Huh, it seems to me that people are going for the destroying Chinese government completely (and sometimes industry&aspects of modern society, or in the case of the Gorges Dam genocide) route instead of the least damage route.
So I like to ask, is this war for America's/China's/world's best or just for the sake of winning? There seems to be a willingness to group the Chinese people and leadership together and do whatever it takes on America's behalf to win.
Because while America can win alot of the actions suggested here would be seen as genocidal (flushing 400 million people to the sea), unnecessarily cruel (attacking civilian centers in a short war/starving the Chinese), or at least rash (USA going full-out war for Taiwan).
What America will if it did the first two actions is domestic terrorism from the global (and wealthy) Chinese communities.
The current war on terror is bad, especially as a lot of Muslims think that America is out for them (doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as they believe that) so a few radicals decide to take arms, so what happens when another billion or two people adds America to their foe list? Especially given that most of the suggestions here dwarfs the Iraqi/Afghan war on terror.
The very threat of a USA naval presence should be enough to bring the Chinese leadership to the table. I really can't see it getting further than that. For the best outcome I'd like to keep buying cheap clothes from numbers far far away working for a very very small number.
A victorious USA would probably demand a return to the status-quo for the economy, that China stop devaluing its currency and go free-trade, that a democracy is to be established, and some sort of military restriction on the armed forces, that Tibet goes free (although Sinkiang is 40% Han).
And I really doubt the ability of the USA to maintain that level of conflict without mobilizing, the last major conflict (Desert Storm) ran into major shortages despite: 3 months to build up, all the stockpiles accumulated from the Cold War, an enemy that offered very little resistance. And it was on a much smaller scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A withdrawal of all Chinese loans and the cessation of trade between America and China would destroy both economies (probably the world's).
The US dollar would crash right away considering its tedious position as the world's dominate currency (just a few years ago China and Japan had to step in to control the Euro to prevent such a sudden shift). This would effectively devalue a sizable part of the world's economy as many of them are directly/indirectly pegged to the greenback.
The Chinese economy would suffer from the fact that it saves too much and thus does not have enough domestic demand to be self-sustainable, although it is as of late trying to shift its trade to other partners. Also this would bring up the question of legitimacy for the Chinese government as the present platform is territorial integrity and economic prosperity. To the Chinese leadership an economic slow down, let alone a crash would be seen as a much larger threat than a war in the straits to CCP power.
The Japanese and Korean economy will also suffer a crash as they are intricately linked to America and China, especially since both country hosts American bases and personnel in their country. It doesn't matter if Korea and Japan gets hit or not the initial panic and the resulting flight of capital along with the reduced trade will hurt.
A world or even a NATO embargo would not be possible, there simply isn't enough time or resources to make up for the portion of the world's manufacturing that China currently does, nor is there any real incentive to risk China pulling it's loans. The people of the world simply will not accept such a drop in their standard of living or even poverty for the sake of America (or rather an ally of America's), it is in their best interest to stop the fighting as soon as possible (or at least keep the trade going which wouldn't be possible with the US navy). And due to computerized inventory retailers only stock at an inventory:sales ratio of 0.6 (less since the present recession) as opposed to the 2.5 ratio of paper inventory practices in the early 70's, the world does not have the stockpile to even ration basic necessities in the event of a major trade disruption.
Considering how one hurricane that did not touch most of the oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico (small portion of the world's total supply) spiked oil prices imagine how a war with over 50% of the world's oil importers by volume would crash the oil prices. And we already saw what happened in Egypt and Tunisia where an already discontent populace is given the final push by a global recession, now extrapolate that to a global war and depression. The middle east will founder.
USA+China+Hong-Kong+Taiwan+Japan+South Korea accounts for slightly under half the world's wealth and production, the resulting disruption would be catastrophic in the short term and debilitating in the long term from the loss of consumer confidence.
So if you truly wish for suffering and death on a global scale you'd let the conflict drag on, let alone support it.
I don't need nukes, just the slightest doubt of a Sino-American war will do more damage than a nuke.
This scenario isn't remotely possible, short of staffing both nation full of idiots.
The economy does not work that way, asides from the countless problems that arises from sovereign default there exists the problem that the US economy and government is partially kept afloat by Chinese loans. And once the US defaults on loans no lender will continue lending to it. Plus most of the lenders are Chinese citizens, not the country.
Plus may I point out that a good deal of US military hardware is of Chinese manufacture in origin, along with the logistics and Walmart.
Also may I point out that the block aid would be blocking everything from diapers to the boots of the sailors of the block aid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of it is actually owned by individual Chinese nationals, not the country. And the last thing you do when your doing poorly is to pull the loans from your chief customer so he can't buy anymore, also pulling out the loans would mean that you'd lose a soucre of income>>now why would you do that when your strapped for cash, none of it makes sense. And the cash itself won't do anything for the economy, the Chinese will have to spend it to get it's worth (which ironically would mean that they'd go back to bonds in the states as the best choice). Besides, China has a great reserve of foriegn currencies, I don't get why it wouldn't spend them first, or even past that enormous pile of money why China can't take out loans like every other country in the world, or why would China be in dire economic conditions in the forseeable future.
And to point out that the average Chinese citizen is not involved in politics and wouldn't care less if the vatican was carried away on Humpback whales sent by Sri-Lankan collectors (nor will they really know with the amount of particiaption in politics). But that same citizen can see the food getting more expensive, the rent getting harder, and the unemployed on the street.
The PLA is popular in China, especially around the yellow-river region, they could survive a regime change as people associate them as the liberators of the nation and disaster-relief efforts and therefore as a seperate entity from the ruling party. But if the PLA acts against the populance it risks its reputation and survival as an institution along with mutiny as all PLA members are volunteers. The bulk of the army doesn't usually engage in suppressive actions, usually the discontent (with the exception of siaking and tibet) are handled by local police.
Or, suppose China does have a financial melt-down it would be in the world's interest to help it out and restore comsumer and investor confidence just like the most recent recession with the United states.
It's a logical fallacy most people have, yes money is important to us as individuals but it is just a medium of exchange to nations. In global economies the goal is not to obtain money but to obtain the product.
But to win the war all you have to do is not fight it. Why would the chinese leadership be enraged by its own provocation, does it expect to be able to violate Taiwanese territory at will? I don't understand why China would automatically declare war on the United states in what it considers a civil war? Does it want escalation? Is it completely insane? Why would America go on full war mode for Taiwan? Especially given all it could lose. And if the Chinese leadership wanted a distraction then why America instead of some random oil rich nation like Iraq? They're trying to distract their troubles while they deal with things, not make the situation worse.
The days of full-blown wars are past, now it's just high tech states bashing gangs and militia in civil disorders.
Ripped from a similar thread started a while ago in chat, not exactly relevant but the basic idea's there.