China: A Large Country With Which We Should Avoid Fighting a War
People Liberation Army Navy Sailor (wikimedia)
What Spencer Ackerman said:
John Cornyn said that we need the F-22 to fight our ally India, which is, you know, fucking crackers. According to Eric Kleefeld, he’s now clarified that to mean we need the plane in the event that we’d fight China. It’s kind of amazing that such a clarification is considered less insane.
It’s not inconceivable that at some future point the United States and China could become locked into some sort of worldwide Cold War-style conflict. But it’s crucial to recognize that a world that looks like that is going to be a stupendously bad future—in terms of economic growth, in terms of the prospects for human rights and democracy around the world, in terms of the global environment, etc.—compared to the future in which the U.S. and China are able to maintain a basically cooperative relationship. Building a dedicated “let’s go to war with China” weapons platform is going to make the conflict scenario more likely and the cooperative scenario less likely.
45 Responses to “China: A Large Country With Which We Should Avoid Fighting a War”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
So we’re going to war with the country that is lending us money for our current wars?
July 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
So we’re going to war with the country that is lending us money for our current wars?
Likewise, who will buy Chinese exports if there is no US market?
July 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Um, Matt-you realize that building a weapon that would be useful in a war with China is not the same as going to war with them, right? There’s this military concept called “deterrence.” You might want to look into it.
July 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
So we’re going to war with the country that is lending us money for our current wars?
Once we defeat them and are greeted as liberators by the Chinese people, we’ll never have to pay them back!
July 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
From the standpoint of wanting to maintain a hegemony as a military power, I can understand and previously supported the idea of being prepared to slip it to the PRC at some misty point in the future.
When we elect W.J. Clintons, who have a feel for walking softly, while carrying a big stick, I’m on board. But, if we’re going to be getting in the habit of electing the likes of G.W. Bush, it seems likely that we’re just going to piss the advantages of hegemony away. Therefore, fuck it.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“So we’re going to war with the country that is lending us money for our current wars?”
As silly as that sounds, there is precedent. Prior to the Louisiana Purchase, France needed to raise money to go to war with England. So they decided to sell off Louisiana and keep the more valuable Haiti (ironic isn’t it?). America didn’t have the money to buy Louisiana and had to borrow from somebody. England loaned us the money knowing that we’d sent it to France, who in turn would use it to fight a war with England. It ended up being a disaster for France, as they lost Haiti anyway.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Building a dedicated “let’s go to war with China” weapons platform is going to make the conflict scenario more likely and the cooperative scenario less likely.
Whereas eliminating our ability to match China in a military conflict will induce them to never be aggressive, right?
…
July 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
We should just paint “Fuck You China!” on the side of a bunch of nuclear weapons. Take pictures of them and mail them to everyone over there. A billion postage stamps will bolster the finances of the USPS. Maybe jam their broadcast facilities with episodes of this:
http://tv.disney.go.com/disneychannel/suitelife/index.html
That’ll show the scheming Yellow Peril!!!
July 27th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
In principle, if China started it the rest of NATO would probably support us, and that would provide some substantial financing. And anyway, it’s not like China owns all our debt, they own a 25% plurality of the foreign owned debt. We could get the money. A war with China would be a horrible idea for more basic reasons: a war with China would be a massive war. Hell, they even have nukes.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
No particular brief for the F-22, which appears to be a very expensive plane with performance questions. (And beyond that, it isn’t at all clear that the future of air warfare lies in manned aircraft.) No brief for Cornyn either — he’s an ass.
That said, I agree with Jamie above. The F-22 isn’t aimed specifically at China, and even if it were, it doesn’t follow from that that it would make conflict more likely. Indeed if it functioned as a deterrent it might well make conflict less likely, as he points out.
Yglesias’s “reasoning” here is very much like his reasoning regarding the Middle East — associative but not really logical. A weapon system that could be used in conflict with China is associated with conflict with China — which, we can all agree, would be a very bad thing — and therefore will somehow lead to conflict with China. No particular mechanism for how this would happen is spelled out. Similarly, Israeli settlements in the West Bank would have to be restricted and in some cases removed in a peace settlement with the Palestinians, they are associated with the absence of an agreement, therefore the settlements somehow prevent a peace agreement. Again no particular mechanism for this causation is spelled out — there’s merely an association.
In many cases, the reasoning on this blog is a lot tighter than that, and often in a reasonably pointed way. For example, in politics, Yglesias is happy to see pressure applied to Specter via a primary challenge in order to push him to vote more reliably Democratic — a goal with which I entirely agree by the way. Here, tough-minded realpolitik is welcome. Regarding things that might strengthen the US vis a vis potential adversaries, not so much. I would say it’s odd, except, unfortunately, it isn’t.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Well we always gotta have a credible enemy so buying more bullshit hardware seems at least semi-logical.
Iraq and Afghanistan are OK to support a good part of the MIC, but for some stuff you just need something scarier.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
When we elect W.J. Clintons, who have a feel for walking softly, while carrying a big stick, I’m on board. But, if we’re going to be getting in the habit of electing the likes of G.W. Bush, it seems likely that we’re just going to piss the advantages of hegemony away. Therefore, fuck it.
The U.S. fought no wars from 1993 to beginning of 2001. That’s news to the Serbians and the Kosovars.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
That said, I agree with Jamie above. The F-22 isn’t aimed specifically at China, and even if it were, it doesn’t follow from that that it would make conflict more likely. Indeed if it functioned as a deterrent it might well make conflict less likely, as he points out.
It does follow that if I arm myself in way that’s only useful in attacking you, that doing so will help precipitate a antagonistic relationship, which certainly does make conflict with you more likely. The degree to which my armaments are specific to you correlates to the worsening of our relationship.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
it’s crucial to recognize that a world that looks like that is going to be a stupendously bad future—in terms of economic growth, in terms of the prospects for human rights and democracy around the world
I don’t know about that. If China doesn’t pass reforms soon, it will become the biggest threat to democracy and human rights in the world. China’s capitalisto-totalitarism is the only “model” left besides social democracy. But it will become a model only if China keeps growing at the current rate, thanks to free trade and foreign investments.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Larry,
The variation in Yglesias attitude to such tactics is probably related to the fact that votes in an election or in Congress are necessarily zero-sum, while international relations don’t have to be. Different strategies are required as a result.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Matt is responding to the assertion by John Cornyn that we need the F22s in order to prepare for a war with China. There are lots of wars we could prepare to fight but shouldn’t we prioritize the wars we’re fighting now? Those F22s aren’t very cost-effective. His point too is that initiating a military build-up pointed at China might induce an arms race with them, which we are NOT in right now.
Plus, I think we’ve got plenty of deterrence vis-à-vis China and will for a very long time.
If we’re going to spend huge amounts of money on weapons systems that aren’t very useful to us now but might be for some possible war in the future, I think we need to prepare for a war with the EU. Coups happen. Besides, they’re closer.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard the we-may-have-to-bomb-India justification used for the F-22. I work in the defense industry and a non-classified internal memo used a prospective war with India as justification for it, and this was several years ago. It struck me as bizarre at the time, a PR blunder in the making. Didn’t realize it would take two years to materialize. In any case I know Inhofe isn’t the only person to have said this. I think the point is not that there’s a secret anti-India cabal at the Pentagon but simply that it’s very hard to justify the F-22, but when you do have to justify it, you really have to stretch.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
It’s not so much that Cornyn would be concerned about matching China — the real concern is that he’d be so bald-faced about it. China isn’t an enemy, it’s one of our great trade partners and the largest holder of our debt. Japan cannot match the US’s military capability, does it naturally follow that this allows the US to treat Japan “aggressively”?
Of course, China isn’t like Japan. It wants to maintain military bases in third-party countries, and have a blue-water navy, and a muscular diplomacy that uses hard and soft power to obtain what is in the best interests of the Chinese state. In short, they want to have everything the United States has. The real question is: Can the US tolerate another country having the same power potential as it? The F-22 isn’t for shooting down Chinese bombers over Seattle, it’s for parking on the tarmac in Bagram, just to give the Pakistani and Indian government a little reminder about who they should make friends with. This is practical, but when we really need India to help us one day, we’ll probably find they remember us for being intimidating, and not for being the helpful allies we always claimed to be.
That said, the argument is still specious, since the JSF does everything the F-22 does in terms of China/India one-upsmanship.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“Whereas eliminating our ability to match China in a military conflict will induce them to never be aggressive, right?”
You can’t possibly be serious. Do some research into comparative military spending and get back to us.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
So you favor a military policy in which we do not prepare to win potential wars against other large countries. Now that’s insane.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Capitalisto-totalitarism – I believe that’s what used to be referred to as fascism.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
You can’t possibly be serious. Do some research into comparative military spending and get back to us.
I wasn’t implying that cutting the F-22 would eliminate our ability to match China militarily.
I was doing a little reductio ad absurdum on Matt’s argument.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Call me crazy, but I think a more effective deterrent might be a couple of planes that could, you know, fly in the rain.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Capitalisto-totalitarism – I believe that’s what used to be referred to as fascism.
No. If China invades Taiwan, the Koreas and Vietnam; and sends millions of minorities, homosexuals, dissidents… in extermination camps, then it would be a fascist regime.
The China of today is nothing like that.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Um, Jamie, you realize that “deterrence” need not be purely military, and in fact is probably more effective when not based on military strength?
If China doesn’t pass reforms soon, it will tear itself apart through its own internal contradictions, c/o their “capitalisto-totalitarian” approach. Those at the top like Hu and Wen know this better than anyone, yet for a variety of reasons are having a very difficult time applying the brakes.
I’m not saying not to worry–it’s hard to tell which would be worse, a healthy “capitalisto-totalitarian” China or another revolution, with all the attendant chaos and civil strife.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
While I know its a good time making fun of Matt because, you know, he has a blog and you don’t, but his point is pretty clear and is basic Diplomacy 101 for any civilized nation.
Don’t pick fights with people by talking about going to war with them!
You need weapons, you build them, but unless you’ve got an immediate and obvious threat to deal with, you don’t name names.
The stupidity level in the Republican party is approaching tsunami levels.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
A war with Russia in the next thirty years is much more likely than one with China, but no one is willing to admit who the F-22 is really meant to deter since the Russians are more paranoid of there own shadow than usual these days. The SU-27 and MiG 29 are aging, but they’re more advanced than what the Chinese have. And updated variants on the way.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Let’s go to war where it is cheaper, say Belize.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
We will have 187 F-22s. We are also building 2400 F-35s. The F-15s we are currently flying are still superior to anything else in the air. We’re at the point of debating just how much overkill is necessary.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Well, when your favored solution to Global Warming is one that, implicitly, is going to require war with and permanent occupation of China in order to actually, you know, do anything about global warming, it makes sense to be a mite bit prepared…
July 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
China must be doing this kind of thing in response to us building F-22s.
July 27th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
OK.
The first step in preparing for war with China is recognizing that more F-22s are not only unnecessary, but that spending on them displaces more useful military spending, and decreases our economic health in general.
So you see, Obama is displaying his belligerent Sinophobic bona fides, that right-wing bastard!
July 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I’m not really a big fan of the F-22 in particular, or of our representatives naming China as the main target for it in public (that’s stupid in the same way that Biden’s recent comments about Russia are stupid). The point I was more trying to make is that maintaining a clear military superiority over China is one of several components that helps ensure peace in East Asia. And building weapons that could help us win a war with China does not guarantee that we’ll start one.
July 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
If China is a threat, and will go to war with US, it already has more powerful weapon than any bomb, fight jets, carriers – its dollar dominated 2 trilion foreign reserves. Any one can imagine what the US would look like if China uses its reserve as waepon to fight US?
July 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Joe Strummer (#12), in the larger scheme of things, the events in Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo were live fire exercises.
July 27th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“China: A Large Country With Which We Should Avoid Fighting a War”
I believe Matt’s blog has been purchased by the Yu Wan Mei Amalgamated Salvage Fisheries and Polymer Injection Group…
July 27th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Sorry, but if you’re a country that’s stupid enough to go to war with your #1 trade partner who also happens to owe you bazillions of dollars, then you’re not smart enough for military deterrence to work.
July 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
No need to go that far – you could have a flashpoint war over Taiwan, or a conflict between the Chinese and another Southeast Asian power in the area that might require US intervention.
Can you imagine what China would be like if the US currency then proceeded to collapse in value, destroying the international trade system and rendering its currency reserves (along with those of many other countries with massive holdings denominated in dollars) nearly worthless?
187 F-22s is nowhere near enough to begin outfitting America to have air superiority for the next 20-30 years (and certainly not enough to replace the old and increasingly dangerous F-15 fleet), and the F-35s weren’t designed to be good air superiority fighters (not to mention that they haven’t gone through Development Hell yet, so we don’t know what they’ll look like in a couple of years, or what the order quantity will be).
These are investments you make for the next 20-30 years, whereas I doubt the current war in Afghanistan will last 10 years. Moreover, these aren’t things you can simply put away and come back to later – it costs a great deal of money to re-open a production line like that of the F-22, and that’s assuming you don’t destroy the tooling.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
RC,
If China goes to war with the US, they will be already 2 Trillion in the hole without a single shot being fired.
July 27th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“or a conflict between the Chinese and another Southeast Asian power in the area that might require US intervention”
That seems unlikely. Vietnam is the only Southeast Asian country that has any serious conflicts with China (they’ve always hated each other). And I can’t imagine the US coming to Vietnam’s defense. Sure, there is a spat right now between Thailand and China over the construction of a pan-Asian highway system. The Chinese say Thailand is taking too long. And the Thai say China builds crappy roads. But it’s not something either side will go to war over. The whole road building process is intended to expand trade between the countries.
July 27th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
The F22 costs something like $44,000 per hour to fly. The F15 is around $30 some thousand. So the 15 grand wasted for evey hour they fly an F22 instead of an F15, is part of the reason we can’t “afford” governement health insurance.
July 27th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
It looks like there’s two jamie’s here.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:36 am
The Chinese are bending us over like a stupid little school boy and whipping our sorry ass.
The Chinese have adjusted to the 21st century. They are preparing to build zero, count ‘em, ZERO, 5th generation fighters, now, or ever. They know that having 3,000 5th generation fighters by the year 2030 doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. In fact, the Chinese understand that the United States’ pointless and ruinous backbreaking military expenditure represents the dumbest motherfucking strategy in the history of the world’s Great Powers.
And are we REALLY gonna fight China in the Taiwan Straight? Battle to death for Taiwan? Should we continue to spend our national treasure preparing for a suicide mission -to stop a gigantic nation of 1.3 billion people from invading an offshore island they are going to absorb eventually anyway?
The Chinese are laughing at us, at how easily they have won. China figured it out. Wealth, not weapons, represents true power in an age when all out war has been rendered obsolete. As a result, future history will undoubtedly record that China was the sole superpower of the 21st century.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
That’s not so. The F-35 was designed to perform any role a fighter performs. While it certainly won’t be as good as the F-22 in the air-superiority role, it will be better than almost anything else in the sky for decades. The deciding role in confrontations with any existing or contemplated airframe will be the technology of add-ons, and upgrades, and, most importantly, the quality of the pilot.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
You think pilots will still be relevant in 30 years?