New World Order - BRIC

[Beatmaster]

Just a serious idea,
This might be offtopic but i wonder...
The US is a superpower and i believe its the only power that has the power to back it up when needed.
But with China on the rise what would the US and EU do to counter this?
Because now we are used to the fact that the US is calling the shots behind the screens for a big part and in most cases this has a positive effect on global stability...at least that is what it seems.
But with a booming China how would the world react on the fact that the US can be matched in influence some day by China?
The EU economy is largly influeced by the US economy but what happens if the Chinese get near the same influence level as the US and EU?
I mean this would have great economic impact and what would the US do to make sure that US ( And its main allies) economic and strategic intrests keep secured?
Would they step down from the superpower status and pass it on to China someday? or will this result in a sort of arms race to regain full control?
Because if BRIC group is succesful then they should be able to hurt the EU and US economy specially because Russia for example has huge recources that the EU needs (Gas for example).
Also if you look globally how mutch the Chinese export, then i think we all can agree that the export globally is huge and the numbers go only up.
So this means that on a economic level the Chinese doing very wel and their influense grows with each passing year.
Having Russia and China in the same team to counter EU and US economy is not something to look over and forget, because together they have a big voice and if they keep this up than someday the really become a serious player on the worldmarket.....in some ways they already are but i mean that the could rival the US/EU Political, Economical and Military intrests and strategic positions.
And i really wonder what the US and EU is going to do about that to maintain the stability and global intrests because this may sound weard but on a ship there can be only one captain........:coffee

 

[Sampanviking]

Beatmaster, what makes you think that the EU will continue to blindly align with and follow the US throughout the coming decades.

The SCO is an emerging EU type integration mechanism and one which exists on the same continent as the EU and with which is shares significant borders. Why should not the EU and SCO further integrate together in order to ensure, Atlantic to Pacific wide stability, uninterrupted energy supplies and a huge common market.

What exactly does America have left to offer?

 

[shag]

Beatmaster, what makes you think that the EU will continue to blindly align with and follow the US throughout the coming decades.

The SCO is an emerging EU type integration mechanism and one which exists on the same continent as the EU and with which is shares significant borders. Why should not the EU and SCO further integrate together in order to ensure, Atlantic to Pacific wide stability, uninterrupted energy supplies and a huge common market.

What exactly does America have left to offer?

@Sampanviking
SCO cannot be compared to EU. The last letters Union and Organization spell out most of the difference. EU is a much more mature grouping with full fledged leadership and very little conflicting interests(atleast on foreign policy and basic principles).

SCO has a very different agenda and scope.
What EU 'should' do is debatable at best and not under the scope of this discussion. However what they will likely do is stay integrated with US. Engaging with SCO on economic front is a different matter and will progress in most likelyhood. Strategic alignment with it on the other hand is very unlikely.
You should remember that 21 EU members are also members of NATO. NATO action in Serbia had the support of most if not all EU nations. You can post a lot of moral questions on this fact but how many nations do you think would support a similar action by SCO, even if it manages to form into that military alliance?
Fact is there are lot of old ties binding US and Europe and SCO cannot expect to usurp it for the next half century

btw SCO and EU are NOT on the same continent.

 

[Beatmaster]

Beatmaster, what makes you think that the EU will continue to blindly align with and follow the US throughout the coming decades.

The SCO is an emerging EU type integration mechanism and one which exists on the same continent as the EU and with which is shares significant borders. Why should not the EU and SCO further integrate together in order to ensure, Atlantic to Pacific wide stability, uninterrupted energy supplies and a huge common market.

What exactly does America have left to offer?

I believe that the relations between EU and US are way to important for both to lose.

@Shag

What i mean with EU and US against SCO is not as front A versus front B
But more in general pure economic.
There is clearly a form of power shifting between east and west and what i do mean with my post ( I hope i explain it the right way)
Is that if you lose economic influence than eventually you will lose military power as wel and i do believe that both the EU/NATO and US are heavy dependant on a military backbone to ensure its economic ties troughout the world.
For example there are lots of countries out there that have been punished by economic sactions due UN resolutions now theoretical if the West loses influence to Easters SCO/BRIC in a economic way than eventually they will lose the military backbone to ensure sanctions and resolutions as well.
Would east honor these agreements or will China for example dictate a differend view?
So basicly what would the powershift do to the relations between EU members towards US and Bric because we live in a world where the strongest rules ( In most cases)

Again i do hope i explain this correctly and i do believe that this is a bit offtopic at the same time the situation psoted by me fits in to the BRIC/SCO story.

 

[OPSSG]

As usual, Firn, many thanks for your response.

...OPSSG layed already out the military difficulties the PRC faces in an outright invasion of the ROC and seemingly resulting strong focus on antiaccess when dealing with a strong military ally of the ROC. I just want to add that the PRC could be in such an event also be easily subject to a wide array of highly effective options.

In most forum discussions on the defence of Taiwan, many participants often fail to properly take into account the Taiwanese forces, the nature of their deployment patterns and Taiwan's natural terrain and shoreline features (enhanced through Taiwanese preparation). Let me just set out a video and some numbers below:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEyeitVXM2Y]ROC(Taiwan) Military [/ame]

Taiwan has roughly 2 million troops consisting of 21 active divisions (including the 5 divisions on the Taiwan controlled islands), 7 reserve divisions, 2 armored and mechanized divisions and 1 marine division deployed throughout Taiwan for internal defense. *​

The large size of Taiwan's forces dictates that any invasion force will need to destroy Taiwan's SAM network, Taiwan's air force, Taiwan's army aviation and thereafter land enough forces to contend with the defenders (though this 2 million troop figure will be much reduced, in future, as Taiwan plans to go all volunteer and end conscription).

I recognise that China's PLA is embarking on a serious modernisation effort (Rand, 2005) and is striving to be a near peer military competitor to the US. According to some estimates, China's military expenditure in 2008 was about US$ 85 billion. Therefore, PLA's military options (especially as they relate to a potential Taiwan Strait confrontation) have grown in recent years with vast improvements in its military power. China observers estimate that China has between 1300 to 1500 ballistic missiles targeting the Taiwan. And hundreds of China's most advanced strike aircraft are deployed facing Taiwan. For many China observers, the two main problems China has in an invasion (when distilled) are as follows:

(i) the sea-land gap of the Taiwan Straits (contending that the PLAN when fully modernised can breach it to enable the PLA's invasion force to conduct integrated joint operations - via the dual track approach of mechanisation and informationalisation - to take on the defenders); and

(ii) the presence of USN (which will be dealt with by China's anti-access strategy).​

However, such a two factor analysis fails to provide a complete understanding of a potential China-Taiwan conflict.

And even if the PLA were victorious, whether destroying or forcing the Taiwan’s surrender, the conflict would cause large amounts of civilian dead, the destruction of Taiwan’s infrastructure and the end to Taiwan’s economic strength - what would China gain by destroying Taiwan? The value of Taiwan is in the ingenuity of it's people (and keeping in mind that the Taiwanese are a significant part of China's direct foreign investments). If China wishes to reintegrate Taiwan with the mainland, logically, it's goal should not be to acquire a bombed-out target range for its military forces. However, this is not to say the PLA is without options to make things difficult for Taiwan (via a blockade or other means) - available tools includes the newer magnetic and acoustic combination mine like the EM-52 rocket boost rising mines. This type of mine can be laid in waters down to 110 meters deep and it has an electronic trigger for its 140-kilogram warhead.

-------------------
*Footnote: Figures extracted from Wood, Piers M. and Charles D. Ferguson. “How China might invade Taiwan.” Naval War College Review (Autumn 2001).

 

[OPSSG]

...Taking over Taiwan is no big deal for China if it commits itself to it.

...OPSSG layed already out the military difficulties the PRC faces in an outright invasion of the ROC and seemingly resulting strong focus on antiaccess when dealing with a strong military ally of the ROC. I just want to add that the PRC could be in such an event also be easily subject to a wide array of highly effective options.

Taiwan has roughly 2 million troops consisting of 21 active divisions (including the 5 divisions on the Taiwan controlled islands), 7 reserve divisions, 2 armored and mechanized divisions and 1 marine division deployed throughout Taiwan for internal defense.​

The large size of Taiwan's forces dictates that any invasion force will need to destroy Taiwan's SAM network, Taiwan's air force, Taiwan's army aviation and thereafter land enough forces to contend with the defenders...

I was watching an April 2009 mainland Chinese TV programme on the PLA's modernisation efforts, which includes it's anti-access strategy. From 1:28 minute of the programme onwards, there is specific commentary on the PLA's ability to invade Taiwan. The mainland Chinese military analyst featured in the programme believes that the PLA can invade the smaller Taiwan controlled outposts/islands (such as the Yijiang, Pescadores, Quemoy and Matsu Islands) off the coast of mainland China BUT NOT the main Taiwan Island. I've included a link to the Chinese TV programme below.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4aN2AOVd90&feature=related]Opinion on PLA's ability to invade Taiwan[/ame]

Therefore even a military Chinese analyst believes that the PLA does not have the current capability to successfully invade the main Taiwan island.

If you are interested there is an excellent open source online analysis of Taiwan's SAM network and the SAM network is a significant element of the Taiwan's defense. For an American perspective, please read "Countering a Strategic Gambit: Keeping US Airpower Employable in a China-Taiwan Conflict" by Col Lawrence M. Martin Jr., USAF. Ultimately, Taiwan's security has been enhanced by Taiwanese investments in mainland China, ensuring that the CCP's economic interest is aligned with that of Taiwanese investors in mainland China. Conversely, Taiwanese business interests would also be against loose talk by any Taiwanese Government on the topic of 'independence' as this would provoke mainland China. With the KMT in power again, they have indeed toned down any such rhetoric.

 

[Firn]

I was watching an April 2009 mainland Chinese TV programme on the PLA's modernisation efforts, which includes it's anti-access strategy. From 1:28 minute of the programme onwards, there is specific commentary on the PLA's ability to invade Taiwan. The mainland Chinese military analyst featured in the programme believes that the PLA can invade the smaller Taiwan controlled outposts/islands (such as the Yijiang, Pescadores, Quemoy and Matsu Islands) off the coast of mainland China BUT NOT the main Taiwan Island. I've included a link to the Chinese TV programme below.

Therefore even a military Chinese analyst believes that the PLA does not have the current capability to successfully invade the main Taiwan island.

The links are truly interesting and shed more than some light from many angles on the current situation between the two de facto states.

The primary political objective of the military of Tawain is to protect the state from any possible adversary, and by far the most likely is the PRC.
As the sources show it is an effective force which relative capabilities get multiplied by the innate advantages the defense offers according to the specific geopolitical situation.

I think people should look back in time and they will see just how difficult it was to invade for example the Normandy under much more favorable conditions. Thus the need for the PRC to adopt effective combinations of strategies with varying political, economical and military elements. The anti-access strategy (both political and military) can be considered to be one of the major strategic themes in it.

The ASW thread contains some good articles on the effectivness and the politcal risk of submarine warfare. It proved to be sometimes so efficient that the far weaker sea power could almost defeat the largest empire greatly supported by all means by the largest industrial power. Even if the effort was defeated it needed ten times the ressources to do so. The modern mines could be the naval equivalent of the precision guided bombs, allowing for example a submarine to increase the effectivness of a covert mining operations by a huge margine.

To come back to the original topic. BRIC isn't anything near an alliance, it is just a way to tell the USA that many are not happy with it's power and the way it wields it. There are in fact plenty of issues between nations like India and China or Russia and China which counteract the formations of deeper political and military ties.

 

[JonMusser]

@Ananda
China controls 1T in US Bonds.
So, does Japan - a simliar amount. Who controls whom in that scenario is still not resolved. Getting off this drug of fiscal deficits is not out of reach for the US and it has been done less than a decade back and can be done again. The whole fact has been bloated out to mean more than it should.

i herd an interesting theory a while back MAD Mutual assured destruction
-the United States need China to buy our bonds yes
-But china need the us to buy its goods
in other words china and the United States need each other to survive. further more recently china sold a portion and Japan took over as the number one lender to the United States.
- it is my thinking that the US could find another country like Japan to buy our Bonds but i do not see china being able to replace the United States Buying power
- further more the United States could shift out sourcing and all other trade from china to countries like Indonesia and India
though i do not believe china would be dead due to this shift in american economic trade but it would be in definite world of hurt

Further more I would like to say i have read much of both PLA and ROC militarizes though i am personally worried that the tied are changing to favor PLA my wager would still be on ROC both because it gets a big bonus being on the defense as well as it having strong allies and a extremely capable military
again having said this i believe the us need to approve further arms sales to ROC to strengthen its air force and Navy especially its submarines

OPSSG your links in regard to ROC's defenses are amazing!

(i hope this is not to off topic just some things i wanted to add)

 

[Carrot Smack]

- it is my thinking that the US could find another country like Japan to buy our Bonds but i do not see china being able to replace the United States Buying power

There's always the possibility that demand will grow in the Middle East once the situation (economically, politically, ect) improves.

 

[JonMusser]

There's always the possibility that demand will grow in the Middle East once the situation (economically, politically, ect) improves.

yes but i am not sure the situation will improve enough to replace the US

 

[Brazil]

I can understand Brazil to certain extent in BRIC but not India.

Yes but.

Its about the potential of this 4 countries. India have a enourmous potintial with his enourmous population.

Brazil have a natural potential, suported by a stable economy, huge natural resources and a very good rate of growing.


[ ]'s

 

[swerve]

- it is my thinking that the US could find another country like Japan to buy our Bonds but i do not see china being able to replace the United States Buying power
- further more the United States could shift out sourcing and all other trade from china to countries like Indonesia and India

You appearing to be assuming complete state direction of the US economy. Sorry, that isn't going to happen.

 

[Ananda]

Its about the potential of this 4 countries. India have a enourmous potintial with his enourmous population.

Brazil have a natural potential, suported by a stable economy, huge natural resources and a very good rate of growing.


[ ]'s

That's sum up what BRIC are. Four Countries with big potentials, but it's still long way to say for sure that BRIC's will be the new world power house in near future. For one thing, majority of advance technologies are not in the BRIC, they still lay and developed from laboratoriums and research center on the old G 7.