War with China over Sudan et al

[DuncanONeil]

I will give you this! You seem to understand the complexities of global actions.

There is one thing that does bother me a bit in your treatise. With an open conflict and the likely composition of the allies, to whom would China be able to sell those debentures? Most of their allies would not have the resources!

The problem with a war with China is not if we win or lose on the ground (air and sea) but what happens in the financial sphere. China is the US largest creditor. The Chinese sold almost $4billion of US bonds before Christmas and the markets freaked- imagine if there was a war only between the US and China. $600billion in debt dumped on the world markets at the same time that 10% of the world's manufacturing capacity is taken away, regardless of how long, means a depression. The war probably (99%) wouldn't last long enough for arms production to revitalise the American economy as it did in WW2. More likely the US would go even deeper in debt.
There is little chance of nuclear escalation; the US does not have the stomach for a China campaign and China does not have the capacity for a US campaign. The US can deploy subs and carriers to cut off Chinese support for Venezuala and Ecuador and Cuba. Only the Cubans have a good military; Venezuelans and Ecuadorans have maintenance issues on everything (aircraft in particular) and would struggle to attack Columbia (as threatened). Any attack would likely bring Brazil in as an ally to Columbia if not the US.
Africa is just as complex; Chad is dirt poor- it has three infantry battalions and a few transport aircraft. Yet, somehow, it has fought off two known invasions by Libya and a longterm campaign of crossborder raids, etc. Officially there are no French forces in Chad- but if the French are ready to move into Darfur 'expeditiously' there has to be a sizeable force there- big enough to fight off two invasions by Libya? If Libya, which does have ties to China, saw that the French were moving in to secure Darfur, they might widen the war to try and take Chad.
In southern Africa, only Botswana has been openly critical of the Mugabe regime; even Zuma in South Africa has been using backdoor channels to push his agenda. Britain can't overfly several nations to build up in Botswana- it would have to be an entirely sea-borne enterprise that would make the Falklands look easy by comparison-and Labour has gutted the capacity of the Royal Fleet Auxillery in order to appear to be maintaining capacity on the gun-line. If it barely coped in 1982 it is going to fall over now- or to put it another way, if the Argentine's invaded the Falklands today they would win.
The French, in particular, but also the British have issues with any sort of re-armament programme- mainly an issue of capacity. The French have been criticised for not engaging in night combat in Afghanistan but the truth is that they don't have the capability. Pistols, rifles, tanks, ships, air-craft, uniforms- the French are updating an entire era's worth of equipment and doing a worse job than the Chinese. Britain needs 3 carriers to meet government policy but can only afford two- it is the same in every branch.
There is also a further issue of doctrine- Britain is not so bad but Europe has gone backwards in terms of war-fighting skills. Even a task force with only British and French participation poses a risk. There would also be an expectation by both nations that their 'historical' importance would mean a command appointment that other nations no longer think that their current skills justify.
In West Asia nothing much changes; the Uighars would probably see it as an opportunity to hit the central government hard and the Chinese are unlikely to send an army into the mountains at the same time they're fighting on other fronts. Russia is an unknown- it not likely to go to war but it might use the distraction to push its agenda against Georgia or Ukraine or in Central Asia. The Tibetans are likely to rise up meaning that a push, overland, into India is unlikely except in major force that practically wipes out the Tibetans along the way. Myanmar and Pakistan are not likely to take on India without the Chinese pouring down into India.
Singapore and Indonesia, with some Australian support, closes the straits of Malacca. Viet Nam closes the southern route out of the South China sea- it has just bought a shed load of anti-shipping missiles from India and signed onto India's new one-seat fighter and is considering purchase of the new Indian tank. Taiwan and Phillipines close the South East approaches; Taiwan has bought a new tranche of F-15s and Israeli ASM and German subs- Phillipines would be a base for US F-15s. Japan closes the North and North-East with home-made F-15s and and a destroyer screen- plus F-22s and F-15s of the US out of Okinawa. That means the Chinese have to deploy straight East- right where about 4-6 US Carriers and numerous attack subs would be waiting. China does not have the surface capacity to take on the US and its subs are old Russian designs the US has had a lot of practice finding.
The US stages B-2s and B-52s out of Guam and probably Okinawa; combined with the F-18s off the carriers, and Jamming and AWACS, protected by several squadrons of F-15s and F-22s smashes everything military in China.
China has hundreds of long-range missiles but very few in hardened shelters or even on armoured launchers- essentially a missile loaded on the back of trucks- susceptible to canon fire much less bombs and missiles. An army of 100million without air-cover is target practice.

The limiting factors are 1) ammunition; China will lose heaps in US-led strikes and the US and its allies will be relying on advanced weaponry to minimise civilian casualties. The most likely scenario for a nuclear conflict in the 1970s and early 1980s in Europe was NATO running out of ammunition- in some scenarios in as little as a week. Reserves are much larger but usage rates in a general war are thought to be underestimated- production lines may not be geared up sufficiently before one or both sides run low- or run out. The US and allies can fall back on 'dumb bombs' but then the liberals will start to complain about civilian casualties that would increase exponentially- the West does not practice the techniques to use non-smart weaponry to limit casualties as it would in the 1980s or 1990s for example.

2) Money- the US has debt and budgetary issues and the Chinese hold most of its reserves offshore to protect its trading position- neither is in a position to go to war much less let it last long.

[Bren122]

I will give you this! You seem to understand the complexities of global actions.

There is one thing that does bother me a bit in your treatise. With an open conflict and the likely composition of the allies, to whom would China be able to sell those debentures? Most of their allies would not have the resources!

That's the point- it costs Beijing nothing to ruin America's economy (in a war scenario) by dumping 1/7 of the US national debt on the markets for next to nothing- the other creditors, faced with ruin, would begin to dump theirs or demand payment or rescue (50% of government debt is held in private hands- a lot of that in the US itself).
The other scenario is that off-shore governments seize Beijing's assets- Singapore would be a likely ally of the US and is home to about a quarter of Chinese holdings; the UK is home to somewhere between 1/6 and 1/5. Even a neutral country like Russia might take advantage of the situation and seize Chinese assets.
When dealing with China's economy it must always be remembered that it relies on the US to spend, spend, spend. It keeps at least 50% of its reserves (valued at nearly $US3trillion)offshore to keep its domestic economy under control- it buys US dollars on all markets to keep its own currency artificially depressed- it buys up US debt in all markets in order to keep US enemies from threatening the US economy. China's is an export economy with little domestic consumption (relatively speaking) so if it could not export the economy is ruined regardless of whether it holds or liquidates its debt holdings. America would probably (90%) win any war with China, but its economy would be in tatters.

[DuncanONeil]

I think you missed the point. In a "war" scenario what good would it do China to "dump" any assets if no one is going to buy them?
Those that would support China do not have the assets to buy what they would "dump".

That's the point- it costs Beijing nothing to ruin America's economy (in a war scenario) by dumping 1/7 of the US national debt on the markets for next to nothing- the other creditors, faced with ruin, would begin to dump theirs or demand payment or rescue (50% of government debt is held in private hands- a lot of that in the US itself).
The other scenario is that off-shore governments seize Beijing's assets- Singapore would be a likely ally of the US and is home to about a quarter of Chinese holdings; the UK is home to somewhere between 1/6 and 1/5. Even a neutral country like Russia might take advantage of the situation and seize Chinese assets.
When dealing with China's economy it must always be remembered that it relies on the US to spend, spend, spend. It keeps at least 50% of its reserves (valued at nearly $US3trillion)offshore to keep its domestic economy under control- it buys US dollars on all markets to keep its own currency artificially depressed- it buys up US debt in all markets in order to keep US enemies from threatening the US economy. China's is an export economy with little domestic consumption (relatively speaking) so if it could not export the economy is ruined regardless of whether it holds or liquidates its debt holdings. America would probably (90%) win any war with China, but its economy would be in tatters.

[SadisticNature]

I think you missed the point. In a "war" scenario what good would it do China to "dump" any assets if no one is going to buy them?
Those that would support China do not have the assets to buy what they would "dump".

Actually the Chinese can set up economic warfare by dumping US debt quite easily. If they put the entirety of the US debt they own on the market the US currency will crash, making it harder for the US to import strategic resources like oil.

Since the US has already been using the strategic reserve to fuel the local economy this could lead to a situation where they have a lot of difficulty maintaining supplies of things like jet fuel and tank fuel. It would also be crushing for morale to see the dollar tank, and being faced with the economic consequences.

Nuclear powers don't end up outright at war because of the catastrophic consequences. But a little currency manipulation here, a little support for insurgents there...

[DuncanONeil]

That is a completely different situation that originally presented.

Actually the Chinese can set up economic warfare by dumping US debt quite easily. If they put the entirety of the US debt they own on the market the US currency will crash, making it harder for the US to import strategic resources like oil.

Since the US has already been using the strategic reserve to fuel the local economy this could lead to a situation where they have a lot of difficulty maintaining supplies of things like jet fuel and tank fuel. It would also be crushing for morale to see the dollar tank, and being faced with the economic consequences.

Nuclear powers don't end up outright at war because of the catastrophic consequences. But a little currency manipulation here, a little support for insurgents there...