, and South Korea is still standing.
In a related tangent, Chan Wook Park directed a pretty awesome Rashamon type story set around the Korean DMZ called Joint Security Area.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2010, 03:44:50 AM
Cliff's notes:
North invades, runs UN forces all the way to Pusan, which is a little zit on the bottom of Korea.
MacArthur holds them there by the nose, and invades behind them at Inchon, basically doing the same schtick he did to the Japanese about 50 times.
Without supplies, the North Korean army dies on the vine.
MacArthur chases the remains of their army all the way through the peninsula, toward the Yalu River.
The Chinese say, "Douglas, you better stop."
MacArthur says, "I think I wanna mess with bigfoot".
700,000 screaming Chinese beg to differ.
MacArthur freaks the fuck out, loses his shit, and demands the use of nukes.
MacArthur is sent to "spend more time with his family."
General Ridgeway beats his way back to the 38th parallel, the original starting point, in a long series of minor (and a few not so minor) engagements, after beating the mortal shit out of what passed for the Chinese supply lines.
Everyone gets sick of the whole thing, and an Armistice is declared.
Everyone forgets to formally end the war.
And there it is. In the Readers Digest Version. You guys need to learn to history with Dok and I on the job.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 05, 2010, 03:19:28 AM
I don't remember being taught anything about the Korean War at all.
Me too. I didn't even
know about the Korean War until I was a senior in High School, and only then because I felt like I wasn't getting the whole story when they said the only thing that happened between WW2 and Vietnam was that waitresses at drive-in diners invented roller skates. So I looked up the history myself and found out OH HEY LOOK THERE WAS ANOTHER WAR.
Anyway, I think America's problem when it comes to dealing with China is that everybody in power still seems to be basking in the glow of our (alleged) victory in the Cold War, mixed with a little bit of bullshit wishful thinking about the USSR failing because Communism Doesn't Work (and therefore China's nothing to worry about either), and we think we're sitting on top of a world that's so post-modern that history itself is a thing of the past.
Nobody in America seems to think America is in any kind of actual danger, unless it's because of random Arabs with suitcase nukes, or gays, or Fred Phelps or Sarah Palin. America won the game, and now we're just playing extra innings for the hell of it, I guess.
Which is also why they don't teach anybody about the Korean War -- because it's a
wide open door into the world of GIGANTIC, LOOSE ENDS that nobody knows how (or cares) to tie up.
On South Korea as an American vassal state, American leaders supported the dictator Syngman Rhee much in the same way they supported Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam. And, even when Rhee was being thrown out of power, the CIA saw fit to whisk him away from the mob who would've rightly put his head on a stick, and instead he went into exile in Hawaii (with up to $20 billion he had embezzled from the South Korean state, which while no small sum now was an especially large amount of money in 1960).
The next leader of the country was Yun Bo-seon, but he was merely a political figurehead, power resided with Parliament. He was overthrown a year later in a coup led by General Park Chung-hee, who was tolerated by the USA until 1979, when he was assassinated in....unusual circumstances by the head of the Korean CIA, Kim Jae Kyu. Like many Asian-allied intelligence, the KCIA rarely made moves without CIA approval, and Park had a history which led people within the CIA to suspect him of Communist sympathies (he had served in a Communist cell in WWII, but then sided with South Korea in the Korean War, and he had run South Korea on ultranationalistic and anti-market principles).
Kim Jae Kyu, by the way, was installed as the head of the KCIA at American insistence, after Lee Hu Rak, the previous director, had visited North Korea to discuss the process of reunification.
Choi Kyu-hah succeeded Park. He was another general, but because of civilian unrest, promised democratic rule. Other members of the military disagreed, and pressured him to take on certain anti-democracy officers in key government officers, including Major General Chun Doo-hwan, who was de facto head of the KCIA since the assassination. Chun put the entire country under martial law, sending in troops to break up pro-democracy rallies. In 1980, Chun forced Choi out of power and was installed as President (since he was the only person running). All political parties were dissolved and he rewrote the South Korean constitution, which by this stage had been rewritten about...4 times? Something like that.
Inititally the USA did not recognize his goverment, but after recieving promises that they would not develop missiles with a range over 180 km or with a larger than 453 kg warhead, they changed their minds. This may have had something to do with the secret South Korean nuclear program of the time. After these requirements were agreed upon, Reagan's administration fully recognized the government.
Chun was succeeded in a peaceful transfer of power by Roh Tae-woo, another South Korean army general. This time there was actually a vote, but with two civilian candidates and one military one (who had the blessing of the previous leader), the vote was split between the civilians, allowing Roh to win. Roh was more committed to democratization than Chun, however, and kept his word, allowing himself to be succeeded by Kim Young-sam, the first democratically elected President since Yun Bo-seon. Since then, South Korea has been ruled by civilian, democratically elected Presidents.
So in conclusion: Rhee was definitely an American supported puppet. Park wasn't (though his support of the Vietnam War bought him a lot of credit in DC), but was killed by one. Chun initially wasn't, but gained a lot of support after the missile agreements. Roh wasn't and since then it hasn't mattered too much.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2010, 07:54:16 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 04, 2010, 05:00:38 PM
Wars also keep people employed. A lot of people.
However, it is not as efficient as other economic activity, for reasons George Orwell outlines rather clearly in one of his essays (cant remember which, but he points out building a bomb, or manufacturing bullets, are essentially "dead investments" which create very little wealth, in comparison to other activities).
In the short term, it would probably help. That is, help enough to give a ruling political party a boost in the next elections. But it's not sustainable even in the mid-term. Total war a la the 20th century would quickly wreck a nation if chosen as a purposeful policy without end. I mean, hell, even the current attempts at counter-insurgency, in two of the weakest countries on the planet, would be taxing the world's richest nation, if it were not deferring those costs to a future date.
I agree with you. However, do you see it as a trap? I mean if the US were to stop fighting right now, DX a shit ton of soldiers and slow down munitions plants where would we be?
Conservatively, this would throw another 300,000 jobless people into the fray.
300 thousand Jobless who have been trained to kill.
Also, I agree with Pickle that we did not win Korea. I don't think we lost either. It was an unpleasant conflict for both sides and at the end, we agreed to stop shooting one another.
I'm not Anti-USA here, we were checking how things would go in a conflict with China and we discovered how it would go. China apparently learned more about us than we did about them, judging from Vietnam.