NationStates

We should all know that the PRC right now is a little ... special. In fact, many might consider it a threat to Western civilization. Militaristic thinking and, well, the American spirit influenced me to form the opinion that China; Taiwan, Mongolia, and Tibet not included, should be put down for the greater good. I wrote a speech on a "controversial topic" for class a while back and decided that this would be a good topic. Here we go.

I imagine you have all heard of China. However, I don’t believe many of you truly know the extent at which their government befuddles the free world and obfuscates their noncompliance with any form of moral government to the people. The People’s Republic of China’s obvious insidious motives and their ability to achieve those goals suggests that there are two options for our society: put an immediate and definite end to the threat, or allow it to slowly dominate our society and politics. That is why I believe that whether by diplomatic or military means, China must be subdued to release the oppression of their presence on their citizens and countries of the world.
To illustrate their malicious intent, China has been continuously bullying their lesser neighbors into ever-occurring disputes over land claims and trade routes. The Philippines, for example, are harassed for their outskirt islands and oceanic zones by China. To create more of a base for their claims, China constructs artificial islands in the South China Sea, putting industrial and military installations on top of these islands. Nevertheless, China’s aggressive nature does not stop at land-building, as they have also waged war against the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan. In the Taiwan Strait Crises, outskirt islands were invaded, villages were bombarded, and missiles were fired against the more democratic sister nation. The administration of the People’s Republic of China has changed little since.
Many of these conflicts are little-known to the general public, thus attributing to China’s perceived innocence. Moreover, to Europe, China seems like nothing but a new trading partner, since trade has been shifted away from the United States as of late. Specifically, China is pushing a new economic policy of funding foreign infrastructure called the Belt and Road Initiative, aimed at 152 developing or other weakened countries. As of March of this year, Italy became the first G7 nation to sign onto this deal; with other nations such as Serbia already guzzling money from China. However, many economists believe that China may be baiting countries and competitors into deep debt traps, to give China pretense to exert their control over these debtor nations. Nevertheless, nations like Uganda and Serbia construct large highways and roads take more and more loans to try to revive their countries; all the while falling right into China’s trap. As you can see, China can fight freedom economically as well as militarily.
On the other hand, the people China presides over are as horribly treated as their political opponents, if not worse. For instance, in the western reaches of China there is a Muslim minority called the Uyghurs, of which over a million are detained, never to leave their prisons without the learning of Mandarin Chinese, the casting aside of their traditional dress, and “de-radicalization”. These detention facilities are simply concentration camps because of their selection of inmates; however how they are specifically being treated is unknown due to Chinese censorship. Another instance of China’s disregard for human rights is the current Hong Kong situation. In the streets of Hong Kong non-violent protestors are hailed with tear gas, beaten with batons, shot with live rounds, and having their homes and hospitals broken into in order for the police to arrest them. Only in America’s darkest days has anything resembling a fraction of this ever happened, but this has gone on for months. Hong Kong, which has access to the outside internet, has been advocating for the withdrawal of one bill, some minor reforms, and their recognition as innocent protestors, but is instead met with censorship and police brutality.
To summarize, China is not fit to govern in a free world. They are ruthlessly expanding their power and subjugating their citizens to the point of the prophetic novel 1984. Because of this, the Chinese government should be coerced into either changing their policies and methods, or forced into a freer system by a coalition of nations. To elaborate, both of these options would require support from the United Nations, in order to apply enough pressure, and if necessary, force. To illustrate, by using non-military means the United Nations could cut off most trade from this growing China, stifling their ability to achieve any infrastructure or trade goals. This would provide a respite for the Philippines and Taiwan, as well as prevent any more inroads into their domination of the Pacific seas. A 192 country coalition, even if only 7 contribute, could also successfully topple the regime. By simply supporting the actual combatants, the bystander nations would ensure that China would not use nuclear weapons, as China is completely outnumbered, and in terms of nuclear weapons, outgunned. This is a guarantee that China would avoid using weapons of mass destruction on their soil during a regime change, as to avoid annihilating their lands in a lost cause. In addition, a coalition led campaign can be used to great effect, as shown in the Gulf War, where numbers and thus overall flexibility of forces led to easy victory.
In conclusion, seeing as the People’s Republic of China is a danger and a looming threat to democratic civilization, we as a nation should take great action to negate or delay this dystopian calamity.

I understand that invading any country, especially one China's size would be a long, bloody task; especially since mankind can be wiped out by nuclear weapons if the combatants so choose. However, that might not be the only option, with less apocalyptic consequences in the more pacifist but strong decisions. Sanctions and international efforts may very well bring China to its knees and put a stop to their authoritarian expansion. But no matter how, I know that the free world needs to act now. What are your thoughts?

**Edit: The speech doesn't say that the only option is invading, that's just the hook. The sanest way would probably be to pressure China via the UN or through trade embargoes. And another thing I've seen is considering could over the should. None of us are politicians, nevermind of any status, so it's just speculation and what we want the world to look like. China seems to be the largest obstacle in a freer world, and removing their power is what this is all about.

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Farnhamia wrote:Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Works for Asians.

Zhanzheng de Guang wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Works for Asians.

Perhaps, but they're already there, so ...

Farnhamia wrote:Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Clearly worked well for Japan in WWII trying to invade all of China, which proved to be an impossible task.

Farnhamia wrote:

Zhanzheng de Guang wrote:Works for Asians.

Perhaps, but they're already there, so ...

Perhaps a caveat for the saying? I mean, it *was* said by a Sicilian when death was on the line...

Zhanzheng de Guang wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Perhaps, but they're already there, so ...

Perhaps a caveat for the saying? I mean, it *was* said by a Sicilian when death was on the line...

Two points for getting the reference.

Zhanzheng de Guang wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Perhaps, but they're already there, so ...

Perhaps a caveat for the saying? I mean, it *was* said by a Sicilian when death was on the line...

Just give Taiwan some M5A1 Stuarts and watch them kick PLA a** again.

Farnhamia wrote:

Zhanzheng de Guang wrote:Works for Asians.

Perhaps, but they're already there, so ...

Worked for the Soviets too.

Actually, China would be pretty damn easy to take down, they're surrounded by American allies who can easily blockade them by water, and all of the country's major cities (Excluding 1) are located right next to the sea. The only reason China hasn't experienced any military threat is because their tentacles are entwined within every single major economy in the world.

Nuclear wars are bad, so no.

if you dont want everyone in the us and China to suffer either death or 3rd degree burns, no

Salandriagado wrote:Nuclear wars are bad, so no.

But what about trade wars

Agarntrop wrote:if you dont want everyone in the us and China to suffer either death or 3rd degree burns, no

But the freedom you'd experience

No, for the simple reason that it sets a precedent. They could say the same thing about us, "american culture and militaristic actions are a threat to china and eastern civilization, therefore we will invade the US." Sovereign nations, no matter how much they fear one another, cannot under international law go into an offensive war against each other. In fact, right now most people outside the US view the US as the greatest threat to world peace, and not without reason. The US military is the world's largest, most well funded terrorist organization. Not just in my opinion, but by the textbook definition of terrorism. Violence against civilians for political or religious reasons. In Iraq alone the us killed a minimum of 200,000 civilians. They would be just as justified, if not more justified in invading the US by that standard.

Cossack Peoples wrote:China is pushing a new economic policy of funding foreign infrastructure called the Belt and Road Initiative, aimed at 152 developing or other weakened countries... A 192 country coalition, even if only 7 contribute, could also successfully topple the regime.

The idea that there are at least a hundred countries that would turn their backs on One Belt, One Road to sign up to a military coalition against PR China is - to say the least - utterly preposterous. Where's good old :facepalm: when you most need it?

To invade China, you would have to assemble an invasion force never before seen on Earth, one numbering in the tens of millions, from countries across the world, World War Two would look like a small territorial war and World War One would be like a tea party. There would be constant fighting in urban areas that militaries have not fought in since World War Two. By the end of it even if nukes aren’t used, there would still be millions of deaths that would skyrocket past the 65-80 million of World War Two. In the end, if the world invades China, an alone China cannot stand forever against the entire world, especially against an aggressive India. To fuel and train a massive army like this would not go unseen, and China would probably prepare with their own tens of millions army, how effective it would be is unknown. But to answer OPs question of should we invade China, no, I do not think we should. There are easier and, in the cost of life, cheaper ways to overthrow the PRC and bring the ROC to power such as destroying their economy, using their own tactics against them in developing countries, gaining more allies. Although it would be interesting to see a 20-30+ million invasion force, I believe it should just stay in video games.

Cossack Peoples wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:if you dont want everyone in the us and China to suffer either death or 3rd degree burns, no

But the freedom you'd experience

burning to death isnt freedom

Cossack Peoples wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:if you dont want everyone in the us and China to suffer either death or 3rd degree burns, no

But the freedom you'd experience

Well, I guess if you want to bring people liberation from their physical bodies, then I guess that would be one approach.

The Diamond Trio wrote:No, for the simple reason that it sets a precedent. They could say the same thing about us, "american culture and militaristic actions are a threat to china and eastern civilization, therefore we will invade the US." Sovereign nations, no matter how much they fear one another, cannot under international law go into an offensive war against each other. In fact, right now most people outside the US view the US as the greatest threat to world peace, and not without reason. The US military is the world's largest, most well funded terrorist organization. Not just in my opinion, but by the textbook definition of terrorism. Violence against civilians for political or religious reasons. In Iraq alone the us killed a minimum of 200,000 civilians. They would be just as justified, if not more justified in invading the US by that standard.

Any invasion of the US would be met by millions of militia along with the biggest Air Force and Navy in the world, it’s extremely hard even with Russian support

Tinhampton wrote:

Cossack Peoples wrote:China is pushing a new economic policy of funding foreign infrastructure called the Belt and Road Initiative, aimed at 152 developing or other weakened countries... A 192 country coalition, even if only 7 contribute, could also successfully topple the regime.

The idea that there are at least a hundred countries that would turn their backs on One Belt, One Road to sign up to a military coalition against PR China is - to say the least - utterly preposterous. Where's good old :facepalm: when you most need it?

Let's acknowledge that most of these countries aren't blind. Just because, for example, Uzbekistan needs infrastructure doesn't mean they'd sign up for something they suspect to have unintended consequences. Especially so if an actual UN investigation into wrongdoing comes up with their plan. Or if a world leader just happens to come across the intellectual articles that lay out their plan for all except those who live in China to see.

If you can get the security council to go along, sure why not.

Sure! Why not? Let's go to war with a nuclear power that has a 2-million-person miliary, and is defended by another nuclear power with an over 2-million strong military. What could possibly go wrong?

Nea Videssos wrote:

Cossack Peoples wrote:But the freedom you'd experience

Well, I guess if you want to bring people liberation from their physical bodies, then I guess that would be one approach.

your organs would be freed from your body. in fact, you would be freed from the repressive masters of living and basic human logic. so I guess it is a liberation in that sense.

Invadia-Rex wrote:Sure! Why not? Let's go to war with a nuclear power that has a 2-million-person miliary, and is defended by another nuclear power with an over 2-million strong military. What could possibly go wrong?

How much of the North Korean military do you think is trained beyond being able to march in a big square in Pyongyang

Ethel mermania wrote:If you can get the security council to go along, sure why not.

I can think of 260 very good reasons.