Prediction China will lose the "cold war"

[Redspector]

There is no doubt China would steamroll Taiwan in any war. An EMP detonated above Taiwan followed by a missile barrage against key targets such as airfields and Taiwan would be a sitting duck. How could they not be when China spends more than 25 times as much as Taiwan does on the military (understandable given their relative sizes). America isn't going to go to war over Taiwan when the superpower who controls it is 80 miles away and would destroy any american invasion fleet with its air and missile assets given Taiwan's extreme close proximity to the mainland. China would win the war but they've made the calculus it would be a pyrrhic victory thus far given the likely international reaction in terms of sanctions not to mention that even with a successful invasion China would still lose tens of thousands of troops. Will the calculus change over time? we shall see..

I beg to disagree with your 1st sentence. Funkervogt disagrees because he has read washingtonpost (american imperalist news), theguardian (another western news outlet) and the economist (peak neoliberal western news). He has read every single article criticizing China and therefore knows China is as weak as Uganda and in no way could destroy Taiwan. In fact, Taiwan has just been waiting for the opportunity for China to invade so they can counter attack and seize beijing and bring an american government into Beijing. Its clear because China has horrible navy with aircraft carriers that would collapse by a sudden breeze and a incompetent military because communism.

You need to grow up.

I think you do too. I look at things realistically while you dont. Look, china isnt as strong as america but to say taiwan could destroy china is like pol pot fans saying north korea could conquer america. Its just about production capacity, military equipment and manpower. China beats taiwan in all 3.

There are some positions that just make me laugh both on the left and right.

[caltrek]

Once taboo, socialism is now thriving among the working classes despite the US's efforts to infiltrate and destroy them. Bridges are breaking apart now like the Hernando De Soto Bridge in Memphis. It is one of the major links between the east and west and it broke. Billions of dollars have been lost in trade. China doesn't have those problems at all.

All that does is go back to the original post observation that China has no significant ideological advantage. Put another way, if socialism "wins" then the U.S. will gain a significant advantage. If socialism "loses" within the confines of the boundaries of the U.S, then yes, forget it, it will all be over. The question will be who will best be able to pick up the pieces: China or Russia.

An alliance between China and Russia is one possibility, but they would have to put aside historic tensions related to nationalistic inclinations.

Speaking of alliances, I think we would have to realistically put North Korea in the China camp. Vietnam would not necessarily be a slam dunk for China. Again, historic tensions based on nationalistic impulses.

[caltrek]

U.S. forces never lost a significant battle in Afghanistan. The war was "lost" for political reasons (namely, the failure to create a central government in Kabul that the Afghan people supported, and a loss of will among America's ruling class to continue the occupation). But that has nothing to do with "power projection."

Well, I haven't read the rest of the post from which this is taken, but I think "political reasons" have a lot to do with ability to project power. Your argument, at least what I am showing within the quote box, is a little bit like saying that because the U.S. can land a bullet in China means it has the ability to project power. BFD. The U.S. lost in Vietnam, also for "political" reasons. It projected also sorts of power onto and into that country.

Projecting power also means maintaining the morale of your troops - a political task. It also means a certain skill at diplomacy, at least as an alternative to "the final solution." The U.S. is not in a position to impose a "final solution" upon China. Losses in U.S. population, infrastructure, etc. would be unacceptable.

[caltrek]

I actually HAVE concerns about Taiwan's ability to defend itself

As do I...

[caltrek]

I don't think I'm brainwashed at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think Westerners in general and Americans in particular have a habit of succumbing to declinist thinking and overreacting to threats of all sorts. The news media is extremely skilled at doing this, as spreading alarmism and fear boosts their profits, and so are military and intelligence agencies. China has become the new boogeyman that generates ad revenue and voter support for increased defense and spy agency funding. If you're parroting the standard line that China is a growing threat and will inevitably defeat and replace the U.S., you're more likely to be the "brainwashed" party in the discussion.

Ok, here I think you put your finger on the crux of the problem - internal tensions generated in large part to an adherence to a capitalist system. Put another way: short term profits over long term strategic interests. We lost a war in_____(fill in the blank). No problem - it was good for short term profits for the military-industrial complex. Perhaps not so good for long term strategic interests. Neo-followers-of-Keynes like to quote him, perhaps out of context: "in the long run, we are all dead."

Chinese elites think in more strategic terms. So, short-term "profits" can be sacrificed for combatting "Yankee imperialist aggression."

[caltrek]

Its alarmist and straight up nonsensical to think a tiny island nation of 20 million can win against a already industralized nation of 1.4 billion. I also think too many people believe that China is much weaker than it actually is.

• Sure, if it is just Taiwan versus the mainland. Don't forget those alliance systems some of us keep insisting on mentioning. How about Taiwan and Japan. Still an uneven match that tilts toward China "winning"?
  
  Ok, add Australia to the mix....and so on and so forth

.

• Also, you might want to look at the so-called Seven-day War. By your logic, Israel should have been completely annihilated. Instead, they actually gained territory. Not a good example?
  
  Fair enough...please explain why.

• It is not just a matter of who would "win" in that contest. There is also the question of whether China would sustain un-acceptable losses, even if they did "win." I mean, I think they might have a bit of a morale problem explaining to their troops why massive numbers of Han Chinese should be slaughtered, at a great loss to fighting comrades, just on the say so of some member of the Chinese elite. Sure, maybe initially there would be support. But after the casualties start rolling in?

[PrometheusUnbound]

Interesting discussion so far (mostly).

According to the declinist narrative, China has time on its side and just gets more (relative) power the longer it waits. In that case it would win unless it acts too quickly. The cold war would drag on for decades before a showdown takes place.

If the declinist narrative is wrong, then it's now or never for China. Could it win a showdown if it happened in the coming 3-8 years? If not then it would have to give up. The cold war would be short and intense.

I think (like Funkervogt, Caltrek) that the declinist narrative has some weaknesses:
- It would be challening for China to keep growing at its current rate. Its demographic divident is drying up (it could grow old before it grows rich), its real-estate troubles could be very costly, and even without climate change China already has a challenge to find enough usable water in half of the country (it's trying to fix that with a huge pipeline project, would that work?).
- growth in the US and allies may continue: sure there are lots of problems to be solved, but at the end of the day a big chunk of the world population would love to live there. If they keep inviting the best and brightest, and make them as productive as possible, there's no need to assume a gloomy economic future.

If you think Chinese growth will never end, how would it pull that off? If you think US&allies will decline, how would that happen given their access to the world's talent? I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[funkervogt]

According to the declinist narrative, China has time on its side and just gets more (relative) power the longer it waits. In that case it would win unless it acts too quickly. The cold war would drag on for decades before a showdown takes place.

If the declinist narrative is wrong, then it's now or never for China. Could it win a showdown if it happened in the coming 3-8 years? If not then it would have to give up. The cold war would be short and intense.

I agree it's not so certain that time is on China's side. Consider trends in working-age population in China and the U.S.:
https://i0.wp.com/populyst.net/wp-conte ... .jpg?ssl=1

China's dependency ratio is also rapidly worsening as its population ages:
https://www.unicef.cn/en/figure-115-dep ... o-19502100

America's dependency ratio is less bad:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/americas ... _b_3422807

If China waits too long, they might end up with an economy too weak to sustain a victorious war with the U.S. and its allies in the Western Pacific.

[BaobabScion]

Eh, China will still win.

You all are putting too much stock into this notion that there's this huge economic crisis coming up for China. What you're not understanding is that even if the elderly population does rise as expected, there will still be 700 MILLLION young people in China in 2040. They'll still be more than capable of outmatching us in economic output and throughput.

- growth in the US and allies may continue: sure there are lots of problems to be solved, but at the end of the day a big chunk of the world population would love to live there. If they keep inviting the best and brightest, and make them as productive as possible, there's no need to assume a gloomy economic future.

If you think Chinese growth will never end, how would it pull that off? If you think US&allies will decline, how would that happen given their access to the world's talent? I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Despite the preconception, America isn't nearly as desired of a destination as it once was. The media's obsession with posting image after image and video after video of poor refugees attempting to enter Western countries may give the illusion that there's simply a flood of people of all Skillsets wanting to enter places like the US. However, the reality is that, nowadays, most of the world's "best and brightest" are opting to stay in their home countries. In fact, them electing to stay is part of the reason that we're facing the prospect of a multipolar world today.

Much of the doom (& not so much gloom as most of them want failure to happen) in Western media and thinktanks about China's future is rooted in denial and a deep-seated for the country's success story to end, so that the US can continue to bully the whole of the world like it's been doing for 60 years.

What astonishes me - and you're new here so I'm not talking about you, JanJelle - is how many of the socialist or left-leaning members of this forum will state their opposition to US imperialism but, in the next breath, utter some talking point that indicates that they've been eagerly gobbling up the Imperial propaganda structure's narrative.

[PrometheusUnbound]

Eh, China will still win.

You all are putting too much stock into this notion that there's this huge economic crisis coming up for China. What you're not understanding is that even if the elderly population does rise as expected, there will still be 700 MILLLION young people in China in 2040. They'll still be more than capable of outmatching us in economic output and throughput.

A big population is helpful in some ways. Like being self-relient in R&D: impossible for a small country but maybe to some extent doable for a larger one.

But many 21st century challenges scale up with population size. More people means more mouths to feed, more water to source. I think China will eventually figure out ways to get out of those crises, but it will take a lot of resources. Resources that cannot be spent on fighting a cold war.

Many Western countries also have insufficient pension savings and looming challenges for mitigating and adapting to climate change. But they do have more wealth to draw on for facing these challenges.

Despite the preconception, America isn't nearly as desired of a destination as it once was. The media's obsession with posting image after image and video after video of poor refugees attempting to enter Western countries may give the illusion that there's simply a flood of people of all Skillsets wanting to enter places like the US. However, the reality is that, nowadays, most of the world's "best and brightest" are opting to stay in their home countries. In fact, them electing to stay is part of the reason that we're facing the prospect of a multipolar world today.

Differences in living standards may not be as extreme as they used to be, so migration flows can become gradually less one-sided. But we don't need everyone to come over, just enough to keep the engine going. I think for China this is more difficult, it's just not an easy country to migrate to and put your roots down (or is this a Western perspective, is it easier for non-Westerners to fit in there?). Japan struggles with this too, they could really benefit from some more (skilled) immigration but either don't want to or don't know how.

[BaobabScion]

But many 21st century challenges scale up with population size. More people means more mouths to feed, more water to source. I think China will eventually figure out ways to get out of those crises, but it will take a lot of resources. Resources that cannot be spent on fighting a cold war.

Many Western countries also have insufficient pension savings and looming challenges for mitigating and adapting to climate change. But they do have more wealth to draw on for facing these challenges.

If your logic is that - because of a demographic reshuffling towards a higher median age slated to occur over the next two decades - China will be unable to participate in global power play and politik, despite the fact that, over the same time span, China will maintain a youthful portion of its population that would be almost double the population of the entire United States, then - just to be able to keep coherence - you'd immediately need to reassess your claim that Western countries would be better able to face these challenges or you'd have to consider the possibility that their ability to force-project would decrease at a rate higher than that of China's.

Excluding the United States, whose lead is rapidly being lost, there is no Western country with a higher percentage of the world's wealth than China. The western runner-up, Germany, has only a quarter of China's wealth, and is likely to take a non-adversarial role due to their economic and energy resource-based links with Russia and China.

Differences in living standards may not be as extreme as they used to be, so migration flows can become gradually less one-sided. But we don't need everyone to come over, just enough to keep the engine going. I think for China this is more difficult, it's just not an easy country to migrate to and put your roots down (or is this a Western perspective, is it easier for non-Westerners to fit in there?). Japan struggles with this too, they could really benefit from some more (skilled) immigration but either don't want to or don't know how.

China doesn't need to make the process easier or increase the migratory flow. They're not like Japan, who really ought to have allowed more immigration but didn't due to cultural reclusiveness, xenophobia and a desire to preserve the Kawaii aesthetic. China has the propaganda apparatus, educational system, governmental focus, and good stock quality (as in, people quality) necessary to continuously cultivate productive and adept members of both leadership and STEM sectors.

Let's get a bit more abstract:
If a system requires exhaustible external energy in order to perpetuate itself, then it is unsustainable by definition. So, if I may use your analogy, if the US is a person transported in a Car OF FREEDOMTM powered by an engine that must be constantly fueled by gasoline sourced from outside the vehicle's own range and if that source could run out, then that vehicle is de-facto inferior to something like a tricycle because the tricycle is propelled by human work undergone by a body whose fuel could be sourced well within the range of the individual's athletic ability.

[PrometheusUnbound]

If your logic is that - because of a demographic reshuffling towards a higher median age slated to occur over the next two decades - China will be unable to participate in global power play and politik, despite the fact that, over the same time span, China will maintain a youthful portion of its population that would be almost double the population of the entire United States, then - just to be able to keep coherence - you'd immediately need to reassess your claim that Western countries would be better able to face these challenges or you'd have to consider the possibility that their ability to force-project would decrease at a rate higher than that of China's.

Excluding the United States, whose lead is rapidly being lost, there is no Western country with a higher percentage of the world's wealth than China. The western runner-up, Germany, has only a quarter of China's wealth, and is likely to take a non-adversarial role due to their economic and energy resource-based links with Russia and China.

I guess an important question is whether the ability to project power depends on total wealth or per capita wealth. China's total wealth is vast, and that makes it possible to fund big projects (military or otherwise). Its per capita wealth is a lot lower (currently 20 times lower than the US, source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita). Per capita wealth says something about the kind of burden you can impose on your people before it gets too much. If I have to face water shortage and rising pension and healthcare costs, I would like to have high per capita wealth rather than high total wealth per se.

The coming decades most countries will have their hands full dealing with rising challenges like climate change and demographics. If you have a lot of resources per citizen, your hands will be a bit less full, so you'll have a bit more residual resources to undertake big projects like power projection, space race etc.

China doesn't need to make the process easier or increase the migratory flow. They're not like Japan, who really ought to have allowed more immigration but didn't due to cultural reclusiveness, xenophobia and a desire to preserve the Kawaii aesthetic. China has the propaganda apparatus, educational system, governmental focus, and good stock quality (as in, people quality) necessary to continuously cultivate productive and adept members of both leadership and STEM sectors.

Let's get a bit more abstract:
If a system requires exhaustible external energy in order to perpetuate itself, then it is unsustainable by definition. So, if I may use your analogy, if the US is a person transported in a Car OF FREEDOMTM powered by an engine that must be constantly fueled by gasoline sourced from outside the vehicle's own range and if that source could run out, then that vehicle is de-facto inferior to something like a tricycle because the tricycle is propelled by human work undergone by a body whose fuel could be sourced well within the range of the individual's athletic ability.

I like your system's perspective. True, if a continuing stream of talented migrants is needed to make an economy work, then that may be unsustainable. I don't know whether the source would run out, but eventually maybe it could. I do think that would be a slower process than Chinese population ageing, so at least temporarily (for a few decades?) it would not help China gain a stronger relative position vis à vis the US.

[funkervogt]

China is more likely to self-sabotage itself via its unstable economic and social systems rather than be defeated by external geopolitical enemies.

As a massive country that has nuclear weapons, I don't see how China could ever be "defeated."

The likeliest "bad outcome" for China would be economically stalling like Japan, but at a lower level of GDP. In other words, they would never get out of the "Middle Income Trap." The nature of their Communist government would prevent it from making the economic and political reforms needed to enter the league of the truly developed nations. Average Chinese people would be dissatisfied with their situation, but not powerful enough to overthrow the Communist party. (Kind of sounds like the marriage of inconvenience between American voters and the two dominant parties)

Another possibility is that China will finally launch its long-awaited invasion of Taiwan and lose, which would be hugely embarrassing and would cast into doubt the narrative that China's ascension to global leadership is inevitable and the West is doomed to decline. I often read about military affairs, and believe China's ability to project military power is weaker than most people think.

Let me resurrect this thread to update two points I made.

This analysis predicts that China will follow Japan by "stalling out," but at a lower level of GDP and living standards. It's mostly due to demographic decline.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publicati ... rise-china

The collapse of the American-installed government in Afghanistan and Russia's military problems in Ukraine show that even great powers can struggle to control smaller countries. With that in mind, there's reason to believe a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-wa ... 1646769700