一旦中国赢得贸易战,美国会采取军事行动吗?(上) [美国媒体]


Alyasa Gan
There are no military options. Its too late. China is not as st


Alyasa Gan
There are no military options. Its too late. China is not as strong as the USA but it had the capacity to cripple it. It is not necessary to compare military arsenal to decide who will survive but looking at the possible outcome is enough to frighten the US.


I have written many times that Chinese military power is based more on strategic maneuvering rather than close tactical operations. For example its planes can cause much damage and still manage not to engage its enemy directly. It’s very expensive to built a plane to engage in a dogfight but its cheaper to shoot it down from a distance your enemy can’t reach you. The J20 will be able to do severe damage to aircraft and ships that carry supplies and cripple the American ability to sustain a war without significant loses.
To break the US attack China needs only to target its Warships and Aircraft carriers and China have a perfect weapon for that. The Hypersonic Glide Vehicles are specially designed to do the damage. The J20 through the military GPS will be able to detect supply ships and planes which could be easily intercepted and harassed by Chinese J20 and other plane which may include Drones. Chinese artificial island are there to provide cover and information vital in the event of an attack.


China underwater drones are becoming more sophisticated and in the future will become a threat to American warships and supply lines .
I am of the opinion that Geographically, the US would not be able to execute and sustain a winning strategy if they want to attack China. Its is too late. China has built its army just for that response and now is building its army to create more damage to blunt an attack swiftly from the US. With the Russian watching it is insane for America to chose such a stupid option. China is not Iraq, or Afghanistan. America has not win a war decisively since the second world two. At best a draw in Korea and from Vietnam after realizing that it could not face the cost of winning.


The last time the American met the Chinese at the Korean Long Yuan Hll they retreat after meeting dedicated Chinese volunteers. The bottom line is the Chinese willingness to sacrifice for their country. China was halfway to Hanoi after only weeks but American bombed Vietnam to the ground only to retreat. They were not willing to sacrifice like the Chinese. I have heard many Indians writers saying the Chinese have no experience in war. Where did they get their idea?. The truth is Chinese despise war because it brings suffering and lost of love ones but once call for duty they comes by the thousands. The Chinese have fought wars throughout their history and have come out victorious. Even the mongols becomes part of China. The world must thank the Chinese. They held the Japanese and wore down their resolve to win. The Japanese poured most of their resources in China but China stood firm and help to save the second world war. The Japanese hate the Chinese because if China had succumbed Japan would have had the resources to continue the war. Japan were bogged down in China.


The world should not look at China as an enemy but as a friend. It must not isolate it but should treat it as a partner for peace and prosperity. China had many to offer, it have many experience, technology and culture to share. Go to China you will be amazed.


David Ellsworth
I hope the generality of the people of US will learn to relate with the rest of humanity in a democratic and friendly manner and go beyond the idea that they have the right to use military force to impose their concepts of order on a submissive world. The current popularity of domination over all others is not sustainable and will likely evoke a very strong combined response from the rest of the countries.

We can now see even those most agreeable with the US are looking for ways to convince the US that this domination is unacceptable and they are seeking agreement with others for alternative relationships outside involvement with the US. They are aware of the present futility of trying to get fair and functional relationships that include the US.


We can see international progress being made in a variety of fields outside the influence of America. The BRICS countries have a world embracing relationship for progress independent of the US. The Euro has probably reached the use for international payments close to that of the US dollar and the rate of abandonment from the US dollar and reliance on other currencies is accelerating. Banking agreements and systems are developing to avoid the dictates of the US in the World Bank and other international monetary processes. The evidence of international agreement outside the realm of US control is quickly becoming very clear.


The realization of the organic oneness of all people on earth is an irresistible force in the evolution of this planet. It will proceed most peacefully with US as an equal participant or by a more troubling processes that will require American surrender to this reality.
By far the greatest danger is that facing the US in its delusional insistence that it has the right of deciding, directing and enforcement of international law and order.
Without respect for the inclusion of all nations as equal in the administration of international relations the US cannot hope for a good outcome and will likely suffer unimaginable consequences.


Ivan Kraljevic Answered Nov 19
The link that was provided with the question actually predicts that it's China that will lose the trade war.
But, if we take the premise of the question as correct (i.e. that hypothetically China would be the one winning the trade war), it would be unlikely that the US would willingly pursue a direct military solution.
Simply put, China is too strong a country to be put down militarily but at great cost.
Instead, the US is not only the most powerful country in terms of military strength, but also in terms of financial hegemony and intelligence apparatus. It can use those tools instead of a direct military confrontation.


For example, just regarding the US' financial hegemony, the recent episode where Turkey was chastised demonstrates the power America has: Simply by applying some additional tariffs, the US Administration pushed the lira over the exchange cliff, whence the Turkish government rushed to make amends, including releasing an American Pastor that they had jailed two years earlier as an alleged accessory in the attempted coup against Erdogan in 2016.
The truth is that the US, by virtue of its economic dominance, can break almost any small country and most mid sized countries when it decides to.


That's why countries who defy the US, like Iran and Cuba, are few, as such a stance implies economic hardship.
The only ones that can attempt to act independently are, of course the big ones, which today means China, the EU (European Union) and, to some extent, Russia.
Up to 2016 the EU posed no concern for the US, as Europe was content to submit to the US leadership in most international policy matters, willingly supporting the US in its endeavors, including a few wars.
The 2016 presidential elections in the US changed all that, as it brought to power the Alt-Right's Nationalist project.

(注:另类右翼Alt-right,完整的英文拼写方式为alternative right,即持有极端保守或反对变革观点的意识形态组织,主要特点是反对主流政治,通过网络媒体故意散布有争议的内容。)

Nationalism ultimately measures success and failure by the relative position of the country in the world. For an hegemonic power, its main concerns are its actual, potential or imagined adversaries.
In that line, the EU, with an economy and population larger than those of the US, suddenly was perceived by the new US Administration as a potential foe (even an actual one, as President Trump unabashedly labeled them). It was not that Europe had changed, of course, it was just that the US had adopted a different optics.


The attitude towards China, instead, needn't shift as much. Previous Administrations already saw China as a potential threat, which even prompted President Obama to architect the Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative (TPP), in order to counter China's ascendancy.
President Trump's decision to abandon and therefore kill the TPP initiative, was thus a non-sensical blunder, that went against his own Nationalist agenda for the spurious satisfaction of attacking President Obama's “legacy".
Leaving that blunder behind, the current US Administration, driven by its Nationalist ideology, is bound to try to bring down or at least neuter the two entities that it perceives as “foes".


In regards to the EU, Brexit was just the opening battle, as it has become public that the US Administration has attempted to bribe other countries to leave the Union, while the Russian allies of the anti-EU forces engage in cyber war supporting the Nationalist parties that want to pull their countries out of the Union.
Now, if just one or two major European countries (say France, maybe also Italy) could be delivered to their Nationalist parties, that would drive their exit from the union and the rapid collapse of the European project.
At that point, the US could cajole the thus weakened, divided, European countries, as well as much of Latin America, Africa and Asia, into an Anti-China Trade Front, strong enough to bring China to relinquish its dream of becoming a highly developed nation.
That's a more likely course of action by the US than pursuing direct military confrontation.
Of course, that path may alternatively bring China to escalate the conflict beyond the commercial arena.


Jack Ko
I think the US would or has been trying to inflict some geopolitical incidents near China, and force China to react. If successful, the US can cripple China significantly with manageable losses on its own, while the actual price would be paid by US allies in the region.
For example, US can try to stir up the tension in Korea peninsula. A full blown Korean War 2.0 would be disastrous for both Koreas as well as China, as the location is literally right next to Northern China and Beijing. However, for the US, it’s OK, as it is very unlikely that the war and the refugees would reach US soil. The difference in relative damage between US and China, gives US a huge advantage in this case.


As a result, I am more than happy about the recent peaceful development between the two Koreas, as this trend defuses one of the biggest geopolitical time bombs near China. As a Chinese, I welcome the unification of two Koreas, even if the unification was dominated by the South.
Another example would be Taiwan. US can try to encourage Taiwan to go for de jure Independence. If that happen, China would be forced to seek unification through military actions. Meanwhile, US can try to support Taiwan through indirect means, such as intelligence support and selling of advanced weapons to Taiwan. This way, the US can maximise the damage incurred by PLA, without losing a single US soldier’s life. And of course, Taiwan would be smashed to dust if such war to occur.


I am less optimistic about Taiwan strait development, as the issue between Taiwan and China/ROC and PRC is a lot more emotional than other geopolitical issues around China. The irrational sentiment of both sides would more likely lead to military conflict, which would interrupt China’s development and give US a relative advantage. This would require extra wisdom from the leaders and people of both sides of the straits.
South China Sea would be the other example. However, given the drastic naval/air power differences between China and Vietnam/Philippines. A large scale military conflict in South China Sea would only happen if US confronted China directly, so this is a less optimal option for the US when compared to the above two options.