Well apparently a lot of people are talking about this. If the South China Seas incidents spark a War then it will be a disaster for everyone on Earth most likely, since it may very well escalate into a World War. If it becomes nuclear then there most likely won't be a habitable Earth left! China Warns U.S. of Potential for War in South China Sea The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?
China would be defeated. They are still dependent on low end tech, they only have 8 ships in their standing navy (yes, that surprised me too) and only 1 aircraft carrier. China's own general announced that they're 50 years behind in tech and war machines... 90% of their war machines are re-sold, outstated Russian weapons. The level of corruption and lack of communication within their own government and army is insane. Finally it is USA policy to cut all financial ties with a country we're at war with. They'd shoot themselves in the foot economically if they declared war.
I don't think that the US would go to war with China any more so than the US going to war with Russia. We have too many common interests. Our respective countries may have their differences, but in the end, we'd settle things peacefully.
It would indeed be a good way to cancel out that debit, actually. That too is part of USA policy.. ie... If we go to war and we defeat you, we owe you nothing. We also pay nothing while the war is on going. China on the other hand would not want to risk losing that interest that they are slowly collecting.
There's been talk for some time now about the possibility of the U.S being extremely vulnerable to an EMP attack. Its not just conspiracy theorists either, but senior ex and current military/government officials, who have expressed concerns over the U.S vulnerability, and more so the aftermath of such an attack.Many military analysts consider an EMP to be the ultimate first strike weapon. Informative Video
Last I checked, the Sun is the only player in this game capable of launching a credible EMP attack on anything but a small, very localised scale. The third world war will be (is being) fought on the balance sheet. Everything else is just noise.
@foxyrick: True. And once a critical computer system is hit with EMP, They'll install a faraday cage around it and it will never happen again. Not to mention the fact that the "war" being fought on the corporate balance sheets is a natural recourse of capitalism. I'd hate it if we went to war against the Chinese. I've met so many nice Chinese people.
China and Russia are formidable powers that are belittled by the media and sources in DC where the rest of the bulls**t flows from. Failed foreign policy blunders, blow back and perpetual woars for regime change is what the USSA is all about.. Subcontracting terrorist organizations and turning a blind eye to countries like Turkey that support terrorists by supplying weapons for oil. Therefore the USSA and Turkey are responsible for abating and supporting terrorists that have killed civilians. Time for a regime change in USSA and I hope China and Russia as a unified force can make it happen. In June 2014, a month after he had left his force-planning job at the Pentagon, the Air Force asked David Ochmanek - deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development - for advice on Russia’s neighborhood ahead of Obama’s September visit to Tallinn, Estonia. At the same time, the Army had approached another of Ochmanek’s colleagues at Rand, and the two teamed up to run a thought exercise called a “table top,” a sort of war game between two teams: the red team (Russia) and the blue team (NATO). The scenario was similar to the one that played out in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: increasing Russian political pressure on Estonia and Latvia (two NATO countries that share borders with Russia and have sizable Russian-speaking minorities), followed by the appearance of provocateurs, demonstrations, and the seizure of government buildings. “Our question was: Would NATO be able to defend those countries?” Ochmanek recalls. The results were dispiriting. Given the recent reductions in the defense budgets of NATO member countries and American pullback from the region, Ochmanek says the blue team was outnumbered 2-to-1 in terms of manpower, even if all the U.S. and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics — including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice and is based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Was the Spratlys res nullius before any Filipino claims? The Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys on the issues of res nullius. The definition of res nullius is "A thing which has no owner or A thing which has been abandoned by its owner is as much res nullius as if it had never belonged to any one." Japan unconditionally surrendered in 1945 after their defeat in the World War II. Towards the end of 1946, the Chinese government sent a naval task force consisting of four warships to the Spratlys and Paracels to execute demonstrative possessor acts on the spot. The task force sailed from Guangdong (Canton) on December 9, 1946. The two war ships Taiping and Zhongye set course for the Spratlys and after 3 days' sailing, they reached Itu Aba Island, the principal island of the Spratlys on the morning of December 12, 1946. They immediately sent telegraphs to Nanjing to report on their arrival and later stationed on the Itu Aba Island. The Itu Aba Island was surveyed. The task force also reached and surveyed other Spratly Islands including Nanyue Island, Thitu Island, North Danger Reef etc. The symbols of Japanese sovereignty were removed and a Sovereignty Stone Marker was placed on the Itu Aba Island. They also held a take-over ceremony. In December 1947 Territorial Administration Section of Ministry of Internal Affairs published a list of South China Sea Islands Names and a Map of South China Sea Islands. The Itu Aba Island is renamed to Taiping Island, the Thitu Island is renamed to Zhongye Island, the commander’s name of the task force is also used as a name of a Sand Cay (Dunqian Shazhou). So has China ever abandoned her ownership over the Spratlys? No. The Chinese government has never relinquished its claim to these islands. After the "Kingdom of Humantiy and Republic of Songhrati-Morac-Meads" issue Taiwan has restored the garrison on Taiping Island and the navy has frequently patrolled the Spratlys. Just like what is expressed in Taipei's response to the Philippines: The world has been on notice for years and years that China has a garrison on the Islands. It is childishly naive to entertain any notion that Cloma and associates' claim to "right of discovery" can serve as the legal basis for Philippine government's claiming and the actions as announced by President Marcos. The pursuit of an private and official claim to the Spratly Islands should be held to be a violation of international law and a provocation to China.[1, p71] Is Geography Proximity a legal Basis for Philippine's claim in the Spratlys? There is no international law saying geographical proximity can be used here to justify its claims in the Kalayaan Island Group. If we use the proximity basis, many isolated islands in Sulu Sea are much closer to Borneo than to the Philippines, should the Philippines give these islands to Malaysia or Brunei? Is National Security a legal basis for the Filipino Claim? If Philippines national security can serve as a legal basis for its claim in the Spratly Islands. Does that mean the Philippines will just invade any other nation's sovereign land if they feel that they are not secure? Conclusion The Philippine's claims in the Spratly Islands, is not legal, although the Philippines try to base their claims on different bases. The Spratlys was not res nullius, and the Philippines' claims based on geographic proximity and national security are illegal.
Any war fought between the US and China would be a proxy war or at the very most a regional skirmish. Al full scale war between the US and China just isn't going to happen any time soon, both sides have too much to lose.
This here is what will happen. DE December 7, 1787 Delaware PA December 12, 1787 Pennsylvania NJ December 18, 1787 New Jersey GA January 2, 1788 Georgia CT January 9, 1788 Connecticut MA February 6, 1788 Massachusetts MD April 28, 1788 Maryland SC May 23, 1788 South Carolina NH June 21, 1788 New Hampshire VA June 25, 1788 Virginia NY July 26, 1788 New York NC November 21, 1789 North Carolina RI May 29, 1790 Rhode Island VT March 4, 1791 Vermont KY June 1, 1792 Kentucky TN June 1, 1796 Tennessee OH March 1, 1803 Ohio LA April 30, 1812 Louisiana IN December 11, 1816 Indiana MS December 10, 1817 Mississippi IL December 3, 1818 Illinois AL December 14, 1819 Alabama ME March 15, 1820 Maine MO August 10, 1821 Missouri AR June 15, 1836 Arkansas MI January 26, 1837 Michigan TX December 29, 1845 Texas FL March 3, 1845 Florida IA December 28, 1846 Iowa WI May 29, 1848 Wisconsin CA September 9, 1850 California MN May 11, 1858 Minnesota OR February 14, 1859 Oregon KS January 29, 1861 Kansas WV June 20, 1863 West Virginia NV October 31, 1864 Nevada NE March 1, 1867 Nebraska CO August 1, 1876 Colorado ND November 2, 1889 North Dakota SD November 2, 1889 South Dakota MT November 8, 1889 Montana WA November 11, 1889 Washington ID July 3, 1890 Idaho WY July 10, 1890 Wyoming UT January 4, 1896 Utah OK November 16, 1907 Oklahoma NM January 6, 1912 New Mexico AZ February 14, 1912 Arizona AK January 3, 1959 Alaska HI August 21, 1959 Hawaii CN February 4, 2038 China