# China Builds a Hi-Tech "Army Within an Army" -  Christian Science Monitor



## Cloud Cover (24 Nov 2005)

A pretty good article- http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1117/p01s03-woap.html?s=u2

Excerpt 

"In a surprisingly short time, China has accomplished two feats. One, it has focused its energy and wealth on creating an army within an army. It has devoted huge amounts of capital to create a small high-tech army within its old 2.2 million-member rifle and shoe-leather force.

The specialty of this modern force, about 15 percent of the PLA, is to conduct lightning attacks on smaller foes, using an all-out missile attack designed to paralyze, and a modern sea and air attack coordinated by high-tech communications. In other words, this new modern force is designed to attack Taiwan.

Second, China has taken painful but successful steps to create a "defense industrial base," or weapons-building capability. The PLA has improved its factory quality control and its ability to adapt foreign technology. It is bringing an indigenous small-wing F-10 fighter off the production line, and it is moving rapidly toward a "blue water" Navy with ships built in China."


Comment
As noted further down in the article, it seems Chinese military ambitions have now moved beyond Taiwan and are much broader in regional and perhaps even hemispheric scope with a view towards achieving some sort of very broad military dominance including conventional and tactical nuclear dominance over the United States within the Chinese AoI.   In particular, the hi-tech army within an army seems to be equipping itself for the very purpose of engaging and defeating American carrier battle groups and tactical air forces.

From what I see of this, the author of the article has not done a good job of explaining how the Chinese plan to deal with the inevitable swarming of their own BG's and coastlines by USN SSN's, unless of course the Russians sign on. I still think the US could take them on within the region, but not at the doorstep to China. Still, I agree that it could happen:

"Historically, in fact, China is not an aggressor. It rarely attacks. But then, what is called "China" has moved only in the late 20th century from a sprawling "civilization" to a nation in the modern sense. Moreover, the sense of national pride in China is powerful. As one rather liberal intellectual told the Monitor, "In our hearts, most of us want China to be great - we feel deeply a desire to help run Asia and the world."

*What concerns some American China experts is that creating a modern army will also create the dynamic to use a modern army. Analysts like Mulvenon point to possible unintended consequences of a buildup."*


----------



## K_Johnston (25 Nov 2005)

I might show some concern if they were focusing specifically on amphibious forces.  Without these, they have no chance of actually invading Taiwan, even after a large scale missile attack.  Building up their Navy however, could lead to uncontested control of the local area, which could allow them to build up amphibious assets at their leisure.

Also, building up to possibly defend against or even attack a US Carrier group doesnt surprise me.  If you can, why not prepare to go up against the toughest carrier group?  Makes sense to prepare to take on the best in whatever field you are in.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (25 Nov 2005)

It seems to me that they dont necessarily have any intent to attack or go to war with anyone, but the Chinese have a strong ambition to be #1 at everything, including military power... which would include overpowering the United States.

Not that I dont find it slightly disconcerning that someone other than our greatest ally is deciding to be a world super military power, the best on the planet, but it would be a different scenario if this was North Korea or Iran acting this way.



Another reason could also just be a detterrent.... if the Chinese military is strong enough to counter the united states, maybe they think that the US would think twice about coming to the aid of taiwan, should there be an invasion if the chinese were so powerful ?

The americans could defeat them now, but what if in 10 years the Chinese were just overwhelming?


----------



## Dissident (25 Nov 2005)

Could the US stall a chinese advance and cripple them? For sure. Could they actually defeat them? Remember that the invasion of Japan was cancelled in favor of an alternative strike. They thought a troop landing would be too costly. Could they now afford going in and defeat the chinese, I ask again? Especially now, with so many troops commited in Iraq and all.

And besides Tom Clancy novels, do we know for sure China is not building any amphibious capability? 

I am not an expert, but I am keeping an eye on China.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (25 Nov 2005)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Could the US stall a chinese advance and cripple them? For sure. Could they actually defeat them? Remember that the invasion of Japan was cancelled in favor of an alternative strike. They thought a troop landing would be too costly. Could they now afford going in and defeat the chinese, I ask again? Especially now, with so many troops commited in Iraq and all.
> 
> And besides Tom Clancy novels, do we know for sure China is not building any amphibious capability?
> 
> I am not an expert, but I am keeping an eye on China.



I think many of us are, and ive been holding my breath since that spy plane incident a while back.
There is no doubt that China is gearing its military for a specific mission: Invade and capture taiwan, with the ability to repel any US counterattack.

Thats what they seem to want, and theyll be damned if they dont have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## K_Johnston (25 Nov 2005)

"And besides Tom Clancy novels, do we know for sure China is not building any amphibious capability?"

There is no way to know for sure, and I actually Tom Clancy sparked my research on the subject.  From what I have found, and through discussions with family members in various militaries with eyes on China, they do have amphibious forces, but not enough for a feasible invasion.  The number of amphibious trained units is fairly small, and equipped units is even smaller.  The other problem was naval support for amphibs but they seem to be working on that by building the navy up.  I wouldnt be surprised if they did develop amphibious forces, but right now they just dont have enough, and what they have is mostly second rate.  SO far, if they took on what Taiwan has, they would probably lose many man, land few, and those would be swept up pretty quickly.  With US asistance, that is a certainty.......but that may be changing.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (25 Nov 2005)

K_Johnston said:
			
		

> "And besides Tom Clancy novels, do we know for sure China is not building any amphibious capability?"
> 
> There is no way to know for sure, and I actually Tom Clancy sparked my research on the subject.   From what I have found, and through discussions with family members in various militaries with eyes on China, they do have amphibious forces, but not enough for a feasible invasion.   The number of amphibious trained units is fairly small, and equipped units is even smaller.   The other problem was naval support for amphibs but they seem to be working on that by building the navy up.   I wouldnt be surprised if they did develop amphibious forces, but right now they just dont have enough, and what they have is mostly second rate.   SO far, if they took on what Taiwan has, they would probably lose many man, land few, and those would be swept up pretty quickly.   With US asistance, that is a certainty.......but that may be changing.



Do you still think that would happen, despite massive chinese air and naval bombardment before the invasion?
Why couldnt they just send troops in out of aircraft along with an amphibious assault in a d-day style invasion? China's biggest obstacles are getting men on the ground, and keeping the US out of the way.... theyve always rattled sabres about taiwan, but with all the latest progress in seeming to specialize in this kind of attack, I think they intend what they say.


----------



## K_Johnston (25 Nov 2005)

Mack674 said:
			
		

> Do you still think that would happen, despite massive chinese air and naval bombardment before the invasion?
> Why couldnt they just send troops in out of aircraft along with an amphibious assault in a d-day style invasion? China's biggest obstacles are getting men on the ground, and keeping the US out of the way.... theyve always rattled sabres about taiwan, but with all the latest progress in seeming to specialize in this kind of attack, I think they intend what they say.



You bring up some very good points, but even a landing by a nation as technologically advanced as the US would be very difficult to achieve, and somewhat un realistic.  If China gets more amphibious forces, I would say it would become a probably victory, but with the number they have now....not so much.  Air and naval bombardments are good against larger targets, not individual squads of infantry.  AA battaries and missiles can be disguised, and some man-portable AA would have an easy time taking a transport out of the air, especially one slowed down a bit more by the extra weight of Airborne forces.  A Tow missile launcher can conceivable be carried and hidden by two soldiers alone, and there are a ton of one man Anti-Armour weapons to use against amphibious forces.  An Anti-ship missile can be mounted on and fired from a small truck.  While bombardment before hand would be essential, many infantry will survive to bring their weapons on the enemy (example being WWII).

Maybe their best chance would be a small special forces insertion (probably about a company of men), either by sea or HALO jump, to take out the AA defenses in one area.  With this done, helicopters can bring in troops very quickly, airborne assaults are possible with lesser loss.  With those aditional troops on the ground, they can start assaulting inland, while leaving some to go back to shore to take out anti-ship missiles and weaken and pin the defenders for a amphibious assault..........against technological opponents, there really is so easy strategy.

But really I could say anything, find ways to defend against it and it doesnt mean much.  Being able to defend against it is one thing, being ready to, and the characteristics of each individual soldier, sailor, and airman decided the battle and the losses.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (25 Nov 2005)

Well the Chinese have so many ******* soldiers.... they could lose 150,000 thousand in the invasion and not be phased by it one bit.
Theres still 2 million where that come from!

As far as I know (correct me if im wrong) they use russian style tactics..... charge with a crapload of troops and overwhelm the enemy with numbers and firepower.

I don't think that taking many casualties is a very big concern of theirs, not only in statistically, but culturally. In history, the asian nations like korea, japan and vietnam were very less concerned about how many men they would lose, but whether they would win the battle or not.

Conserving as many troops as possible is a western idea and practice.
Canada, literally does not even have enough ammunition to shoot every soldier in the chinese military....


----------



## K_Johnston (25 Nov 2005)

True.  I should have clarified more.  They may have basically an endless source or reinforments to draw from, but they have a limited number of amphibious vehicles, landing craft and such.  If you lose those, you lose your ability to land troops and bring in those reinforcements......although once you have a beackhead I guess you could always fall back on helicopters to ferry in reinforcements.  A combination of amphibious and airborne forces such as you suggested has a better chance, but there is still a limited number of transport aircraft, and limited space for them to fly in.  Even if you dont care how many troops you lose, you still dont want to drop one paratrooper literally on top of the other.....funny as it might look.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (25 Nov 2005)

I suppose thats true as well.... they do indeed lack the necessary hardware to move any massive amounts of troops...... so really it doesnt matter how many they have if they can only land x amount of soldiers at a time.

However, if they had 150 C-130s flying over taiwan dropping platoons of soldiers all over the place, and craploads of landing craft landing after a massive 8 hour bombardment, im inclined to think it would be more than taiwan could handle.... If I were the chinese, and im certain theyve had more experience and time to think about this than i have, I would attack from every possible direction with every possible soldier going full auto.

You're guaranteed to land a few footholds that way..... unless im overlooking the fact that taiwan is an island fortress, but I havnt ever heard of that being the case... I  always thought the major deterrent for China was the likely involvement of the United States?


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Nov 2005)

Well, I've been saying as much for the last couple of years, so it's not exactly news. Heck, the US has been doing the exact same thing, no? One thing: The Sovremmy is not Chinese, it's Russian, and built in like 1985 or some such to boot. Not exactly cutting edge stuff, but still the biggest ship in the Chinese Navy. I imagine Canada still outstrips China in terms of warship buidling capacity, if not quite in actual naval power.

Any invasion of Taiwan will make D-Day look like a small commando raid. I doubt that the US could pull it off.  

Although I imagine the Indonesians/Malaysians/Vietnamese will probably think twice now before starting a new ethnic cleansing campaign against their Chinese minorities.


----------



## TCBF (25 Nov 2005)

"Conserving as many troops as possible is a western idea and practice."

- And a very recent one, at that.  Perhaps a transient one as well.

"Although I imagine the Indonesians/Malaysians/Vietnamese will probably think twice now before starting a new ethnic cleansing campaign against their Chinese minorities"

- Well, these cats - the Chinese - originally thousands of years ago put into script strategies we purport to be influenced by today.  No surprise they may still regard military power as an instrument of influence, if not actually immenent violence.

Their ducks may not be all lined up in a row just yet.  Notwithstanding their vast investment in US securities and dollars, provoking the USA at this point may result in loss of trading status.  China would suffer an economic shock, and even China can't put 60,000,000 wife-less men in the military overnight, so....civil war.

The only thing that would force them to risk civil war on the mainland by attacking Taiwan  at this point would be the one threat so great to China that even the threat of the USA pales in signifigance - that would be any threat to the existance of THE PARTY.  Only a threat to the Party would cause a "Chinese Falklands" at this point.

And if THAT did not go well...

Tom


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Nov 2005)

and it was built with good, cheap, plentiful BC softwood..... :warstory:


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2005)

One thing I would be curious to discover is if Chinese logistics capabilities have evolved to support this "Army inside the Army". In WWII, the German Panzer divisions were the high tech cutting edge, but were also backed by hundreds of divisions of Infantry, most relying on horse drawn wagons for support. German logistics became the Archille's heel of their war effore, they simply could not produce or supply the quantity of fuel, munitions or other supplies in the quantities required to prosecute an offensive war on such a scale.

The other problem is the Chinese might become overspecialized in an attempt to neutralize Carrier Battle Groups, meaning the United States could "blind side" them through some other means, even if they are defeated at sea. Imagine the chaos if the Chinese electrical grid goes down in Shanghai and Hong Kong.....


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Dec 2005)

Well, China doesn't have any real enemies this day and age on its land borders, so I'm not sure how relevent the German comparison is. The PLA's original mission was to defeat the 100 Soviet divisions massed on China's northern border, drawing them into China and bleeding them dry in Stalingrad type city battles. If you visit Beijing today, be sure to check out the huge underground shopping malls. They were all built in the 60s for just such an occasion. So if you mean logistics within China, they're not doing to bad. But if you mean sending guys half way across the world like we do, it's a little different. The new doctrine is still defensive in nature, just trading mobility for numbers.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

Had a good half-in-jest conversation the other day where I suggested the new Chinese cargo ship building program pair up with the 60,000,000 wife-less military age men and deposit both on the coast of Vancouver island some night.  

Steve MacQueen and a Browning Automatic Rifle won't solve THAT little predicament.

On the plus side, the girls at UVic would fill their dance cards fairly quickly...

Tom


----------



## Donut (12 Dec 2005)

Britney, I'm going to point out that China has attacked just about every single neighbor they have in the past, what, 100 years?

While more recently, the PLA was pointed at stopping the big bear from the north, the PLA's original mission was to spread Maoist revolution by way of violence.

I don't think we should forget that when we talk about them raising their military capabilities.

DF


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Dec 2005)

> Britney, I'm going to point out that China has attacked just about every single neighbor they have in the past, what, 100 years?



Oh really? That's certainly news to me. 

So from the year 1905, how many wars of agression has China partaken? Perhaps you could give some examples? The only kinda-sorta agressive war I can think of off is Vietnam in 1979. I'd be interested in hearing what you've discovered. Although just off the top of my head, I can point out that in the last 110 years China has been invaded by almost every single one of the European powers except Lichtenstein and at least once by the US, Japan alone has invaded China no less than 4 times, and all of them ending with tremendous brutality. Heck,  how many of China's neighbours HASN'T tried to invade in the last 100 years? Depending on if you count India as an independent country or not, probably 3 or 4?

So, yeah, I can understand why they're a little worried about this kind of thing.





> While more recently, the PLA was pointed at stopping the big bear from the north, the PLA's original mission was to spread Maoist revolution by way of violence.



Oh really?  And where, may I ask, have they made a serious effort at this? I suppose supplying arms to the communist insurgency in Malaysia during the 50s was, kinda-sorta, but come on.



> I don't think we should forget that when we talk about them raising their military capabilities.



Well I seem to have forgotten most of the points you made, why don't you enlighten me?


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

What the heck are you two doing awake at this time of night?

Interesting article in the Sat Nat Post by Sondra Gottlieb comparing the China she got to see in the 70s with the China she got to see this year.   Too much too fast?

Interesting times, indeed.

Tom


----------



## Donut (12 Dec 2005)

Ignoring all the conflicts pre-WWII, and some after that, you know, the wars with the colonial powers, the Boxer rebelion, the communist invasion against the Kuomintang, the Chinese revolutions, and the oft-repeated wars with Japan, the civil war, we're left with a few, including

Sino Mongolian conflict, 1946
Border skirmish, same region with USSR, 1948
Invasion of Tibet, 1949,
Korean War, 1950-53
Sino Burmese war, 1956
Indo-Chinese clashes & war, 1960, 1962-63
Sino-USSR border clashes, 1969-1978? (more may have occurred)
Sino-Vietnamese war 1979.

Most were, granted, for limited aims, but all I'm saying is that this a large, aggressive nation, with a well established history of using force to achieve it's aims, and we need to keep that history in mind when we're discussing intentions.

In terms of their spreading revolution, they did fight a pretty drawn out civil war.   Now, that's spreading revolution by force.

DF


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Dec 2005)

> Ignoring all the conflicts pre-WWII, and some after that, you know, the wars with the colonial powers, the Boxer rebelion, the communist invasion against the Kuomintang, the Chinese revolutions, and the oft-repeated wars with Japan, the civil war, we're left with a few, including



Why? If you can come up with any before WW2 I'd be happy to hear it, like I said, news to me.



> Sino Mongolian conflict, 1946





> Border skirmish, same region with USSR, 1948



You're not serious about this, are you? What were the casualty figures for either of these "wars"? 



> Invasion of Tibet, 1949,



How could they "invade" Tibet when it was already Chinese territory? Oh wait, you're counting Communist action against the KMT as "Communist Invasions" too?  :



> Korean War, 1950-53



So which NEIGHBOUR did the Chinese ATTACK?



> Sino Burmese war, 1956



I can't even find any sources to back this one up. Did this even actually happen?



> Indo-Chinese clashes & war, 1960, 1962-63



I dispute that the Chinese were the aggressors in this one, as no Chinese goverment was a signatory of the Simla Compact and no Chinese goverment ever recognized the McMahon line, which was a unilateral act on the part of the British. The Indians, by choosing to unilaterally occupy the disputed area, were the aggressors. I'll admit that this one is open to discussion. Care to discuss?



> Sino-USSR border clashes, 1969-1978? (more may have occurred)



How do you rekon China was the aggressor in any of these? A drunken altecation between a few border guards counts as a "war" too? What is that suppose to signal regarding China's "intentions"?



> Sino-Vietnamese war 1979.



Well, you got one at least.



> Most were, granted, for limited aims, but all I'm saying is that this a large, aggressive nation, with a well established history of using force to achieve it's aims, and we need to keep that history in mind when we're discussing intentions.



Oh I do. Do you?



> In terms of their spreading revolution, they did fight a pretty drawn out civil war.  Now, that's spreading revolution by force.



Wrong. Chian Kai Shek's faction of the KMT started the Chinese civil war in 1927, when he turned on his communist allies during the "4-12" incident. This is historically referred to as the "collapse of the first united front".


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

Hey, don't try to fool us Britney; I've read Tom Clancy novels!!!


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, China doesn't have any real enemies this day and age on its land borders, so I'm not sure how relevent the German comparison is. The PLA's original mission was to defeat the 100 Soviet divisions massed on China's northern border, drawing them into China and bleeding them dry in Stalingrad type city battles. If you visit Beijing today, be sure to check out the huge underground shopping malls. They were all built in the 60s for just such an occasion. So if you mean logistics within China, they're not doing to bad. But if you mean sending guys half way across the world like we do, it's a little different. The new doctrine is still defensive in nature, just trading mobility for numbers.



The German comparison was a historical analogy of another "Army within and Army". I am sure many of the same logistical considerations that helped or hindered the Germans in the 1939-45 period are applicable with today's Chinese Army within an Army. 

I really don't see invading Tiawan as being defensive in nature, unless the Taiwanese are preparing to invade and occupy mainland China?

Drawing invading Soviet troops into shopping malls is a brilliant application of Sun Tzu's dictums about knowing the enemy, and demonstrating the acme of skill is indeed to defeat your enemy withhout fighting.


----------



## Donut (12 Dec 2005)

BS, my point wasn't to start a pissing match, or send us (me anyway) scurrying for dusty reference books, but to point out that China hardly has a benign history when it comes to it's neighbors.

Was Tibet Chinese territory in 1949-51?  Many people certainly don't think so.  The Chinese claim their ownership rests on historical ties, dating back to the Mongol expansions.  Recent jurisprudence would claim otherwise, that Tibet was a de facto state in 1950, and treated as such by other states.

A couple of border guards trading shots probably doesn't count as a war, true, but then those gold and tungsten mines held by the Soviets just up and dug themselves, maybe the guards were drunker then they thought.

Yes, the Sino-Burmes war happened, it was, again, Chinese reclaiming "lost" territory.

wrt the Indo-Chinese battles, yes it was disputed territory, yes India garrisoned it first.  Inasmuch as there were ongoing diplomatic discussion over the territory, perhaps neither should be labelled the aggressor. But, seeing as how the Indians had no intentions (judging by their level of preparedness) of going on the offence, I think the PLA's well acclimatized and equipped force clearly came to fight, where the Indian forces were there, well, to be there.

wrt the role of the PLA, in 1949, Radio Beijing reported that "the People's Liberation Army must liberate all Chinese territories, including Tibet, Xinjiang, Hainan and Taiwan." 

I'm going to bow out of this now, my point being that China is not a benign power, that it's growing strength internationally is not necessarily A Good Thing, and that it will be tempted to use any new military capability it develops, probably to the detriment of its neighbors.


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Dec 2005)

> really don't see invading Tiawan as being defensive in nature, unless the Taiwanese are preparing to invade and occupy mainland China?



Well, up until proably the early 1990s, the stated mission of the ROC armed forces was to "liberate China from the Communist bandits" or something close to that. Remember that Taiwan/ROC was a SOuth Korean style military dictatorship up until very recently.

In any case, my view is still that invading Taiwan directly is an impossible pipe dream, and both sides are probably just using the issue to gain political brownie points. All those Taiwanese chip companies who are buidling fab plants in China don't seem to be too concerned about a war. 





> Was Tibet Chinese territory in 1949-51?  Many people certainly don't think so.  The Chinese claim their ownership rests on historical ties, dating back to the Mongol expansions.  Recent jurisprudence would claim otherwise, that Tibet was a de facto state in 1950, and treated as such by other states.



I guess you'd be right if by "many people" you mean the British during the 1st world war. This again goes back to the 1914 Simla convention. The Brits wanted to extent India's borders to the McMahon line,  but could not get the Chinese goverment(such as it were, the particular Chinese gov't in 1914 would not, in any case, last beyond the 1920s.)to agree to it. So the Brits coerced the autonomous Tibetan authorities to sign. Now even the original text of the Simla agreement acknowledged that Tibet(the part that the Brits didn't take) was Chinese territory, as the Brits had no interest in conquering the whole place, but for the Simla agreement to have any meaning the Brits pushed for some sort of independent Tibetan authority. 

What was Tibet's diplomatic status during WW2? Did any of the allied powers recognize Tibetan independence, to the detriment of the pro-American KMT goverment? Certainly not. As any quick glance at a map of the ROC, either a modern TWese rendition or one made in 1945 would indicate. Obviously Tibet was considered Chinese under the Qing. So which "other states" are you referring to? Please provide a cite for this "recent jurisprudence".  Seeing as how even the Dalai Lama has changed his mission statement from "independence" to "autonomy" , I think fairly soon only the West Coast hippies will remeber any of this.







As an aside, I feel rather badly for the Dalai Lama himself. It seems pretty clear to me that he originally had very little to do with the 1950 rebellion (you know, the one that happened 1 year after the "invasion" where the Chinese moved into Tibet and assumed control without any fighting), and was forced into a figurehead role by the rebellions Tibetan nobles. I hope that he will be able to reconcile with the Chinese authorities (again, I think they are fairly close to an agreement, but the international "free/save Tibet" movement has taken on a momentum of its own....) and return to Tibet before he is too old. 



> Yes, the Sino-Burmes war happened, it was, again, Chinese reclaiming "lost" territory.



Fascinating. I've never heard of it. Care to pint me to some references or provide some details? Somehow I don't imagine it was a very significant "war". Perchanse are you referring to the US sponsored Nationalist rebels that continued to operate from Burma in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War?



> wrt the Indo-Chinese battles, yes it was disputed territory, yes India garrisoned it first.  Inasmuch as there were ongoing diplomatic discussion over the territory, perhaps neither should be labelled the aggressor. But, seeing as how the Indians had no intentions (judging by their level of preparedness) of going on the offence, I think the PLA's well acclimatized and equipped force clearly came to fight, where the Indian forces were there, well, to be there.



The Indians made a very determined counterattack after the initial confusion. Obviously they had every intention of driving the Chinese out. 



> wrt the role of the PLA, in 1949, Radio Beijing reported that "the People's Liberation Army must liberate all Chinese territories, including Tibet, Xinjiang, Hainan and Taiwan."



And all of those areas were 1) Historically Chinese and 2) garrisoned by Nationalist Chinese troops, except maybe Tibet, which in any case the Nationalists also saw as Chinese territory.



<a href=http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html>Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth</a>


----------



## K_Johnston (12 Dec 2005)

The Indians made a very determined counterattack after the initial confusion. Obviously they had every intention of driving the Chinese out. [/quote]

Technically the key there is it was in fact a counter-attack, not an initial assault.  So while I admit this was a confusing one, and I can't really call either the agressor, China was technically the first to move its army against another in that conflict.


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Dec 2005)

I agree, but it wasn't exactly a "Pearl Harbor" type deal.  Minor skirmished over the Line of Control had already occured and it was no secret to either side that a conflict was imminent, since BOTH sides claimed quite loudly that the other's forces were within "their" borders.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

I would say the only thing making Taiwan Chinese is the remnants of the KMT and their progeny.   I think - notwithstanding the Japanese Army use of some indigenes as' movers' in jungle lane training - that Taiwan would have been much more closer to the Japanese sphere than now were it not for CKC 's temporary regrouping on the East side of the Formosa Straight.

Not too many originals left either side, but the Formosans probably wish the KMT would clear out, take Peking (or whatever) and just get it over with.

By the by, Brit, why your particular fascination with this part of the world?

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Dec 2005)

> I would say the only thing making Taiwan Chinese is the remnants of the KMT and their progeny.



From wiki:



> ROC's population was estimated in 2005 as being 22.9 million, most of which are on Taiwan. About 98 percent of the population is of Han Chinese ethnicity. Of these people, 84 percent are descendants of early Han immigrants known as native Taiwanese (c: Ã¦Å“Â¬çÅ“ÂÃ¤ÂºÂº; p: Bensheng ren; lit. "home-province person"). This group contains two subgroups. The first subgroup is the Southern Fujianese (70 percent of the total population), who migrated from the coastal Southern Fujian region in the southeast of mainland China. The second subgroup is the Hakka (15 percent of the total population), who originally migrated south to Guangdong, its surrounding areas and Taiwan, intermarrying extensively with Taiwanese aborigines. The remaining 14 percent of Han Chinese are known as Mainlanders (Ã¥Â¤-çÅ“ÂÃ¤ÂºÂº; Waisheng ren; lit. "external-province person") and are composed of and descend from immigrants who arrived after the Second World War. This group fled mainland China in 1949 following the Nationalist defeat in the Chinese Civil War. Dalu ren (Ã¥Â¤Â§éâ„¢Â¸Ã¤ÂºÂº) refers to residents of Mainland China. This group excludes almost all Taiwanese, including the Mainlanders, except recent immigrants from mainland China, such as those made Republic of China citizens through marriage.
> 
> The other 2 percent of Taiwan's population, numbering about 440,000, are the Taiwanese aborigines (Ã¥Å½Å¸Ã¤Â½ÂÃ¦Â°'; yuÃƒÂ¡nzhùmÃƒÂ­n; lit. "original inhabitants"), divided into 12 major groups: Ami, Atayal, Paiwan, Bunun, Puyuma, Rukai, Tsou, Saisiyat, Yami, Thao, Kavalan and Taroko.





> By the by, Brit, why your particular fascination with this part of the world?



Why not? Knowledge is power, no?


----------



## TCBF (13 Dec 2005)

"Why not? Knowledge is power, no?"

- Hmmmnnnnn.....  methinks there is something afoot, here...



Tom


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Dec 2005)

China definitely cannot compete with the United States militarily in the Pacific or Taiwan Strait due to the latter's monoply on high technology. However, it is inevitable that China will rectify this situation, the only question is how soon. China will not need to match US technology to defeat the US in a conventional conflict for three reasons. First is numbers. China has a massive land army, albeit with little mobility. However, to actually defeat China, this army would have to be dealt with somehow. Once involved in a war with the United States, it is doubtful that a China would experience a civil war. Rather, the population would rally around the government. The Chinese people see Taiwan as rightfully theirs, and some would say legally it is. To back down from the US over Taiwan would be unthinkable. Secondly, the economic ties between China and the US would work to the detriment of the latter. The United States exports only 22 billion a year in good to China, while it imports 120 billion worth of goods a year from that nation. While Chinese exports to the US are largely due to cheaper labour, telecom and computer exports are growing by 60% a year. This could soon affect the US telecom industry the way others have been by the fllood of cheap Chinese goods. The third issue in a possible US/China conflict is the decay of the US ability to fight a large scale conventional war. Even barring the possibilty of a land war involving US forces in Asia, (in which the US forces would face unimaginably high casualties) the United States has fallen into the trap of always planning for the last war. The US has cancelled or scaled back several capital purchases in recent years, including almost halving its purchase of F22s. In 20 years, China will have numerical superiority in the air as well, making the F22 and JSF crucial. BY investing heavily in SOF and other forces such as Strykers and MGS, the United States is obviously predicting most conflicts in the next 20 years or so will be relatively low intensity. However, these developments may also point to rationalization on the part of the US that no matter how much it invests in conventional forces, a conflict with China is unwinnable given the fact that both sides possess nuclear weapons, and may be willing to use them. Unless China attacks Taiwan prematurely in the next decade or so, the United States will be obliged to abandon Taiwan once China has developed its military.


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2005)

Unless, of course, Taiwan acquires nukes....

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2005)

Some more high tech "Army within and Army" news:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/



> Titan Rain
> There seems to be a well-organized Chinese military hacking effort against the U.S. military. The U.S. code name for the effort is "Titan Rain." The news reports are spotty, and more than a little sensationalist, but I know people involved in this investigation -- the attackers are very well-organized.
> 
> Posted on December 13, 2005 at 04:39 PM | Comments (61) | TrackBack (5)



http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail393.html



> Chinese infowar operations. Do a search on "titan rain". I was aware of this through industry contacts several years ago. Several of the most technically advanced worms have been traced back to the Chinese, and people in industry believe that many of the botnets are either monitored or controlled by them.



What is being referred to is the practice of taking over unguarded PCs and harnessing their power to crack other computer networks or launch DDOS and other types of attack. Ensure your PC is firewalled, turn off the computer and DSL "Cable Modem" when not in use and migrate to LINUX or a UNIX based OS (Mac OS X) if at all possible to reduce your risks.


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Dec 2005)

> What is being referred to is the practice of taking over unguarded PCs and harnessing their power to crack other computer networks or launch DDOS and other types of attack. Ensure your PC is firewalled, turn off the computer and DSL "Cable Modem" when not in use and migrate to LINUX or a UNIX based OS (Mac OS X) if at all possible to reduce your risks.



What they REALLY mean is that China has a large number of computers runing outdated, vulnerable  software (pirated software more often than not have backdoors guilt in) that makes them very easy for hackers to take over and use for spam and ddos attacks, and thus many of these can be traced back to computers in China. Most of these are perpetrated by Western hackers, but it doesn't help that China has such a large pool of unemployed 20 something computer science graduates with time on their hands. Obviously by taking over computers in China (or Russia or India, the two other big sources of spam and such) these guys can avoid easy prosecution in Western countries. 

"Hacking effort against the US military"?    ooookay.


----------



## chanman (30 Jan 2006)

A little late to the discussion, but reading this thread reminded me of a tidbit from a recent Economist article on political problems in Taiwan.

The background is that the currently embattled President is hoping to rally support by taking a harder line economically with the PRC.

Refresher: Taiwan's 2004 presidential election was determined by a margin of 0.2% in the first count, with the opposition claiming that an attack that injured the President tipped the election (given the razor-thin margin, they might not be far off)



> Even if this strategy restores Mr Chen's standing among his core supporters, it is unlikely to win the wider support it once did. China (Hong Kong included), buys nearly 40% percent of Taiwan's exports. The relationship across the strait is, to most Taiwanese, now far too important to disrupt.



Source http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5425721

If the link happens to be subscriber only, I'd be happy to quote the article in its entirety if anyone is interested.

Edited for typo


----------



## Armymatters (30 Jan 2006)

A good website on the Chinese military and any updates is here:
http://www.sinodefence.com/
The latest news is that the Chinese have taken delivery of 7 Kilo class submarines and a Sovremenny class destroyer.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2006)

The Chinese are into integrating diplomatic and military initiatives at a level we rarely consider:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mosher200602140810.asp



> *Red China on the March*
> The People’s Republic moves onto Grenada.
> 
> By Steven W. Mosher
> ...


----------



## TCBF (14 Feb 2006)

Did the Cubans ever finish that rather large runway they were building in Grenada?  All of these islands would make good aircraft carriers.

Tom


----------

