Quote:

Not too far back in Australian history, large amounts of anger and angst—buried not too deep in the national psyche—would have arisen if Chinese warships had conducted exercises in Australia’s maritime approaches. Now, for the first time, China’s Navy has done just that. Two Chinese destroyers and a landing ship carried out the exercise—as legal as it was unannounced—between Christmas Island and Java, before heading out into the Indian Ocean. Little wonder the Australian Air Force ‘scrambled’ and did some surveillance. No public anger is on show but some low-level angst is about. Rory Medcalf and C.Raja Mohan argue that China’s going Indo-Pacific and the exercise is ‘a wake-up call to anyone still doubting China’s long-term intention to be able to project force in the Indian Ocean.’ All this is vivid context for David Hale’s ASPI paper, ‘China’s new dream: How will Australia and the world cope with the re-emergence of China as a great power?’ Hale writes: [list bull-blacksq] China’s power could force Australia into a ‘crouching mode—still independent, but unable to be highly assertive against the dominant power to its north.’ [list bull-blacksq] China’s new president, Xi Jinping, is set to be the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. (See also Willy Lam’s fine piece on Xi’s ‘extensive and entrenched power’.) [list bull-blacksq] Canberra must prepare for the high risk that, in 10 to 15 years, the US will not be able to guarantee Australia’s security. [list bull-blacksq] Australia’s current debate is over the choices between the US and China; the future might be one in which Australia chooses India instead of China. It’s a fine and thought-provoking paper; certainly Hale’s predictions about the steep decline in US defence spending will provoke some return fire from some of APSI’s defence number crunchers (he sees the US GDP share for defence heading back to 1930s levels). To take a measure of what David Hale offers today, look at the 2006 ASPI paper on China he authored. For instance, his description seven years ago of the new geopolitics of Asia is an excellent report card of where we are now. As a seer, Hale has good form. The big change in tone between the Hale of 2006 and today is his pessimism about the ability of the US political system to respond. The political gridlock and budget woes produced by the Wacko Wing of the Republican Party and the Entitlement Mainstream of the Democrats could see the US slash defence spending and withdraw from East Asia: The US won’t be able to remain a great military power without a sustainable fiscal policy that restrains health care spending. Doctors and health insurance companies will determine whether America continues to be the world’s leading military power, not strategists in the Pentagon, and the most important predictor of the global balance of power in 2030 will be America’s health care inflation rate. There’s been a sharp decline in health care inflation during the past four years, but there’s no consensus that it will be sustainable. Australia must therefore prepare contingency plans for the risk that the US will become increasingly less able to guarantee its security. In the Q&A at the launch of Hale’s paper, one of Canberra’s strategic sages, Paul Dibb, commented that the thought of the PLA challenging the US military amounts to a Chinese ‘wet dream’, rather than a new dream. True, replied Hale, but the trend lines are taking us to a different place. For all that and more, here’s David Hale’s speech at an ASPI lunch this week. I did an interview with David, which you can watch on ASPI’s YouTube channel. http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/rising-china-troubled-america-crouching-australia/

Honestly isn't time to act?

How?

If it's war: China will be starved!

- It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea!

Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion?

That is the French Govts. current policy.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

How? If it's war: China will be starved! - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea!

How? what do you mean.

And China cant be starved, China has the resources and the capabilities to prevent a blockage anywhere near China. If the US was planing to starve China it would have to starve it in the India sea. However there is a second problem, China has became the largest and most important trading partner to many great powers as well as other regionally important nations, a blockage would starve china but it would also starve valuable allies as well as the US (Which currently has the most to loss to a blockage due to its trade deficit with China)... Blockading china is simply not an option.

a pre-emptive attack at the moment would resort to 'he says, she say' and would further damage america's already decreasing international image, as the evidence is still not solid, plus you could be risking similar problems as i describe above.


Bobby. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 5:27pm:

Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion? That is the French Govts. current policy.

Nuclear weapons wont solve anything, the second a nuclear power attacks another, you would have a M.I.D scenario.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

- It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea!

It's always too early for a pre-emtive attack, the moral high ground would be lost.

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:40am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:09pm: - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea! It's always too early for a pre-emtive attack, the moral high ground would be lost.

Business is business!

Sure, attack the attack: why would you attack when there is no threat? There would be nothing to attack..

In short, YOU ATTACK A PROBLEM!

Pantheon wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:42am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:09pm: How? If it's war: China will be starved! - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea! How? what do you mean. And China cant be starved, China has the resources and the capabilities to prevent a blockage anywhere near China. If the US was planing to starve China it would have to starve it in the India sea. However there is a second problem, China has became the largest and most important trading partner to many great powers as well as other regionally important nations, a blockage would starve china but it would also starve valuable allies as well as the US (Which currently has the most to loss to a blockage due to its trade deficit with China)... Blockading china is simply not an option. a pre-emptive attack at the moment would resort to 'he says, she say' and would further damage america's already decreasing international image, as the evidence is still not solid, plus you could be risking similar problems as i describe above. Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:27pm: Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion? That is the French Govts. current policy. Nuclear weapons wont solve anything, the second a nuclear power attacks another, you would have a M.I.D scenario.

What is an M.I.D scenario?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 7:14am:

Pantheon wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:42am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:09pm: How? If it's war: China will be starved! - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea! How? what do you mean. And China cant be starved, China has the resources and the capabilities to prevent a blockage anywhere near China. If the US was planing to starve China it would have to starve it in the India sea. However there is a second problem, China has became the largest and most important trading partner to many great powers as well as other regionally important nations, a blockage would starve china but it would also starve valuable allies as well as the US (Which currently has the most to loss to a blockage due to its trade deficit with China)... Blockading china is simply not an option. a pre-emptive attack at the moment would resort to 'he says, she say' and would further damage america's already decreasing international image, as the evidence is still not solid, plus you could be risking similar problems as i describe above. Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:27pm: Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion? That is the French Govts. current policy. Nuclear weapons wont solve anything, the second a nuclear power attacks another, you would have a M.I.D scenario. What is an M.I.D scenario?

Mutually induced destruction? :-?

Pantheon wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:42am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:09pm: How? If it's war: China will be starved! - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea! How? what do you mean. And China cant be starved, China has the resources and the capabilities to prevent a blockage anywhere near China. If the US was planing to starve China it would have to starve it in the India sea. However there is a second problem, China has became the largest and most important trading partner to many great powers as well as other regionally important nations, a blockage would starve china but it would also starve valuable allies as well as the US (Which currently has the most to loss to a blockage due to its trade deficit with China)... Blockading china is simply not an option. a pre-emptive attack at the moment would resort to 'he says, she say' and would further damage america's already decreasing international image, as the evidence is still not solid, plus you could be risking similar problems as i describe above. Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:27pm: Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion? That is the French Govts. current policy. Nuclear weapons wont solve anything, the second a nuclear power attacks another, you would have a M.I.D scenario.

Pre-emptive attack: being philosphical about the need to act swiftly!

Starving Strategum: .. who knows how it would work but I'd be certain this is how you'd attack a billion plus population!

Description of pre-emptive attack: planning is pre-emptive attack! Attack is the solving of a problem!!

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 7:22am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 7:14am: Pantheon wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:42am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:09pm: How? If it's war: China will be starved! - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea! How? what do you mean. And China cant be starved, China has the resources and the capabilities to prevent a blockage anywhere near China. If the US was planing to starve China it would have to starve it in the India sea. However there is a second problem, China has became the largest and most important trading partner to many great powers as well as other regionally important nations, a blockage would starve china but it would also starve valuable allies as well as the US (Which currently has the most to loss to a blockage due to its trade deficit with China)... Blockading china is simply not an option. a pre-emptive attack at the moment would resort to 'he says, she say' and would further damage america's already decreasing international image, as the evidence is still not solid, plus you could be risking similar problems as i describe above. Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:27pm: Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion? That is the French Govts. current policy. Nuclear weapons wont solve anything, the second a nuclear power attacks another, you would have a M.I.D scenario. What is an M.I.D scenario? Mutually induced destruction? :-?

Who knows - I hate it when people use acronyms that
you can't even find with a Google search.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 7:22am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 7:14am: Pantheon wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:42am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:09pm: How? If it's war: China will be starved! - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea! How? what do you mean. And China cant be starved, China has the resources and the capabilities to prevent a blockage anywhere near China. If the US was planing to starve China it would have to starve it in the India sea. However there is a second problem, China has became the largest and most important trading partner to many great powers as well as other regionally important nations, a blockage would starve china but it would also starve valuable allies as well as the US (Which currently has the most to loss to a blockage due to its trade deficit with China)... Blockading china is simply not an option. a pre-emptive attack at the moment would resort to 'he says, she say' and would further damage america's already decreasing international image, as the evidence is still not solid, plus you could be risking similar problems as i describe above. Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:27pm: Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion? That is the French Govts. current policy. Nuclear weapons wont solve anything, the second a nuclear power attacks another, you would have a M.I.D scenario. What is an M.I.D scenario? Mutually induced destruction? :-? Who knows - I hate it when people use acronyms that you can't even find with a Google search.

I think it may be a sign of divergent realities, where the weaker argument literally begins to break down and become nonsensical.

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:46am: Winston Smith wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 7:22am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 7:14am: Pantheon wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:42am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:09pm: How? If it's war: China will be starved! - It's never too early for pre-emptive attack they say... but attack is a fully developed idea! How? what do you mean. And China cant be starved, China has the resources and the capabilities to prevent a blockage anywhere near China. If the US was planing to starve China it would have to starve it in the India sea. However there is a second problem, China has became the largest and most important trading partner to many great powers as well as other regionally important nations, a blockage would starve china but it would also starve valuable allies as well as the US (Which currently has the most to loss to a blockage due to its trade deficit with China)... Blockading china is simply not an option. a pre-emptive attack at the moment would resort to 'he says, she say' and would further damage america's already decreasing international image, as the evidence is still not solid, plus you could be risking similar problems as i describe above. Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2014 at 5:27pm: Maybe we'll have to make a few nuclear weapons to act as a power of  dissuasion? That is the French Govts. current policy. Nuclear weapons wont solve anything, the second a nuclear power attacks another, you would have a M.I.D scenario. What is an M.I.D scenario? Mutually induced destruction? :-? Who knows - I hate it when people use acronyms that you can't even find with a Google search. I think it may be a sign of divergent realities, where the weaker argument literally begins to break down and become nonsensical.

Sorry, don't know what i was thinking. I meant an M.A.D (mutual assured destruction) scenario.

You are forgiven.

Namaste