As a non-american, it's always interesting to see the point of view of the major military power. Why is China "America's top adversary"?
Aside from the OPSEC issue, which is understandable, why does the author - and I guess it's a widespread view - considers China as America's utmost adversary? Can't there exist two rich and prosperous countries? Why does the author uses such jingoist terms? How should other countries consider America, then?
I can't speak for the author or to popular anti-China narratives in the U.S., but from a traditional geopolitical perspective China poses a threat because of territorial claims independent of Taiwan, most importantly its claims over the South China Sea. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_disputehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... Those claims pose a grave threat directly to global shipping and to regional fishing and mining rights, and indirectly to the largely peaceful maritime waters status quo globally.
Over the past decade China has also been making increasingly brazen land grabs along and near the Indian border. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute and, most recently, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/07/china-bhutan-border-vil... Relative to the South China Sea that's slightly less of a concern geopolitically (ignoring the potential for another full blown war between India and China), but does evidence China's actual (not simply rhetorical) aggression.
Finally, North Korea is a protected state of China. The only reason North Korea has nuclear weapons is because China prevents military and, to a lesser degree, economic retaliation. China permitting North Korea to develop and possess nuclear weapons is a violation of China's role as a nuclear super power, especially in light of the proliferation risk North Korea poses. By contrast, the U.S. killed Taiwan's nuclear program the moment it was discovered, and strongly opposed both the Israeli and Pakistani programs up until they were already an accomplished fact. (Note that the U.S. had far more leverage with Taiwan--it could threaten to retract its defense umbrella, which would have passively permitted immediate Chinese invasion--whereas with Israel and Pakistan the only viable options would have required direct retaliation.)
Foreign policy and military analysts in the U.S. and, I would assume, China understand that the global economic tussle between the U.S. and China are distinct from the geopolitical security issues. (Strongly related, of course, but the calculus nonetheless significantly different.) The masses and certain political factions in each country don't tend to draw such distinctions, though.
> Those claims pose a grave threat directly to global shipping and to regional fishing and mining rights, and indirectly to the largely peaceful maritime waters status quo globally.
European here, so this may be caused by selective reporting in different regions of the world, but here news is equally often about US military presence in the South China Sea. Looking at a globe and seeing the distance between US homeland and the South China Sea, I wonder who gave the US a mandate for military manoeuvers near the coast of another country? And how this makes China the aggressor?
My understanding is that when it comes the US maneuvers in international waters of the South China Sea, the purpose is actually defensive. Part of international maritime law determining the owner of waterways includes considerations for actual control of areas.
By navigating international waters against China's wishes, the US is demonstrating to the international community that China does not control access to those waters. This prevents China from making claims that those waters should no longer be international and instead be China's.
So this isn't the US going off to provoke China (or if you still wish to see it so, at least not for no reason). This is the US exercising rights granted by international treaties in order to prevent China from making effectively false claims to those waters under those same treaties.
Is it purely a coincidence that it's right around the time the US is losing hegemony in that part of the world to China?
How would the US react if China sent ships to secure the waters between the US and Mexico.
Likely we’d find it amusing, as China is mostly incapable of projecting force outside of its immediate region and I shudder to think about the condition of their coastal navy after a cross pacific journey.
That said, I believe your point is valid, but the comparison breaks down once you look at the nuance of the situation. If Mexico feels they can get a better deal by partnering with China to do joint fleet ops in the Gulf of Mexico then I’d say the US has done a very poor job of treating its neighbors correctly, and that needs to be reevaluated. It’s the same answer I have for China - Theyre doing a poor job of being a good neighbor to others in the region.
A more direct answer is that the US is doing the job on behalf of its traditional allies in the region who have claims over parts of the South China Sea which helps to maintain US soft power in the region.
The illegal land grabs in the South China Sea make China the aggressor.
The US navy presence is a reaction to that, and very welcome by almost all of the states on the coast except China, given that without the promise of US opposition, they would all rapidly become members of the Greater Chinese Coprosperity Sphere like Hong Kong and Macao did.
> here news is equally often about US military presence in the South China Sea.
You're misreading your news. The US is doing miliary manuvers in international waters specifically to asser that they are not near the coast of China and are free travel for all. Meanwhile, the Chinese are claiming islands that are no theirs (or building islands out of the sea floor) and putting military installations on those islands. They then claim that as part of China, and trying to assert more ownership of the ocean because of that. The US doing maneuvers near them is a statement that those claims are not recognized.
The British recently did the same thing in waters near Crimea to deny Russia's ownership.
Wouldn’t that be 230 miles, or are there distinct international agreements that put China’s territorial borders eleven times closer their shores than other countries with a coastline?
China's land border with Vietnam terminates at the shore of this sea, so of course in that area the "territorial waters" don't extend so far. It's the same as e.g. Canadian waters located right next to USA. In addition, China and Philippines are separated by about 400 miles at their closest points, so that would curtail a 230 mile perimeter for at least one of those nations.
The Russians did/do this all the time, although mostly on the East Coast. There wasn't any reaction until they started moving missiles to Cuba though...
Another European here, but with a different perspective: never seen any mainstream news suggesting US Navy is posing a threat to the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan or Taiwan (or even China). It seems the narative is mostly the same as in the US. Do you have examples of news reporting otherwise ?
Yes the bias is obviously also pro US, anti China, but that has been true since forever. It was the same at the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions of the US, for example.
Nevertheless the facts themselves also tend to get reported, e.g.:
The US has defense agreements with at the very least Taiwan and the Philippines and more distantly Japan. Allowing China to claim the South China Sea would seriously hamper the US' ability to meet the obligations in those treaties. Not to mention that ensuring products produced in that area are able to be shipped through the South China Sea is absolutely essential as is evidenced by the effects of the current chip shortage. If access to TSMC products was suddenly cut off by China it would cause massive issues across the world and especially so in the US.
But is China really threating the US directly in anyway through military confrontation? Taiwan, China sea matters are localised to the close neighborhood of China.
Does the US desire peaceful coexistence with China or not? Reading some of the hawkish, cold war style jingoism coming out of US media makes one wonder?
The US supports all kinds of non-democratic groups when it benefits them, though. Most likely the reason is just that they don't want to lose any power to China.
An increasing desire and capability to export their illiberal practices abroad. For example, using their weight to prevent the Dalai Lama from speaking at foreign universities. It’s naive to think that an even more powerful China wouldn’t continue to suppress free speech abroad as much as it does at home.
How is what China does to the Dalai Lama any worse than what the US does to Julian Assange? Isn't it equally naive to assume that an even more powerful USA wouldn't continue to summarily execute people abroad as much as it already does?
> How is what China does to the Dalai Lama any worse than what the US does to Julian Assange?
Among other things, we're allowed to discuss what the US has done with Julian Assange on this here US-based website without much fear of a dawn raid by the FBI over it.
Nothing justifies it when the US does evil. The important difference is that as a society, in the US we have remarkable capacity for self-criticism and the power to loudly rebuke our government. We're far from perfect, but we can at least acknowledge the atrocities committed in our names, and hopefully account for them and try not to commit them again. The same is not true in Chinese society. Currently, it is only external pressure that keeps them in check. There won't be internal resistance to the Chinese governments expansionist behavior, because it simply would not be tolerated. The PRC will even use its power to silence criticism from abroad, much less tolerate it at home.
Again, we're not perfect, but we hear about almost every drone strike that harms civilians, or the abuses our prisoners of war face in Guantanamo bay. Does anyone in China rebuke the government for stealing land from neighboring countries[1] and building on it?
I think you have a decent comparison, but debate about what the CIA did in the US is widely reported in the US while. There is no free press in China. Pressure to stop China will only come externally, whereas pressure to stop US can come from within and external.
Also China is continuing to carry out a genocide that is unparalleled in this century.
Lets be real, America has allowed the use of capitalism to enslave entire generations of people and they are clueless to the fact about it. In fact many praise it and go deeper into debt so they can rock the newest iPhone 13, only 36 months of payments spread out. I can handle that!
In the US a Genocide has been underway for decades. The cost of healthcare will break people. A trip to the doctor can easily wipe out life savings, what little there is for most people. Considering more than half the US population lives paycheck to paycheck to nearly paycheck to paycheck lifestyles, its easy to see how Most Americans are nothing more than slaves that go to work and back home in a endless cycle. That is not freedom. And sure they can quit, and live out in the streets if they wanted. Its a shit life.
Americans are so caught up in thinking the government is the bad guy here. No the real bad guy is the companies like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Exxon, Verizon, ATT, Capital one, Chase, any CC company, plus the many Pharma companies. The list can go on and on.
With no protection for allowing people to get into 10-20k+ worth of CC debt at 22-28% APR, People will always be slaves.
Honestly its easy to see the USA as a Cancer. I dont blame China for wanting to break away from the ideals of the western world. Now they have made a lot of bad choices. But at the same time the USA is largely responsible for keeping the middle east a 3rd world society.
Americans enjoy living in a bubble, They love to think they are free. They are not free!
I'm an American, and I'm just as much of a slave to the system as the rest of you. The system is so rigged that any true free speech is easily spun around. Just look at all the crazy trump supporters, Slaves not only to unchecked capitalism but to also propaganda labeled as factful free speech.
I wonder why the bad things the US does internationally never get blamed on capitalism, yet when people write or vent about China it's always about these darn Communists.
Are these after-effects of the red scare?
China is an authoritarian dictatorship with their own flavour of communism I guess. Blaming everything they do on commmunism as a whole is very uninformed.
I believe this has to do with any system where the government has too much control. Communism appears to me like a system that promotes the government’s freedoms over an individual.
Have there ever been peaceful capitalists who ran a country?
Don't get me wrong, I can't really stand uber-authoritarian Communism. But I don't see how communist/marxist theory is bad as a whole. Would certainly help erase a lot of issues we have on our earth.
Unfortunately, people at the top always start to misuse their power to stay there. But that's also the case in capitalist America, so then again, why is communism such a problem for many americans?
> Taiwan, China sea matters are localised to the close neighborhood of China.
Or the close neighborhood of the Philippines, a major US ally with a mutual defense pact. Or Taiwan, a major US ally and trading partner. Or Vietnam, a growing trading partner. There are ongoing disputes between and among those groups.
A huge amount of shipping goes through the South China Sea, including most oil for S. Korea, Japan and the US West Coast. Meanwhile, goods bound for Europe and the Suez from those places also go through there. Something like 10% of the worlds shipping. Letting China just call "dibs" on international waters and set up a chokehold would be weird to allow.
I don't think anyone is urging war with China. But stopping their advance in it's tracks.
Meanwhile, China has been aggressively expanding its influence worldwide, in South America, Africa and Afghanistan.
> Meanwhile, China has been aggressively expanding its influence worldwide, in South America, Africa and Afghanistan.
In contrast to the U.S.? When other countries did this in the past and present, it was ok, but not for China? The U.S. can invade and occupy countries on the other side of the world, but it's aggressive for China to occupy an unoccupied island off its own coast?
I'm not thrilled with China's behavior, but the U.S. needs to stand down until they can act from the high moral ground. They have a lot of work to do to rebuild a working compass. Until then, nobody can trust their navigation.
> The U.S. can invade and occupy countries on the other side of the world, but it's aggressive for China to occupy an unoccupied island off its own coast?
Invading countries with a diplomatic alliance like NATO behind you is as close to "okay" as you can get. A small country got beat up, but there was no risk of WWIII. And there was an attempt to install a democracy in place of a dictatorship and get out.
China claiming the territory owned by their neighbors is about slowly stealing land (and sea) and making them part of China. It's completely different.
But really, the US's moral high ground is a distraction. This thread is about whether China is taking actions that could be a threat to the United States.
> This thread is about whether China is taking actions that could be a threat to the United States.
This thread is about the U.S. producing a war plane. Somehow China is threatening the U.S. just by knowing about a weapon produced by the U.S.? China is the threat?
Whatever, if not thread, the posts you are responding to were about that. There are many posts that deal with the plane. This is focusing on China/US relations, as an offshoot conversation.
> China claiming the territory owned by their neighbors is about slowly stealing land (and sea) and making them part of China. It's completely different.
Yes, the United States did that in the past. It did it by fighting a war with Spain. That's why I would also agree with someone who said the US was a threat to Spain 120 years ago.
Or did you miss:
>> But really, the US's moral high ground is a distraction. This thread is about whether China is taking actions that could be a threat to the United States.
> Taiwan, China sea matters are localised to the close neighborhood of China
We don't have a defense treaty with Taiwan so it's not like we'd have to intervene to the degree we would if Egypt decided they wanted to have a go at Israel or something, but we've had a standing agreement since the 1970s to arm them as the situation dictates, so we're not entirely detached from it.
No but any credible claim that the US has to defending interests in SEA / East Asia would evaporate once that happened. China understands this. If Taiwan goes, then that's it for the US's Asia strategy.
Anyone who cares about democracy in their own part of the world should be paying attention to what happens in China. Unlike the 20th century fascist and communist dictatorships (including Chinese communism of that era), China today is neither self-destructive nor economically unsound.
Jingoism is definitely present and infuriatingly becoming more financially viable for media companies pitching towards those parts of the populous, but it is important to recognize that that is the minority. Anecdotally, most people in my area, a college town in a republican state, are apathetic by means of being unaffected and uninformed. Even the chinese and korean people I've spoken with pretty frequently don't seem to particularly care or be informed. It is kind of weird, because it freaks me out and I follow it very closely; worrying about ww3.
Opposition to Xi Jinping in the executive branch is widespread, that is also definitely true. I think our hawks and their wolf warriors have created a feedback loop.
> China permitting North Korea to develop and possess nuclear weapons is a violation of China's role as a nuclear super power,
While this is true, the US had a hand in helping the DPRK obtain the necessary tools to do so way back in 1994:
In 1994, President Bill Clinton agreed to a deal with North Korea aimed at curbing their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, an agreement which the networks at the time hailed as a sign that “the Cold War is really over.”
Under the 1994 framework, which North Korea eventually violated, the U.S. helped the rogue regime build a new nuclear reactor that would not be capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium in exchange for international access to its nuclear facilities, although the United States caved and the inspections would not start for several years.
Crucial inspections are being delayed five years while the rest of the deal is implemented. American officials say the delay is a small price to pay for getting North Korea to shut down its entire nuclear program
But Kim Jung Il’s regime gets to keep what intelligence experts believe it already has, at least one bomb. And it does not have to permit inspection to nuclear waste sites for 5 years.
The very framework designed to prevent the DPRK from obtaining a nuclear weapon actually laid the groundwork for them to not only obtain nuclear technology, but to fast track their program to produce even more nukes.
To be fair, I deployed on US Navy ships twice. It is better to think of it as fking with eachother. We tail them for a week or two, they tail us. Russians fly an aircraft over us, we do it over them. I think it is more about showing off than actually threatening. Media only presents this when Russians or Chinese approach us, but not the other way around.
Your link claiming China is threatening a nuclear attack on Japan doesn't even mention nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly.
China has a "no first use" policy on it's nuclear weapons, and therefore has publicly committed not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state like Japan. (The US, in contrast, has a policy of allowing first-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.) For details on China's policy, you can see e.g.: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2018.1...
I purposefully used the Global Times (CCP state run news source) for all those links - it is interesting reading what they directly want the world to read.
Anyway the original message was much more colorful. This video from Chinese military channel https://youtu.be/7vKf5SXnsHA
Yes they pulled it after 2 million views. The Japanese exception to no first use message was delivered pretty clearly though.
When was the last time PBS or NPR called for expanding nuclear capabilities 10x? In China it was last year.
CCPs no-first-use is just window dressing on the MAD status quo of the world. Perhaps it makes them think they look moral? Their cavalier way of discussing it is disgusting.
It is worth asking if China is being practical or paranoid when it comes to shoring up its nuclear arsenal. As an American, I see the US as a democracy with a penchant for electing an unstable leader of the armed forces with a severe personality disorder who casually talks about using nuclear weapons.
Seems like a practical move to make sure they have solid rocket motors and warheads not in storage. That guarantees MAD regardless of who the US elects, thus all generals on both sides will truthfully say any nuclear confrontation is unwinnable.
Because, leaving the US aside, China spends more on it's military than the next five largest countries combined (3/5 of which are US allies).
Meanwhile, China seems to be aggressively staking claims in the South China Sea (which is important for the US and it's Asian allies) and there's a perpetual risk of war over Taiwan. China is also growing it's influence in places like Africa and Afghanistan, as well as using Belt and Road money to intermesh themselves anywhere you can.
Maybe "rival" or "top potential adversary" would be a better phrase. But the idea is that there is a western block and a Chinese block (and a Russian block) exerting power on the world, and that's zero sum. It's not violent, but the competition is still there.
> How should other countries consider America, then?
Whatever else you think of America, with it gone or taking a step back from world affairs, there's a power vacuum that China and Russia will fill. At worst, they should think of it as the lesser evil. I would go further than that and call America good, but that seems offtopic at this point.
Everyone is an expert on the Internet, this is some guy's opinion, not a statement of official US government policy.
Also makes it sound more dramatic, especially with the Air Force General "looking impressed" hot take. The fact of the matter is that it would be a bigger problem if a top secret aircraft was sitting outside exposed to the sky in full daylight in the first place, where Gen. Kelly's and presumably everyone else's surveillance satellites could count the rivets on the thing.
You know they do have to fly these things for real testing. Only so much can be simulated with computers and wind tunnels. It's not a matter if it's exposed, it's a matter of when and where it's exposed. Security through obscurity is very much still a legitimate thing for a lot of aspects.
We're not quite to a point yet where you have continuous ultra high resolution satellite imagery of the ground where you could feasibly record these things and eventually find them. Chances are you just don't have the data unless you know all the places to look. In the not too far off future it might be a bit more difficult. We're getting closer to that point for sure given export controls on AI software used in geospatial imagery analysis:
Part of this I suspect is geared at stifling an adversary from utilizing lower resolution imagery data to identify targets of interest to point higher resolution imagery or other sensors and agents at to collect intel.
Well, there's a slight difference between "flying these things for real testing" and being carted around on a flatbed where yahoos with a smartphones are around to take videos and post them.
Presumably, if it actually requires some level of security clearance, either it should have been covered for transport, or the yahoos with smartphones should have been cleared of the area to at least reduce the chance of something silly like this.
Not a whole lot you can do if you need to fly it and it's going to be in or around public areas, nor much you can do about satellite imagery, but that doesn't mean ignore all opsec.
exactly. contractors or not gotta checkin there phones before entering places where anything top secret may be. if this was real heads would roll you would expect.
It's because China is on its way to take the top spot economically while also being powerful enough militarily so that it cannot be touched by the US. The US is trying its best to drag out #1 for as long as possible because much of the US' influence depends on it.
Just need to ask yourself who costs the wealthy the most income if they stop playing ball. At one point it was the Middle East with oil supply cutoffs. Now it’s China with supply chain manipulation and market competition.
China is America's enemy because they are achieving rival status and America can't just walk all over China like they do most South and Central American countries, its allies, etc. The bad stuff China does is just frosting on top for the narrative.
They are allies because they have common enermies.
War and ideaology is mans worst attributes and will only lead to the cultures downfall.
That is why humans are stuck in a cycle of repeating mistakes from the past. Blinded by there own ego. In a constant battle of picking sides, where winners reinforce positions, rewrite history and loosers are always waiting to take the crown back at the slightest slip up. Like that will be the final staw, like they will be last king to end all kings.
Unfortunately for the US, China has used its own tactics against it. through the greed of capitalism it has lost grip of its influence and let its competitive advantage be exported.
When push comes to shove, i would rather be taking a blue pill for virility then then eating a tiger penis. The US detains only the illegals in there own countries, while China simply invades, moves in and purifies. The US gives lethal injections, while China sends you to concentration camps then sells your body parts highest bidder.
The lesser of two evils in this case is clearly the country with more diversity and acceptance for other points of view. No way a black person would ever be considered pure enough to lead China. China out-racists the US on every measure, as it does in systemic corruption.
No communist has ever lived in its final utopia. Just as no captialist ever has. Or ever will. After a certain point, every culture that defines itself on war will fade.
I am under the impression you are not familiar with the HAN culture? It doesn't allow for sharing or 2nd place, it's a winner take all and destroy everyone else. The China of today is determined to rule the world and I mean the entire world.
Aside from the OPSEC issue, which is understandable, why does the author - and I guess it's a widespread view - considers China as America's utmost adversary? Can't there exist two rich and prosperous countries? Why does the author uses such jingoist terms? How should other countries consider America, then?