[bochen280]

http://www.rt.com/news/us-china-sea-war-556/

As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area.
The paper, entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” suggests America is preparing for a possible conflict with China, one warship at a time.
The report was written by the Centre for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. CSIS is a non-government body, but its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department.
The assessment provides extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon’s Pacific Command.
The report was released on June 27, but only gained media coverage after its main authors – David Berteau and Michael Green – testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.
The report says the “geostrategic uncertainty the United States and its allies and partners face in the Asia Pacific region is how China’s growing power and influence will impact order and stability in the years ahead.”
The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which are strategically located in the Western Pacific. It also supports the stationing of combat ships in Singapore, which will be capable of intelligence gathering, special operations, and landing troops with armored vehicles.
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
But it doesn’t stop there. Recommendations to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power go on and on.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
The report also suggests permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam as well as boosting both manned and unmanned surveillance in the region. Moreover, it promotes boosting US army ground presence, including stationing 2,500 more marines in Australia.
The recommendations coincide with the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot.” It’s a plan to boost US military presence throughout the Asia-Pacific Region, and to back almost all of China’s rivals whilst doing so.
And the government has most certainly accomplished its goal. Just last week, the Pentagon announced it would conduct surveillance drone missiles over a Pacific island chain which have become a point of tension between China and Japan – who the US has deep military ties to.
Washington has also been a firm supporter of the Philippines during its ongoing dispute with China in the South China Sea since April, when a standoff began over ownership of the Scarborough Reef.
Since the disagreement kicked off, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the region. The move angered Beijing, which claims the presence of US naval ships hinders vital shipping lanes which China relies on for energy and raw materials.
If America makes the report’s suggestions a reality, the decision could have far-reaching implications for Washington’s allies, making them vulnerable to attacks in the future.
And if the US aims to strengthen its ties with Asia-Pacific countries in order to squash China, the question remains whether those island nations will actually comply.

[peripato]

http://www.rt.com/news/us-china-sea-war-556/ As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area. ...
And if the US aims to strengthen its ties with Asia-Pacific countries in order to squash China, the question remains whether those island nations will actually comply.

Imperial overstretch reaching ludicrous levels. Peak neo-con lunacy?

[rangerone314]

I'd like to know what the plan is to prevail against China when the US economy gets collapsed and the military becomes unaffordable?

[bochen280]

I'd like to know what the plan is to prevail against China when the US economy gets collapsed and the military becomes unaffordable?

The Fed might not be able to print oil but it can print dollars....

And while dollars don't equate to energy, but that is what a military is for... to secure the petro-dollar.

[gollum]

Wonder if the fed can print tanks, planes and ships?

[SeaGypsy]

They can print draft orders. There is no shortage of steel.
Has this paper just been released? Some of this stuff is already law, such as Australia hosting the 2,500 Marines. I can't see anything new here. Also calling it 'Neocon'? You better lump in Obama as a Neocon then, because he has been busily continuing with these plans. Really it doesn't seem to matter who is in the Whitehouse, the petrodollar hegemony must be continued at all and any cost.

[peripato]

They can print draft orders. There is no shortage of steel.
Has this paper just been released? Some of this stuff is already law, such as Australia hosting the 2,500 Marines. I can't see anything new here. Also calling it 'Neocon'? You better lump in Obama as a Neocon then, because he has been busily continuing with these plans. Really it doesn't seem to matter who is in the Whitehouse, the petrodollar hegemony must be continued at all and any cost.

If the shoe fits...Obama's actions speak loudly.

If money printing could secure an empire in decline, then France would have taken over all of Europe and the Americas' back in the 1700's. Massive fiat currency lunacy prevailed twice in a 50 year period completely demolishing the then acknowledged hub of the civilised world, setting it up for violent revolution. It's sheer audacity more than making up for the smallness of scale, relative to today's fiscal insanity.

Indeed a read about of one of these episodes of "rainbows and unicorns" thinking is a real eye-opener, for the student of human folly. What strikes one is that nothing much has changed regarding human behaviour and the pricking of speculative bubbles, other than the conceit of modern types who think that "this time things are different". Hint; They're not and every generation of monetary maniacs says the same baloney to themselves.

[SeaGypsy]

The French didn't have the reserve status the US has; that is the difference. Nothing like this has ever happened. It's a novelty event.

[peripato]

The French didn't have the reserve status the US has; that is the difference. Nothing like this has ever happened. It's a novelty event.

Say again? There have been a lot of global reserve currencies down through the ages. Not one of them, nor the regimes they backed, are still in existence.

Back to school for you mister!

[SeaGypsy]

NEVER was the world beholden to one currency in order to purchase an essential commodity. The examples in history are pissants next to the behemoth USA/ Petrodollar and the modern dependency of the most remote parts of the world.
(Edit; I am not for a moment arguing the PD$ is immortal/ merely that it's inevitable demise can't be easily predicated on historical models.)

[peripato]

NEVER was the world beholden to one currency in order to purchase an essential commodity. The examples in history are pissants next to the behemoth USA/ Petrodollar and the modern dependency of the most remote parts of the world.
(Edit; I am not for a moment arguing the PD$ is immortal/ merely that it's inevitable demise can't be easily predicated on historical models.)

Well, in which case never has the world faced the threat of global collapse on so many fronts - including monetary, either - so perhaps it's fitting?

[SeaGypsy]

Touche'!

[evilgenius]

They had better concentrate on what they are trying to pull off in the Middle East before they switch gears and invest so much in the Pacific. If they can't pull off what they are attempting in the Middle East there will be a huge war, after which the resource allocations will look so different that all of the assumptions people are making about the rest of the 21st Century will change.

[bochen280]

NEVER was the world beholden to one currency in order to purchase an essential commodity. The examples in history are pissants next to the behemoth USA/ Petrodollar and the modern dependency of the most remote parts of the world.
(Edit; I am not for a moment arguing the PD$ is immortal/ merely that it's inevitable demise can't be easily predicated on historical models.)

Correct....

Back in those ages there were no nuclear weapons. Nukes are a game changer. The US still has 10,000+ active nukes while China is reported to have less than 100 strategic nuclear warheads actually capable of even reaching the U.S. (most of China's limited amount of 400 nukes are tactical nukes of the short range type that are aimed at Russia, India, and closer nations, etc) ... Now America is building National Missile Defense/ Ballistic Missile Defense systems that will negate China's minimal deterrence stance and obliterate its NFU (no first use) policy. China does not possess a credible deterrence against a sudden US first strike or decapitation strike, and since the Chinese have vowed against launching on warning and will only launch after being attacked, that is practically inviting the US to flatten China and take out the CCP.

Also back in those ages there were no internet, no radio, no instantaneous communication and no globalization as we know it to be today. Economies are far more interconnected in this fur ball and its more messy. Petrodollar hegemony will not just die overnight... Nations were relatively isolated back in those days, these days all the arteries and veins are connected to the heart of the petrodollar and no one is risking the chance to commit economic suicide (not to mention political suicide like what happened to Saddam, etc) by dumping the dollar in favor of something else.... Any nation that attempts to do so will suddenly find themselves on the axis-of-evil list, declared to be sponsoring and harboring terrorists, in possession of weapons of mass destruction, committing war crimes against humanity against their own population, or a dictator and tyranny that has "lost all legitimacy to rule", etc etc etc ... So throw some cyberwarfare into the mix (Stuxnet, etc) and then some high tech CIA misinformation/propaganda (facebook, google and twitter played no small part in the Arab Spring) and you can see how this time around the balance is tilted towards the status quo....

And then finally we have Peak Oil.... In all the previous ages we have been going UP in energy consumption.... now we are going DOWN.... Simple example... if the world was infinite then China would have a chance of out-competing the US, but because of Peak Oil, we know that is never going to happen. The US Empire might be the last Empire before we return to the "stone age".... Had "Peak Whatever" occurred back in 1776 the US would never be what it is today, and likely the British would have maintained its Empire status to even today. The fact that the US vitally depends on its petrodollar and the US military already holds hostage virtually all the oil in the world and the fact that oil will only get more and more valuable means that the status quo has no where to go. (and will be maintained while we slide down the Gorge)

The whole China containment plan is not to prevent China from becoming a superpower that challenges America... it is a plan to ruin China's economy and create enough demand destruction so the people at home can maintain "nonnegotiable way of life" for as long as possible. Cause face it, Fusion ain't going to save us. The policy is simple: grab what is left, and prevent anyone else from using it.

[Ibon]

China has no imperial history outside its borders. It has a pathological relationship with money where the Confucian principals of delayed gratification and saving has been twisted into a collective obsession. Natural resource constraints will not induce China to militarize. They will only save more and delay further their gratification. They will intensify their current obsessions. As will the US for that matter. I don't expect any military conflict resulting from the death spiral of the mutually reinforcing obsessions of these two nations.

[Plantagenet]

China has no imperial history outside its borders.

Once there was a country called Tibet....

[bochen280]

China has no imperial history outside its borders.

Once there was a country called Tibet....

http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm

[SeaGypsy]

China was once a collective of hundreds of principalities, language groups and subcultures. Tibet was seen as a rebel province for a very long time before the invasion. It was not some saintly nation as so often portrayed in the western MSM; in love with the Dalai Lama and his pacifying platitudes, soft Buddhism.

The USA needs to maintain and build on it's alliance in the eastern Pacific. It does not need to nuke China to do so, or anything of the sort. It does need to build on friendships, part of which will involve some token military support. The USA has a huge advantage over China in terms of the propaganda machine, global MSM. Ignoring signals China is in the process of expanding influence in the region would not be smart. The scale of military support required to maintain friendships in the region is minuscule next to the expenses involved in the middle east.

[Plantagenet]

Tibet ... was not some saintly nation as so often portrayed in the western MSM; in love with the Dalai Lama and his pacifying platitudes, soft Buddhism.

Prior to the Chinese invasion Tibet was a separate, independent nation from China. Pretending otherwise is silly.

[SeaGypsy]

It's not that simple. Lhasa was fiercely independent, the dominant city in Tibet and the home of the Dalai Lama's sect. There were from memory another 11 main monasteries, some of whom were treated very poorly by the Lhasa authorities for centuries. Some of these sects, particularly in the north, welcomed China's displacement of their Lhasa based overlords. My point is that the idea of a unified Tibet before China's invasion is incorrect. It was this lack of internal unity which allowed China to easily filter through what should have been fairly secure borders. The fact they barely had to fight until the gates of the holy city shows the nation was more of a city-state than what we these days think of as a country.