In a fresh report, eminent Australian academics conclude that America has no capacity to fight China militarily and is also set to lose Trump's trade war:
US pre-eminence in the Pacific is no more.
For a long time experts have been speaking about China's rapid military modernisation referring to it as "a rising power".
But this analysis may be out of date. China is not so much a rising power; it has risen; and in many ways it now challenges the US across a number of military domains.
This is the conclusion of a new report from the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney in Australia.
"America no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific", it notes, "and its capacity to uphold a favourable balance of power is increasingly uncertain."
China has studied US capabilities and warfighting and has come up with an effective strategy to mitigate the traditional sources of US military power, not least the US Navy's powerful carrier battle groups, the central element of Washington's ability to project military force.
Dubbed in military-speak, an "anti-access and area denial" approach, China has single-mindedly focused on a range of sensors and weapons systems that it hopes will compel US forces to operate as far away from its own shores as possible.
"America has an atrophying force that is not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured for great power competition" and the report warns that a back-log of simultaneous modernisation priorities "will likely outstrip its budget capacity."
China's military rise to match its growing economic muscle was inevitable. But some analysts fear that President Trump has made a difficult situation worse.
Many in the US feel it was time to stand-up to China on trade - but the way the US is going about it leads several experts to fear that Washington may simply lose the trade war.
Overall the Trump Administration's foreign policy often lacks a clear strategic aspect and is prone to the whims of the Presidential twitter feed and bizarre distractions like his apparent desire to purchase Greenland.
In contrast China knows exactly where it wants to go and it has the strategy and the means to get there. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, it may have already arrived.
Which way will America go over the coming years? Will it accept that people do not want a global policeman and start trying to get along with its global brothers and sisters in the spirit of human cooperation, or will America 'do a Kaiser Wilhelm', get sulky that it can no longer bully people, and provoke a series of confrontations that ultimately lead to some sort of disaster?
And when America inevitably opts for option B, what will the result be?
mrswdk wrote:In a fresh report, eminent Australian academics conclude that America has no capacity to fight China militarily and is also set to lose Trump's trade war:
US pre-eminence in the Pacific is no more.
For a long time experts have been speaking about China's rapid military modernisation referring to it as "a rising power".
But this analysis may be out of date. China is not so much a rising power; it has risen; and in many ways it now challenges the US across a number of military domains.
This is the conclusion of a new report from the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney in Australia.
"America no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific", it notes, "and its capacity to uphold a favourable balance of power is increasingly uncertain."
China has studied US capabilities and warfighting and has come up with an effective strategy to mitigate the traditional sources of US military power, not least the US Navy's powerful carrier battle groups, the central element of Washington's ability to project military force.
Dubbed in military-speak, an "anti-access and area denial" approach, China has single-mindedly focused on a range of sensors and weapons systems that it hopes will compel US forces to operate as far away from its own shores as possible.
"America has an atrophying force that is not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured for great power competition" and the report warns that a back-log of simultaneous modernisation priorities "will likely outstrip its budget capacity."
China's military rise to match its growing economic muscle was inevitable. But some analysts fear that President Trump has made a difficult situation worse.
Many in the US feel it was time to stand-up to China on trade - but the way the US is going about it leads several experts to fear that Washington may simply lose the trade war.
Overall the Trump Administration's foreign policy often lacks a clear strategic aspect and is prone to the whims of the Presidential twitter feed and bizarre distractions like his apparent desire to purchase Greenland.
In contrast China knows exactly where it wants to go and it has the strategy and the means to get there. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, it may have already arrived.
mrswdk wrote:Which way will America go over the coming years? Will it accept that people do not want a global policeman and start trying to get along with its global brothers and sisters in the spirit of human cooperation, or will America 'do a Kaiser Wilhelm', get sulky that it can no longer bully people, and provoke a series of confrontations that ultimately lead to some sort of disaster?
And when America inevitably opts for option B, what will the result be?
So why ask the question if you already provide the answer?
Your question is a valid one... and honestly none of us can predict the future... but I expect option A is more likely.
It's a global world. The only way to stop China having any influence in other regions of the world is to make China not exist any more. All regions will always be influenced by numerous other regions and independent actors. Getting jealous that foreign governments listen to more people than just Barack Trump will get the USG nowhere.
jimboston wrote:till China becomes politically free or implodes
Given the US is presumably a country you would call 'politically free' and is also imploding, I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive outcomes.
Statement = Full disclosure of minuscule world view.
'You don't need a weatherman to know which way the winds blows' Robert Zimmerman
case in point - the quote you use -->
'You don't need a weatherman to know which way the winds blows' - Robert Zimmerman
"Winds Blows.."
you cannot even quote properly..
and neither can you : you capitalized winds & blows...
you forgot I added 3 periods after it as well. capitalizing the 2 words and adding in periods is my way of adding emphasis to the words being misquoted.
if you could write more then a 10 word comment.. you might understand this concept Dave..
mrswdk wrote: Given the US is presumably a country you would call 'politically free' and is also imploding, I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive outcomes.
So there we have it folks.
mrswdk doesn’t believe you can have freedom without anarchy.
