[QBall]

Advantage for China - American public would probably not support, or if they did support would quickly wain after conflict began, U.S. involvement in what would appear to be a internal Chinese conflict. I am not getting any vibes from your average American that they are ready to re-assume the role of the world's police.

Advantage for U.S. - China invading Taiwan would probably spell doom for the Chinese economy. North Americans tolerate buying shoddy Chinese products because they are cheap, but who in North America would want to buy cheap quality products from a pariah? To me this is probably what keeps China from invading right now: whatever they would gain from taking back Taiwan they would probably lose 10 fold in the destruction of their economy.

[BartSimpson]

Goober911 Goober911:

Oh yes, consider the Chinese dumping US treasuries on the market. How would the US economy fare?

The Chinks* did exactly this in 2008 when they dumped 10% of their holdings on the market to 'punish' the US. While it caused some problems for the US the real damage was to China when the other 90% of their T-Bills were devalued by 40%.

(*When someone promises war on my country I am no longer under any obligation to be nice to them.)

[bootlegga]

Goober911 Goober911:

Do you think all those Chines missile sites across from Taiwan are to be used against Taiwan?
Nope, many are anti ship Missiles. The 7th fleet or any other US fleet will no longer sail that straight as a show of strength.

Now we get to cyber warfare.
Tripping the west coast power grid, so power plants blow like candles one after another, would take years to repair. Figure out what the circumstances on the ground would be.

Oh yes, consider the Chinese dumping US treasuries on the market. How would the US economy fare?

Then we have denial of territory. What would the Chinese consider, and what would the US public tolerate.

And lastly, the present Politburo is run by on man. 7 members,1 leads, the other 6 follow.

Sure they have anti-ship missiles - so what?

The SM3 is light years more advanced than anything the Chinese have. China's vaunted Silkworm missiles were supposed to be a threat in the first Gulf War - instead Coalition ships knocked them out of the sky with ease. While I have little doubt that their missiles have advanced, so have American missiles.

Area denial is a fine strategy if the US needed to get into the South China Sea, but they don't. That only works if they want to strangle trade to Japan and Korea, which would bring them in on the side of the US and Taiwan. The USN could position subs off the coast and effectively blockade the Chinese coast, interdicting naval deployments and trade, which would hammer China's export-based economy. If necessary, naval task forces could reinforce the blockade from the eastern side of Taiwan, well out of reach of China's land-based aircraft and missiles (or at their extreme effective range).

Cyber warfare is certainly a threat, but I don't doubt that the US has its own legions of secret cyber warriors too - and again, I have little doubt that their tech is better than most everyone else's.

As to the threat of dumping US bonds/T-Bills - that's another hollow threat.

Sure they could devalue their $2 trillion asset - but that devalues their assets, which seriously weakens their export-oriented economy. How much foreign trade and investment would occur after something like that? Probably not very much. Further, how happy will the rest of the world be when everyone's T-Bills are worth 50% of what they used to be? It would make almost every other country in the world an enemy of China.

Plus, they would lose their biggest trading partner and wind up crashing their own economy too, which is the last thing the Communist Party wants or needs. Their economy going into the toilet would likely spark such massive civil unrest that the state (and the Party) would collapse.

I suppose they could take everyone down with them so to speak, if they were losing and thought they had nothing to lose. That, however would cause a global recession that would utterly destroy every gain the Chinese have made in the past 30 years. And once the world recovered from that recession, well, I doubt there would be much appetite for trade/foreign investment in China for a long, long time. It would utterly destroy China as a nation.

No, China has very little in the way of options in a conflict with the US. I don't doubt they could inflict substantial damage, especially with attacks on Guam, Saipan, Okinawa and other US bases in the region. But in the end, they would lose, and lose badly.

Finally, as the article notes, once 2030 rolls around, their population will be even older than Western nations and they will have no economic ability to divert to military spending, so this 'threat' to the US will gradually disappear.

[peck420]

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, China has very little in the way of options in a conflict with the US. I don't doubt they could inflict substantial damage, especially with attacks on Guam, Saipan, Okinawa and other US bases in the region. But in the end, they would lose, and lose badly.

If you consider creating the world's single largest humanitarian crisis a minor option...well, than I got nothing.

Side question...in the event of such an attack, do NA forces (I say NA because it would affect Canada and Mexico just as much) stay at home and deal with 18 months of hell on earth (the humanitarian crisis), or do they deploy over seas to fight the enemy?

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, China has very little in the way of options in a conflict with the US. I don't doubt they could inflict substantial damage, especially with attacks on Guam, Saipan, Okinawa and other US bases in the region. But in the end, they would lose, and lose badly.

If you consider creating the world's single largest humanitarian crisis a minor option...well, than I got nothing.

Side question...in the event of such an attack, do NA forces (I say NA because it would affect Canada and Mexico just as much) stay at home and deal with 18 months of hell on earth (the humanitarian crisis), or do they deploy over seas to fight the enemy?

It's kind of hard to reply to such a vague response - is this crisis here or in China?

Personally, I think that any humanitarian crisis might take place in China, simply because resources that civvies would use would be funnelled to the military instead. I I think we'd weather the storm pretty well over here. We might have shortages and rationing and what not like in WW2, but in general, I think we'd be okay.

Any such crisis in China would be dealt with AFTER any conflict, just like the humanitarian crisis after WW2 - food shortages, rebuilding smashed cities & infrastructure, etc. We'd probably step up and try and help out like we did after WW2, assuming that we could financially.

If the Chinese got desperate and EMPed us or nuked a city or two in NA, there would be no support from us after such a conflict. If either happened, public outrage would almost certainly lead to a retalilatory strike on the mainland and the death of millions of Chinese. Who would deal with that crisis I couldn't say.

[peck420]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's kind of hard to reply to such a vague response - is this crisis here or in China?

The crisis would be here. Our civilian population is woefully unprepared to function without power, and our governments are woefully unprepared to handle anything bigger than a single city size crisis.

$1:

Personally, I think that any humanitarian crisis might take place in China, simply because resources that civvies would use would be funnelled to the military instead. I I think we'd weather the storm pretty well over here. We might have shortages and rationing and what not like in WW2, but in general, I think we'd be okay.

Any such crisis in China would be dealt with AFTER any conflict, just like the humanitarian crisis after WW2 - food shortages, rebuilding smashed cities & infrastructure, etc. We'd probably step up and try and help out like we did after WW2, assuming that we could financially.

If the Chinese got desperate and EMPed us or nuked a city or two in NA, there would be no support from us after such a conflict. If either happened, public outrage would almost certainly lead to a retalilatory strike on the mainland and the death of millions of Chinese. Who would deal with that crisis I couldn't say.

There won't be a crisis in China. There will be approx 70% of the population forced to revert to living as they did 15-25 years ago.

As for WW2, there is no analogy from WW2 that is even remotely comparable. In WW2 we were, for the vast majority of the population, safe. We were safe because everybody lacked the means to effectively, and continuously harm us.

Today...not so much. A concentrated attack on our infrastructure, physical or cyber, will be devastating. We will be looking forward to anywhere from 9-24 months of no power...and that is if you only take power into consideration.

Triple that if you take oil and gas into consideration, as we will be unable to 'rebuild' our power grid effectively without those. And, truth be told, those are even less secure than the power supply.

Yes, we have reserves...fun fact..we don't have the means to get those reserves to where they need to be in a country wide crisis...yay!

Now...you want the really, really bad news...in the event of an attack like that, much of the eastern seaboard will become irradiated wastelands...much of the south western as well. Not a single one of our civilian nuclear plants has the plans, or resources, in place to maintain operations and safety systems for that long of a period.

In the end, we will be forced to instigate a nuclear exchange, or capitulate...either way, there will be massive casualties on our side.

Ironically, China is much more secure, in infrastructure, because the their system is either a) so old it can run independently and is not integrated, or b) built recently, with security in mind from the onset.

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's kind of hard to reply to such a vague response - is this crisis here or in China?

The crisis would be here. Our civilian population is woefully unprepared to function without power, and our governments are woefully unprepared to handle anything bigger than a single city size crisis.

As they lack long range bombers or carrier groups, they really only have two ways to inflict such damage on us - cyber warfare and nuclear warfare.

Usage of nukes would demand an immediate response (not only from the US, but likely from NATO as well), and I'm sure that they would suffer far more than us (I could see strikes on a dozen or so cities, resulting in tens of millions of Chinese dead and their industry annihilated (concentrated as it is on their Pacific coast), so I sincerely doubt that method would be used, unless as a desperate last resort. Even an EMP attack on NA would be met with massive retaliation.

Cyber warfare is the more likely avenue. While I'm not very familiar with network security and how something like that might break down, from what I understand, I doubt they would inflict enough damage to cause a nationwide/continent-wide crisis as you assert. Even something as simple as crashing the power grid would be very difficult.

As such, I doubt the crisis would be as bad for us here as you presume, although if conflict occurred in winter, it would be very trying for Canada and I don't disagree that thousands might die due to the elements and a lack of power.

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, I think that any humanitarian crisis might take place in China, simply because resources that civvies would use would be funnelled to the military instead. I I think we'd weather the storm pretty well over here. We might have shortages and rationing and what not like in WW2, but in general, I think we'd be okay.

Any such crisis in China would be dealt with AFTER any conflict, just like the humanitarian crisis after WW2 - food shortages, rebuilding smashed cities & infrastructure, etc. We'd probably step up and try and help out like we did after WW2, assuming that we could financially.

If the Chinese got desperate and EMPed us or nuked a city or two in NA, there would be no support from us after such a conflict. If either happened, public outrage would almost certainly lead to a retalilatory strike on the mainland and the death of millions of Chinese. Who would deal with that crisis I couldn't say.

There won't be a crisis in China. There will be approx 70% of the population forced to revert to living as they did 15-25 years ago.

As for WW2, there is no analogy from WW2 that is even remotely comparable. In WW2 we were, for the vast majority of the population, safe. We were safe because everybody lacked the means to effectively, and continuously harm us.

Today...not so much. A concentrated attack on our infrastructure, physical or cyber, will be devastating. We will be looking forward to anywhere from 9-24 months of no power...and that is if you only take power into consideration.

Triple that if you take oil and gas into consideration, as we will be unable to 'rebuild' our power grid effectively without those. And, truth be told, those are even less secure than the power supply.

Yes, we have reserves...fun fact..we don't have the means to get those reserves to where they need to be in a country wide crisis...yay!

Now...you want the really, really bad news...in the event of an attack like that, much of the eastern seaboard will become irradiated wastelands...much of the south western as well. Not a single one of our civilian nuclear plants has the plans, or resources, in place to maintain operations and safety systems for that long of a period.

In the end, we will be forced to instigate a nuclear exchange, or capitulate...either way, there will be massive casualties on our side.

Ironically, China is much more secure, in infrastructure, because the their system is either a) so old it can run independently and is not integrated, or b) built recently, with security in mind from the onset.

While I agree that civilians in NA are more likely to suffer in a future conflict, China lacks the means to actually attack them short of the two options I outlined above.

I also doubt that they could revert as easily as you assert.

Tens of millions have moved from towns/villages in the primitive central and western regions to densely populated coastal cities and they most certainly would not be able to revert very easily. The vast majority of Chinese citizens are crammed into those cities - and they would all be just as vulnerable to attack as we might be to their cyber warriors.

All of those shiny cities are built on their export economy and lots and lots of energy usage (coal and oil largely). Without us (Canada, Australia, the US, etc) to buy their goods or send them coal and oil, the whole house of cards comes down. That means millions of people freezing and/or starving.

And while their energy grid isn't nearly as inter-connected as ours, our forces do have the ability to hit hundreds of miles inland on Chinese targets using cruise missiles and aircraft.

So the difference is that they might temporarily take some of our infrastructure offline - even for a month or three (like the blackout in 2004 in Ontario and the US), while we would physically destroy theirs.

Because of that, I think the biggest crisis would quite likely unfold AFTER the conflict, although during would certainly not be a picnic for any of us.

[BartSimpson]

peck420 peck420:

Today...not so much. A concentrated attack on our infrastructure, physical or cyber, will be devastating. We will be looking forward to anywhere from 9-24 months of no power...and that is if you only take power into consideration.

Triple that if you take oil and gas into consideration, as we will be unable to 'rebuild' our power grid effectively without those. And, truth be told, those are even less secure than the power supply.

Hmmm. Makes all those 'crazy redneck preppers' look not quite so paranoid now.

[peck420]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Military options...

China doesn't have to send a single PLA member to devastate NA. Not one bomber, not one boat, not even one aircraft.

NA is 100% reliant on continuous supplies of electricity and oil. Those supplies stop, we have about a week before starvation sets in. We have less than that to get it sorted before thirst starts killing the large numbers of our population.

bootlegga bootlegga:

While I agree that civilians in NA are more likely to suffer in a future conflict, China lacks the means to actually attack them short of the two options I outlined above.

With one cyber attack, they didn't just attack our civilian population, they destroyed it.

$1:

I also doubt that they could revert as easily as you assert.

Tens of millions have moved from towns/villages in the primitive central and western regions to densely populated coastal cities and they most certainly would not be able to revert very easily. The vast majority of Chinese citizens are crammed into those cities - and they would all be just as vulnerable to attack as we might be to their cyber warriors.

All of which has happened so quickly that the towns/villages they came from are still where they left them. It would be costly, yes, but it wouldn't be a country killer, as turning off the power here for anything past a couple of days would be.

$1:

All of those shiny cities are built on their export economy and lots and lots of energy usage (coal and oil largely). Without us (Canada, Australia, the US, etc) to buy their goods or send them coal and oil, the whole house of cards comes down. That means millions of people freezing and/or starving.

China's current largest client is China. They're middle class supplemented USA when they became larger than the USA.

$1:

And while their energy grid isn't nearly as inter-connected as ours, our forces do have the ability to hit hundreds of miles inland on Chinese targets using cruise missiles and aircraft.

Would that be before or after they have expended their reserves of fuel trying to save our civilian population? We don't have the reserves to do both. So, do we go down in a blaze of glory, inflicting as much damage as possible, or do we go down at least trying to save our countries?

$1:

So the difference is that they might temporarily take some of our infrastructure offline - even for a month or three (like the blackout in 2004 in Ontario and the US), while we would physically destroy theirs.

There is no temporary. If we lose power for the low end estimate (9 months) we are looking at up to 80% attrition rate for the population (most of our urban population). That alone would limit our 'rebuilding' to decades, and leave us woefully unprepared for any other vultures to move in.

$1:

Because of that, I think the biggest crisis would quite likely unfold AFTER the conflict, although during would certainly not be a picnic for any of us.

China's only current recourse to the US is an infrastructure hit. They are 20 years out from keeping this a military game. We will be hit within 24 hours of the first shots. We will have deaths via hot or cold (depends on time of year and location) within 24 hours of that. We will have deaths by dehydration and starvation by the end of the first week.

The closest comparison to what will happen is Katrina. The US lost 1,833 persons over a span of a couple of days...with over a week to prepare, and the entire remainder of the US available for assistance (as well as a host of other countries).

The last time NA faced a major power outage was in 2003. It lasted for less than 2 days, affected approx 17% of the population, claimed 10 lives, and cost billions of dollars.

Quite frankly, I am fairly certain that the only reason we have yet to be hit like this is because the US will go MAD immediately.

[peck420]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Cyber warfare is the more likely avenue. While I'm not very familiar with network security and how something like that might break down, from what I understand, I doubt they would inflict enough damage to cause a nationwide/continent-wide crisis as you assert. Even something as simple as crashing the power grid would be very difficult.

I pulled this one as separate.

We have almost zero electrical storage capacity (in relation to our production). Our grid is designed to carry what is needed and transfer any excess. If a power source goes down, and the power being carried drops, not a huge issue...it goes down for everybody in the local area, but doesn't cause a huge amount of damage to the distribution system. If the distribution systems go down and the power being carried goes up (no way to move it another grid, and no storage available)...now we have a problem. We have a grid that will essentially cannibalize itself before we are able to kill the power source. And that is the good part. Grids can get strange during over carriage, if flow reversals happen at critical points, it could be far, far worse.

It's not that China (or anybody else) has to actually destroy our entire grid, they just have to hit the critical points.

And, for all the talking about it, that our governments have done since at least 2001, not a lot of action has taken place. And, we haven't even begun to discuss security for the fossil fuel sector yet.

Hell, I am pretty sure a US substation (non critical) was shut down by a rifle not very long ago.

[BRAH]

When China goes to War with the United States over Taiwan we'll see.

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Military options...

China doesn't have to send a single PLA member to devastate NA. Not one bomber, not one boat, not even one aircraft.

NA is 100% reliant on continuous supplies of electricity and oil. Those supplies stop, we have about a week before starvation sets in. We have less than that to get it sorted before thirst starts killing the large numbers of our population.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

[Thanos]

The rumours of the demise of the United States have been greatly over-exaggerated. They will remain as the singular pre-eminent power of the near to intermediate future.

I'm hoping that the malaise that's settled over the US since the banking/housing collapse of 2007/08 ends sooner rather than later. I don't want them to return to the empty-headed "rah! rah!" optimism of the Reagan era, when everything was "super" even when the banksters were setting the long term fleecing of the American economy and workplace into motion. But things are certainly not as bad as the ideologues keep telling them that it is.

The greater concern should be that the US will dissolve from the inside-out, as the incessant political polarization (that's literally descended into sheer hatred of each other on far too many issues) rips the heart out of the federal system of political and social compromises that used to be at the heart of the American success story. Too many demagogues playing a zero-sum "we win all, the enemy loses all" game now.

[peck420]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

Hopefully for very long and peaceful lives.

[BartSimpson]

peck420 peck420:

Hell, I am pretty sure a US substation (non critical) was shut down by a rifle not very long ago.

Yes and no.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1941621778

$1:

SAN JOSE, Calif.—The attack began just before 1 a.m. on April 16 last year, when someone slipped into an underground vault not far from a busy freeway and cut telephone cables.

Within half an hour, snipers opened fire on a nearby electrical substation. Shooting for 19 minutes, they surgically knocked out 17 giant transformers that funnel power to Silicon Valley. A minute before a police car arrived, the shooters disappeared into the night.

What the mass media left out is that the MO of the attackers was similar to that the of the attackers who took down the optical net for Silicon Valley a few years prior.

They're likely the same people.

What was also left out is that the substation that was attacked last year was critical. The substation was built purposefully to provide power to this IBM secure facility that's south of San Jose. Therefore the attack on the substation was an attack on an IBM facility that reportedly makes all sorts of black technology for the US government.