What's new

New strategy needed for co-existence

challenger

BANNED
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
726
Reaction score
0
New strategy needed for co-existence
By John Milligan-Whyte and Dai Min (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-10-14 07:57

Policymakers in the United States need to present a new grand strategy to replace their current strategy of preparing for currency, trade and military conflict with China. The US needs a grand strategy that opens up US companies to investment by Chinese companies creating sustainable US economic recovery and jobs.

To protect the world's economic recovery and peaceful coexistence, the US must reciprocate China's peaceful coexistence strategy.

The new grand strategy must be implemented now to create the breakthrough needed to prevent a breakdown in Sino-US bilateral and multilateral relationships. The growing economic and national security crises of the US and the suffering and anger of its citizens endangers Chinese people's progress and safety.

President Barack Obama is searching for solutions to his country's economic and national security crises. These vital breakthroughs will be accomplished if China helps President Obama persuade US policymakers' to implement a new grand strategy instead of just aggressively reiterating US' failing 20th century agenda.

Reciprocally beneficial 21st century US-China economic and military relations will occur as a result of China's policymakers signaling to President Obama and his administration that China wants to negotiate and implement the new grand strategy of reciprocal economic globalization and peaceful coexistence.

US policymakers are in the tightening grip of relentless crises that are causing a cultural revolution in the US. The failure of key US economic assumptions and companies, and US housing, economic, unemployment, and government debt crises are creating a simple-minded politics of anger.

The star of the box office hit Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Shia LaBeouf, articulated US citizen's grim view of the future in USA Today on Sept 27, 2010:

"We are living through the twilight of American economic dominance. We are at 10 percent unemployment. We are the first generation that has less to look forward to than the generation that preceded us. Game over. Our biggest export is consumption and now we no longer have the money to consume. People think we cannot have soup kitchens here again? Things are going to get rough. You sit and listen to people and you just want to scream."

The anger driving the success of the Tea Party movement and other radical candidates signals the US' inability to find political solutions, an anger that will fuel catastrophic US policymaking.

That in turn will make it hard to stop trade, economic and military showdowns that the Chinese do not want and believe will not occur. The last time the world faced the economic conditions we face today, the results were protectionism, a 10-year global depression, many unstable political systems, and a five-year world war that led to the use of nuclear weapons to end the war.

US policymakers do not have solutions to their nation's problems and are defaulting to increasingly hostile and destabilizing economic and military strategies against China. The US is destabilizing instead of stabilizing Asia. The global economy is fragile and vulnerable. Old ways of thinking and old policies did not prevent today's crises and cannot return the world to prosperity and peace.

China's greatest danger is that US policymakers face economic and national security crises they cannot solve. US policymakers are stuck in a 20th century zero sum game mindset that believes war with China over global influence, or oil and other resources, may be or is inevitable. In contrast, peaceful coexistence has been China's policy for 30 years and is common sense to Chinese, a solution to US economic and national security crises that US policymakers never entertain.

China is the major engine of global economic recovery, which embarrasses and threatens the US. The response to the crises by US policymakers is aggressive economic, diplomatic and military actions, launching a trade war, threatening carbon tariffs and a currency war, and continuing to prepare for armed conflict with "the big one," meaning war with "a near peer competitor", which they see as China.

China's economic stability and peaceful coexistence defense strategies are threatened by a new era of US trade, economic and military aggressiveness. China's stoic or benign neglect of US demands and threats that seek to destabilize China will not be successful now. China's policymakers must present a new grand strategy for Sino-US bilateral and all nations' multilateral negotiations.

John Milligan-Whyte is the chairman and Dai Min is the president of the Center for America-China Partnership, an American think-tank studying Sino-US relations.

New strategy needed for co-existence
 
This is the last signal China is sending to US and its allies. Still China needs to be prepared for the worst.

By the way, if US invades China, will China be able to defend itself?
 
This is the last signal China is sending to US and its allies. Still China needs to be prepared for the worst.

By the way, if US invades China, will China be able to defend itself?

american occupation of china is impossible(and vice versa), and nukes guarantees no winners in such a war
 
scandalous from the US


ask a normal person what it is what makes china a threat and i dont think they could tell you whats so exceptional

its plain sinophobia.
 
This is the last signal China is sending to US and its allies. Still China needs to be prepared for the worst.

By the way, if US invades China, will China be able to defend itself?

depends on how many nukes we have.

If we only have 160 warheads, as the US claims, the communist party should be currently in exile in Vietnam and there'd be US tanks rolling down the streets. After all the US can easily eat 80 nukes (the number that survive to hit a US city), nuke us back, and occupy the country.

If we have 1000 warheads, a more reasonable estimate, then no, the US cannot win against us without suffering 90% population losses.
 
depends on how many nukes we have.

If we only have 160 warheads, as the US claims, the communist party should be currently in exile in Vietnam and there'd be US tanks rolling down the streets. After all the US can easily eat 80 nukes (the number that survive to hit a US city), nuke us back, and occupy the country.

If we have 1000 warheads, a more reasonable estimate, then no, the US cannot win against us without suffering 90% population losses.

I am not asking the govt to disclose correct information from the top secret files to the public, but the govt should start thinking about this issue and take measures. It seems war is inevitable in coming years.
 
Why US should be so stupid as to "invade" China? Doing more physical exercises to reduce Americans obesity rate?

Too many reasons are there. Too many.

Below_freeze,

Can Chinese people have the confidence that China is able to retaliate if US strikes first?
 
Too many reasons are there. Too many.

Below_freeze,

Can Chinese people have the confidence that China is able to retaliate if US strikes first?

Yes. if the US launches a first strike we have at least 48 missiles on our submarines that will survive. Assuming that none of the submarines are caught, all of them get to launch, 90% of those missiles are still functional at launch, 90% won't be intercepted and 90% of them are functional enough to detonate in the US, then only 35 missiles will make it to the US. Assuming each major population center needs 3 warheads to result in a 90% population loss, we can take out 12 major population centers:

NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angelos, San Francisco, Miami, Houston, New Orleans, Seattle, San Diego, Detroit and Cleveland.

This will result in approximately 40 million casualties in the US from direct effects of the nuclear strike. Most sane whites and jews would accept that this is too much of a cost to bear. However, we can never exclude the possibility that the US will simply eat the 40 million and hit us back. In this regard, we need more weapons to counter any possible unknown interception technologies, and the weapons should be able to produce enough cobalt to poison the soil and atmosphere of the entire North American continent for 100 years.
 
^^ US has close proximity to Chinese population centers rite because they keep holding drills nearby and have military bases in Okinawa/Japan. Maybe China can close the gap by getting joint military exercises or bases with South American countries...


Edit: but now I realize that would be a no-go since it would conflict with the Peaceful Rise policy. :undecided:
 
Last edited:
Yes. if the US launches a first strike we have at least 48 missiles on our submarines that will survive. Assuming that none of the submarines are caught, all of them get to launch, 90% of those missiles are still functional at launch, 90% won't be intercepted and 90% of them are functional enough to detonate in the US, then only 35 missiles will make it to the US. Assuming each major population center needs 3 warheads to result in a 90% population loss, we can take out 12 major population centers:

NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angelos, San Francisco, Miami, Houston, New Orleans, Seattle, San Diego, Detroit and Cleveland.

This will result in approximately 40 million casualties in the US from direct effects of the nuclear strike. Most sane whites and jews would accept that this is too much of a cost to bear. However, we can never exclude the possibility that the US will simply eat the 40 million and hit us back. In this regard, we need more weapons to counter any possible unknown interception technologies, and the weapons should be able to produce enough cobalt to poison the soil and atmosphere of the entire North American continent for 100 years.

Only 12!!??

Even during the Korean war, US army general Douglas MacArthur proposed to drop more than 50 nuclear bombs on 50 different sites in China. I think this info is correct.

12 cities won't affect US. When US will strike, it will drop as many as 80-90 bombs.
 
Only 12!!??

Even during the Korean war, US army general Douglas MacArthur proposed to drop more than 50 nuclear bombs on 50 different sites in China. I think this info is correct.

12 cities won't affect US. When US will strike, it will drop as many as 80-90 bombs.

depends on the power of the bombs. a 3 megaton weapon will vaporize a city by itself, but since we're talking SLBMs they should be in the 500 KT range and would probably take 3 to take out a city.

we can take out 12 cities from our submarines alone, if we can get another 12 from our mobile launchers or missile silos then the US won't be able to attack us without at least 100 million losses. Do note that the US may still decide it is worth it to take a 1/3 population loss to destroy China.
 
depends on the power of the bombs. a 3 megaton weapon will vaporize a city by itself, but since we're talking SLBMs they should be in the 500 KT range and would probably take 3 to take out a city.

we can take out 12 cities from our submarines alone, if we can get another 12 from our mobile launchers or missile silos then the US won't be able to attack us without at least 100 million losses. Do note that the US may still decide it is worth it to take a 1/3 population loss to destroy China.

Nuke war is such, when someone strikes another, he should make it sure that there would be less possibility of retaliation from the opposite side.

China is in a vulnerable condition in this regard. If China wants to survive in a nuke showdown with US, China has to be capable of destroying US completely. Even if Alaska is left, it alone can make US survive.

I think twelve 500 kt SLBMs are nothing given the larger landmass US has to survive nuke strikes. China's nuclear arsenal needs to give an assurance to the nation. :undecided:

I also think, no matter what, US will turn to nuke war.
 
Its a bit morbid talking about nuking each other but I just like to offer the thought that it is probably better to just use one nuke on a single city simply because the goal is not to completely achieve a kill ratio of 99% and wiping everything out.

Imagine the paralysis that comes with a partially destroyed city and ceasing functioning of local authorities, streams of refugees and wounded. Spreading damage three times wider is certainly going to make it hell of a logistical and management nightmare.

Also dropping nukes on 30 cities once might actually cause more casulties and widespread damage than nuking 10 cities out of existence three times, if you think about it.

Anyway it is a morbid topic.
 

Back
Top Bottom