Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

thediplomat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#101

Post by twoodfin »

gaius wrote: post #98
twoodfin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would China want to bankrupt the U.S.? They're a massively export-dependent economy and the U.S. is one of their biggest customers.

Sure, but there is more happening than just that. If China decides it wants to pursue its territorial claims against Japan say, then the mere threat of dumping T-bills will give the US pause before intervening. China only really needs the US while it is bootstrapping itself into a developed economy - once it has huge internal markets, it won't need them.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. China buys T-bills to keep the yuan low and exports high, not to do us any favors. If they stopped tomorrow it would probably damage their economy at least as much as ours, and certainly wouldn't make it impossible for the U.S. to pay its obligations: After all, those obligations are something like 99.9% dollar-denominated, and the government owns the printing presses.

Interest rates would likely rise from their current close-to-historic-lows, but that's nothing that would scare the U.S. from defending one of its closest and most important strategic allies.

I'm really curious how you get from "China owns 8% of U.S. government debt" to "The U.S. would have to pause before defending Japan against Chinese territorial aggression."

Japan, by the way, owns 7% of U.S. debt.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#102

Post by rdl »

phaus wrote: post #10
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #4

I bet you could say all or nearly all of these bad-sounding things about the US military or any randomly selected Western military. There is surely some crank out there patrolling a SAC installation on horseback. The US certainly has capital ships that don't work and have to go right back to the shipyard. The US still operates 1950s-era aircraft that have been repurposed from airlift to bombers to mine layers to sign…

>"Elite" pilots of the USAF, many of whom are in fact in the ANG, also fly 10 hours per month, or even less[1]. Often ANG pilots are even better than the full-timers because they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari. These commercial pilots get thousands of hours per year of flying, which is often much more than a full-time…

It's more that ANG pilots were active duty military pilots who were great pilots but wanted to have a "real life" rather than remaining in the military. The best pilots stay ANG; the lesser ones are more likely to separate entirely. Older pilots are generally better, anyway (due to more experience), especially in the military which does "up or out".

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#103

Post by rdl »

Zuider wrote: post #37
beachstartup wrote: post #3

ah yes, the good ol' yellow peril two-step. weak, yet dangerous. smart, yet uninnovative. studious, yet aggressive. ubiquitous, yet surreptitious. industrious, yet backwards. cultured, yet barbaric. coy, yet brave. did i miss any?

I believe that you missed this (the actual point of the article): capable of starting a devastating war, but not, ultimately, of winning.

Sounds like the US! Or really any power today -- capable of inflicting great damage on a foreign power, but not capable of occupation and pacification.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#104

Post by gaius »

twoodfin wrote: post #101
gaius wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there is more happening than just that. If China decides it wants to pursue its territorial claims against Japan say, then the mere threat of dumping T-bills will give the US pause before intervening. China only really needs the US while it is bootstrapping itself into a developed economy - once it has huge internal markets, it won't need them.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. China buys T-bills to keep the yuan low and exports high, not to do us any favors. If they stopped tomorrow it would probably damage their economy at least as much as ours, and certainly wouldn't make it impossible for the U.S. to pay its obligations: After all, those obligations are something like 99.9% dollar-denominated, and the government owns the printing presses. Interest…

8% is plenty enough to move the markets. You are assuming that China is a rational actor; it is not (nor is any country). It is a country well used to making sacrifices for what it sees as it's equivalent of Manifest Destiny. And they really, really want those islands...

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#105

Post by rmc »

argumentum wrote: post #66
rmc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that we all know the UK has a decent, modern armed forces. If you claimed "They swear alleigance to the Queen, ergo they're backwards!" people wouldn't take it seriously. But people are claiming that about China. Should we ignore those complaints, like we'd ignore them about the UK?

That's a dumb point. Neither should be ignored. There are two nation-states I am somewhat attached too: the United States (myself) and the Republic of India (through my parents). Both of these countries would not exist if their founders "ignored" the obvious political backwardness of the British.

Oh I believe a monarchy is backwards. I'm not saying we should ignore it, in general. But when it comes to judging military strength, whether you swear an oath to a party, or a queen, doesn't make your army inherently weaker or stronger.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#106

Post by twoodfin »

gaius wrote: post #104
twoodfin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. China buys T-bills to keep the yuan low and exports high, not to do us any favors. If they stopped tomorrow it would probably damage their economy at least as much as ours, and certainly wouldn't make it impossible for the U.S. to pay its obligations: After all, those obligations are something like 99.9% dollar-denominated, and the government owns the printing presses. Interest…

8% is plenty enough to move the markets. You are assuming that China is a rational actor; it is not (nor is any country). It is a country well used to making sacrifices for what it sees as it's equivalent of Manifest Destiny. And they really, really want those islands...

The U.S. and China confronting each other over some islands would move the markets dramatically regardless of how China decides to allocate their foreign currency reserves.

I don't think there's any evidence that U.S. strategic planners consider the economic impact of defending the interests of our allies (particularly one as critical as Japan) as more significant than a third or fourth order effect.

And as I alluded to: If China's 8% is so influential on our strategic actions, why isn't Japan's 7% almost equally so? It's not as if the Japanese government couldn't pick up the slack if China started reducing its position in T-bills. There's likely no reason for them to, because unlike you, I don't believe foreign bond holdings represent any kind of serious lever in international relations.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#108

Post by latham »

astkaasa wrote: post #25

The United States Department of Defense should take a look at this article and stop asking for more military expenditures. They are wasting Americans taxes actually. Just let Japan release its military power, such as Gundam or Ultraman, then China will be scared. Just let Indian do a military parade. Imagine many HAL repaired fighter aircraft flying across the sky and China will be scared again. China will show its r…

How darec you

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#109

Post by latham »

rdl wrote: post #103
Zuider wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that you missed this (the actual point of the article): capable of starting a devastating war, but not, ultimately, of winning.

Sounds like the US! Or really any power today -- capable of inflicting great damage on a foreign power, but not capable of occupation and pacification.

You are gay whey
Post reply on HN