29-12-2004 19:04									#31
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by el freako To cause problems for the US economy, China and Japan don't need to sell off their assets - they just need to stop buying more

why, in the scenario above, would Japan sell off its dollar assets, with dollar interest rates rising?

Would not raising US interest rates draw in money from all over the world? Would not EVERYONEs interest rates be effected?

Assuming that the US sourced its imports differently, (though UR has a good point in that that takes time, at least on a large scale) would not that create more wealth in the alternate sources (india, central america, etc) which has to go somewhere? But perhaps the marginal propensity to save is lower in those countries than in China?

Where does China put its savings? Does it use them to buy critical imports for the duration? How long can they do that?

	29-12-2004 19:05									#32
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger NYE, All the Taiwanese mobo makers have most of the factories in China now and will continue the move.

Interesting point.

	29-12-2004 19:09									#33
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DaShi There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking in these threads. Gepap makes the simplest and best cases: everyone will be hurt. The thing about China is that you really can't predict where it will be in 10 years. 10 years ago, they couldn't either. Having a fast growing economy is one thing, having a stable economy is something else entirely. One only needs to look at Japan. I already see a repeat of the concerns of Japanese economic and world dominance. China's economy is very delicate as most rapidly developing one's are. The government is watching it very carefully and doing what is necessary to prevent it from crashing and burning, like Japan, while worrying about the more unique factor that China has. If something big and deliberately harmful appeared, many countries would be affected, but it will be the stable economies that will survive through it. Until China stabilizes its economy, it is in no position to make economic threats and has wisely not even hinted so.

So the real question is, would this deter the PRC from taking actions likely lead to this kind of economic conflict? I think its clear that if Taiwan launched a UDI, PRC would use force, despite the consequences, which might be lesser since Taiwans provocation might effect what the US (not to mention Japan) would do. OTOH I agree that as long as there is no change in the status quo, theres no reason for the PRC to take action. OTOH, what if Taiwan slowly "desinifies" without going so far as a UDI? I could see that as a scenario where PRC would use force, and where counter action by the US would be a real (even a likely) possibility. In that circumstance, I suspect Japan would sympathize with the US position, which would effect the economic conflict, at least.

	29-12-2004 19:10									#34
	Remove this text

Taiwan's manufacturing or lack there of is mute. If China and Taiwan are fighting (or it is taken), we would not have access to their stuff anyways.

	29-12-2004 20:34									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark OTOH I agree that as long as there is no change in the status quo, theres no reason for the PRC to take action. OTOH, what if Taiwan slowly "desinifies" without going so far as a UDI?

It depends on how you see "status quo."

For example, the Taiwanese government is going to change the name of its offices from "ROC something" to "Taiwan something." The day after that some States Department spokeman come out and said that would be a bad idea because that would involve an unilateral change of the status quo. That sent some panic waves through the DPP government.

	29-12-2004 20:40									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So if you are from India, Central America, and Africa it seems like this would be a good thing from some of what has been said above.

They would go through an economic crisis as well, but depending on how long China remains isolated, wouldn't the markets dump money and investments into those sheres to again secure cheap goods outlets?

	29-12-2004 22:14									#37
	Re: Who would be hurt more in a US-China ECONOMIC confrontation over Taiwan? Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Lets assume that China, concerned about the steady development of a distinct Taiwan identity, attacks Taiwan (presumably via air and missile attack, and naval blockade) Assume there is no declaration of independence as provocation. Assume further that the US does NOT go to war, but responds by embargoing all trade with China. Assume China responds by selling off all its assets in the US. What are the economic and political consequences in A. The US B. China C. elsewhere ?

The US would declare war over Taiwan, and the Chinese as of yet, would not fair well.

Economically they are our creditor, but only to a tune of about 400 billion dollars as far as debt is concerned. They hold property but that will be seized, but we'll have to make the difference on the dollars that they are sitting on. Our position is not so eroded yet as to make conflict with China unthinkable.

as far as cheap goods and low low prices are concerned, a great many nations will be quite happy that China is no longer competing for "their" share of the US market.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Who is the biggest supplier of food to China?

Right now it is the US but they are making deals with other countries such as Brazil, their main problem would be the unrestricted submarine warfare preventing any and all ships from entering or leaving their ports as well as our land bases in Asia.

	29-12-2004 22:31									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Unrestricted submarine warfare is patently illegal.

As for a full blockade- I doubt that is even an option- not only is it dangerous for our vessels, but most states would cry bloody murder.

	29-12-2004 22:42									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

We don't have a merchant marine right now(a handful of ships that does US port to US port stuff), Reagan made the decision to axe that(a mistake).

	29-12-2004 23:25									#40
	Re: Re: Who would be hurt more in a US-China ECONOMIC confrontation over Taiwan? Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Whoha The US would declare war over Taiwan, and the Chinese as of yet, would not fair well. .

Maybe, but the original post explicity assumed this would NOT happen. The goal being to get a better sense of what the US can do to deter China strictly with the threat of economic sanctions apart from military means.

	29-12-2004 23:27									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap Unrestricted submarine warfare is patently illegal.

The US declared unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan during WW2. When since was it declared illegal?

	29-12-2004 23:27									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Nothing.

	29-12-2004 23:27									#43
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Whoha We don't have a merchant marine right now(a handful of ships that does US port to US port stuff), Reagan made the decision to axe that(a mistake).

I think GePap meant it would be dangerous to US warships enforcing the blockade.

	29-12-2004 23:29									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap Unrestricted submarine warfare is patently illegal. As for a full blockade- I doubt that is even an option- not only is it dangerous for our vessels, but most states would cry bloody murder.

I assume PRC would be enforcing a blockade on Taiwan, using air power and missiles to attack both ships and port facilities, and using submarines against shipping. In that context it would be difficult to complain about a counter blockade.

	29-12-2004 23:35									#45
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I assume PRC would be enforcing a blockade on Taiwan, using air power and missiles to attack both ships and port facilities, and using submarines against shipping. In that context it would be difficult to complain about a counter blockade.

Its not an issue of complaints-1. unrestricted submarine warfare is illegal

2. I am sure third parties would scream bloody murder about a Chinese blockade of taiwan too.

Your point?

	29-12-2004 23:36									#46
	Put an end to popups!

"After the war, Grand Admiral Doenitz of the German Navy -- who had been selected by Hitler to replace him as fuhrer after his suicide -- was brought before the Nuremberg Tribunal on war crimes charges for the practice of unrestricted submarine warfare. American and British naval officials faced no such prosecution. Doenitz was found not guilty with respect to German actions against armed British merchant ships, since the fact of being armed removed those vessels from the protections of the London Protocol. It did find him guilty of ordering German submarines not to comply with the warning and rescue provisions within the German declared war zones. The Tribunal took note of the problem that these provisions put submarines at risk, but concluded: “This may be so, but the Protocol is explicit. If the commander cannot rescue, then under its terms he cannot sink a merchant vessel and should allow it to pass harmless before his periscope.”

The centerpiece of the prosecution’s case was the Laconia Order of 1942 in which Doenitz prohibited German submarines from rescuing the survivors of sunken ships. Unfortunately, the prosecution was caught flat-footed when it became clear that they were unaware of the context of the Laconia order and the full story of the sinking of the Laconia. The Laconia was a lightly armed converted British ocean liner that was being used to transport some 1,500 Italian prisoners of war and 811 British passengers. The Laconia was sunk by a German U-Boat in the South Atlantic on September 12, 1942. The Laconia’s crew radioed for help as it was sinking. The German submarine commander also called for help from both Germany and Vichy France. Three more German submarines came to assist. All four submarines stayed on the surface for four days rescuing survivors and displaying large red cross flags. No allied ships were sent, but an American plane showed up and bombed the vulnerable submarines. It was at this point that Doenitz issued the Laconia Order. He claimed its harshness was necessary to force his officers to take actions which might be against their instincts. (Though at least one German submarine commander’s instincts led him to misinterpret the order as meaning that all survivors should be killed.)

The Tribunal did take the behavior of the allies into consideration in sentencing Doenitz. Given British and American practices of unrestricted submarine warfare, the Tribunal found Doenitz guilty of breaches of international law, but declined to assess a punishment for that violation. (On other issues, Doenitz was sentenced to spend ten years in the Spandau Prison.)

Current commentators are divided on whether the London Protocols still reflect the law. Some continue to argue that the positive law is clear and must be respected. Others argue that customary behavior has clearly evolved to make the Protocols’ rules with regard to submarine warfare obsolete.

Contemporary American naval rules allow for destroying enemy merchant ships without warning under a number of circumstances. If the enemy merchant is part of a convoy with military escort, if it refuses to stop or resists inspection for contraband, if it is armed, or if it is believed to be engaged in intelligence activities. American naval vessels are required to take “all possible measures” to ensure the safety of crew and passengers, but may still destroy an enemy merchant when such destruction is justified on military grounds.

	29-12-2004 23:39									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

What does it say about ships flying another flag? Say, a Liberian flag.

	29-12-2004 23:46									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap What does it say about ships flying another flag? Say, a Liberian flag.

Presumably in that case the sub would surface, warn, and give the crew a chance to evacuate (in life boats) before sinking the prize, same as surface ships do. Presumably a neutral flag ship wont fight back or contact belligerent air and sea assets, so the sub is in no danger. Nor will the neutral ship move in convoy, with military escort. Which also means neutral shipping will be particularly vulnerable. Which is why during the battle of the Atlantic the Brits relied on allied flagged shipping, NOT neutral shipping. (US flag ships were not used till the second half of 1941, when the US declared that it would escort them and defend them - at that point the US was virtually NOT a neutral)

Presumably IF a Liberian flag ship were to be armed, or were to contact PRC military forces during such an incident, the US govt would take this up with the govt of Liberia. The US govt would presumably request that the shipping line involved be deprived of its right to fly the Liberian flag = presumably the US govt would send helpful reminder notes to the Panamanian govt and others that make available flags of convenience. Should the Liberian govt refuse, the US would have to consider the possibility of declaring Liberia a belligerent.

Note that reflagging during war is not an idle matter. During the Iraq - Iran war neutral flags failed to protect tankers from attack by the Iranian air force. In this instance the tankers were largely carrying oil from nominal neutrals - Kuwait and KSA. The tankers were reflagged as US ships, and the US extended its naval protection to them. Search on "tanker war".

	29-12-2004 23:50									#49
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Vessels engaged in activities connected to a beligerent power, for beligerrent purposes, are fair game.

And basically anything supporting the economy of a belligerent applies.

	29-12-2004 23:50									#50
	Put an end to popups!

And in WW2 terror raids were admissible behavior. This is not 1941, if you have not noticed. This is 2004, basically 2005. The international norm has changed radically, mainly thakns to the events of 39-45.

	29-12-2004 23:50									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Assuming the scenario as given, China's economy would be devastated. China could not retaliate against the dollar because the value of its own currency references the dollar.

In currency terms (the proper measure for this analysis), roughly 15% of China's economy is tied to exports to the US. Less than 2% of the US economy is tied to imports to China and less than 1% of the US economy is tied to exports to China. While these values are growing quickly, it is clear to me that the US would be in much the better situation now. It would hurt the US economy, no doubt.

	29-12-2004 23:55									#52
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Vessels engaged in activities connected to a beligerent power, for beligerrent purposes, are fair game. And basically anything supporting the economy of a belligerent applies.

So if the Chinese nuke the Port of LA, fair game?

Please. as I said to LoTM, this is NOT 1941.

	29-12-2004 23:58									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap And in WW2 terror raids were admissible behavior. This is not 1941, if you have not noticed. This is 2004, basically 2005. The international norm has changed radically, mainly thakns to the events of 39-45.

Evidence for this change, please. (with regard to the sub warfare, NOT the bombing) Its not 1941, but assertions that particular aspects of international law have changed since then still need to be backed up.

	29-12-2004 23:59									#54
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap So if the Chinese nuke the Port of LA, fair game? Please. as I said to LoTM, this is NOT 1941.

I know of no article of international law that bans first use of nuclear weapons, during a war. China would nuke LA at its own risk of course, since it could be assumed that would lead to massive retaliation.

	30-12-2004 00:10									#55
	Increase Your PM Length

note wrt to tanker war - the US got involved with the reflagging operation ONLY when tankers carrying oil from nominal neutrals Kuwait, etc were attacked by Iran (rev. guards in small craft, not air as i earlier said) earlier in the war both countries attacked NEUTRAL FLAG tankers - with no prior London protocol warnings, AFAIK. And with no particular uproar from the international community, AFAIK.

	30-12-2004 00:17									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: So if the Chinese nuke the Port of LA, fair game? Please. as I said to LoTM, this is NOT 1941.

I am talking about belligerents sinking shipping. In this scenario, the US and China are not sinking anything.

If you have declared a blockade, it is a matter of course that you can stop anything moving through for search.

Of course, in reality, a blockade would be defacto war. Sactions are totally different.

But in referance to your not at all helpful example, if we are at war and blockading we will sink anything going to China period. If China can sink merchants in LA harbor good on them, but unfortunetly for them they most definetly can't. And of as far as nuking goes, that has nothing to do with this at a all.

	30-12-2004 00:19									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos I am talking about belligerents sinking shipping. In this scenario, the US and China are not sinking anything. If you have declared a blockade, it is a matter of course that you can stop anything moving through for search.

Perhaps some here have forgotten that blockade is an accepted means of warfare under international law?

	30-12-2004 00:22									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I guess, and if it does come to war and blockade, I think few here are capable of wrapping their minds around the scale of such of thing.

Most here think Iraq is the war to end all wars, bleeding America dry

	30-12-2004 02:17									#59
	Support Apolyton

Summary of Thread:

America.
China.
NO, AMERIC AWOULD YOU IDIOT!!11
NOW, CHINA WOULD BW NMEAGPWND LOL!!111
How about them both?
Go away.
Go away.

	30-12-2004 04:07									#60
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Perhaps some here have forgotten that blockade is an accepted means of warfare under international law?

While it depends in what context you were mentioning this, the problem is that in order for a Chinese blockade to be really effective, they have to blockade all of Taiwan. While China may be able to pull this off with surface assets in the Straits of Taiwan, east of Taiwan is a different story.

The basic issue is that China can probably gain air superiority over the straits of Taiwan, very few of China's fighters can even reach the sea area east of Taiwan with their range without flying directly over the middle of Taiwan and their potent SAM defensive system. When you start considering how any fighters trying to go around Taiwan still are going to be vulnerable to Taiwan's long range anti-aircraft missiles, and especially with Taiwan's AWACS capability they will be able to intercept any Chinese fighter forces trying to get East of Taiwan quite effecitvely, you have to conclude that Taiwan would be able to gain air superiority if this scenario happened.

As far as any Chinese surface force goes, for starter east of Taiwan they are going to have to worry about Taiwan rather capable navy that should be able to take out a fair number of Chinese ships.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...taiwan/navy.htm

Even more decisive though is going to be Taiwan's airforce that will agressively attack any surface assets that try to go East of Taiwan with Harpoon and air launched Hsiung Feng II missiles. The Chinese Navy currently still has rather poor anti-aircraft and anti-missile capabilities, and would be increadibly vulnerable and quickly sunk in large numbers in such a scenario, this leaves China's submarine force to enforce a blockade.

The problem is that stopping and searching, or even stopping and turning away, surface transports is not really viable for China's submarines. Even disregarding the potential problems from transport "Q-ships", submarines are hideously vulnerable today if they tried to surface and possibly even search another vessal. The radio crew on board could quickly communicate with the Taiwanese military and aircraft could quickly arrive and attack the now extremely vulnerable submarine in plain view on the surface. As a result, the submarines are going to need to adapt a plan of sinking any ship that comes within a certain distance to Taiwan. (They can't make this too close to Taiwan either as the submarines would be too vulnerable to Taiwanese ASW capabilities if they tried this.) Sinking neutral civillian ships without warning, in what would ordinarily be considered international waters to boot, is quite different than the conventional blockade. I'm almost certain this violates some international law, and it would have consequences for trade throughout much of Asia besides its direct effects on Taiwan.