Xi is a classic authoritarian and his centralised planning will be utterly counterproductive. I don’t doubt one reason for the central plan to increase internal food production is greater resilience during any future war. Yet it is odd that two of Xi’s publicly stated reasons for the Ministry of Agriculture’s plan are not mentioned.
Xi has warned that Western net zero efforts will reduce global food output. For a huge food importer like China, that will severely dent the rate at which it can accumulate foreign assets (and financial power) and increase its internal inflation. He’s not wrong either: the UK is paying farmers to exit farming and take their land out of production, and variations of this scheme are happening across Europe. UK / EU policy is making sure there *will* be less food produced in Europe, which means less food produced globally. In this context, Xi’s response isn’t irrational. This begs the question: what is my response to my government actively reducing the abundance of my food?!
Xi has also warned that the USA is going to increasingly use its remaining financial hegemony to force policy alignment. I don’t think this is disputed. Sanctions have not just been used to hurt Russia, the resultant disruption to grain export routes has seen the EU *increase* its imports of Russian grain, and the EU has controlled inward shipping inside the EU to punish Polish farmers and exports outside the EU as a means to force NATO policy alignment concessions from non-aligned countries. No doubt this is real politik, but the West has crossed a line from using food aid as a carrot to using food denial as a stick, and I’m not sure this is a positive policy development.
There are of course a whole host of feedback loops driving international policy on all sides. There’s no use pointing fingers, but it is a poor analysis that omits some of the key drivers behind a policy painted as wholly irrational warmongering by one side.
As a footnote, the author makes it seem like Xi has commanded a WW2-like mad dash for self sufficiency in readiness for an imminent war. The actual numbers are a bit more sober. The immediate plan is to maintain (not increase) the 120m ha of farmland and increase the proportion of this rated as excellent or very good quality for growing crops. This follows years of declining arable land acreage due to development, and years of reclaiming of sub-optimal (lower grade) land for arable farming encouraged by previous policies.
Interesting additions, thanks. It doesn’t seem to matter what the publication is, everything you read these days selects only those facts which support the click bait headline.
Would you have read the article (or run it) if it had simply said “Xi is attempting to maintain farmland quality due to the expectation of export reductions elsewhere”? We bring this on ourselves by demanding a flow of interesting articles, maybe. Although arguably Unherd should be able to find enough interesting topics to write about without needing to exaggerate.
Maybe with N.Clover’s insightful addition Article could have a headline like: “China is preparing food supply independence as a Consequence of Western Net Zero policies.”
A while ago now (a long while) when I was starting out, one of the best lessons in the ‘art’ of journalism was provided by an old newspaper seller (look it up) who used to walk around New Road, Worcester Cricket pitch with an armful of papers to sell to punters.
He’d shout headlines..like ‘at least 3 dead in City lift accident’ but without revealing the City was Bangkok or Minsk, and not Worcester, as his anguished rendition invariably implied..
He’d be right at home in our era of Social Media clickbait harvesting.
Maybe with N.Clover’s insightful addition Article could have a headline like: “China is preparing food supply independence as a Consequence of Western Net Zero policies.”
A while ago now (a long while) when I was starting out, one of the best lessons in the ‘art’ of journalism was provided by an old newspaper seller (look it up) who used to walk around New Road, Worcester Cricket pitch with an armful of papers to sell to punters.
He’d shout headlines..like ‘at least 3 dead in City lift accident’ but without revealing the City was Bangkok or Minsk, and not Worcester, as his anguished rendition invariably implied..
He’d be right at home in our era of Social Media clickbait harvesting.
Would you have read the article (or run it) if it had simply said “Xi is attempting to maintain farmland quality due to the expectation of export reductions elsewhere”? We bring this on ourselves by demanding a flow of interesting articles, maybe. Although arguably Unherd should be able to find enough interesting topics to write about without needing to exaggerate.
I would. The policy adopted by Trump and continued by Biden has been to a) “protect” US manufacturing by imposing 20% tariffs on many Chinese exports b) “contain” China militarily to prevent it conquering or intimidating its neighbours and c) prevent Chinese dominance of certain key strategic industries. I have never heard of any sane American general or strategist wanting to invade China (MacArthur was losing the plot by 1951).
The 1941 situation was very different. Roosevelt was trying to manipulate the Japanese into declaring war despite having promised peace during the recent election campaign. Strategically, it was not a question of deterring aggression but reversing Japan’s conquest of half of China. Containment was insufficient.
There may be elements in the Pentagon who think war is inevitable but they anticipate it starting with a Chinese attack on Taiwan or elsewhere. I see no evidence they wish to precipitate this not least since the US is only part way through rearmament.
As I recall McArthur did not want to “invade” China but rather, and to lapse into the vernacular, ‘Nuke the place off the planet’ or something similar.
Your second paragraph rather confirms my point does it not that Roosevelt and the US very deliberately goaded Japan into attacking. I made NO mention of whether this was supposed to be a deterrent or not, did I?
The only drawback I can see to destroying China now would be that then there would be NO credible ‘enemy’ left to dispute US hegemony of the planet. This would thus have a somewhat negative impact on the currently flourishing US Defence Industry would it not?
I totally agree that Roosevelt deliberately goaded the Japanese into war. My point is that I don’t think Biden or any other senior American actually wants a war. Their aims are more limited even if they accept that war is a real risk.
Re the US Defence Industry, my impression is that it is content with the orders flowing from possible wars and does not need to agitate for actual ones. As you say, victory would kill the goose which lays so many golden eggs.
Incidentally, Luttwak – and possibly yourself – assume an American victory is a foregone conclusion if hostilities break out. Technologically, the Chinese are actually ahead in missiles at the moment – which would be pivotal in any naval clash – and the view that the Chinese are inherently militarily inept is debatable. My father was a professional soldier, spent a year fighting their army in Korea and had a considerable respect for them.
I suspect war is inevitable if only because the Chinese think it is ‘their turn” and really believe they’ll win.
Victory is never inevitable, but I would put my trust in the USN’s 14/18 Ohio class subs and their ability to deliver some 324 nuclear warheads from a distance of at least 7,000 nautical miles. I gather China has about 102 ‘target cities’ with a population of million or more.
Whether the Chinese could actually hit the US is a moot point. However all ‘our’ theatre ‘allies’, such a Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc will be vaporised sadly.
I suspect war is inevitable if only because the Chinese think it is ‘their turn” and really believe they’ll win.
Victory is never inevitable, but I would put my trust in the USN’s 14/18 Ohio class subs and their ability to deliver some 324 nuclear warheads from a distance of at least 7,000 nautical miles. I gather China has about 102 ‘target cities’ with a population of million or more.
Whether the Chinese could actually hit the US is a moot point. However all ‘our’ theatre ‘allies’, such a Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc will be vaporised sadly.
I think this is absolute nonsense, uttered by another of our resident band of America -phobes! (I’m pretty glad they “won” and not National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union anyway. Obviously these were not of course real threats, just a foil for US hegemony!)
In any case, the US managed to lose to developing world nations in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is also still a democracy so the idea that it could just launch some sort of pre-emptive attack on China which had the slightest chance of success is completely fanciful.
Isn’t it bizarre that the only defence industry which supposedly decrees a government’s foreign policy is the US one!
I totally agree that Roosevelt deliberately goaded the Japanese into war. My point is that I don’t think Biden or any other senior American actually wants a war. Their aims are more limited even if they accept that war is a real risk.
Re the US Defence Industry, my impression is that it is content with the orders flowing from possible wars and does not need to agitate for actual ones. As you say, victory would kill the goose which lays so many golden eggs.
Incidentally, Luttwak – and possibly yourself – assume an American victory is a foregone conclusion if hostilities break out. Technologically, the Chinese are actually ahead in missiles at the moment – which would be pivotal in any naval clash – and the view that the Chinese are inherently militarily inept is debatable. My father was a professional soldier, spent a year fighting their army in Korea and had a considerable respect for them.
I think this is absolute nonsense, uttered by another of our resident band of America -phobes! (I’m pretty glad they “won” and not National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union anyway. Obviously these were not of course real threats, just a foil for US hegemony!)
In any case, the US managed to lose to developing world nations in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is also still a democracy so the idea that it could just launch some sort of pre-emptive attack on China which had the slightest chance of success is completely fanciful.
Isn’t it bizarre that the only defence industry which supposedly decrees a government’s foreign policy is the US one!
As I recall McArthur did not want to “invade” China but rather, and to lapse into the vernacular, ‘Nuke the place off the planet’ or something similar.
Your second paragraph rather confirms my point does it not that Roosevelt and the US very deliberately goaded Japan into attacking. I made NO mention of whether this was supposed to be a deterrent or not, did I?
The only drawback I can see to destroying China now would be that then there would be NO credible ‘enemy’ left to dispute US hegemony of the planet. This would thus have a somewhat negative impact on the currently flourishing US Defence Industry would it not?
In 1941, Charles, the Japanese had been at war in China for several years. They had even, briefly, fought the Red Army (USSR) in Manchuria.
Like Adolf H. with Barbarossa they could easily have avoided a two front war. Intense (clan?) rivalry between army and navy led to the navy guys (Yamamoto leading) demanding a Pacific war to out crow the army and its atrocities in China.
We easily forget that of the 75 million odd casualties in WW2 more than 30 million were in China. For this you must look at the timeframe of the war starting some years earlier with Japan’s strike on China.
Our forgetfulness blinds us to some of the causes of what we imagine to be Chinese aggressiveness and chauvinism.
I would. The policy adopted by Trump and continued by Biden has been to a) “protect” US manufacturing by imposing 20% tariffs on many Chinese exports b) “contain” China militarily to prevent it conquering or intimidating its neighbours and c) prevent Chinese dominance of certain key strategic industries. I have never heard of any sane American general or strategist wanting to invade China (MacArthur was losing the plot by 1951).
The 1941 situation was very different. Roosevelt was trying to manipulate the Japanese into declaring war despite having promised peace during the recent election campaign. Strategically, it was not a question of deterring aggression but reversing Japan’s conquest of half of China. Containment was insufficient.
There may be elements in the Pentagon who think war is inevitable but they anticipate it starting with a Chinese attack on Taiwan or elsewhere. I see no evidence they wish to precipitate this not least since the US is only part way through rearmament.
In 1941, Charles, the Japanese had been at war in China for several years. They had even, briefly, fought the Red Army (USSR) in Manchuria.
Like Adolf H. with Barbarossa they could easily have avoided a two front war. Intense (clan?) rivalry between army and navy led to the navy guys (Yamamoto leading) demanding a Pacific war to out crow the army and its atrocities in China.
We easily forget that of the 75 million odd casualties in WW2 more than 30 million were in China. For this you must look at the timeframe of the war starting some years earlier with Japan’s strike on China.
Our forgetfulness blinds us to some of the causes of what we imagine to be Chinese aggressiveness and chauvinism.
Interesting additions, thanks. It doesn’t seem to matter what the publication is, everything you read these days selects only those facts which support the click bait headline.
The US successfully goaded the Japanese into war in 1941, so why not China now?
It makes sense while ‘they’ still have a considerable advantage.
ps. Who seriously disputes this?
Brilliant! As at 20.23. BST, 22thumbs down! More than I had dared hope for.
Presumably most if not all are American?
Thus they should start to do some real research and NOT rely on Hollywood drivel for their history. QED.
Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Nell Clover
9 months ago
Xi is a classic authoritarian and his centralised planning will be utterly counterproductive. I don’t doubt one reason for the central plan to increase internal food production is greater resilience during any future war. Yet it is odd that two of Xi’s publicly stated reasons for the Ministry of Agriculture’s plan are not mentioned.
Xi has warned that Western net zero efforts will reduce global food output. For a huge food importer like China, that will severely dent the rate at which it can accumulate foreign assets (and financial power) and increase its internal inflation. He’s not wrong either: the UK is paying farmers to exit farming and take their land out of production, and variations of this scheme are happening across Europe. UK / EU policy is making sure there *will* be less food produced in Europe, which means less food produced globally. In this context, Xi’s response isn’t irrational. This begs the question: what is my response to my government actively reducing the abundance of my food?!
Xi has also warned that the USA is going to increasingly use its remaining financial hegemony to force policy alignment. I don’t think this is disputed. Sanctions have not just been used to hurt Russia, the resultant disruption to grain export routes has seen the EU *increase* its imports of Russian grain, and the EU has controlled inward shipping inside the EU to punish Polish farmers and exports outside the EU as a means to force NATO policy alignment concessions from non-aligned countries. No doubt this is real politik, but the West has crossed a line from using food aid as a carrot to using food denial as a stick, and I’m not sure this is a positive policy development.
There are of course a whole host of feedback loops driving international policy on all sides. There’s no use pointing fingers, but it is a poor analysis that omits some of the key drivers behind a policy painted as wholly irrational warmongering by one side.
As a footnote, the author makes it seem like Xi has commanded a WW2-like mad dash for self sufficiency in readiness for an imminent war. The actual numbers are a bit more sober. The immediate plan is to maintain (not increase) the 120m ha of farmland and increase the proportion of this rated as excellent or very good quality for growing crops. This follows years of declining arable land acreage due to development, and years of reclaiming of sub-optimal (lower grade) land for arable farming encouraged by previous policies.
Last edited 9 months ago by Nell Clover
Alex Colchester
9 months ago
As ever during war, it is the innocent ducks who pay the steepest price.
Last edited 9 months ago by Alex Colchester
Alex Colchester
9 months ago
As ever during war, it is the innocent ducks who pay the steepest price.
Last edited 9 months ago by Alex Colchester
Simon Neale
9 months ago
No figures have been published, but what has happened since greatly exceeds the rate of the Amazon’s deforestation, even though the West’s environmentalists have so far remained entirely silent.
Funny, that. But I’m sure that once those figures are published, Greta will set sail up the Yangtze in her carbon fibre boat, having learned “How dare you!!” in snarling mandarin.
Simon Neale
9 months ago
No figures have been published, but what has happened since greatly exceeds the rate of the Amazon’s deforestation, even though the West’s environmentalists have so far remained entirely silent.
Funny, that. But I’m sure that once those figures are published, Greta will set sail up the Yangtze in her carbon fibre boat, having learned “How dare you!!” in snarling mandarin.
Steve White
9 months ago
I think from a general war footing we in the West are in trouble. One thing that seems to be clear, past the propaganda is that a purpose driven weapons industry is more important than having a profit driven industry. I think there are also a lot of changes happening in military strategy terms. First off the whole combined arms NATO model is complex, requires years of training, and without every piece in place, it fails. I think we have seen this with the failed Ukrainian offensive. The second thing is that drones and hypersonic missiles are a must. We have got to get a functioning hypersonic missile, and it needs to be affordable. Also, we need a lot more ammunition manufacturing. Right now we can’t even keep up in Ukraine. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to get things setup to be able to. We can’t afford to get in a war right now because we don’t have the troops, the hardware, or the ammunition we need to fight a real peer level land war.
Steve White
9 months ago
I think from a general war footing we in the West are in trouble. One thing that seems to be clear, past the propaganda is that a purpose driven weapons industry is more important than having a profit driven industry. I think there are also a lot of changes happening in military strategy terms. First off the whole combined arms NATO model is complex, requires years of training, and without every piece in place, it fails. I think we have seen this with the failed Ukrainian offensive. The second thing is that drones and hypersonic missiles are a must. We have got to get a functioning hypersonic missile, and it needs to be affordable. Also, we need a lot more ammunition manufacturing. Right now we can’t even keep up in Ukraine. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to get things setup to be able to. We can’t afford to get in a war right now because we don’t have the troops, the hardware, or the ammunition we need to fight a real peer level land war.
Right-Wing Hippie
9 months ago
The Plan:
Step 1: Two countries, two systems
Step 2: One country, two systems
Step 3: One country, one system.
The Plan:
Step 1: Two countries, two systems
Step 2: One country, two systems
Step 3: One country, one system.
Bob Downing
9 months ago
Thanks for the warning, and the curious behaviour of China, particularly given their recent self-imposed history of what happens in Great Wild Leaps. Not to mention what their then ideological ally also achieved with not dissimilar politically driven land management. Can we take it that China is definitely now a country ruled by a dangerous madman like, say, Stalin, Putin etc, and that the previous century was merely a rehearsal?
It’s weird how a country that could rule the world quietly through it’s wealth and influence, and obtain whatever it needs without a fight still finds a way for that not to be enough.
It’s weird how a country that could rule the world quietly through it’s wealth and influence, and obtain whatever it needs without a fight still finds a way for that not to be enough.
Bob Downing
9 months ago
Thanks for the warning, and the curious behaviour of China, particularly given their recent self-imposed history of what happens in Great Wild Leaps. Not to mention what their then ideological ally also achieved with not dissimilar politically driven land management. Can we take it that China is definitely now a country ruled by a dangerous madman like, say, Stalin, Putin etc, and that the previous century was merely a rehearsal?
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
As at 07.40 BST. 20.07.2023. 8 of the comments out of 22 have been culled!
Why? And is Legal action pending?
It is curious at times. The only thing I’ve come up with is the following: the comments are hierarchical in structure so if a given comment is “culled” then all it’s children are temporarily wiped out as well even if they’re totally innocent. Would be nice if UnHerd could speak to this a bit. Maybe it’s already in some fine-print somewhere.
It is curious at times. The only thing I’ve come up with is the following: the comments are hierarchical in structure so if a given comment is “culled” then all it’s children are temporarily wiped out as well even if they’re totally innocent. Would be nice if UnHerd could speak to this a bit. Maybe it’s already in some fine-print somewhere.
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
As at 07.40 BST. 20.07.2023. 8 of the comments out of 22 have been culled!
Why? And is Legal action pending?
Michael Layman
9 months ago
As always, the Chinise will punish the common laborer. Militarily, China can be defeated in a week by the U.S. This is all for naught, another example of Chinese ineptitude. In the end, there will be no war, just Chinese suffering as a third world country pretending to be a world power.
Michael Layman
9 months ago
As always, the Chinise will punish the common laborer. Militarily, China can be defeated in a week by the U.S. This is all for naught, another example of Chinese ineptitude. In the end, there will be no war, just Chinese suffering as a third world country pretending to be a world power.
harry storm
9 months ago
These are big issues far beyond my purview. The only result of all these big speculations about world war is frightening the crap out of each other.
harry storm
9 months ago
These are big issues far beyond my purview. The only result of all these big speculations about world war is frightening the crap out of each other.
Xi is a classic authoritarian and his centralised planning will be utterly counterproductive. I don’t doubt one reason for the central plan to increase internal food production is greater resilience during any future war. Yet it is odd that two of Xi’s publicly stated reasons for the Ministry of Agriculture’s plan are not mentioned.
Xi has warned that Western net zero efforts will reduce global food output. For a huge food importer like China, that will severely dent the rate at which it can accumulate foreign assets (and financial power) and increase its internal inflation. He’s not wrong either: the UK is paying farmers to exit farming and take their land out of production, and variations of this scheme are happening across Europe. UK / EU policy is making sure there *will* be less food produced in Europe, which means less food produced globally. In this context, Xi’s response isn’t irrational. This begs the question: what is my response to my government actively reducing the abundance of my food?!
Xi has also warned that the USA is going to increasingly use its remaining financial hegemony to force policy alignment. I don’t think this is disputed. Sanctions have not just been used to hurt Russia, the resultant disruption to grain export routes has seen the EU *increase* its imports of Russian grain, and the EU has controlled inward shipping inside the EU to punish Polish farmers and exports outside the EU as a means to force NATO policy alignment concessions from non-aligned countries. No doubt this is real politik, but the West has crossed a line from using food aid as a carrot to using food denial as a stick, and I’m not sure this is a positive policy development.
There are of course a whole host of feedback loops driving international policy on all sides. There’s no use pointing fingers, but it is a poor analysis that omits some of the key drivers behind a policy painted as wholly irrational warmongering by one side.
As a footnote, the author makes it seem like Xi has commanded a WW2-like mad dash for self sufficiency in readiness for an imminent war. The actual numbers are a bit more sober. The immediate plan is to maintain (not increase) the 120m ha of farmland and increase the proportion of this rated as excellent or very good quality for growing crops. This follows years of declining arable land acreage due to development, and years of reclaiming of sub-optimal (lower grade) land for arable farming encouraged by previous policies.
Interesting additions, thanks. It doesn’t seem to matter what the publication is, everything you read these days selects only those facts which support the click bait headline.
Would you have read the article (or run it) if it had simply said “Xi is attempting to maintain farmland quality due to the expectation of export reductions elsewhere”? We bring this on ourselves by demanding a flow of interesting articles, maybe. Although arguably Unherd should be able to find enough interesting topics to write about without needing to exaggerate.
Maybe with N.Clover’s insightful addition Article could have a headline like: “China is preparing food supply independence as a Consequence of Western Net Zero policies.”
A while ago now (a long while) when I was starting out, one of the best lessons in the ‘art’ of journalism was provided by an old newspaper seller (look it up) who used to walk around New Road, Worcester Cricket pitch with an armful of papers to sell to punters.
He’d shout headlines..like ‘at least 3 dead in City lift accident’ but without revealing the City was Bangkok or Minsk, and not Worcester, as his anguished rendition invariably implied..
He’d be right at home in our era of Social Media clickbait harvesting.
Maybe with N.Clover’s insightful addition Article could have a headline like: “China is preparing food supply independence as a Consequence of Western Net Zero policies.”
A while ago now (a long while) when I was starting out, one of the best lessons in the ‘art’ of journalism was provided by an old newspaper seller (look it up) who used to walk around New Road, Worcester Cricket pitch with an armful of papers to sell to punters.
He’d shout headlines..like ‘at least 3 dead in City lift accident’ but without revealing the City was Bangkok or Minsk, and not Worcester, as his anguished rendition invariably implied..
He’d be right at home in our era of Social Media clickbait harvesting.
Would you have read the article (or run it) if it had simply said “Xi is attempting to maintain farmland quality due to the expectation of export reductions elsewhere”? We bring this on ourselves by demanding a flow of interesting articles, maybe. Although arguably Unherd should be able to find enough interesting topics to write about without needing to exaggerate.
The US successfully goaded the Japanese into war in 1941, so why not China now?
It makes sense while ‘they’ still have a considerable advantage.
ps. Who seriously disputes this?
Brilliant! As at 20.23. BST, 22thumbs down! More than I had dared hope for.
Presumably most if not all are American?
Thus they should start to do some real research and NOT rely on Hollywood drivel for their history. QED.
I would. The policy adopted by Trump and continued by Biden has been to a) “protect” US manufacturing by imposing 20% tariffs on many Chinese exports b) “contain” China militarily to prevent it conquering or intimidating its neighbours and c) prevent Chinese dominance of certain key strategic industries. I have never heard of any sane American general or strategist wanting to invade China (MacArthur was losing the plot by 1951).
The 1941 situation was very different. Roosevelt was trying to manipulate the Japanese into declaring war despite having promised peace during the recent election campaign. Strategically, it was not a question of deterring aggression but reversing Japan’s conquest of half of China. Containment was insufficient.
There may be elements in the Pentagon who think war is inevitable but they anticipate it starting with a Chinese attack on Taiwan or elsewhere. I see no evidence they wish to precipitate this not least since the US is only part way through rearmament.
Alex Carnegie
As I recall McArthur did not want to “invade” China but rather, and to lapse into the vernacular, ‘Nuke the place off the planet’ or something similar.
Your second paragraph rather confirms my point does it not that Roosevelt and the US very deliberately goaded Japan into attacking. I made NO mention of whether this was supposed to be a deterrent or not, did I?
The only drawback I can see to destroying China now would be that then there would be NO credible ‘enemy’ left to dispute US hegemony of the planet. This would thus have a somewhat negative impact on the currently flourishing US Defence Industry would it not?
I totally agree that Roosevelt deliberately goaded the Japanese into war. My point is that I don’t think Biden or any other senior American actually wants a war. Their aims are more limited even if they accept that war is a real risk.
Re the US Defence Industry, my impression is that it is content with the orders flowing from possible wars and does not need to agitate for actual ones. As you say, victory would kill the goose which lays so many golden eggs.
Incidentally, Luttwak – and possibly yourself – assume an American victory is a foregone conclusion if hostilities break out. Technologically, the Chinese are actually ahead in missiles at the moment – which would be pivotal in any naval clash – and the view that the Chinese are inherently militarily inept is debatable. My father was a professional soldier, spent a year fighting their army in Korea and had a considerable respect for them.
I suspect war is inevitable if only because the Chinese think it is ‘their turn” and really believe they’ll win.
Victory is never inevitable, but I would put my trust in the USN’s 14/18 Ohio class subs and their ability to deliver some 324 nuclear warheads from a distance of at least 7,000 nautical miles. I gather China has about 102 ‘target cities’ with a population of million or more.
Whether the Chinese could actually hit the US is a moot point. However all ‘our’ theatre ‘allies’, such a Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc will be vaporised sadly.
You are assuming any war would go nuclear. I think most observers think (or hope) it would remain conventional as in Ukraine. You may be right.
I suspect it will come soon. Xi wants to be the one to conquer Taiwan and he knows he isn’t getting any younger.
You are assuming any war would go nuclear. I think most observers think (or hope) it would remain conventional as in Ukraine. You may be right.
I suspect it will come soon. Xi wants to be the one to conquer Taiwan and he knows he isn’t getting any younger.
I suspect war is inevitable if only because the Chinese think it is ‘their turn” and really believe they’ll win.
Victory is never inevitable, but I would put my trust in the USN’s 14/18 Ohio class subs and their ability to deliver some 324 nuclear warheads from a distance of at least 7,000 nautical miles. I gather China has about 102 ‘target cities’ with a population of million or more.
Whether the Chinese could actually hit the US is a moot point. However all ‘our’ theatre ‘allies’, such a Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc will be vaporised sadly.
I think this is absolute nonsense, uttered by another of our resident band of America -phobes! (I’m pretty glad they “won” and not National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union anyway. Obviously these were not of course real threats, just a foil for US hegemony!)
In any case, the US managed to lose to developing world nations in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is also still a democracy so the idea that it could just launch some sort of pre-emptive attack on China which had the slightest chance of success is completely fanciful.
Isn’t it bizarre that the only defence industry which supposedly decrees a government’s foreign policy is the US one!
I totally agree that Roosevelt deliberately goaded the Japanese into war. My point is that I don’t think Biden or any other senior American actually wants a war. Their aims are more limited even if they accept that war is a real risk.
Re the US Defence Industry, my impression is that it is content with the orders flowing from possible wars and does not need to agitate for actual ones. As you say, victory would kill the goose which lays so many golden eggs.
Incidentally, Luttwak – and possibly yourself – assume an American victory is a foregone conclusion if hostilities break out. Technologically, the Chinese are actually ahead in missiles at the moment – which would be pivotal in any naval clash – and the view that the Chinese are inherently militarily inept is debatable. My father was a professional soldier, spent a year fighting their army in Korea and had a considerable respect for them.
I think this is absolute nonsense, uttered by another of our resident band of America -phobes! (I’m pretty glad they “won” and not National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union anyway. Obviously these were not of course real threats, just a foil for US hegemony!)
In any case, the US managed to lose to developing world nations in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is also still a democracy so the idea that it could just launch some sort of pre-emptive attack on China which had the slightest chance of success is completely fanciful.
Isn’t it bizarre that the only defence industry which supposedly decrees a government’s foreign policy is the US one!
As I recall McArthur did not want to “invade” China but rather, and to lapse into the vernacular, ‘Nuke the place off the planet’ or something similar.
Your second paragraph rather confirms my point does it not that Roosevelt and the US very deliberately goaded Japan into attacking. I made NO mention of whether this was supposed to be a deterrent or not, did I?
The only drawback I can see to destroying China now would be that then there would be NO credible ‘enemy’ left to dispute US hegemony of the planet. This would thus have a somewhat negative impact on the currently flourishing US Defence Industry would it not?
Let’s not forget that more recently the US has also successfully goaded Russia into a highly profitable war in Ukraine.
In 1941, Charles, the Japanese had been at war in China for several years. They had even, briefly, fought the Red Army (USSR) in Manchuria.
Like Adolf H. with Barbarossa they could easily have avoided a two front war. Intense (clan?) rivalry between army and navy led to the navy guys (Yamamoto leading) demanding a Pacific war to out crow the army and its atrocities in China.
We easily forget that of the 75 million odd casualties in WW2 more than 30 million were in China. For this you must look at the timeframe of the war starting some years earlier with Japan’s strike on China.
Our forgetfulness blinds us to some of the causes of what we imagine to be Chinese aggressiveness and chauvinism.
Read a history book, you dolt..
Indeed. I found Richard Frank’s history of the Asia-Pacific war particularly enlightening, and truly horrifying.
Indeed. I found Richard Frank’s history of the Asia-Pacific war particularly enlightening, and truly horrifying.
I would. The policy adopted by Trump and continued by Biden has been to a) “protect” US manufacturing by imposing 20% tariffs on many Chinese exports b) “contain” China militarily to prevent it conquering or intimidating its neighbours and c) prevent Chinese dominance of certain key strategic industries. I have never heard of any sane American general or strategist wanting to invade China (MacArthur was losing the plot by 1951).
The 1941 situation was very different. Roosevelt was trying to manipulate the Japanese into declaring war despite having promised peace during the recent election campaign. Strategically, it was not a question of deterring aggression but reversing Japan’s conquest of half of China. Containment was insufficient.
There may be elements in the Pentagon who think war is inevitable but they anticipate it starting with a Chinese attack on Taiwan or elsewhere. I see no evidence they wish to precipitate this not least since the US is only part way through rearmament.
Alex Carnegie
Let’s not forget that more recently the US has also successfully goaded Russia into a highly profitable war in Ukraine.
In 1941, Charles, the Japanese had been at war in China for several years. They had even, briefly, fought the Red Army (USSR) in Manchuria.
Like Adolf H. with Barbarossa they could easily have avoided a two front war. Intense (clan?) rivalry between army and navy led to the navy guys (Yamamoto leading) demanding a Pacific war to out crow the army and its atrocities in China.
We easily forget that of the 75 million odd casualties in WW2 more than 30 million were in China. For this you must look at the timeframe of the war starting some years earlier with Japan’s strike on China.
Our forgetfulness blinds us to some of the causes of what we imagine to be Chinese aggressiveness and chauvinism.
Read a history book, you dolt..
Interesting additions, thanks. It doesn’t seem to matter what the publication is, everything you read these days selects only those facts which support the click bait headline.
The US successfully goaded the Japanese into war in 1941, so why not China now?
It makes sense while ‘they’ still have a considerable advantage.
ps. Who seriously disputes this?
Brilliant! As at 20.23. BST, 22thumbs down! More than I had dared hope for.
Presumably most if not all are American?
Thus they should start to do some real research and NOT rely on Hollywood drivel for their history. QED.
Xi is a classic authoritarian and his centralised planning will be utterly counterproductive. I don’t doubt one reason for the central plan to increase internal food production is greater resilience during any future war. Yet it is odd that two of Xi’s publicly stated reasons for the Ministry of Agriculture’s plan are not mentioned.
Xi has warned that Western net zero efforts will reduce global food output. For a huge food importer like China, that will severely dent the rate at which it can accumulate foreign assets (and financial power) and increase its internal inflation. He’s not wrong either: the UK is paying farmers to exit farming and take their land out of production, and variations of this scheme are happening across Europe. UK / EU policy is making sure there *will* be less food produced in Europe, which means less food produced globally. In this context, Xi’s response isn’t irrational. This begs the question: what is my response to my government actively reducing the abundance of my food?!
Xi has also warned that the USA is going to increasingly use its remaining financial hegemony to force policy alignment. I don’t think this is disputed. Sanctions have not just been used to hurt Russia, the resultant disruption to grain export routes has seen the EU *increase* its imports of Russian grain, and the EU has controlled inward shipping inside the EU to punish Polish farmers and exports outside the EU as a means to force NATO policy alignment concessions from non-aligned countries. No doubt this is real politik, but the West has crossed a line from using food aid as a carrot to using food denial as a stick, and I’m not sure this is a positive policy development.
There are of course a whole host of feedback loops driving international policy on all sides. There’s no use pointing fingers, but it is a poor analysis that omits some of the key drivers behind a policy painted as wholly irrational warmongering by one side.
As a footnote, the author makes it seem like Xi has commanded a WW2-like mad dash for self sufficiency in readiness for an imminent war. The actual numbers are a bit more sober. The immediate plan is to maintain (not increase) the 120m ha of farmland and increase the proportion of this rated as excellent or very good quality for growing crops. This follows years of declining arable land acreage due to development, and years of reclaiming of sub-optimal (lower grade) land for arable farming encouraged by previous policies.
As ever during war, it is the innocent ducks who pay the steepest price.
As ever during war, it is the innocent ducks who pay the steepest price.
Funny, that. But I’m sure that once those figures are published, Greta will set sail up the Yangtze in her carbon fibre boat, having learned “How dare you!!” in snarling mandarin.
Funny, that. But I’m sure that once those figures are published, Greta will set sail up the Yangtze in her carbon fibre boat, having learned “How dare you!!” in snarling mandarin.
I think from a general war footing we in the West are in trouble. One thing that seems to be clear, past the propaganda is that a purpose driven weapons industry is more important than having a profit driven industry. I think there are also a lot of changes happening in military strategy terms. First off the whole combined arms NATO model is complex, requires years of training, and without every piece in place, it fails. I think we have seen this with the failed Ukrainian offensive. The second thing is that drones and hypersonic missiles are a must. We have got to get a functioning hypersonic missile, and it needs to be affordable. Also, we need a lot more ammunition manufacturing. Right now we can’t even keep up in Ukraine. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to get things setup to be able to. We can’t afford to get in a war right now because we don’t have the troops, the hardware, or the ammunition we need to fight a real peer level land war.
I think from a general war footing we in the West are in trouble. One thing that seems to be clear, past the propaganda is that a purpose driven weapons industry is more important than having a profit driven industry. I think there are also a lot of changes happening in military strategy terms. First off the whole combined arms NATO model is complex, requires years of training, and without every piece in place, it fails. I think we have seen this with the failed Ukrainian offensive. The second thing is that drones and hypersonic missiles are a must. We have got to get a functioning hypersonic missile, and it needs to be affordable. Also, we need a lot more ammunition manufacturing. Right now we can’t even keep up in Ukraine. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to get things setup to be able to. We can’t afford to get in a war right now because we don’t have the troops, the hardware, or the ammunition we need to fight a real peer level land war.
The Plan:
Step 1: Two countries, two systems
Step 2: One country, two systems
Step 3: One country, one system.
That’s a very neat, pithy summation, RWH.
That’s a very neat, pithy summation, RWH.
The Plan:
Step 1: Two countries, two systems
Step 2: One country, two systems
Step 3: One country, one system.
Thanks for the warning, and the curious behaviour of China, particularly given their recent self-imposed history of what happens in Great Wild Leaps. Not to mention what their then ideological ally also achieved with not dissimilar politically driven land management. Can we take it that China is definitely now a country ruled by a dangerous madman like, say, Stalin, Putin etc, and that the previous century was merely a rehearsal?
It’s weird how a country that could rule the world quietly through it’s wealth and influence, and obtain whatever it needs without a fight still finds a way for that not to be enough.
Are you referring to the USA or China?
That’s funny Jim, definately should be USA
Of course it applies to both. But today the US is too busy staring at its navel wondering what gender it is.
That’s funny Jim, definately should be USA
Of course it applies to both. But today the US is too busy staring at its navel wondering what gender it is.
Are you referring to the USA or China?
It’s weird how a country that could rule the world quietly through it’s wealth and influence, and obtain whatever it needs without a fight still finds a way for that not to be enough.
Thanks for the warning, and the curious behaviour of China, particularly given their recent self-imposed history of what happens in Great Wild Leaps. Not to mention what their then ideological ally also achieved with not dissimilar politically driven land management. Can we take it that China is definitely now a country ruled by a dangerous madman like, say, Stalin, Putin etc, and that the previous century was merely a rehearsal?
As at 07.40 BST. 20.07.2023. 8 of the comments out of 22 have been culled!
Why? And is Legal action pending?
It is curious at times. The only thing I’ve come up with is the following: the comments are hierarchical in structure so if a given comment is “culled” then all it’s children are temporarily wiped out as well even if they’re totally innocent. Would be nice if UnHerd could speak to this a bit. Maybe it’s already in some fine-print somewhere.
It is curious at times. The only thing I’ve come up with is the following: the comments are hierarchical in structure so if a given comment is “culled” then all it’s children are temporarily wiped out as well even if they’re totally innocent. Would be nice if UnHerd could speak to this a bit. Maybe it’s already in some fine-print somewhere.
As at 07.40 BST. 20.07.2023. 8 of the comments out of 22 have been culled!
Why? And is Legal action pending?
As always, the Chinise will punish the common laborer. Militarily, China can be defeated in a week by the U.S. This is all for naught, another example of Chinese ineptitude. In the end, there will be no war, just Chinese suffering as a third world country pretending to be a world power.
As always, the Chinise will punish the common laborer. Militarily, China can be defeated in a week by the U.S. This is all for naught, another example of Chinese ineptitude. In the end, there will be no war, just Chinese suffering as a third world country pretending to be a world power.
These are big issues far beyond my purview. The only result of all these big speculations about world war is frightening the crap out of each other.
These are big issues far beyond my purview. The only result of all these big speculations about world war is frightening the crap out of each other.
They are just so dumb.
Shush. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Molke (late 1880s?)
Shush. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Molke (late 1880s?)
They are just so dumb.