***Neg

1NC Frontline

CHINESE CAPABILITY THREATEN U.S. HEG AND A WAR WILL HAPPEN.[Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, USFS (Ret.), “China’s Challenge to American Hegemony – Remarks to the Global Strategy Forum”, 1/20/2010, http://www.mepc.org/whats/cwf012010.asp ] / Still, China is modernizing its military at a peculiar moment of history. The United States inherited worldwide military superiority from the collapse of its Soviet rival. Without much discussion, it has embraced the neo-conservative agenda of sustaining this superiority at all costs. But rising Chinese defense capabilities erode American supremacy. China's new anti-carrier weapons endanger U.S. force projection capabilities in the Western Pacific; its anti-satellite programs imperil U.S. global surveillance and communication capabilities; its growing operations in cyberspace menace U.S. government operations and the economy of the American homeland alike. These are serious challenges not just to American hegemony but to core U.S. interest s . They have begun to draw a response. The result is a deeply troubled Sino-American military relationship despite the diminishing prospects for war in the Taiwan Strait. China will persevere in its efforts to build a credible counter to American coercion. The United States will not soon abandon its obsession with the retention of absolute military superiority everywhere. A less hegemonic objective would allow the U.S. to accommodate a more powerful China while retaining the ability to prevail in any conflict with it. As things are, increasingly overt military confrontation between China and the United States is likely.

THE U.S. WOULD WIN AGAINST CHINA NOW – SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY AND AIR POWER.[Robert S. Ross, “Navigating the Taiwan Strait: Deterrence, Escalation Dominance, and U.S.-China Relations”, published in International Security, Vol. 27, No. 2, Fall 2002. P. JSTOR. ] Chinese leaders acknowledge that U.S. capabilities would be particularly effective against Chinese forces operating in the Taiwan Theater. A senior Chinese military officer has lectured his troops that China’s likely adversary in a local war would possess high-technology equipment that could neutralize China’s ability to rely on manpower to defeat the enemy . A civilian analyst has noted that, in a war in China’s coastal region, it would be difficult for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to take advantage of its superior numbers—as it did during the Korean War—and that the adversary could “make full use of its superiority in air and naval long-range, large-scale, high-

accuracy weaponry.” 53 A military analyst was more direct, explaining that not only would such superior capabilities seriously restrict China’s ability to seize and maintain sea control around a “large island,” but they would also pose a major threat to China’s coastal political, economic, and military targets. Experts at

China’s Air Force Command College have concluded that an “air-attack revolution” has occurred and that a “generation gap” exists between the high technology air-attack capabilities of the United States and the “stagnant” air defense capabilities of less advanced countries, causing a “crisis” in air defense. Thus

China assumes that if the United States intervened in a mainland Taiwan war, the PLA could not protect its war-fighting capabilities, nor could it prevent U.S. penetration of Chinese airspace. It must also assume that the prospect of victory would be close to nil and that the costs of war and defeat would be massive. Once war began, the United States could target China’s large but backward navy. Even China’s advanced Russian destroyers equipped with highly capable missiles would not contribute to its

war-fighting capability, because they lack sufficient stand-off range to challenge U.S. offensive forces. Indeed U.S. capabilities would be even more effective in targeting Chinese surface assets at sea than they have been in targeting enemy assets in deserts, as in the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. Moreover, China’s air force would likely remain grounded, because neither its pilots nor its aircraft could challenge U.S. air superiority .

A WAR WITH THE U.S. WOULD COLLAPSE THE CHINESE ECONOMY AND DESTROY THE CCP.[Robert S. Ross, “Navigating the Taiwan Strait: Deterrence, Escalation Dominance, and U.S.-China Relations”, published in International Security, Vol. 27, No. 2, Fall 2002. P. JSTOR. ] A U.S. defeat of the PRC , however, would entail more than the loss of Chinese military assets. China’s modernization effort would be set back decades. War with the United States would compel China to switch to a wartime economy, requiring the reallocation of resources away from

civilian infrastructure development to the large-scale acquisition of outdated military hardware; it would also cost China access to international markets, capital, and high technology . The resulting economic dislocations would defer China’s ability to achieve great power status well into the second half of the twenty-first century. 57 Most important, the

combination of a military defeat over Taiwan and a domestic economic crisis would challenge the leadership’s core value—continued leadership of China by the CCP. Nationalism and economic performance,

the twin pillars of CCP legitimacy, would collapse, bringing down with them party rule.

CCP’S EFFORTS TO INCREASE INDUSTRY KILLS THE ENVIRONMENT – 3 GORGES DAM PROOVES.[Editorial published in the Washington Post, no author, “The Dam Breaks – China Can No Longer Deny the Environmental Disaster at the Three Gorges”, 10/5/2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401010.html ] For China ’s communist leadership , which gathers today for a major party congress, the gigantic Three Gorges Dam holds out the promise of abundant hydroelectric power and an end to devastating periodic

floods along the Yangtze River. Yet from the moment they hatched a plan to build the colossal project, China’s leaders have known that its benefits would come at a high environmental cost. Undeterred, they ignored or repressed dissent about it. One prominent early critic, journalist Dai Qing, was jailed for 10 months after the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989; her book “Yangtze! Yangtze!” was suppressed. Even then, the threats posed by the $22 billion project in Hubei province were so evident that one-third of the delegates to China’s rubber-stamp national legislature either abstained or voted against it in 1993. Undaunted, the government began construction in 1994 and has relocated 1.4 million mostly poor rural villagers to make way for a 370-mile-long, 525-foot-deep reservoir. The dam’s first stage opened in 2003, permitting cargo vessels to travel from Shanghai to Chongqing; eventually, its turbines are supposed to generate 84 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.As recently as 2004, the official China Daily was still emitting happy talk about “achievements in environmental protection of the

area.” But now comes word that the warnings of Dai Qing and others were true. And the source of the news is

none other than the Chinese government. In fact, a “catastrophe” is possible if preventive steps are not taken promptly, the official Xinhua news agency said last week. Apparently, thickly populated river banks near Chongqing have been weakened by the project, and landslides — including one June 28 that killed four people — are a frequent occurrence. The new reservoir’s shoreline is collapsing in 91 places. In

addition, the Yangtze is silting up because of the reduced flow of water, and pollutants are accumulating behind the dam — exactly as critics had predicted.

PERSECUTION LED BY THE CCP CAUSES GENOCIDE AND INNOCENT DEATHES.[Zhang Tianliang, writer for the Epoch Times, “The Persecution Won’t End Until the CCP is Disintegrated”, 7/25/2009, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/19985/ ] The persecution against Falun Gong hurts more than the practitioners. The perpetrators are the real victims. In order to carry out such a brutal persecution, the CCP must eliminate all kindness among the general public. Those who believe in karmic retribution know that the perpetrators will face a tragic end. Falun Gong practitioners publicize the facts to discourage them from committing crimes and receiving retribution. 

The persecution against Falun Gong also hurts all Chinese people, since the persecution is predicated on the abuse of law and the degeneration of morality. When a society does not follow the law, anyone can become a victim . For example, to suppress protestors who refused to be relocated in the government’s massive urbanization efforts, the government often labeled the protestors Falun Gong practitioners. The police could then beat or even kill these people without consequences.The CCP also knows that if all members of the public felt a strong sense of morality, they would reject the brutal persecution. That

is why it tries to destroy the morality of the Chinese people. Because of this, Chinese society is often marred with tragedy—such as deaths due to substandard construction or poisonous foods. This threatens the health and well-being of everyone in China. To end the atrocities resulting from the CCP’s crimes, and given that the CCP will not change by itself, we must disintegrate the CCP. This issue has been explained very clearly in the “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party”. It is a point worth repeating on the 10th anniversary of the persecution against Falun Gong.   

China War Inevitable

Extend Freeman in ‘10. China is working to improve their military supremacy to combat that of the US. These advances include anti-carrier weapons, anti-satellite programs, and improvements in cyber warfare. The US sees these as challenges to US hegemony and will do anything to preserve heg. As China makes more advances, war becomes inevitable.

CONFLICT WITH CHINA IS INEVITABLE – EMPERICALLY PROVEN.[Aaron L. Friedberg, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, and served as Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning in the Office of the Vice President, “The Future of U.S.-China Relations”, published Fall 2005. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3002_pp007-045_friedberg.pdf ] / The collision between the expanding interests of a rising power and those of its more established counterparts can be dealt with in a number of ways, but the resulting disputes are seldom resolved peacefully . Recognizing the growing threat to its position, a dominant power (or coalition of status quo powers) may attempt to use force preventively to destroy a rising state before it can achieve its full potential. Less bellicose, established powers have also at times sought to appease emerging states, looking for ways to satisfy their demands and ambitions without conflict and to engage them and incorporate them peacefully into an existing international order. However sincere and well intentioned these efforts may be, they have usually failed. Sometimes the reason is clearly the character of the demands of the rising state. As was true of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, for example, a rising power may have ambitions that are so extensive as to be impossible for the status quo powers to satisfy without effectively committing suicide. Even when the demands being made of them are less extensive, the status quo powers may be too reluctant to make reasonable concessions, thereby fueling the frustrations and resentments of the rising power , or too eager to do so, feeding its ambitions and leading to escalating demands. Successful policies of engagement/appeasement are certainly possible in theory, but in practice they have proven to be difficult to implement.

CHINESE CAPABILITY THREATENS U.S. HEG AND A WAR WILL HAPPEN.[Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, USFS (Ret.), “China’s Challenge to American Hegemony – Remarks to the Global Strategy Forum”, 1/20/2010, http://www.mepc.org/whats/cwf012010.asp ] / Still, China is modernizing its military at a peculiar moment of history . The United States inherited worldwide military superiority from the collapse of its Soviet rival. Without much discussion, it has embraced the neo-conservative agenda of sustaining this superiority at all costs. But rising Chinese defense capabilities erode American supremacy. China's new anti-carrier weapons endanger U.S. force projection capabilities in the Western Pacific; its anti-satellite programs imperil U.S. global surveillance and communication capabilities; its growing operations in cyberspace menace U.S. government operations and the economy of the American homeland alike. These are serious challenges not just to American hegemony but to core U.S. interests. They have begun to draw a response. The result is a deeply troubled Sino-American military relationship despite the diminishing prospects for war in the Taiwan Strait. China will persevere in its efforts to build a credible counter to American coercion. The United States will not soon abandon its obsession with the retention of absolute military superiority everywhere. A less hegemonic objective would allow the U.S. to accommodate a more powerful China while retaining the ability to prevail in any conflict with it. As things are, increasingly overt military confrontation between China and the United States is likely.

CHINA HAS DECLARED ITSELF THE U.S.’s ENEMY, AND IS PREPARING FOR WAR.[Geoff Metcalf, staff writer for Newsmax, “China Wants War With U.S.”, 6/18/2007, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/18/120950.shtml ] Communist China , has been, is, and will remain, an enemy of the United States. This is not right-wing knuckle dragging sophistry . . . it is so because China says it is so . I have been writing and grousing about the China threat for over a decade. I have interviewed dozens of experts and collected significant documentation and empirical facts that clearly indicate China means us harm.

All the diplomatic spin about Chicoms as strategic trading partners offering a vast potential consumer market for us to exploit is bullfeathers . State Department erotic dreams of regime change through inertia is criminally myopic . Murphy's Law dictates, "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, and at the worst possible time." Add to that Hanlon's razor, a corollary of Finagle's Law, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." A recent British ‘Telegraph' article read, "America prepares for cyber war with China".It is about time. Cyberspace is the significant area of operation for preparation of any future conventional or nuclear battlefield. China isn't even being covert about their intentions anymore. China is an enemy because they say so. http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/24325.html. Everything China has done, and is doing, is in preparation for what they are planning . . . and they are planning (according to Chinese President Jiang Zemin, "for war with the United States").

CHINA IS MOVING TO TAKE POWER, A NEW COLD WAR IS INEVITABLE.[Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, in Prospect Magazine, “China vs. America: Fight of the Century”, 3/22/2010. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/china-vs-america-fight-of-the-century/ ] Put bluntly, the Chinese leadership no longer believes that American power is as indispensable as it once was for either China’s economic expansion or the Communist party’s political survival. Nor does it accept that access to US capital or commercial know-how is quite so important for the next stage of China’s development—or that its growth depends on the spending habits of American consumers.

China has embarked on a process of economic “decoupling.” The western financial meltdown put millions of Chinese out of work in early 2009, as factories that produced goods for export closed their doors. Over the

past 18 months, Beijing has seen how dependence on western markets can produce unacceptably high levels of risk at home. The solution is to shift its model to rely more on China’s growing consumer base. This plan, however, must be undertaken with great care to ensure minimum industrial disruption.

Meanwhile, China’s political decoupling from the west is also in full swing . We saw it at December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, as China spearheaded resistance from developing states to western-proposed targets on carbon emissions. We saw it in the strong reaction to an announcement in February of US arms sales to Taiwan and to Barack

Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama days later. We will see more public Chinese pushback against what Beijing considers “interference” from Washington in months to come.There is still considerable mutual dependence between the US and China, grounded mainly in commercial ties. But the unfolding conflict is in many ways more dangerous than the cold war . Economic decision- making in Moscow had little impact on western power or standards of living. But globalisation means there is no equivalent to the Berlin wall, insulating China and America from turmoil inside the other.

The rivalry may take on a life of its own, growing beyond the governments’ ability to contain it. American policymakers must ensure that US power remains indispensable to China’s rise. This will not be a popular undertaking in Washington. Facing voters this November, US politicians will want to shift the blame for the country’s woes onto someone else. Cultural conservatives of the right and labour champions of the left will tell voters that their problems are made in China. Even more sober figures are beginning to raise the alarm, as when economist Paul Krugman warned in March 2010 that China’s economic policy “seriously damages the rest of the world.”Soon, more Americans will be asking why a country with 10 per cent unemployment can’t persuade a country with 10 per cent growth to respect trade rules and play a responsible role on the global stage. And Beijing’s new assertiveness is feeding a growing insecurity in the US. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre in 2009, 44 per cent of Americans named China as “the world’s leading economic power.” Just 27 per cent chose the US. Reasonable or not, this is a sea change in attitudes—2008 was the last presidential election in which average voters didn’t know or care where the candidates stood on China.

U.S.–CHINA WAR INEVITABLE – CHINA’s GROWING ECON AND HEG PROVE.[Chris Buckley, staff writer for Reuters, “Chinese PLA Officer Urges Challenging U.S. Dominance”, 2/28/2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301 ] China should build the world's strongest military and move swiftly to topple the United States as the global "champion," a senior Chinese PLA officer says in a new book reflecting swelling nationalist ambitions.

The call for China to abandon modesty about its global goals and "sprint to become world number one" comes from a People's Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonel, Liu Mingfu, who warns that his nation's ascent will alarm Washington, risking war despite Beijing's hopes for a "peaceful rise.""China's big goal in the 21st century is to become world number one, the top power," Liu writes in his newly published Chinese-language book, "The China Dream."

"If China in the 21st century cannot become world number one, cannot become the top power, then inevitably it will become a straggler that is cast aside," writes Liu, a professor at the elite National Defense University, which trains rising officers.His 303-page book stands out for its boldness even in a recent chorus of strident Chinese voices demanding a hard shove back against Washington over trade, Tibet, human rights, and arms sales to Taiwan, the self-ruled island Beijing claims as its own.

" As long as China seeks to rise to become world number one ... then even if China is even more capitalist than the U.S.,

the U.S. will still be determined to contain it," writes Liu.Rivalry between the two powers is a "competition to be the leading country, a conflict over who rises and falls to dominate the world," says Liu. "To save itself, to save the world, China must prepare to become the (world's) helmsman."

CHINA WILL GO TO WAR TO BUILD IT’S HEG – PRE-WORLD WAR II JAPAN PROVES.[Elizabeth Kantor, writer for Human Events, in an interview with Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense. “Exclusive Interview: China Bent on War”, 5/22/2006, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15038 ] Does China really want a war with us?

Yes , but not a nuclear war or an all-out conventional one. China wants war because without it they can’t achieve superpower status . China, like France, believes power is a zero-sum game. Without defeating us in at least a short war—say over Taiwan or somewhere else in the Pacific—China won’t have the ability to proclaim its hegemony over their region.Why pick a fight with the world’s only remaining superpower? What does China have to gain?

They gain power and influence. China is thinking about the Pacific region and east Asia as Japan did in the pre-World War II years: as another “co-prosperity sphere” that can feed its industrial power.

CHINA IS PREPARED TO WAGE NUCLEAR WAR ON THE U.S. IF THREATENED.[Charles R. Smith, columnist for Newsmax, “China Wants War: PLA General Calls for Nuclear Attacks on the U.S.”, 7/15/2005, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/17/170416.shtml ] Reporters from the Financial Times and Asian Wall Street journal were surprised to see Chinese army general Zhu Chenghu, the dean of the Chinese National Defense University, speaking at a recent event sponsored by the Better Hong Kong Foundation." If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," stated Zhu to the shocked audience.“If the Americans are determined to interfere, [then] we will be determined to respond," said Zhu in reference to Taiwan."We ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."The Chinese official government spokesman refused to retract the statements made by General Zhu.

CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE PUSHING FOR ANOTHER COLD WAR, AND THEY WILL WIN.[Jeffery R. Nyquist, syndicated columnist and author, “One Clenched Fist”, 4/27/2007, http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0427.html ] Intention is everything. If the Chinese leaders harbor benevolent intentions toward the U.S., then the size of the Chinese

military is unimportant. But if the Chinese intentions are evil, then even a small military machine – equipped with nuclear weapons – might defeat the United States in a future conflict . It is an odd observation, but nonetheless true, that if you begin your analysis assuming Chinese benevolence, then the size or capabilities of the

Chinese military are irrelevant. You will conclude that the threat is nonexistent. At the same time, if you begin your analysis by assuming Chinese malevolence, then the Chinese military becomes more and more threatening as it grows in sophistication.According to Bill Gertz, reporting in his Washington Times column of last Feb. 7: "the Bush administration remains divided on the threat posed by China's rise." In the nuclear age, nobody in American politics wants to be accused of sparking a new Cold War. The Chinese leaders, therefore, find it easy to deceive the Americans about China’s intentions. The fact that Chinese decision-making is secretive, that the order of battle of the Chinese military is unknown, begs the question: namely, what are they up to? Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld asked an important question in June 2005: "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments?" 

Actions reveal intentions. Words are a cover for shady deeds. Behind closed doors the Chinese leaders discuss the future destruction of the United States . To this end, China and Russia are allies . And here is my prediction: Putin ’ s hostile moves in Europe will be followed by similar moves from China in Asia. The Russians and Chinese are moving toward one clenched fist. The American side has been weakened by Bush’s adventure in Iraq. NATO has been diluted with the addition of

former Warsaw Pact countries that are, in themselves, penetrated by Russian agents at the highest levels. The stage is set for an unprecedented reversal of fortune. 

THE MISSION OF THE CCP IS TO DESTROY AMERICAN CAPITALISM – WAR SOLVES.[Jeffery R. Nyquist, syndicated columnist and author, “The Destruction of the United States”, 4/27/2007, http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0427.html ] It is not nice to say that major powers like China or Russia seek the destruction of the United States . It is

not nice to say that Russia and China are governed by thugs. But anyone who studies the foreign policies, chicanery,

secret maneuvers and war preparations of Beijing and Moscow cannot honestly conclude otherwise. The fact that Russia and China are both assisting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons is more than suggestive. It is no accident that in America’s struggle against radical Islam, the Russian president has declared that Russia is Islam’s best friend. Before the fall of the Communist Party Soviet Union the central goal of Soviet foreign policy was to foster the downfall of the United States and the communization of the entire world. China, on the other hand, is a great country that suffered eclipse during the period of Western imperialism and colonialism. So China has reason to predicate its policy on the notion that one good turn deserves another. The reason for China’s opening to the West was not to enrich the Chinese bourgeoisie, or to adopt Western democratic values. The Chinese Communists sought an opening to the West so that they could get the investment capital and technology they needed for a modern military machine. Developing their economy is merely a necessary step in developing China’s new superpower status. Some days ago China successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon. This remarkable capability didn’t develop overnight. As Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz pointed out in his January 24 column, American defense officials concede that China’s Jan. 11 test is part of a covert space-weapons program designed to cripple the U.S. military in a conflict. The Chinese, to be sure, are publicly lying about the peacefulness of their intentions. This test was not directed at any country and does not constitute a threat to any country, said the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Oh yes, we all know that China couldn’t possibly want to shoot down American satellites. Beijing merely enjoys the challenge of shooting down its own satellites for meaningless target practice. In that case, it was a also a “practice” exercise when Chinese hackers attacked U.S. Naval War College computers in November. As one U.S. official told Bill Gertz: “The Naval War College is where the Navy’s Strategic Study Group is planning and practicing cyber-war techniques, and now they don’t even have e-mail access.” In a 1999 book titled Red Dragon Rising, researchers Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett wrote: “We are deeply disturbed that senior PLA [People’s Liberation Army] officers have begun to talk among themselves about a preemptive strike using information warfare. In 1996, for example, a writer in the PLA’s main newspaper pointed out that ‘the enemy has reconnaissance positioning satellites, AWACs, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, long-range precision weapons, but the PLA does not. A surprise attack, therefore, is not only justified but ‘is the only way to steer the course of the war in a direction favorable to China.’” Two years before 9/11, Temperlake and Triplett warned that a Chinese surprise attack on the United States “would be aimed at the American people” that is, the home front. Is this the policy of a peaceful and friendly nation? Furthermore, China’s naval buildup directly threatens the economic lifelines of Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan. The Japanese have expressed alarm at the appearance of Chinese warships close to their shores. Is it possible that Chinese naval power might one day force East Asian

nations into Beijing’s political orbit? According to Chinese president and commander-in-chief Hu Jintao, China needs a navy that is prepared for

war “at any time.” At a meeting of Communist Party delegates in December, dressed in a green military uniform, Hu

explained: “ We should strive to build a strong navy that meets the needs of our military ’ s historical mission in this new century and at this new stage. We should make careful preparations for future military battles to ensure that our forces can effectively carry out their mission at any time.” 

And what is this “ historical mission ” of the People ’ s Liberation Army? Believe it or not, Chinese

Communism is sworn to destroy Western capitalism and build, in its place, a new socialist civilization. This has been a central doctrine of the Communist Party of China since its inception. The development of capitalism in China is merely a necessary expedient, accepted for

the sake of capitalism ’ s ultimate demise. It is through trade that China is building its economic position, and thereby

its military position. Western capitalists should look to their own survival. But this is something they take for granted. Many businessmen would say that U.S.-Chinese enmity is absurd. That is to say, they ignore China’s military buildup,

China’s infiltration of Canada, China’s strategic alliance with Mexico, China’s “partnerships” with Russia and Iran. Here is a strategic “ pattern ” that deserves our close attention.  

CLASH BETWEEN THE U.S. AND CHINA IS INEVITABLE – MAJOR SOURCES OF CONFLICT.[Lieutenant Colonel David A. Southerland, the United States Air Force, “USAWC Strategy Research Project: Is U.S. Conflict With China Inevitable?”, 3/18/2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA431735&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ] / For well over a decade, the United States has been the undisputed hegemon in a unipolar world. Many

experts believe that the current unipolarity cannot last as historically the world’s powers will seek a balance of power.

In the coming decade, that great power , or near-peer competitor could arise in the form of China . However, a major question in a world evolving to bior multi-polarity is, does that change necessarily constitute a coming conflict in the same vein as the previous Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union? If

history is an accurate indicator, the answer is most likely yes due to a number of factors. First, there are already a number of major potential sources of conflict between the United States and China such as China’s human rights record, its growing economic influence in the global market, and China’s ever increasing military capabilities . Second, and arguably the most critical, is the United States’ policy in regard to Taiwan. Given the accuracy of the above two statements, this paper will examine the U.S./China relationships from a historical perspective, discuss the sources of potential conflict, and conclude with three alternatives for future relations between these two great powers. Finally, the paper will select the best alterative for the Unites States and Chinese relations in terms of the elements of national power.

CHINESE-U.S. NUCLEAR WAR OVER TAIWAN IS INEVITABLE.[Andy Jones, contributor to e-IR, “China’s Rise and American Hegemony: Towards a Peaceful Co-Existence?”, 12/22/2007, http://www.e-ir.info/?p=149] / Realist pessimists claim that in an anarchical system, military strength is ‘decisive in shaping the patterns of relations’ between

states. Further, China’s economic rise, according to Mearsheimer, enhances the potential for Sino-American confrontation, because ‘should China become especially wealthy, it could readily become a military superpower .’ Moreover, the 2005 Chinese Anti-Secession Law threatens that China ‘shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures’ in the event of a Taiwanese declaration of independence . Further, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Major General Zhu Chengdu has asserted that ‘I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,’ should the United States intervene in a possible war over Taiwan. So, does Taiwan render war unavoidable, is peace inevitable, or is a stable stalemate based on the current status quo expected? Before analysing the Taiwan imbroglio, a ‘knot of Gordian complexity,’ this chapter will first lay out the military strategies and capabilities of both the United States and China.

WE SHOULD DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST CHINA, BECAUSE IT WILL RISE.[Richard Bush, the Brookings Institution, “United States-China Relations Looking Forward”, 5/23/2004, http://www.brookings.edu/views/speeches/bush/20040523.pdf ] / Yet those scholars who think in terms of rising powers challenging status quo powers believe that conflict will occur in spite of any

desire to prevent it. The structure of the situation , similar perhaps to teenagers and their parents, determines that rivalry will result . Just because China is benign now, they say, doesn’t mean it will be benign forever. Conciliating its neighbors now does not rule out, and may prepare the way for, bending those neighbors to China’s will

later. And just because Beijing now says it has no problem with the United States in East Asia doesn’t mean it would be sad to see us go at some point in the future. I cannot imagine any Chinese regret if, hypothetically, the people of South Korea and of Japan decided that American bases were no longer in their country’s interest and we honored those wishes (as I am sure we would).Chinese leaders take a dual approach towards the United States. They understand that the two countries are mutually dependent economically, and they seek to manipulate American dependence as much as possible. On the other hand, there is a belief that the United States is in a variety of ways seeking to contain China’s rise and block its return to greatness and rightful hegemony in East Asia. Therefore, China must hedge its bets against the United States.Similarly, the United States has increasingly taken a dual approach regarding the rise of China. One the one hand, successive Administrations have hoped sincerely that through economic interdependence and political engagement, the PRC will become a great power that accumulates national power not for its own sake but to use it, as the United States does, to preserve international peace and security. Chinese national power would be harnessed to internationalist goals.

On the other hand, there is in some American quarters a growing concern that China is accumulating power , including military power, not to serve an internationalist agenda but for its own sake and in order to make China the dominant power of East Asia . This is a concern not that China would seek to engage in territorial expansion, except perhaps for Taiwan, but to secure an economic and political dominance whereby Beijing’s neighbors would not

take a major initiative without consulting it, and would tie their economic growth to China’s. This sort of future China

causes concern not only because it most likely will lead to regional instability but also because it implies the displacement of the United States . These Americans believe we should hedge our bets against China.

China War Inevitable – Brink Evidence

CHINESE – U.S. RELATIONSHIP AT THE BRINK – 10 REASONS.[Akm Khairul Islam, “The Post-Cold War U.S.-China Relations: Win-Win or Zero-Sum Game”, published in Asian Affairs, Volume 28, June 2006, http://www.cdrb.org/journal/2006/2/2.pdf ] The end of the cold war had deepened the security differences and existing cleavages between the United States and China (Celico, 2001). Lampton (2001: 69-70) points out five factors that have contributed to Sino-American security relations : first , the change of China’s defense strategy . China is trying to

modernize its armed forces and especially the naval and air forces. Second, The United States and China have different views about the desired character of emerging international order . The United States wants uni-polar world

and China wants multi-polar world in which China has the ability to manipulate one country against another. Third, the United States is fearful about China’s rapid economic growth that may convert rapidly into military might.

Fourth, China’s authoritarian political system and lack of transparency about its military affairs have

created suspicion for the United States. Fifth, divergent security interests of these two countries have also contributed

to mutual suspicion. The relationship between the two countries also aggravated due to China’s dismal human-rights records, undervalued exchange rate, Taiwan issue and competition over energy resources . Both U.S. and China are desperate to control the key strategic areas of energy resources. China’s growing presence in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, Russia, Latin America and other places could ultimately lead to confrontation with the U.S ., the largest oil consumer in the world.

RISING TENSIONS BETWEEN CHINA AND THE U.S. – LIES AND MISSILE TESTS.[Bill Gertz, staff writer for the Washington Times, “China Prepares for War with the U.S. Over Taiwan – Missiles Targeted at American Cities”, 11/15/2000, http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/excerpt3.html ] Only months earlier, the president had announced that U.S. strategic nuclear missiles no longer would be targeted on China after the Communist regime promised to “detarget” its missiles and not aim them at American cities. On June 27, 1998, Chinese President Jiang Zemin appeared at a news conference after meetings with Mr. Clinton in Beijing. He announced: “President Clinton and I have decided that China and the United States will not target the strategic nuclear weapons under their respective control at each other. This demonstrates to the entire world that China and

the United States are partners, not adversaries.” As with so many other statements by the Chinese Communist leader,

President Jiang lied . The proof arrived in a form common during the highly politicized Clinton administration. It was kept hidden from public view as part of a classified intelligence assessment. On Dec. 2, 1998, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence

Agency (DIA) reported that that the Chinese People's Liberation Army conducted exercises that included simulated nuclear missile attacks on Taiwan and U.S. military forces in the region. The exercises, which ran from late November to early December, involved road-mobile CSS-5 medium-range missiles spotted by U.S. spy satellites as they moved up and down roads along China's coast. The DIA report, based on sensitive intelligence gathered by U.S. spying

systems, also cited activities by silo-based CSS-2s. “They were doing mock missile attacks on our troops,” said one official who saw the report. A DIRECT THREAT Analysts determined that the mock nuclear attacks not only were targeted against Taiwan, but against about 37,000 U.S. Army troops based in South Korea and 47,000 Marines in Japan, including 25,000 on the island of Okinawa. A White House official, confirming the intelligence report, said both weapons systems had “never been pointed our way before.” But the official sought to downplay the threat by noting the age of the weapons (the CSS-2 first was deployed in 1971, the CSS-5 in the 1980s). The important point missed by the White House - intentionally -

was that the missile exercises directly threatened our troops. They also provided evidence that Mr. Jiang's promise about detargeting was hollow. Or was it? The Chinese president had referred to “strategic” nuclear weapons. Apologists for Beijing argued that the CSS-2s and CSS-5s technically may not be in the same category as longer-range ICBMs. The Air Force's National Air Intelligence Center dispels that notion. In its annual report on “Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threats,” the center stated that medium-range missiles “are strategic systems” armed with nonconventional warheads. One element of the exercises that surprised DIA analysts was the PLA's use of “obscurants” -smoke and particle-filled

clouds dispersed around the mobile missiles to shield them from U.S. precision-strike weapons. The Chinese missiles were seen ready for launch on mobile truck launchers, although none was fired. Pentagon officials concluded that the simulated attacks were a sign that China is prepared to go to war with the United States over

Taiwan. In August, the Air Force moved several dozen air-launched cruise missiles to the island of Guam, perhaps in anticipation of a conflict over Taiwan. The PLA's 40 liquid-fueled CSS-2s, with ranges of about 1,922 miles, are being replaced in most regions of China with the more advanced, solid- propellant CSS-5s, with a maximum range of 1,333 miles. Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military, believes the Chinese may interpret the June 1998 detargeting pledge to exclude shorter-range nuclear missiles and include only long-range ICBMs.

CHINA IS PREPARING FOR WAR – NEIGHBORS AGREE.

[Jayshree Bajoria, staff writer for the Council on Foreign Relations, “Counterint China’s Military Modernization”, 2/4/09, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9052/countering_chinas_military_modernization.html ] / China has been steadily building up its strategic and conventional capabilities since the 1990s.

Eighteen years ago, experts say, China had a "bare-bones" military: basic capabilities, but nothing sophisticated or top-of-the-line. But two decades of double-digit spending increases have changed that picture. China says its 2008 defense budget is $61 billion, though the Pentagon has historically challenged Beijing's reported figures. In its annual report to Congress, the U.S. Defense Department estimated China's total military-related spending for 2007 to be between $97 billion and $139 billion, as compared to $52 billion reported by China. All that spending has gone to building a sophisticated, modern military: a large, increasingly capable submarine fleet, an air force stocked with Russian warplanes, and technical strides which have improved

China's ballistic missile arsenal, as well as satellite surveillance, radar, and interception capabilities.

China clearly complicates U.S. defense planning in Asia – Adam Segal.

China continues to stress that its military modernization is in line with its peaceful rise in the world. Its latest White Paper on national defense emphasizes it will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansionism.

However, this has not alleviated concerns among its neighbors and regional rivals , say experts. A

CFR Independent Task Force report (PDF) in 2007 on U.S.-China relations noted that many of China's neighbors and potential adversaries were making adjustments to their own defense plans and expenditures to balance China's growing military capabilities.

China Rising Quickly

China rising faster than any country in history because of inattention by the USCampbell, Director of International Security Program at the Center for Strateegic International Studies, 06, (Kurt Campbell, House Committee on International Relations hold a hearing on U.S.-Japan Relations, September 14th, 2006, Access Date 7/14/10, LexisNexis)And I'll tell you, my own sense is that after a period of a little bit of indecision, it seems to me that over the course of the next generation, the United States is going to face two overwhelming challenges. One is the global

war on terrorism, and we see that and we're involved in that on a daily basis -- Iraq is now part of that -- and secondly, the rise of China.I would say, personally, that no country in history has risen to great power or status faster than China has -- even faster than the United States between 1900 and 1920. And an indisputable ingredient in China's rise is American preoccupation away from Asia. And that's a hard fact and that's a bipartisan fact.We have not been focused as a nation on the critical realities of the Asia-Pacific region. And I think, and in fact, American inattention is one of the biggest problems that we have to deal with as opposed to some of the issues that I think have been very usefully put on the agenda today.

U.S. Wins China War Now

Extend Ross in 2. The US is currently more militarily superior to China, because of the “generation gap” in technology. However, China’s military has improved significantly, which is the Freeman in ‘10 evidence and the gap will decrease in the coming years. The US would easily win a Sino-American war now, but the longer we hold off the inevitable, the closer the war would be.[Robert S. Ross, “Navigating the Taiwan Strait: Deterrence, Escalation Dominance, and U.S.-China Relations”, published in International Security, Vol. 27, No. 2, Fall 2002. P. JSTOR. ] Chinese leaders acknowledge that U.S. capabilities would be particularly effective against Chinese forces operating in the Taiwan Theater. A senior Chinese military officer has lectured his troops that China’s likely adversary in a local war would possess high-technology equipment that could neutralize China’s ability to rely on manpower to defeat the enemy . A civilian analyst has noted that, in a war in China’s coastal region, it would be difficult for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to take advantage of its superior numbers—as it did during the Korean War—and that the adversary could “make full use of its superiority in air and naval long-range, large-scale, high-

accuracy weaponry.” 53 A military analyst was more direct, explaining that not only would such superior capabilities seriously restrict China’s ability to seize and maintain sea control around a “large island,” but they would also pose a major threat to China’s coastal political, economic, and military targets. Experts at

China’s Air Force Command College have concluded that an “air-attack revolution” has occurred and that a “generation gap” exists between the high technology air-attack capabilities of the United States and the “stagnant” air defense capabilities of less advanced countries, causing a “crisis” in air defense. Thus

China assumes that if the United States intervened in a mainland Taiwan war, the PLA could not protect its war-fighting capabilities, nor could it prevent U.S. penetration of Chinese airspace. It must also assume that the prospect of victory would be close to nil and that the costs of war and defeat would be massive. Once war began, the United States could target China’s large but backward navy. Even China’s advanced Russian destroyers equipped with highly capable missiles would not contribute to its

war-fighting capability, because they lack sufficient stand-off range to challenge U.S. offensive forces. Indeed U.S. capabilities would be even more effective in targeting Chinese surface assets at sea than they have been in targeting enemy assets in deserts, as in the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. Moreover, China’s air force would likely remain grounded, because neither its pilots nor its aircraft could challenge U.S. air superiority .

The US would beat China in a war—military spending and weapons development provesEland 3 – , Cato Institute (Ivan, January 23, “Is Chinese Military Modernization a Threat to the United States?”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa465.pdf)The Bush administration’s national security strategy attempts to ensure American primacy by outspending other nations on defense

many times over, thus dissuading them from competing with the United States. The United States is already more powerful militarily relative to other nations of the world than the Roman, Napoleonic, or British Empire was at its height. According to the national security strategy, “Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence.”8 And the Bush administration would like to keep such U.S. military dominance by profligate spending on military might that is deployed around the world. The history of international relations indicates that this strategy has little chance of succeeding. Historically, when threatened by a country that had become too powerful, nations banded together to balance against it. Of course, administration officials claim that the United States is a benevolent power and that other nations will feel no need to balance against it. Such countries as Russia, India, and especially China might disagree. For example, China accuses the United States of maintaining a policy of containment, and Russia has protested the expansion of the NATO alliance up to its borders. A good place for more sustainable and less threatening U.S. policies to start is in East Asia. Forces and Defense Spending. Currently, the United States maintains about 100,000 military personnel in East Asia. That military presence is centered in Japan (41,000), South Korea (37,000), and afloat (19,000). At sea, the United States stations one carrier battle group and one Marine amphibious group forward in the region and will now ensure that a second carrier group will be there more of the time. The United States will also augment the number of nuclear submarines stationed in Guam. That military presence seems small compared to the military forces of China,

which has active forces of 2.3 million. Yet the U.S. military presence deployed forward in East Asia is only the

tip of the iceberg. That presence is a symbol of U.S. interest in the region and of the world-dominant U.S. military juggernaut that could be brought to bear against the large, but largely antiquated, Chinese military during any war between the two nations. The United States spends about $400 billion a year on national defense and alone accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s defense spending . There is some dispute about how much China spends because not all of its defense spending (for example, funds for weapons research and procurement of foreign weapons) is reflected in the official Chinese defense budget.9 David Shambaugh, a prominent academic authority on the Chinese military, estimates total Chinese defense spending at about $38 billion per year.10 In the same ballpark, the International Institute of Strategic Studies’ Military Balance estimates such spending at $47

billion per year.11 In contrast, the U.S. Department of Defense’s estimate is predictably much higher—noting that annual Chinese military spending “could total $65 billion.”12 Because Shambaugh and the IISS do not build weapon systems to combat 5 The extended defense perimeter that the United States continues to maintain in East Asia shows a failure to recognize China’s security concerns. threats and thus have no inherent conflict of interest, their independent estimates are probably less prone to threat inflation than is DoD’s estimate. China has had real (inflation-adjusted) increases in defense spending only since 1997. Chinese military expenditures are constrained by limits on the ability of China’s central government to collect revenues and the concomitant budget deficit.13 Moreover, increases in military spending have been surpassed by rapid Chinese economic growth, leading to declines in defense spending as a proportion of gross domestic product. The $38 billion to $47 billion range is roughly what other medium powers, such as Japan, France, and the United Kingdom, spend on defense. But the militaries of those other nations are much smaller and more modern than the obsolete Chinese military, which needs to be completely transformed from a guerrilla-style Maoist people’s army into a modern force that emphasizes projection of power on the sea and in the air. (Since the early 1990s, the Chinese have reoriented their military doctrine from “fighting a people’s war under modern conditions” to fighting and winning a high-technology war against a modern opponent.)14 So the Chinese must spend much of their increases in official defense funding to prop up their sagging, oversized force and slowly convert it to a force that can project power, to meet escalating payroll requirements to compete with the thriving Chinese private sector, and to compensate the military for “off-thebooks” revenues lost

when the Chinese political leadership ordered the armed forces to stop running commercial businesses. Consequently, China’s spending to acquire weapons is equivalent only to that of countries with total defense budgets of $10 billion to $20 billion. 15 Given that the United States, with a gargantuan budget for the research, development, and procurement of weapons —well over $100 billion per year 16 —is leaving its rich NATO allies behind in technology (there is fear in NATO that U.S. capabilities are so far advanced

that the U.S. armed forces would not be able to operate with allied militaries), it most surely is leaving China in the dust.

CHINA CAN’T DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THE U.S. FOR MANY YEARS – TECHNOLOGICAL GAP. [Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, former assistant to Regan, “China’s Military Rise Means End of US Hegemony?”, 6/6/2009, appeared in the Korea Times on 5/5/2009, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10175 ] / Moreover, China's "armed forces continue to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as for nuclear, space, and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region."

Yet this concerted expansion little threatens U.S. security . Only the Chinese nuclear force is theoretically able to strike America today. Beijing possesses about 60 missiles, some of limited range. In contrast, the U.S. nuclear arsenal includes thousands of sophisticated warheads on hundreds of missiles . Beijing is going to have to spend years to build a modest force simply capable of deterring America.

CHINA DOESN’T HAVE CAPABILITY TO CHALLENGE THE U.S.[Drew Thompson, staff writer for Foreign Policy Magazine, “Think Again: China’s Military – It’s not time to panic. Yet.”, March/April 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/think_again_chinas_military ] / But it's probably too soon for Americans to panic. Many expert s who've looked closely at the matter agree that China today simply does not have the military capability to challenge the United States in the Pacific, though its modernization program has increased its ability to engage the United States close to Chinese shores. And the U.S. military is still , for all its troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most capable fighting force on the planet.

The USAF exceeds the PLAAF and will be superior for many years.Shlapak et al. ’09, Senior International Policy Analyst [David A. “A Question of Balance: Political Context and Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Dispute,” The research described in this report was sponsored by the Smith Richardson Foundation and was conducted under the auspices of the International Security and Defense Policy Center within the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD). NSRD conducts research and analysis for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Intelligence Community, allied foreign governments, and foundations, RAND, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG888.pdf Access Date: July 15, 2010]

It has long been the case that PLAAF fighter pilots were assessed to be substantially inferior to Taiwanese or U.S. flyers. The number of flying hours Chinese pilots receive has historically been much lower than their counterparts in Taiwan and the United States, and they practiced tactics that were judged crude and

stereotyped in comparison with those flown in the West. China is seeking to improve in these areas, and the PLA has promulgated new guidelines calling for more realistic training (DoD, 2008, p. 5). What effect on operational capability these changes will make in the next decade is difficult to predict; the deficiencies the PLA is seeking to correct are serious and of long standing. It will take time simply to develop and implement new training curricula, and more still to put enough aircrews through them to see large-scale improvements in front-line regiments. Because of this uncertainty, we parameterize the variable fairly broadly: We look at outcomes if PLAAF pilots are 40, 60, and 80 percent as good as their USAF counterparts.

China would not win against the US—lack of nuclear weapons and long-range bombers proveLieber and Press 2006 (Keir, the author of War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics Over Technology, is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Dary, the author of Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, Foreign Affairs, March/April)China's nuclear arsenal is even more vulnerable to a U.S. attack. A U.S. first strike could succeed whether it was launched as a surprise or in the midst of a crisis during a Chinese alert . China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People's Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational. China's medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack. According to unclassified U.S. government assessments, China's entire intercontinental nuclear arsenal consists of 18 stationary single-warhead ICBMs. These are not ready to launch on warning: their warheads are kept in storage and the missiles themselves are unfueled. (China's ICBMs use liquid fuel, which corrodes the missiles after 24 hours. Fueling them is estimated to

take two hours.) The lack of an advanced early warning system adds to the vulnerability of the ICBMs. It appears that China would have no warning at all of a U.S. submarine-launched missile attack or a strike using hundreds of stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

U.S. Wins China War – Military Presence Key

CHINESE MODERINIZATION THREATENS THE U.S. – KEEPING MILITARY PRESENCE IS KEY TO WIN.[Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, “Submitted Statement on DoD Challenges to the Senate Armed Services Committee”, 1/27/2009, http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1337 ] / As we know, China is modernizing across the whole of its armed forces .   The areas of greatest concern are Chinese investments and growing capabilities in cyber-and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and

ballistic missiles. Modernization in these areas could threaten America’s primary means of projecting power and helping allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. We have seen some improvement in the U.S.-Chinese security relationship recently. Last year, I inaugurated a direct telephone link with the Chinese defense ministry. Military to military exchanges continue, and we have begun a strategic dialogue to help us understand each other’s intentions and avoid potentially dangerous miscalculations.

As I’ve said before, the U.S. military must be able to dissuade, deter, and , if necessary, respond to challenges across the spectrum – including the armed forces of other nations. On account of Iraq and

Afghanistan, we would be hard pressed at this time to launch another major ground operation. But elsewhere in the world, t he United States has ample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any adversary that committed an act of aggression – whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula, or in the Taiwan Strait. The risk from these types of scenarios cannot be ignored, but it is a manageable one in the short- to mid-term.

China War Kills CCP

Extend Ross in ‘2. Chinese loss in a Sino-American war pushes back China’s military advances, prevents China’s access to international markets, collapses the Chinese economy, and with the loss of the economy and nationalism, the CCP will collapse.A WAR WITH THE U.S. WOULD COLLAPSE THE CHINESE ECONOMY AND DESTROY THE CCP.[Robert S. Ross, “Navigating the Taiwan Strait: Deterrence, Escalation Dominance, and U.S.-China Relations”, published in International Security, Vol. 27, No. 2, Fall 2002. P. JSTOR. ] A U.S. defeat of the PRC , however, would entail more than the loss of Chinese military assets. China’s modernization effort would be set back decades. War with the United States would compel China to switch to a wartime economy, requiring the reallocation of resources away from

civilian infrastructure development to the large-scale acquisition of outdated military hardware; it would also cost China access to international markets, capital, and high technology . The resulting economic dislocations would defer China’s ability to achieve great power status well into the second half of the twenty-first century. 57 Most important, the

combination of a military defeat over Taiwan and a domestic economic crisis would challenge the leadership’s core value—continued leadership of China by the CCP. Nationalism and economic performance,

the twin pillars of CCP legitimacy, would collapse, bringing down with them party rule.

CCP Bad – Genocide

Extend Tiangliang in ‘9. The CCP currently persecutes practitioners and innocent Chinese people. The party abuses the law to justify violence and gain control over the Chinese population. This need for power endangers the well-being of Chinese civilians and destroys any hope for morality. Breaking down the CCP is the only way to end the atrocities that are being committed against Chinese civilians; we have a moral obligation.

PERSECUTION LED BY THE CCP CAUSES GENOCIDE AND INNOCENT DEATHES.[Zhang Tianliang, writer for the Epoch Times, “The Persecution Won’t End Until the CCP is Disintegrated”, 7/25/2009, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/19985/ ] The persecution against Falun Gong hurts more than the practitioners. The perpetrators are the real victims. In order to carry out such a brutal persecution, the CCP must eliminate all kindness among the general public. Those who believe in karmic retribution know that the perpetrators will face a tragic end. Falun Gong practitioners publicize the facts to discourage them from committing crimes and receiving retribution. 

The persecution against Falun Gong also hurts all Chinese people, since the persecution is predicated on the abuse of law and the degeneration of morality. When a society does not follow the law, anyone can become a victim . For example, to suppress protestors who refused to be relocated in the government’s massive urbanization efforts, the government often labeled the protestors Falun Gong practitioners. The police could then beat or even kill these people without consequences.The CCP also knows that if all members of the public felt a strong sense of morality, they would reject the brutal persecution. That

is why it tries to destroy the morality of the Chinese people. Because of this, Chinese society is often marred with tragedy—such as deaths due to substandard construction or poisonous foods. This threatens the health and well-being of everyone in China. To end the atrocities resulting from the CCP’s crimes, and given that the CCP will not change by itself, we must disintegrate the CCP. This issue has been explained very clearly in the “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party”. It is a point worth repeating on the 10th anniversary of the persecution against Falun Gong.   

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT FUNDS THE GENOCIDE IN SUDAN – 300 THOUSAND DEATHES.[Hilary Andersson, Darfur correspondant for BBC News, “China ‘is fueling war in Darfur’”, 7/13/2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7503428.stm ] The BBC has found the first evidence that China is currently helping Sudan's government militarily in Darfur . The Panorama TV programme tracked down Chinese army lorries in the

Sudanese province that came from a batch exported from China to Sudan in 2005. The BBC was also told that

China was training fighter pilots who fly Chinese A5 Fantan fighter jets in Darfur . China's government has declined to comment on the BBC's findings, which contravene a UN arms embargo on Darfur. The embargo

requires foreign nations to take measures to ensure they do not militarily assist anyone in the conflict in Darfur, in which the UN estimates that about 300,000 people have died. More than two million people are also believed to have fled their villages in Darfur, destroyed by pro-government Arab Janjaweed militia. Panorama traced the first lorry by travelling deep into the remote deserts of West Darfur. They found a Chinese Dong Feng army lorry in the hands of one of Darfur's rebel groups. The BBC established through independent eyewitness testimony that the rebels had captured it from Sudanese government forces in December. The rebels filmed a second lorry with the BBC's camera. Both vehicles had been carrying anti-aircraft guns, one a Chinese gun. Markings showed that they were from a batch of 212 Dong Feng army lorries that the UN had traced as having

arrived in Sudan after the arms embargo was put in place. The lorries came straight from the factory in China to Sudan and were consigned to Sudan's defence ministry . The guns were mounted after the lorries were imported from China. The UN started looking for these lorries in Darfur three years ago, suspecting they had been sent there, but never found them. "We had no specific access to Sudanese government army stores, we were not allowed to take down factory codes or model numbers or registrations etc to verify these kinds of things," said EJ Hogendoorn, a member of the UN panel of experts that was involved in trying to locate the lorries.

CCP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 80 MILLION DEATHES – 6 DIFFERENT CASES.[Quit CCP, the Global Service Center for Quitting the Chinese Communist Party, “80 Million Chinese Killed in Less than 60 Years Under CCP’s Control”, 8/1/2008, http://quitccp.org/cms/ccps-crimes/17-killinglying/186-80-million-chinese-killed-in-less-than-60-years-under-ccps-control.html ]

From the time the Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949 up through today, about 80 million people have been killed or died unnatural deaths at the hands of China's Communist Party. The following summary highlights several notorious CCP campaigns:(1) Land Reform, Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries Campaigns, 1950–1952, 2.4–5 million killed

Under the guise of “land reform ” and suppressing “reactionaries,” within two short years Chinese authorities killed 2.4 million people, according to the CCP’s own figures. Some put the figure at 5 million . With its violence the CCP achieved three goals: 1) the total elimination of village leaders, who were replaced with CCP authorities; 2) obtaining, from those killed, massive personal wealth; and 3) instilling deep, lasting fear of the CCP.(2) Five Anti’s Campaign, 1/1952–10/1952, tens of thousands killed or driven to suicide, hundreds of thousands imprisoned in forced labor campsUsing the pretext of “financial reform,” the CCP regime targeted capitalists and business owners across China in a show of force and terror. Victims were often forced to pay arbitrary “taxes” that well exceeded total holdings. Tens of thousands were killed outright, with thousands more being driven to suicide by the trauma of arrests, social ostracism, brainwashing, and punishment.(3) Great Leap Forward, 1959–1961, 30–40 million dead

In an terribly ill-conceived plan to double China’s steel production, the CCP essentially turned the nation into one large labor camp. The fanatical drive required all Chinese to take part in steel-making. Farmers, forced to participate, abandoned

their crops to rot in the fields. Local officials meanwhile falsely reported large crop yields, further feeding the zeal. The result: over 30 million starved to death, and the country was plunged into economic depression . In the aftermath CCP propagandists rationalized the calamity as a “natural disaster.” No disasters, however, were recorded at the time.(4) Cultural Revolution, 1966–1976, 7–8 million killed or driven to suicide

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution aimed for nothing less than destruction of all traditional Chinese culture and values. The campaign reached such a frenzy that children would beat or even kill parents, teachers, and elders; many turned them in to authorities for torture or public humiliation. Killing became among CCP factions a way to prove one’s “revolutionary” status. So chaotic were the times that rampant cannibalism broke out in multiple regions. “The outside world obtained a glimpse of the violence,” according to China scholar Kenneth Lieberthal, only “when trussed-up corpses, many without heads, began floating down the Pear River into Hong Kong.”

(5) 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, June 4th, 1989,  600–3,000 killedThe CCP leadership brought a violent end to months of student-led sit-ins and hunger strikes on Beijing’s Tiananmen Square by ordering armed military to take the Square by force. The unarmed students were gunned down or crushed under tanks in a horrific bloodbath. To this day the CCP has not apologized or admitted any wrongdoing in the tragedy.(6) “Eradication” of Falun Gong Campaign, 1999–present, 4,000–10,000 est. dead, as many as 3 million imprisonedIn July 1999 then-CCP-Chairman Jiang Zemin, resentful of Falun Gong’s popularity, ordered the peaceful group “eradicated.” The ensuing campaign— violent and brutal —has been seen by many, like CCN Senior Analyst Willy Lam, as “a throw-back to the Cultural Revolution.” Some 30,000 cases of torture and abuse in custody have been documented, while as many as 3 million languish in jails and forced labor camps. Women are subjected to rape, forced abortions, and sexual violations by authorities. The campaign is believed to the largest, longest, most systematic, and costly campaign ever against a single group of people in China.

CCP Bad – Environmental Collapse

Extend Washington Post in ‘7. The CCP consistently acts in its best interest without concern for the environment. The three gorges dam proves this; Chinese leaders ignored warning signs that include landslide, collapsing shorelines, increasing silt along the Yangtze River, and increasing pollutants near the dam. This environmental destruction is a result of the CCP’s attempt to increase profit from industry.CCP’S EFFORTS TO INCREASE INDUSTRY KILLS THE ENVIRONMENT – 3 GORGES DAM PROOVES.[Editorial published in the Washington Post, no author, “The Dam Breaks – China Can No Longer Deny the Environmental Disaster at the Three Gorges”, 10/5/2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401010.html ] For China ’s communist leadership , which gathers today for a major party congress, the gigantic Three Gorges Dam holds out the promise of abundant hydroelectric power and an end to devastating periodic

floods along the Yangtze River. Yet from the moment they hatched a plan to build the colossal project, China’s leaders have known that its benefits would come at a high environmental cost. Undeterred, they ignored or repressed dissent about it. One prominent early critic, journalist Dai Qing, was jailed for 10 months after the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989; her book “Yangtze! Yangtze!” was suppressed. Even then, the threats posed by the $22 billion project in Hubei province were so evident that one-third of the delegates to China’s rubber-stamp national legislature either abstained or voted against it in 1993. Undaunted, the government began construction in 1994 and has relocated 1.4 million mostly poor rural villagers to make way for a 370-mile-long, 525-foot-deep reservoir. The dam’s first stage opened in 2003, permitting cargo vessels to travel from Shanghai to Chongqing; eventually, its turbines are supposed to generate 84 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.As recently as 2004, the official China Daily was still emitting happy talk about “achievements in environmental protection of the

area.” But now comes word that the warnings of Dai Qing and others were true. And the source of the news is

none other than the Chinese government. In fact, a “catastrophe” is possible if preventive steps are not taken promptly, the official Xinhua news agency said last week. Apparently, thickly populated river banks near Chongqing have been weakened by the project, and landslides — including one June 28 that killed four people — are a frequent occurrence. The new reservoir’s shoreline is collapsing in 91 places. In

addition, the Yangtze is silting up because of the reduced flow of water, and pollutants are accumulating behind the dam — exactly as critics had predicted.

CCP Bad – Root of All Evil

CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL – POISIONING CHILDREN, CRIME, AND POLLUTION.[Chinese Interim Party, the opposition party to the Chinese Communist Party, “Chinese Communist Party Is the Root of All Evil”, 9/29/2008. http://chinainterimgov.org/en/index.php?news=51 ] Despite the Chinese Communist regime’s repeated efforts to cover up problems in China, milk powder contaminated with melamine has recently been exposed thanks to pressure from foreign governments. The incidence triggered fear of much larger-scale toxic content in the Chinese dairy industry. The Chinese Interim Government hereby publishes the following statement: 1. The number of victims from contaminated milk powder is increasing quickly. The Chinese Interim Government would like to express its deepest

sympathy toward all Chinese people, especially parents of harmed children. 2. The Chinese Communist Party is the root of all evil . From contaminated rice, soy sauce, to milk powder, there is an industry-wide problem with food contamination.

The fact that the Chinese Communist Party has tried to hide the facts for the sake of the Olympics, putting the safety of a huge number of children at jeopardy, shows that it is indeed the root of all evil in Chinese society today. From the CCP’s ideology of atheism to the entire government structure, everything is toxic . Atheism poisons people’s minds so that they no longer worshipped gods, leading to fast

moral decline. Society in turn entered a vicious cycle. The CCP’s government structure rewards those who are the most unscrupulous in getting ahead. Good people can hardly survive in China. As a result of these factors, the natural environment in China, including air, water, and soil, has been heavily polluted. The CCP itself is a source of toxicity. 3. Disintegrating the CCP is the true medicine for society’s ills . It can fundamentally solve the problems facing China. When a contaminated food product was found, the CCP suppressed news media and prohibited them from reporting. It was at the urging of foreign governments that the CCP slowly reacted. It intentionally delayed the news report in order to keep a positive image during the Olympic Games. The lack of media freedom is a symptom of the problems with the CCP’s social structure. There is a saying among the common people, “Minor corrupt officials are put in handcuffs. Major corrupt criminals are giving reports at government meetings. The worst are those sitting in the three front rows [at government meetings]. The root of the problem is on the main stage.” To control the food contamination problem, we also have to start from the source of the problem. If the “toxicity” of the CCP system is not removed, even if the milk powder problem is resolved this time, other contaminated products will emerge. Only if the CCP is removed can the Chinese nation prosper. 4. All Chinese people should unite to protect their own rights. As the CCP stripped the people of the basic right to know, human rights, and other basic political rights, the people’s right to survive is threatened. From SARS and the pollution of the Songhua River to contaminated milk powders, the CCP spared no efforts trying to conceal the truth. For our and our children’s health, safety and freedom, we must step forward to protect our own basic human rights and right to survive. All victims of the milk powder incidence and their families should come together and ask for compensation from relevant government divisions. If this request is not honored, they should ask various level CCP officials to take responsibility. All harmed children should receive immediate medical treatment at the expense of the CCP. If relevant CCP departments refuse to bear the cost, again, the victims and

their families should target CCP officials and ask them to take responsibility. The CCP is the root of all evil. The real solution to China’s social problems depends on the disintegration of the CCP. The current time provides a good opportunity for the Chinese people to protect their right to survive, to withdraw from the CCP, and to join forces in the efforts to end the CCP.

Relations Can’t Solve for War

NEGOTIATIONS WITH CHINA WON’T PREVENT WAR.[Elizabeth Kantor, writer for Human Events, in an interview with Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense. “Exclusive Interview: China Bent on War”, 5/22/2006, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15038 ] What can we do to avoid war with China? Or is it unavoidable?

We can avoid war with China, and we’d be foolish to do otherwise. First we have to keep up the very tough and frank discussions the president and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld have been having with them. Soft words and euphemisms won’t suffice . Second, we need to invest in the kinds of weapons we need—defenses against Chinese anti-satellite and cyber war weapons chief among them—that we don’t now have. Third, we need to befriend the nations that border

China. If we can establish firm alliances with India, reconfirm our alliance with Japan, and look to Southeast Asia, we have the chance to contain Chinese ambitions for many years to come. Fourth, we need to continue to make clear to Europe that if they lift the arms embargo against China—or continue to tolerate France and others’ violation of it—it will mean a severe breach in our relations with them. The EUnuchs of Old Europe are one of the biggest problems we have today.What does the U.S. need to do now prepare for war with China?

Just the four things I said in answer to the last question, and one more. Americans have to energize themselves. We’re in a war now , and need to avoid another one. We may not be able to, but we have to try. If we fight

the global war on terror in the manner calculated to win it decisively we can also help convince China that aggression will not pay.

***Aff

U.S. Loses China War

WAR WITH CHINA GOES NUCLEAR AND FOCRCES U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM ASIA.[Bill Gertz, staff writer for the Washington Times, “China Prepares for War with the U.S. Over Taiwan – Missiles Targeted at American Cities”, 11/15/2000, http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/excerpt3.html ] One of the most alarming statements appeared Feb. 28 in Liberation Army Daily, the official organ of the PLA that reflects the views of Central Military Commission Chairman Jiang Zemin and other senior leaders.American intervention in a conflict between Taiwan and China would lead to “serious damage” to U.S. national security , the newspaper said. It warned in only slightly veiled language that China would resort to long-range missile attacks against the United States . “China is . . . a country that has certain abilities of launching strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance

strike,” the newspaper said. “It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China , a point which the U.S. policy-makers know fairly well also.”The threatening article was written by PLA Col. Zhu Chenghu, an influential hard-liner who is deputy director of the Institute of National Security Studies at the National Defense University in Beijing.

A war with China would force the United States to “make a complete withdrawal” from East Asia similar to the loss in Vietnam, his article said.

OVERSTRETCH AND CHINESE STRATEGY MEANS THE U.S. LOSES.[Bill Gertz, staff writer for the Washington Times, “China Prepares for War with the U.S. Over Taiwan – Missiles Targeted at American Cities”, 11/15/2000, http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/excerpt3.html ] Document 65 reveals what Pentagon specialist Michael Pillsbury has called “dangerous misperceptions” by China about the United States. It is just these kinds of misperceptions that could lead to a war.

For instance, Document 65 contains the following alarming passage: “Taking into account [the] possible intervention by the U.S., and based on the development strategy of our country, it is better to fight now than in the future - the earlier, the better. The reason being that, if worst [sic] comes to worst, we will gain control of Taiwan before full deployment of the U.S. troops.“In this case, the only thing the U.S. can do is fight a war with the purpose of retaliation , which will be similar to the Gulf war against Iraq or the recent bombing of Yugoslavia as far as its operational objective is

considered, namely, to first attack from the sky and the sea our coastal military targets, and then attack our vital

civil facilities so as to force us to accept its terms like Iraq and Yugoslavia.

“This is of course wishful thinking,” the document goes on. “However, before completely destroying the attacking enemy forces from the sea and their auxiliary bases which together constitute a threat to us, even if we successfully carry out interception and control the sky, our military and civil facilities will still incur some damages.”

Document 65 asserts that the U.S. military has not been tested in a major conflict with a large nation such as China and will become “exhausted” by long-distance warfare.“It can be safely expected that once the U.S. launches an attack, the front line of the U.S. forces and their supporting bases will be exposed within the range of our effective strikes. After the first

strategic strike, the U.S. forces will be faced with weaponry and logistic problems, providing us with opportunities for major offensives and [to] win large battles.”

CHINA’S MODERNIZATION POSES A THREAT TO THE U.S.[Esther Pan, writer for the Council on Foreign Relations, “The Scope of China’s Military Threat”, 6/2/2006, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10824/scope_of_chinas_military_threat.html ] / The Defense Department's 2006 assessment of China's military power cited long-term trends in China's modernization of its strategic forces—including its nuclear capacity, land- and sea-based access

denial capabilities, and precision-strike weapons—that "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region." The report, seen as a bellwether of the U.S.-China relationship,

showcased the Pentagon's view that China is the next big military threat to the United States. "There are some real concerns about China's military modernization, " says Adam Segal, senior fellow for China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.