Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

Asian wars have not been all that good for America. Want to try again?

For some Americans, the first thought is, Send in the Marines!

Whatever happens, China will not disappear.

The only reason North Korea exists as a separate political entity is

because in the early '50s, when U.N. forces had virtually overrun all

of North Korea, China sent a huge army that flung us back south. Only

when each army held roughly the territory that had been North or South

Korea before the war did the Chinese agree to an armistice.

This was a huge victory for China, and it remains one of the proudest

moments in their history. Never mind that it has meant fifty years of

desperate poverty and utter lack of freedom, while being forced to

virtually worship a couple of megalomaniacal dictators. China beat the

U.S.-led allies and kept North Korea safe for Communism.

Do you think there's even the slightest chance that China would let

the U.S. conduct any kind of military action against North Korea

without massive retaliation?

At the very least, there would be an prompt invasion of Taiwan. At the

worst, it might mean some level of nuclear war -- certainly against

South Korea, and quite possibly against Japan and even the U.S.

SUICIDE - The act of malicious self-murder; felo de se

" Do not worry over the charge of treason to your masters, but be

concerned about the treason that involves yourselves. Be true to

yourself and you cannot be a traitor to any good cause on Earth."

-Eugene V. Debs, Speech, June 16, 1918

Come Home America.

America's New China War Plan

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

U.S. national security policy towards Russia, such as it exists as a

separate entity from overall foreign policy objectives, is to not

treat the country, despite its pseudo-democracy, it thousands of

nuclear weapons and its large and capable military, as an enemy.

Symbolic steps were taken at the end of the Cold War -- to "de-target"

American nuclear missiles, to build communications systems and

procedures for crisis control, to invite Russia to the NATO

consultation table -- that over the years have suppressed the military

dimensions of the relationship. Today, the United States even deploys

significant forces around the Russian periphery and in Eastern Europe

for the war against terrorism without Moscow feeling that the U.S.

military is either a threat or a toe-hold to implement secret war

plans.

The old Soviet-oriented conventional war plan of the U.S. military, in

fact, has long ago been abandoned by the Pentagon. The U.S. European

Command in Stuttgart spends most of its time today operating and

planning for contingencies in the Mediterranean region and Africa.

Russia might have all of the attributes of a potential adversary, and

there could be a reversal, but even with those "ifs," contingency

planners just don't spend much time preparing for war with Russia:

Russia is a friend.

Contrast U.S.-Russian relations with U.S.-China: The Bush

administration has built a new full fledged war plan for China, the

first new conventional war plan since the end of the Cold War. The

Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China's military

power, a report that sees an increased buildup.

The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to

interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike

groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said.

Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional

weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern

militaries operating in the region."

China's military buildup and power projection capabilities, the report

says, are still focused primarily on Taiwan, and the country has

positioned as many as 790 ballistic missiles opposite the island.

"The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong

direction," Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman says, adding

that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."

The equalizer is Operations Plan (OPLAN) 5077, one of only three

completed and full-fledged war plans of the U.S. military (I had

previously speculated that CONPLAN 5077 was Korea related, but

military sources have corrected me and provided additional details.)

The 5077 plan to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack dates back from

the Reagan administration, and has been successively updated and

expanded over the years. Until 2001, the plan was what was called a

"CONPLAN," which is an operations plan in concept only. This means

that the general American courses of action were identified but the

plan itself was only kept in abbreviated form, lacking either the

assignment of forces or much of the details of logistics and transport

needed for implementation.

In August 2001, "Change 1" to the previous CONPLAN 5077 upgraded the

contingency to a full OPLAN, with assigned forces and more detailed

annexes and appendices. The Pacific Command developed a new

"strategic concept" for the Taiwan contingency in December 2002, and

an updated plan was produced in July 2003. Last year based upon new

2004 guidance from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, and after two conferences worked out the assignment

of U.S. forces in detail, a final Taiwan defense plan was published.

Pacific Command OPLAN 5077-04, as it is currently known, includes air,

naval, ground/amphibious, and missile defense forces and "excursions"

to defend Taiwan. Options include maritime intercept operations in

the Taiwan straits, attacks on Chinese targets on the mainland,

information warfare and "non-kinetic" options, even the potential use

of American nuclear weapons.

What's going on here?

Partly the answer is purely cultural to the military: China is the

"peer competitor" the military craves for its existence, the test case

against which weapons and doctrine can be evaluated.

The Bush administration also sees China through a military threat

lens, and has ideologically committed a greater effort to the China

problem.

And of course there is also the answer that a China contingency plan

is just prudent: prepare for war to preserve the peace, nothing wrong

with preparing.

The same argument could be made about Russia. The triumph of U.S.-

Russian relations is the set of confidence building measures begun

under the first Bush administration and continuing through the current

one. In theory and practice, treating Russia like a friend has its

own benefits and rewards. Sure there are right wingers and

nationalists in Russia who would love an American enemy to increase

domestic power and reverse course, but Moscow and Washington have

nicely built a cooperative system that survives the ebbs and flows and

disagreements, removing military confrontation from the equation.

War planning, as I've argued with regard to Iran, is not just some

action internal to the military. It is not just neutral. Once war

"plans" are completed, exercises are mounted to test the plans. Plans

demand more intelligence to improve targeting and warning, actions

that are not only passive. Cyber warfare plans require probes.

Plans overall can communicate the wrong thing, particularly if they

are secret and obscure, which the Taiwan plan surely is.

Does the United States "need" a war plan for China? Under what

circumstances would the U.S. risk World War III to defend Taiwan?

Without harming U.S. operational security or compromising U.S.

secrets, surely this is a debate worth having. Surely by assuming

eventual war with China we are also making it a tiny bit more likely.

It seems a shame that we don't choose the Russia path for a country

that shows far more prospect as a partner for the future.

By William M. Arkin |

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/americas_new_china_war_plan.html

On Aug 2, 10:31 pm, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:

> Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

Absolutely.

Any regime that would purposefully murder millions of its own stooges,

would have few qualms in extending such behavior to strategic opponent

USA.

On Aug 3, 3:00?am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:

> On Aug 2, 10:31 pm, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:

>

> > Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

>

> Absolutely.

> Any regime that would purposefully murder millions of its own stooges,

> would have few qualms in extending such behavior to strategic opponent

> USA.

China vs. the USA

1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place? The US is able to

invade China, but it would have to be very well orchestrated and

hidden from public view. US forces couldn't really launch beach head

strikes because the Chinese seaboard is pretty well-fortified. US

forces would have to enter through the Asian countries, which is not

very feasible without force. Forgive the pun, but the Chinese have

lots of experience keeping barbarians out over the thousands of

years...

2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the

long run against 1 billion people?Yes, in the short term. But lets not

forget that China's military isn't just people with bows and arrows;

they have a pretty modern military, as well. Also, the Chinese would

be more motivated to fight because they are on the defensive. In the

long term, the technological superiority may be rendered useless,

because not only do the Chinese forces have many technological

applications that are designed to specifically counterattack US tech,

but they also have the superior culturual upbringing that will

eventually assure them victory.

3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?Not very effective, because

both Russia and China have been watching the US throw its military

around. They both have been working around the clock to improve their

air defenses, and they both know the heavy reliance the US places upon

its forces in the sky. This would have to be a war won by land and

sea, and not by Shekinaw/Shock-and-awe tactics.

4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight? Most likely

yes, because the government could easily impose a universal draft,

though I doubt that they would need to. They already have the largest

army in the world.

5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by

guerrilla warfare? No. They are barely holding onto Iraq which is

defended by 1980's style guerrilla warfare.

6. Any other thoughts? This is the kind of war that TPTB want to have

because they know it would be big. They know that the end results

would be disastrous and pivotal in the installment of a one-state-

world. This is also the kind of situation that may or may not prove

the effectiveness of MAD (mutually assured destruction through nuclear

weapons), as if the US launches a few nukes, so will China. In either

case, the end result wouldn't be pretty, and this is the kind of war I

would rather not see or read about. Well, to be honest, I would rather

not see or read about any other wars again, but as long as there are

greedy kids running things...

Raymond wrote:

> On Aug 3, 3:00?am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:

>

>>On Aug 2, 10:31 pm, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

>>

>>Absolutely.

>>Any regime that would purposefully murder millions of its own stooges,

>>would have few qualms in extending such behavior to strategic opponent

>>USA.

>

>

> China vs. the USA

>

> 1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place? The US is able to

> invade China, but it would have to be very well orchestrated and

> hidden from public view. US forces couldn't really launch beach head

> strikes because the Chinese seaboard is pretty well-fortified. US

> forces would have to enter through the Asian countries, which is not

> very feasible without force. Forgive the pun, but the Chinese have

> lots of experience keeping barbarians out over the thousands of

> years...

>

> 2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the

> long run against 1 billion people?Yes, in the short term. But lets not

> forget that China's military isn't just people with bows and arrows;

> they have a pretty modern military, as well. Also, the Chinese would

> be more motivated to fight because they are on the defensive. In the

> long term, the technological superiority may be rendered useless,

> because not only do the Chinese forces have many technological

> applications that are designed to specifically counterattack US tech,

> but they also have the superior culturual upbringing that will

> eventually assure them victory.

>

> 3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?Not very effective, because

> both Russia and China have been watching the US throw its military

> around. They both have been working around the clock to improve their

> air defenses, and they both know the heavy reliance the US places upon

> its forces in the sky. This would have to be a war won by land and

> sea, and not by Shekinaw/Shock-and-awe tactics.

>

> 4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight? Most likely

> yes, because the government could easily impose a universal draft,

> though I doubt that they would need to. They already have the largest

> army in the world.

>

> 5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by

> guerrilla warfare? No. They are barely holding onto Iraq which is

> defended by 1980's style guerrilla warfare.

Which guerrillas was it that were using IEDs and man, woman, and child

suicide bombers in the 80s?

> 6. Any other thoughts? This is the kind of war that TPTB want to have

> because they know it would be big. They know that the end results

> would be disastrous and pivotal in the installment of a one-state-

> world. This is also the kind of situation that may or may not prove

> the effectiveness of MAD (mutually assured destruction through nuclear

> weapons), as if the US launches a few nukes, so will China. In either

> case, the end result wouldn't be pretty, and this is the kind of war I

> would rather not see or read about. Well, to be honest, I would rather

> not see or read about any other wars again, but as long as there are

> greedy kids running things...

Without a shot being fired or a word being said, it's nice to know that

you've already declared defeat.

"Raymond" <Bluerhymer@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1186119066.610360.300280@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

>

China already has a war plan for the USA, GWB and the republicans have

fallen right into it.

A Chinese general wrote a book outlining how to crush the USA without firing

a shot - Buy it's debt and at the appropriate moment, flood the market with

US treasuries, the US would not be able finance day to day operations and

would grind to a halt. So even with this knowledge and fore warning, what

did the republicans do? - Why double the Nation Debt of course!!!!

On Aug 2, 10:31 pm, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:

> Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

>

> Asian wars have not been all that good for America. Want to try again?

> For some Americans, the first thought is, Send in the Marines!

> Whatever happens, China will not disappear.

>

> The only reason North Korea exists as a separate political entity is

> because in the early '50s, when U.N. forces had virtually overrun all

> of North Korea, China sent a huge army that flung us back south. Only

> when each army held roughly the territory that had been North or South

> Korea before the war did the Chinese agree to an armistice.

>

> This was a huge victory for China, and it remains one of the proudest

> moments in their history. Never mind that it has meant fifty years of

> desperate poverty and utter lack of freedom, while being forced to

> virtually worship a couple of megalomaniacal dictators. China beat the

> U.S.-led allies and kept North Korea safe for Communism.

>

(cut)

Not quite. Korea was divided at the 38th parallel after WWII.

North Korea attacked South Korea, drove the combined Korean and

American forces back to the Pusan Perimiter. The Pusan Perimiter

troops were built up with reinforcements, and the Koreans were driven

back to the Yalu river. Chinese "volunteers" attacked. The

situation was ultimately stabilized roughly along the 38th parallel,

same as it was before the war started.- It was a defeat for the

communists- 4 years of an agressive war, and nothing gained- A.

McIntire

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:31:59 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> 5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by

>> guerrilla warfare? No. They are barely holding onto Iraq which is

>> defended by 1980's style guerrilla warfare.

>

>Which guerrillas was it that were using IEDs and man, woman, and child

>suicide bombers in the 80s?

The Viet Cong used them in the sixties.

Swill

--

Picture of the day

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:mh07b3ph3s5pb4g1b9rsu2itjd4vnsftvl@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:31:59 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> 5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by

>>> guerrilla warfare? No. They are barely holding onto Iraq which is

>>> defended by 1980's style guerrilla warfare.

>>Which guerrillas was it that were using IEDs and man, woman, and child

>>suicide bombers in the 80s?

Cong used them in the sixties.

No formal army has won a conflict with what is called a guerillas army.

Algeria, Vietnam, nothern Ireland, Ceylon and on and on no staning army has

defeated a guerilla movement. Just look at Cuba. Nope Bush's invasion

is just following Strauss's perpetual wars and the robber barons reaping

fortunes from them. Oddly Jews are the ones making the billions. Want

peace in the Middle East, tell the Jews to go back to the 1948 tragic

decision and be doen with it. Tell the Arabs to accept this horror and be

doen with it. Let both sides know if they do not play nice they will be

hit with nuclear weapons.

On Aug 3, 7:41 am, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> On Aug 2, 10:31 pm, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:

>

> > Does the United States "need" a war plan forChina?

>

> > Asian wars have not been all that good for America. Want to try again?

> > For some Americans, the first thought is, Send in the Marines!

> > Whatever happens,Chinawill not disappear.

>

> > The only reason North Korea exists as a separate political entity is

> > because in the early '50s, when U.N. forces had virtually overrun all

> > of North Korea,Chinasent a huge army that flung us back south. Only

> > when each army held roughly the territory that had been North or South

> > Korea before the war did the Chinese agree to an armistice.

>

> > This was a huge victory forChina, and it remains one of the proudest

> > moments in their history. Never mind that it has meant fifty years of

> > desperate poverty and utter lack of freedom, while being forced to

> > virtually worship a couple of megalomaniacal dictators.Chinabeat the

> > U.S.-led allies and kept North Korea safe for Communism.

>

> (cut)

> Not quite. Korea was divided at the 38th parallel after WWII.

> North Korea attacked South Korea, drove the combined Korean and

> American forces back to the Pusan Perimiter. The Pusan Perimiter

> troops were built up with reinforcements, and the Koreans were driven

> back to the Yalu river. Chinese "volunteers" attacked. The

> situation was ultimately stabilized roughly along the 38th parallel,

> same as it was before the war started.- It was a defeat for the

> communists- 4 years of an agressive war, and nothing gained- A.

> McIntire

Russia is US's good enemy: they don't buy it and they say so and they

come up with equally advanced war planes. China is different: they

don't buy it but they pretend to work with you---when they need your

sympathy, they show you lines of eye tear; when it's mature to

pronounce "fuck you", they claim their "tear" was strategic.

Nancy Pelosi will never forget her experience with the Chinese: she

thought those US Chinese students, not the China Chinese students,

back in 1989-1990 were for the 1989 Beijing Tian'anmen and those

students deserved free green cards, but as soon as they got what they

wanted, few of them still remember how to pronounce word "democracy",

and even worse: most of those former US Chinese students are now for

China's Tian'anmen crackdown, citing the reason that "the crackdown

brought China stability".

one thing for sure: if the US says China or Chinese related XYZ is

good, then every greencard seekers from China claims they are for XYZ

as soon as they land LAX airport, where XYZ can be Falungong, can be

"human rights", can be "freedom", can be "democracy", can be "anti-

birth-control", can be whatever Nancy Pelosi or Mary Pelosi's next

China card. the point is: when the US get learnt on how to deal with

this type of special value/culture groups?!

1 century ago (early 1900s), US was romantic on China and got

nothing;

0.6 century ago (late 1940s), US was romantic on China and got pain;

today's US is romantic again and some even lobby on China's behalf

that China is the only country which can produce cheap goods for

Walmart/Target, citing the bullshit that "the supply chain takes years

to build". in other words, if that chain is broken, the United States

of America will die.

i guess it's okay if the Bush Administration receives complaints on

its China policy because no policy can please everybody, but if its

China policy starts to receive hatreds, someone needs to see the brain

doctor.

On Aug 3, 1:31 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:

> Does the United States "need" a war plan for China?

>

> Asian wars have not been all that good for America. Want to try again?

> For some Americans, the first thought is, Send in the Marines!

> Whatever happens, China will not disappear.

>

> The only reason North Korea exists as a separate political entity is

> because in the early '50s, when U.N. forces had virtually overrun all

> of North Korea, China sent a huge army that flung us back south. Only

> when each army held roughly the territory that had been North or South

> Korea before the war did the Chinese agree to an armistice.

>

> This was a huge victory for China, and it remains one of the proudest

> moments in their history. Never mind that it has meant fifty years of

> desperate poverty and utter lack of freedom, while being forced to

> virtually worship a couple of megalomaniacal dictators. China beat the

> U.S.-led allies and kept North Korea safe for Communism.

>

> Do you think there's even the slightest chance that China would let

> the U.S. conduct any kind of military action against North Korea

> without massive retaliation?

>

> At the very least, there would be an prompt invasion of Taiwan. At the

> worst, it might mean some level of nuclear war -- certainly against

> South Korea, and quite possibly against Japan and even the U.S.

> SUICIDE - The act of malicious self-murder; felo de se

>

> " Do not worry over the charge of treason to your masters, but be

> concerned about the treason that involves yourselves. Be true to

> yourself and you cannot be a traitor to any good cause on Earth."

>

> -Eugene V. Debs, Speech, June 16, 1918

>

> Come Home America.

>

> America's New China War Plan

> William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

>

> U.S. national security policy towards Russia, such as it exists as a

> separate entity from overall foreign policy objectives, is to not

> treat the country, despite its pseudo-democracy, it thousands of

> nuclear weapons and its large and capable military, as an enemy.

>

> Symbolic steps were taken at the end of the Cold War -- to "de-target"

> American nuclear missiles, to build communications systems and

> procedures for crisis control, to invite Russia to the NATO

> consultation table -- that over the years have suppressed the military

> dimensions of the relationship. Today, the United States even deploys

> significant forces around the Russian periphery and in Eastern Europe

> for the war against terrorism without Moscow feeling that the U.S.

> military is either a threat or a toe-hold to implement secret war

> plans.

>

> The old Soviet-oriented conventional war plan of the U.S. military, in

> fact, has long ago been abandoned by the Pentagon. The U.S. European

> Command in Stuttgart spends most of its time today operating and

> planning for contingencies in the Mediterranean region and Africa.

>

> Russia might have all of the attributes of a potential adversary, and

> there could be a reversal, but even with those "ifs," contingency

> planners just don't spend much time preparing for war with Russia:

> Russia is a friend.

>

> Contrast U.S.-Russian relations with U.S.-China: The Bush

> administration has built a new full fledged war plan for China, the

> first new conventional war plan since the end of the Cold War. The

> Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China's military

> power, a report that sees an increased buildup.

>

> The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to

> interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike

> groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said.

> Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional

> weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern

> militaries operating in the region."

>

> China's military buildup and power projection capabilities, the report

> says, are still focused primarily on Taiwan, and the country has

> positioned as many as 790 ballistic missiles opposite the island.

>

> "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong

> direction," Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman says, adding

> that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."

>

> The equalizer is Operations Plan (OPLAN) 5077, one of only three

> completed and full-fledged war plans of the U.S. military (I had

> previously speculated that CONPLAN 5077 was Korea related, but

> military sources have corrected me and provided additional details.)

>

> The 5077 plan to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack dates back from

> the Reagan administration, and has been successively updated and

> expanded over the years. Until 2001, the plan was what was called a

> "CONPLAN," which is an operations plan in concept only. This means

> that the general American courses of action were identified but the

> plan itself was only kept in abbreviated form, lacking either the

> assignment of forces or much of the details of logistics and transport

> needed for implementation.

>

> In August 2001, "Change 1" to the previous CONPLAN 5077 upgraded the

> contingency to a full OPLAN, with assigned forces and more detailed

> annexes and appendices. The Pacific Command developed a new

> "strategic concept" for the Taiwan contingency in December 2002, and

> an updated plan was produced in July 2003. Last year based upon new

> 2004 guidance from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint

> Chiefs of Staff, and after two conferences worked out the assignment

> of U.S. forces in detail, a final Taiwan defense plan was published.

>

> Pacific Command OPLAN 5077-04, as it is currently known, includes air,

> naval, ground/amphibious, and missile defense forces and "excursions"

> to defend Taiwan. Options include maritime intercept operations in

> the Taiwan straits, attacks on Chinese targets on the mainland,

> information warfare and "non-kinetic" options, even the potential use

> of American nuclear weapons.

>

> What's going on here?

>

> Partly the answer is purely cultural to the military: China is the

> "peer competitor" the military craves for its existence, the test case

> against which weapons and doctrine can be evaluated.

>

> The Bush administration also sees China through a military threat

> lens, and has ideologically committed a greater effort to the China

> problem.

>

> And of course there is also the answer that a China contingency plan

> is just prudent: prepare for war to preserve the peace, nothing wrong

> with preparing.

>

> The same argument could be made about Russia. The triumph of U.S.-

> Russian relations is the set of confidence building measures begun

> under the first Bush administration and continuing through the current

> one. In theory and practice, treating Russia like a friend has its

> own benefits and rewards. Sure there are right wingers and

> nationalists in Russia who would love an American enemy to increase

> domestic power and reverse course, but Moscow and Washington have

> nicely built a cooperative system that survives the ebbs and flows and

> disagreements, removing military confrontation from the equation.

>

> War planning, as I've argued with regard to Iran, is not just some

> action internal to the military. It is not just neutral. Once war

> "plans" are completed, exercises are mounted to test the plans. Plans

> demand more intelligence to improve targeting and warning, actions

> that are not only passive. Cyber warfare plans require probes.

> Plans overall can communicate the wrong thing, particularly if they

> are secret and obscure, which the Taiwan plan surely is.

>

> Does the United States "need" a war plan for China? Under what

> circumstances would the U.S. risk World War III to defend Taiwan?

> Without harming U.S. operational security or compromising U.S.

> secrets, surely this is a debate worth having. Surely by assuming

> eventual war with China we are also making it a tiny bit more likely.

> It seems a shame that we don't choose the Russia path for a country

> that shows far more prospect as a partner for the future.

>

> By William M. Arkin |http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/americas_new_chin...

War with China?

What and stop them from bankrolling us?

We just can't afford it.

In any case, now that Rupert Murdoch has businesses deals in China,

expect Fox News to start beating up on those warmongers who cannot

understand how important it is to be friendly to the Chinese.

In article <1186119066.610360.300280@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

Raymond <Bluerhymer@aol.com> wrote:

> Do you think there's even the slightest chance that China would let

> the U.S. conduct any kind of military action against North Korea

> without massive retaliation?

I think they would make one phone call and stop the invasion the

within an hour after it began. There's no way we could win a

war against North Korea unless China lets us win.

> At the very least, there would be an prompt invasion of Taiwan.

They wouldn't have to do that. Nor does the prospect of that

scare us terribly much. I mean, how much skin is it off our

backs if Taiwan falls under the control of mainland China? It's

not like they don't already sell us the same stuff as the mainland.

> At the

> worst, it might mean some level of nuclear war -- certainly against

> South Korea, and quite possibly against Japan and even the U.S.

> SUICIDE - The act of malicious self-murder; felo de se

I doubt it would go so far. They don't need to actually use nukes

to stop us. The knowledge that they have nukes and are prepared to

use them is enough. We would not be able to take territory guarded

by a nuclear-capable opponent.

Knowing that, we're not going to invade.