GLOBAL ECONOMIC TRADE WAR!

[Cain]

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.

[Adios]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Adios]

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.

[Adios]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Storebrand]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Adios]

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.

[Disco Pickle]

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?

[Adios]

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.