Tacit threat to Australia from China

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarkNoon

Power Poster
Its all a dick measuring contest between the West and China. But rest assure the US numbers alone on stealth and aircraft period makes Russia or China look like kindergartners. Russian and Chinese economy can ONLY wet dream of what the US poses militarily........
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
Its all a dick measuring contest between the West and China. But rest assure the US numbers alone on stealth and aircraft period makes Russia or China look like kindergartners. Russian and Chinese economy can ONLY wet dream of what the US poses militarily........
Id like to say China and Russia are catching up to us for the sake of global prosperity but both are so so so far from true. The GDP and Military spending of China and Russia are very sad and current provided funds means it will still take BOTH Russia and China both to meet the US militarily in 200 years!
 

ralfy

Member
The U.S. military advanced thanks to the use of the dollar as a reserve currency worldwide after 1945. That allowed the country to spend heavily on many things but it also led to the Triffin dilemma: trade deficits. That's why U.S. borrowing and spending increased heavily starting in 1982, to the point that it now has total debts of something like $70 trillion and unfunded future liabilities of more than $200 trillion, and that it can only pay for that partially by borrowing even more.

China, meanwhile, had been using soft power and, ironically, the same state-sponsored capitalist model promoted in most of Asia from the end of WW2 to the present (which started with Japan and can now be seen in not only countries like China and Vietnam but also Thailand, with the Philippines now starting as well). The result is that BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) together with over forty emerging markets have been growing economically to such an extent that they will very likely dominate the world economy soon.

In fact, that's the main reason why countries like Australia had been dealing heavily with China and Asian neighbors.

But that also means less reliance on the dollar, which in turn means lower spending, which also means....
 

TheChrome

Power Poster
The U.S. military advanced thanks to the use of the dollar as a reserve currency worldwide after 1945. That allowed the country to spend heavily on many things but it also led to the Triffin dilemma: trade deficits. That's why U.S. borrowing and spending increased heavily starting in 1982, to the point that it now has total debts of something like $70 trillion and unfunded future liabilities of more than $200 trillion, and that it can only pay for that partially by borrowing even more.

China, meanwhile, had been using soft power and, ironically, the same state-sponsored capitalist model promoted in most of Asia from the end of WW2 to the present (which started with Japan and can now be seen in not only countries like China and Vietnam but also Thailand, with the Philippines now starting as well). The result is that BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) together with over forty emerging markets have been growing economically to such an extent that they will very likely dominate the world economy soon.

In fact, that's the main reason why countries like Australia had been dealing heavily with China and Asian neighbors.

But that also means less reliance on the dollar, which in turn means lower spending, which also means....
When someone has a credit card and cannot afford to pay it, who suffers? The bank who lent them the money. The bank can try to collect on a default, but many times it is a lost cause. If the US wants to default on it's debt to China, who suffers? China. The only way China could collect is through military action, but who has a larger military? The US. Good luck with that China.

I think under the current banking system (talking off the cuff) something like 65% of transactions are the US dollar, and 21% is the Euro. Doesnt leave much left for the Yuan or Ruble

The monetary system still is a shadow of Bretton Woods from the Post WWII era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
 
Last edited:

TheChrome

Power Poster
Its all a dick measuring contest between the West and China. But rest assure the US numbers alone on stealth and aircraft period makes Russia or China look like kindergartners. Russian and Chinese economy can ONLY wet dream of what the US poses militarily........
I tend to agree with that. If you listen to the (very dumb) news media they say "Russia and China are ovetaking the US in technology". But in line what you stated, China has about 20 J-20 stealth fighters, and Russia has about 13 SU-57's. The US has roughly 393 stealth aircraft not including the F-117s which are still flying but not considered active. It also does not include all the F-35's being flown by allies. As it has been posted on this board a few months ago, the US already has a 6th generation stealth prototype that has flown.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
There is another real world factor for better or worse.
The US has extended real world combat experience for last thirty years.

That is not a great thing to brag about but it’s relevant to the issue.
 

TheChrome

Power Poster
There is another real world factor for better or worse.
The US has extended real world combat experience for last thirty years.

That is not a great thing to brag about but it’s relevant to the issue.
War is stupid really. Alliances and loyalties always change. My grandpa was what is called a China Marine, and was stationed in China between WWII and the Korean War. Back then, China was sort of an ally and Japan was the enemy. Now it is reverse. People should just get together and drink a beer and stop being retarded. That goes for the governments who hate each other. Stop being stupid, and drink a beer. Shake hands.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
War is stupid really. Alliances and loyalties always change. My grandpa was what is called a China Marine, and was stationed in China between WWII and the Korean War. Back then, China was sort of an ally and Japan was the enemy. Now it is reverse. People should just get together and drink a beer and stop being retarded. That goes for the governments who hate each other. Stop being stupid, and drink a beer. Shake hands.
I’d like to point out from my past experiences and observations of people just hanging out and drinking beer.
They often times behave badly and yes get in fights.
 

TheChrome

Power Poster
I’d like to point out from my past experiences and observations of people just hanging out and drinking beer.
They often times behave badly and yes get in fights.
Ha Ha, that may be true, but you know what I mean. Usually people who have a meal or a drink together realize that we are just people. Something the people who govern usually don't care about.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Ha Ha, that may be true, but you know what I mean. Usually people who have a meal or a drink together realize that we are just people. Something the people who govern usually don't care about.
I know and breaking boundaries and getting to know people is the root of civilization. We can get along, I kinda trust this guy, I can do business with them, hey let’s build something together.
That I believe really was the intention of Nixon and Kissinger. It just always seems to be a tenuous relationship and the jury is still out.
 

ralfy

Member
When someone has a credit card and cannot afford to pay it, who suffers? The bank who lent them the money. The bank can try to collect on a default, but many times it is a lost cause. If the US wants to default on it's debt to China, who suffers? China. The only way China could collect is through military action, but who has a larger military? The US. Good luck with that China.

I think under the current banking system (talking off the cuff) something like 65% of transactions are the US dollar, and 21% is the Euro. Doesnt leave much left for the Yuan or Ruble

The monetary system still is a shadow of Bretton Woods from the Post WWII era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

But if the U.S. defaults, then it can no longer borrow. And its economy is based essentially on heavy borrowing and spending:


Meanwhile, BRICS and emerging markets have been forming their own economic blocs. At least that's what Wall Street banks claim:


and will likely focus on SDRs as OECD countries weaken.
 

ralfy

Member
There is another real world factor for better or worse.
The US has extended real world combat experience for last thirty years.

That is not a great thing to brag about but it’s relevant to the issue.

But that heavy military spending is based essentially on maintain the relevance of the petrodollar, and that's being threatened by the rise of BRICS and over forty emerging markets that want to trade in different currencies.

That's why it's not surprising that that "real world combat experience" essentially involved using the military to bully weaker countries and to maintain dependence on the dollar. But these countries have become economically stronger, and now want to trade with each other.

This partly explains why more have become distrustful of the U.S.

 

ralfy

Member
War is stupid really. Alliances and loyalties always change. My grandpa was what is called a China Marine, and was stationed in China between WWII and the Korean War. Back then, China was sort of an ally and Japan was the enemy. Now it is reverse. People should just get together and drink a beer and stop being retarded. That goes for the governments who hate each other. Stop being stupid, and drink a beer. Shake hands.

Ironically, it was Smedley Butler who made that point back in the 1930s:


Also, before what you described, China was bullied by military powers, including the U.S. and Japan, and to this day has not forgotten that. After that, the U.S. was dealing with the corrupt Koumintang gov't while converting Filipinos into little brown Americans, whom they later abused across many decades. Meanwhile, Japan was not only seen as the enemy but was laughed at by the West, as makers of cheap products.

Interestingly enough, that's how China was viewed across decades, even as it became stronger and now dominates Asia.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
But that heavy military spending is based essentially on maintain the relevance of the petrodollar, and that's being threatened by the rise of BRICS and over forty emerging markets that want to trade in different currencies.

That's why it's not surprising that that "real world combat experience" essentially involved using the military to bully weaker countries and to maintain dependence on the dollar. But these countries have become economically stronger, and now want to trade with each other.

This partly explains why more have become distrustful of the U.S.

Your correct that the US has bullied or thrown their weight around in unwise ways.
Your hope in the BRICKS is still up in the air.
As Ive said before, Brazil & India don’t have the warmest feelings towards China. Russia is a different matter. The belt and road has stalled in many ways but principally with India.
Chinas policies in Africa have not been met with universal appreciation.
Their there own sort of bully.

In short does the US and the west need to do better absolutely.
Will Bricks achieve their goals? That remains to be seen.
Russia’s economy is mainly dependent on petrol and no bigger than some American states.
Putting trust in chinas financial stability is as difficult or worse than the Dollar.

Predictably of laws l, open trade policies and respecting other nations ocean economic zones all come into play when considering who to put your trust in.
Im sure you will have a response and that’s fine but call me cynical. I’ll lean towards the west. The thought of a totalitarian nation running the worlds financial system doesn’t appeal to me.

“Im just not thinking correct yet”
 

ralfy

Member
Your correct that the US has bullied or thrown their weight around in unwise ways.
Your hope in the BRICKS is still up in the air.
As Ive said before, Brazil & India don’t have the warmest feelings towards China. Russia is a different matter. The belt and road has stalled in many ways but principally with India.
Chinas policies in Africa have not been met with universal appreciation.
Their there own sort of bully.

In short does the US and the west need to do better absolutely.
Will Bricks achieve their goals? That remains to be seen.
Russia’s economy is mainly dependent on petrol and no bigger than some American states.
Putting trust in chinas financial stability is as difficult or worse than the Dollar.

Predictably of laws l, open trade policies and respecting other nations ocean economic zones all come into play when considering who to put your trust in.
Im sure you will have a response and that’s fine but call me cynical. I’ll lean towards the west. The thought of a totalitarian nation running the worlds financial system doesn’t appeal to me.

“Im just not thinking correct yet”

It's BRICS, not BRICKS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. There are also forty other countries involved:


There are multiple configurations involved: EAGLE, MINT, CIVETS, Next Eleven, etc.


The point that all that is still up in the air is around two decades too late. Goldman Sachs and several multinational banks reported back in 2005 that they had been growing at significant rates, and by 2030 would dominate the global economy. As of 2018, the five countries alone held almost a quarter of global GDP.

The reasons for this has less to do with culture or race or other nonsense: just like the U.S. in the early part of the previous century, or Japan and the Asian tigers of the latter half of the same century, these countries have large populations, and some very young ones, which means they are eager to work and earn hard and to spend more, which is why they will soon become the main source of production and consumption globally:


Again, what's being described isn't something that will happen in the near future but something that's been going in the past three decades. I've no idea why you're not aware of this.

Even as early as the late 1980s, economists like Robert Reich were already referring to phenomena that has been taking place throughout: U.S. cars only in name, with the engine designed in Germany and manufactured in China, components made in Japan, parts made in Philippines and Indonesia, advertising managed in France and Singapore, customer support in India, minerals from various South American countries, oil from the Middle East, and so on. Even the owners of the same U.S. companies involve investors from China, Japan, Singapore, EU members, the Middle East, and South America.

All that involves combinations of global trade and soft power. Why do you think China has been catching up quickly with the U.S. without heavy military spending, especially in Africa and South America, not to mention Australia and even countries like Canada?

As for preferring the West, here's the irony: what China has been doing, and before that Japan and others who gained from the East Asian Miracle after WW2, follow Western ideas, ranging from nineteenth-century Prussian statecraft to IMF-WB soft power moves of the 1980s!

In the end, more will realize that this has nothing to do with clashes of civilizations or cultures or ideologies but the effects of capitalist-driven industrialization. Put simply, what China is is what the U.S. once was:


And what happened to the U.S. will happen to China, too, as more of its workers, who moved from farms to factories (just like what happened in the U.S.) will soon move from factories to services as they outsource manufacturing to countries like Bangladesh and others. In fact, that's already taking place, because I recall The Economist reporting years ago that up to 60 pct of manufacturing in China involves assembly of parts manufactured in other countries, like Thailand and the Philippines, and that more factory workers want to move to service industries where they're paid more! And what do they want do with the money they earn? Buy the same things that Americans are buying, which happen to come from the same factories.

And that's the same West which, with counterparts like Japan, South Korea, and others, face population aging and rely heavily on increased demand for consumer goods across BRICS and emerging markets to earn, if not warm bodies to act as nurses and caregivers.

Thus, conflict will obviously be disastrous for everyone, including those who win it. The global economy has reached a stage that countries are essentially tied to each other and need each other to maintain industrialization, if not to allow it to grow.

In which case, the correct phrase when it comes to imagining the effects of future conflict isn't "good luck to them." It's "good luck to all of us."
 

Obreid

Power Poster
You speak as an expert obviously well versed or coached.
I here by submit my resignation to your astute insights and education.

I’m not interested in your would view and if it comes to submission or war I would choose war.
that's the way of things you know.
 

ralfy

Member
You speak as an expert obviously well versed or coached.
I here by submit my resignation to your astute insights and education.

I’m not interested in your would view and if it comes to submission or war I would choose war.
that's the way of things you know.

The main reason why the U.S. and its military rivals have been engaged in more than seventy years of proxy wars (e.g., fighting wars in weaker countries, destabilizing or supporting them for strategic advantages) is because they know that anything beyond limited conflict will be disastrous for them. But at the same time, they need continuous limited conflict because that's the only way to justify increased military spending. That's why the swamp didn't like Trump, who preferred trade negotiations and even peace deals with countries like North Korea. But no one can withstand the swamp, which is why during the last few weeks of his admin, Trump contemplated bombing Iran.

Given that, and since you pointed out that you choose war, then you should be happy, because Biden is now President. He has a long history of warmongering, just like past Presidents such as Bush and Obama:

 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
The main reason why the U.S. and its military rivals have been engaged in more than seventy years of proxy wars (e.g., fighting wars in weaker countries, destabilizing or supporting them for strategic advantages) is because they know that anything beyond limited conflict will be disastrous for them.
The US has a very good track record when it comes to war. Korea and Vietnam were lost not on the battlefield but in the halls of Congress.

I am not so cynical as to think the US engages in war just for the profit motive (though there are some businessmen who do and some politicians who enjoy the kickbacks). Some of the reasons were spurious, some not the business of the US. But only one war was fought for profit. (The U.S./Mexican war if I remember my history correctly.)
 

CreepyMonkey

Active member
The US has a very good track record when it comes to war. Korea and Vietnam were lost not on the battlefield but in the halls of Congress.
So very true. I believe the US actually failed twice each of those occasions. The US failed to keep out of situations that should have been resolved locally. The US also failed, once engaged in those conflicts, to prosecute the war correctly, thereby causing needless deaths on both sides to accomplish little or nothing. Our biggest enemy was ourselves.

I am not so cynical as to think the US engages in war just for the profit motive (though there are some businessmen who do and some politicians who enjoy the kickbacks). Some of the reasons were spurious, some not the business of the US. But only one war was fought for profit. (The U.S./Mexican war if I remember my history correctly.)
Maybe. I'm more cynical then you I guess. I see the motive of profit in almost every conflict, not just the US. There's far more money in weapons sales than in oil or any other commodity. War has always been around, always will be around and will always be encouraged by those who make profit from it. Maybe it's not the entire reason for war; but you bet it is somewhere at the center of almost every conflict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top