Will America's Next War Be in the Pacific?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/world/will-americas-next-war-be-pacific

Don’t look now, but conditions are deteriorating in the western Pacific. Things are turning ugly, with consequences that could prove deadly and spell catastrophe for the global economy.

In Washington, it is widely assumed that a showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions will be the first major crisis to engulf the next secretary of defense — whether it be former Senator Chuck Hagel, as President Obama desires, or someone else if he fails to win Senate confirmation. With few signs of an imminent breakthrough in talks aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, many analysts believe that military action — if not by Israel, than by the United States — could be on this year’s agenda.

Lurking just behind the Iranian imbroglio, however, is a potential crisis of far greater magnitude, and potentially far more imminent than most of us imagine. China’s determination to assert control over disputed islands in the potentially energy-rich waters of the East and South China Seas, in the face of stiffening resistance from Japan and the Philippines along with greater regional assertiveness by the United States, spells trouble not just regionally, but potentially globally.

Islands, Islands, Everywhere

The possibility of an Iranian crisis remains in the spotlight because of the obvious risk of disorder in the Greater Middle East and its threat to global oil production and shipping. A crisis in the East or South China Seas (essentially, western extensions of the Pacific Ocean) would, however, pose a greater perilbecause of the possibility of a U.S.-China military confrontation and the threat to Asian economic stability.

[joshcryer]

1. Maybe, in 15 years. Here's another fascinating article on the possibility:

http://wartard.blogspot.com/2012/11/china-v-japan-are-senkaku-islands-worth.html

Note: this guy likes nukes, and I am confused about his arguments, so I'm not saying I agree with him, I just wanted to provide this to further discussion. The "warm war" Eurasia v Americana Orwellian analogy is really, shall I say, intriguing. I don't know if his alternate reality prediction is right (not that versed in the history), but it's definitely convincing to me.

[bubbayugga]

2. a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.....

history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
George Washington

[Victor_c3]

3. I think China has too much to lose in war involving the US

China is sitting on trillions of dollars in currency reserves that would suddenly become useless if there was a war. Also, the US is China's largest trading partner. China needs the US to buy its cheap goods.

Not to mention that China's military - especially its navy and airforce - are considered to be antiquated and archaic when compared to ours. I forget if it was in the current issue or the last issue of the journal "Foreign Affairs", (and I'm probably getting the number slightly wrong) but it was mentioned that only about 30% of the Chinese navy's boats could be considered "modern".

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed

Many of your points are valid. China cannot currently project power, however they are modernizing their forces and the future will involve cyber warfare, drones, economics and many factors that are not traditional in the current sense.

[joshcryer]

5. 15 years from now I think that picture changes.

Particularly if climate change has an appreciable effect.

As it stands now, the US can go "Hey, be dirty, we'll nuke ya, and you'll nuke us, but we have 100x more nukes, so have fun with that."

15 years from now if drought and storms are affecting both continents as the physics say they will it'll me more like, "Hey, Japan, you're on your own, we're really hurting here. Sorry, really sorry."

China then takes the islands with ease and exploits the reserves there to keep itself sustaining for a few years longer as it quells internal unrest.

Sorry for the pessimistic view, but I think it's a real possibility here.

[Lurker Deluxe]

6. Nukes

Nobody with any sense what so ever is going to nuke anyone. It's a no win, with almost assured complete destruction. The only nukes that are worrisome are those that could end up in the hands of people who "want" to die for thier cause. I will not get into speculation or debate of who these people are.

China would stand no chance in a naval encounter with the US ... NONE, without hitting carrier strike groups with nukes. They will not do that, not now and not 15 years from now.

15 years from now we will not be in the middle of some sort of global end times. The chances of some disease running rampant across the globe and killing a billion or two is much more probable.

[joshcryer]

7. If you read the post I posted upthread, we agree.

Mostly. I don't know for sure, but I think that's accurate. We won't use nukes.

We would if China attacked, say, in the next week. But 15 years from now it becomes inviable. The US would let Japan go it alone, so to speak. I think we'd use them tomorrow, but 15 years from now? No. Nothing to gain. Nothing to protect. The US is sitting on some of the biggest shale and natural gas reserves on the planet. We'll continue exploiting them. 15 years from now Japan as an ally we'd protect I think, personally, we wouldn't, so much.

[KharmaTrain]

9. No Mention Of Vietnam??

They've had a dispute with the Chinese over the Spratley Islands since the 60s...and are a rising economic power; the next source for cheaper labor.

The whole concept here belies the economic ties that bind the U.S., Japan, China, India and the rest of the region. War is only good business when it's somewhere that doesn't hurt your own bottom line...like the Middle East but would not be to the advantage of any country; especially China.

There are those who like to see China as the next Soviet Union...a nuclear power on the cusp of going for world domination, but that is far from the case. A war with the U.S. or Japan would cut off two of China's biggest customers and shut down their economy thus making any territorial gains at a very high price.

The "warfare" we'll see is what we are seeing now...economic. China learned from its years of "austerity" (more like starvation) under Mao and that its status in the world has grown exponentially without firing a shot...

Cheers...

[AverageJoe90]

10. Yes, I agree.

And, unlike JoshCryer, I'm not convinced that even climate change will necessarily make much of a difference in that regard, even if the worst-case scenarios really do begin to play out.

I think the only thing that might really have a good chance at pushing China to war is if their economy finally begins to collapse....and at this point, it seems quite likely within perhaps 15-20 years, maybe as soon as 8 or 10.

[hogwyld]

13. It would be ugly, but China would win

Consider that China has several million troops at the ready, they take out Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. There goes any chance of have a base of operations in the area. Yeah, we have carriers, but they are vulnerable trophies from an earlier era. The next war will be cyber warfare, and the econonic crippling of our country.

[AverageJoe90]

8. I hate to say this, but....it smells of fearmongering and nothing more.

I've been a bit disappointed in AlterNet lately. First the historical revisionism concerning the Revolutionary period, and now this?

Come on, fellas, this is something we'd expect from Alex Jones or a Ron Paul fan site....not a progressive outfit like Alternet.....seriously.....

[RB TexLa]

11. A very good book on how to prevent that

Here is a radical idea from Down Under: the United States should share power on an equal basis with China as part of a “Concert of Asia,” which would also include India and Japan. White, a former Australian defense official, sees an era of “sea-denial” coming, when the technology for striking major warships will be so far ahead of their defensive capabilities that even small powers will be able to prevent the largest navies from projecting power at low risk. Along with other factors, this will make it impossible for the United States to dominate the region as it once did and for China to dominate it as some believe it intends to do. White fears that the current U.S. posture of pushing back against Chinese assertiveness will lead to escalation. His arguments have been controversial in Australia, where some have interpreted them as counseling that Australia tilt preemptively toward China. Even if his proposed solution to the problem of how to create a stable balance of power in Asia is a bit too neat, the book is worth reading for its plainspoken analysis of how China’s rise is undermining the confidence of U.S. allies in the region. As China grows, White argues, no one can be sure that the Chinese “will settle for as little as an equal share in the leadership of Asia.”


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138661/hugh-white/the-china-choice-why-america-should-share-power

[KG]

12. i was thinking Africa.