Could a US-China war finally break the current hierarchy?

[DukeofDawn]

So, with the current shadows of both the US and China looming over Taiwan, it is possible that the conflict between the two might escalate further to a full blown war of various degree.


The question that immediately comes to mind is, who would come out on top of this conflict?

After all the coming victor of this will either solidifie it's status of superpower or build it's regional sphere of influence.


The question that I'm asking however, is "what kind of opportunities does this conflict opens for the other great powers in the case of a full blown war, if there are any?"

Could any of the great powers try to pull a move behind the scene to try to cripple directly or indirectly one of these two? Could Russia? Could Europe?

I want to know if by the end of the wa another country might have a shot at becoming a superpower...

 

[Rufus Shinra]

The only winning move is not to play. That's it.

 

[DukeofDawn]

[QUOTE
="Rufus Shinra, post: 89029, member: 247"]
The only winning move is not to play. That's it.

[/QUOTE]

Oh i figured just as much, the best thing to do is to keep the economy going and to stay as far away from fighting as possible.

However anticapating a bloody but short or a superficial but excruciatingly long war, wouldn't it be possible for another great power to try to pull off what the US did at ther end of world war II, to try to turn the current economic system to their benefit or even install a new one?

Of course i don't exepect the Taiwan conflict to be nearly as bloody as world war let's be real but if nukes comes in to play i think there's a chaance for a new world hierarchy.

 

[Wakko]

if nukes comes in to play i think there's a chaance for a new world hierarchy.

Yeah, cockroaches on top, people 6 feet under.

However anticapating a bloody but short or a superficial but excruciatingly long war, wouldn't it be possible for another great power to try to pull off what the US did at ther end of world war II, to try to turn the current economic system to their benefit or even install a new one?

Everybody who has something to say about it loves the current economic system. The country which seems to hate it the most, at least judging by its actions, is the US itself, who is apparently trying to end it using sanctions and inflation. Anyway, both the US and China are so far ahead of the rest of the world, including the EU and Russia, that even if there is real hot conflict because of Taiwan, it is unlikely to damage either of them enough to change the global order. But IMO a real war is unlikely, China seems to be going for a naval buildup which will allow it to isolate Taiwan from any help. Then it can annex it politically, without invasion and all the bloody mess coming with it.
IMO the annexing of Taiwan by China will have long-term consequences, which are likely to change the world order in the next 20-30 years, into a truly multi-polar system, without the USD playing the role it has now. And that will be a real change of the economic system, but not to the benefit of a single power (though China will likely benefit the most simply because of the destruction of barriers to its further development).

 

[Senmut]

If Peking did make such a move, and China did not achieve a quick victory, it might serve as the impetus for some internal house-cleaning. There are alot of folks there who think they could do just as well, or better, than Xi, and would be happy to replace him. No fool, he is aware of this, and no doubt would be extremely cautious of stepping over a precipice like this one.

 

[DukeofDawn]

If Peking did make such a move, and China did not achieve a quick victory, it might serve as the impetus for some internal house-cleaning. There are alot of folks there who think they could do just as well, or better, than Xi, and would be happy to replace him. No fool, he is aware of this, and no doubt would be extremely cautious of stepping over a precipice like this one.

Indeed, however China as it currently is dependent on constant economical and influencial growth to maintain the credibility of the government and the stability of the country , it has adopted a belligerent expansionnist policy to expand it's power and influence in Asia and the CCP seems to be using the narrative of restoring china to it's old glory to justify that.

A setback in Taiwan, in which both the US and China have invested a moderate amount of political capital (For Now), would be a terrible blow the the CCP legitimacy that's true however, simply leaving Taiwan in the hand of a foreign power is ot exactly much better, so i think china is trapped between two walls of their own making for now.

Yeah, cockroaches on top, people 6 feet under.


Everybody who has something to say about it loves the current economic system. The country which seems to hate it the most, at least judging by its actions, is the US itself, who is apparently trying to end it using sanctions and inflation. Anyway, both the US and China are so far ahead of the rest of the world, including the EU and Russia, that even if there is real hot conflict because of Taiwan, it is unlikely to damage either of them enough to change the global order. But IMO a real war is unlikely, China seems to be going for a naval buildup which will allow it to isolate Taiwan from any help. Then it can annex it politically, without invasion and all the bloody mess coming with it.
IMO the annexing of Taiwan by China will have long-term consequences, which are likely to change the world order in the next 20-30 years, into a truly multi-polar system, without the USD playing the role it has now. And that will be a real change of the economic system, but not to the benefit of a single power (though China will likely benefit the most simply because of the destruction of barriers to its further development).

Wouldn't the annexation of Taiwan mean the loss of the Superpower status for the US? With someone finally ready to challenge their dominion, i think they will have to commit more than a little bit to try to ensure the continuation of their "rule", that could possibly open the door for escalation depending on how committed they are as well as China but, as i explained above i think they too, have the obligation to keep on leaning on their make "China Great Again" policy if they wish to keep legitimacy .


Alternatively, do you think the war (if it happens) is likely to open any sort of opportunnity for more or less significant foreign interference?

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Indeed, however China as it currently is dependent on constant economical and influencial growth to maintain the credibility of the government and the stability of the country , it has adopted a belligerent expansionnist policy to expand it's power and influence in Asia and the CCP seems to be using the narrative of restoring china to it's old glory to justify that.

A setback in Taiwan, in which both the US and China have invested a moderate amount of political capital (For Now), would be a terrible blow the the CCP legitimacy that's true however, simply leaving Taiwan in the hand of a foreign power is ot exactly much better, so i think china is trapped between two walls of their own making for now.

Which is pretty much the same situation the US has, where it created a very effective system where it acts as a parasite on the rest of the planet, absorbing material and human resources while deliberately keeping its population controlled through anti-intellectualism, a system which works mostly because they have control over global institutions. If, OTOH, an alternative system gets created where the US isn't a dominant power for the vast majority of the planet, they're heading towards implosion due to hundreds of millions of entilted people who aren't competitive anymore to support their desired lifestyle. The US therefore cannot play the clock because China is growing up too much, so Washington want the war too.

Cue the increasing propaganda from pundits explaining how China is the belligerent destabilizing country compared to good old peaceful 'murika (lol).

Wouldn't the annexation of Taiwan mean the loss of the Superpower status for the US? With someone finally ready to challenge their dominion, i think they will have to commit more than a little bit to try to ensure the continuation of their "rule", that could possibly open the door for escalation depending on how committed they are as well as China but, as i explained above i think they too, have the obligation to keep on leaning on their make "China Great Again" policy if they wish to keep legitimacy .

Thing is? It's pretty much too late already: the Pentagon is already acknowledging they'd lose the conventional war, so one can expect they'll try a Hail Mary and when this one fails? You'd better have a plan to survive the aftermath.

This is the 'fun' thing with the current situation: both the US and China are on an unsustainable route that cannot be stabilized as long as the other side remains. They both want and need the war to happen. Don't look at it like 1939 with a belligerent revanchist power but as 1914 with a series of empires which cannot remain balanced any longer.

 

[DukeofDawn]

Which is pretty much the same situation the US has, where it created a very effective system where it acts as a parasite on the rest of the planet, absorbing material and human resources while deliberately keeping its population controlled through anti-intellectualism, a system which works mostly because they have control over global institutions. If, OTOH, an alternative system gets created where the US isn't a dominant power for the vast majority of the planet, they're heading towards implosion due to hundreds of millions of entilted people who aren't competitive anymore to support their desired lifestyle. The US therefore cannot play the clock because China is growing up too much, so Washington want the war too.

Are they, truly tho ? And if that's the case then who would take place in the vacuum left? I can't see beside china, any other power taking the mantle of super power.

Russia is just to limited in it's global influence and mostly possess hard power, as opposed to soft power and has too few vassal states

the UK is a US Vassal

Germany is too passive and unwilling

France is too stretched out already to etablish any sort of commercioal enforcement or blockade and the economy is too staganating

India, maybe?

Cue the increasing propaganda from pundits explaining how China is the belligerent destabilizing country compared to good old peaceful 'murika (lol).

Thing is? It's pretty much too late already: the Pentagon is already acknowledging they'd lose the conventional war, so one can expect they'll try a Hail Mary and when this one fails? You'd better have a plan to survive the aftermath.

This is the 'fun' thing with the current situation: both the US and China are on an unsustainable route that cannot be stabilized as long as the other side remains. They both want and need the war to happen. Don't look at it like 1939 with a belligerent revanchist power but as 1914 with a series of empires which cannot remain balanced any longer.

That's a great comparison actually, as they are both empires, simultaneously at the zenith of their power, but also resting on an unsustainable regime, in which the cost of maintaining hegemony costs increasingly more overtime, and that is precipitated by the fact that the current geopolitical landscape is encouraging a multipolar precisely due to those hegemony.

I wonder what would be the stance of europe during the conflict tho, would the leaders be willing to get more ambitious and to try actually carve a place for themselves or.....

 

[Wakko]

Wouldn't the annexation of Taiwan mean the loss of the Superpower status for the US? With someone finally ready to challenge their dominion, i think they will have to commit more than a little bit to try to ensure the continuation of their "rule", that could possibly open the door for escalation depending on how committed they are as well as China but, as i explained above i think they too, have the obligation to keep on leaning on their make "China Great Again" policy if they wish to keep legitimacy .

I agree with Rufus that US doesn't have good options regarding Taiwan. What is and what is not superpower... the US lost much of its relative power since 2000 - it didn't get weaker, other countries got stronger. Where is the line between it being and not being a superpower?

Alternatively, do you think the war (if it happens) is likely to open any sort of opportunnity for more or less significant foreign interference?

Certainly. Should a real conflict happen, with the US blockading China, then Russia is the kingmaker. If it helps China with trade routes and resources, China wins - in the sense that the US won't be able to force it to back down. If not, the US wins - China will have to back down and accept terms. Russia will not gain something tangible from it, but it will gain the opportunity to balance China and the US against each other to maximize its freedom of maneuver.
What I'm talking about here is a low-key, slow conflict, taking years during which the US is trying to choke Chinese economy, not a fast and hot one. I don't see how these two nuclear powers could be so stupid as to start something they're both bound to lose.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Are they, truly tho ? And if that's the case then who would take place in the vacuum left? I can't see beside china, any other power taking the mantle of super power.

Does the world need a hegemon?

Germany is too passive and unwilling

France is too stretched out already to etablish any sort of commercioal enforcement or blockade and the economy is too staganating

These countries wouldn't go for a shot at hegemony outside maybe as the EU.

I wonder what would be the stance of europe during the conflict tho, would the leaders be willing to get more ambitious and to try actually carve a place for themselves or.....

The only willing move is not to play.

Certainly. Should a real conflict happen, with the US blockading China, then Russia is the kingmaker. If it helps China with trade routes and resources, China wins - in the sense that the US won't be able to force it to back down. If not, the US wins - China will have to back down and accept terms. Russia will not gain something tangible from it, but it will gain the opportunity to balance China and the US against each other to maximize its freedom of maneuver.

The notion of a winner is very amusing.

What I'm talking about here is a low-key, slow conflict, taking years during which the US is trying to choke Chinese economy, not a fast and hot one. I don't see how these two nuclear powers could be so stupid as to start something they're both bound to lose.

Err, have you, like, seen the US in the past two decades?

 

[DukeofDawn]

I agree with Rufus that US doesn't have good options regarding Taiwan. What is and what is not superpower... the US lost much of its relative power since 2000 - it didn't get weaker, other countries got stronger. Where is the line between it being and not being a superpower?

I personnally define a superpower as an entity capable of imposing it's own poliy economically, culturally, militarily to a global scale, while also able to enforce it's will upon it's neighbors rival with little opposition.

Certainly. Should a real conflict happen, with the US blockading China, then Russia is the kingmaker. If it helps China with trade routes and resources, China wins - in the sense that the US won't be able to force it to back down. If not, the US wins - China will have to back down and accept terms. Russia will not gain something tangible from it, but it will gain the opportunity to balance China and the US against each other to maximize its freedom of maneuver.
What I'm talking about here is a low-key, slow conflict, taking years during which the US is trying to choke Chinese economy, not a fast and hot one. I don't see how these two nuclear powers could be so stupid as to start something they're both bound to lose.

Heeh, the us is the same as china with whole "Manifest destiny", "American Values" nonsense itt's what the governement has been selling the populace for decades, and what it has been associating with the image of the country for years as well, it helps them pat themselves on the back when they go full world police.

However, it also requires the US to be so far ahead of everyone else that they can impunately do so, so by extension to protect it's superpower status.

Does the world need a hegemon?

These countries wouldn't go for a shot at hegemony outside maybe as the EU.

Well, in any case i think we shall wait and see I guess.
Although I'd be curious as to how a more united Europe would go about trying to install an hegemony.

The notion of a winner is very amusing.

Err, have you, like, seen the US in the past two decades?

For the Us yeah i can totally see them escalating the situation if they are directly dared to prove their superpower status , because that is totally what taiwan is a political impass for the US and China that will end with a loser a Loser if there is a confrontation.

However if China were to "win" this conflict, then that is one more step taken toward a 1984 future.

 

[Senmut]

Indeed, however China as it currently is dependent on constant economical and influencial growth to maintain the credibility of the government and the stability of the country , it has adopted a belligerent expansionnist policy to expand it's power and influence in Asia and the CCP seems to be using the narrative of restoring china to it's old glory to justify that.

A setback in Taiwan, in which both the US and China have invested a moderate amount of political capital (For Now), would be a terrible blow the the CCP legitimacy that's true however, simply leaving Taiwan in the hand of a foreign power is ot exactly much better, so i think china is trapped between two walls of their own making for now.

Quite a good analysis. Of course, too long a hesitation on Xi's part could have the same effect, and precipitate his downfall.

 

[DukeofDawn]

Quite a good analysis. Of course, too long a hesitation on Xi's part could have the same effect, and precipitate his downfall.

You mean getting demoted by the CCP?
How could that happen?

 

[Wakko]

I wonder what would be the stance of europe during the conflict tho, would the leaders be willing to get more ambitious and to try actually carve a place for themselves or.....

Nah, we'll be happy to fall on our swords for America! At least Brussels will try to make us...

The notion of a winner is very amusing.

In a US-China conflict which doesn't turn hot there definitely can be a winner.

Err, have you, like, seen the US in the past two decades?

I know what you mean, but while the USD is the global currency, they will be able to pad their bottom line by emitting global debt and use it to sow more chaos.

I personnally define a superpower as an entity capable of imposing it's own poliy economically, culturally, militarily to a global scale, while also able to enforce it's will upon it's neighbors rival with little opposition.

In that case the US isn't a superpower anymore, has not been for some years now.

However if China were to "win" this conflict, then that is one more step taken toward a 1984 future.

I don't think so. There's no evidence that China would be willing, or even capable, of global economic or cultural dominance. It's nowhere near in such an advantageous position geographically as the US is, and even US' 50 years of global reign were only enabled by a series of unfortunate events, like the Old World going suicidal and then the USSR not being able to reform its economy in the 1970's. The normal state of things, one we're much, much more likely to receive, is a 'concert of powers' situation.
OTOH victorious US, able to use the manpower and resources of Eurasia, now that would be a 1984 that would make even Orwell sweat with fear. Iraq was just a little preview...

 

[<Reaper>666]

However if China were to "win" this conflict, then that is one more step taken toward a 1984 future.

PFFFFFF . . .
We ARE ALREADY THERE. WIth a good portion of carrot using conditioning New Brave World like.
Courtesy of the GWOT and USA actually, rather the evil Chinese. Huxley was himself terrified about so fast manifestation of his writings in 1950s.

 

[DukeofDawn]

Nah, we'll be happy to fall on our swords for America! At least Brussels will try to make us...

Yeah, i think in such a scenario, the most difficult part of the conflict would be to keep all the memebers on the same page, as to not fall into a damn chaos-induced political paralysis, followed by a semi-implosion.

In a US-China conflict which doesn't turn hot there definitely can be a winner.

i agree with this, if the conflict doesn't escalate there can definitly be some major benefits made from the war,i think this conflict will be the last chance for the world hierarchy to change, to reshape completely the geopolitical landscape, and to redistribute the cards to other powers . after that i think everything will naturally crystallize itself, with the growth of technology, the space race, the gaps between everyone will only increase and the grasp over the vassal states of today will only tighten tomorrow.
For example i, think the UK is about to be a servant for the next century and a half or so.

In that case the US isn't a superpower anymore, has not been for some years now.

Well yeah, but you know in geopolitics power is relative to your peers.

I don't think so. There's no evidence that China would be willing, or even capable, of global economic or cultural dominance. It's nowhere near in such an advantageous position geographically as the US is, and even US' 50 years of global reign were only enabled by a series of unfortunate events, like the Old World going suicidal and then the USSR not being able to reform its economy in the 1970's. The normal state of things, one we're much, much more likely to receive, is a 'concert of powers' situation.
OTOH victorious US, able to use the manpower and resources of Eurasia, now that would be a 1984 that would make even Orwell sweat with fear. Iraq was just a little preview...

we already konw that the us came to the position f power it has today due to luck, covenient timing, advantageous geographic position, and bunch of other things.
China however, while it might not be benefitting all of this, it comes into play in an era where the west is arguably at it's weakest in relation to all other centuries and has a non negligeable amount of power both soft and hard even in relation to the US.

PFFFFFF . . .
We ARE ALREADY THERE. WIth a good portion of carrot using conditioning New Brave World like.
Courtesy of the GWOT and USA actually, rather the evil Chinese. Huxley was himself terrified about so fast manifestation of his writings in 1950s.

That is true now, the best case scenario for the rest of the world is that the US and china both get anihilated in nuclear fire during this conflict ,even if that's wish fulfillment .

 

[<Reaper>666]

[...]That is true now, the best case scenario for the rest of the world is that the US and china both get anihilated in nuclear fire during this conflict ,even if that's wish fulfillment .

That is true becouse of technological level and threat diffusion and proliferation, plus enviroment of mutually interdependent systems. It has nothing to do with US or China per se, but truth is that USA was the pioneer and 9/11 was a catalyst of the process. COVID-19 too.
Also any major war between US and PRC will not involve only these two, but whole nets of alliances and will end with global economic crash and de facto destruction of the modern world as we know it. And you do not need nuclear weapons to be used at all.
So there will be no benefits at all actually, unless you count in long term shift inside power blocks.
Also power structure never was nor never will be a constant, so your idea of the last occasion to remade global political scene is flawed.

 

[DukeofDawn]

That is true becouse of technological level and threat diffusion and proliferation, plus enviroment of mutually interdependent systems. It has nothing to do with US or China per se, but truth is that USA was the pioneer and 9/11 was a catalyst of the process. COVID-19 too.
Also any major war between US and PRC will not involve only these two, but whole nets of alliances and will end with global economic crash and de facto destruction of the modern world as we know it. And you do not need nuclear weapons to be used at all.
So there will be no benefits at all actually, unless you count in long term shift inside power blocks.
Also power structure never was nor never will be a constant, so your idea of the last occasion to remade global political scene is flawed.

you're right but you have to take in account the fact that gaps between the powers today, will only increase as technology better itslef and time passes leaving less and less room for smaller powers to have influence.

On top of that, the space race guarantees that people will be left behind, and that if they want to catch up, then they will either need to rely on foreign aid and become depandant, or make crippling concessions to other powers to try to keep up.

As to the power blocksn, i'd like to add the fact that being a super power give influence, and therrefore power over other blocks, to ty to arrange, more or less successfully, the others blocks to your liking , while anticipating the future political landscape.

Obviously there's a limit to this but you get the point.

 

[Aaron Fox]

PFFFFFF . . .
We ARE ALREADY THERE. WIth a good portion of carrot using conditioning New Brave World like.
Courtesy of the GWOT and USA actually, rather the evil Chinese. Huxley was himself terrified about so fast manifestation of his writings in 1950s.

No, 1984 ignores this wee little thing called the technological context. So much so that it should be completely disregarded. Technology determines rights and freedoms beyond 'I don't kill you for anything'. The technological shift simply made definitions of rights and freedoms we consider static (which, in reality, are fluid) nothing like we're used to.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

No, 1984 ignores this wee little thing called the technological context. So much so that it should be completely disregarded. Technology determines rights and freedoms beyond 'I don't kill you for anything'. The technological shift simply made definitions of rights and freedoms we consider static (which, in reality, are fluid) nothing like we're used to.

lolwat.

The rights and freedoms have been a cultural element moreso than a technological one, as shown very handily by the massive differences between similarly developed Western countries in terms of what freedoms and rights are deemed fundamental. Please tell me you don't believe that, say, the US perception of fundamental rights is anywhere near universal for developed countries, right?

 

[Train Dodger]

Which is pretty much the same situation the US has, where it created a very effective system where it acts as a parasite on the rest of the planet, absorbing material and human resources while deliberately keeping its population controlled through anti-intellectualism, a system which works mostly because they have control over global institutions. If, OTOH, an alternative system gets created where the US isn't a dominant power for the vast majority of the planet, they're heading towards implosion due to hundreds of millions of entilted people who aren't competitive anymore to support their desired lifestyle. The US therefore cannot play the clock because China is growing up too much, so Washington want the war too.

Cue the increasing propaganda from pundits explaining how China is the belligerent destabilizing country compared to good old peaceful 'murika (lol).

Thing is? It's pretty much too late already: the Pentagon is already acknowledging they'd lose the conventional war, so one can expect they'll try a Hail Mary and when this one fails? You'd better have a plan to survive the aftermath.

This is the 'fun' thing with the current situation: both the US and China are on an unsustainable route that cannot be stabilized as long as the other side remains. They both want and need the war to happen. Don't look at it like 1939 with a belligerent revanchist power but as 1914 with a series of empires which cannot remain balanced any longer.

China is a giant Potemkin Village of pure bullshit. American workers are being made to compete for a living wage with people who willingly live in absolute squalor.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Dang, the truth is finally revealed thanks to Youtube videos showing us 'The China they DON'T want you to SEE!'.

It's totes gonna collapse any day soon and all reports to the contrary must be propaganda to hide their fear of FREEDOM, I bet, while the US is, on the other hand, absolutely not a Potemkine village with insane inequality, violence, drug use, health disasters, corporate control over entire regions, absurdly corrupt law enforcement and judicial system, etc.

 

[<Reaper>666]

Dang, the truth is finally revealed thanks to Youtube videos showing us 'The China they DON'T want you to SEE!'.

It's totes gonna collapse any day soon and all reports to the contrary must be propaganda to hide their fear of FREEDOM, I bet, while the US is, on the other hand, absolutely not a Potemkine village with insane inequality, violence, drug use, health disasters, corporate control over entire regions, absurdly corrupt law enforcement and judicial system, etc.

Philadelphia Struggles with Fighting Massive Drug Epidemic

Prescription drugs fueling growing heroin abuse

www.voanews.com

USA the global empire.

 

[t-dugong]

China is a giant Potemkin Village of pure bullshit. American workers are being made to compete for a living wage with people who willingly live in absolute squalor.

So...it's alright if it's French, or Canadian, or Malaysian workers then?

 

[Eliar]

Dang, the truth is finally revealed thanks to Youtube videos showing us 'The China they DON'T want you to SEE!'.

It's totes gonna collapse any day soon and all reports to the contrary must be propaganda to hide their fear of FREEDOM, I bet, while the US is, on the other hand, absolutely not a Potemkine village with insane inequality, violence, drug use, health disasters, corporate control over entire regions, absurdly corrupt law enforcement and judicial system, etc.

More or less the reason I giggle like mad every time some MURICAN keeps screetching about third world shitholes.

Meanwhile in Americanistan

Local gov is killing people for profit and corpos and media refuse to write anything a out it.

A huge part of the US success story is because it is just that. A story and an absurdly good propaganda machine