Total War: USA (pro) v (con) China.

Rebuttal I: US Power GridCon's whole case is based in three errors. 1) That the US wouldn't just equally do the same to China. 2) A misunderstanding of what an EMP is. 3) The assumption that the US can't defend against an EMP strike, and that China's strategy would work by default.To start on error 1, China's grid is smaller and more compact (1), making it an easier target. China's grid is almost entirely near the sea, making it easier to target from the Navy and Air Force. The US's is scattered across a massive continent. The second flaw is that an EMP does not stop electricity. It works by disrupting, and at higher levels damaging, active electronic equipment. This means that back up generators are safe. The third error is that such an attack can't happen. It's extremely theoretical, and relies on the idea that the US can't prevent the attack or doesn't try to prevent the attack. The Chinese can't EMP the entire US with mobile EMP vehicles... It'll require an array of missiles. The US, has mentioned in R2, has a massive Missile Defense System on land and at sea capable of ending such a strike while retaliating in force.Returning to both error two and three.... EMP missiles don't exist. Man-made EMP's are nuclear in nature, and would lead to a global war against any nation that used one against another nation. The US, however, is in the middle of extremely successful tests on a missile (2). This means that while China can't EMP the US, the US can EMP china within this decade.Another error with this case is that China wouldn't EMP the US. First World nation's have a more thought out approach to war. China would consider the post-war consequences. To survive after the war, China needs the US alive, as wiping out 22% of the world's economy (3) would lead to a global disaster that China would be crippled in. This is not a successful victory. China's tactic would require the US remain alive after the war. Especially since US allies as mentioned in R2 make up 54% of the World's economy. Such a tactic as Con proposes would be worse on China post-war than losing the war would be.Con says the US Missile Defense hasn't been upgraded since 1980. This isn't true. The missile defense that Con is talking about it (Aegis) was started in 1980, but has been upgraded often since then (4). Many of the Aegis missiles from 2014 are capable of stopping ICBMs, a trait no Chinese missile has.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal II: US v Chinese EconomyA) Dropping the DollarChina may drop the dollar, but it would only hurt them more. The dollar makes up 63% of the Foreign Exchange. The Chinese Yaun makes up zero percent (5). Even if they cancelled use of the dollar, the oil producers would stay under the dollar, as it's more profitable. This is especially true as the US is the largest importer of oil. If oil producers had to pick between a country that imports 7.5 million barrels a day, or one that imports 4.5 million, they will pick the former (the US)(6). OPEC would also be giving up sales to strong US allies like Japan and South Korea which makes up another 7 million barrels...China's currency shift would hurt trade as Europe, most or all of N. and S. America, and much of Asia buys and sells off the dollar. The Yaun wouldn't even be allowed in the Foreign Exchange as it stands today. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) claims it'll take a year before the Yaun could enter the reserves, and even then, the Yaun isn't free enough to succeed. The Yaun is strongly controlled by the state, and not by the free markets (7, 8). "Due to this the Chinese are now accepting oil in Yuan and strikes a deal with OPEC..." This claim is unsubstantiated, and unbelievably hypothetical. Con's source only states the opinion of only one economist, Sinclear. His source even disagrees with Sinclear on a crucial note, "Some even argue that the world will switch from the petrodollar to the petroYUAN. We’re not convinced that will happen." The biggest flaw in the source is this claim, "Given that China has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest importer of oil, (therefore leading to Con's scenario)." I've already shown the US imports almost twice as much oil as China. And Russia's not even in the top 10.[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...B) Rare Earth MetalsCon's case relies on a faulty understanding of reserves v production v demand. China may produce 95% of all of the world's REMs, but the US has 13,000,000 metric tonnes of REMs (9). The US's demand for REMs are at 10,500 metric tonnes a year (10). We can sustain ourselves for 1,200+ years. Con's case also falls to historical examples. He claims China will use it's monopoly to threaten the US... But this strategy was tried and failed in an embargo against Japan. China has a monopoly because prices were cheap and everyone liked that. Not because no one could match them. When they threatened other's with this monopoly, those nations got working on their own reserves. China's strategy backfired badly (11). One reason is that Chinese Companies are not the government... They don't care about war. They depend on trade to turn a huge profit. In the REM embargo of Japan, most Chinese companies refused to comply by using loopholes. Another failure on China's behalf is that, economically speaking, REM's are used because they are slightly better and cheaper, not because they are needed. REM's are convenient, not nessecary. It can be assumed China's production of REM's, after only 5 years since the embargo, now makes up 70% of the world's production, not 95 (12).So the US is not dependent on China's production of REM's, and China's monopoly has proven to be an ineffective tool. Remember, an embargo from the US is so effective for the same reasons an embargo against the US would be dangerous.[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...Argument I: US AlliesCon's case claims that China has many allies, ranging from India to Pakistan. That, to start, is a bad alliance right there. But the real issue here is confusing allies and friends. To start, India and China are not allies. They have poor relations, and a massive build up of military operations on each other's borders out of sheer distrust. India is extremely close to the US, and extremely distant from China.Con's case is based only in the SCO, where China and India are both members. However, India and Pakistan are both members and they are also on some of the worst diplomatic terms in the World today. So the SCO is only beneficial during peace, or when at war with a mutual enemy. It falls apart in a war with someone allied to India. The SCO's main goal is to counter terrorism and separatism, not a whole nation. The closest China has to an ally is N. Korea. In my case, I addressed US Allies AND China's allies, showing a broader view of the topic at hand, whereas Con only showed China's "allies" with no regard for what the US in turn has.I will now address China and Russia. Historically, the two have been on very rocky terms. In fact, even today, Russia is only "slightly" more favorable towards China, despite their intense hatred of the US (13). There is little reason why Russia would actually enter the war. However, US allies (who are actually allies) in the Pacific have a very real geological reason to get involved. They also depend on the US to secure them protection against China. And European Allies, who are strongly pro-US against China, are bond by alliances (NATO) to enter in cases where a fellow member is at war. And the threat to Europe from Chinese domination on the world's political and economic field would be incentive enough. Russia and China's relationship (which is still forming) may not even last (14). The two's relationship was based in a number of projects, none of which the two have attempted to complete (15).[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...Argument III: US v China EconomyChina's economy is far more delicate than the US's. China is in a triple economic bubble. An embargo on China from NATO would be crippling. At a nominal GDP of $10.35 trillion, used for international trade values, US and allies make up at least nearly a trillion USDs in Chinese trade revenue. This is half of all Chinese trade (16). While this is nominal value, once converted into PPP (to show the actual impact on Chinese's internal economy), they would lose almost $2 trillion in PPP GDP, dropping their actual economy by over 10%. Such an impact can't just be ignored. Especially since US exports to China equals only $113 bn, equal to less than a percent of the US economy (as US nominal and PPP are the same.)Chinese companies are not pro-China. They are pro-economy. Not only would China lose all interaction with US companies (whom make up a lot of the Chinese employment rate and industrialization), they would lose many of their own companies as the US becomes the better one to side with, economically. The increase in employment and investment in the US from domestic and Chinese companies would make up for, and likely even overwhelm the lost trade, while further hurting China.The US, with higher tax efficiency (see Premise II), can bring up (safely) a lot more of it's own GDP for war. The US also has a war-sustaining economy, with industries capable of managing war-time economics and production. China does not.[16] http://tinyurl.com...Conclusion:All of the tactics Con employed relied on the US not reacting or having no plan in place. Con's tactics are also employable by the US towards China, often even more efficiently than China could. The US economy can sustain a war, and lost trade, whereas China's can not. China's embargos would also hurt them more than the US.