The Hundred Year Marathon - China's Strategy to Replace the US

[bobbymike]

http://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Year-Marathon-Strategy-Replace-Superpower/dp/1627790101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422887748&sr=1-1&keywords=the+hundred+year+marathon&pebp=1422887765337&peasin=1627790101

One of the U.S. government’s leading China experts reveals the hidden strategy fueling that country’s rise – and how Americans have been seduced into helping China overtake us as the world’s leading superpower.

For more than forty years, the United States has played an indispensable role helping the Chinese government build a booming economy, develop its scientific and military capabilities, and take its place on the world stage, in the belief that China’s rise will bring us cooperation, diplomacy, and free trade. But what if the "China Dream" is to replace us, just as America replaced the British Empire, without firing a shot?
------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author

Michael Pillsbury is the director of the Center on Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and has served in presidential administrations from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Educated at Stanford and Columbia Universities, he is a former analyst at the RAND Corporation and research fellow at Harvard and has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and on the staff of four U.S. Senate committees. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He lives in Washington, D.C.

 

[sublight_]

Japan said the same thing back in the late 80's. Look how that turned out.....

 

[Orionblamblam]

Lots of countries have wanted to challenge the US as the dominant power on the planet. And someone will inevitably succeed. But the thing is... lots of people wanted to come to the US and become Americans. How many people want to go to China and become Chinese?

 

[Steve Pace]

Excellent point! -SP

 

[Anderman]

Japan said the same thing back in the late 80's. Look how that turned out.....

Yeap funny in retrospect ;D

The USA had always an demographic advantage their population is more then double then that of Japan.
As long the capita productivity in Japan is not the double of the capita productivity in the USA Japan will
always be the smaller (much) economic power.
But in regards to the PRC it ´s reverse the chinese population is about 4 times the population of the USA.
So the PRC would only need 1/3 of the capita productivity to have an economy in equal size of the USA.
And by some measurements china has already catched the USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

ps China has a strong aging population because of the one child policy

 

[sublight_]

Japan said the same thing back in the late 80's. Look how that turned out.....

Yeap funny in retrospect ;D

The USA had always an demographic advantage their population is more then double then that of Japan.
As long the capita productivity in Japan is not the double of the capita productivity in the USA Japan will
always be the smaller (much) economic power.
But in regards to the PRC it ´s reverse the Chinese population is about 4 times the population of the USA.
So the PRC would only need 1/3 of the capita productivity to have an economy in equal size of the USA.
And by some measurements china has already caught the USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

ps China has a strong aging population because of the one child policy

China has one, and only one, economic advantage- their gigantic underpaid labor force. Advances in robotics and AI will completely negate this advantage. I give them till about 2030-2040 until they turn back into the "China we can get along with" once more. I look forward to getting some good munchies in Canton province again some day....

 

[Anderman]

Japan said the same thing back in the late 80's. Look how that turned out.....

Yeap funny in retrospect ;D

The USA had always an demographic advantage their population is more then double then that of Japan.
As long the capita productivity in Japan is not the double of the capita productivity in the USA Japan will
always be the smaller (much) economic power.
But in regards to the PRC it ´s reverse the Chinese population is about 4 times the population of the USA.
So the PRC would only need 1/3 of the capita productivity to have an economy in equal size of the USA.
And by some measurements china has already caught the USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

ps China has a strong aging population because of the one child policy

China has one, and only one, economic advantage- their gigantic underpaid labor force. Advances in robotics and AI will completely negate this advantage. I give them till about 2030-2040 until they turn back into the "China we can get along with" once more. I look forward to getting some good munchies in Canton province again some day....

In this case Japan could off set the populatin advantage the USA has and surpass america.....

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Lots of countries have wanted to challenge the US as the dominant power on the planet. And someone will inevitably succeed. But the thing is... lots of people wanted to come to the US and become Americans. How many people want to go to China and become Chinese?

This is something remarkable about the US. Quite a lot of Chinese American friends I have in my department call themselves American.

US ability to attract talent from all over the world is very powerful.

 

[Orionblamblam]

This is something remarkable about the US.

That's because there is no such thing as an "ethnic American." Thus *anybody* can become an American, doesn't matter where you're from. Just adopt the language, the merest basics of the culture and the basic ethos and you're welcomed right in. Well, maybe the second or third generation of you is welcomed in; but after that first generation of immigrants gets through the hazing process, officially, nobody cares where your ancestors were from. (Sadly, we're kinda getting away from that) But English, Japanese, French, Chinese... these kinda have ethnic-specific meanings.

Quite a lot of Chinese American friends I have in my department call themselves American.

If they are US citizens... why wouldn't they?

US ability to attract talent from all over the world is very powerful.

Not as powerful as it once was, though. US immigration, tax and regulatory policies continue their low, fast slide into WTFism, making the US a less appealing place for the best and brightest to come to.

Still, I can't see a whole lot of genius inventive engineers from, say, India decided that China is the place not only to do business in, but to permanently move to and gain citizenship in. More likely they'll stay in India, and add benefit *there.*

 

[sublight_]

Japan said the same thing back in the late 80's. Look how that turned out.....

Yeap funny in retrospect ;D

The USA had always an demographic advantage their population is more then double then that of Japan.
As long the capita productivity in Japan is not the double of the capita productivity in the USA Japan will
always be the smaller (much) economic power.
But in regards to the PRC it ´s reverse the Chinese population is about 4 times the population of the USA.
So the PRC would only need 1/3 of the capita productivity to have an economy in equal size of the USA.
And by some measurements china has already caught the USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

ps China has a strong aging population because of the one child policy

China has one, and only one, economic advantage- their gigantic underpaid labor force. Advances in robotics and AI will completely negate this advantage. I give them till about 2030-2040 until they turn back into the "China we can get along with" once more. I look forward to getting some good munchies in Canton province again some day....

In this case Japan could off set the population advantage the USA has and surpass America.....

If they could ever become a software juggernaut. The United States leads the way on the software/hardware invention combo. Japan seems to be limited to video games.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Japan seems to be limited to video games.

They seem to make some pretty innovative robots.

 

[phil gollin]

.


Oh no ! More paranoia from the USA about China.


The USA has been trying to hype up the Chinese threat since the early 90's - strangely enough none of it has materialised.


China is very much like the USA in the late 19th century, it is theoretically up with the other industrial giants (then UK and Germany) but an awful lot of that effort was going into getting its infrastructure up to modern standards and expanding into the whole country available. It wasn't until the early 20th century that what was theoretically the USA's strength was actually realised. Those last years of the 19th century weren't wasted they were an investment in the future.


China has ROUGHLY four times the population of the USA and only now has equalled her economic output, i.e. they are roughly four times as inefficient. In addition, she is in the process of updating her infrastructure - a massive task. Now, when that is all done then maybe there will be something to be worried about, but that is a long way away.


So the "analysts" who panic about China either have the analytical skills of wombats or, more likely, have their own agenda for which they are willing to lie through their teeth.


Why the USA likes to listen to panic merchants who openly misrepresents the facts I do not know, maybe they just like to panic and flap around in circles. They have been doing it for two decades now and, maybe, are just too used to it.


.

 

[bobbymike]

.


Oh no ! More paranoia from the USA about China.


The USA has been trying to hype up the Chinese threat since the early 90's - strangely enough none of it has materialised.


China is very much like the USA in the late 19th century, it is theoretically up with the other industrial giants (then UK and Germany) but an awful lot of that effort was going into getting its infrastructure up to modern standards and expanding into the whole country available. It wasn't until the early 20th century that what was theoretically the USA's strength was actually realised. Those last years of the 19th century weren't wasted they were an investment in the future.


China has ROUGHLY four times the population of the USA and only now has equalled her economic output, i.e. they are roughly four times as inefficient. In addition, she is in the process of updating her infrastructure - a massive task. Now, when that is all done then maybe there will be something to be worried about, but that is a long way away.


So the "analysts" who panic about China either have the analytical skills of wombats or, more likely, have their own agenda for which they are willing to lie through their teeth.


Why the USA likes to listen to panic merchants who openly misrepresents the facts I do not know, maybe they just like to panic and flap around in circles. They have been doing it for two decades now and, maybe, are just too used to it.


.

Some paranoids actually have people out to get them.

The author of the book has been a 'China expert' since Nixon I think maybe we should read the book before completely dismissing him, don't you?

 

[phil gollin]

Some paranoids actually have people out to get them. ...............

A gentle reminder ; "The Bomber Gap", "The Missile Gap", etc...........


The analysts have been wrong for 25 years, what has changed ? The Chinese are, simplistically, only a quarter as efficient as the USA and still have a lot of infrastructure to update. Now in 15 to 40 years time, THEN, we can get worried. Or, if they suddenly start building masses of ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and a totally new blue water navy - THEN people can worry - but the "analysts" who keep ignoring basic facts hardly inspire confidence.

 

[bobbymike]

Some paranoids actually have people out to get them. ...............

A gentle reminder ; "The Bomber Gap", "The Missile Gap", etc...........


The analysts have been wrong for 25 years, what has changed ? The Chinese are, simplistically, only a quarter as efficient as the USA and still have a lot of infrastructure to update. Now in 15 to 40 years time, THEN, we can get worried. Or, if they suddenly start building masses of ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and a totally new blue water navy - THEN people can worry - but the "analysts" who keep ignoring basic facts hardly inspire confidence.

It is also just incredibly short sighted to continue repeat over and over that China is some benign power. They are making massive strategic moves in the areas of energy development and production, mineral (especially rare earths) development and production, massive technological development in military systems (stealing technology), geological grabs in its near offshore, bullying its neighbours, plus places like S. America and Africa.

As for your historical examples totally irrelevant to discussion about China, "Hey look we hyped some things in the USSR in the 50's and 60's therefore we should totally discount the writings of an expert's analysis on a totally different country.

By the was the title of the book would mean from approximately 1970 to 2070 so your own post supports what the author is saying with regard to the next 25+ years and the dangers that lie ahead.

 

[phil gollin]

It is also just incredibly short sighted to continue repeat over and over that China is some benign power. They are making massive strategic moves in the areas of energy development and production, mineral (especially rare earths) development and production, massive technological development in military systems (stealing technology), geological grabs in its near offshore, bullying its neighbours, plus places like S. America and Africa.

As for your historical examples totally irrelevant to discussion about China, "Hey look we hyped some things in the USSR in the 50's and 60's therefore we should totally discount the writings of an expert's analysis on a totally different country.

By the was the title of the book would mean from approximately 1970 to 2070 so your own post supports what the author is saying with regard to the next 25+ years and the dangers that lie ahead.

When did I say that China was "benign"? This is a typical panic merchant's tactic of putting words into others mouths.


Your ideas on energy production, minerals, etc apply equally to other states and especially the USA (except all the outright bullying went on decades ago - what is wrong with China doing what other states do ?


The US hyped things up in the 50s and 60s (and 70s and 80s) and they've been hyping up China since the early 90s - NONE of it was true. IF the claims of the early 90s had been true there would be 30-pus large carriers, masses of ballistic missiles and an army and air force which wouldn't fit into the whole of China.


WHEN China starts actually building the weapons that can challenge Western equipment in anything other than penny-packets THEN analysts can start worrying.


.

 

[bobbymike]

It is also just incredibly short sighted to continue repeat over and over that China is some benign power. They are making massive strategic moves in the areas of energy development and production, mineral (especially rare earths) development and production, massive technological development in military systems (stealing technology), geological grabs in its near offshore, bullying its neighbours, plus places like S. America and Africa.

As for your historical examples totally irrelevant to discussion about China, "Hey look we hyped some things in the USSR in the 50's and 60's therefore we should totally discount the writings of an expert's analysis on a totally different country.

By the was the title of the book would mean from approximately 1970 to 2070 so your own post supports what the author is saying with regard to the next 25+ years and the dangers that lie ahead.

When did I say that China was "benign"? This is a typical panic merchant's tactic of putting words into others mouths.


Your ideas on energy production, minerals, etc apply equally to other states and especially the USA (except all the outright bullying went on decades ago - what is wrong with China doing what other states do ?


The US hyped things up in the 50s and 60s (and 70s and 80s) and they've been hyping up China since the early 90s - NONE of it was true. IF the claims of the early 90s had been true there would be 30-pus large carriers, masses of ballistic missiles and an army and air force which wouldn't fit into the whole of China.

WHEN China starts actually building the weapons that can challenge Western equipment in anything other than penny-packets THEN analysts can start worrying.

.

Panic merchant, seriously? What a puerile statement to make. You take offense with the use of benign (which I was describing as to the WHOLE of the back and forth) to describe your ramblings but I am a "Panic merchant"

Don't remember any credible analysis saying China was going to have 30 carriers, masses of ballistic missiles and an army and air force that wouldn't fit into the whole of China (really?)

Could you provide links and source material for this statement from the DOD or respected defense/foreign policy think tanks. Also, since you've said the China threat has been hyped since 1990 or so I expect you'd have hundreds of such documents readily available.

Again, as for energy, etc. did I say other nations haven't done this? We are talking about what is happening TODAY with China try and stay focussed.

As for the item I bolded in your comment I'm surprised it only took you a couple posts for the anti-Americanism to come out.

FYI I don't expect we'll agree on this issue so I won't be responding to any more of your posts. Have a good day. :

 

[Triton]

It seems that the history of the United States' foreign policy to the People's Republic of China beginning with Richard Nixon's 1972 visit with Mao Zedong has been to quote the ancient proverb--"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The rise of People's Republic of China has been instrumental in the policy of containment of the Soviet Union. We also need to remember how important the Sino-Soviet split was in support of this policy of containment. But in support of this policy of Soviet Union containment the United States made a devil's bargain with the People's Republic of China.

We already know that the People's Republic of China has territorial disputes in the Pacific and considers Taiwan to be a renegade province. We have entered into an era of "coopetition" between the United States and the People's Republic of China where the Pax Americana may not be in the best interest of the People's Republic of China. It does seem that Japan is losing confidence that the United States will honor the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Especially if the dispute over the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands leads to a military clash. Probably one of the reasons why Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to revise Article 9 of the constitution.

The question is how much the relationship will sour between the People's of Republic of China and the United States as China pursues economic and foreign policies that are in her interest, what that means to the Pax Americana, and whether it will lead to a Cold War or even a military clash between the People's Republic of China and the United States.

The question that the ancient proverb begs is once your mutual enemy is dead, are you still friends or do you resume your previous relationship of being enemies?

 

[Triton]

Looks like the Obama Administration's "Pivot to Asia" is not enough to re-assure Japan. So what happens to Sino-American relations when Japan amends Article 9 of her post-war constitution? Will the relationship between the People's Republic of China and Japan become even more hostile and what happens to the United States who wants to be a friend to China and an ally to Japan?

"Constitutional change necessary to protect Japanese citizens: Abe"
Kyodo

Feb 03, 2015

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/03/national/politics-diplomacy/constitutional-change-necessary-protect-japanese-citizens-abe/#.VNOyJy6GMdg

Feb 3, 2015
Article history
PRINT
SHARE

After being unable to save two hostages held by Middle Eastern extremists, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said constitutional change will be needed to protect the lives and assets of Japanese citizens.

Abe has said at times that with the current interpretation of Article 9, which forbids both the use of force to settle international disputes and the maintenance of regular armed forces, it is difficult to protect Japanese citizens in a changing security environment.

“The Liberal Democratic Party has already presented a draft amendment to Article 9, and amending it is to carry out our duty of protecting the lives and assets of Japanese citizens,” Abe told the Upper House Budget Committee on Tuesday.

He made the remarks in response to a suggestion by Masamune Wada of the Jisedai no To (Party for Future Generations) that Article 9 should be amended to enable the Self-Defense Forces to rescue Japanese being held abroad.

“We should think about what to do with Article 9 as we may face various situations in the future,” Abe said.

The Islamic State militant group recently killed two Japanese men after holding them hostage, igniting debate over Japan’s crisis management against terrorists.

Abe has voiced his intention to amend the Constitution while in office, calling it the LDP’s long-held goal since it was founded in 1955.

The war-renouncing Constitution was drafted by the United States during the Occupation after World War II ended in 1945.

Last July, Abe’s Cabinet approved a major overhaul in national security policy, allowing Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense by reinterpreting the Constitution, or defend an ally under armed attack even when Japan itself is not.