- cross-posted to:
- china@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- china@lemmy.ml
source https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Year/LTST/TradeFlow/EXPIMP
You must log in or register to comment.
i really hope theres no trade war with china. i love trading with china.
I wish our leaders weren't evil imperialists. But seeing as they are, I think I would prefer their idiocy to competency. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the two, but whatever hastens the removal of the boot from the necks of the global south is what I'm rooting for.
It doesn't matter what you or I believe only what the CPC and their neoliberal economic advisors think.
Case in point, you say there is no leverage, I say look at Foreign Direct Investment(10 year yoy change) graph and notice the actions of the CPC since early 2023 to begin a conciliatory move and silence western media criticisms e.g they reacted to the wolf warrior diplomacy shit, Xi-Biden meeting even after the moral panic over Pelosi/Taiwan 1 year earlier, absolutely not a single move against Israel etc.
China and the US are already on severe tensions, definitely the US already made moves to threaten and China is responding accordingly.
I don't like it any more than anyone but if I want to say China can resist the US pressure? Surely they can and they should, none of those actions were good or necessary, but it doesn't matter because the CPC doesn't believe they can.
All it means is that CPC is wisely choosing to avoid conflict because they know time is on their side.
Wisely collaborating with our enemies while the world burns and the genocide goes on.
Photo of The Anti-Imperialist War front, colored, ca. 2024
Glass half empty vs glass half full.
To be fair if that's the logic then the Communist Party should just close up shop and a pull a 1989, otherwise we're eventually looking at nuclear holocaust
Regardless of the threat China will be faced with the choice to stand up to the US or not
And they don't have a century to ponder this eventuality, climate change and US imperial collapse is ticking on and the timetable is shorter then any of us realize
The point is that the longer China can avoid confrontation the better position it will be in. Even a few years will make a huge difference.
Eh? Is that the argument now? I wasn't expecting a struggle session just for disagreeing but sure.
My position is none of this conciliatory moves were necessary at all.
So is the Chinese military supremacy real or not? Am I supposed to just laugh at every meme about superior hypersonic missiles from now on? Is the USN carriers obsolete or not? The J-20s actualy better than F-22s and F-35s or not? The massive fleet building capacity?
All of that may as well not exist then because China is simultaniously a smol bean global south country with no ways of resisting and also the most competent and advanced military in the world.
On Nuclear warfare I think this prospect is absolutely silly. Chinese resistance doesn't lead to WW3 anymore than Russia invading Ukraine lead to WW3, we don't need to submit to liberal fearmongering propaganda. Why is it that we all sat here in Feb 2022 dunking on libs saying that Russia would invade Europe after Ukraine and he must be stopped or else its WW3.
Yet To defend the mistakes of CPC politics we adopt the same discourse? "Yes actually the US must invade China and launch 100 nukes on Beijing if Xi even so much as tell Israel to fuck off?"
Finaly people here have complained, correctly that Biden is literaly 99% Hitler. So are we shaking hands with Hitler or not?
We're not talking about Chinese PLAN soldiers landing in California. We're talking about their own concessions to western imperialism, sometimes literaly collaborating with it(see Israel BRI investments or Saudi Arabia). None of that is necessary and it is not actualy helping.
China having military capability to fight the US does not mean that China should want to fight the US. A war would be incredibly costly for everyone involved, as we can see in Ukraine right now. What possible benefit is there in provoking conflict with an unhinged nuclear power?
On Nuclear warfare I think this prospect is absolutely silly.
RAND literally published a paper about nuking China if US starts losing, but do go on.
Chinese resistance doesn’t lead to WW3 anymore than Russia invading Ukraine lead to WW3, we don’t need to submit to liberal fearmongering propaganda.
Yes it does actually. US does not see Russia as being the same type of threat as China.
Yet To defend the mistakes of CPC politics we adopt the same discourse? “Yes actually the US must invade China and launch 100 nukes on Beijing if Xi even so much as tell Israel to fuck off?”
The fact that anybody would think avoiding war is a mistake is absolutely insane to me. I'm so very glad people with your mindset are nowhere near levers of power in China.
Finaly people here have complained, correctly that Biden is literaly 99% Hitler. So are we shaking hands with Hitler or not?
We've already seen what happened to USSR trying to have an openly adversarial relationship with the empire. Clearly some people learned absolutely nothing from that. The reality is that Chinese approach is working, and the US today is the weakest it has ever been since WW2. China is defeating the empire without bloodshed, and yet here we have western ultras complaining about it. Absolutely incredible stuff.
China having military capability to fight the US does not mean that China should want to fight the US. A war would be incredibly costly for everyone involved, as we can see in Ukraine right now. What possible benefit is there in provoking conflict with an unhinged nuclear power?
You jumped from resisting imperialism straight to nuclear war though, surely there are steps in between? In my initial comment I said nothing about instigating conflict. Please, things like the capitalist financial incentives have nothing to do with nuclear war! I merely commented on Chinese concessions to US imperialism at home and abroad as unecessary and I maintain that.
Besides the elephant in the room is it remains unclear how China investing into Israel in 2015 or giving weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2022 is appeasing conflict at home. With Israel it was the US that had to step in and push both of them apart as Chinese influence from investments was growing.
Did Trump and Biden put Xi on a nuclear gunpoint and say you must aid our imperialist puppets or else? Come on you know the reason why, rather they thought Palestine would head to a two state solution at best and the region was stabilizing e.g see Saudi-Iran deal.
We celebrated it as a genious move of superior and successful Chinese diplomacy. It turned out that was extremely wrong in hindsight as the US called everyone's bluff, put Saudi back on a leash and now maneuvered into a checkmate into the region.
The Genocide shows the failure of Chinese ideals, no you can't be friends with everyone unless you're ideologically compromised.
The fact that anybody would think avoiding war is a mistake is absolutely insane to me.
Assuming everything China does is a one way path to war is not justifiable at all and no American brainworms is not an answer, if it is then we're back to why is the US not even fighting in Ukraine let alone WW3. You have no answer for why libs were wrong on Ukraine yet you use the same argument.
Fucking Xi wont stop on Taiwan, he wants global domination! Its exactly why the US must launch 100 nukes!
I'm so very glad people with your mindset are nowhere near levers of power in China.
Instead we have cowards and grifters, literal enemies of the global south arming our enemies while delusional westerners say nothing but hail Xi as the Comunist party shakes hands with Hitler during the hollocaust.
If only Stalin had fucking J-20s and hypersonic missiles huh? Fuck off the personal attack wasn't necessary.
If you're going to quote RAND at least understand they're not hawkish on nuclear war at all, on the contrary they're analysing potential paths for war while managing escalation.
Next time post your source.
Avoid making U.S. long-range strike capabilities an attractive target for a limited Chinese nuclear strike.
Avoid long-range strike missions that could accidentally or inadvertently engage a nuclear armed third-party, such as Russia or North Korea.
Avoid extemporaneous responses to dangerous moments by preparing communication strategies and responses to Chinese nuclear signaling or use ahead of time.
Avoid peacetime training of conventional missions that appear most likely to trigger Chinese nuclear use, such as large-scale cost-imposition, leadership decapitation, or counterforce.
History suggests that U.S. political leadership might not authorize U.S. kinetic strikes on mainland China during a future conflict.
In Taiwan scenario wargames, U.S. long-range strike is linked to multiple undesired or unintentional escalation dynamics.
In most Taiwan scenario wargames, the initial aim of U.S. conventional long-range strike is operational defense (pure denial) to stop an amphibious assault against Taiwan.
DoD should prepare responses to potential Chinese nuclear deterrence signaling. These responses could vary from very publicly shaming nuclear weapon use to limited but intentionally observable increases in U.S. nuclear readiness, such as initiating continuous airborne alert for the U.S. airborne command posts or moving bombers to alert positions and bringing air crews back to ensure a sustainable day-to-day alert posture (as opposed to immediately raising the defense readiness condition).
There are many pathways to possible nuclear escalation; nuclear use might result from one that seems far-fetched, so even implausible pathways deserve consideration.
If fully committed to fighting and winning a war with China, the United States must be prepared for nuclear escalation and place more emphasis on managing these risks.
None of these 4 papers advise or approach it from the angle of US first use, on the contrary they're specialy concerned with managing escalation while being open to raising it which is entirely expected.
You can't jump from this to "the US will nuke China first if it loses" unless you can mention another source.
You jumped from resisting imperialism straight to nuclear war though, surely there are steps in between?
There are and China is taking them, that's why US power is visibly fading on the global stage.
We celebrated it as a genious move of superior and successful Chinese diplomacy. It turned out that was extremely wrong in hindsight as the US called everyone’s bluff, put Saudi back on a leash and now maneuvered into a checkmate into the region.
Ah yes, Saudis are back on the leash restoring relations with Iran, moving towards the BRICS, and planning to sell oil outside the dollar. Yup, totally makes sense.
Assuming everything China does is a one way path to war is not justifiable at all and no American brainworms is not an answer, if it is then we’re back to why is the US not even fighting in Ukraine let alone WW3. You have no answer for why libs were wrong on Ukraine yet you use the same argument.
I'm not sure how you can draw any meaningful comparisons with Ukraine here to be honest.
Meanwhile, those aren't the papers I was talking about. The paper in question is this one which actively advocates for a war with China and hand waves the use of nuclear weapons as unlikely suggesting that if US did use nuclear weapons that China somehow wouldn't retaliate directly:
It is unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used: Even in an intensely violent conventional conflict, neither side would regard its losses as so serious, its prospects so dire, or the stakes so vital that it would run the risk of devastating nuclear retaliation by using nuclear weapons first. We also assume that China would not attack the U.S. homeland, except via cyberspace, given its minimal capability to do so with conventional weapons.
The paper calls for a preemptive strike to be on the table. The editorial itself argues that a preemptive strike would result in a protracted conflict that would be ruinous both in terms of fatalities and economic costs, but proposes an unprovoked attack nonetheless.
As its military advantage declines, the United States will be less confident that a war with China will conform to its plans. China’s improved military capabilities, particularly for anti-access and area denial (A2AD), mean that the United States cannot count on gaining operational control, destroying China’s defences, and achieving decisive victory if a war occurred.
The unstated conclusion here is that a war with China must be fought sooner rather than later.
Furthermore, The Federation of American Scientists provides a useful analysis of the Pentagon’s tilt toward nuclear use as a regional deterrent. https://fas.org/publication/lrso-mission/
US Air Force developed the B61-12 guided nuclear bomb with dialable yields up to 50 kilotons that can be delivered by a stealth fighter https://www.revealnews.org/blog/risky-u-s-nuclear-bomb-gets-green-light/
US is also developing a stealth cruise missile with dialable yield, also capable of carrying a conventional as well as nuclear payload that can be dropped off a stealth bomber https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2022_SARS/LRSO_SAR_DEC_2022.pdf
Tactical nuclear warfare is undeniably a priority for the Air Force, not only in its selection of weaponry but also in its strategic doctrine. The US believes that there exists a tactical nuclear use phase of war-fighting, which curiously differs from a full-scale nuclear war. This specific context is deemed ideal by the Air Force for deploying tactical nukes without provoking an immediate strategic retaliation against the US.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Every day that goes by it becomes more clear that the only reason anybody still listens to the US is because they have the most nukes.
second largest actually :) https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywashburn/2023/02/24/russia-has-the-most-nuclear-weapons-in-the-world-here-are-the-other-countries-with-the-largest-nuclear-arsenals/
I think that it has more to do with the fact that the US and Israel are the only two countries that might be willing to aggressively launch nukes just because their invasion of (insert country) is not going as planned or because they are just bored.
reading about nuclear weapons in 2024 gives me the heebie jeebies. we really in for a bad time now aint we.
I fear we might be, and at this point it's clear that western leadership is utterly insane.
I really hope so. It would be a disaster to humanity if the US can bully whoever and no one can pushback.
A permanent 3% drop in GDP is definitely gonna hurt, but yeah it's not collapse grade.
That would be assuming that China can't redirect trade to other countries. For example, Russia didn't have a permanent GDP drop after the trade war with the west.
There's no other country on Earth that will buy 30,000 metric tons of Funkopops per year. That 3% of factories will have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Idk, bigger shops in Poland have a lot of this shit and though i never even seen anyone looking at it, people must be buying it because otherwise they would flied off the benches fast. Then again i bet it would disappear fast if the ongoing US cultural invasion stopped.
In the sense that the economy would have to make it up elsewhere rather than a temporary decline in trade volume.
Obviously there are confounding factors (internal knock on effects would increase it, pivoting to non US sources or middlemen would decrease it) and I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge to work through that. But even if it took 3 years to fully recover and pivot, that's three years with GDP growth essentially cut by a third. In the west that same cut would tip most economies into deep recession.
maybe it's not about the volume (how much) but about one specific material? i try to find something about a special kind of mineral needed for chips that only the US has, but can't seem to find it anymore in endless notes and screengrabs
It's actually the other way around. China has a monopoly on a number of rare earth metals essential for stuff like semiconductors and batteries.
for rare earth's that's true, but there's a quartz mine in north carolina that's a source for ultra pure silicon
https://www.wired.com/story/book-excerpt-science-of-ultra-pure-silicon/
i'm not sure offhand how difficult that would be to replace by refining less pure sources of silicon
But that brings us to an equally important question: let’s say Spruce Pine is down for a while. How long until alternative sources of high purity quartz are located and brought online?
After all, as I wrote in the book, it’s not as if there’s no high purity quartz elsewhere. It’s more that Spruce Pine has a near unique combination of purity, availability and price. There are mines in Russia and Brazil, not to mention China, which already produce lots of high purity quartz. There are some companies which are able to make high purity quartz synthetically.
Per here: https://edconway.substack.com/p/whats-happening-at-spruce-pine
So difficult but not impossible or anything, China could manage just fine.
China is integral aspect of many global supply chains that US depends on. When you include all the intermediate inputs it turns out China is the main source of these goods for about 95% of all American industrial sectors https://edconway.substack.com/p/globalisation-is-a-far-far-bigger
This includes critical national security domains as well. For example, 40% of US DoD weapons system and infrastructure supply chains rely on Chinese semiconductors https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/65e61e6392aba0fa1dba723e/66104c1d4e3ae7809bcd8082_Govini_2024_Numbers-Matter.pdf
This fact calls into the question the 3% figure. What percentage of China's GDP and exports balance are for components sent to intermediaries for US demand? These are levers available to the US to pull on as well beyond its direct trade relationships.
The whole thing with intermediaries is that they're very difficult to track. So, real exports from China might indeed be higher, but it's very difficult for the US to root them out. You can just look at the whole farce with sanctions on Russian energy as an example of what happens in practice.
IMO the russian sanctions are very easy to follow no? India freely reports a 60% increase in oil imports from Russia and EU imports from India double almost overnight to 40% of India's daily production. Although that is much more macro-scale and easier to track then like the origins of the bolts in an imported car part.
Right, everybody knows it's happening, but there's little interest in actually enforcing these sanctions since Europe needs energy and as long as they can pretend it's coming from India that's good enough politically. I expect the same thing will happen with Chinese tariffs, companies will still want to minimize their costs by sourcing from China, but it'll be done in a way that's politically palatable.
Significant, considering most parts US manufacturing relies on are made in China. However the US has been "decoupling" from China by buying those parts through middlemen anyway, similar to what Russia does to buy goods from the West now. Per https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/jan/decoupling-where-it-matters-us-imports-from-china-in-critical-sectors
While our findings suggest the U.S. is well on its way to reducing its dependence on China, there are important considerations to keep in mind:
First, while reducing trade risks and exposure may be attractive, doing so can also be costly. Industrial policy has a mixed track record at best and is often hard to remove. Similarly, changing suppliers may require paying significantly higher prices. Some of these costs might be passed on to final consumers or affect workers unevenly across sectors. Thus, it is crucial to investigate whether reducing dependence is worth it and when it is a calculated risk to be accepted.
Second, we focus on direct imports from China. However, to the extent that U.S. imports from other countries are produced using inputs from China, the U.S. may nevertheless remain dependent on indirect imports from China, even if direct dependence is reduced.
Finally, import shares may not fully capture the degree of industry exposure to a given country. Some goods may not account for a significant fraction of the total value imported but may be critical for welfare or output. For instance, even though semiconductors are a small fraction of car production costs, shortages of semiconductors had a significant impact in this industry. Thus, the degree of substitutability of the goods under consideration is critical for evaluating the degree of exposure and dependence.
I think you misunderstand what hurts an economy. It hurts an economy when a country stop importing from you, not when they stop exporting(at least to a much bigger degree) . And around 15% of Chinese exports goes to USA.
What matters is relative damage to each economy and how easily the trade partner can be replaced with an alternative. When you include all the intermediate inputs it turns out China is the main source of these goods for about 95% of all American industrial sectors https://edconway.substack.com/p/globalisation-is-a-far-far-bigger
The US is completely and utterly dependent on exports from China, meanwhile majority of China's economy is insulated from the US. In case of a trade war, the damage to US would be much more significant than the other way around. Furthermore, as Russia showed, it's possible to redirect trade away from the west. China is now actively learning from Russian experience.
On the other hand, reshoring production is a much more difficult task than shifting exports to a different market. The US doesn't have a coherent plan for achieving that, and it will take many years to implement even if there was one. It requires training out an educated workforce, building factories, securing supply chains, and so on. This is a decades long project.
the real problem for america is if china stops exporting to them, it would hurt china a lot, but i reckon it would be country collapsing for america, so much of the american economy is built on cheap chinese inputs
