people need to know يحتاج الناس إلى معرفته
The South China Sea crisis is just a piece of a big puzzle involving even Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. The main frame is the China-U.S. confrontation in Asia. It is not only a geostrategic/geopolitical game, it is a systemic clash. A military confrontation between the two world giants is so likely to happen that a think tank like the Rand Corporation’s Arroyo center (sponsored by the U.S. Army) produced a paper of 112 pages focused on gains and losses, facts and figures about a war between the two countries. Beijing and Washington have a large concentration of military forces operating in close proximity. “If an incident occurred or a crises overheated, both have the incentive to strike enemy forces before being struck by them”. This is a simple but terrible statement that shows how evil could be trivial and how doomsday could be behind the corner. But what is the “rationale” of such an unthinkable outcome? Unfortunately, we wrote several times about this issue, our planet isn’t enough big to satisfy the resources consumption of this two giants. They have to decide to step down their development speed by themselves. Think again. It will never happen. So unless God makes a miracle it is just a question of time. That maybe explains the hurry of Elon Musk to move human kind to Mars.
The USA shaped a time “window” from 2015 to 2025 as favorable to win a military confrontation and the analysis made some friendly postulates to show a warless “end of the world” choice.
They postulate that a war “would be regional and conventional”. It would be waged by ships on and beneath the sea, by aircrafts and missiles of many sorts and in space (against satellites) and cyberspace. Rand planners assume that fighting would start and remain in East Asia, China will not attack the U.S. homeland and that both sides will not use nuclear weapons. There are too many suppositions. But here, the most dangerous assessment: “Even in an intensely violent conventional conflict, neither side would regard its losses as so serious, its prospects so dire, or the stake so vital that it would run the risk of devastating nuclear retaliation by using atomic weapons first”. Nobody can be sure about that.
The economic factor is more suitable and heinously “friendly”. Although war will hurt both economies, “damages to China could be catastrophic and lasting: on the order of 25-35% reduction of GDP in a yearlong war, compared with a loss of U.S. GDP on the order of 5-10%. International response could also favor the U.S. in a long and severe war undermining the legitimacy of the Chinese regime” always according to Rand’s analysis. A strong ally of the U.S. and natural competitor of China like Japan could make the difference by 2025 in the course of war. If these kinds of assessments are not scary enough, let me enter into military ones. (…) click here to read full article