Army.ca Forums

The Newsroom => International Defence and Security => Topic started by: nULL on April 16, 2004, 04:15:00

Title: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: nULL on April 16, 2004, 04:15:00
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD10Ad02.html   


TAIPEI - If China ever makes the decision to invade Taiwan it is unlikely to be a large-scale Normandy-style amphibious assault. The reality is that China is more likely to use a decapitation strategy. Decapitation strategies short circuit command and control systems, wipe out nationwide nerve centers, and leave the opponent hopelessly lost. As the old saying goes, "Kill the head and the body dies." All China needs to do is seize the center of power, the capital and its leaders.

If China decides to use force to reunify the mainland with what it terms a breakaway province, the window of opportunity is believed to be 2006. This would give China a couple of years to clean up the mess before the 2008 Summer Olympics. Most analysts estimate that China‘s military strength will surpass Taiwan‘s defense capabilities by 2005. So 2006 - the Year of the Dog - is clearly the year to fear.

United States Defense Department officials now are reexamining China‘s military threat to Taiwan. This rethink has caused a dramatic shift in the way many think of defending Taiwan. Traditionally, Taiwan had always feared an amphibious assault - the Normandy scenario - and its defense strategy was always designed to stop such an attack. Now with a potential decapitation strategy believed to be in the works, US defense officials are beginning to think what had once been unthinkable: losing Taiwan in only seven days.

The Taiwan takeover scenario
China‘s deployment of its special forces and rapid-deployment forces, combined with air power and missile strikes, is the most likely formula for successfully taking Taiwan with the least amount of effort and damage. The military acronym KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) is in full force here. Special forces, which blend strength with deception and flair, offer China laser cutters rather than sledge hammers for defeating Taiwan‘s armed forces.

An airborne assault directly on Taipei by China‘s 15th Airborne Corps (Changchun), with three divisions (43rd, 44th, 45th) would be the first phase of the assault, with additional paratroopers being dropped in Linkou, Taoyuan and Ilian, to tie up Taiwan‘s four divisions assigned to the 6th Army (North). A Chinese airborne division contains 11,000 men with light tanks and self-propelled artillery. Some intelligence reports have indicated that China was able to airlift one airborne division to Tibet in less than 48 hours in 1988. Today, China‘s ability to transport troops has greatly improved. China is expected to be able to deliver twice that number - 22,000 - in two days.

Taiwan‘s 6th Army has seven infantry brigades: 106, 116, 118, 152, 153, 176, and 178. The 152/153 Dragons and the the 176/178 Tigers are said to be the best. Also a direct assault on the 6th Army‘s 269th motorized brigade, 351st armored infantry brigade, and the 542nd armored brigade would be mandatory for Chinese forces.

Most of the initial fighting would be in the Zhong Zheng District, Taipei, which contains the Presidential Building, the Ministry of National Defense, and the Legislative Yuan. As soon as China‘s troops hit the ground they would have to deal with Taiwan‘s Military Police Command (MPC). The MPC is responsible for protecting key government buildings and military installations. Its personnel are the gatekeepers, holding all the keys and guarding all the doors. They are considered no-nonsense and are humorless when approached. China‘s airborne forces would meet immediate resistance from these Taipei forces. Regular army units, all based outside of Taipei, would take hours, perhaps days, to respond. It would be up to the MPC to hold the Chinese back until reinforcements arrived - which might be never.

Assassins, saboteurs would be prepositioned
Pre-positioned special forces, smuggled into Taiwan months before, would assassinate key leaders, and attack radar and communication facilities around Taiwan a few hours before the main attack. Infiltrators might receive some assistance from sympathetic elements within Taiwan‘s military and police, who are believed to be at least 75 percent pro-Kuomintang (KMT), and hence, pro-unification. Many could use taxis to move about the city unnoticed. Mainland Chinese prostitutes, already in abundance in Taiwan, could be recruited by Chinese intelligence to serve as femme fatales, supplying critical intelligence on the locations of key government and military leaders at odd hours of the night; death is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

<snip>

Why is Taiwan worth fighting for?

To anyone who looks at a map of the region, the reasons are obvious. Taiwan‘s strategic location makes it extremely valuable. The Taiwan Strait is a critical sea lane, and taking Taiwan would allow China to choke off international commercial shipping, especially oil, to Japan and South Korea, should it ever decide to do so. In addition, Taiwan serves as a vital window for US intelligence collection. Taiwan‘s National Security Bureau and the US National Security Agency jointly run a Signal Intelligence facility on Yangmingshan Mountain just north of Taipei (see Spook Mountain: How US spies on China, March 6, 2003). Taiwan‘s inclusion into China‘s military power structure would be unthinkable for Japan.

Of course, this is only a scenario based on selected facts and seasoned with conjecture. Speculation about what China could do and what it will do are rarely comparable. Too many media pundits make mention of a Normandy-style invasion, or an apocalyptic-style missile strike, without seriously considering the fastest way between two points. Of course, China, be warned: "No plan survives the first seconds of combat."

Wendell Minnick is the Jane‘s Defence Weekly correspondent for Taiwan and the author of Spies and Provocateurs: A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Persons Conducting Espionage and Covert Action (McFarland 1992). He can be contacted at janesroc@yahoo.com.


___________________________________________________


When looking at the latest poll figures    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/682137.stm    it doesn‘t seem like the pro-independence Taiwanese have a clear majority. Despite the obvious differences in their creation, I can‘t help but want to draw comparisons between Taiwan and Quebec; were the Parti Quebecois to win the next provincial  election, and decide to pursue unillateral independence (with the support of a larger number of like-minded voters than Taiwan‘s DPP) would Canada be justified in taking military action to force reunification? (Pretend the government would play along!)

The author in the article above seemed to abstain from mentioning China‘s nuclear arsenal in any showdown with the US. If China managed to amass a significant nuclear arsenal, and waited until such time that the Taiwanese government began pushing for independence (against the wishes of the US government) couldn‘t it force the US to back off? I mean, even if the US were able to field an effective missile defence system that would actually work when under attack from another superpower, and not some rogue state, in under 2 years, would that really help it keep up with evolving missile tech? (hypersonic cruise missiles...?)

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040329.wruss0329/BNStory/International/   

Is Taiwan really worth the risk of a large scale world war, especially when such a large segment of the population wants reunification?

EDIT: As a sidenote, don‘t the Chinese Special Forces have the coolest insignia ever?

    (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/images/minnick-patch1-thumb.gif)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Infanteer on April 16, 2004, 05:29:00
Quote
I can‘t help but want to draw comparisons between Taiwan and Quebec;
I think comparing de facto and de jure notions of independance shoots that analogy down.


I think this scenario goes to pot once the US decides to revoke China‘s trading privledges (WTO, MFN, etc).  They‘ve worked too hard to bring their economy to where it is to waste it away for that island.

As for the insignia, I think it is too clutered and cheezey.  The coolest cap brass ever has to be the Lancers

  (http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk/cav/gb%5E17th-21L.gif)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bert on April 16, 2004, 11:07:00
As Infanteer suggests, the business intertwinings of China and Taiwan are great.  The people of Chinese ancestory in Taiwan are well aware of their history they just don‘t like the government in China.  Given the various problems China would face invading Taiwan, I doubt they would do it without provocation.

As described, the act and engineering of a Taiwan invasion is possible.  Militarily, the wild card of the USA becoming involved and the re-militarization of Japan and South Korea is not desirable.  The loss of economic benefits is not desirable.  And China itself is not as stable as one would think.  

China has a strong central government and it keeps things in line.  If China were to invade Taiwan, definitely problems of societal control in Hong Kong, southern areas in China, and areas in the west of China would likely occur.  Government corruption would cause problems.

If one remembers the Beijing Tianimen (sp) Square incident in the late 1980s, one Chinese military unit almost fought another military unit over orders to fire on chinese students.  A little civil war nearly brew out of it.

The Chinese have a long bitter history fighting amounst themselves and its uncertain how an invasion of Taiwan, where Chinese could fight against Chinese again, would sit with the lower ranks of the PRC military, the general population, as well as the more unstable parts of the country and the government.

If the PRC does go into Taiwan, they are taking the biggest risk themselves.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bert on August 07, 2004, 01:17:53
From the Stratfor presses...

Northeast Asia: Nationalism, Football and the Koguryo Kingdom
www.stratfor.com

Summary

As China prepares to host the Asian Cup football final in Beijing, South
Korea has lodged a strong protest urging Beijing to stop laying claim to the
ancient Koguryo kingdom. Like the games themselves, this argument over
geographic heritage exemplifies the nationalism that is such a force in
Northeast Asia, one that continues to shape relations in the region.

Analysis

South Korea lodged a strong protest with China on Aug. 6, urging Beijing to
stop laying claim to the ancient Koguryo kingdom, which was comprised of much
of what is now South Korea, all of what is now North Korea and a slice of
northeastern China from 37 B.C. to A.D. 668. This diplomatic row comes as
more than 6,000 Chinese police and soldiers prepare to deploy near the
Workers' Stadium in Beijing to ensure public order during the Asian Cup
football final between China and Japan.

Nationalism runs deep in North Korea and remains a powerful political force
that can often cause diplomatic spats and undermine bilateral initiatives.
This latest dispute began months ago, when Beijing asserted that the Koguryo
kingdom was a Chinese entity. The assertion appalled both North and South
Koreans, who see the ancient kingdom as an integral part of their own
histories.

The People's Daily in China quoted a Chinese scholar July 2, who described
Koguryo as "a regime established by ethnic groups in northern China some
2,000 years ago, representing an important part of Chinese culture." South
Korean scholars say the Chinese are compelled to claim Koguryo because of
concerns over losing sovereignty of the eastern part of Manchuria -- where
many ethnic Koreans live -- after the Koreas are ultimately unified. Even
North Korea chastised its longtime ally; Pyongyang's state-run newspaper,
Rodong Sinmun, accused Beijing of "manipulating history for its own
interest."

Beijing, probably hoping to put the issue to rest, deleted the description of
Korea's ancient history from its Foreign Ministry Web site Aug. 5. However,
Korean sensibilities are not so easily appeased. The next day, Park Joon-woo,
chief of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's Asia-Pacific Affairs Bureau,
lodged a strong protest with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi and other
senior officials in Beijing.

The historical dispute is so profound in South Korea that it is helping to
heal deep rifts in domestic politics. The same day Park filed his complaint
with Beijing, Rep. Chun Jung-bae, floor leader of the ruling Uri Party,
announced the party has joined with its main opposition, the Grand National
Party, to organize a parliamentary body that will handle the dispute.

As the Koguryo dispute gathers steam, another confrontation fueled by
deep-seated nationalism is about to take place on the football pitch: China
and Japan will face off Aug. 7 for the Asian Cup final. Chinese memories of
Japan's brutal invasion and occupation in World War II still run deep, and
the match is sure to be emotionally charged.

Chinese fans in the southwestern city of Chongqing booed the Japanese team
when it took the field to play Jordan's team Aug. 2. Chinese fans also sat
down during Japan's national anthem and threw garbage at Japanese fans, who
had to be escorted by police out of the stadium after the game. An angry mob
also rushed the Japanese team's bus. Chinese and Japanese fans reportedly
will be confined to separate stands during the match in Beijing, and the
stadium will be packed with Chinese security forces in case a riot breaks
out.

Chinese and Korean sentiments over imperial Japan's militarism in the early
20th century remain an unyielding force, even while their more affluent
neighbor remains one of their largest markets and investment sources. Seoul
and Beijing lodged bitter protests with Tokyo over Japanese textbooks that
gloss over Japanese war crimes, and China and the Koreas voice virulent
opposition to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's annual visit to the Yasukuni
shrine, a memorial to Japanese war heroes that contains the remains of
several World War II war criminals.

China's sensitivity to Japanese actions was demonstrated in September 2003,
when a hotel orgy involving nearly 400 Japanese male tourists and 500 Chinese
prostitutes sparked outrage in the country and a diplomatic quarrel between
Beijing and Tokyo. The timing of the incident was particularly inopportune,
coming as it did two days before the 72nd anniversary of the Japanese army's
occupation of Northeast China.

Occasional bursts of nationalism in Northeast Asia do not destroy bilateral
ties between nations, but they do color them. For example, the issue of the
Koguryo kingdom during upcoming six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear
program helped set the tone for cooperation between the two Koreas after
relations took a hit from a recent mass defection of North Koreans. At the
same time, nationalism has added to the underlying tensions between China and
North Korea.

Patriotic fervor also has contributed to a Sino-Japanese dispute in the South
China Sea over the mutually claimed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and nearby
hydrocarbon riches lying under the sea floor.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on January 10, 2005, 22:31:16
Given our attention is drawn to the Middle East as WW IV unfolds, and the Tsunami turns our thoughts to Humanitarian issues, China might see this as an opportune moment...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/tkacik200501100715.asp

The Invasion of Taiwan
A Chinese law would make it legal.

By John J. Tkacik

News that China's National People's Congress Standing Committee has placed an "anti-secession law" on the agenda for next March's NPC session raises the question, "Don't China's lawmakers have anything better to do?" Indeed they do, but as the Argentine colonels reasoned in 1982, it's clearly easier to whip up national opinion over small islands like the Falklands â ” or Taiwan, in China's case â ” than to solve the country's problems. Beijing's top Taiwan-affairs director, Chen Yunlin, was in Washington, D.C., last week to lobby the Bush administration and Congress on the absolute necessity of such a law, and the fact that Taiwanese independence is an existential threat to China's "core national security interests." (This, despite the fact that Taiwan has been de facto independent since 1949, so whatever China's "core" interests are, they have successfully kept for the past half century.)

Although the actual text of the draft "law" has yet to be published, it appears to be a watered-down version of a truly fanatical "Unification Law" advocated by at least one Chinese professor, Yu Yuanzhou of Wuhan University, whose proposed legislation requires the Chinese People's Liberation Army to attack Taiwan as soon as it is able. Yu's legislation, which has been circulating on the Internet for over two years, calls for the PLA to immediately start bombarding Quemoy and Matsu â ” and it "would not be limited to conventional weapons."

Sadly, the kind of nonsense that Prof. Yu touts via the Internet passes for rational legislative discourse in China, and last May, during a tea party for visiting Premier Wen Jiabao with Chinese expatriates in London, an elderly Chinese demanded the premier pass such a law soon. The flustered premier humored the old man, "Your view on unification of the motherland is very important, very important. We will seriously consider it." But before the thoughtful premier had finished his session, his traveling propaganda entourage had it on all the Chinese newswires, and "unification law" became official policy.

Since then, Chinese propaganda departments have changed the name from "unification law" to "anti-secession law" â ” not (as some in the Western press have speculated) as a gesture of moderation, but to avoid any misunderstanding that China might not already be "unified." Perish the thought! No, Taiwan is an integral part of China illegally struggling to be "independent." Therefore, Taiwan is already unified with China, so "anti-secession" it is.

One need not wait until March 5 to see the first draft (which, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist party, will also be the final draft) of the law to know that its goal is not "anti-secession" and that it is not even a "law." It is clear from the official Chinese media that the "law" is supposed to authorize China's military to invade Taiwan immediately upon some future Taiwanese "declaration of independence." But both China's existing National Defense Law and its legislation governing national territory already require that the military defend China's homeland. This new legislation, as with most exercises in Chinese foreign-policy legislation, is a propaganda tool designed for two audiences.

First, it readies the Chinese people for war with Taiwan, and second, it will be trotted out and exhibited as a diplomatic lever whenever Americans point to the U.S. obligation â ” under Section 2(b)(6) of our own domestic legislation, the Taiwan Relations Act â ” to "maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

As such, this proposed Chinese legislation is highly destabilizing. Beijing's leaders believe their bellicosity has already prepared Washington for a Chinese military attack against Taiwan. In December 2003, according to CNN's respected China analyst, Willy Lam, a senior politburo member declared that President George W. Bush's "unambiguous opposition to attempts by Taipei to change the status quo" was such that if "we were to respond militarily, the U.S. can't raise objections let alone interfere." In May, another noted China scholar, Bonnie Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that the U.S. was sending a dangerous message to Beijing. "Some Chinese even believe," she reported, "that the U.S. may acquiesce in a limited use of force by the PLA â ” for example, to seize an offshore island, temporarily impose a limited blockade, or fire a lone missile at a military target on Taiwan." Yet Chinese leaders still think they need a "law" to legitimize their threats.

On the other hand, American leaders get very defensive in the face of China's increasingly strident threats to launch a military attack against Taiwan. Rather than articulate U.S. interests, they lamely point to the Taiwan Relations Act as somehow tying their unwilling hands. As recently as October 25, Secretary of State Colin Powell stammered that "the Chinese leaders who I spoke to today said that [Taiwan] is an internal matter for [China] to determine . . . and I appreciate their position, but nevertheless, that build-up creates a degree of tension and instability across the Straits and puts pressure on the Taiwanese side to seek additional weaponry. And under our law, we have an obligation to see to their self-defense needs." In essence, the State Department's response to China's demands to halt our defense relationship with Taiwan is to claim that U.S. law requires it.

The Chinese, unfamiliar with a true "rule of law," are now prepared to respond with their own "law," one that probably will say, "China shall wage war against an independent Taiwan." This, notwithstanding that Taiwan is already independent in every way â ” including by its own insistence â ” and that Taiwanese have been carrying on their own existence separate from China's for over a century (if one doesn't count the three postwar years of what was legally a Chinese "military occupation" of a former Japanese colonial territory). If the U.S. administration is ruled by principle instead of craven expedience, it will respond to this Chinese ploy with the kind of forceful declaration usually reserved for Taiwan's leaders. So, President Bush should declare explicitly, in terms identical to his jibe at Taiwan's democratically elected president last December, that China's proposed anti-secession legislation "indicates that China may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose." This would be a nice bookend to President Bush's overreaction to Taiwan President Chen's rather benign effort last December to legislate a "referendum" of protest against China's undeniable missile threat to the island.

But above all, the United States must be candid with the American people, with our democratic allies and friends in Asia, and above all with the Chinese dictatorship, about the American commitment to help Taiwan defend itself. Although the State Department seems abashed that the U.S. helps defend democratic Taiwan, it could find an eloquent statement of U.S. policy over at the Defense Department. Last April 21, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman explained to the House International Relations Committee that "the President's National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, calls for 'building a balance of power that favors freedom.' Taiwan's evolution into a true multi-party democracy over the past decade is proof of the importance of America's commitment to Taiwan's defense. It strengthens American resolve to see Taiwan's democracy grow and prosper." That sums it up nicely.

If Chen Yun Lin can take a healthy dose of reality back to Beijing from his Washington visits, perhaps China's National People's Congress can begin to focus on China's real problems â ” ones like the vast official corruption at all levels of government and party, rural poverty, the collapse of public healthcare, the financial crisis, unsafe mines, AIDS, and the wholesale pollution of its waters and earth.

â ” John J. Tkacik Jr. is a research fellow in the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Slim on January 10, 2005, 22:34:27
Excellent article! Mark this as I bet we'll here much more about it...

Slim
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: van Gemeren on January 11, 2005, 03:25:58
If China where to invade Taiwan, what do you think the American response would be?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: shoguny2k on January 11, 2005, 04:37:47
The author appears to set a double standard for "rule of law". Whereas the so called 'Taiwan Relations Act' can be considered a bona fide piece of legislation that the Americans toss out at every opportunity to justify continuing sales of weapons to Taiwan, China's new anti-secession law is somehow lacking in legitimacy. This smacks of racism and condescending arrogance. Somehow I'm not surprised. Anyone who writes for a right wing mouth piece like the National Review is still nothing more than a frigging redneck - regardless of the eloquence of his expression.

The "facts" this author presents to substantiate Taiwan's claim to sovereignty is shot full with more holes than a CF Sea King helicopter. Taiwan has been part of China's territory since the Ming Dynasty (read: 700 years, folks). It was annexed by Japan during the late Qing Dynasty as part of China's concessions laid down in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It seriously pisses me off when a bunch of westerners forcefully attempt to alter the intended destiny of a great nation (by selling 'defensive' weapons) under the guise of promoting multi-party democracy. It pisses me off, but again, I'm not surprised. The U.S. seeks to contain China and having Taiwan on their side just adds another fort to the defensive ring.

As far as I'm personally concerned, China should invade Taiwan as soon as it's militarily feasible to do so. The balance of power has already tipped in China's favour. By 2007, China will have about 1500 ballistic missiles pointed at the island. I suggest a blitzkrieg type saturation missile attack - in multiple waves to knock out Taiwan's strategic targets of interest in preparation for an amphibious assault. This must be done within 24-48 hrs at the most to prevent large scale American intervention. If all else fails, WMD's must be considered.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Infanteer on January 11, 2005, 05:01:50
Wow.

I'm assuming your membership dues to the Party are up to date?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Pieman on January 11, 2005, 05:31:09
Quote
As far as I'm personally concerned, China should invade Taiwan as soon as it's militarily feasible to do so. The balance of power has already tipped in China's favour. By 2007, China will have about 1500 ballistic missiles pointed at the island.
China may try to invade some day, but seriously, are they going to risk it as a growing economic power? I'm sure people think they will, but it is still highly doubtful in my mind. For now anyway...

Quote
Taiwan has been part of China's territory since the Ming Dynasty (read: 700 years, folks).
Perhaps you should ask some of the Taiwanese people what they think about being taken over by China. Western ideals are based upon freedom, and the freedom to choose ones own destiny. If you are wondering why Western countries are willing to intervene on Taiwan's behalf, by 'Promoting multy-party democracy', That is the reason. Also, once China does have Taiwan back in it's grip where will her eyes start to wander?  
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 11, 2005, 08:18:44
Anyone who writes for a right wing mouth piece like the National Review is still nothing more than a frigging redneck - regardless of the eloquence of his expression.
As far as I'm personally concerned, China should invade Taiwan as soon as it's militarily feasible to do so. The balance of power has already tipped in China's favour. By 2007, China will have about 1500 ballistic missiles pointed at the island. I suggest a blitzkrieg type saturation missile attack - in multiple waves to knock out Taiwan's strategic targets of interest in preparation for an amphibious assault. This must be done within 24-48 hrs at the most to prevent large scale American intervention. If all else fails, WMD's must be considered.
[/b]
Speaking of "rednecks"
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 11, 2005, 08:40:37
Between that post and the masturbation threads he tried to open might explain these posts, ;D


There were these 2 fat-*** NCM guys manning the post who were less than enthusiastic (to say the least) about promoting Naval MARE Officer positions to me. I just asked for an application package and left. Finally, one of 'em told me I should expect to wait between 6 months to a year prior to receiving any feedback on my application. Huh  They're certainly not treating me like they need me.
and,

Dude,

I'm joining the CF as a MARE Officer in the Navy. And I was told to wait between 6 months - 12 months !!!

These guys certainly don't seem to be taking valued recruits seriously.


.....I'm sure they took the "valued recruits" who came in that day very seriously. ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bograt on January 11, 2005, 09:08:27
Back on topic, is it a national pride thing, or a resourse issue? Why is China concerned with Taiwan?

From what I understand, the Chineese do not have adaquate amphibious capability to mount a credible invasion of Taiwan. If they want the real estate I don't think they would lob missles into the living room.

Are there land issues between the Indians and the Chinese? Contested territory etc..?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 11, 2005, 09:17:32
Bograt,
here are some older threads, maybe the answer is in here.
http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,2941.0.html
http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23356.0.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bograt on January 11, 2005, 09:30:37
This first link was very interesting. I never considered the strategic importance of the straight. Interesting times.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on January 11, 2005, 11:53:42
 Re: Yet another theater opening?
 « Reply #2 on: Today at 02:25:58  »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If China where to invade Taiwan, what do you think the American response would be?


I think the invasion of taiwan is inevitable.Right now would seem the opportune time to do it, taking advantage, as the article suggested, of many of the worlds powers focused on tsunami relief and funding, and the United States having their hands tied up a little bit in the middle east.
What it sounds like to me with this 'law' they are trying to pass is, the Chinese are going to washington and telling them theyre taking over taiwan but they dont want to be cut off from economic aid by the states....... in a summarized, theoretical sense lol.

If China just put it out there to everyone that they were going to invade taiwan as opposed to just blitzkrieging them to death all of a sudden, maybe they figure the worlds reaction would be less harsh and drastic that way.

"Hey guys listen, im going to annex your neighbors house and steal his car... maybe his wife too, but it has to be done! Please dont hate me :( I'll make it up to you later I promise!"

I dunno, im rambling, but one thing is for sure, taiwan is doomed =p
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on January 11, 2005, 13:56:09
Re: Yet another theater opening?
 « Reply #2 on: Today at 02:25:58  »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If China where to invade Taiwan, what do you think the American response would be?


I think the invasion of taTaiwans inevitable.Right now would seem the opportune time to do it, taking advantage, as the article suggested, of many of the worlds powers focused on tsunami relief and funding, and the United States having their hands tied up a little bit in the middle east.
What it sounds like to me with this 'law' they are trying to pass is, the Chinese are going to washington and telling them ththey'reaking over taTaiwanut they dodon'tant to be cut off from economic aid by the states....... in a summarized, theoretical sense lol.

If China just put it out there to everyone that they were going to invade taTaiwans opposed to just blblitzkrieghem to death all of a sudden, maybe they figure the worlds reaction would be less harsh and drastic that way.

"Hey guys listen, imI'moing to annex your neighbors house and steal his car... maybe his wife too, but it has to be done! Please dodon'tate me :( I'll make it up to you later I promise!"

I dunno, im rambling, but one thing is for sure, taiwan is doomed =p

Tiawan is only "doomed" if we in the democratic West fail to stand up for it. China's "law" is, as the article says, mostly for internal onconsumptionnd to divert attention from pressing internal problems and concerns. Translating that "law" into action presents many problems, and I believe tha invasion of Tiawan would be a very tough go for the PLA even with the worlds attention distracted for the moment. I need to do a search, but an article in Parameters which I read some time ago pointed out the only way to ensure a "quick" victory before the United States could get engaged would involve the use of WMD and even nuclear weapons to decapitate the military and political leadership of Tiawan, and limit the military response to a series of uncoordinated struggles by the Tiawanese military.

China has not yet developed the force projection capabilities that would allow them to ensure victory in any invasion scenario, with the greatest weakness being the logistical support for the invasion and follow-up occupation. A wild card factor might be Japan contesting China's control of the sea lanes leading to Tiawan (even if the JSDF did not get involved on the ground in China or Tiawan). Certainly, the prospect of China flexing its muscles that way would fill SE Asia with alarm, and the political fallout would be difficult for China to manage.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: MoOx on January 28, 2005, 21:29:26
I'm sure everyone on this board agrees with me when i say we should be increasing our defence spending -- massively. but here is why i think we should be doing it to back up our own interests in the world, and not out of sentimental attachment to the US.

Quote
2020 Vision
A CIA report predicts that American global dominance could end in 15 years.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005, at 2:48 PM PT


Who will be the first politician brave enough to declare publicly that the United States is a declining power and that America's leaders must urgently discuss what to do about it? This prognosis of decline comes not (or not only) from leftist scribes rooting for imperialism's downfall, but from the National Intelligence Councilâ ”the "center of strategic thinking" inside the U.S. intelligence community.

The NIC's conclusions are starkly presented in a new 119-page document, "Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project." It is unclassified and available on the CIA's Web site. The report has received modest press attention the past couple weeks, mainly for its prediction that, in the year 2020, "political Islam" will still be "a potent force." Only a few stories or columns have taken note of its central conclusion:

The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global playersâ ”similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th centuryâ ”will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.

In this new world, a mere 15 years away, the United States will remain "an important shaper of the international order"â ”probably the single most powerful countryâ ”but its "relative power position" will have "eroded." The new "arriviste powers"â ”not only China and India, but also Brazil, Indonesia, and perhaps othersâ ”will accelerate this erosion by pursuing "strategies designed to exclude or isolate the United States" in order to "force or cajole" us into playing by their rules.

America's current foreign policy is encouraging this trend, the NIC concluded. "U.S. preoccupation with the war on terrorism is largely irrelevant to the security concerns of most Asians," the report states. The authors don't dismiss the importance of the terror warâ ”far from it. But they do write that a "key question" for the future of America's power and influence is whether U.S. policy-makers "can offer Asian states an appealing vision of regional security and order that will rival and perhaps exceed that offered by China." If not, "U.S. disengagement from what matters to U.S. Asian allies would increase the likelihood that they will climb on Beijing's bandwagon and allow China to create its own regional security that excludes the United States."

To the extent that these new powers seek others to emulate, they may look to the European Union, not the United States, as "a model of global and regional governance."

This shift to a multipolar world "will not be painless," the report goes on, "and will hit the middle classes of the developed world in particular" with further outsourcing of jobs and outflow of capital investment. In short, the NIC's forecast involves not merely a recalibration in the balance of world power, but alsoâ ”as these things doâ ”a loss of wealth, income, and, in every sense of the word, security.

The trends should already be apparent to anyone who reads a newspaper. Not a day goes by without another story about how we're mortgaging our future to the central banks of China and Japan. The U.S. budget deficit, approaching a half-trillion dollars, is financed by their purchase of Treasury notes. The U.S. trade deficitâ ”much of it amassed by the purchase of Chinese-made goodsâ ”now exceeds $3 trillion. Meanwhile, China is displacing the United States all across Asiaâ ”in trade, investment, education, culture, and tourism. It's also cutting into the trade markets of Latin America. (China is now Chile's No. 1 export market and Brazil's No. 2 trade partner.) Asian engineering students who might once have gone to MIT or Cal Tech are now going to universities in Beijing.

Meanwhile, as the European Union becomes a coherent entity, the dollar's value against the euro has fallen by one-third in the past two years (one-eighth just since September). As the dollar's rate of return declines, currency investorsâ ”including those who have been financing our deficitâ ”begin to diversify their holdings. In China, Japan, Russia, and the Middle East, central bankers have been unloading dollars in favor of euros. The Bush policies that have deepened our debt have endangered the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

What is the Bush administration doing to alter course or at least cushion the blow? It's hard to say. During Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings last week, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, Dâ “Md., raised some questions about the nexus between international economics and political power. Rice referred him to the secretary of the treasury.

The NIC issued the report a few weeks before Bush's inaugural address, but it serves to dump still more cold water on the lofty fantasy of America delivering freedom to oppressed people everywhere. In Asia, the report states, "present and future leaders are agnostic on the issue of democracy and are more interested in developing what they perceive to be the most effective model of governance." If the president really wanted to spread freedom and democracy around the planet, he would (among other things) need to present America as that "model of governance"â ”to show the world, by its example, that free democracies are successful and worth emulating. Yet the NIC report paints a world where fewer and fewer people look to America as a model of anything. We can't sell freedom if we can't sell ourselves.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.


comments? rants? aneurysms?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bert on January 28, 2005, 21:53:49
The report may be slightly alarmist but certainly the concept of emerging regions/countries
and their relation to US dominance is bang on.

With nuclear proliferation, the industrialization of third world regions, the quest for
evermore resources, and the impacts on the environment, the stresses placed
on the world will be increasing.

My great-grandmother was born under British dominance.   I'm familiar with US dominance
and tomorrow it may very well be someone else.   Funny how history and future is.

Anyone read Stephen Baxter's books "Manifold Time" or "Evolution"?   Makes one think.


Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on January 28, 2005, 22:22:01
Ever empire has its day.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Canuck_25(Banned) on January 28, 2005, 22:26:32
 Reading this really scared me. I hope the CIA is wrong about this, 2020 is only 15 years. Although, you have to question the credibility of the CIA, the believed the U.S.S.R. was a perfectly economicaly stable during the 1980's.  ::)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on January 28, 2005, 22:29:19
The report may or may not be alarmist but it does raise a real and potentially alarming prospect.

But all may not be all gloom and doom

On the plus side (at least as far as the report is concerned) as the report seems to suggest, bigger is better in that China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil and the EU if taken as a whole certainly have a lot of moral authority as governments representing very large numbers of bodies.   They would have more if all the governments were democratically elected.   They certainly are wealthy and becoming wealthier and they are all technologically capable.

But there may be a "fly in the ointment".   Centrifugal forces.

The European intelligentsia is fighting an uphill battle to convince its "peasantry" that one big government is a good idea.   It seems to have some currency in "Old Europe", especially amongst those that know all the words to the "Internationale",   but less so in Northern Europe, Southern Europe and New Europe.   All of whom treasure their independence.

India, China and Indonesia are all having to deal with separatist elements and as people become more wealthy, educated and involved with the world at large there is no reason to assume that those countries couldn't go the way of Russia, the British, Dutch, French and Spanish Empires as well as the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires.   (An Empire is just an envious description of a very large State).   They couldn't hold against the wishes of large numbers of people.   What makes us so sure that the Tibetans, Mongols, Han, Dayaks, Punjabis, Tamils will lie down and play dead.   The evidence from all over, including in Africa (think Eritrea and the Democratic Republic of Congo) is the constant slicing of territory, division of peoples and proliferation of states.

While China and India become wealthier will they remain cohesive?   Maybe the pressures won't show by 2020 but how long after that?   And will the EU really be anything different than any of the other Empires that have come and gone within Europe?

15 years is too long for me to be placing bets on a sure outcome.

Having said that I do think that that very uncertainty, and the prospect of increasing uncertainty, demands that Canada, like every other State, prepares itself to be able to defend vigourously its citizens and its interests at home an abroad.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CBH99 on January 28, 2005, 22:41:53
I for one wouldn't mind a more level playing field in terms of there being another major global player besides the United States.   I mean no disrespect to our American friends south of the border, but in terms of America's current policies - it wouldn't hurt for there to be another global player, such as the EU.   During the Cold War, America had to rely just as much on moral highground and ethical superiority as it did military might, since the USSR outweighed the American military in terms of heavy industry.   Both sides were evenly matched in terms of strategic deployment of nuclear missiles, hence MAD.

Now that there is no official "second power" in the world - the US no longer has to rely on the moral highground in order to win over the rest of the world's support.   As we've all seen very recently in regards to the US war on Iraq, the US no longer has to think as heavily about how its policies may be interpreted by the world's citizens, since the US believes they no longer have to win over their hearts and minds in the face of a national adversary of equal or greater power.   This decline in the US moral highground may go unchecked until either another US leader is put in power, or until another global force emerges that causes the US to pause and remember that winning the hearts of the world's citizens is more important than being able to control them via foreign and defense policy.

Lets tell the rest of the world there are WMD in Iraq, and invade them at great human and financial cost.   And, almost 1.5yrs after the end of "major combat operations", lets officially say that no - we were mistaken, there were no WMD.   However, we did manage to oust Saddam - that has to count for something, right?   Lets not officially say we're going to start racial profiling at our airports - after all...its not like we have a history of racial prejudice or anything.   But at the same time, lets give everybody who has a darker skin complexion the gears, after all - they might be from either the Middle East or South America.   Lets tell the rest of the world that they are either with us, or against us - after all, its not like we're supposed to respect the viewpoints or listen to the ideas of other countries, right?   Oh, but how dare they challenge us!   They are either with us, or against us - whats so hard that the rest of the world can't understand?   Sheesh.

Okay, so some of the above might have been embellished just a little bit - but the points remain the same.   We in Canada might see American foreign policy different than people in the US, China, or the Middle East.   We share a border, we have common interests, we share cultural values, we share a similar system of criminal justice and corrections - Canada and the US are essentially very good friends, despite whatever snit we might get into sometimes.   But for people in the EU, China, or the Middle East - they don't have the luxury of a relationship with the US that we do.   People in the regions mentioned above might see the above paragraph as being more true to life, whereas we in Canada might see it as a bit of an embellishment and exaggeration.

The underlying point to all of this is;   a foreign power who has the will and the means to challenge the United States will force the US to start fighting for the moral highground again.   I'm not saying the US has turned into an evil empire by any means;   but lets face the real world - the US has some foreign policies that really do cause a lot of people to shudder.   The US is its own worst enemy - terrorism is a byproduct of continued arrogance.   Its hard for us in the west to truly understand this;   it wasn't until my wife and I were in Tehran last year that we really understood the foundation of terrorism.   Yes - there are extremists out there who would rather kill innocent people than change their way of life - and a bullet to the head would warrant no objection from me.   But, a lot of those the US calls "terrorists" perhaps aren't as extreme as the western media makes them out to be.   Or perhaps they weren't, before the current conflict.   Remember the quote:   Perception is Reality?   Well if certain groups of people in the Middle East PERCEIVE and BELIEVE their religion is coming under attack, that is their REALITY.   And if there is one thing I learned to respect about the Muslim religion in my experiences over the course of 7 months in Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt - is that they will do anything that they feel is necessary to protect their religion.   The real problem lies not just with the groups of actual terrorists or extremists out there - but with the sense of urgency groups within the Muslim world feel as if they are under attack from the west.

I could rant on about this for a long time - but I implore you to think about this issue BROADLY.   Think about certain, specific instances in the past - and in the present, in the form of both military action and developments in foreign policy.   If the United States wanted to continue to dominate the globe militarily, it could easily do so.   If the US managed its economy better, and was determined to continue to dominate the world in terms of economic and military power, it could be done - don't ever doubt the US' ability to accomplish a goal.   However, unless the US has the ability to regain the trust and empathy of the world's citizens, I can't help but see a foreign power gaining enough influence to challenge American policy and influence.   I don't mean to sound alarmist in the sense that it will lead to armed conflict, but unless the US can gain the trust of the people of the world yet again, a foreign power might not have to match the US military capability in order to influence global politics.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: pbi on January 28, 2005, 23:18:28
I'm not sure that the emergence of a peer competitor might not have exactly the opposite effect of what you are looking for. And I would also question whether, upon close examination, we would really find that US foreign policy in the Cold War and pre-911 world was driven any less by "RealPolitik" and any more by "altruism" than it is driven now. America, like any major power, deploys its forces based on its national interests. It cannot justify the risk and expense to its electorate in any other way.  It was so in both WW's  (hence their late entry in both cases) and IMHO it remains true today. "Fuzzy internationalism", as represented by the UN, has never really appealed to the US except for that short period following WWII in which they were instrumental in establishing that institution and offering it a home. Their committment to NATO (secured to a certain extent through Canadian diplomatic efforts under the St Laurent govt) was an anomaly for the US up to that point. Show me one major world power that has ever made a serious committment based solely on altruistic reasons as opposed to a calculation of risk vs national interest.

Cheers
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Blue Max on January 29, 2005, 05:01:26
Does this not sound familiar in Canada.

Why Austria Selected Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon?
By Georg Mader

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_476.shtml

â Å“For almost 40 years, Austria, meanwhile the 7th or 8th richest nation in the World, had always been told by the former Social-Democratic- (SPOE) administration (the best friends of 'neutral' Sweden) that "nobody is going to attack or harm us...", "what much more social and humanitarian work we could do with that money...". This standpoint created a climate of "...we have Congress-places with UN, Mozart, our ski-aces, fine food and vine, etc...". Eventually this resulted in there being absolutely no dedication to defence or to the understanding of a collective-security in the Austrian public: the media and half of the politics educated Austrians that way for 40 years. â Å“

One of the important reasons that Canada must not lose its military tradition is exactly because the US may not be a Hyper Power forever, infact it is for Mutual Defence that we must not revert to a overly motivated police force.   If we continue to erode our military capability instead of building it backup to where we can actually add to the security of the free world, then our leaders will doom us to a Neville Chamberlain like debacle some time in the future.

Despots can always find money to rebuild their tank battalions and submarine fleets, but in the free world tax payers are usually far more selective with what our governments spend money on.   :threat:   We must continue to add to the mutual security of our neighbors or else we will doom our own freedom.   :cdn:

MHO
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on February 20, 2005, 13:15:52
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37089-2005Feb19.html?

The Chinese to my mind have one primary goal, unification of Taiwan. The Twainese are unlikely to voluntarily become part of the PRC.
The Chinese are working hard on training troops in amphibious operations and are building amphibious warfare ships. They are acquiring top shelf combat aircraft and air to air weapons. They have obtained the Sunburn a very potent anti-ship weapon. PLAN subs have been trying to get close to USN battlegroups. If their goal is to take Taiwan they must be ready to deal with the 7th Fleet.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on February 20, 2005, 13:44:21
A buddy emailed me a link to a Fox News report that tomorrow Japan may for the first time announce that they will join US efforts to protect Taiwan against a possible Chinese Invasion.

Link for Fox News:   http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

Then look for a link on the right hand side called "Wall of Security".

Very interesting indeed....

Kudos to Japan.   I wish Canada would politically make the same statement, rather than selling out at every opportunity to obtain more Nortel and Bombardier orders.




Matthew.     ::)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on February 20, 2005, 21:33:05
Fighting China will taks more than straight "head to head" combat in the seas off Tiawan. Look for revolutionary American and alliance strategies, including counter-invading the Chinese mainland, opening a second front with India, unleashing a devastating cyberattack which affects LINUX (China being a holdout against using Microsoft products)  or something equally "out of the box".

As for Canada, if we are so craven in dealing with the "Republia Serbska" or the Sudan; it is hard to imagine the Liberal establishment standing up to a real predetory power like China. I only want to see the look on Paul Martins face when he finds out that Canada's "Magic Pixie Dust" doesn't work at the UN anymore (and indeed realizes IT NEVER DID).
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: NewCenturion on February 25, 2005, 15:08:58
Your right Majoor our foreign policy (if you want to call it that) is all smoke and mirrors, Canada is going to have to put up or shut up.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 26, 2005, 10:41:55
I think the resources China needs â “ and the need is massive and pressing â “ lie at its doorstep, in Siberia.

The Yenisey River is the natural boundary between Sino-Asia and Eurasia.*

The areas around and especially East of the Yenisey are one of the worlds last great untapped resource treasure-houses.   Many Chinese, including influential officials in the CPC, believe that Central and Eastern Siberia are Chinese and that Western Siberia (along with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, etc) can be and should be a Chinese fiefdom.

It may be that the next really big war will be between China and Russia â “ with Siberia as the prize.   Our (the American led West) strategy will be challenging; we will, almost certainly, split â “ Europe (save, perhaps the far North-West (Britain, Iceland and Norway, especially)) will likely support Russia.   Australia, India and Japan will also, likely, favour Russia; they will all, I think, be wrong â “ on the wrong side of history, in any event.

Taiwan is a real problem but, when all is said and done, Taiwan is part of China.   The trick, for us, is to convince the Chinese that they can have Taiwan whenever they want it, without a fight ... all they have to do is reform their own political system.   Taiwan will ... wants to, I think ... rejoin a democratic, law abiding China.
----------

* This puts the area between the Urals (the generally accepted Eastern limits of Europe) and the Yenisey in an interesting category; I think they may become a huge, modern version of the march (Welsh border) of a thousand years ago.   If so then China will play the role of the Normans, from the South East, dominating the region through some local variations of 11th century marcher lords, until it slips, seamlessly into Greater China.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on February 26, 2005, 12:32:47
     Even in the bad old days when we were all practicing REFORGER for possible WWIII in Germany, the Soviets never lowered their defences in the east.  They have too many memories of eastern invasion, and will never, under any political system or regieme permit an inch of mainland Siberia to fall to the Chinese.  Both the Russians and Chinese are aware that the Russians are not rational on this issue (and good on them) and that should the Chinese move east, China will be nuked from the face of the planet, and if that means the end of civilization on earth and 80% of the Russian population, so be it.  This attitude is entirely responsible for the Chinese focus elsewhere.  No pressure the west could exert will force Russian leadership to cede Siberia, or access to its resources to China.  Why do you think the Chinese are buying up mining concerns in North and South America, when the same untapped resources could be developed in a cost effective manner in Siberia with Sino/Russian cooperation?  Because the Russians know better than to let the Dragon get its claws into Siberia, and get an appetite for its riches.  If the Taiwanese were a nuclear power, the world would be a vastly more interesting place.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 26, 2005, 13:51:56
21st century Russia is a paper tiger, and the Chinese know it.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on February 26, 2005, 14:55:11
21st century Russia is a paper tiger, and the Chinese know it.

20th century Russia was a steel fist, using their nuclear aresenel to force NATO to keep conflicts on the conventional scale where they figured their numbers could bury our technology.  21st Century Russia has lost the steel fist, and is reduced to a clumsy iron finger or two, their nuclear arsenel is now moved from the bottom, to a place alarmingly far up their strategy tree.  They were safer playing to win; now they are in a position where there options may only include losing alone, or everybody losing together, and their national character is not one that embraces losing gracefully.  A paper tiger, with one plutonium derived Dragonkilling grenade, and the will to use it.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 26, 2005, 15:17:32
I think - no authoritative references - the Chinese think:

"¢   The Russian nuclear arsenal is poorly maintained, maybe less than 10% of the 1985 capacity and that in another ten years it will be, essentially, worthless;

"¢   The Chinese medium range nuclear arsenal is big enough to deter, at least intimidate the Russians;

"¢   The Russian military is in precipitous decline - unable to deploy into the East in any useful strength;

"¢   The Chinese only have to take Siberia to win - they don't have to go to Moscow;

"¢   The Russians have to make it all the way to Shanghai or they lose; and

"¢   Even if the Chinese nuclear calculus is wrong, China can absorb everything Russia can throw and then rise up, quickly and murderously from the ashes, and ravage the Russians - tossing them back into barbarism.

Talking about quantity vs. quality, US Senator Sam Nunn used to say: â ?Quantity has a quality all its ownâ ? - a remark which was made for China.   Like Fitzgerald's rich, the Chinese, too, are different and we err if we apply Western values to their strategic calculus.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CloudCover on February 26, 2005, 15:23:35
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37089-2005Feb19.html?

. The Twainese are unlikely to voluntarily become part of the PRC.


LOL, I agree. I don't think Shania Twain's island empire off of New Zealand wants to be part of the PRC. [this must be the territory which the Twainese inhabit!].
 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on February 26, 2005, 16:01:04
I think - no authoritative references - the Chinese think:

"¢   The Russian nuclear arsenal is poorly maintained, maybe less than 10% of the 1985 capacity and that in another ten years it will be, essentially, worthless;
"¢   The Chinese only have to take Siberia to win - they don't have to go to Moscow;
"¢   Even if the Chinese nuclear calculus is wrong, China can absorb everything Russia can throw and then rise up, quickly and murderously from the ashes, and ravage the Russians - tossing them back into barbarism.
     The Chinese system is overstrained as it is, they have billions they can feed as long as nothing goes wrong.  Their economy is as strained as Imperial Japan in the 1930-40's for resources They cannot absorb a nuclear attack without the wheels comming off.  Russia has no chance to win a confrontation with China at the moment, or for the forseeable future.  They can make sure China does not survive.  Would China go down swinging?  Lets just say that I'd hate to share a land border with someone that combination of desperate and strong.  If China and Russia ever negotiated in good faith, the West would be in a world of hurt.  As it is, there is a better chance of Osama bin Ladin getting the Republican nomination for Texas Governor than the Russians and Chinese agreeing opening the Manchurian border to serious trade and economic joint development.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 26, 2005, 16:56:17
The Chinese system is overstrained as it is, they have billions they can feed as long as nothing goes wrong.

Yes, I agree, partially.   The system is strained but they can feed their billions even when some things go wrong â “ sometimes even when many things go wrong.

Quote
Their economy is as strained as Imperial Japan in the 1930-40's for resources

Agreed, and they are determined â “ absolutely determined â “ to have learned the right lessons from Japan in the '30s.

Quote
They cannot absorb a nuclear attack without the wheels comming off.

I don't think they agree ... quite the contrary, as far as I can tell from my reading, they are confident that they can and will be the last man standing in any war with anyone except, maybe, a West which includes India.

Quote
Russia has no chance to win a confrontation with China at the moment, or for the foreseeable future.

The Chinese seem to share this view.

Quote
They can make sure China does not survive.

Once again, the Chinese do not agree; we may not like their calculus, but it is theirs.

Quote
Would China go down swinging?   Lets just say that I'd hate to share a land border with someone that combination of desperate and strong.

Me too ... the Chinese plan, I think, to win without swinging, at all, much less going down.   Some Chinese are talking, right now, about simply populating Siberia so that, in 20+/- years the facts on the ground mean it is theirs.   The key point, for the Chinese, I think, again, is that they are not afraid of Russia; they are not afraid of a war with Russia; they are not afraid of total war with Russia â “ worried, to be sure, but not afraid.

Quote
If China and Russia ever negotiated in good faith, the West would be in a world of hurt.   As it is, there is a better chance of Osama bin Ladin getting the Republican nomination for Texas Governor than the Russians and Chinese agreeing opening the Manchurian border to serious trade and economic joint development.

Agreed ... but this is, fortunately for us, an emnity which has endured for a thousand years - deeper than anything in Europe.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on February 27, 2005, 00:19:31
China may face a variation of the question which drove Imperial Japan during the 1930s. One faction of the Imperial staff (the Army, I believe), wanted to invade Siberia and take the rich resources available there. The other faction (led by the Navy) , thought the amount of investment and time needed to bring these resources on line would be far to great, better to look south and take the already developed resources from French Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, the British Empire, where there was available labour, infrastructure and open mines, oil wells, working farms....

Fast forward to the 21rst century, and the same conditions apply. An interesting conundrum for the Central Committee.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on February 27, 2005, 17:51:57
Me too ... the Chinese plan, I think, to win without swinging, at all, much less going down.   Some Chinese are talking, right now, about simply populating Siberia so that, in 20+/- years the facts on the ground mean it is theirs.   The key point, for the Chinese, I think, again, is that they are not afraid of Russia; they are not afraid of a war with Russia; they are not afraid of total war with Russia â “ worried, to be sure, but not afraid.

I think that is their attitude everywhere. Spread there population across the world and you hold a majority.

If it ever came to blows between the two, it would be a lose/lose situation. Regardless of whether China has a couple of divisions left standing, other country's would jump on the remaining carcasses of both and claim their share.

And unfortunately the thought of claiming what was yours 1000 years ago doesn't wash in today's world. Even though the Jews and Muslims would argue that to the death. Taiwan is NOT apart of China anymore, nor are they likely to be without something bad happening.

If that were the case, then damn it Brittany and Normandy should be apart of Britain.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on February 27, 2005, 17:58:32
[

And unfortunately the thought of claiming what was yours 1000 years ago doesn't wash in today's world. Even though the Jews and Muslims would argue that to the death. Taiwan is NOT apart of China anymore, nor are they likely to be without something bad happening.

If that were the case, then darn it Brittany and Normandy should be apart of Britain.
Quote
     By that standard, I have claim to most of modern Libya, although I'd need the loan of a few divisions to make it stick......
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 04, 2005, 00:09:26
America and Tiawan's coalition partner can bring a very potent force to the table ( from strategypage.com)

Quote
The Mighty Japanese Navy
by Harold C. Hutchison
February 25, 2005

The JMSDF (Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force) is arguably the second-best navy in the Pacific, trailing only the United States Navy. The JMSDF has a large number of modern surface warships and the third-largest submarine force in the Pacific, and it could be a potential player in any fight in the Formosa Strait, due to the fact that Japan's ties with Taiwan have become much closer.

The primary surface vessels in the JMSDF are the destroyers. Japan's had a long tradition of building a superb destroyer force â “ in World War II, their destroyers were arguably the best in the world. The best destroyers in the JMSDF are the Kongo-class DDGs. These 7,250-ton ships carry 90 vertical-launch cells for SM-2MR missiles (with a range of 111 kilometers), and are equipped with the Aegis system. They are, in essence, copies of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in U.S. Navy service, with a few small exceptions (no Tomahawk capability, an Italian 5-inch gun, and some Japanese electronics). It is probably the best surface combatant outside the United States Navy. Japan also has a smaller force of older guided-missile destroyers, the Hatakaze and Tachikaze classes. These two destroyer classes are roughly equivalent to the Charles F. Adams-class destroyers. Japan also has four helicopter-carrying destroyers, primarily used for anti-submarine warfare.

Two other modern destroyer classes are entering service: The Murasame (4,550 tons) and Takanami-class (4,600 tons) destroyers both have vertical-launch cells, but both primarily focus on anti-submarine warfare. They usually carry a mix of vertically-launched ASROC and Sea Sparrow missiles. The two ship classes will comprise fourteen ships total. The major difference between the two ship classes are their main guns. The Murasame has a 76mm gun, the Takanami, a 5-inch gun. Two other classes of destroyer, the Asagiri and Hatsuyuki are also present in strength (20 ships between the two of them).

Japan's other major asset is its large force of advanced diesel-electric submarines (eighteen subs). The Yuushio, Harushio, and Oyashiro classes displace anywhere from 2,450 tons to 3,000 tons. Each carry six 21-inch torpedo tubes, with a total of 20 weapons (either Harpoon anti-ship missiles or Type 89 torpedoes). These subs would be a potent force against the Chinese Navy.

The JMSDF has some problems. Training is difficult, since Japan's waters have many commercial fishing and merchant vessels. Japan is usually able to squeeze in only about ten days of training for mine warfare, when fishing is not so good. The JMSDF also is short on underway replenishment vessels â “ a total of four such ships are available to refuel forty-seven destroyers. The new submarines have also been expensive ($500 million apiece), a problem when the Japanese Constitution limits defense spending to one percent of Japan's Gross National Product. Similarly, the Kongos were built to mercantile standards to save money â “ which means they cannot take as much damage as a Burke-class destroyer. Furthermore, Japan's efforts to build an aircraft carrier have run into opposition. The official design for the replacement for the Haruna and Shirane-class DDHs have shown a full superstructure and forward and aft helicopter pads. However, alternative designs have looked like a small aircraft carrier. At 13,500 tons, these are not much smaller than an Independence-class light carrier from World War II.

The JMSDF also has problems with political support. Often, Japan's security needs (such as the ability to protect oceangoing trade) have been subordinated to concerns about whether a posture is too aggressive. This has gone back to 1981, when proposals to ensure defense of sea lanes was controversial â “ despite Japan's experience under submarine blockade in World War II. Also, Japan's had problems getting sufficient personnel â “ it has been under authorized strength in the past (a shortfall of 3.5 percent existed in 1992). Ultimately, Japan's ability to overcome the political issues and to get an adequate number of trained personnel will determine how well it can carry out its mission of defending Japan.
 

A mix of the good (potent destroyer force), the bad (limitations on training, and political support, limited replenishment ability) and the ugly (Warships built to mercentile standards!). Perhaps some lessons for our Navy here as well.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 08, 2005, 11:29:34

China Steps Up Pressure on Taiwan

By ELAINE KURTENBACH
BEIJING (AP) - China unveiled a law Tuesday authorizing an attack if Taiwan moves toward formal independence, increasing pressure on the self-ruled island while warning other countries not to interfere. Taiwan denounced the legislation as a ``blank check to invade'' and announced war games aimed at repelling an attack.

The proposed anti-secession law, read out for the first time before the ceremonial National People's Congress, doesn't say what specific actions might invite a Chinese attack.

``If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity,'' Wang Zhaoguo, deputy chairman of the NPC's Standing Committee, told the nearly 3,000 legislators gathered in the Great Hall of the People.

Beijing claims Taiwan, split from China since 1949, as part of its territory. The communist mainland repeatedly has threatened to invade if Taiwan tries to make its independence permanent, and new law doesn't impose any new conditions or make new threats. But it lays out for the first time legal requirements for military action.
Taiwan's leaders warned that the move could backfire by angering the island's voting public.
Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, which handles the island's China policy, said the law gives China's military ``a blank check to invade Taiwan'' and ``exposed the Chinese communists' attempt to use force to annex Taiwan and to be a regional power.''

``Our government lodges strong protest against the vicious attempt and brutal means ... to block Taiwanese from making their free choice,'' the council said in a statement.
Taiwanese Defense Ministry spokesman Liu Chih-chien said large-scale military exercises would be held from mid-April to August to build confidence in the island's military preparedness. Troops will practice knocking down Chinese missiles and fighting communist commandos.
Mainland lawmakers immediately expressed support for the measure, which is sure to be approved when they vote March 14. The NPC routinely approves all legislation already decided by Communist Party leaders.

``We must join hands and absolutely not allow Taiwan to separate from China,'' said Chang Houchun, a businessman and NPC member from southern China's Guangdong province.
Chinese officials say the law was prompted in part by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's plans for a referendum on a new constitution for the island that Beijing worries might include a declaration of independence.
Chen says the vote would be aimed at building a better political system, not at formalizing Taiwan's de facto independence.

The proposed law says Beijing regards Taiwan's future as an internal Chinese matter, rejecting ``any interference by outside forces.''
``Every sovereign state has the right to use necessary means to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,'' said Wang.
The law says China's Cabinet and the government's Central Military Commission ``are authorized to decide on and execute nonpeaceful means and nonpeaceful measures.''
The United States has appealed to both sides to settle Taiwan's status peacefully, with no unilateral changes by either side. Washington is Taiwan's main arms supplier and could be drawn into any conflict.

In Taipei, Chen Chin-jun, a legislative leader of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, said the island wants peace and trade with China.
However, he said, ``We will not accept any resolution to allow the Chinese Communists to unilaterally decide Taiwan's future, and it will only antagonize the Taiwanese.''
China and Taiwan have no official ties and most direct travel and shipping between the two sides is banned. But Taiwanese companies have invested more than $100 billion in the mainland and the two sides carry on thriving indirect trade.

Until recently, China's military was thought to be incapable of carrying out an invasion across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. But Beijing has spent billions of dollars buying Russian-made submarines, destroyers and other high-tech weapons to extend the reach of the 2.5 million-member People's Liberation Army.
Chinese leaders have appealed in recent months for Taiwan to return to talks on unification. But they insist that Taiwanese leaders first declare that the two sides are ``one China'' - a condition that Chen has rejected.
In an apparent attempt to calm Taiwanese public anxiety, Wang said the law promises that Chinese military forces would try to avoid harming Taiwenese civilians. He said the rights of Taiwanese on China's mainland also would be protected.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CheersShag on March 08, 2005, 13:42:51
Crap, better work on my mandarin.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 08, 2005, 13:49:06
Concentrate on your principles of marksmanship first!
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CheersShag on March 08, 2005, 13:56:27
I meant for when they send us to Taiwan to repel the Chinese.
Wasn't saying I was giving up already!

Or were you just reminding me to practice my principles, which makes sense either way I suppose..

Would Taiwan be able to repel a PLA invasion?
Bit simple a question I suppose which would invoke a very long response, but I can't think of how to be more specific.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 08, 2005, 15:08:41
Short answer: it depends.

China could launch a gigantic attack under a wave of up to 700 medium range missiles, which would overwhelm the immediate defenses, but also shoot China's bolt. China would have to be very confident of a political or military environment which would preclude outside intervention.

The coalition of the willing would most likely be the United States and Japan, with other interested nations ranging from India to Australia, depending on how they see the Chinese threat. If China shoots its bolt, the coalition forces will basically counterattack and push the Chinese out. If China tries to maintain a reserve, the Tiawanese will have the ability to keep fighting as well. Either way it would be very messy.

Would Mr Dithers support Tiawan against China? Canada's record against naked agression hasn't been to sterling lately....China also sees Canada as a resource base; buying up oil and mineral rights and seeing us as "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for the 21rst century.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 08, 2005, 15:38:31
the law promises that Chinese military forces would try to avoid harming Taiwenese civilians. He said the rights of Taiwanese on China's mainland also would be protected.

Yeah, right.



I suspect this has something to do with the recent declaration on the part of the US and Japan that the Taiwan Strait is a "common strategic objective": which is to say that it is more of a reaction to US posturing (more on this here: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/03/04/2003225416 ).

Interestingly, I was reading just the other day (in the context of this announcement) that Japan now arguably has the second 'best' Navy in the Pacific!  http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200522521.asp
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CBH99 on March 08, 2005, 16:50:41
If China is serious about reclaiming Taiwan, which it appears it is - its going to be a LONG road ahead before the western powers, or the coalition, will be able to push the Chinese back.

China is a regional power.  They have the largest army on earth, and the largest air force on earth.  Now, in respect, their air force is still in the process of being modernized, and a majority of their aircraft are still 1960's and 1970's vintage aircraft.  But thats changing rather quickly, as they aquire more and more Russian electronics for their aircraft.

They also have a large brown water navy, that is armed to the teeth.  Sure, the Chinese don't have much in the name of blue water capability, but they don't need it.  They have a powerful brown water navy, that is more than capable of handling anything in the Taiwan Straight.  Their submarines, fast attack craft, and capital vessels are more than plenty enough to secure their objectives - and their missile arsenals could devastate Taiwan's defenses before Taiwan even has a chance to mobilize them.

Bottom line, China could secure Taiwan militarily rather quickly.  Once that is accomplished, its going to take an aweful lot of thick military muscle to push them back.  The United States is already spread thin with their occupation of Iraq, which means they won't be able to do much unless its primarily naval activity.  It'll be messy, any way you look at it.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: OCdt.Banks on March 08, 2005, 17:50:37
Maybe the Us wont be able to put all its muscle into it but NATO and the U.N will condem the attack on Taiwan in less than a heart beat and most if not all(including Canada) allies will start putting together a force to tackle this threat. At least for our sakes Can you picture it PLA troops in Vancouver then in Edmonton then Calgary etc...Taiwan has also put alot of money into getting an anti-missile capability and out of those 700 missiles i bet less that half will find their mark!hopefully...
UBIQUE!!!!!!!1
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oldboy on March 08, 2005, 18:08:26
IMHO, first China definitely wouldn't "shoot its bolt" with 700 missiles, nor would it be a simple matter of any coalition "counterattacking" and pushing China out of one of its provinces.  This is a message to Taiwan, the US and Japan in no uncertain terms, thus "putting the ball in their court" so to speak.  Think of it from the Chinese perspective versus ours for a minute, this is a province of theirs that has special status like Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc.  I believe the Chinese are saying to Taiwan, accept it, (of course there is the big or else included in that!).

Don't forget China is a regional power, but considers itself "middle earth" when it comes to any Asian, NE Asian politics.  Thus it will always react to what it considers its national and strategic interests.  The question is what should we do about it, if anything?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: PikaChe on March 08, 2005, 19:41:25
IMHO, first China definitely wouldn't "shoot its bolt" with 700 missiles, nor would it be a simple matter of any coalition "counterattacking" and pushing China out of one of its provinces. This is a message to Taiwan, the US and Japan in no uncertain terms, thus "putting the ball in their court" so to speak. Think of it from the Chinese perspective versus ours for a minute, this is a province of theirs that has special status like Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc. I believe the Chinese are saying to Taiwan, accept it, (of course there is the big or else included in that!).
The question is 'Is Taiwan really a mere province of PRC?'

I don't know about you, but I'd rather support a democratic regime than a communist one.
Quote
Don't forget China is a regional power, but considers itself "middle earth" when it comes to any Asian, NE Asian politics. Thus it will always react to what it considers its national and strategic interests. The question is what should we do about it, if anything?
Or do we let aggression go unpunished?

However, there is another equation to this problem; what about North Korea? If China does draw US and Japanese involvement, North Korea might just decide to go for broke and invade South Korea.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oldboy on March 08, 2005, 19:57:31
We should never let aggression go unpunished IMO, but correct me if I am wrong Canada doesn't recognize Taiwan in the same manner as the US, Japan, Aust?  So, other than issuing condemnations, what do you think our govt would do?

Regarding North Korea, I agree it is definitely a factor, and you come up with a logical conclusion.  It always continues to be a threat to NE Asia stabilization.  So how do you seriously mitigate that threat while trying to assist our southern neighbour in resolving a Taiwan "situation" for lack of a better word?

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on March 08, 2005, 20:17:52
If North Korea entered the fray, I believe we would have a true WW3 on our hands.

I have heard from people who've lived in Taiwan that it's beautiful and deserves it's own independence, which I believe they do. But, if they really want to get pushy and tell China to go suck a d*ck, we seriously better start practicing our marksmanship principles...

Could any of you folks honestly see anyone simply not doing ANYTHING and just watching it happen like we all know what's going on in Africa? I doubt the world would stand for it. And let's imagine one step further, not only a pseudo China-North Korean alliance, but Russia joins in also. What do we have then?

A sh*tstorm!!!

IMHO that is...

 :-\
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Ex-fusilier on March 08, 2005, 20:36:19
Definitely better work on your principles of marksmanship if we get sent to repel the Red Chinese.....with an Army/Navy/Air Force of an est. 100 million, and approx 150 million in reserve, we may be a bit outnumbered.  Let's see, around 50,000 in the CF...that equates to a ratio of 5000 to 1, so I certainly hope you're a better shot than I.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 08, 2005, 21:02:15
I think we should allow continued unfettered access to our markets to these rotten totalitarian pricks so they can use their newfound wealth to expand their armed forces and bully their democratic neighbour.

I find the fact that corporate interests are overriding fundamental principles in this case to be truly pathetic....



Matthew     >:(

P.S.  I intentionally have not bought Chinese products (and yes I check labels) for the last two years because this bugs me so much.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oyaguy on March 08, 2005, 21:43:04
I think China's latest move, is what the forum suggests, sabre rattling.

Still, if it came to a shooting contest, even the US might have to take a backseat.

The way the US has financing their budgets, the last few years, could bite them where it hurts when it comes to something like Taiwan, for the reasons the Chinese could precipitate a debt crisis by dumping all the US treasury bonds China has bought to keep their currency low.

I personally think the greatest challenge facing the Chinese {mainlanders}, is there will come a day of reckoning of how the country should be governed. The Chinese aren't blind to democracy. It will be a delicate balancing act for China's leaders, as they want to liberalize the economy, without giving up their powers. Generally the liberalizing of the economy, will lead to the liberalizing of the politics.

One can hope.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: PikaChe on March 08, 2005, 22:18:28
I think China's latest move, is what the forum suggests, sabre rattling.

Still, if it came to a shooting contest, even the US might have to take a backseat.

The way the US has financing their budgets, the last few years, could bite them where it hurts when it comes to something like Taiwan, for the reasons the Chinese could precipitate a debt crisis by dumping all the US treasury bonds China has bought to keep their currency low.
And considering how much of US market is tied to China...
Quote
I personally think the greatest challenge facing the Chinese {mainlanders}, is there will come a day of reckoning of how the country should be governed. The Chinese aren't blind to democracy. It will be a delicate balancing act for China's leaders, as they want to liberalize the economy, without giving up their powers. Generally the liberalizing of the economy, will lead to the liberalizing of the politics.

One can hope.

Well, the Chinese are pretty good keeping populace quiet.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oyaguy on March 08, 2005, 22:36:42
Well, the Chinese are pretty good keeping populace quiet.

So far, but China isn't say... a North Korea which doesn't give a damn about nothing. China is trying to modernize and open the dam of capitalism, just a little... hopefully without sweeping away the old power structures, but eventually somethings got to give. Rarely does democracy come before capitalism {successfully mind you}, but democracy almost always, comes after capitalism.

I honestly think something like Tianamen Square will happen again, and again and again, and eventually it will take down the government. This could happen tomorrow, ten years from now, or another 20 years from now. This is assuming the Chinese government doesn't do anything to liberalize the government.

 {
And considering how much of US market is tied to China...

Actually that is a mark against China. China is running up the trade surpluses against the US. So if trade just dried up... it would mean MacDonalds would have to look elsewhere for their happy meal toys, and China would have a hole in their budget with no real means of fixing it. A lot of the goods the Chinese export aren't exactly necessary, and can be gotten elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: daniel h. on March 09, 2005, 01:11:22
Short answer: it depends.

China could launch a gigantic attack under a wave of up to 700 medium range missiles, which would overwhelm the immediate defenses, but also shoot China's bolt. China would have to be very confident of a political or military environment which would preclude outside intervention.

The coalition of the willing would most likely be the United States and Japan, with other interested nations ranging from India to Australia, depending on how they see the Chinese threat. If China shoots its bolt, the coalition forces will basically counterattack and push the Chinese out. If China tries to maintain a reserve, the Tiawanese will have the ability to keep fighting as well. Either way it would be very messy.

Would Mr Dithers support Tiawan against China? Canada's record against naked agression hasn't been to sterling lately....China also sees Canada as a resource base; buying up oil and mineral rights and seeing us as "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for the 21rst century.


Of course China sees us as that, and doesn't that piss you in the Canadian military off?

I used to think Canadian leaders were just stupid. Then I realized that in a world where many transnational corporations are worth more than some countries, effective democracy was simply not possible.

I looked for a link to prove this and couldn't find it, but apparently American global tobacco company Philip Morris is worth more than the economy of Norway and the economy Saudi Arabia. [really]

How is democracy possible when private, undemocratic companies have more wealth than countries?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: daniel h. on March 09, 2005, 01:16:06
If China is serious about reclaiming Taiwan, which it appears it is - its going to be a LONG road ahead before the western powers, or the coalition, will be able to push the Chinese back.

China is a regional power.   They have the largest army on earth, and the largest air force on earth.   Now, in respect, their air force is still in the process of being modernized, and a majority of their aircraft are still 1960's and 1970's vintage aircraft.   But thats changing rather quickly, as they aquire more and more Russian electronics for their aircraft.

They also have a large brown water navy, that is armed to the teeth.   Sure, the Chinese don't have much in the name of blue water capability, but they don't need it.   They have a powerful brown water navy, that is more than capable of handling anything in the Taiwan Straight.   Their submarines, fast attack craft, and capital vessels are more than plenty enough to secure their objectives - and their missile arsenals could devastate Taiwan's defenses before Taiwan even has a chance to mobilize them.

Bottom line, China could secure Taiwan militarily rather quickly.   Once that is accomplished, its going to take an aweful lot of thick military muscle to push them back.   The United States is already spread thin with their occupation of Iraq, which means they won't be able to do much unless its primarily naval activity.   It'll be messy, any way you look at it.


Are sheer numbers enough to overcome the lack of individual expense on training China's soldiers? Are Taiwanese soldiers any better? I'll still take the Canadian army down 5000-1 versus a bunch of Ak-47s which could hit everything----or nothing. ;D :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: ziggy_99 on March 09, 2005, 01:23:02
I may be completely wrong but if North Korea were to attack South Korea the North Koreans wouldn't exactly walk over the south. In terms of advancement the south koreans are pretty far ahead compared to the north, except for nuclear weapons, which when they have an ally like the US then it kind of evens things out a little.
I may be wrong though
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on March 09, 2005, 01:32:25
Concentrate on your principles of marksmanship first!

It will be marksmanship by the megaton, with over 350,000,000 Communist Chinese fit and available for military service, we might get their first 1,000,000 but not their second in a conventional war!

Food for thought   ;D

And what about the ANZUS Treaty??? If the   the SHTF, the US is in and so are we (Australia)   :warstory:

Lets hope its just sabre rattling.

Wes

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on March 09, 2005, 01:44:18
Frightening to think of what would happen if it isnt just sabre rattling.... we'd all be screwed either way.Lots of economies would go haywire, we'd go poor along with the United States, losing our biggest consumer.... assuming the Chinese dont defeat us.  :-\

With the US tied up as much as it is, what would it take to stop them? like wes said, 350 million..... it doesnt matter if they arent very well trained, if theres 50 of you in a defensive somewhere along taiwan with 3,000 chinese coming to attack you, theres nothing you can do about it.Theyll run your trenches untill you expend all of your ammo, and they still have plenty of guys to go around.You're royally effed at that point.Theres just too many.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on March 09, 2005, 01:47:15
Frightening to think of what would happen if it isnt just sabre rattling.... we'd all be screwed either way.Theres just too many.

Hence why a conventional war would not work. I am afraid the sun would be rising   several times before 10 am on the first day alone.

Wes
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Enfield on March 09, 2005, 01:58:30
From what I've read concerning China's military capabilities, they simply don't have the ability to take Taiwan. The PLA lacks the air and naval resources to a) transport sufficient troops and equipment b) overcome Taiwanese defences (the place is an island fortress afterall) c) get through the US Fleet.

However, they can make a LOT of trouble. Their surface to surface missiles and their navy (especially submarine assets) could wreak havoc on and around Taiwan, and threaten the stability of the whole region. Their military may be huge, but most of it is outdated equipment and untrained soldiers, despite recent modernization efforts. The nuclear angle is, of course, worrying to say the least...

But, I just don't see the gain to China in taking on Taiwan. Taking on Taiwan means war with the US and Japan (two largest economies in the world, as well as the top two defence spenders), Australia and Canada (main suppliers of raw resources), and various other regional states such as South Korea, Thailand, Russia (thats a long border to defend), India (also with a huge army), etc... They might be able to hold their own for a bit, maybe even preserve their territorial integrity, but the cost would be huge, they'd be back to 1949. Wouldn't be pretty for anyone. 

Personally, I see the increasing distance between the Chinese capitalist economy and their totalitarian government as a strain that has to break eventually. The contradictions in such a system, coupled with the massively uneven development of the country, make China in my eyes unstable in the long term.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: daniel h. on March 09, 2005, 02:19:55
It will be marksmanship by the megaton, with over 350,000,000 Communist Chinese fit and available for military service, we might get their first 1,000,000 but not their second in a conventional war!

Food for thought   ;D

And what about the ANZUS Treaty??? If the   the SHTF, the US is in and so are we (Australia)   :warstory:

Lets hope its just sabre rattling.

Wes




What about a guerrilla war? I mean, how many of those conscripts can fight? ;) ....still, it makes you realize how vulnerable Canada could be despite our isolation if it decides to stay small militarily after the U.S. Navy and Air Force cease dominating the seven seas. Of course the Liberals wouldn't see it coming.

But as long as we let China buy us up, I guess we won't be going to war with them--bad for business. :blotto:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: nULL on March 09, 2005, 02:22:06
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,2941.0.html

I made a post on this awhile ago with an attached news article. It's quite an interesting read on how the Chinese would take Taiwan.

Personally, I don't see why it is a huge deal. Is Taiwan really worth a large-scale war, especially considering the sizable majority of the the population that would welcome a Chinese takeover?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: PikaChe on March 09, 2005, 02:28:05
But, I just don't see the gain to China in taking on Taiwan. Taking on Taiwan means war with the US
And China might think this is the best time to push the button, considering US op tempo.
Quote
and Japan (two largest economies in the world, as well as the top two defence spenders),
Is there a guarantee that Japan will join the war? They won't, without US support and I don't know what their constitutional amendment went, but I thought Japanese military is forbidden to deploy overseas?
Quote
Australia and Canada (main suppliers of raw resources),
China may risk losing Aussie and Canadian trade if it is decide that PRC would lose face if they don't go for Taiwan. Oriental people are crazy in many ways I tell you. :)
Quote
and various other regional states such as South Korea,
Will be too busy to ensure that Kim Jong Il doesn't do stupid, so SK military is tied up.
Quote
Thailand,
Don't see a reason why Thailand would join, esp. having to deal with aftermath of the tsunami, plus China can throw few divisions at Thailand border to tie up whatever Thailand wants to use.
Quote
Russia (thats a long border to defend),
Since China is Russia's biggest military hardware buyer, unless Russia can get money or some sort of huge advantage somewhere else, I doubt Russia would want to fight China.
Quote
India (also with a huge army), etc...
Again, similar story with Thailand. Would you want to fight in the Himalayas and Tibet?
Quote
They might be able to hold their own for a bit, maybe even preserve their territorial integrity, but the cost would be huge, they'd be back to 1949. Wouldn't be pretty for anyone.
The question is can PLA(N) get enough of best of PLA divisions onto Taiwan. For any other nation that wants to invade mainland China, human wave attacks would probably cause horrendous casualties that no nation would want to sustain, except maybe Russia. (And I don't think Russia has as many men as Chinese to throw away)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 09, 2005, 10:47:37
Short answers, various nations will have to decide if an agressive Imperial China is a threat to them. Nations on China's borders will feel the heat much more than nations farther afield. Commercial nations like Japan, India and South Korea may decide that China's use of military power against Tiawan could be an invitation for China's leadership to use military power to coerce them out of markets China covets. Russia may want to secure their borders against Chinese incursions into western Siberia. All these potential threats need to be accounted for, pulling valuable resources away from the Tiawan front.

Vast numbers of Chinese troops might indeed be a threat to cut off or unsupported units, but this is very much like arguments about the "Russian Steamroller" prior to WWI. Although the Russians could pull off surprises, they simply were not capable of commanding or supporting he vast quantities of manpower in an effective manner. American military theory  is very well developed when it comes to identifying and attacking enemy centres of gravity, particularly large scale conventional armies like the Chinese can field. I think the US can pull off some nasty surprises outside of the "conventional warfare" box.

A side thought; since China has been trying to gain resource bases in Canada, an element of economic warfare might take place between the United States and China with Canada as a theater of operations. Canada has signaled to the United States we do not care to support them, and China only sees us as "hewers of wood, drawers of water", so the effect on Canadian corporations and the economy as a whole could be horrendous, and just "collateral damage" in the larger war. American "Grand Strategy" might well be to take the time to identify choke points in the Chinese economy and apply economic pressures to make gaining resources as difficult and expensive as possible.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 09, 2005, 11:43:15
The primary problem I see is the more foreign investment that takes place in China, the more leverage they have to act freely against Taiwan, or threaten to nationalize billions in foreign-owned assets.  In essence, they have been inviting our dependence and using to their advantage.  Cunning is a gross understatement....




M.    ???
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 09, 2005, 11:46:10
...

I personally think the greatest challenge facing the Chinese {mainlanders}, is there will come a day of reckoning of how the country should be governed. The Chinese aren't blind to democracy. It will be a delicate balancing act for China's leaders, as they want to liberalize the economy, without giving up their powers. Generally the liberalizing of the economy, will lead to the liberalizing of the politics. ...

I agree.

Sometimes the full trappings of democracy - elections, representative and responsible legislatures, etc - are the last things to arrive on the scene.   (Witness Canada: we still have an appointed legislative chamber ... there to exercise sober second thought lest elected representatives of the hoi polloi* get too uppity and decide, for themselves, how to govern themselves.)

It seems to me that the preconditions for democracy are the ones on which the Chinese are, now, working, including, especially:

The rule of law - this is the toughest nut to crack because, like all long lasting, stable oligarchies, the Chinese Communist Party members believe that they, alone, know what is 'best' for the Chinese people.   (This view is not unique to oligarchies; most social democratic movements or parties believe much the same thing.   Broadly, only liberals (of whom there are precious few in the Liberal Party of Canada and, probably, none at all in the ever so morally certain Young Liberals and the Liberal Women's Commission) believe that the people are wise enough, en masse to govern themselves.)   In conservative democracies  (Singapore) and illiberal democracies** (followers of the French model) the rule of law obtains, despite the wishes of the governing classes and the natural governing party.

Equality at law - this is also tough because it means that all, governed and governors alike must be fully and equally accountable - even Jean Chrétien, in Canada, maybe ...

Regulatory independence - all but the most unrepentant of the Austrian School economists admit (even if they don't quite believe) that some degrees of regulation are required to establish and maintain some degrees of fairness and openness in public institutions, including governments and the marketplace.   This one is, also, giving some Chinese some heartburn - especially the most senior officials of the Ministry of Defence which is a big and largely unregulated actor in the markets, through its ownership of the biggest players in several industrial sectors and its responsibility for the prison system which, in turn, operates factories (using what some regard as slave labour or, at least, unfairly (maybe unlawfully) subsidized labour) in many sectors.

It seems to me that the much celebrated spread of democracy in about 75% of the UN's 200+/- members states is grossly overstated because all it means that someone or other got elected, once; but, since none of the other conditions are operative, democracy can hardly be said to have taken root; elections ≠ democracy.

I think that the growth of market capitalism will spur the growth of the institutions and attitudes (above) which are, in my view, essential preconditions for democracy.   Investors need the rule of law, equality at law and regulatory independence to protect their investments (those who eschew such protections are gamblers, not investors) and the Chinese need investors (including domestic investors), for the long term, rather than gamblers.   Once capitalism has done its work then democratic reforms will, likely, follow along rather naturally.

It is not clear to me that China will morph into an Anglo-American style liberal democracy or even into a rather illiberal social democracy; I suspect that it, like Singapore will become a conservative democracy, which may be more in tune with China's conservative culture.   I do believe that China will become a democracy and, as I have written elsewhere, one of our foreign policy goals must be to contain Chinese ambitions while it makes that (long - 35+ years) transition.   (I do not mean Kennan style containment, rather I mean engaging China as a competitor and avoiding turning it into an enemy.)   It seems to me that democracies, including conservative democracies are less inclined to see war as a solution to political problems - even though, sometimes, wars are quite necessary and are the only acceptable solutions to some political problems.

----------

* I know hoi means 'the' but the hoi polloi has been accepted for centuries.

** This is Fareed Zakaria's idea; see: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/other/democracy.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: daniel h. on March 09, 2005, 12:18:47
Quote
. Despite the obvious differences in their creation, I can't help but want to draw comparisons between Taiwan and Quebec; were the Parti Quebecois to win the next provincial  election, and decide to pursue unillateral independence (with the support of a larger number of like-minded voters than Taiwan's DPP) would Canada be justified in taking military action to force reunification? (Pretend the government would play along!)

I think this is a red herring. The federal government could legally end separatism if it had the nerve. Quebec is a province, legally. It's not our fault our feds have decided to weaken the federation.


I think the real comparison is between the U.S. and Canada. If the U.S. tried to give us the Taiwan treatment, are there too may U.S. sympathizers in the Canadian military?  I hope not.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 09, 2005, 13:43:23
A side thought; since China has been trying to gain resource bases in Canada, an element of economic warfare might take place between the United States and China with Canada as a theater of operations. Canada has signaled to the United States we do not care to support them, and China only sees us as "hewers of wood, drawers of water", so the effect on Canadian corporations and the economy as a whole could be horrendous, and just "collateral damage" in the larger war. American "Grand Strategy" might well be to take the time to identify choke points in the Chinese economy and apply economic pressures to make gaining resources as difficult and expensive as possible.

Here's an anecdote: I work for a Taiwanese company.  Everywhere we operate around the world (including PRC) the word "China" is part of the company's proper (registered) name.  Except in Canada: it was determined that use of "China" in the company's name would be too provocative ... they are laughing up their sleeves at us!  I suspect the PRC sees Canada as a crack in Western solidarity that is to be exploited: Canada refusing to support Taiwan/US/Japan will give them all the moral imperative they need.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 09, 2005, 13:57:09
The Chinese leadership may decide to take the age old "out" of creating a foreign crisis/enemy to deflect attention from the failures that are happening at home. Here in Canada, we may actually have more leverage than we think; Canadians do not have to purchase items "made in China", and business do not have to have dealings with China either. This would require that the short term advantages of dealing with China be outweighed by the disadvantages. (This does not mean a formal trade embargo).

This requires the public be constantly exposed to the reality of life in the PRC; the cultivation of alternative low cost producers (India, Indonesia), and, dare I say it, cultivating the American market even more to keep our producers and resource companies firmly planted in "our" market; and pushing for access to the EU (as part of the Western civilization; they are prefferable than a potential opponent civilization).

As has been pointed out, China has severe internal problems. Restricting their access to our resources and markets may induce enough strains to pull the Central Committee's eyes off Tiawan, and buy us some more time to prepare to deal with the new Imperial power. This is also an argument to continue to develop conventional military capabilities to deal with "symmetric" warfare, alongside the expanding capabilities to deal with "asymmetrical" warfare.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 09, 2005, 14:01:46
This requires the public be constantly exposed to the reality of life in the PRC

How is this going to happen?  The Canadian Government does not want this ...
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Block 1 on March 09, 2005, 14:44:32
So let me get this straight. By not picking up items marked â Å“Made in Chinaâ ? should sort them out, if we all do it, then its a major economical problem for them. With a supper power this will fail. All you need to do is look at the worlds history. Any country in economical hardship most often will go to war with its neighbour. So if you have a big supper power â Å“Tigerâ ? and you stab it with a stick, do you think its going to move? No he's going to rip your head off. But if you coach him, or give him something he needs, he will follow. Now well he ever be your friend, no but at least you know where he is and you can assist with his change for the better. China now, to this present administration is like a good game of chess. You don't want to win in the first 15 moves or you will just anger him; but rather, let him think he's wining and prolong the game until change has come and it's to late for him to react. Know your enemy and exploit his weakness.  :cdn:       
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 09, 2005, 16:46:45
So let me get this straight. By not picking up items marked â Å“Made in Chinaâ ? should sort them out, if we all do it, then its a major economical problem for them. With a supper power this will fail. All you need to do is look at the worlds history. Any country in economical hardship most often will go to war with its neighbour. So if you have a big supper power â Å“Tigerâ ? and you stab it with a stick, do you think its going to move? No he's going to rip your head off. But if you coach him, or give him something he needs, he will follow. Now well he ever be your friend, no but at least you know where he is and you can assist with his change for the better. China now, to this present administration is like a good game of chess. You don't want to win in the first 15 moves or you will just anger him; but rather, let him think he's wining and prolong the game until change has come and it's to late for him to react. Know your enemy and exploit his weakness.   :cdn:           

I don't know what history you're looking at, but most miltary expansionism over the last 4,000 years has generally been based on a previous massive economic expansion.   In essence, the improved economy allowed the nation to redirect its resources from substinence activities to imperialist objectives.  

RE:   your chess analogy - before I jump all over this, please elaborate on your master plan because on first pass, your statement seems a trifle simplistic and lacking any substance.




Matthew.         :army:

P.S.   You're misspelling "super"....and "winning".
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 09, 2005, 17:55:26
Or maybe we just wait them out ...

Quote
China now has 46 million government bureaucrats, new statistics revealed yesterday, a number almost as great as the entire population of England.

...

Its excessive and corrupt bureaucracy was regarded as one of the principal causes of the decline of imperial rule. Yet there are now 35 times as many people on the government payroll, even as a proportion of the population, than at the time of the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911. Corruption aside, today's civil servants are also expensive, requiring official cars, holidays masquerading as training sessions and receptions.

All in all, the cost to the nation, before salaries, amounted to  £50 billion, according to state media.

The figures were disclosed by Ren Yuling, a delegate to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, a parliamentary advisory body. "The contingent of bureaucrats in China is expanding at an unprecedented speed," he said. ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/08/wchina08.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/08/ixworld.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oldboy on March 09, 2005, 17:58:05
Talk about red herrings... ::) I was enjoying the read up until the last point
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 09, 2005, 21:12:04
Quote
I think the real comparison is between the U.S. and Canada. If the U.S. tried to give us the Taiwan treatment, are there too may U.S. sympathizers in the Canadian military?  I hope not.

Ok who borrowed my tinfoil hat....I have a feeling I am going to need it.  ::)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Rushrules on March 09, 2005, 21:31:33
If China invaded Taiwan, there's nothing the US could do about it.   China has nukes, so that rules out any response. 



Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Torlyn on March 09, 2005, 21:46:22
If China invaded Taiwan, there's nothing the US could do about it.   China has nukes, so that rules out any response. 

How do you figure?  If there was an invasion (Which the story, had you read it, was against) the economic hardships that the Chinese would face would be catostrophic to them.  They are trying to build themselves in to a superpower, and if the Chinese are anything, it's patient.  If and when they move, it won't be any time soon, and it'll most likely be a non-military take over.

And the Nuke comment is a fallacy.  The Americans have nukes, and they support taiwan, so with your logic, the Chinese wouldn't invade for that reason, right?

T
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Baloo on March 09, 2005, 21:55:55
The Chinese won't let the island of Taiwan go without a fight, and that is the final answer. We can speculate about damage to their economy and the rest of it, but at the end of the day, if Taiwan declared sovereignty, you can be sure that the missiles would start flying. And you can be sure as s*** that the Americans will not threaten a nuclear war over that move. Sure, they would deploy a fleet, but the American public and government is NOT going to risk an all out nuclear exchange over the Republic of China.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oyaguy on March 10, 2005, 04:18:45
I think the threat of an Imperial China is somewhat exaggerated.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have lived in one of the "great peaces" of the history of the world. For all the bad stuff that happens around the world, all the cruelty, we have not witness a "great power melee"{Gwynne Dyer, I love how he sums up a World War}.

For example, considering all the news coverage Osama Bin Laden gets, he cannot, by himself, destabilize the fabric of civilization. Only the world's great powers can, and only if they choose to.

For all of China's bulk, 1.3 billion and counting, any war that China fights, will be to the cost of all involved and they have more people to loose..

As stated before, we are living in one of the "great peaces" of our time because of the Nuclear Deterrent. As the aptly formed acronym, M.A.D., spells out, Mutually Assured Destruction, the next great power conflict is the last.

The Chinese can do the math, and the math spells out M.A.D. There is no getting past those three letters. The Chinese might be able to squeak a few things by, {I personally believe Taiwan is one of them} but at the end of the day, they will still have those letters to contend with.

You can't have your cake, and eat it too if both you and the cake are slag.

Then their is my opinion that China is a ticking time bomb that isn't going to explode, but implode on itself.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 10, 2005, 12:47:36
If I was China, I'd be sending a lot of "businessmen" in via legitimate channels prior to the invasion.

They would all be trained to sabotage electric and communications lines.

I would also use the new direct flights between the mainland and Taiwan as my very first strike.  In essence, I would line up (4-5) 747's in a row loaded with elite troops and get them landed at Taiwan's main airport....then I would start my sabotage, followed by staged "Reunification Rallies" (with pre-prep'd news releases) and then push on with a conventional invasion.

The biggest problem is if it doesn't look like Taiwan can stop the first wave of attacks, I think the USA/Japan back out due to the economic leverage I mentioned previously.

JMHO,



Matthew.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: radiohead on March 10, 2005, 13:03:14
"Sure, they would deploy a fleet, but the American public and government is NOT going to risk an all out nuclear exchange over the Republic of China"

Taiwan is and has been since 1949 an independent nation, only China doesn't see that way.  With its new found strenghths it realized it can get want it wants if it pushes hard enough.  I don't see the US coming to help Taiwan, although the way I see it, if Taiwan was invaded by China its no different then Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.  The only difference is that fight between Taiwan and China won't be pretty and the US stands a good chance of losing if it gets involved, so it won't take that risk.  And China knows it.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Nielsen_Noetic on March 10, 2005, 13:39:17
I agree the U.S. would more than likely lose; China's shear numbers for one reason. As well China has been upgrading it's forces, building more technologically advanced naval vessels and aircraft. The only advantage the U.S. has is it's technology, once that's trumped the U.S. will not have what it takes to take on a nation such as China.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 10, 2005, 14:03:34
Taiwan is and has been since 1949 an independent nation, only China doesn't see that way.

This is not accurate: many (most?) coountries (including the one we live in) do NOT recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country ... Taiwan was only admitted to the WTO in 2002 and STILL has not been admitted to the UN!

It would be nice to think that our (and other Western) governments would take a stand against Chinese totalitarianism but the reality is that they do not.  :'(

A small backgrounder here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan#Position_of_other_countries_and_international_organizations
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: radiohead on March 10, 2005, 22:55:00
"
This is not accurate: many (most?) coountries (including the one we live in) do NOT recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country ... Taiwan was only admitted to the WTO in 2002 and STILL has not been admitted to the UN!"

That's true but from my understanding, things ahve changed alot in the last 20 04 30 years.  As China was allowed into the UN and other groups, ithas slowwly been putting  pressure on other nations to remove Taiwan from them.  And as their economy grows they con't to put stress on nations to support their position on Taiwan.

If western nations do valve sovereign nations they should be making it clear now that China's actions will not be allowed.  Of course their only looking at the dollar valve of things.. and in that Taiwan loses out.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 11, 2005, 05:43:13
I agree the U.S. would more than likely lose; China's shear numbers for one reason. As well China has been upgrading it's forces, building more technologically advanced naval vessels and aircraft. The only advantage the U.S. has is it's technology, once that's trumped the U.S. will not have what it takes to take on a nation such as China.

China wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be mostly on the defence in what would be a war on several of it's fronts they would have to move in and engage NATO forces in Afghanistan as well which would certainly engage the whole region, South Korea and Japan would likely get into the mix as well. This equals an eventual loss. As for China breaking out technologically, I would have to say it's very unlikely considering it is still buying from Russia, who itself is quite a bit behind the U.S. It's also begging everyone to let it out of the European arms embargo.That's not to say China is not gaining ground in some areas, but I venture to say that it's quite a bit behind the U.S. and will remain so for quite some time yet. Their unweidly infrastructure of beaurocrats weighs everything down. Their numbers are not an asset, they are a disadvantage. They are trying to cut the fat on their military. Any war with China would not be a repeat of the Korean war, where a human wave pushes the west out. It would be a very fast paced war. It ultimately comes down to China having invade and hold ground in the U.S. to win the war. I suspect many of China's plans included a Vietnam sort of propaghanda campaign of demoralizing the citizenry. Post-Bush Doctrine, I am sure that sort of tactic will no longer be efficient. What China depends on is a huge manufacturing base already controlled by the military.  I do not think they would risk a strategic nuclear strike on the U.S. for the obvious reason, but tactical nuclear strikes I think would be regular on both sides. Is China a serious threat to democracy and the west? Yes. Would it be a difficult challenge? Yes. Will they win? No.

Also, keep in mind this does not take into account a Chinese fifth column and the damage communist sympathizers could conceivably do, especially in terms of European allies.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: daniel h. on March 11, 2005, 16:52:21
I think the threat of an Imperial China is somewhat exaggerated.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have lived in one of the "great peaces" of the history of the world. For all the bad stuff that happens around the world, all the cruelty, we have not witness a "great power melee"{Gwynne Dyer, I love how he sums up a World War}.

For example, considering all the news coverage Osama Bin Laden gets, he cannot, by himself, destabilize the fabric of civilization. Only the world's great powers can, and only if they choose to.

For all of China's bulk, 1.3 billion and counting, any war that China fights, will be to the cost of all involved and they have more people to loose..

As stated before, we are living in one of the "great peaces" of our time because of the Nuclear Deterrent. As the aptly formed acronym, M.A.D., spells out, Mutually Assured Destruction, the next great power conflict is the last.

The Chinese can do the math, and the math spells out M.A.D. There is no getting past those three letters. The Chinese might be able to squeak a few things by, {I personally believe Taiwan is one of them} but at the end of the day, they will still have those letters to contend with.

You can't have your cake, and eat it too if both you and the cake are slag.

Then their is my opinion that China is a ticking time bomb that isn't going to explode, but implode on itself.


So does Canada not having nuclear weapons say something about our state of independence, considering we helped invent the things?...Anyone think we should have them?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: dutchie on March 11, 2005, 17:18:37

So does Canada not having nuclear weapons say something about our state of independence, considering we helped invent the things?...Anyone think we should have them?

We should NOT have nuclear weapons. According to McNamara, and I agree, nuclear weapons have no military value whatsoever. Their only function is to deter your opponent from using theirs. As no sane leader would ever use them, possesing them doesn't protect you from those States. That was written in the 80's regarding the Big Bad Soviet Bear. Of course the enemy is different today, but I think you can extrapolate the following from his original statement: As no insane leader would be deterred by our possesion of nukes, possesion does not protect us form those groups/States either.

With the exception of Total War, like the war in the Pacific, Nukes could never be used. They destroy the land you attack, along with the infrastructure, the people (ours and theirs), and all life within a certain radius. By using them, you remove the possibility of meaningful victory.

I see no value to expanding the World's nuclear arsenal.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 11, 2005, 17:46:24
Caesar, I don't think your rationale applies to tactical nukes ... besides, the corollary to your argument is that if you don't have nukes, you have nothing to deter those that do, ergo the sanity argument becomes irrelevent: the sane "enemy" might well attack a nation (by conventional means) with no nuclear deterrent but not attack the same nation with a nuclear deterrent (this was the essence of NATOs Cold War strategy).
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: dutchie on March 11, 2005, 18:27:35
I can see how this thread will get split in about 4 or 5 posts, but here goes.....

Caesar, I don't think your rationale applies to tactical nukes ...

Well, it does, but I didn't explain how it does. I'll use the Soviets as the example, because that's how McNamara described it. The US military in the 60's and beyond determined that their Nuclear strategy did not allow for Tactical nukes to be used without an exchange of Strategic nukes resulting shortly thereafter. Basically, IIRC, the theory was that we would trade tactical nukes, but of course they are used merely as a way of destroying defences and enemy troops so that conventional forces can succeed. Any massive attack by either side would escalate the exchange, resulting in the exchange of Strategic nukes, out of fear of losing the ability to respond with them later. Kind of a "If we don't launch our strategic nukes, we run the risk of having our launch sites destroyed by their strategic nukes.....let's launch first." IIRC, it was actually policy that a launch of tactical nukes must be answered with Strategic nukes. Whether the US would have actually launched them is another matter. Keep in mind that all along, there were always some who believed the US had a first strike capability, something that has been largely dismissed then, and especially now in hindsight. There was always a core group, a la Dr. Strangelove, that courted a nuclear exchange...all this according to Blundering towards Disaster by McNamara.

the sane "enemy" might well attack a nation (by conventional means) with no nuclear deterrent but not attack the same nation with a nuclear deterrent (this was the essence of NATOs Cold War strategy).

The theory refuting this is that the sane enemy knows that you will never use those nukes, so they are not a deterrent. Nuclear weapons were developed during Total War, and their usefullness is limited to that scenario. The US will never initiate a Nuclear exchange. Ever. In fact, only an attack with nuclear weapons will allow a response with nuclear weapons. Again, according to policy.
Basically, McNamara makes the argument that Nuclear weapons are not Military weapons because they serve no military purpose. Their use, no matter how limited, would likely result in the destruction of the state that launches them. He argues that possesion of them doesn't increase your security, it lowers it. I tend to agree. I normally hate basing an argument on another theories, but the theories are sound, and I was just a youngen when they were developed.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 11, 2005, 19:38:41
Quote
Any massive attack by either side would escalate the exchange, resulting in the exchange of Strategic nukes, out of fear of losing the ability to respond with them later.

That logic leads inescapably to the conclusion that any massive "hot" confrontation would escalate into a strategic exchange, regardless of whether tactical nukes were ever used or not!


Quote
... the sane enemy knows that you will never use those nukes, so they are not a deterrent. Nuclear weapons were developed during Total War, and their usefullness is limited to that scenario.

MAD only works when BOTH sides have that deterrent!  To use a more current example, the US did not lead the invasion of Iraq because they believed Saddam had nukes: they believed he was (or would be) trying trying to develop them (among other reasons, but not opening that can of worms)!  Had Saddam already built an arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, the United States, fearing total destruction, would not have invaded ... conversely, the United States is reluctant to confront North Korea head-on out of fear that they may already have nukes.

I can see that in an abstract sense, strategic nuclear weapons are "not military weapons" insofar as they prevent major wars and are thus merely political or geopolitical 'tools' (although this is veering into a purely sematic argument).  But again this is only the case when the mutual deterrent exists: if your enemy has the bomb and you don't, you have the fear of total destruction to prevent you from attacking him, but he has no fear of attacking you.

Getting back to daniel h.'s original point, it IS a question of sovreignty: we didn't get into a conventional war against the USSR because we didn't have a big nuclear arsenal, but rather because our allies DID!
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Nielsen_Noetic on March 11, 2005, 19:47:35
Some of what you said is accurate; your assertion however that China would lose I truly believe is nothing but speculation. China is a powerful nation, it is the second largest military spender on the face of the earth after the United States. It has the largest population of any nation in existence, and has gawking power over it's people.
It is one of the fastest growing(economically) nations, it is a nuclear power, and I truly believe if it had to would use that power so as no one wins.
here is a link to the military spending stats of 170 nations, these are CIA stats.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html
these are China's exclusive military stats, and the United States.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Military
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 11, 2005, 20:12:58
A three-division air assault spread out over several days, eh?  China must have a kick-*** SEAD plan.

All that backed up by air and missile strikes and victory is certain, eh?  The Americans will have to pay attention and learn; they've never been able to get quite that much mileage out of air and missile strikes.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: dutchie on March 11, 2005, 20:17:52
That logic leads inescapably to the conclusion that any massive "hot" confrontation would escalate into a strategic exchange, regardless of whether tactical nukes were ever used or not!
In the Cold War, that was the case. Not now, of course.
MAD only works when BOTH sides have that deterrent!...Had Saddam already built an arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, the United States, fearing total destruction, would not have invaded ... conversely, the United States is reluctant to confront North Korea head-on out of fear that they may already have nukes.

I can see that in an abstract sense, strategic nuclear weapons are "not military weapons" insofar as they prevent major wars and are thus merely political or geopolitical 'tools'. But again this is only the case when the mutual deterrent exists: if your enemy has the bomb and you don't, you have the fear of total destruction to prevent you from attacking him, but he has no fear of attacking you.

Wow! I think were in total agreement here. You have pretty much summarized most of the rest of McNamara's book. He never advocated an imbalance, as it would cause the scenario you described.

Anyhow, back on track.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Acorn on March 11, 2005, 23:47:47
Some of what you said is accurate; your assertion however that China would lose I truly believe is nothing but speculation. China is a powerful nation, it is the second largest military spender on the face of the earth after the United States. It has the largest population of any nation in existence, and has gawking power over it's people.

Insert "USSR" for China, and change the bit about population (not sure what "gawking power" is though), and you could be a voice from the mid-80s.

But hell, bean counting has always been a popular method of analysis. Why stop now?

Acorn
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: from darkness lite on March 11, 2005, 23:54:50
Totally agree with ACORN, and not just because we're the same MOC.  China, on paper, looks unstopable (just like the Warsaw Pact, lots of tanks, lucky if 10% actually worked).  However China has f**k all for sea-lift capability.  By the time the Chinese turn their surviving ships around, go back for the 2nd wave (then 3rd then 4th, then 5th.......), those unlucky souls on the beach will be dead or POW.  For those who "bean count" check China's sea-lift capability out on Janes, etc

cheers.. :cdn:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 12, 2005, 01:36:31
Well then, Canada 'exists' mainly because we live under the nuclear umbrella of our allies (read: USA): to me that's a major sovereignty concern ... shouldn't we have nukes for political reasons?

Following your logic, with respect to the thread (and the "Taiwan 2006" one), it would seem that the main reason China has not invaded/reclaimed Taiwan is because of the nuclear deterrent of Taiwan's allies (read: USA).  But the questions remain: does China represent a legitimate threat to Taiwan?  Do they see the US nuclear arsenal as irrelevent and is the sea (with Japanese and American ships) and the threat of retaliation a big enough barrier/deterrent?  Or will China think that they could launch a quick first strike to which the US would not respond (because of the nuclear deterrent)?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 12, 2005, 07:44:13
Following your logic, with respect to the thread (and the "Taiwan 2006" one), it would seem that the main reason China has not invaded/reclaimed Taiwan is because of the nuclear deterrent of Taiwan's allies (read: USA). But the questions remain: does China represent a legitimate threat to Taiwan? Do they see the US nuclear arsenal as irrelevant and is the sea (with Japanese and American ships) and the threat of retaliation a big enough barrier/deterrent? Or will China think that they could launch a quick first strike to which the US would not respond (because of the nuclear deterrent)?

China has made fairly direct threats in the past, including "war games" where live missiles were launched into the sea approaches to Tiawan. Depending on how the Chinese see the political/military situation in the outside world, and how much pressure they are feeling internally, we could see any number of scenarios. I would tend to think a "decapitating" attack followed by a rapid surge deployment of PLA units to the island is the most likely, given the idea of using speed and surprise to prevent Tiawan from mounting an organized defense and moving in before the United States could react would save the PLA from massive casualties and gain and maintain the political and military initiative in theater.

The western long term strategy should be to bolster Tiawan and make it clear that the invasion of Tiawan would trigger strong economic sanctions as well as a military response, and wait out the internal contradictions that are eating away at the heart of the "Middle Kingdom". A second tier would be to build up the economies of the pacific rim nations and India to wean them off the China trade, deflating China's ability to improve their military forces and also presenting them with a much wider range of potential threats to stretch out their existing capacities. This is really a larger version of the game being played in the middle east, which the US is using to pressure and perhaps topple the Assad regeim in Syria and the Mullahs in Iran.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 12, 2005, 08:19:26
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002106.html
Quote
China to Build Stone Wall Around Taiwan
by Scott Ott

(2005-03-08) -- Just a day after enacting a new anti-secession law for Taiwan, the communist Chinese government announced today that it would begin construction of an immense stone wall in the Pacific Ocean to encircle the island of Taiwan and protect its citizens from "foreign encroachment."

The wall, roughly 1,400 miles long and extending from the ocean floor to 300 feet above the surface, will "reinforce the common bond the Chinese people share with the residents of our island territory," according to an official government news release.

"The wall will keep out damaging waves from the rising tide of global democracy which threatens our idyllic way of life," the government said. "Some people claim that our communist ideology has already been defeated, and that we are a relic of a failed social experiment. But this mighty stone wall will demonstrate the triumph of the people's revolution over capitalism, religion and western thought."
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 12, 2005, 10:12:16
I think we must consider a few things:

First: for most Chinese, including virtually everyone in the Politburo, Taiwan IS part of China and the struggle is a continuation of the Chinese civil war (1945-49, although I prefer to date it from 1929) and is a purely domestic matter.

Second: economic growth is priority one, more (but not too much more) important than Taiwan.

Third: Taiwan is a major source of direct investment in China. It is fifth, after Hong Kong (which provides nearly â…“ of all 'foreign' investment in China), the Virgin Islands, the United States and Japan â “ at nearly $3 billion per year.   Some, probably quite a lot of the money from HK ($12+ billion) and the Virgin Islands (approaching $5 billion) is from Taiwan, too. (Source Ministry of Commerce at: http://www.fdi.gov.cn/ltstatic/index.jsp?app=00000000000000000014&language=gb )

Chinese politicians are, traditionally, proponents of both a long view and a strategic indirect approach.

Chinese politicians, like their Euro-American confreres are masters of the wag the dog technique and Taiwan is an excellent 'tail' with which to keep the people's attention focused on secondary issues while unemployment rises and the iron rice bowl is smashed.

It is my, personal view that:

China will continue to saber rattle but will not attack Taiwan unless provoked by e.g. a Taiwanese declaration of independence or some American provocations â “ maybe reversing the non-recognition policy.

China's strategic calculus is quite, radically different from the East/West, USSR/USA or Warsaw Pact/NATO views of the '60s, '70s and '80s.   The Chinese do not want war â “ with anyone; but, and this is a big, important BUT they believe they can fight, win and survive a major war, in Asia, with anyone, including the USA.   The Chinese strategists understand that the USA can project huge power into Asia but they are not persuaded that the USA can or would try to invade China or use nuclear weapons against China unless China attacked the USA first â “ and they, the Chinese will not do that.

----------

New Topic: Australia and China are negotiating a free trade agreement.   See: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/speechandactivity/speecha/200503/20050300023872.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: DBA on March 12, 2005, 13:47:50
Quote
The theory refuting this is that the sane enemy knows that you will never use those nukes, so they are not a deterrent. Nuclear weapons were developed during Total War, and their usefullness is limited to that scenario. The US will never initiate a Nuclear exchange. Ever. In fact, only an attack with nuclear weapons will allow a response with nuclear weapons. Again, according to policy.

The US certainly would use nuclear weapons if faced with the defeat of itself or it's major allies. There is zero chance an invasion of the US homeland would not provoke a nuclear response if war planners decided a conventional one wouldn't be sufficient. All countries with nuclear weapons use them as both a deterrent and insurnace in this way. Where they are less likely to use them is when the threat is not as direct. This is why both England and France developed nuclear weapons themselves early on in the cold war. They weren't 100% certain the US would use nuclear weapons if it's own sovereignty wasn't threatened even with NATO then having and still to this day having first use policies.

Canada isn't clean in this regard at all as it still belongs to NATO which won't rule out first use and in the past contributed a lot to nuclear weapons development from WWII on. For a good summary of Canadian involvement in nuclear weapons see : http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma02bratt
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 13, 2005, 01:17:25
Some of what you said is accurate; your assertion however that China would lose I truly believe is nothing but speculation. China is a powerful nation, it is the second largest military spender on the face of the earth after the United States. It has the largest population of any nation in existence, and has gawking power over it's people.
It is one of the fastest growing(economically) nations, it is a nuclear power, and I truly believe if it had to would use that power so as no one wins.
here is a link to the military spending stats of 170 nations, these are CIA stats.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html
these are China's exclusive military stats, and the United States.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Military

Of course it's speculation. It's all speculation. Even the factbook is largely speculation. They do not have exact accurate numbers from China. No one but China does. Yes, it has a large population, and lords over it's people. As I tried to explain, this is *not an asset*. It gives them a large pool of military aged men and a large manufacturing base. It also gives them a massive top weighted beaurocracy and a sizable dissident population. It simply can not compete and innovate a successful victory. It may be able to down a few U.S. battlegroups (may, it's certainly not a simple task) with their fancy Russian missiles, but so what? Can you imagine the drive and determination in the U.S. if that occured? That would be Sept. 11th times Pearl Harbour plus the Cold War. There is little question China could take affirmative control over Taiwan but I believe also that there is little question they would lose that control soon after. We have to remember that quantity is not quality. Most of their armed forces consists of outdated rust buckets. Even more out of date than our rust buckets. ;) They certainly are modernizing, but as I said, they are consistantly behind, as they do not do a whole lot of innovation, they steal and buy plans for what they need. Cheap and effective but in the long run dooms them to failure.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 13, 2005, 01:37:52
Don't forget the true power of the West is the ability to inovate. The battle of Lepanto saw the Ottoman Empire send a huge fleet of galleys copied from the latest Venetian designs agains the combined fleet of Venice, the Papal States and Spain, and they lost horribly.

The Europeans had better guns, made lots of modifications to the galleys to get the best use out of guns, musket armed infantry firing in volleys, as well as having a flexible battle plan and commanders who could adapt the plan on the fly. The Ottomans fought primaraly for individual glory and spoils, were unable to envision modifying their ships, and were niether capable or permitted to make changes to the "plan" once it was decided.

Iraq under the Ba'athist regime had the world's fourth largest army, equipped with a large proportion of modern Russian and European weaponry, yet the Persian Gulf War was a walkover by the West, since we built the equipment and knew how to use it, not just buy it from a catalogue. If you have time, read "Carnage and Culture", Victor Davis Hanson explains his theory that the civilizations of the West have always had this ability as long as it existed, from the Ancient Greeks to today. The Chinese military is a large and ferocious dinosaur, deadly in its own domain, but soon to be vanquished by small furry mammels eating the eggs in the nest......
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: SlipStream on March 13, 2005, 13:53:06
If the US would deploy a large naval battle group to help defend taiwan they would most likely never see their homes again. If china deploys and uses their newly SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile bought from the russians they US navy would be devestated. If these missles are used the US would only have 2.5 seconds to react but by that time the missle would have sunk one of their ships. I dont think the US can withstand one of these attacks.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 13, 2005, 14:58:49
Don't sell the USN short. Any PRC attack on the USN would cause the loss of the entire PLAN. Any confrontation I would suspect the USN would have 75% of their sub force around Taiwan with the carriers south of the island.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Otto Fest on March 13, 2005, 15:00:42
As has been stated, it's all speculation, so let me throw a few other variables out.

1.   The US has recently "allowed" Japan to amend it's constitution in order to allow it to partake "more robust military activities".   If China has the second largest military budget, Japan has the third.   It spends twice as much as the UK without the overseas obligations.   Japan's actions would be of critical importance.

2.   The US carriers are especially survivable.   One estimate states a Nimitz class carrier could remain mobile even after as many as 6 exocet hits.   The Aegis cruisers can coordinate the defences of a whole carrier group.   I've played Harpoon enough to know that there carriers and then there are American carriers.

3.   Taiwan has constantly upgraded it's forces in the latest technology.   Their latest highways have been designed to be used as airfields in case of crater bombing.   While no one can really know how a war would go, remember that Egypt and Syria thought they could overwhelm the Israelis in 1973.

4.   I think the Chinese know that any form of aggression is a tricky call, and the US is capable of matching any escalation level by level.   Even if there were an outcome favourable to the Chinese a political housecleaning would be in order.

As always, just my two cents.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Nielsen_Noetic on March 13, 2005, 21:44:28
Well it seems the majority of you feel China would lose, I am not an expert in military affairs and I do not claim to be one. So I will concede to the majorities opinion, I will however leave you with an old saying; do not underestimate your enemy. It was Sun Tsu who said do not launch a war unless victory is assured, is it?

the US is capable of matching any escalation level by level.
I doubt that, the U.S. has the majority of it's troops in Iraq at the moment. The only way the U.S. could mustre the man power neccesary to fight China without taking troops from Iraq would more than likely be conscription. No one in the U.S. wants that.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: daniel h. on March 13, 2005, 23:41:50
We should NOT have nuclear weapons. According to McNamara, and I agree, nuclear weapons have no military value whatsoever. Their only function is to deter your opponent from using theirs. As no sane leader would ever use them, possesing them doesn't protect you from those States. That was written in the 80's regarding the Big Bad Soviet Bear. Of course the enemy is different today, but I think you can extrapolate the following from his original statement: As no insane leader would be deterred by our possesion of nukes, possesion does not protect us form those groups/States either.

With the exception of Total War, like the war in the Pacific, Nukes could never be used. They destroy the land you attack, along with the infrastructure, the people (ours and theirs), and all life within a certain radius. By using them, you remove the possibility of meaningful victory.

I see no value to expanding the World's nuclear arsenal.


Notice how the U.S. only goes after non-nuclear countries? Perhaps they would increase our independence and allow us to unhitch outselves from the empire before it founders.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 13, 2005, 23:43:07
the US is capable of matching any escalation level by level.
I doubt that, the U.S. has the majority of it's troops in Iraq at the moment. The only way the U.S. could mustre the man power neccesary to fight China without taking troops from Iraq would more than likely be conscription. No one in the U.S. wants that.

No one in the US military wants to go to war armed with muskets either. China has advantages in certain areas (mostly to do with manpower), and a lot of deficiencies in force projection, C4I, Blue water navel power and so on. I am sure the Americans are well aware of the Chinese SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile, and can take steps to minimise their effect on the battle (steaming on the east side of Tiawan, they can still project air and missile power from beyond the range of Chinese forces...). In any event, the idea of the Americans going toe to toe with the Chinese is an artifact of the 1950s, now the PLA will find itself beset by asymmetric attacks.

China will make its move only if they feel the political or military equation is stacked in their favor, and with the Japanese coming on side with the Tiawanese, it looks like the odds are tilting back towards the West.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 13, 2005, 23:45:43
From 1945 to 1989, the United States was "going after" the USSR, a nation which had enough nuclear firepower to pulverize any city, town or villiage of more than @ 5000 people in North America.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: MikeM on March 14, 2005, 00:35:01
Just read today that China passed the anti-succession law, authorizing the use of force if Taiwan does indeed attempt to declare independance.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 14, 2005, 14:54:34
I'm not sure Canada is the same country I thought it was....

There is a poll on the Globeandmail.com right now that asks if the USA should intercede if China tries to invade Taiwan - 55% oppose such action by the USA.




M.    ???
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 14, 2005, 18:32:11
>If china deploys and uses their...they US navy would be devestated.

Amazing.  Time and time again we are reminded that everyone but the US has a superweapon which will render pointless any military action by the US.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Whiskey_Dan on March 14, 2005, 20:26:06
Well true, the only true advantage the American's have over the Chinese is technology. But having been to China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (this year) I would also come to the conclusion that Asian troops are very small compared to their North American counterparts. I myself am Asian too...Vietnamese heritage, but having been bornin Canada I am 16 but already bigger then the average adult in Asia.
So if the democratic forces (so to say) could pull Chinese troops into close quarters or fight them in an open playing field the Chinese forces would have little chance. Let's not also include that almost their entire force is made up of conscripts, and the peasents in rural China are beginning to show more and more unrest at the fact that they haven't seen a penny of the economic growth that the rest of the country in the urban areas has seen.


Dan :cdn:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Otto Fest on March 14, 2005, 20:59:49
Conscripts never make good soldiers, but at work today I overheard someone say that China could put 200 Million soldiers in the field.  Will that be with pitchforks or shovels?  I wondered.

Information and democratic thoughts are dangerous things for a totalitarian government, but in this day and age no govt can control it.  As the standard of living rises the Chinese will also yearn to be free.  In a democratic and capitalistic society I don't really care which flag you fly as long as you buy my goods.

WRT Taiwan, China knows which side it's bread is buttered.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: P-Free(Banned) on March 14, 2005, 21:21:03
Here's my take on the Taiwan-China issue; I don't think there will be any armed conflict over the island. Taiwan is of too much strategic significant for the US to let it slip into Chinese hands, and China would become a greater threat to countries in the region like Japan and South Korea. Neither the US, Japan nor South Korea are going to let China control the Taiwan Strait and amass that much more power.

The Chinese realize how much significance the Taiwan Strait plays in world trade and they realize they wouldn't get away Scots free by seizing it. I doubt the Chinese want to get drawn into a longterm conflict, especially over one province. They aren't stupid people.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 15, 2005, 00:05:19
Back in the late 1930s, the Germans made similar calculations, taking a piece of the Rhineland here, a bit of Chech territory there, Austria for dessert...They were not stupid people either, and correctly figured the democracies of the day would not contest bite sized acquisitions or "natural" German territory, until one morning the Reich would be more than twice the size and economic and military potential, at which point the democracies were supposed to cave and accept the imposition of the "New Order".

China has many internal contradictions to work out in the next few decades, the "war option" might be seen as a way to deflect blame and attention, especially if they believe the West would not fight for their fellow democracy because it is "natural" Chinese territory, or the perceived cost of defending Tiawan outweighs the benefits of having a mature and stable democracy in the region.

The other thing which outweighs any preceptions about the relative "smarts" of the Chinese as opposed to the West is pride. The Chinese might find themselves in a situation where their cost of backing down is considered too shameful. Expect irrational decisions (think of August 1914) to dominate the picture then.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Otto Fest on March 15, 2005, 01:09:31
Exact right, the Germans made the same calculations... but this time the Chinese don't deal with the British or French but the Americans with 15 US Carrier Groups.  Both sides know they have an escalation trigger....

I have no idea how this will be played out
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Croony on March 15, 2005, 03:12:18
The thing is at the start of WW2 the atomic bomb didn't exist.  If it comes to an american landing on chinese shores and perhaps an eventual spearhead to the capital the chinese will not hesitate to use "the bomb" even if its own people and soldiers are within the killlzone. The leaders there don't care about their own people, it is a corrupt nation that leaves its baby girls in the gutter and allows the poor to get poorer.  No, the next major conflict will not involve china and the US.  The chinese are mostly interested ( and have been mostly interested for thousands of years) in one thing....money...ie properity....having a free taiwan brings china more wealth than if it were conquered and put under its own control.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 15, 2005, 10:12:07
Military thinking in the 1920s and 30s was dominated by the chemical warfare threat, and chemical weapons were seen at the time in the way nuclear weapons are seen today. Still, the threat of mustard gas and phosgene didn't slow the Germans down too much.....
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 15, 2005, 10:35:04
If it's me and I'm GWB, I immediately start "unofficially" basing US warships in Taiwanese ports.  Once I've been there for a month or so, I get the Taiwanese legislature to issue a formal invitation. 

At that point, I think this whole issue is dead.  It's one thing for the PRC to consider an attack in which they need to calculate if the United States might get involved, versus planning an attack in which they know they would. 




M.   >:(
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: rice on March 15, 2005, 11:48:14
almost their entire force is made up of conscripts

Dan :cdn:

you know what's really funny...

china doesnt have conscription
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 15, 2005, 12:58:27
you know what's really funny...

china doesnt have conscription

You know whats even funnier, you are incorrect. China has selective conscription.

http://www.mothersagainstthedraft.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=214&Itemid=62
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 15, 2005, 18:36:20
Another opinion: http://thedignifiedrant.blogspot.com/2005/03/ready-set-go.html



Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Ready. Set. Go?

The Chinese will invade Taiwan.

As this article notes [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050305/wl_asia_afp/chinanpcmilitary_050305014951], the Chinese are getting ready:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao urged greater development of China's military, saying modernizaton of the army was of strategic importance to safeguard the eventual reunification of Taiwan.

"Strengthening national defense and developing the army constitute a task of strategic importance to our modernization drive and an important guarantee for safeguarding national security and reunification," Wen said at the opening session of the annual National People's Congress (NPC).

Wen said it was an "historical objective" to ensure that the army "is capable of winning any war it fights," but also underscored the importance of the military being run "strictly in accordance with the law."


I've already written about the crash naval building program of China [http://thedignifiedrant.blogspot.com/2005/03/meanwhile-in-pacific.html] that seems clearly directed at an amphibious invasion and a naval interference operation to keep us away long enough to conquer Taiwan.

The Chinese are also getting set with a new anti-secession law [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050308/ap_on_re_as/china_taiwan] that will provide their justification for naked aggression against a free people in a tiny country:

The proposed anti-secession law, read out for the first time before the ceremonial National People's Congress, does not specify what actions might invite a Chinese attack.

"If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity," Wang Zhaoguo, deputy chairman of the congress' Standing Committee, told the nearly 3,000 members gathered in the Great Hall of the People.

Beijing claims Taiwan, which split from China since 1949, as part of its territory. The communist mainland repeatedly has threatened to invade if Taiwan tries to make its independence permanent, and the new law does not impose any new conditions or make new threats. But it lays out for the first time legal requirements for military action.


The only question is when China will go. I think it will be on the eve of the 2008 Peking summer Olympics. China will have the security issue to cover mobilization and movement of military units. And everybody will assume China is using the attention as a coming out party to highlight their advances and their place in the sun. I think swallowing China under the nose of US and Japanese protection will be even better to demonstrate their power. Why else go on a crash building program for naval units?

This article in the Taipei Times, however, thinks China will use the 2008 Olympics to whip up nationalism [http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/03/07/2003225857] and then focus on absorbing Taiwan in the years that follow:

Some say that China's current focus is on economic development, and that it has no intention of further pressuring Taiwan. But as the communist government is unable to carry out domestic reform, heightened tension with the outside world is the best way to retain its hold on power.

What's more, China is feeling confident, and many specialists in Chinese strategy feel that if China could ride out the storm after the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989 when it was still weak, there is no reason to worry about the economic cost of a military attack on Taiwan now, when China is strong and Taiwan is weak.

The main target for Hu and his leadership is, however, the Beijing Olympics in 2008. But if the Olympics are concluded successfully, surging nationalist sentiment and strong economic confidence may well convince Hu to seek a resolution to the Taiwan issue before his term in power is over. The anti-secession law can therefore not be passively understood as an anti-independence law. Rather, it has to be understood as an aggressive measure aimed at actively resolving the Taiwan issue.


I think the Taiwanese are underestimating the urgency of the situation. I think the article is exactly right that the Chinese believe their power will compel enough of the world to shrug and get back to business with Peking to make the repercussions of taking a free Taiwan endurable.

Would we mass the Marine Corps to liberate Taiwan? China may not be the old Soviet Union, but they have some nukes that can reach the mainland--not to mention Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii. We have never had two major nuclear powers fight an extended war. Will we risk it? Should we?

The best way to avoid this is to make Taiwan strong enough to hold the line while US and Japanese forces rush to repel a Chinese invasion. If China knows this, they may hold off in the hope that the future will change the strategic situation in their favor.

The second best way to avoid the escalation problem is to win quickly, if the Chinese delude themselves into thinking the US and/or Japan will not defend Taiwan and that the Taiwanese cannot resist. Cripple the first wave; crush the paratroopers and infantry that come across the beach; interdict the follow-up waves with naval and air power; and hit the ports of embarkation. Do all this and make sure Taiwan can throw the Chinese back into the sea so the war ends quickly.

The war against Islamist nutballs is bad enough. I would really like it if the Chinese evolved some sanity and became a normal, civilize country without territorial objectives to be achieved at others expense. You'd think China would recognize it has enough problems 360 degrees without driving us into the enemy camp.

The Chinese are getting ready. They are getting set. When will they go?

posted by Brian J. Dunn
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: rice on March 15, 2005, 22:55:34
You know whats even funnier, you are incorrect. China has selective conscription.

http://www.mothersagainstthedraft.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=214&Itemid=62

that is pretty funny, becasuse that website is wrong, and so are you. i know the cia world factbook says the same thing about compulsory service, but...what's not true is not true. been to china before seen it myself, perfectly able 18 yr olds going to university or college or job...but not in the army like cia claims

ask a chinese person, PRC (mainland china) has no forced military committment

ROC (taiwan) does, im from there
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Torlyn on March 15, 2005, 23:31:33
ask a chinese person, PRC (mainland china) has no forced military committment

Funny...  I did, and they have conscription.  Now, if you'd acutally READ Ex-Dragoon's post, (I understand it must be hard to read with your head in your butt, but maybe with a flashlight...) you'd see that he said "selective conscription".  Oh, and from the Chinese, "The PLA has about 2.5 million members, the majority of which are enlisted soldiers who are conscripted".   ::)

T
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: rice on March 16, 2005, 03:32:05
Funny...   I did, and they have conscription.   Now, if you'd acutally READ Ex-Dragoon's post, (I understand it must be hard to read with your head in your butt, but maybe with a flashlight...) you'd see that he said "selective conscription".   Oh, and from the Chinese, "The PLA has about 2.5 million members, the majority of which are enlisted soldiers who are conscripted".     ::)

T

i dont know why you're being such a dick. i certainly didnt come here with the intention of insulting someone, but you seem to have a real big problem with people who have different opinions
now if you actually READ my post, (i could insert some random trash talk here, but im not you)
you'd see that i said "there are perfectly able 18 year olds going to university or college or jobs...but not in the army like cia claims" im not talking about Ex-Dragoon's post

all im saying, is that from my experience as a taiwan-born person, it is my understanding that mainland china does not have a policy of forced military service. im not defending china, im from taiwan. all im trying to convey is what i believe to be the honest truth

have a good day
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Will on March 16, 2005, 04:06:27
Funny...   I did, and they have conscription.   Now, if you'd acutally READ Ex-Dragoon's post, (I understand it must be hard to read with your head in your butt, but maybe with a flashlight...) you'd see that he said "selective conscription".   Oh, and from the Chinese, "The PLA has about 2.5 million members, the majority of which are enlisted soldiers who are conscripted".     ::)

T

While it is true that most most of the enlisted personel of the Chinese Army were conscripted into service most eventually choose to extend beyond their mandated draft terms.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Will on March 16, 2005, 04:10:13
The chinese are mostly interested ( and have been mostly interested for thousands of years) in one thing....money...ie properity...

Well you can replace "chinese" with "humans" and that sentence would still make sense.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 16, 2005, 06:39:59
Quote
all im saying, is that from my experience as a taiwan-born person, it is my understanding that mainland china does not have a policy of forced military service. im not defending china, im from taiwan. all im trying to convey is what i believe to be the honest truth

You have gone from stating a fact to stating a belief. If you are not 100% certain then don't try and opull the wool over our eyes it won't work. BTW why your at it I suggest you read the conduct guidelines. With an attitude like that I think you are a prime candidtate for warnings and probably getting banned, so word to the wise change your tune.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Torlyn on March 16, 2005, 11:54:20
i dont know why you're being such a dick. all im saying, is that from my experience as a taiwan-born person, it is my understanding that mainland china does not have a policy of forced military service. im not defending china, im from taiwan. all im trying to convey is what i believe to be the honest truth

First off, don't alter your posts after they've been torn apart.  Makes it look like you're hiding something, or trying to alter the record to make yourself look better.  Second, my respose was a retort to the BS you shovelled on Ex-Dragoon when he said there is "SELECTIVE" conscription, and you told him he was wrong, and said there is no "FORCED" conscription.  If you are unable to coherently post your thoughts, perhaps you shouldn't post.

Lastly, why am I being a dick?  Easy.  You just started posting here, and you have the unmitigated audacity to call one of the senior posters here a liar.  Gee, why would I be a dick to you?  Can't imagine... ::)  It's super that you were born in Taiwan, and I'm sure you have a hoarde of experience regarding Mainland China living on the island, but face it.  You're wrong.  The Chinese have selective conscription (as Ex-Dragoon said) and as for college/university students, they are actively recruiting.  Just out of curiosity, is everyone who was born in Taiwan an automatic expert on all things Chinese?  As for conveying the truth, Ex-Dragoon and I have shown you what the "truth" is.  You just seemed to have too closed a mind to accept it.

T
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: rice on March 16, 2005, 12:46:10
You have gone from stating a fact to stating a belief. If you are not 100% certain then don't try and opull the wool over our eyes it won't work. BTW why your at it I suggest you read the conduct guidelines. With an attitude like that I think you are a prime candidtate for warnings and probably getting banned, so word to the wise change your tune.


okay look, i apologize for making an opposing opinion. disagreeing with a senior member is obviously not allowed on this forum, so, if it really irks you that i dont agree with you, ban me. i dont remember china having forced military service, or conscription, but if it makes you feel better that they do, then whatever flows your boat. it's weird how the western web sources agree with you, while asian web sources say the opposite, but then what do asians know. i could be wrong, but then im merely expressing an opinion. sorry if that came across the wrong way
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: rice on March 16, 2005, 12:51:58
First off, don't alter your posts after they've been torn apart.   Makes it look like you're hiding something, or trying to alter the record to make yourself look better.   Second, my respose was a retort to the BS you shovelled on Ex-Dragoon when he said there is "SELECTIVE" conscription, and you told him he was wrong, and said there is no "FORCED" conscription.   If you are unable to coherently post your thoughts, perhaps you shouldn't post.

Lastly, why am I being a dick?   Easy.   You just started posting here, and you have the unmitigated audacity to call one of the senior posters here a liar.   Gee, why would I be a dick to you?   Can't imagine... ::)   It's super that you were born in Taiwan, and I'm sure you have a hoarde of experience regarding Mainland China living on the island, but face it.   You're wrong.   The Chinese have selective conscription (as Ex-Dragoon said) and as for college/university students, they are actively recruiting.   Just out of curiosity, is everyone who was born in Taiwan an automatic expert on all things Chinese?   As for conveying the truth, Ex-Dragoon and I have shown you what the "truth" is.   You just seemed to have too closed a mind to accept it.

T

as long as you admit to being a dick, it's super how you try to justify how being a dick is the right way to behave
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 16, 2005, 13:07:58
Rice:
 Opposing viewpoints are welcomed, acting like an idiot like you have in posting them is not.

Read the Forum Guidelines and try again.

Expectation of Respect between Users

All visitors, regardless of age, rank or experience are to be treated as equal unless their conduct dictates otherwise. That means the veteran servicemember and the green private are to assume that they have as much to benefit from the other as they have to offer the other until a reason to contrary is made known. Age, nor number of years excuses anyone from behaving in a manner that isn't civil and polite.

You will not post any information that is offensive, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law

Guidelines:
http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.0.html

How many times do we have to tell you no one said forced conscription we said selective.  ::)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: rice on March 16, 2005, 13:12:07
Expectation of Respect between Users

All visitors, regardless of age, rank or experience are to be treated as equal unless their conduct dictates otherwise. That means the veteran servicemember and the green private are to assume that they have as much to benefit from the other as they have to offer the other until a reason to contrary is made known. Age, nor number of years excuses anyone from behaving in a manner that isn't civil and polite.


and with reference to:

"Lastly, why am I being a dick?  Easy.  You just started posting here, and you have the unmitigated audacity to call one of the senior posters here a liar.  Gee, why would I be a dick to you?  Can't imagine..."

 ::)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: dutchie on March 16, 2005, 13:26:13
Rice: Could you please take this bun fight to PMs please? Your wasting bandwidth and it has nothing to do with the topic.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Infanteer on March 16, 2005, 13:27:04
Ok Stop.

Rice, you were wrong, and you got called on it.   Just let it go and move on with the debate.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 16, 2005, 13:58:58
I hate to beat a dead horse, but I work in an office where only two of us are not Taiwanese ... pretty all of the men here are (obviously) ex-military.  I asked, and every single one of them told me that military service in PRC is NOT mandatory.

I think there may be a bit of a language barrier here: the way I understand it China has what they call an annual 'conscription' but it's more akin to what we would call a 'recruiting drive'.  They recruit officer candidates out of universities and those that sign-up get benefits such as free tuition and 'priority' for employment at the end of their term of service.  I don't know what China's actual laws are, but in practice service is not mandatory, even for NCMs.

Rice, I think you might be right, but for the sake of civility please respect what Ex-Dragoon (et.al.) wrote above ...
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 16, 2005, 16:42:40
Conscription and the Peoples Republic of China! It sure is amazing that if you google it what you will find.  ::)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl669.cfm
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200011/01/eng20001101_54120.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200310/31/eng20031031_127255.shtml
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/C/Co/Conscription.htm

Plus lots and lots more.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 16, 2005, 17:45:06
Take a look at some more of links you must have found on Google or whatever:  China has an involuntary conscription policy (i.e., it is on the books) however it is not mandatory in practice.  If you read the links you provided to People's Daily I think you will see what I was talking about (re: language barrier, specifically the misuse of the word 'conscription' as we understand it: the reference to "well-performing students" should be a little bit of a warning against taking the wording verbatim).

At any rate, I fear the (as yet unproven) idea that "almost their entire force is made up of conscripts" dangerously underestimates their capability ... from what I understand, and is reflected in some of the posts above, China's military has changed drastically since 1979 (including a great deal of force reduction).

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: steve-o on March 16, 2005, 17:46:12
The Chinese won't let the island of Taiwan go without a fight, and that is the final answer.

I think the island of Taiwan has been gone for over 50 years now, it is just that Taipei hasn't officially declared itself independent - the lynchpin of the entire problem! Taiwan can probably remain as is indefinitely as long as it doesn't talk too loudly of being separate. In that way, I do believe it is similar to Quebec! Except that Canada has no teeth unlike China. (OK we have   extraordinary teeth , just not a complete set)
Steve
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 16, 2005, 18:52:26
I think the island of Taiwan has been gone for over 50 years now, it is just that Taipei hasn't officially declared itself independent - the lynchpin of the entire problem! Taiwan can probably remain as is indefinitely as long as it doesn't talk too loudly of being separate. In that way, I do believe it is similar to Quebec! Except that Canada has no teeth unlike China. (OK we have   extraordinary teeth , just not a complete set)
Steve

Actually, you may want to check your history.   Taiwan was NEVER part of China.   This is a fantasy created by the PRC to formalize their land claims.

The island was first populated by Malay tribes, became their own republic I believe in the late 1800's which lasted a very short time before they were occupied by the Japanese then independent for another   short time after WWII before being occupied by Chiang Kai-Shek (Nationalist Chinese).  

Bottom Line:   Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.   Look it up if you don't believe me...

Cheers,



Matthew.      ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 16, 2005, 19:13:44
Well, that puts it all in a whole new light.

Except the Japanese Army used the natives for bayonet practice, so just about all that is left are the descendents of the Nationalists.  Who are, of course, Chinese.

I hope Taiwan has nukes. ;D

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 16, 2005, 19:21:52
Take a look at some more of links you must have found on Google or whatever:  China has an involuntary conscription policy (i.e., it is on the books) however it is not mandatory in practice.  If you read the links you provided to People's Daily I think you will see what I was talking about (re: language barrier, specifically the misuse of the word 'conscription' as we understand it: the reference to "well-performing students" should be a little bit of a warning against taking the wording verbatim).

At any rate, I fear the (as yet unproven) idea that "almost their entire force is made up of conscripts" dangerously underestimates their capability ... from what I understand, and is reflected in some of the posts above, China's military has changed drastically since 1979 (including a great deal of force reduction).

I think if you read what Ex-Dragoon said you'll notice he said selective conscription, which is an accurate discription of China's policy and effectively what you said. It's not a misuse of the word. If conscription is on the books (which it is) and they are selecting to only choose volunteers (which it "seems" they are largely doing publicly, at least) then they have selective conscription. Most conscription is selective, they just have different criteria. It is unusual for a military force to not enforce conscription laws, but when you have 13 million new military aged men a year, you can afford to be even more selective by signing up volunteers only. Now it does seem to be silly having a conscription law you don't need, but it's not the fault of any language barrier. It's the fault of a government that doesn't even follow it's own rules.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 16, 2005, 19:37:28
Actually, you may want to check your history.  Taiwan was NEVER part of China.  This is a fantasy created by the PRC to formalize their land claims.

The island was first populated by Malay tribes, became their own republic I believe in the late 1800's which lasted a very short time before they were occupied by the Japanese then independent for another  short time after WWII before being occupied by Chiang Kai-Shek (Nationalist Chinese). 

Bottom Line:  Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.  Look it up if you don't believe me...

Cheers,



Matthew.    ;)

The problem occurs in the wording, again. "Taiwan" is actually the Republic of China. So, technically, it is a part of China. It would be more accurate to say the island of Taiwan has never been in communist control or under the authority of the People's Republic of China.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: dutchie on March 16, 2005, 19:53:59
I think your getting a little too technical in wording here. Everyone knows what you mean when you say 'Taiwan'.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 16, 2005, 21:08:17
I think your getting a little too technical in wording here. Everyone knows what you mean when you say 'Taiwan'.

Details, like the name of a country, are not trivial.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 17, 2005, 01:30:22
Quote
China's Strategy
They're happy to let us worry about North Korea while they assemble long-term plans to counter American hegemony.
by Tom Donnelly
03/16/2005 12:00:00 AM

PERHAPS THE WISEST WORDS ever uttered--or attributed--to Ronald Reagan were: Don't just do something, sit there.
Would that the Gipper were still around to guide U.S. strategy toward North Korea and the "Six Party Talks" meant to deal with Pyongyang's nuclear program. Every time an American starts wringing his hands over the failure of the talks, someone in Beijing smiles contentedly. While we're whipping ourselves over the fact that the North Koreans won't come back to the table--which, actually, is supposed to be China's responsibility--Beijing is advancing its other interests, particularly in putting pressure on Taiwan. The more frustrated and fixated we get, the better the Chinese like it.
Democrats, in particular, are obsessed by the idea that North Korea's nukes are the most important security issue in East Asia. This was candidate John Kerry's position and former Defense Secretary William Perry has roundly criticized the Bush administration for "outsourcing"--that is, engaging in multilateral diplomacy only--the job of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. These weapons, he insists, constitute an "imminent danger."
They are exactly that, but the only way to get the North Koreans to even consider getting rid of their nukes or stopping their nuclear program is to offer them a "non-aggression" pact that forswears not only the use of armed force but the policy of "regime change" in Pyongyang. Other liberal commentators, like Selig Harrison, don't think the North has the nukes, but thinks we should guarantee the safety of the Kim regime anyway. Quite rightly, the administration thinks that's too much to pay, even for the best arms control deal. The fundamental problem is the North Korean regime, not the weapons. North Korea--with its million-man army, thousands of artillery pieces, and rockets able to reach Seoul--was an imminent threat before it had nuclear weapons and will be an imminent threat if it gets rid of them.
But even as proliferation mania distorts U.S. policy toward the Korean peninsula, it also fuzzes our China strategy beyond recognition. The combination of September 11 and North Korean nukes puts us in the position of begging for Chinese help on two fronts where they can't or won't do much and diverts our attention from those issues where China is of greatest concern; we've taken Chinese priorities as our own. Little wonder that Beijing wants to string out the Six Party Talks to eternity and has been trying to portray its repression of Turkic Uighurs in western China as actions against Islamic terrorists.
In short, the United States continues to look through the wrong end of the telescope. We're thus blinded to a whole host of worrying developments that reveal China's progress as a geopolitical--and increasingly global--competitor. The Chinese "legislature" just passed an "anti-secession law" that not only "legitimizes" an attack on Taiwan but greater internal repression as well; the Beijing government sees secessionists everywhere. China is beginning to string together a necklace of client states in the oil-rich Middle East--Iran and Sudan, to name two--and even into the Americas, cozying up to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Venezuela supplies about 13 percent of daily U.S. oil imports, and just as Beijing fears the U.S. Navy's ability to sever China's connection to international energy markets, China wouldn't mind being able to return the favor with Chavez's help.

Even during the Cold War, the United States has never had a comprehensive strategy for East Asia; all our security arrangements have been bilateral, one-on-one affairs. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire and the initiation of the age of American hyperpower, things have only gotten worse, through two Bush presidencies and two Clinton terms. While we try to deal with individual issues and wait until a time of crisis--as with North Korea--Beijing patiently works out a strategy of unraveling the Pax Americana.

Tom Donnelly is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 17, 2005, 01:41:56
And what is Canada doing?


Matthew.      >:(

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By GEOFFREY YORK

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

 Beijing - A controversial new roof-of-the-world railway, branded as a threat to Tibet's cultural survival, will begin operation next year with heavy participation from two major Canadian companies.

Nortel Networks Corp. and Bombardier Inc. have been awarded contracts to provide key elements for the spectacular mountaintop railway that could carry up to 100,000 Chinese migrants into Tibet every month.

The Canadian firms are confident their technology can endure the harsh conditions on the railway line - including subzero temperatures, low oxygen, sandstorms, permafrost and some of the most forbidding mountains in the world.

Montreal-based Bombardier will provide the railway with hundreds of special high-tech train cars with enriched oxygen systems and extra protection against ultraviolet rays, while Nortel will supply its wireless communication system.

The Chinese project, the highest-altitude railway in the world, is gaining fame for its extraordinary construction methods in blasting through ice and laying tracks above the permafrost on mountains up to 5,000 metres high.

But it is also provoking fears that it will pave the way for the cultural assimilation and political colonization of the two million Tibetans who live in the region.

The railway line is so far above sea level that its trains will have to be sealed and pressurized like aircraft cabins. Altitude sickness is a daily threat to the 100,000 construction workers who are toiling on the project. The railway tracks will be elevated to keep them above the permafrost as it thaws and buckles on summer days.

The $3.2-billion (U.S.) railway line, due to begin operating in June of 2006, will stretch more than 1,140 kilometres from the city of Golmud, in western China, to the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. The project has been a dream of Chinese rulers since the early years of the last century, although it was long thought to be impossible to build.

Nortel announced Wednesday that the Chinese Railways Ministry has selected the Brampton, Ont.-based firm to provide the digital wireless communications network for the Tibet railway. It will be the first Chinese commercial use of the wireless technology, known as GSM for Railways, and it will be the first in China to operate without a traditional analog system for backup.

"As a landmark project for China to develop its western region, Nortel is pleased to provide the communications system that will help ignite and power the region's economic growth,â ? Robert Mao, president of Nortel's China operations, said in a statement Wednesday.

He said Nortel was awarded the contract after passing all required tests during a year-long trial of its technology on a 186-kilometre stretch of track at altitudes up to 4,780 metres.

A consortium led by Bombardier has been awarded a $281-million contract to produce 361 rail cars for the Tibet line, including 308 standard cars and 53 special tourist cars. Bombardier's share of the contract is worth $78-million.

The tourist cars will include luxury sleeping rooms with individual showers and cars with panoramic views and luxury dining and entertainment. China expects that 900,000 tourists will travel on the Tibet railway every year.

"This project represents a very important technology challenge,â ? Zhang Jianwei, the chief Bombardier representative in China, said in a statement late last month.

Human rights activists are worried the two Canadian companies could be helping China to swamp the Tibetan culture and assimilate the population into China's ethnic Han majority. They note that relatively few Tibetans have been included among the 100,000 construction workers on the project.

"There have been serious concerns raised by Tibetan groups regarding the negative impact of the railroad itself and also about discriminatory hiring practices in its construction,â ? said Carole Samdup, a program officer at Rights & Democracy, a human rights organization in Montreal that was created by the Canadian Parliament. "Canadian companies who participate in this initiative may find themselves accused of complicity in a variety of human rights violations.â ?

In a detailed report on the railway project in 2003, the International Campaign for Tibet concluded the railway will further militarize the Tibetan Plateau, jeopardize its environment, and trigger a population influx that represents "a significant threat to the livelihoods and culture of the Tibetan people, as well as to their prospect for achieving genuine political autonomy.â ?

The Canadian firms rejected the criticism of their role.

"Nortel categorically rejects in the strongest possible terms that it would participate in repressing the human rights or democratic rights of any individuals,â ? said Marion MacKenzie, vice-president of corporate communications at Nortel.

Hélène Gagnon, a spokeswoman for Bombardier, said the firm cannot comment on any political questions about the Tibet railway. "Any political issues in Tibet are between the citizens and their government.â ?

© The Globe and Mail

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: dutchie on March 17, 2005, 01:54:33
Details, like the name of a country, are not trivial.

Next we'll start arguing over 'the occupied territory of Palestine', or whether it's Serbo-Croat,Croatian,Serbian or Swahili. "No, I want Kava, not Kafa you ignorant slut!"

Purely semantics.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 17, 2005, 02:03:38
Next we'll start arguing over 'the occupied territory of Palestine', or whether it's Serbo-Croat,Croatian,Serbian or Swahili. "No, I want Kava, not Kafa you ignorant slut!"

Purely semantics.

Taiwan is actually much more clear-cut than Palestine-Israel, and it's in the favour of the Taiwanese.

The only reason this whole absurdity isn't dismissed out of hand is world corporations salavating over a market of 1+ billion.

Greed is a terrible thing....



M.     ???
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Spr.Earl on March 17, 2005, 06:20:49
Asians have patience when it comes to a goal.
China has a goal and her goal is to win economically if not by Arms in the future.
They are trying to buy Noranda Mines the worlds largest mining company which is Canadian,they have invested in the Tar Sands big time!!

So should we all start learning Mandarin?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 17, 2005, 08:25:15
Next we'll start arguing over 'the occupied territory of Palestine', or whether it's Serbo-Croat,Croatian,Serbian or Swahili. "No, I want Kava, not Kafa you ignorant slut!"

Purely semantics.
I don't see how giving the proper title of a country is semantic. It's not you say he says. Taiwan itself says and everyone agrees. They are the Republic of China. There's nothing to argue about here, unless you want to talk about Palestine. ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Infanteer on March 17, 2005, 08:29:12
Semantics is right - are we just trying to play the "well, I am smarter then you - it is actually the ROC!" game?   Does it really move the discussion anywhere?

One of my good buddies in University was from there - when I asked him where he was from, he certainly didn't say "Republic of China".

PS: Everyone please remember that, next time we discuss North Korea, that it is not North Korea but the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.   Please refer to the CIA World Factbook before using common vernacular, lest you offend someone's sensabilities.

Sheesh.... ::)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 17, 2005, 09:21:12
Semantics is right - are we just trying to play the "well, I am smarter then you - it is actually the ROC!" game?  Does it really move the discussion anywhere?

One of my good buddies in University was from there - when I asked him where he was from, he certainly didn't say "Republic of China".

PS: Everyone please remember that, next time we discuss North Korea, that it is not North Korea but the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.  Please refer to the CIA World Factbook before using common vernacular, lest you offend someone's sensabilities.

Sheesh.... ::)

As I was trying to say in response to this: "Bottom Line:  Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.  Look it up if you don't believe me..."

This is an inaccurate statement. The reason for my response is not some sort of "wow I'm so smart, look at me" thing. If I wanted to bask in the glory of my meager intellect, I'd go join MENSA and chat about rubik's cubes. I'm trying to explain a very key aspect here, that not many people are aware of, (while perhaps you or the poster who replied are). It's not semantic, and it's not trivial. It's the *entire problem*. One side claims to be the legitimate China, while the other side does as well. Only one side can win here.

The title of Taiwan's Government Information Offices webpage:  "Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan)". I don't think they view it as trivial or semantic, either. Certainly, both names are currently acceptable, but clearly, the Republic of China is not simply achored to the island of Taiwan. It's a very important distinction if one is to understand the situation.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 17, 2005, 11:07:43
As I was trying to say in response to this: "Bottom Line:   Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.   Look it up if you don't believe me..."

This is an inaccurate statement. The reason for my response is not some sort of "wow I'm so smart, look at me" thing. If I wanted to bask in the glory of my meager intellect, I'd go join MENSA and chat about rubik's cubes. I'm trying to explain a very key aspect here, that not many people are aware of, (while perhaps you or the poster who replied are). It's not semantic, and it's not trivial. It's the *entire problem*. One side claims to be the legitimate China, while the other side does as well. Only one side can win here.

The title of Taiwan's Government Information Offices webpage:   "Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan)". I don't think they view it as trivial or semantic, either. Certainly, both names are currently acceptable, but clearly, the Republic of China is not simply achored to the island of Taiwan. It's a very important distinction if one is to understand the situation.



You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can.

1)   Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China.
2)   Chiang Kai-Shek when he occupied and independent Taiwan created the name "Republic of China" in the hopes it would grant him the legitimacy he would need to one day be able to retake the mainland, ergo the name.
3)   The fact that Chiang Kai Shek (an authoritarian) one day made a claim on the mainland and used the name "Republic of China" to legitimize that claim has nothing to do with a reverse claim by the mainland on the island which is complete fraud.

....and if you cannot get that through your head, MENSA wouldn't want you.




M.     :P
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 17, 2005, 11:23:54
You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can.
...
1)   Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China.
...

I disagree.

Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.   At that time China ceded sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan.   China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 17, 2005, 14:29:04
I think if you read what Ex-Dragoon said you'll notice he said selective conscription, which is an accurate discription of China's policy and effectively what you said. It's not a misuse of the word. If conscription is on the books (which it is) and they are selecting to only choose volunteers (which it "seems" they are largely doing publicly, at least) then they have selective conscription. Most conscription is selective, they just have different criteria. It is unusual for a military force to not enforce conscription laws, but when you have 13 million new military aged men a year, you can afford to be even more selective by signing up volunteers only. Now it does seem to be silly having a conscription law you don't need, but it's not the fault of any language barrier. It's the fault of a government that doesn't even follow it's own rules.

"Selecting to choose only volunteers" ... are you joking?  Ex-Dragoon gave an accurate description of their law: I am pointing-out that all of the information I've seen and heard shows that their policy does not reflect their law.  The United States still has Selective Service: does this mean that we can safely assume that their army is almost entirely conscripts?  :o  Give me a break!

I'm trying to stay away from the semantic argument: does anyone have any information (other than a law that does not appear to be enforced) to support the notion that the PLA is almost entirely conscripts?  I don't know when they stopped actively conscripting soldiers (I would guess mid-80's), so I don't know if the statement is accurate.  OTOH, I would think some conscript armies (the IDF comes to mind) compare quite favourably man-for-man against 'decent' all-volunteer forces, anyway.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 17, 2005, 15:36:08
Oh boy, this is not good:

2005-03-17 13:54     * RUSSIA * CHINA * EXERCISES *

CHINA TRYING TO USE RUSSIAN ARMY FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES

MOSCOW, March 17. (RIA Novosti)-Yesterday, Chief of the Russian General Staff Yury Baluyevsky left for China to settle a scandal over the first Russian-Chinese military exercise, Commonwealth-2005, which is due to be held this fall off the Yellow Sea coast, writes Kommersant.

The initial plans were to practice operational teamwork in combating terrorism during the exercise. However, Beijing, skillfully changing the format of the exercise, has tried to re-orient the two countries' armies to practicing an invasion of Taiwan.

The choice of where the exercise will take place became a stumbling block. The Russian military selected the Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region, basing their choice on the area's problematic nature due to Uigur separatists and its proximity to Central Asia, which has become an arena in the fight against international terrorism. However, Beijing flatly rejected the proposal. Instead, it suggested the Zhejiang province near Taiwan.

A joint exercise in this area would look too provocative and trigger a strong reaction not only from Taiwan but also America and Japan, which recently included the island in the zone of their common strategic interests.

Beijing is trying to use Russia as an additional lever of pressure on the disobedient island to show it that its policy is also causing dissatisfaction in Russia, from which the Taiwanese are expecting assistance in their dialogue with Beijing and bid to join the WTO and the UN.

On the Russian military's insistence, the exercise was shifted north to the Shangdong peninsula. However, the Chinese are trying to change the format of the exercise with proposals to enlarge the contingents with Marines and Pacific Fleet warships. Marine landings to seize the area will be practiced during the "antiterrorist" exercise.

Russia's agreement to hold the exercise will inevitably cause a furor in America, Japan and Taiwan. But a refusal will spoil relations with China, which three months ago courteously agreed to Russia's proposal to hold an exercise.


http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5465430&startrow=1&date=2005-03-17&do_alert=0



Maybe interesting to point-out the significance of Nixon's role in perpetuating Sino-Soviet conflict ... also came-across a statistic that said there was +/- 500,000 'fierce patriotic' Taiwanese (ex-military) businessmen in Shanghai which would affect any war ...
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 17, 2005, 15:44:21
I disagree.

Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.   At that time China ceded sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan.   China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945.


Excellent historical breakdown found here....which makes both our previous statements appear overreaching:   http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Taiwan




Matthew.     ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 17, 2005, 17:01:52
Excellent historical breakdown found here....which makes both our previous statements appear overreaching:   http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Taiwan

Matthew.     ;)

Sorry, I don't quite understand.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, but:

I said: "Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894."

The refernce you provide said:
Quote
From 1683 the Qing Dynasty ruled Taiwan as a prefecture and in 1875 divided the island into two prefectures, north and south. In 1887 the island was made into a separate Chinese province ... As settlement for losing the Sino-Japanese War, Imperial China ceded the entire island of Taiwan to Japan in 1895.

I said: "China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945."

The reference you cited said:
Quote
From 1895, when Taiwan was ceded to Japan, to 1945, when it was returned to Chinese administration ...

How was I "overreaching"?

You said, earlier (your emphasis) "Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China."

Both I and the refernce you cited say you were wrong.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 17, 2005, 21:51:23
"Selecting to choose only volunteers" ... are you joking?  Ex-Dragoon gave an accurate description of their law: I am pointing-out that all of the information I've seen and heard shows that their policy does not reflect their law.  The United States still has Selective Service: does this mean that we can safely assume that their army is almost entirely conscripts?  :o  Give me a break!

I'm trying to stay away from the semantic argument: does anyone have any information (other than a law that does not appear to be enforced) to support the notion that the PLA is almost entirely conscripts?  I don't know when they stopped actively conscripting soldiers (I would guess mid-80's), so I don't know if the statement is accurate.  OTOH, I would think some conscript armies (the IDF comes to mind) compare quite favourably man-for-man against 'decent' all-volunteer forces, anyway.


Sorry, I was not trying to defend the idea that all of China's army is conscripts. I don't believe that.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 17, 2005, 22:03:06
You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can.

1)  Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China.
2)  Chiang Kai-Shek when he occupied and independent Taiwan created the name "Republic of China" in the hopes it would grant him the legitimacy he would need to one day be able to retake the mainland, ergo the name.
3)  The fact that Chiang Kai Shek (an authoritarian) one day made a claim on the mainland and used the name "Republic of China" to legitimize that claim has nothing to do with a reverse claim by the mainland on the island which is complete fraud.

....and if you cannot get that through your head, MENSA wouldn't want you.

M.   :P

I suggest you read that encyclopedia entry you quoted in your other message a little more closely. You make Chiang Kai Shek's "claim" seem like he's just one guy rather than a very large movement. The Republic of China was considered the legitimate "China" in the United Nations for a time as well. It in fact was a founding member.

Edited for bad spelling.  ;D

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on March 17, 2005, 22:25:09
Oh boy, this is not good:

2005-03-17 13:54     * RUSSIA * CHINA * EXERCISES *

CHINA TRYING TO USE RUSSIAN ARMY FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES

MOSCOW, March 17. (RIA Novosti)-Yesterday, Chief of the Russian General Staff Yury Baluyevsky left for China to settle a scandal over the first Russian-Chinese military exercise, Commonwealth-2005, which is due to be held this fall off the Yellow Sea coast, writes Kommersant.

The initial plans were to practice operational teamwork in combating terrorism during the exercise. However, Beijing, skillfully changing the format of the exercise, has tried to re-orient the two countries' armies to practicing an invasion of Taiwan.

The choice of where the exercise will take place became a stumbling block. The Russian military selected the Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region, basing their choice on the area's problematic nature due to Uigur separatists and its proximity to Central Asia, which has become an arena in the fight against international terrorism. However, Beijing flatly rejected the proposal. Instead, it suggested the Zhejiang province near Taiwan.

A joint exercise in this area would look too provocative and trigger a strong reaction not only from Taiwan but also America and Japan, which recently included the island in the zone of their common strategic interests.

Beijing is trying to use Russia as an additional lever of pressure on the disobedient island to show it that its policy is also causing dissatisfaction in Russia, from which the Taiwanese are expecting assistance in their dialogue with Beijing and bid to join the WTO and the UN.

On the Russian military's insistence, the exercise was shifted north to the Shangdong peninsula. However, the Chinese are trying to change the format of the exercise with proposals to enlarge the contingents with Marines and Pacific Fleet warships. Marine landings to seize the area will be practiced during the "antiterrorist" exercise.

Russia's agreement to hold the exercise will inevitably cause a furor in America, Japan and Taiwan. But a refusal will spoil relations with China, which three months ago courteously agreed to Russia's proposal to hold an exercise.


http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5465430&startrow=1&date=2005-03-17&do_alert=0



Maybe interesting to point-out the significance of Nixon's role in perpetuating Sino-Soviet conflict ... also came-across a statistic that said there was +/- 500,000 'fierce patriotic' Taiwanese (ex-military) businessmen in Shanghai which would affect any war ...

Certainly a concern, this should be as well:
US perspective: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/18/82202.shtml
British perspective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3512088.stm
Chinese perspective: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/16/content_315366.htm
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 17, 2005, 23:35:34
"would think some conscript armies (the IDF comes to mind) compare quite favourably man-for-man against 'decent' all-volunteer forces, anyway."

With a conscript Army, you get to pick and choose your recruits in a tight "Man Market".  All things being equal, a conscript army CAN get a more stable and intelligent cohort than a volunteer force that relies on only what walks in the door.

Bear in mind, the Officers and long service NCOs will be professional volunteers in any case, so the determinant factor is the quality of the officer and NCO corps, not the conscript/volunteer ratio.  All things being equal. 

We have a hard time seeing this in Canada, what with "The myth of the Canadian volunteer" clouding the arguments.

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Torlyn on March 18, 2005, 13:02:44
Here's an idea!  Let's stop with the semantics, agree to interpret things differently, and return to topic?  I would have thought that the joint exercises between Russia and China would have illicited much more of a response...

T
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 23, 2005, 22:05:41
Interesting what you might end up reading in Mandrin:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200532120.asp

Quote
Chinese Bureaucrats Getting Blogged to Death
by James Dunnigan
March 21, 2005

It's estimated that about a million Chinese are now running blogs (web logs.) This, for Chinese security officials, is worse than chat rooms and bulletin boards. The bloggers have quickly become quite good at saying what the government doesn't want said, but doing it in a way to deceive the software tools the government uses to watch for such misbehavior. Most of the blogs do not cover political issues, but the ones that do are saying things the government doesn't want Chinese people to see. The most worrisome blogging covers government corruption, which officials would rather keep in the shadows while they try to deal with it. Tales of corruption in the military are particularly embarrassing, because the government is stressing the growing power of the Chinese armed forces.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 24, 2005, 23:46:56
An interesting look at an alternative strategy:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200532323.asp

Quote
The Weapon China Fears the Most
by James Dunnigan
March 23, 2005

The US trade deficit (the value of goods bought from China versus what was sold to them) reached $162 billion. That amount accounts for over twenty percent of China's GDP (total economic activity.) This has serious military implications. If China goes to war with the United States, the first impact would not be bombs, but an end to exports to the United States. Putting over a hundred million Chinese out of work would have a larger impact than any bombing campaign. Taiwanese companies also control over $50 billion of economic activity in China. Taking Taiwan, in one piece, would add about ten percent to China's GDP. But the loss of American markets would be far greater.

To put it in perspective, the job losses alone would be the same as putting 1/2 the entire population of the United States out of work. You could say there would be a comparable loss of economic activity in the United States and North America in general, but would losing the toys in our happy meals really be such an economic imposition?

But, history demonstrates that rationality is often not the motivating factor for many nations (via Instapundit

Quote
This will deter the Chinese, if they're rational.

UPDATE: Jim Bennett emails: True. plus, the more foreign oil they import, the more vulnerable they would be to the US Navy cutting off their supplies. Worked wonders on Japan in WWII. Of course, they said all of this about Germany before WWI." Yes, that's the problem with the rational-actor assumption.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: WATCHDOG-81 on March 25, 2005, 00:12:35
Strategically, a conflict between the United States and China would be to no ones benefit.  Given the fact that the US has become a debtor empire, a substantial and rising share of foreign holdings of American bonds are in fact in the hands of East Asian Central banks, which have been buying up dollar assets in order to keep their own currencies from appreciating against the dollar.  Since April 2002, the central banks of China alone have bought 96 Billion dollars of U.S. government securities.  The strategic implications of this is the fact that for the U.S to remain economically stable - to be precise, for its ability to finance federal borrowing at around 4% per annum, the U.S is reliant on the central banks of China.  In much the same way that a creditor has leverage over a debtor, if China were to sell of a few Billion in U.S. bonds, this would apply pressure on the dollar and on U.S. interest rates.  Of course, this would have serious implications for China in regards to its exports, however, it goes to show just how interconnected we all are.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 25, 2005, 14:53:05
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

China, U.S. interests conflict
By Barton W. Marcois and Leland R. Miller
Published March 25, 2005

Lost amid the responses to President Bush's 2005 State of the Union speech was that of China's phlegmatic Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. Twice asked by a reporter whether China shared the president's hope that democracy would take root in the Middle East, Mr. Kong artfully evaded the question, merely hinting that the issue was not on China's agenda.

In fact, China's agenda is so different that it threatens to seriously undermine American initiatives in the Middle East.

The United States and China have never seen eye-to-eye in the region, but the reasons for this have evolved over time. China's diplomacy in the Middle East began in the 1950s as an ideologicalcrusade in support of socialist Arab leaders such as Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, but by the 1970s its focus had shifted to weapon sales. By the 1990s, China was actively supplying ballistic missiles to Syria, missile technology to Libya, and sensitive missile and nuclear technology to Iran and Iraq.

In the new millennium, China's Middle Eastern strategy has shifted again, from part-time arms salesman to outright energy diplomacy. Under China's current Five-Year Plan, which publicly introduced the concept of energy security, China unveiled its "Twenty-first Century Oil Strategy" in February 2003. While this $100 billion program has a variety of domestic components, priority one is the securing of new energy sources abroad.

The urgency of this mission can hardly be overstated. Since 2000, China has accounted for nearly 40 percent of the growth in world oil demand and is now the world's No. 2 oil importer. Experts predict the Chinese demand for crude will increase annually by 12 percent until 2020 and by 2025 China's daily imports will exceed that of the entire continent of Europe. To avert this growing crisis, China is undertaking major efforts to expand its energy relationships in Central Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Yet here is where the conventional wisdom collides with the present reality. Many scholars have simply accepted that China wants to lessen its dependence on the volatile Middle East and the long, vulnerable supply lines through the Indonesian archipelago. All true. But what is actually happening right now is that China's dependence on the Middle East is increasing, not just in absolute terms but as a percentage of its oil imports. Five of its top six oil suppliers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman, Yemen, and Sudan) are located in the Middle East, a region that now provides more than 60 percent of China's total crude imports. This figure may rise to 70 to 80 percent over the coming decade.

On first glance, this may seem surprising. How can China hope to compete in the crowded Middle East with other oil-hungry nations, particularly the United States?

The answer is that China plays by a different set of rules. As China's support for the rogue regimes in Iran and Sudan has made clear, moral constraints and human-rights considerations are not pillars of Beijing's foreign-policy calculus. While Tehran threatens to go nuclear and Khartoum continues its genocide in Darfur, Beijing has used its clout (and U.N. veto) to shield these regimes from international sanctions. In return, it receives entree into two important energy markets.

Furthermore, unlike private Western oil companies who are beholden to shareholders and profit margins, Chinese state-owned oil-traders have been given the mandate to secure long-term energy relationships by offering hugely discounted rates, production-sharing arrangements and technical know-how. The fact that China has overpaid for recent ventures in Oman, Sudan and elsewhere is telling. Rather than investing in money-makers, China is buying footholds throughout the Middle East.

These footholds are popping up everywhere. While China's relations with Saudia Arabia and Iran have received the most press, its dealings in countries such as Oman and Sudan are even more extraordinary. In Sudan, China is the single largest shareholder of an oil company consortium that dominates Sudan's oil industry and the chief investor in the country's largest pipeline. In Oman, a phenomenal 85 percent of the country's oil exports is currently earmarked for Beijing.

China is also ensconced elsewhere: In 2004, China inaugurated its first joint oil venture with Syria, made major inroads into Yemen, and expanded its presence in Egypt, Libya and Algeria. To safeguard these assets, China is constructing a massive harbor for oil tankers in Gwadar, Pakistan, at the tip of the Persian Gulf. This will allow it a permanent naval presence in the Arabian Sea.

From these developments, two observations can be made: First, China is now a major regional player â ” and one that clearly does not share the American vision of a free and democratic Middle East. Second, China's Middle East agenda is quickly shaping up to be a direct challenge to that of the United States'. In addition to remaining a strategic competitor for resources, China's leverage may become increasingly dependent on its ability to undercut U.S. initiatives.

If China has indeed adopted the role of spoiler, as its recent actions in Iran and Sudan seem to indicate, then Chinese intransigence â ” not Islamic extremism â ” may prove to be the X factor in the 21st century Middle East.
   
    Barton W. Marcois, a principal at RJI Capital Corp., served as principal deputy assistant secretary of Energy under President Bush. Leland R. Miller, a China specialist, is a lawyer in New York.
Quote

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on March 26, 2005, 09:01:41
This clearly shows the intent of Taiwan and what it's people want. I suppose they might be willing to muster an army of about 1 million also? I damn well hope so!!! Freedom seems to always be attained through bloodshed, maybe it's thier turn?  :-


Taiwanese hold massive protest against China
One million march against law authorizing attack on islandThe Associated Press
Updated: 6:24 a.m. ET March 26, 2005TAIPEI, Taiwan - About a million Taiwanese marched through the capital on Saturday at a rally protesting a new Chinese law that authorizes an attack on the island if it moves toward formal independence.

advertisement
 
Hundreds of thousands assembled at 10 different areas in Taipei, with each route representing one of the articles of the anti-secession law. The marchers converged on the wide boulevard in front of the Presidential Office building.

"China is a violent country. We want nothing to do with it,â ? said protester Wu Chao-hsiung, a carpenter from Taipei. "We have to insist on the freedom to determine our own fate.â ?

Beijing is worried that self-ruled Taiwan is drifting toward independence, and China's legislature recently passed a law codifying the use of military force against Taiwan if it seeks a permanent split. A civil war split the rivals 56 years ago.

"What do we want from China? Peace,â ? lawmaker Bikhim Hsiao led the crowd in chanting.

Thousands of tour buses brought protesters to Taipei from all over the island. Police estimated the crowd at about a million.

Organizers billed the protest as a carnival for peace. A five-story-high white balloon representing peace, and an equally tall model of a red sea urchin, its needles symbolizing the missiles China is pointing at Taiwan, were erected at the protest site. The sea urchin model was deflated at the end of the rally, while protesters climbed over it, trying to tear it apart.

"Taiwan is only a small island, so we must speak out really loud to make the world hear that we are a democracy facing an evil giant,â ? said Vivian Wang, a 38-year-old restaurant worker. She had traveled by bus from the southern city of Kaohsiung - about 190 miles away.

Behind her, U.S. and Japanese flags were flying below a green protest banner. Many Taiwanese see those two countries as the island's most likely allies in any military conflict with China.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 26, 2005, 16:31:00
Behind her, U.S. and Japanese flags were flying below a green protest banner.

...right there the Chinese "govt" would be fuming......
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 28, 2005, 12:33:59
Sorry for the slow response, but I had to take care of a family funeral....

RE:   "Reaching"?

Your use of the term "Integral":  

Quote
On the eve of the Sino-Japanese War about 45 percent of the island was administered under standard Chinese administration while the remaining lightly populated regions of the interior were under Aboriginal control. Only eight years after Taiwan became a province of Qing, Taiwan was ceded to Japan.

The fact they gave up their claims on the island:

Quote
As settlement for losing the Sino-Japanese War, Imperial China ceded the entire island of Taiwan to Japan in 1895.

Lastly, I find it absurd that historical colonization by royalty-based empires somehow trumps the right of self-determination.  




Matthew.     :salute:  
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 28, 2005, 15:08:44
I'm sorry for your loss.

I guess I'm still a wee bit confused.

Here was the original exchange:
------------
You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can ...

1)   Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China ...

I disagree.

Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.   At that time China ceded sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan.   China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945.
----------

I don't want to belabour the exact meaning of integral (of a whole) but since Taiwan was â “ for about 200 years, part of the whole of China then, as I understand the language, it was integral â “ but I'm sure that my English is deficient.

More to the point: I understand your view that China's imperial reach should not give credence to any modern day claim.   The problem is that the Chinese do not see it that way.   Many, I will venture to say most Chinese people believe that everything which ever was China's must always be China's â “ it is an extension of the idea that each dynasty (including the modern, communistic oligarchy) has (even today, in the 21st century) a mandate from 'heaven' to rule all under heaven.   This may be 2,500 year old stuff but it resonates, today.   The Maoists did not do much to tamper with the Han people's well established sense of their place in the world â “ in the middle between 'heaven' and barbarian chaos.

This Chinese cultural attribute complicates life for everyone, including the Chinese in Taiwan and the folks in Kyrgyzstan, who are seen, by many Han Chinese, as members of an important Chinese minority.   That is one of the reasons why there is so little public comment by Chinese commentators against China's claims to Taiwan â “ most Chinese believe it is a valid claim.

The ongoing visit of Taiwanese opposition Kuomintang officials is another complication   because it reaffirms Chiang Kai-shek's original view (shared by many Taiwanese) that Taiwan was, then and now, and integral part of China.

I agree that China's claim to Taiwan flies in the face of all of our liberal-democratic values.   I am less sure that we â “ in the entire American led West â “ are willing to go to war with China over Taiwan.


Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 28, 2005, 16:01:30
Quote
Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China ...

My bad....I thought I wrote a retraction in the last post.   My statement was factually 100% wrong....

I had made the mistake of reading one source on Taiwan's chronology and it happened to be a pro-Taiwanese Independence site.




M.     :-[

P.S.   Thank you for the kind thoughts regarding my grandmother.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 28, 2005, 18:53:54
No problem, Matthew.   I think the reason I was a bit confused was that it is not like you to try to ride a dead horse (or whatever the correct aphorism might be).

Welcome back to the fray.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on April 05, 2005, 00:11:09
One scenario of how this might play out:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005448.asp

Quote
China Plans Surprise Attack on Taiwan
by James Dunnigan
April 4, 2005

China is apparently planning an â Å“out-of-the-blueâ ? (OOTB) attack on Taiwan, that will initially consist mainly of missiles, warplanes, paratroopers and troops out on "training exercises". What this means is that, during what appears to be peacetime maneuvers, the troops involved will suddenly move against a nearby nation and invade. This tactic was developed by Russia during the Cold War, but never used. They prepared for it by holding large scale training exercises twice a year, near the border with West Germany. The Russian troops were all ready to practice, or go to war. An OOTB attack could be ordered by having the troops to cross the border and attack NATO forces, who would have insufficient warning to deal with the sudden offensive. NATO finally caught on to this plan, and put the troops on alert during the Russian field exercises. The OOTB was most noticeably used, and successfully at that, when the Russian trained Egyptian army surprised the Israelis and recaptured the Suez canal in 1973.

If everyone is on to OOTB attacks, how does China expect to get away with it? Especially when it would involve an amphibious operation involving at least ten hours time at sea for the ships of the amphibious force. The exact details are kept secret, but the plan involves using over 600 ballistic missiles, and several hundred warplanes, which China has stationed within range of Taiwan. Within an hour, the missiles could hit Taiwanese anti-aircraft missile launchers, radars, airbases, ships in harbor and army barracks and combat vehicles. Launch the attack in the pre-dawn hours, and you catch most of the troops in their barracks, and the ships, warplanes and tanks lined up and vulnerable. Amphibious troops would already be on their ships, for an amphibious exercises, escorted by numerous warships. As the amphibious fleet headed for Taiwan, hundreds of Chinese warplanes would return to hit whatever targets had been missed.

Taiwanese commanders have responded with plans to keep warships at sea and some aircraft in the air at all times during Chinese exercises. Even 900 ballistic missiles, which the Chinese will have in place during the next few years, would not be sufficient to shut down the Taiwanese armed forces. But if the missiles, and air strikes soon thereafter, could do enough damage to prevent the first wave of amphibious ships from getting hit bad, Taiwan would be in big trouble. In fact, if the Chinese could get control of the air over Taiwan for a day or so, three Chinese airborne divisions could be dropped on Taiwan as well.

Taiwan has always expected assistance from the U.S. Navy and Air Force. But without advance warning to get a carrier or two into the area, and a few hundred U.S. Air Force planes alerted for movement to Taiwan, Japan and Guam, the American assistance would be too late. Thus, for Taiwan, an OOTB attack, which the Chinese appear to be preparing to carry out, is something to worry about.

The question then becomes what sort of follow up action would the US, Japan, Australia and possibly S Korea and India have up their sleeves?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 05, 2005, 11:29:39
Every time the PRC conducts major exercises near Taiwan then the USN would have exercises in the region. If an OOTB attack occured they would already be on station.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: muskrat89 on April 08, 2005, 17:40:07
Today, from the International Herald Tribune

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/04/07/news/china.html

Quote
Chinese begin to worry U.S. militarily
By Jim Yardley and Thom Shanker The New York Times
Friday, April 8, 2005

 
Officials say equation has shifted in event of a Taiwan crisis
 
ZHANJIANG, China When the flagship of the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet came into view on a recent Monday afternoon, a Chinese naval band onshore quickly began playing as two rows of Chinese sailors snapped into formation and workers hurriedly finished tacking down a red carpet.

The command ship, the Blue Ridge, answered with music from its own band and raised a Chinese flag below Old Glory.

But the most apt symbolism in the stagecraft of the ceremonial visit came when the two navies staged a tug-of-war - evoking their emerging competition in East Asia.

While the American military is consumed with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global terrorism, and the threat of nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, China is presenting a new and strategically different security concern to America in the western Pacific, as well as to Japan and Taiwan, Pentagon and military officials say.

China, these officials say, has smartly analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the American military and focused its growing defense spending on weapons systems that could exploit the perceived weaknesses in case the United States ever needs to respond to fighting in Taiwan.

This rapid military modernization is the major reason President George W. Bush has warned the European Union not to lift its arms embargo against China.

A decade ago, U.S. military planners dismissed the threat of a Chinese attack against Taiwan as a 160-kilometer infantry swim. Now, the Pentagon believes that China has purchased or built enough amphibious assault ships, submarines, fighter jets and short-range missiles to pose an immediate threat to Taiwan and to any American force that might come to Taiwan's aid.

Even the most hawkish officials at the Pentagon do not believe China is preparing for an imminent invasion of Taiwan. Nor do analysts believe China is any match for the United States military.

But as neighboring North Korea is erratically trying to play the nuclear card, China is quietly challenging America's reach in the western Pacific by concentrating strategically on conventional forces.

"They are building their force to deter and delay our ability to intervene in a Taiwan crisis," said Eric McVadon, a former military attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. "What they have done is cleverly develop some capabilities that have the prospect of attacking our niche vulnerabilities."

Japan, America's closest ally in East Asia, and China's rival for regional dominance, is also watching China's buildup. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi echoed Bush by warning Europe against removing the arms embargo. A think tank affiliated with Japan's Defense Ministry criticized China's increased military spending and warned it was rushing to prepare for possible conflict with Taiwan - an assertion China sharply denied.

The growing friction between Japan and China, fueled by rising nationalism in both countries, is just one of the political developments exacerbating tensions in East Asia.

In March, China passed a controversial new "anti-secession" law authorizing a military attack if top leaders believe Taiwan moves too far toward independence - a move that brought hundreds of thousands of people in Taiwan out in protest last month.

China's most recent military white paper also alarmed U.S. policymakers because it mentioned the United States by name for the first time since 1998. It stated that the American presence in the region "complicated security factors."

China, meanwhile, blamed the United States and Japan for meddling in a domestic Chinese matter when those two countries recently issued a security statement that listed peace in Taiwan as a "common strategic objective."

"The potential for a miscalculation or an incident here has actually increased, just based on the rhetoric over the past six months to a year," one U.S. intelligence analyst in Washington said.

At the welcoming ceremony for the Blue Ridge here at the hometown of China's South Sea Fleet, the American commanding officer, Captain J. Stephen Maynard, and his Chinese counterpart, Senior Captain Wen Rulang, sidestepped questions about the anti-secession law and military tensions.

Wen, Asked about China's military buildup and how America should view it, praised the U.S. Navy as the most modern in the world.

"As for China," he said, "our desire is to upgrade China's self-defense capabilities."

But in China's view, self-defense involves Taiwan, which it regards as a breakaway province and which the United States has, by treaty, suggested it would help defend. In 1996, when China fired missiles in warning over the Taiwan Strait prior to Taiwanese elections, President Bill Clinton responded by sending a battle group to a position near Taiwan. Then, China could do nothing about it. Now, analysts say, it can.

In fact, U.S. carriers responding to a crisis would now initially have to operate at least 800 kilometers, or 500 miles, from Taiwan, which would reduce the number of jet fighter sorties they could launch and cut their loiter time in international airspace near Taiwan.

This is because China now has a modernizing fleet of submarines, including new Russian-made nuclear subs that can fire antiship missiles from a submerged position. America would first need to subdue these submarines before moving ships close to Taiwan.

China launched 13 attack submarines between 2002 and 2004, a period when it also built 23 ships that can ferry armored vehicles and troops across the 160-kilometer-wide strip of water to Taiwan.

"Their amphibious assault ship building alone equals the entire U.S. navy shipbuilding since 2002," said an intelligence official in Washington. "It definitely represents a significant increase in overall capacity."

In the worse-case scenario for a Taiwan crisis, any delay in U.S. carriers reaching the island would mean that the United States would initially depend on fighter jets and bombers stationed on Guam and Okinawa, while Chinese forces could use their amphibious ships to traverse the narrow Strait. Some U.S. military analysts believe China could now defeat Taiwan before America could arrive at the scene.





Thom Shanker reported from Washington.



   
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 08, 2005, 23:01:58
Any PRC invasion would have real trouble with USN submarines. The PRC MUST establish air superiority before they try crossing the straight not any easy task. But I think their greatest worry should be the USAF bomber force. Loaded with ALCM's they could orbit beyond the range of PLAAF fighters and they would sink any large amphibious vessels that approach Taiwan. The PRC would be very foolish to attempt to seize Taiwan. A failed invasion would surely bring down their government.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on April 09, 2005, 00:12:08
Any PRC invasion would have real trouble with USN submarines. The PRC MUST establish air superiority before they try crossing the straight not any easy task. But I think their greatest worry should be the USAF bomber force. Loaded with ALCM's they could orbit beyond the range of PLAAF fighters and they would sink any large amphibious vessels that approach Taiwan. The PRC would be very foolish to attempt to seize Taiwan. A failed invasion would surely bring down their government.

This scenario assumes the US has sufficient strategic warning to prepare such a response. Even if the Chinese score a strategic surprise, these tactics will certainly hurt the Chinese as they attempt to supply or reinforce the invasion force, as well as prepare for the inevitable counter attack.

The big question is would US forces enter Tiawan, or would they surprise the Chinese by invading mainland China and reducing the logistics bases, air and sea ports needed to support the Chinese invasion? What other tricks would the US have up its sleeve to attack Chinese "niche vulnerabilities"?

Lots of interesting questions.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 09, 2005, 00:38:39
The US could defend Taiwan without operating out of the island. I think the PRC invasion of Taiwan is somewhat similar to the problem that the German's faced as they planned their invasion of Britain. The German's were unable to acheive air superiority so the cross channel invasion was shelved in favor of submarine warfare to starve Britain into submission. Perhaps the PRC might consider a blockade
of the island instead.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on April 18, 2005, 14:57:04
Our Gaijin lack of understanding is of course the result of "Cultural Differences."

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on April 18, 2005, 14:57:42
For some factual evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4449005.stm

Japan's decision to approve new school textbooks, criticised by some for glossing over the country's wartime record, have promoted demonstrations in several Chinese cities. But as William Horsley discovers the row between the two countries concerns the future as well as the past.

Yasukuni Shrine
Prime Minister Koizumi's visits to the shrine were criticised by China
The most striking thing about the Yasukuni Shrine is its massive and forbidding black "torii" gate.

A distinctive symbol of the Shinto religion, a gaunt silhouette beneath which, on a bright spring day, I watched men and women of all ages streaming in to pay their respects to ancestors, or to admire the enchanting display of cherry blossoms on the tree-lined avenue.

Each family group would pause, shut their eyes and pray in front of the open-plan wooden building where the souls of two-and-a-half-million Japanese war dead are enshrined.

Those war dead include Hideki Tojo, Japan's wartime prime minister who was later hanged with a dozen other top leaders as a war criminal.

Japan's present leader, Junichiro Koizumi has made regular visits to Yasukuni Shrine in spite of furious complaints from China, South Korea and other neighbouring countries that in doing so he was condoning Japan's aggressive war in the 1930s and 1940s.

And now, the news from China is bad, very bad.

Demonstrations

Chinese demonstrators burn a Japanese flag
Demonstrations over the text-books have extended to South Korea
Last weekend an angry crowd gathered in Beijing to throw stones at the Japanese embassy.

In other cities young people have attacked Japanese shops and businesses.

In Shanghai two Japanese students were badly beaten up in a restaurant.

Chinese leaders say Japan will not deserve a permanent seat on the UN Security Council until it faces up honestly to its wartime misdeeds.

An e-mail doing the rounds in China calls for a mass boycott of Japanese goods. "Send this on to other Chinese people", the message says, "and we won't need to go to war!"

History

This stream of invective against the Japanese is not new.

Some Asia watchers see it largely as a device by Chinese leaders to extract more Japanese aid or divert attention from their own failings.

It is alarmingly reminiscent of the age of the Communist Red Guards.


The Yasukuni Shrine remains a potent symbol of how the Japanese, intoxicated by fascism and coerced by military rule, once collectively lost their reason and were fed fantastic myths, of racial superiority and the Emperor's divinity
But on this trip to Japan I could not avoid the conclusion that a new mood of nationalism has also begun to take hold in this country which has been publicly devoted to peace and economic prosperity for so long.

One sign is the Japanese authorities' approval of several new school history textbooks written by known right-wing scholars.

One book which has angered the Chinese failed to make any assessment of the number of Chinese civilians killed in the infamous Rape of Nanjing.

The internationally accepted view is that hundreds of thousands died in an orgy of sexual violence and killing by Japanese troops.

And Japan's largest national newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun, in what I take to be blatant disregard for the known facts, has called on its readers to celebrate, because the new textbooks have cut out all mention of one of the greatest of all the humiliations inflicted by Imperial Japan on its neighbours: the use of large numbers of women in conquered Asian countries as sex slaves for the Japanese army.

It was right to set the record straight, I read, because the accusations "had been shown to be untrue".

Surely I thought modern Japan could not give in to the poison of such deceit and hypocrisy ever again.

The Yasukuni Shrine remains a potent symbol of how the Japanese, intoxicated by fascism and coerced by military rule, once collectively lost their reason and were fed fantastic myths, of racial superiority and the Emperor's divinity.

'Bitter dispute'

I had come to see the recently expanded Yasukuni museum of Japanese history.

I found that its 18 galleries of high-quality displays, maps and texts amount to a lavish and expensive re-write of the history of Japan's imperial age, to show the Japanese as innocent victims of a conspiracy by the Western colonial powers, to thwart Japan's ambition to lead East Asia and force Japan into war.

By this account annexing Korea, setting up a puppet regime in Manchukuo, the step by step takeover of China, each was done in self-defence, aiming only to bring peace.

As for Nanjing, I found no mention of Japanese soldiers killing civilians.

Instead, these words: "The Chinese were soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties. Inside the city, residents were once again able to live their lives in peace."

However you look at it, that will not do as a record of what happened.

By chance I came across this testimony of a Japanese army veteran who was there.

"No matter how young or old, none of the women we rounded up could escape being raped. Each one was allocated to 15 or 20 soldiers for sexual intercourse and abuse."

Afterwards "we always stabbed them and killed them. Because dead bodies don't talk."


For 100 years Japan has been number one in Asia. Now China, with 10 times Japan's population, is in a hurry to take over that role


The bitter dispute now raging between Japan and China is both about setting the record straight and about a struggle for power.

For 100 years Japan has been number one in Asia.

Now China, with 10 times Japan's population, is in a hurry to take over that role.

And as with highly-geared racing cars sharing the same circuit, it is the moment of overtaking that brings the greatest risk of a crash.











Now, I think many of us know first hand that mob violence is a very bad thing (tm), and the vandalism and attacks on Japanese students in China are in no way excusable behaviour, but they have helped bring into the western spotlight the legitimate complaints against Japanese revisionist histories. I should also point out that accusations of the protests being "staged" or "orchestrated" are simply hogwash. A conversation with ANY Chinese person (there's a bunch of them) will put those theories to rest. The simultaneous protests and violence in South Korea can attest to this as well.  Now we can only hope that the misguided protestors don't do anything outrageous to discredit the legitimate cause.

Also, I don't think the situation in Japan is quite as dire as the Chinese would like to think. AFAIK, holocaust deniers still represent a lunatic fringe in Japan, sort of on par with the "intelligent design/creationist" faction in the US. While they are a vocal voice, no one actually takes them seriously enough to try reasoning with them. So don't let this be a hinderance to you socializing with Japanese folks. The Chinese, not suprisingly,  still have a hard time understanding why these folks are allowed to voice their opinions in a liberal democracy.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on April 18, 2005, 15:24:57
Another take on the demonstrations/protests in China (from Damian Penny, quoting other sources, emphasis mine):

Quote
April 17, 2005
Big Trouble in Big China

It's hard to believe anything like the current wave of anti-Japanese protests could be happening in China with at least the tacit approval of the government, and I think Ezra Levant has it right - just as the squalid dictatorships of the Muslim world direct their peoples' anger toward Israel instead of their own corrupt leaders, the Chinese Communists are happy to let the people rage against Japan if it keeps them from demanding free elections and stuff. But according to The Times, the government is surprised and disturbed by the size and scale of the protests:

In Shanghai, China's biggest city, police stood by as around 20,000 rioters smashed windows at the Japanese consulate, wrecked Japanese noodle restaurants and overturned nearby Nissan cars. The latest protests recalled the previous weekend's demonstrations in Beijing when windows at the embassy were smashed. Mr Machimura has demanded an apology and compensation.
[...]
These protests are more remarkable because popular dissent is not tolerated in China. Any displays of public disobedience are dealt with swiftly, especially since the pro-democracy protests in the spring of 1989, which went on for weeks before they ended in a bloody crackdown.

In Beijing, hundreds of police blanketed Tiananmen Square in the heart of the capital to block a planned demonstration. There have been strong rumours that protests took place with the tacit approval of the Government.

But the scale of the protests seems to have taken the Government by surprise. Last week, it called for calm, apparently worried that the riots might encourage others to take to the streets to demonstrate against corruption or to demand political reforms. A front-page editorial in the Communist Party newspaper People's Daily yesterday called for the people to â Å“maintain social stabilityâ ?.

The protests have spread across China. Around 1,000 protesters tried to reach the Japanese consulate in the northeastern city of Shenyang yesterday, before being turned away by police.


The protests are ostensibly about disputed gas reserves and a new Japanese textbook which downplays and denies country's Second World War atrocities, but there's nothing really new about either of those. (Frankly, if American or British educators treated slavery or the Empire the way the Japanese treat the War, you'd never hear the end of it.) The Chinese people are angry about a lot more than a schoolbook - and their leaders know it.

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004183.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on April 19, 2005, 16:29:31
Quote
The China Mess
What are we thinking?

There's a lot of bad political and economic blood developing between China and Japan, and China and the U.S. None of it is going to lead to any good.

Anti-Japanese demonstrations have broken out in Shanghai and Hong Kong, with Chinese authorities looking on with winks and nods. The Chinese want Japan to apologize for aggression in the 1930s and 1940s, although Japan has done so about forty times in recent years. The Chinese also claim not to like Japan's newly revised history textbooks on the subject. Then there's the ongoing squabble about oil and gas reserves on some offshore islands and the matter of Japanese membership in the U.N. Security Council.

But the problems here run much deeper. China doesn't much like the fact that Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi is pulling his country even closer to the U.S. in the world terror war. This renewed U.S.-Japan alliance also implies that a free and democratic Taiwan will be protected against Beijing's new â Å“anti-secessionâ ? law.

Japan is also firm in supporting U.S. efforts to stop North Korea's military and nuclear buildup. China dominates North Korea, so it could really put the pressure on Kim Jong Il to renegotiate a nuclear agreement. But China only says it will help with the North Korea problem and never seems to do very much.

China shows its two faces all the time. It praised the late Pope John Paul II upon his passing and then promptly jailed a Catholic bishop and a priest. It has been liberalizing its economy and reforming local government, but it is still a dictatorship without free national elections. Though it has taken steps to join the community of nations, it now appears to be launching a newly militant program of nationalism, with a sizeable military buildup. Japan may be the proximate target, but one ultimately suspects that all this is aimed at the U.S.

The U.S., however, isn't helping matters by threatening to launch a currency- and trade-protection war against China. The U.S., Japan, and the rest of the G-7 nations are putting the heat on China to revalue, or â Å“up-value,â ? the yuan and end its peg to the U.S. dollar. This is allegedly to correct global trade imbalances and stop â Å“cheapâ ? Chinese exports from flooding U.S. and European markets. But any meaningful currency adjustment would have to be a yuan revaluation of at least 25 percent. That would require significant tightening of Chinese monetary policy, which, in turn, would cause a big slowdown in Chinese economic growth.

Is that what we really want?

The threat of a currency war could be an unnoticed factor in the recent U.S. stock market plunge. A much slower China economy would take a percentage point or two off U.S. economic growth, especially in areas like commodities, cyclical industries, tech, transportation, shipping, and trucking. These are the exact market sectors that are getting hammered on Wall Street.

Have the U.S. Treasury, the G-7, and the IMF forgotten the recent history of misbegotten currency manipulation? When several Asian currencies were forced to de-link from the U.S. dollar in the 1990s, world deflation followed. Floating exchange rates were a big mistake then, and could be a big mistake now.

Treasury man John Snow insists on floating rates worldwide, but he forgets that emerging-country currencies don't float â ” they sink. Aren't we yet persuaded that nations cannot devalue their way to prosperity? Or that currency stability is better than currency chaos?

China, remember, has a shaky banking system plagued with bad state-sponsored loans made to failing nationalized companies. A floating yuan might rise in the short run, but it could crash in the medium term as foreign investors withdraw their capital flows for fear of instability.

Fortunately, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited China recently, she avoided any mention of forcing a currency change. But John Snow, encouraged by congressional Republicans, keeps pressing the unpopular point. Where's the policy coordination inside the U.S. government?

Protectionist pressure on the Chinese is also rising. A trade-opening textile agreement has resulted in a temporary burst of Chinese clothing exports to the U.S. American clothing makers have had years to prepare for this, but instead they're suing the U.S. government on so-called â Å“anti-dumpingâ ? grounds. The Chinese government is meanwhile accusing the U.S., and rightly so, of reneging on the free-trade textile deal.

Why is the U.S. threatening economic warfare against China? Currency protection and trade protection not only blunt economic growth, they sour international political relations. If you add in the vexing problem of nuclear proliferation in North Korean and the historic ill-feelings between China and Japan, you've got a real geopolitical and economic mess brewing in northeast Asia. With no apparent solution in sight.

â ” Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow's Money Politic$.
   
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200504191337.asp
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Enfield on April 20, 2005, 05:33:20

 I should also point out that accusations of the protests being "staged" or "orchestrated" are simply hogwash. A conversation with ANY Chinese person (there's a bunch of them) will put those theories to rest. The simultaneous protests and violence in South Korea can attest to this as well.   Now we can only hope that the misguided pprotestersdon't do anything outrageous to discredit the legitimate cause.


Too imagine that the protests in China could ever be anything but carefully by the government is ridiculous. I'm sure there are very real feelings in China against Japan - but since good old Mao Tse Tung killed more Chinese than the Japanese ever did, I wonder who the people would protest given the chance? If the Chinese really didn't like the Japanese, why did they let Japan become the largest investor in China?
The timing of this - with Japan making a bid for the security council, and the potential oil/gas rights - can't be a mistake. Interesting times ahead.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on April 20, 2005, 10:53:36


Quote
If the Chinese really didn't like the Japanese, why did they let Japan become the largest investor in China?

If you don't count Hong Kong and the Virgin Islands, the Largest investor in China is South Korea.

Quote
The timing of this - with Japan making a bid for the security council, and the potential oil/gas rights - can't be a mistake.

What do you mean "mistake"? The Chinese have been very vocal about their opposition to Japan joinging the SC, and the textbook issue is one of their stated reasons, the protestors make it quite clear on their banners actually,  but of course you knew that.

It is true that thegoverment was probably dragging its feet to curb the protests, hence the property damage, but you can be sure that they are putting the foot down now. Pretty much the same way things work in any other third would country.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_as/china_japan

New Anti-Japanese Protests Erupt in China

54 minutes ago World - AP Asia


By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press Writer

SHANGHAI, China - Chanting "Japanese pigs get out," protesters here threw stones and broke windows at Japanese restaurants and Japan's consulate as thousands of people defied government warnings and staged demonstrations Saturday against Tokyo's bid for a permanent U.N. Security Council seat


Protests were reported in two other cities. But Beijing remained calm as police stood guard at Tiananmen Square to block a planned demonstration in the heart of the capital, a day ahead of a visit by Japan's foreign minister. Meanwhile, paramilitary police surrounded the Japanese Embassy, where protesters smashed windows last weekend.


The demonstrations â ” taking place for the third weekend in a row â ” erupted despite government demands for calm, apparently stemming from fears the unrest might spin out of control and damage ties with Tokyo, which have already plunged to their lowest point in decades.


In Shanghai, as many as 20,000 protesters gathered around the Japanese consulate. Police in riot helmets kept them away from the building but let protesters throw eggs and rocks. A group of young men broke the windows of a Nissan sedan and flipped it onto its roof.


In a nearby street, protesters broke windows at about 10 Japanese-style noodle shops and bars, many of which are Chinese-owned.


The violence followed a march from City Hall to the consulate by about 5,000 people. They carried banners written in English that said "Say No to Japan in the Security Council" and chanted "Japanese pigs get out!"


A sign outside the consulate said "Be Vicious Toward Japanese Devils."


Tensions between Tokyo and Beijing have been fueled by disagreement over the Security Council, gas resources in disputed seas and new Japanese textbooks that critics say minimize Japan's wartime offenses.


About 2,000 people marched through Hangzhou, southwest of Shanghai, shouting slogans condemning Japanese militarism, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. The rally was watched by 10,000 people, it said. Hong Kong television said a few hundred people held a rally in Tianjin, east of Beijing.


In Beijing, about 400 police stood guard in Tiananmen Square, stopping passers-by apparently at random to question them. About 200 paramilitary police with riot shields guarded the Japanese Embassy.


Police also blocked a protest in the southern city of Guangzhou, shooing away people who tried to gather at a stadium.


Japan's foreign minister was to fly to Beijing Sunday for talks aimed at defusing the tensions. Japan warned its citizens in China about possible danger in advance of the protests.


Some suggested Beijing permitted the protests last weekend to support a campaign to block Tokyo's Security Council bid.


Beijing is alarmed at a proposal to give a permanent Security Council seat to Japan, which it regards as a regional rival. Such status carries veto power over U.N. actions and is now held by only five governments â ” China, the United States, Britain, France and Russia.


"I think that permitting the demonstrations provides leverage by creating a very public symbol of the depth of anger among the Chinese people toward Japan," said Murray Scot Tanner, a China specialist at the Rand Corp. in Washington.


Premier Wen Jiabao cited the protests Wednesday when he said during a visit to India that Tokyo wasn't ready for a Security Council seat until it faced up to its history of aggression.


But other Chinese officials tried to distance the government from the protesters. A Cabinet official quoted Friday by the official Xinhua News Agency denied that it supported "extremist actions."





Beijing is eager to preserve important economic relations with Japan, which has some $280 million invested in the Chinese mainland.

On Friday, police in Beijing warned that protesters could face legal action. Police appealed to the public to trust the Communist Party to deal with Japan and not to threaten "social stability."

In Shanghai, police watched the protesters but didn't stop them, though state newspapers said no one had received permission to hold a protest. At one point, police posted a sign saying "March route this way."

The march in Shanghai was the first in China's commercial capital in the recent wave of anti-Japanese protests.

In Hangzhou, southwest of Shanghai, about 3,000 people gathered outside a stadium carrying banners urging a boycott of Japanese goods, according to Hong Kong Cable TV. It said police watched but didn't interfere.

"The Chinese people are angry," said one marcher, Michael Teng, a graduate student at Donghua University. "We will play along with Japan and smile nicely at them, but they have to know they have a large, angry neighbor."
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on April 21, 2005, 13:20:35

   
During a state visit to China, French Premier Raffarin threw support behind a law allowing China to attack Taiwan and continued to push for a lift of the EU arms embargo.

At the outset of a three-day visit to China, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported Beijing's "anti-secession" law on Taiwan, and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant.

Raffarin also signed or finalized major business deals with Beijing valued at around $3.2 billion (2.4 billion euros).

Appearing to put his government at odds with the European Union, Raffarin said at the outset of the three day visit that Paris had no objections to the anti-secession law.

Wen Jiabao
"The anti-secession law is completely compatible with the position of France," he said in a joint press conference with his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao (photo).

'Anachronistic' embargo

At the same time, he vowed that his government would continue to push for the lifting of what he called the "anachronistic" and "discriminatory" arms embargo against China. The embargo contradicts the current "strategic partnership" between the EU and China, he added.

During his visit to Beijing on Thursday, China Eastern Airlines and Shenzhen Airlines signed a deal with the European consortium Airbus to buy a total of 10 A319/A320 planes. And China Southern completed an agreement on its purchase of five A380 super jumbos.

The deals were signed between the carriers and the European consortium's vice-president, Philippe Delmas, who is in China accompanying Raffarin on his visit.

China's Airbus business

In talking to news agencies, Delmas said the deals were "not letters of intent, but firm contracts." China is responsible for one-sixth of Airbus's annual deliveries, he noted.

France has lobbied hard for Airbus sales in China, and its close political ties with Beijing appear to have helped smooth the way for the deals.

Ahead of the visit, Raffarin had stressed his commitment to push the EU to lift its 16-year-old EU arms embargo against China by the end of June. In an interview with China's Xinhua news agency Wednesday, Raffarin reiterated the EU's decision, taken at a summit in December, to work toward lifting the arms embargo by late June.

He added that the decision should be Europe's alone, and noted that Europe is working to convince Washington of its position.

"France continues to require the lifting of the embargo and does not see what could lead the European Council to change its position on the subject," Raffarin said Thursday in a joint press conference with Wen.

Potential growth

The airplane deals penned Thursday are estimated to be worth some $500 million to $600 million, Airbus said.

Schröder and Wen also got Airbus contracts rolling, in 2004
Some 20 other previously announced contracts were also finalized during the ceremony. Taken together, the value of the deals comes to around $3.2 billion, Delmas said.

"This is a very big market ... in the first four months of the year it grew by 40 percent over the same period last year," Delmas told news agencies.


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1559253,00.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on April 21, 2005, 19:22:53
Quote
So let me get this straight. France, a democracy (sort of) decides to let a communist dictatorship - China - acquire the necessary means and legal clearance to attack a democratic neighbour that has posed no threat or problem whatsoever to France (apart from cheap electronics, maybe).

I guess that is what is known as nuanced foreign policy. Way to go, Jacques!
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007475.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 22, 2005, 08:31:36
http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/04/22/japan-remorse050422.html

Japan's PM expresses 'deep remorse' over wartime acts
Last Updated Fri, 22 Apr 2005 05:33:15 EDT
CBC News
JAKARTA, INDONESIA - Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi tried to ease growing tensions between his country and China on Friday by expressing "deep remorse" about what Japan did to its neighbours in the Second World War.

Koizumi gave the speech of regret as the Asia-Africa summit opened in Indonesia.
"In the past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering for the people of many countries, particularly those of Asian nations," he said at the summit's opening ceremony.
"Japan squarely faces these facts of history in a spirit of humility."

Different "facts of history" contained in a Japanese school textbook have prompted vigorous protests in China over the past few weeks.
The protesters say the textbook glosses over what Japan did in the 1939-1945 war, including conducting germ warfare and running sex-slave camps for its soldiers based in other Asian nations.
The issue has gained new power because Japan is seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The Chinese demonstrators oppose the bid.

Koizumi arrived at the Jakarta summit hoping to arrange a meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao.
China said Hu has a full schedule on Friday, and has not said whether a meeting with Koizumi can be slotted in.
The Japanese leader's speech was seen as an olive branch meant to clear the way for a meeting.

"With feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology always engraved in mind, Japan has resolutely maintained, consistently since the end of World War II, never turning into a military power but an economic power, its principle of resolving all matters by peaceful means, without recourse through the use of force," Koizumi said.
Japanese leaders have previously issued similar expressions of regret, most significantly when then-prime minister Tomiichi Murayama spoke at ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 22, 2005, 14:03:03
This, deeply ingrained anti-Japanese feelings which pre-date the 20th century, is one of those areas where a generally remote, mistrusted Chinese national government can show itself to be on the same wavelength as most of the Chinese people.   This is good politics.

The Chinese Communist Party is not an enduring monolith.   It has to acquire and sustain its own mandate â “ not necessarily the mandate of heaven anymore but the Party must, constantly, reinvent itself to meet the ever evolving minimum needs of the Chinese people.   The Party brass, like all the leaders of all the dynasties, stretching back thousands of years, understand that the durability of their mandate is a reflection of their capability to meet the people's needs and wants.

Most China's billion plus people are well above the base levels in Maslow's hierarchy of needs and they now want China's (and, by extension their own) position restored â “ to something akin to the early Ming dynasty, I suppose.

It is difficult, but important, to try to 'see' China and the Chinese through their eyes, or, at least, on their terms.   Our cultural norms and values are not like theirs; they do not 'see' a world of 'competing' and, therefore, roughly equal nation states.

They see a heaven (sometimes know, by some people, as the celestial kingdom) and themselves and their country as all under heaven where 'all' means everything that is worthwhile.   Their concept of being the middle kingdom means that they are between heaven and the dark, barbarous, outside world.   They are part of the celestial kingdom because they were lit by the sun of heaven while the rest â “ most of us â “ were consigned to darkness.   I know this all sounds very airy-fairy but I believe that the reason we misjudge China over and over and over again is because we insist upon seeing China as an exotic version of our Greco-Roman civilization â “ it isn't.   The Chinese people are not just like Europeans except for the shapes of the eyes, and China is not like Germany or America.



Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on April 22, 2005, 14:30:57
Now THAT, is very interesting, and certainly explains the long view they can take on some events (1989 - the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution -  a question posed to a Chinese Diplomat:  "Was the French Revolution a good thing?"  His answer:  "It's too soon to tell.").

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on April 22, 2005, 16:02:02
Quote
to something akin to the early Ming dynasty, I suppose.

Certainly you must mean the early Qing Dynasty? The early Ming dynasty was much smaller than the present day PRC. In relative terms it was one of the weaker dynasties in Chinese history.

(http://www.wwnorton.com/worlds/images/map2_5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 22, 2005, 16:53:02
Certainly you must mean the early Qing Dynasty? The early Ming dynasty was much smaller than the present day PRC. In relative terms it was one of the weaker dynasties in Chinese history.

(http://www.wwnorton.com/worlds/images/map2_5.jpg)

No, I meant the Ming.  Although it lost some of the territory previously held by the Yuan it remains a favourite amongst Chinese people for its restoration of Cunfucian values, the development of the South of China and finishing the Great Wall.  The early Ming, especially, saw great prosperity for many Chinese and a flowering of Chinese arts and sciences â “ very important in Chinese culture; more important than territory.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on April 22, 2005, 17:08:52
Quote
No, I meant the Ming.  Although it lost some of the territory previously held by the Yuan it remains a favourite amongst Chinese people for its restoration of Cunfucian values, the development of the South of China and finishing the Great Wall.  The early Ming, especially, saw great prosperity for many Chinese and a flowering of Chinese arts and sciences â “ very important in Chinese culture; more important than territory.

Heh, well any one of those points is enough gist for 20 pages of debate, but for now let's just conclude that the Ming dynasty was an excellent source of material for some of the superlative martial arts movies released in mid 90s Hong Kong.  :)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on April 22, 2005, 18:45:31
"Heh, well any one of those points is enough gist for 20 pages of debate, but for now let's just conclude that the Ming dynasty was an excellent source of material for some of the superlative martial arts movies released in mid 90s Hong Kong."

And as an added plus, they do not appear to have bothered colouring in Taiwan/Formosa on their maps...

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on April 22, 2005, 19:05:55
Because at this time, Taiwan had not yet been colonized by the Chinese, and was still inhabited by Austronesian aborigine. The Dutch set up a base there in 1624, which lasted until 1662 when they were defeated by Zheng Chen Gong, a Han chinese Ming loyalist, The Ming at this point was in a state of collapse and was being invaded by the Manchurians, who would in a few years establish the Qing, and who would in 1683 defeat Zheng's descendents and annex Taiwan. It   is interesting to note that during this period, Zheng's descendents continued to refer to themselves as the "Southern Ming", claiming to be the legitimate Han rulers of China and Ming goverment in exile until their eventual (in a naval battle/amphibious invasion) defeat. Not unlike the situation today.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on April 23, 2005, 01:17:52
Everything old is new again?  It has occured to me that if things get out of hand in the PRC, we could be looking at the worlds first nuclear civil war.

Now back to Formosa - The Japanese Army and Marines used Formosa as a live fire template and hunted the last of the aboriginals for training value.  Fact, or myth?

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on April 23, 2005, 01:42:30
Quote
Now back to Formosa - The Japanese Army and Marines used Formosa as a live fire template and hunted the last of the aboriginals for training value.  Fact, or myth?

Myth, AFAIK. Wikipedia(which I use as a quick reference for stats and dates) says nothing of such an atrocity. The Japanese administered Taiwan just as any other colony, doing a fair bit of industrialization. Certainly, it appears in the immediate aftermath of WW2, the returning (nationalist) Chinese administration was plenty brutal enough (massacaring up to 300,000 civies according to Wikipedia). You can read the rest yourself.


Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on April 23, 2005, 01:58:15
Will look it up.

Did a few days on Guam after Op APOLLO.  We had a guided tour of the invasion beaches and so on,  and the local tribe (Chamoros) did not fare well under the Emperor's Army.  Beheadings were common place.  Today, Guam tourism is largely Japanese based, we were told.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on April 23, 2005, 02:12:24
TCBF:

PM imbound.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on May 10, 2005, 11:42:46
China is setting up conditions to attempt to challenge the West, although this may end up being a race against time as internal pressures eat at the homeland. Either way, an Imperial China or a rapidly destabilizing China are both dangers to the West.


Quote
China's Zombie Countries
Bringing dictators back to life.

By Dana Dillon

In Haitian folklore, zombies are people reanimated from near death and enslaved to the witch doctor that revived them. Could it be that China's leaders are taking their cues from Haiti?

From Burma to Nepal to Zimbabwe, China is providing political, diplomatic, and security support to failing dictatorships. Beijing gives just enough help for the dictator to survive sanctions and domestic popular revolts, while the PRC gains a dependent state.

The faux-Communist witch doctors of Beijing are not propping up these unsuccessful governments for ideological reasons â ” quite the opposite. Nepal is an absolute monarchy, Burma is a military dictatorship, and Zimbabwe is governed by a once democratically chosen leader gone bad. In repayment for reanimating these near-dead regimes, the PRC is demanding â ” and getting â ” obedience to its nationalistic policies of creating strategic space around China, isolating Taiwan, securing critical resources, and guaranteeing markets for Chinese products.

The partial enslavement of the zombie countries is clearly demonstrated in China's newest acquisition, Nepal. Nepal is struggling through a bloody civil war with Maoist rebels. The Maoists have managed to gain the upper hand in a large part of the country and can, on occasion, isolate Katmandu. King Gyanendra's response to his failing counter-insurgency strategy was to dissolve the government and declare his monarchy absolute. He then ordered the Nepalese security forces to suppress all opposition. Consequently, India, the United States and Britain all condemned the king's actions and cut off military aid to Nepal. China stepped up with a zombie-making potion of political acceptance and security assistance.

China's Foreign Minister, Li Zaoxing, visited Nepal and declared that the King's seizure of power was â Å“an internal matter for Nepal.â ? For his part, King Gyanendra announced that â Å“China is a reliable friend of Nepal.â ? On April 22-24, Gyanendra will visit China for an economic conference, his first visit abroad since he seized power.

In exchange for Beijing's diplomatic support, Nepal is turning on its defenseless Tibetan refugees. China's ambassador declared that â Å“Nepal is very important to the stability and prosperity of Tibet.â ? King Gynandera replied to the Foreign Minister that â Å“Nepal firmly supports the one-China policy of your government and will never allow any anti-China activities in Nepal's territory.â ? Gyanendra subsequently shut down offices representing the Tibetan government-in-exile that had operated in Nepal since 1960 and began a pogrom of persecution of Tibetan refugees that included forced repatriations.

Furthermore, China is enslaving Nepal's economy as well. China is among the top-five donor countries to Nepal, but Chinese aid is largely aimed at supporting Chinese businesses and tapping Nepal's natural resources to the exclusion of Nepalese businesses. Nepal had been pushing for more equal trade terms to counteract its enormous trade imbalance with China, but since Gyanendra took over the country concrete remedies have failed to materialize.

Zimbabwe's descent to zombie status is no more mysterious than Gyanendra's near-death experience. Zimbabwe is a resource-rich southern African nation, suffering a major economic crisis, with inflation at 400 percent and unemployment at about 70 percent. Zimbabwe's per-capita income has nosedived over the past eight years from $682 in 1998 to $521 in 2002. President Robert Mugabe abused his office to suppress opposition parties and maintain his grip on power. His ruling party won an overwhelming victory in March 2005 in elections not believed to be free or fair by most Western countries.

Amid sanctions imposed by the European Union and the United States, China delivered $240 million in military goods to Zimbabwe including thousands of AK-47 assault rifles, riot gear, and mobile water cannons. Mugabe's security forces used the weapons to break up opposition political rallies and demonstrations. Beijing also provided radio-jamming equipment to Harare, thwarting pro-democracy broadcasts during the last â Å“electionâ ? campaign.

In return for China's military equipment, President Mugabe is said to have promised China land and access to mineral resources. In November 2004, Wu Bangguo, chairman of the standing committee of China's National People's Congress, paid a visit to Zimbabwe and signed six economic agreements. Emmerson Mnangagwa, speaker of the Zimbabwean national assembly said the national assembly would lay down laws to ensure that high priority be given to the Chinese enterprises.

Although there are no Tibetan refugees to persecute in Zimbabwe, Mugabe does his best to please his new master by helping to isolate Taiwan. The ministry of foreign affairs of Zimbabwe said in March 2005 that Zimbabwe firmly supports China's anti-secession law, which authorizes the use of military force to prevent Taiwanese independence.

Burma and North Korea have been zombies so long that they may now be in permanent vegetative states, but the persistence of these two regimes beyond their long-expected demise is a clear demonstration of the efficacy of China's policy. Burma has been under strict international sanctions since it violently suppressed a popular revolt in 1988, but there is no sign of the junta's imminent collapse. North Korea's economy completely failed in the 1990s, starving to death an estimated 1.5 million people, but Kim Jong Il blithely clings to power and is grooming his son as a successor.

Forced to compete with the American model of representative democracy, the government of the People's Republic of China offers the third world a non-ideological choice â ” liberty or tyranny. Of course, Beijing does not offer this option to the third world's people, who no doubt yearn for freedom and prosperity. Instead, the Chinese vision appeals only to failed despots whose regimes can survive only with Chinese resuscitation â ” the Zombies.

â ” Dana Dillon is a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dillon200505100804.asp        
    

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Otto Fest on May 11, 2005, 05:37:12
My feeling is that while the Chinese are aggressively building up Air, ground and naval assets (55 Subs and adding) that they have an extremely small window in which to expand by military means.   I have stated before that this ends unequivocally in 2015, but effects will be felt by 2010.   2007 is the optimum date for them to persue their ambitions.

This is akin to the delay of Barbarossa or Kursk, as the Chinese will have to weigh their combat potential versus "ours".

Homeland pressures are already beginning to mount on three levels:

1.   The Chinese have tacitly admitted that capitalism is a better form of wealth production by creating several "free zones" in industrial/commercial areas;

2.   The internet continues its inexorable march in making information available to the masses; and

3.   The 'One child' policy makes every child a "Pte Ryan".

The greatest danger is when the Chinese believe that they can create an area of exclusion around Taiwan that has a high probability of destroying an American carrier if committed.   On the other hand, if the US is willing to write off a carrier, most of the Chinese first line air and naval assets would be toast as well....
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 11, 2005, 11:50:40
Everyone needs to remember this every time you consider buying something marked "Made in China".

You are in essence, supporting tyranny in the third world.

I personally, don't shop at Walmart at all due to their policies and have boycotted all Chinese goods (Digital Cameras, Laptops, Shredders, etc) since 2001 and gladly pay the extra money for items made in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the United States and in particular Canada.




M.   :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on May 11, 2005, 19:38:00
Quote,
I personally, don't shop at Walmart at all due to their policies

You do realize that Wal-mart has WAY more brands that are made in Canada than the Bay/Zellers. Their policy is to buy North American whenever possible, while remaining financially competitive. If there is a policy I don't like there its their "predator pricing".
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cataract Kid on May 11, 2005, 19:44:53
Everyone needs to remember this every time you consider buying something marked "Made in China".
lol, I just looked at the back of my cheap'O watch i bout at the Kitshopno less and it has a "Made in China" sticker on the back of it... :o
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on May 12, 2005, 00:10:00
Quote,
I personally, don't shop at Walmart at all due to their policies

You do realize that Wal-mart has WAY more brands that are made in Canada than the Bay/Zellers. Their policy is to buy North American whenever possible, while remaining financially competitive. If there is a policy I don't like there its their "predator pricing".
COSCO is a far more worrisome company.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Younghusband on May 12, 2005, 06:42:23
How we would fight china: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/kaplan

More here: http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2005/04/30/bloggers-on-kaplans-latest/
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 12, 2005, 11:15:31
Quote,
I personally, don't shop at Walmart at all due to their policies

You do realize that Wal-mart has WAY more brands that are made in Canada than the Bay/Zellers. Their policy is to buy North American whenever possible, while remaining financially competitive. If there is a policy I don't like there its their "predator pricing".

Actually, yes I do, but the fact is their head office promotes North American business to relocate manufacturing facilites to China.

Trust me when I say I look for the "Made in Canada" at every opportunity.  I actually got lucky the other day and picked up a pair of Tommy Hilfiger jeans that were made in Canada (which I was not expecting to be able to do).




M.   :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on May 12, 2005, 13:40:56
A few divergent thoughts (need to read the Kaplan article this weekend)

The Chinese "Grand Strategy" is to reestablish themselves as the "Middle Kingdom", which includes regaining the military, political and economic pre-eminence with current US allies and clients such as Tiawan, South Korea and Japan.

The US "Grand Strategy" is the Oceanic strategy, using control of the sea as the lever to apply military, diplomatic and economic power anywhere on Earth. The current Middle Eastern strategy could mutate into a version of the "heartland" strategy, which roughly stated contends "whoever controls the heartland between Europe, Africa and Asia, controls the world". This sort of thinking was very influential in the late 1800s and can be examined today by playing "Risk" (see what happens when someone else has a powerful force occupying the middle east).

Although in the long term an Oceanic Power would seem to have the high cards (even if forced out, the Oceanic power always has the means to return at the time and place of its own choosing), it will be very uncomfortable while these two rival Grand Strategies play themselves out.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Younghusband on May 12, 2005, 14:27:16
RE: the Middle Kingdom Strategy vs. Oceanic strategy

Read the Kap article!
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on May 12, 2005, 15:03:15
COSCO is a far more worrisome company.

You mean CostCo, right?

(COSCO = China Overseas Shipping COmpany: owned by the Chinese Government)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on May 12, 2005, 20:55:46
You mean CostCo, right?

(COSCO = China Overseas Shipping COmpany: owned by the Chinese Government)
I mean COSCO.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on May 13, 2005, 06:43:33
From the American Wal-Mart website,

Myth: 70 percent of the merchandise sold at our stores comes from China. 

Fact: The special interest group who makes this claim doesn't tell you where it got that statistic.  In actuality, Wal-Mart's business with U.S. suppliers remains strong and healthy.  In 2004, Wal-Mart spent more than $137 billion for U.S. products and services sold at our stores.  A single company with sales of that magnitude would rank #5 on the Fortune 500. You can count on this fact, too:  The products and services from US suppliers sold at Wal-Mart stores provide good jobs to more than 3.5 million employees at 68,000 suppliers in states across America. 

Wal-Mart estimates that we purchased about $18 billion from China last year -- about $9 billion imported from direct sources and about $9 billion from indirect sources -- compared to $137.5 billion spent last year with all kinds of suppliers in the U.S.


 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 13, 2005, 12:04:34
From the American Wal-Mart website,

Myth: 70 percent of the merchandise sold at our stores comes from China.  

Fact: The special interest group who makes this claim doesn't tell you where it got that statistic.   In actuality, Wal-Mart's business with U.S. suppliers remains strong and healthy.   In 2004, Wal-Mart spent more than $137 billion for U.S. products and services sold at our stores.   A single company with sales of that magnitude would rank #5 on the Fortune 500. You can count on this fact, too:   The products and services from US suppliers sold at Wal-Mart stores provide good jobs to more than 3.5 million employees at 68,000 suppliers in states across America.  

Wal-Mart estimates that we purchased about $18 billion from China last year -- about $9 billion imported from direct sources and about $9 billion from indirect sources -- compared to $137.5 billion spent last year with all kinds of suppliers in the U.S.


 

Regardless, Walmart does promote North American manufacturers to relocate to China....and that doesn't sit well with me.



M.   :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on May 16, 2005, 00:11:13
Regardless, Walmart does promote North American manufacturers to relocate to China....and that doesn't sit well with me.

I suspect WalMart isn't saying "go to China or else", rather US suppliers are looking to maintain thair sales to WalMart and increase their own profit margins; going offshore is one way of doing so. We heard the same thing back in the 1980s about Mexico, and India is now on people's radar as the next big target for outsourcing. Given a choice, I would much preffer strengthening India's economy through free trade, given it is a semi free market democracy, with the added bonus it is on China's southwestern flank, giving the Dragon another thing to watch out for.

Kaplan's article is interesting, especially the observation that PACCOM is far enough removed from Washington to have a degree of independant action, and is capable of assembling "hub and spoke" alliances for different scenarios and situations; Oceanic strategy moving to a higher level. The proposed evolution of the navy makes a lot of sense, although I wonder if the real "Rrevolution in Naval affairs" wouldn't consist of finding ways to make naval platforms a lot faster (similar to the Army obsession with substituting speed for mass). This would make force projection more creditable (getting on station in days or weeks rather than weeks or months), as well as giving opponents a bigger headache in planning tactical or strategic countermoves.

Kaplan is also correct in suggesting the best thing to do would be to find subtle ways to contain China in webs of trade, diplomacy and military alliances and deterrence, the most telling quote in the article is "there are lots of ways a war with China could start, the problem is how do you end it?"
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Otto Fest on May 31, 2005, 06:13:07
To add to the reasons China has an extremely small window -

News reports last week reported shortages of water in Northern Chinese provinces where 110 Million people live.  Water tables have dropped 1 metre/yr for the last several years.  Not only is there no water for primary heavy industry (steel and chemicals) but huge hydroelectric plants are running way below capacity.  If the Chinese get to the information age, they may have to forego the industrial age.

In a larger sense, this illustrates the systemic advantage that N America and Europe have.  Except for the Amazon, Nile and Congo, most developing areas are bereft of the water resources we take for granted.  Even the richest Mid East countries only produce 5 gal/day/person of potable water.  They may artificially support their economies in the short term with petro wealth, but it's only a temporary fix.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on June 01, 2005, 01:52:45
" They may artificially support their economies in the short term with petro wealth, but it's only a temporary fix."

- And after that?  It's back to goat herding in the big sandbox and caging Mars Bars from National Geographic video crews.

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oyaguy on June 03, 2005, 03:50:01
I'm kind of curious, on reasons we will end up fighting China.

The whole thing on spheres of influence seems kind of interesting, but when we get down to it does Nepal matter? Or Burma, or Zimbabwe? As the U.S. found out in the 70s, Vietnam didn't, and doesn't matter.

I would go as far to say that even Taiwan doesn't matter.

I admit though,  my knowledge on the matter is superficial, more so when it comes to Chinese motivation to obtaining the crown of super power.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on June 03, 2005, 04:09:08
"The whole thing on spheres of influence seems kind of interesting, but when we get down to it does Nepal matter? Or Burma, or Zimbabwe? As the U.S. found out in the 70s, Vietnam didn't, and doesn't matter.

I would go as far to say that even Taiwan doesn't matter."



- You raise a very interesting point.  Darfur doesn't matter.  Neither did Rwanda, or Somalia, after it became 'inconvenient'.

But what happens when we miss one?  Turns out, Ethiopia, the Alsace, Austria, the Sudetenland and Manchuria all mattered.  Who knew?

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oyaguy on June 03, 2005, 05:04:13
Mr. TCBF, you have a good point.

But the difference is that in Somalia, Rwanda, and the Darfur, a lot of people died, at the hands of their fellow citizens. The failure to intervene was done with full knowledge of what was going on, and is a failure of humanity.

In Ethiopia, Manchuria, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Alsace{less of a salient point here}, a foreign power took these areas by force, in contravention of established international law. Political leaders knew they mattered, but didn't have the will to do anything about it, knowing the consequences could be war.

The differences is also illustrated in two dictators. Hitler, and Stalin. Hitler killed his own citizens, then started going beyond his own borders for victims. The international community eventually got around to taking care of Hitler because he was "rocking the boat" so to speak. Stalin killed far more people, but they were his own citizens. He didn't "rock the boat" and lived to old age as a result.

China may garner influence in the developing world, but again, does it really matter? As long as China doesn't invade or annex these countries, China is in the clear. As for prosecuting human rights violations in China, can anyone be touched if you're on the UN security council?

The question still stands. Why will we fight China? And does Burma, Zimbabwe, and Nepal really matter?

Maybe a better question in regard to flashpoints with China, is whether Taiwan is worth a fight with China?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 03, 2005, 08:33:40
The question still stands. Why will we fight China? And does Burma, Zimbabwe, and Nepal really matter?

Maybe a better question in regard to flashpoints with China, is whether Taiwan is worth a fight with China?

Figthing wars is usually a matter of "national interest". Burma, Zimbabwe and Nepal do not matter so much in the "big picture" (how much trade do "we" do with these places), but from a strategic point of view, they strengthen China.

Taiwan is in the national interest of many Western nations, because it is a democracy, because it is an economic powerhouse and because we do a lot of trade with Taiwan, and for important, value added products (open your computer case and count the number oc components markes "Made in Taiwan"). Abandoning a friendly nation in that part of Asia will also send very negative signals to other pro democratic, market friendly trading partners like Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia.

We may never come to blows with China. Robert Kaplan's article in the "Atlantic Monthly" suggests war is a very "zero sum" option, and proposes keeping China tied up with overlapping multi-lateral engagements. Others both on this site and in the various media have pointed out China's political and structural deficiencies, which may conspire to bring the nation down from the inside. China's history and the reigning communist ideology suggest China has ambitions to regain the mantle of the "Middle Kingdom" and become a regional hegemon, which has disturbing implications since this conflicts with the goals and aspirations of nations like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and even second string nations like Indonesia. Lots of potential flashpoints do exist, so we need to keep our eyes open.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 03, 2005, 08:48:13
The US has made a commitment to help Taiwan in the event of attack. The help can be in the form of weapons resupply [as we did for Israel] or armed intervention. It seem's that the US will probably have to use force. The PRC is building up its amphibious and submarine forces. Delivery of 8 Kilo class subs from Russia has been accelerated. Any attack/invasion by the PRC must be able to neutralize the US carrier force. The Kilo's are one component. The Sunburn another. They also have to be able to control the air space over/around Taiwan. Numbers may have a real advantage over quality.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: paracowboy on June 03, 2005, 09:51:55
Maybe a better question in regard to flashpoints with China, is whether Taiwan is worth a fight with China?
yes. Tyranny (whether it be by a lone individual, an autocratic Party, or a theocracy) MUST be fought and defeated in order to promote Democracy. This is not a knee-jerk, Right-Wing, statement born of too many bumper stickers. This is a carefully thought out belief bolstered by what I have seen and read over several years. Democracies do not go to war with democracies. Peace is in our best interests. War gets Canadians killed. Dictatorships are like a boa constictor: they have to keep a lethal grip on their prey, or it will escape, and once started on swallowing, it has to continue or it will choke to death. This is why they inevitably spread into their neighbours, and we get involved.
Democracies are like trees. Fragile when growing, very nearly unshakeable once fully developed, and their seeds spread and grow on their own.

(Holy crap! I'm a freakin' poet!)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: oyaguy on June 04, 2005, 02:28:49
(Holy crap! I'm a freakin' poet!)
Read your analogy on the boa constrictor again.


Points on democracy and tyranny taken. Sometimes though, I see Taiwan turning into the Balkans of our day. The actions of a few Taiwanese and Chinese officials could set off a chain of events that could get a lot of people dead. More importantly, it will have two nuclear armed nations facing off in a conventional arena. The odds of something terrible and nuclear,  going wrong are enormous.

As for taking down tyrannies around the world all in the interest of democracy, easier said then done. Look at Iraq, the weakest member of the so-called axis of evil.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 04, 2005, 07:46:35
No matter how good the cause, a war with China will be a major policy blunder.

It is unnecessary â “ there is no big, serious dispute, not even within Taiwan, over the issue that Taiwan is Chinese â “ the dispute is over how and when the inevitable reconciliation with happen.  The Taiwanese, reasonably, want China to be a functioning, perhaps conservative democracy before reunification takes place.  The ruling Chinese oligarchy actually values Taiwanese independence - Taiwan is a vital source of foreign investment capital and it serves as a convenient whipping boy when it is necessary to wag the dog every now and again â “ to divert attention from the manifest social and economic failures which are the norm in China, everywhere except on the East coast strip.

A war between China and the USA cannot, in my view, be contained â “ there is no way that China resembles Iraq: not strategically.  A US war with China will embolden the entire Islamic world â “ forget the Arabs, this will be enough to do what Iraq could not: unite the Muslims â “ including Pakistan which will bring in India.  Russia will be a victim of collateral damage â “ but it is not clear, to me, how the Russian oligarchy will see its self interest.  Old continental Europe will try to stay out â “ the anti-American animus is so very strong there â “ but they may be dragged in anyway.

The Americans cannot win a land war in China.

The Chinese cannot win a global war against a major maritime power â “ China, at the start of the 21st century, is like France at the start of the 19th.

But: The Chinese will not fight a global war; they will concede defeat.  But: the rest â “ the Muslims, etc, will attack â “ maybe ineffectively â “ on a global basis.  America will have two wars: an un-winnable war on the Asian land mass and a global conflict against a rag-tag coalition of the envious.

The only way to defeat China at home is to use so enough nuclear force to give effect to Curtis LeMay's bomb 'em back into the stone age dictum. Americans may find that exercise too inhumane; remember: broadly speaking, the American people are driven by moral rather then pragmatic instincts.

This is a war no one wants or needs.  If it happens it will hand an easy, unearned victory to Eurabia.  China should not be our enemy â “ even though it need not be our friend.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: paracowboy on June 04, 2005, 12:37:14
honestly, I think the whole discussion is moot, anyway.
Quote
Taiwan is a vital source of foreign investment capital and it serves as a convenient whipping boy when it is necessary to wag the dog every now and again â “ to divert attention from the manifest social and economic failures which are the norm in China, everywhere except on the East coast strip
just as Hong Kong was (still is). China rattles the sabre whenever it want to distract it's populace, as Edward states, or when it wants to shake some concessions from the US. Taiwan starts talking about declaring itself independent when it wants to shake some concessions from China, or when there's an election. Nobody wants this war, including China. Maybe especially China. China has been slowly moving towards democracy anyway, and trying rapidly to move towards capitalism. They've long since recognized the failures of communism, but have to reconcile failure with "Face", and the ruling elite still want (of course) to maintain their grip on power. It'll happen, though, eventually. And then the world will have another superpower, both military and economic.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 04, 2005, 18:36:22
The US doesnt need to wage a land war in China. A naval blockade and air campaign would severely restrict China's ambitions.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 05, 2005, 11:54:14
Interesting article from strategypage.

June 5, 2005: China's economy survives at the mercy of the United States Navy. For thousands of years, China has been what is known as a â Å“continental power.â ? That is, it had everything it needed right at home and was not dependent on seaborne trade to survive (like Britain and Japan, which are classic examples of â Å“Oceanic Powers.â ?) But now China is an Oceanic Power, with over half of its GDP coming from exports to foreign nations. Moreover, nearly all the oil China uses is imported via seagoing tankers. China is now more dependent on access to the sea than Japan, which  gets about 20 percent of its GPD from exports, or the U.S., which gets about ten percent. Thus if China were to try and take Taiwan by force, the United States could cause economic collapse in China by blockading China's ports. This could be done with nuclear submarines, a type of warship China is not equipped to deal with. Then there's the American aircraft carriers, which can clear the sea of any Chinese ships that venture too far from the Chinese coast. While China has some capability to go after American carriers and subs, it's not enough to break a blockade. Indeed, the blockade can be established by simply announcing that any ships that violate it will be seized, or sunk. This is because American satellite surveillance can track ships movements accurately. China can threaten nuclear retaliation, but even there they are at a major disadvantage, and to make that threat, opens them to a first (non-nuclear or nuclear) strike against their ICBMs (which at present can only reach part of the west coast of North America.)

While China's military power is growing, it will be decades before they become strong enough to change the above situation. So any serious threat to Taiwan has to be made under the threat of major economic retaliation. While such a blockade would initially give the Chinese government a boost in popularity among Chinese. A few weeks or months of several hundred million Chinese being jobless would change attitudes, given that the current communist dictatorship is not very popular to begin with.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 05, 2005, 13:25:28
I suspect I am repeating myself, but It has long seemed logical to me that the next big war ought to be between China and Russia.

The prize ought to be Siberia.

See the map, below.

There is a lot in Siberia that China needs: oil, mineral resources and a bit of lebensraum, too.

China and Russia are ancient enemies â “ periodic bursts of friendship go against the cultural grains.

There are a lot of hurdles: can China defeat Russia at an acceptable cost in lives and treasure?  This brings up an interesting technical question: just how toothless is the Russian bear?  Can Russia be provoked in aggression?  The Chinese are neither immune to nor unconcerned about international laws and norms.

If, big Big IF the Chinese calculate that they can provoke Russia into aggression and then defeat Russia at an acceptable cost, then I fail to see the downside, for them.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 05, 2005, 14:03:27
I must confess I never understood the idea of lebensraum, as if this was some big game of Civilization where people are just numbers that move aorund on a map and produce tanks every turn or something. Most of China is already thinly populated inhospitable tundra and desert, How will seizing more inhospitable tundra solve anything? Do you think you can just pick people up in downtown Toronto, drop them off en mass in Whitehorse and instantly have another Toronto? Sometimes I think you guys only see the heavily populated coastal cities, where the action is, and assume that the rest of China is the same. Those cities have been heavily populated for 2500 years, and for a good reason. Ditto for why Chinese Siberia and Turkestan is not. Similarly, what resources exist in Siberia that are important enough to INVADE RUSSIA(you know, the one with the thousands of nukes) over? If  invading  Russia were that easy you'd think someone else would have tried it already, yes? ( and no, The Russo-Japanese War doesn't count because it was fought in China, not Russia)  China has plenty of oil and natural gas in the western desert and in the south sea, whether they are economical compared to Saudi oil is another matter, but it's there. The only important goods that China relies on the West for are Skilled workers and capital.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 05, 2005, 16:18:25
I suspect I am repeating myself, but It has long seemed logical to me that the next big war ought to be between China and Russia.

The prize ought to be Siberia.

See the map, below.

There is a lot in Siberia that China needs: oil, mineral resources and a bit of lebensraum, too.

China and Russia are ancient enemies â “ periodic bursts of friendship go against the cultural grains.

There are a lot of hurdles: can China defeat Russia at an acceptable cost in lives and treasure?  This brings up an interesting technical question: just how toothless is the Russian bear?  Can Russia be provoked in aggression?  The Chinese are neither immune to nor unconcerned about international laws and norms.

If, big Big IF the Chinese calculate that they can provoke Russia into aggression and then defeat Russia at an acceptable cost, then I fail to see the downside, for them.

You say this as though you expect Russia to lose in such an eventuality. Russia is light years beyond China in technology, and has a vastly superior nuclear force. In a strictly War Games sense, Russia would win without any doubt in my mind. For either country to annex Mongolia would likely trigger a greater war. Any territory grabs would likely go through Mongolia first. Either way, the chance of this being the next war is highly doubtful. I think it's often talked about because it would be, strategically and militarily, a big win for the west either way. There is certainly a very serious territory need that may be required in the semi-near future for China as Russias dwindling population may prove to be tempting but China needs Russia as a friend to challenge the west (our south.. or east as it may be, or the four corners of the world, whichever you choose). There are very strong links between the two, although there are many disputes between the two and many differences, I think they're more on the same page than they'd like us to believe. Now, thinking longer term, I would say a Sino-Russian war would be more and more plausible.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 05, 2005, 16:32:54
I must confess I never understood the idea of lebensraum, as if this was some big game of Civilization where people are just numbers that move aorund on a map and produce tanks every turn or something. Most of China is already thinly populated inhospitable tundra and desert, How will seizing more inhospitable tundra solve anything? Do you think you can just pick people up in downtown Toronto, drop them off en mass in Whitehorse and instantly have another Toronto? Sometimes I think you guys only see the heavily populated coastal cities, where the action is, and assume that the rest of China is the same. Those cities have been heavily populated for 2500 years, and for a good reason. Ditto for why Chinese Siberia and Turkestan is not. Similarly, what resources exist in Siberia that are important enough to INVADE RUSSIA(you know, the one with the thousands of nukes) over? If  invading  Russia were that easy you'd think someone else would have tried it already, yes? ( and no, The Russo-Japanese War doesn't count because it was fought in China, not Russia)  China has plenty of oil and natural gas in the western desert and in the south sea, whether they are economical compared to Saudi oil is another matter, but it's there. The only important goods that China relies on the West for are Skilled workers and capital.
Unlike the Saudis, China consumes far more petrol than they output. China, like everyone else, would like to get itself out from under the thumb of OPEC. Siberia has many natural resources which can attract all sorts of invaders. China also has the highest growing energy needs in the world. They're *going* to need that oil, one way or the other. I'm sure that once China has enough clout, they'll become more vocal of their material desires. Who would come to Russias defence? Ukraine? Bulgaria? Maybe. I don't think there are many nations that would want to wade in the middle of that crapstorm. I still think it's highly unlikely to occur at all in the short term and even still unlikely later on, but nonetheless, stranger things have happened.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Kernewek on June 05, 2005, 16:47:36
Lebensraum: German for "Living Space". A term used by Hitler to describe an advantage to invade Russia. It was planned that when the Soviet Union was conquered, the area would be resettled by Germanic peoples (including Britons!), while the native population would be enslaved or liquidated.

However, Siberia is not totally inhospitable. Over 30 million people live there, mostly in the south. However, a conquest would be useful, as southern Siberia has many of the largest fresh water lakes in the world. As one of the previous threads stated, the Chinese would need this, if the North, is in fact drying up. But the climate is extreme, ranging from desert to tundra.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 05, 2005, 23:25:47
History is a useful teacher yet again. In the 1920s and 30s, Imperial Japan was seething with intrigue and even rocked by coups and countercoups over the very subject of exploiting resources.

The invasion of China and the annexation of Manchuria was the logical first step, it was close by and had raw materials and a viable work force, but where to expand next? The Imperial Army had its sights fixed on Siberia, with its untapped treasure trove of resources, especially oil. The relative lack of Russians living in Siberia was thought to be an asset for the cause; the Red Army was too far away to realistically defend Siberia and watch the European frontiers (much less export World Socialist Revolution) at the same time.

The Imperial Navy was of the opinion that it would be much quicker and more profitable to take out the established colonies in SE Asia, since the resources were already developed and a work force existed in place, making them more readily available in time of war. In the end, the Navy won the political struggle, with an assist from Marshal Zhukov, who defeated the Japanese Army in a series of campaigns in Mongolia  (This was actually quite dangerous for Zhukov, since being victorious placed him under a cloud of suspicion from Stalin, doubly so since he was using "Deep Battle" theory developed by Marshal M.N. Tukhachevskii, who had been shot by Stalin in a purge in 1937).

China, if it is thinking about this, has the same conundrum with almost the same payoffs: rich but untapped resources which would take decades to develop, or readily accessable resources available now?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Jascar on June 06, 2005, 03:09:16
There is a lot in Siberia that China needs: oil, mineral resources and a bit of lebensraum, too.

China would be better off setting its sights on the former Soviet republics if it wants plentiful resources. They're much weaker militarily, very unstable politically, easy to reach for China but hard for anyone else to get into, and the west hardly even knows these countries exist.

China could use the same strategy here as it's doing with Nepal and Zimbabwe. Prop up the weak dictatorships in exchange for oil pipelines to China. Most of those countries are eagerly accepting of any alternative to Russian dominance.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Jascar on June 06, 2005, 03:27:17
Everyone needs to remember this every time you consider buying something marked "Made in China".

You are in essence, supporting tyranny in the third world.

Disclaimer: I do not have a doctorate in economics or political science. This is just my opinion, and it could very well be wrong. That being said......

I totally disagree with you. I think we should be spending all the money we can on Chinese goods. As China's economy gets stronger, its people will have a better standard of living and will demand more political freedom. Just look at how much China has changed in the last decade as its economy has grown. Communism is all but dead in the country and the Chinese leadership is realizing that it has to change with the times. Sure, its still a dictatorship, but things are better now than ever before.

As more money is pumped into China, more people will be educated, more people will be able to afford internet, more people will start looking at how people live in other parts of the world. There is a trickle down effect, even if it's small. In short, I believe our money is slowly buying freedom for China.

On the other hand, look at North Korea and Cuba which don't have any American (or ANY in the case of North Korea) dollars pouring in. Communism and opression are still alive and strong there.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 06, 2005, 14:56:32
Disclaimer: I do not have a doctorate in economics or political science. This is just my opinion, and it could very well be wrong. That being said......

I totally disagree with you. I think we should be spending all the money we can on Chinese goods. As China's economy gets stronger, its people will have a better standard of living and will demand more political freedom. Just look at how much China has changed in the last decade as its economy has grown. Communism is all but dead in the country and the Chinese leadership is realizing that it has to change with the times. Sure, its still a dictatorship, but things are better now than ever before.

As more money is pumped into China, more people will be educated, more people will be able to afford internet, more people will start looking at how people live in other parts of the world. There is a trickle down effect, even if it's small. In short, I believe our money is slowly buying freedom for China.

On the other hand, look at North Korea and Cuba which don't have any American (or ANY in the case of North Korea) dollars pouring in. Communism and oppression are still alive and strong there.

This is an attractive and at least partially true argument (which is why these debates can get so heated, each side has a part of the truth, the real question is which is the larger part?). China is able to direct its wealth from foreign trade away from the desirable ends you point out; their internet is mostly "closed" to the external world and much of the new wealth is going to military R&D. The dictatorship has most of the levers of power, and like the Liberals, have no interest in surrendering their grip on political and economic power. The example of Cuba shows how a ruthless dictatorship can "milk" foreign investment to buttress its own power, Castro should have been gone ages ago.

The trade argument also hinges upon people being "rational" actors. We all learn this assumption in Economics 101 (if you have taken this), but a short look out the window, or reading a history text demonstrates people are not primarily motivated by the need to maximize their economic "utility". The saddest example was a book written and published in (I think) spring 1914 which pointed out that the global economy was so tightly integrated that war would be a total disaster for all parties and even neutrals; therefore war was obsolete as an instrument of policy since the costs were far greater than any conceivable benefit. The theory was rudely discredited a few months later.....

Chinese policy is driven by many factors we simply don't understand very well (Edward Campbell has written some excellent posts in this thread about that), so what may seem "rational" may end up being a trigger for an "irrational" response driven by pride, envy, guilt or any other factors we do not think about. Since this is a dictatorship we are talking about, there are very few people involved in the decision cycle, so things may hinge on how one person is feeling that day.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Wizard of OZ on June 06, 2005, 17:29:37
This thread reads like a Tom Clancy novel.   Who will help Russia when or if China invades?  The Americans would at least in terms of air power and naval power.  They would not want to see all of those resources funnelled into a military IMOO.  As for India they may even side with China as both nations have huge growing populations but India is a little more pro-West then China.  As for the Taiwan issue.  Numbers good but not so good if they can't even get to the target area.  You must not forget that the Americans have sold alot of front line anti air to Taiwan in order to protect the island from any invasion force.  This would work if you parked one or two carrier groups in behind the island, not a really good chance and of the Chinese would make it to the island in fighting strength.  The Kilos subs are quiet but they have to get into the area to be effective this means running at some speed and having to snorkel if they do that you can beat they will be found and tailed or sunk.  I really don't see this happening anytime soon.  I see a struggle in NK with SK and Japan before I see anything like this happening.

MOO
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Kernewek on June 06, 2005, 18:15:38
I read somewhere that the Chinese have constructed a cannon which can hit Taiwan from the Mainland. Don't ask me where - I don't know, but such weapons have been built before. Remember fellow Canadian, the scientist Bull, and his Babylon Cannon? It could fire something like a thousand kilometres in range.

I don't think the Chinese and Indians will ever ally with each other. At present their economies are  competing for resources, and I don't think they would share. As for foreign assistance with the Russians, I would think it wiser for the West to attack and hold North Korea hostage. Even if they have the bomb, I doubt the Chinese would bother help them, and that makes them a more pressing foe. Plus, have they ever said the "bomb" works? They still haven't tested it yet, though they are preparing. I'm sure the Japanese would give ample support to the invasion, as would the South Koreans (especially, though their army is poorly equipped (they have ten times the personnel and 50% more funding)). Besides, a good commando raid may just do the trick - the North Koreans were able to kidnap folks from Japan during the cold war, so why couldn't we infiltrate NK? As an endnote, the Russians could hold, they have nukes coming out of the ying-yang, and their army is sizeable (through growing decrepit). Last time there was a fight between Russia and an Oriental power, the Russians won (The August Storm of '45).

As for the extraction of resources from the former Soviet States in the area, that is already happening. The Americans are building an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and other states to friendly areas, and have been trying since 1998. I could see the Indians supporting this, as it would likely go through their territory.

A timeline of the pipeline is here, aswell as some background: http://thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
Another source which describes the origin of the company: http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 06, 2005, 23:33:04
I don't think the Chinese and Indians will ever ally with each other. At present their economies are  competing for resources, and I don't think they would share. As for foreign assistance with the Russians, I would think it wiser for the West to attack and hold North Korea hostage. Even if they have the bomb, I doubt the Chinese would bother help them, and that makes them a more pressing foe. Plus, have they ever said the "bomb" works? They still haven't tested it yet, though they are preparing. I'm sure the Japanese would give ample support to the invasion, as would the South Koreans (especially, though their army is poorly equipped (they have ten times the personnel and 50% more funding)). Besides, a good commando raid may just do the trick - the North Koreans were able to kidnap folks from Japan during the cold war, so why couldn't we infiltrate NK? As an endnote, the Russians could hold, they have nukes coming out of the ying-yang, and their army is sizeable (through growing decrepit). Last time there was a fight between Russia and an Oriental power, the Russians won (The August Storm of '45).

India and China may become partners of conveinience, and China is also reaching out to the EU and Russia. These alliances may or may not work to their mutual advantage, being "anti-American" may not negate the fact that each of these nations and blocks have their own "national" interests which may conflict with their presumptive partners.

American may end up acting much like the Persian Empire during the Peleponnesian Wars, first they supported Sparta with gold and safe havens, then they switched the support to Athens. Each side was provided just enough help to stave off defeat, and still maintain a creditable threat to the other. Eventually Greek civilization was beaten senseless, and the Great Kings could start to relax (except for that wild eyed king from Macedonia. Satrap, where the hell is that anyway?).

Direct American involvement will occur in the case of Taiwan, or if North Korea slips the leash and attacks or destabilizes its neighbours, but the American dollar is the ultimate smart weapon and gives them far more flexibility and freedom of action than the long arm of the US Navy. I think a combination of "carrot and stick" policies will be the order of the day, with access to the US economy being the ultimate carrot.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Jascar on June 07, 2005, 02:39:17
India and China may become partners of conveinience

Joining China would throw out the window any chance it had of breaking into western markets. If China were to start misbehaving, India could quickly replace it as a supplier of cheap goods for The USA and EU who would probably be more than happy to buy from a developing democracy. Besides, China and India have been enemies for decades and have fought two (I believe it's two) wars. I think India has lots to gain by staying away from China and nothing to gain by working with China.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 07, 2005, 10:56:07
China has extended feelers to India, Russia and the EU, and each nation or block is free to respond as it best fits their perceived national interest. Since one of the major questions for each nation and block named is how to respond to the ascendant power of the United States, a possible solution is to combine forces in an attempt to create equal amounts of political, economic and military power. No one expected Hitler and Stalin to sign a non aggression pact; but it gave each side something they wanted (Poland), and allowed them to secure a flank and deal with pressing issues on the other flank (Germany = France; USSR= Imperial Japan). In the 1970's, Richard Nixon opened relations with China (an avowed enemy of the US) in order to put some pressure on the USSR.

IF the inducement is big enough, then India may choose to forgo access to Western markets in return for some favor or advantage that alliance with China might be able to grant.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 07, 2005, 11:43:10
Sometimes I think the world would be better off if China and Russia square off over Siberia. A severe defeat would most likely
cause a purge and possibly a collapse of the communist party.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Kernewek on June 07, 2005, 11:49:21
I read in the Herald yesterday a report of a test of a cruise missile in Taiwan. According to the article (which was based on a chinese article), the missile was fired at a target 480 km away, and was claimed to have the range to hit the mainland. The Taiwanese military would not comment on this.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 07, 2005, 13:41:17
I must confess I never understood the idea of lebensraum, as if this was some big game of Civilization where people are just numbers that move aorund on a map and produce tanks every turn or something. Most of China is already thinly populated inhospitable tundra and desert, How will seizing more inhospitable tundra solve anything? Do you think you can just pick people up in downtown Toronto, drop them off en mass in Whitehorse and instantly have another Toronto? Sometimes I think you guys only see the heavily populated coastal cities, where the action is, and assume that the rest of China is the same. Those cities have been heavily populated for 2500 years, and for a good reason. Ditto for why Chinese Siberia and Turkestan is not. Similarly, what resources exist in Siberia that are important enough to INVADE RUSSIA(you know, the one with the thousands of nukes) over? If   invading   Russia were that easy you'd think someone else would have tried it already, yes? ( and no, The Russo-Japanese War doesn't count because it was fought in China, not Russia)   China has plenty of oil and natural gas in the western desert and in the south sea, whether they are economical compared to Saudi oil is another matter, but it's there. The only important goods that China relies on the West for are Skilled workers and capital.

Sorry, Britney Spears, I missed this.

A couple of points, beyond those which some others have made:

I think the search for a bit of lebensraum is a well established part of Han Chinese culture.  These good, sturdy people have been on the move, so to speak, in search of something better for a long, long time 3,500 years or more.  Maybe not with great migrations à la the Eurasian tribes of 2,000 years ago, but they have expanded, steadily, across China and much of Asia.  In the process they weaned their culture away from place and, starting with the Shang, adopted a portable written culture which allowed them to expand while still retaining their strong sense of self.  A bit airy-fairy I know but I think it matters.

Russian Siberia is a relatively - especially in Chinese terms - modern innovation.  The Russians did not begin to colonize Siberia until the time of the Kangxi emperor around the end of the 17th century.  The Russian claim to Siberia was not really solidified until the mid to late 19th century - and most Chinese regard all treaties from this period as unequal and invalid.

There are many people in China who regard the Urals, not the Yenisei as the 'natural' boundary between Europe and Asia and who regard all of North Asia as being wholly within China's sphere of influence.  While Europeans are fascinated, constantly, by Russia's Asiatic nature, the Chinese do not accept the Russians as Asians - they are interlopers, foreigners, Westerners, who do not belong in Asia.

Anyway, 'we guys' are trying to provoke debate which, now and again leads to thought.  But, you points are well taken- and it all sounds terribly like the junior common room.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 07, 2005, 14:20:05
I disagree with you assesment of the Han chinese being an expansionist culture. Han China proper, as seen today, remains relatively unchanged from when it was first solidified by Qing Shi Huang. The extraenous territories of Manchuria, Xingjiang/Turkestan, Tibet, and Mongolia all came within the Chinese sphere of influence when their respective cultures conquered China (or in the case of Tibet and Turkestan, when they were in turn conquered by a Sinicized Mongol or Manchu regime from Beijing), not the other way around. The only well known example of a Han expedition of Conquest was When the Tang penetrated into central Asia to secure the Silk Road during the 7th century, and all traces of that conquest has been wiped out for over a millenia. Up to this day The Chinese part of Siberia is still not heavily populated with Han Chinese, even with the goverment encouraged relocations of recent years. To put this into perspective, Very few Chinese people today feel any attachment to Mongolia, and Mongolia was essentially annexed by the Red Army in 1945!

Quote
There are many people in China who regard the Urals, not the Yenisei as the 'natural' boundary between Europe and Asia and who regard all of North Asia as being wholly within China's sphere of influence.

I'm sure there are a few of them and I'm sure they are regular members at militaryphotos.net, but I'm also sure that if you brought this up in a bar in China you'd get a lot of funny looks.  When people in China talk about "Lebensraum" today, they are probably talking about Vancouver, not Vladivostok.  ;D

Of course, I wouldn't discount the possibility that a war might result from purely geopolitical machinations, and it looks nice in a Tom Clancy novel,  but you are mistaken if you think many people in China feel they have some kind of manifest destiny in Russian Siberia.


As an interesting aside, offical maps published by the Nationalist goverment (Republic of China) in exile in Taiwan still reflect pre-World War II Chinese borders, and the ROC goverment still claims Mongolia and large swathes of Sibera as Chinese territory. Most Mainlanders find this somewhat amusing.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 07, 2005, 14:36:09
There are a couple of flash points which might spark a war or confrontation with China, the need for resources to maintain economic growht and internal stability, the question of Taiwan and the appeal of being a regional hegemon and restoring China to its "rightful" place as the Middle Kingdom.

The need for resources is the most pressing, and may involve China in confrontations with "non Western" actors such as Russia or India. If this is the case, we may be interested bystanders, or weigh in as best suits OUR national interests.

In the case of Taiwan, I think the need to support a democracy, an important trading partner and show resolve to other nations in similar circumstances outweighs other considerations. This also applies to the idea of China becoming a hegemonic power, unless the Chinese are content with the highly symbolic and ritualistic sorts of displays of the distant past (where nations on the outside would "trade" with China, not realizing they were being seen within the Middle Kindom as symbolicly paying tribute), it seems unlikely they will be content to be surrounded by US clients like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Sinapore. We could hope that in the fullness of time, these nations might gradually slide into a sort of Pan Chinese orbit, without actually being constrained in any way by China, but things rarely work out that way in the end.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Wizard of OZ on June 07, 2005, 15:21:46
I have to agree with the maj on this one.  The resource based economies of India and China are out stripping the local resources at an exponetial rate.  Siberia does have vast untapped reousces but the ability to extract them will be costly and dangerous.  India and China could attempt to do this on there own that is a possibility.  And Yes the American dollar is a powrful smart weapon, but so is greed and willful blindness.  Both of these are present in todays government.  As for Taiwan i agree the Americans could not let that bastion of Democracy slip away without other nations taking note, (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) to name a few.  I think Japan would have something to say about that as well as it could cut off the sea lanes that supply Japan with alot of its resources as well, the Aussies may not take to kindly to that either being the friends of the Americans can make you the enemy.   Russia may not be the down and out bear that is outwardly portrayed in alot of American novels but if numbers may beat tecnology that may be the place to prove it.  If it came to a fist a cuff in that region China would definetly do more then just give Russia a bloody nose.  I think we are forgeting about Pakistan in the mix of alot of this as they are a regional pwoer not to be forgetten as they could use nukes on ither China or India if it came down to it. 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 07, 2005, 15:49:41
I am curious as to what kind of war you fellows seem to think China could wage against Taiwan. Cosnidering:

- Taiwan's army, if one includes third/fourth line reserves, number almost a million men, American trained and equipped, with many modern, locally produced weapons.

- The TWnes armed forces have existed for one single purpose for the last 50 years, and it isn't invading and reconquering China.

- They've had a fair bit of time to dig in, if you get my drift.

- Taiwan itself is about the size of IIRC Vancouver Island.  How well do you think you could hold Vancouver island with a million well armed and equiped troops and at least local air/naval supremacy? Most of the Chinese Air Force still flies the J-6, a copy of the Mig-19 that might have been pretty good during the Korean war, but not so much against Upgraded F-16s and Mirage 2000 and Israeli/American trained pilots.


See this map below:

(http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/map25-tw.gif)

See the little island labelled Jing Men? Up to this day it is held by Tawainese troops, with a lot of big calibre artillery that can strike deep into the mainland. the Mainland Chinese have attempted multiple invasions in the last 50 years, all have ended in failiure. The only serious invasion that the TWnese are worried about today is if the PLA could concentrate enough naval assets to attempt another invasion of Jing Men. The offical role of ROC Marine Corps, other than to eventually invade China and throw out the communist bandits back to Russia( hey it works so why change it) , is to rapidly reinforce the Jing Men and Peng Hu garrison via landing ships in the event of a Ml Chinese invasion. They are quite confident of their ability to hold the island should this occur. 

No one, least of all the Chinese, seriously think that China could mount any kind of effective invasion of Taiwan, even Jing Men and Ma Tsu would be rather doubtful, and you can SEE Jing Men from the skyscrapters on the coast in Xia Men! You could Hit Jing Men from the Mainland with a .50 rifle!  I personally don't believe any nation in the world, including the US, could pull off such a feat. Certainly an invasion of Taiwan would make D-Day 1944 look like a minor skirmish in comparison.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Wizard of OZ on June 07, 2005, 16:29:22
If they valued human life the way you and i do i would agree with you.  But they seem to be a little behind in the caring for there fellow man.  It would be no cake walk that is for sure but if they were determined and were able to isolate the island it would not be impossible.  They are building up there navy and will soon have the capability to isolate the island with out US interference (if that were possible). 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 07, 2005, 16:40:08
Huh? How will sacrificing more lives help you move tanks across water? You need to stop reading Stalin and Mao (who thought human will can triumph over lack of capital) and get with the real world I'm afraid. The PLA has been shrinking in size for the last 20 years, and on average shrinks another 20 percent ever 2 or 3 years. Pretty soon Taiwain will actually have a bigger army, but none the less with every shrinking the PLA becomes more profesional and capable. Their most recent defence white paper places the profesional development of NCOs and the establishment of a skilled and effective NCO core  as their number 1 priority, in order to move away from the officer heavy soviet system they inherited. I think they've even added a couple of higher level (i.e., Brigade and above) NCO ranks that didn't exist in the soviet system before, so that NCOs have more career prospects as they move up the chain. Sound familiar? Ring any bells?  Heck it sounds better than a lot of the crap WE do.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Wizard of OZ on June 07, 2005, 17:29:14
It won't and i never said it would.  All i stated was that if they valued human life the way we do you would not even have to worry or we would not be having this discussion but they don't.   

And even if they left TW alone there is a big flashy pool of resources right up north of them.  Traing and upgrading their army is only one aspect.  If there economy is strong enough they may be able to slowly merge this into there fold with an ever expanding economy and envleope the area by developing the resouces for or even with the Russians.  This would give them huge influlence in Europe and solidify there postion in the Pacific as it could meet there resource needs for years to come.



Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 08, 2005, 12:21:10
Britney has made a few good points about the relative strengths and wealness of the Chinese and Taiwanese militaries.

China would be in big trouble if they tried a conventional invasion, but there are a lot of indications they are trying to create a creditable asymetrical threat. Why attempt to dogfight F-16s or US Navy F'A -18s when you can demolish the available airfields with a mass ballistic missile attack? China is thought to have up to 700 missiles available to perform a saturation attack against high value targets in Tiawan, and it would be rather easy for them to infiltrate SF and commando type forces on the island in the weeks and months prior to the attack to take advantage of the chaos. A naval "surge" deployment under the guise of an exercise would put assets in the right places to make US and Japanese naval response difficult, and place American carrier aviation at the outside edge of their range. Combine that with the overwhelming number of jets the Chinese could throw into battle (led by top of the line SU 27s to clear a path through surviving high performance Taiwanese and American jets) and the Chinese have obtained the local superioraty they need to lift or ship the occupation forces into position.

Invading Taiwan will not be easy, and may not be successful even if every trick in the book is being used. The threat of invasion, combined with sabre rattling (such as "testing" missiles by firing them into the sea lanes neat Taiwan) forces the Taiwanese to divert a fair portion of their economy away from competing with China for markets, but also has the possibility of slipping out of control one day.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on June 08, 2005, 12:33:34
All this is interesting. But I still struggle with WHY they feel they need to own one little island in the first place? If it is because they did in the past? Then should we not expect them to want to have land all the way to Hungary? Should not the Italians feel they own most of Europe and much of west Asia and North Africa? The Spanish want to have South America and half of North America back? The ideas of vast empires and control of large tracts of land are over. With all the ethnic wars popping up, its a wonder we haven't moved back to tribal sized territory already.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Wizard of OZ on June 08, 2005, 12:46:34
I don't think China has ever really given up its claim to TW.  That would be why they would want to reassert control over it.  I don't think the Imperial ambitons of old would make for a good argument for new territory but it never really stops ambitious nations from expanding there own territory with either religion, ideology, economic, or military methods.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 08, 2005, 13:18:04
As Robert Kaplan pointed out in "Balkan Ghosts", most of these people are driven to recover their "historical" territory, but when asked to define what that is, choose the moment their empire or nation was at its zenith. This is not confined to the various peoples of the Balkans or to China either,it also explains why aboriginal land claims in BC amount to 110% of the provincial land area.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 08, 2005, 13:48:14
Kids, sometimes the only way you're going to figure this stuff out is to go read a history book, it will save you from asking embarrasing questions.

Regarding the Chinese need for Anschluss with Taiwan.

Did you ever wonder why the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) up until very recently still claimed to be the legitimate goverment of all of China (and Mongolia)? Or why they(the majority of Taiwanese) steadfastly refuse to declare independence from China?

You guessed it. The people of Taiwan, except for a small minority of austro-polynesian natives, are Chinese. the vast majority only relocated to Taiwan in 1949, most Taiwanese, when quizzed about their origins, still refer to their home towns and provinces  in mainland China where their grandparents lived until 1949.

I haven't been keeping up with the current public opinion polls, but unless things have changed drastically, most Taiwanese still favour reunification with China, but NOT under the current communist goverment. Outright seperatists are a rather new phenomenon and still a vocal minority.

Personally I think we in the west, without much understanding of the culture, are more nervous about this thing than the Chinese/Taiwanese are themselves.Taiwan and the prosperous SE portion of China are very tightly integrated culturally and economically, a big percentage of "foreign" investment in the new cities on the coast come from Taiwan.50,000 Taiwanese companies and 500,000 Taiwanese workers live and work in China. China is Taiwan's principle trading partner. War just isn't something that most people even think about.
 

Here's a more interesting scenario. Suppose there is a reunification of the 2 sides, which I think is rather likely in the next 20-30 years, the combined Chinese taiwanese navy would be giving the Japanese a serious run for the money as far as ruling the Se asian sea lanes. I'm not a squid but from all the numbers, the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force right now is easily the most powerful naval force in Asia, even including the Russian Pacific Fleet, but a Combined Chinese/taiwanese fleet I tihnk might be a tougher nut.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 08, 2005, 14:31:51
Kids, sometimes the only way you're going to figure this stuff out is to go read a history book, it will save you from asking embarrasing questions.

Regarding the Chinese need for Anschluss with Taiwan.

Did you ever wonder why the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) up until very recently still claimed to be the legitimate goverment of all of China (and Mongolia)? Or why they(the majority of Taiwanese) steadfastly refuse to declare independence from China?

You guessed it. The people of Taiwan, except for a small minority of austro-polynesian natives, are Chinese. the vast majority only relocated to Taiwan in 1949, most Taiwanese, when quizzed about their origins, still refer to their home towns and provinces   in mainland China where their grandparents lived until 1949.

I haven't been keeping up with the current public opinion polls, but unless things have changed drastically, most Taiwanese still favour reunification with China, but NOT under the current communist goverment. Outright seperatists are a rather new phenomenon and still a vocal minority.

Personally I think we in the west, without much understanding of the culture, are more nervous about this thing than the Chinese/Taiwanese are themselves.Taiwan and the prosperous SE portion of China are very tightly integrated culturally and economically, a big percentage of "foreign" investment in the new cities on the coast come from Taiwan.50,000 Taiwanese companies and 500,000 Taiwanese workers live and work in China. China is Taiwan's principle trading partner. War just isn't something that most people even think about.
 

Here's a more interesting scenario. Suppose there is a reunification of the 2 sides, which I think is rather likely in the next 20-30 years, the combined Chinese taiwanese navy would be giving the Japanese a serious run for the money as far as ruling the Se asian sea lanes. I'm not a squid but from all the numbers, the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force right now is easily the most powerful naval force in Asia, even including the Russian Pacific Fleet, but a Combined Chinese/taiwanese fleet I tihnk might be a tougher nut.

One these points, I agree with Britney Spears.


Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 08, 2005, 16:45:58
I am curious as to what kind of war you fellows seem to think China could wage against Taiwan. Cosnidering:

- Taiwan's army, if one includes third/fourth line reserves, number almost a million men, American trained and equipped, with many modern, locally produced weapons.

- The TWnes armed forces have existed for one single purpose for the last 50 years, and it isn't invading and reconquering China.

- They've had a fair bit of time to dig in, if you get my drift.

- Taiwan itself is about the size of IIRC Vancouver Island.  How well do you think you could hold Vancouver island with a million well armed and equiped troops and at least local air/naval supremacy? Most of the Chinese Air Force still flies the J-6, a copy of the Mig-19 that might have been pretty good during the Korean war, but not so much against Upgraded F-16s and Mirage 2000 and Israeli/American trained pilots.


See this map below:

(http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/map25-tw.gif)

See the little island labelled Jing Men? Up to this day it is held by Tawainese troops, with a lot of big calibre artillery that can strike deep into the mainland. the Mainland Chinese have attempted multiple invasions in the last 50 years, all have ended in failiure. The only serious invasion that the TWnese are worried about today is if the PLA could concentrate enough naval assets to attempt another invasion of Jing Men. The offical role of ROC Marine Corps, other than to eventually invade China and throw out the communist bandits back to Russia( hey it works so why change it) , is to rapidly reinforce the Jing Men and Peng Hu garrison via landing ships in the event of a Ml Chinese invasion. They are quite confident of their ability to hold the island should this occur. 

No one, least of all the Chinese, seriously think that China could mount any kind of effective invasion of Taiwan, even Jing Men and Ma Tsu would be rather doubtful, and you can SEE Jing Men from the skyscrapters on the coast in Xia Men! You could Hit Jing Men from the Mainland with a .50 rifle!  I personally don't believe any nation in the world, including the US, could pull off such a feat. Certainly an invasion of Taiwan would make D-Day 1944 look like a minor skirmish in comparison.
I think you're neglecting several factors. One is the increasing modernization of China's air force and naval fleet. Taiwan may have over 100 F-16s, but China has hundreds of Su-27/30s. They also have hundreds of J-11(Essentially a SU-27 copy) /J-10s (Essentially a Lavi copy). China is developing stealthy next generation aircraft as well. These are very modern aircraft, with upgraded electronics and payload. They have their own factories and can build their own aircraft at a rate vastly superior to Taiwan. That *alone* is a huge advantage and virtually guarentees air superiority. China's naval capabilities increase dramatically every year. While not enough to credibly defeat a US battlegroup, it is enough to invade Taiwan. And to assist this invasion they have some very thunderous supersonic anti-ship missiles which can do a wackload of damage. Then there are the hundreds of tactical and strategic missiles ready to hit Taiwan. Another factor is the sympathy towards mainland China in Taiwan. A sizable chunk of Taiwan would actively fight for "reunification" (including elements within the Taiwanese military itself). I think such a conflict would be among a few where we may see western space assets being knocked out.

To underestimate China would be a serious mistake.  Essentially, such a conflict comes down to who can occupy who. There's no hope of a serious Taiwanese invasion. Taiwan would definitely not win the war without external help. Jing Men? That's a speedbump. Do you honestly think China could not take that island? If they can hit it with a rifle, they sure as hell can hit it with a whole lot of other things.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 08, 2005, 20:53:44
Quote
but China has hundreds of Su-27/30s.
36 single seat Su-27s, 40 Su-27UBK trainers, maybe 90 J-11s and about 100 Su-30MKK.
J-10 I believe is only just entering production, maybe 20-40 flying at most.

I believe the J-11's engines must still come from Russia.

Versus 150 F-16 and 60 Mirage 2000, and vastly better trained (in the US) pilots. Plus Patriot batteries on Jing Men and Taiwan proper.

Doesn't sound like very good odds to me. The Various Arab-Israeli wars do not instill much confidence in Russian training and tactics.

In the sea, the Chinese probably have a bit of an advantage with the new Russian SSKs (no one is willing to sell subs to Taiwan), but on the surface I'd still bet on Taiwan. Of course I welcome any of the air force and navy types here to correct me since this ain't my lane.......

I think it's generally believed that the Chinese, if things go down, will decide as a show of force to take Jing Men, and no doubt they could probably do it. 

 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: aesop081 on June 08, 2005, 21:13:25
In the sea, the Chinese probably have a bit of an advantage with the new Russian SSKs (no one is willing to sell subs to Taiwan), but on the surface I'd still bet on Taiwan. Of course I welcome any of the air force and navy types here to correct me since this ain't my lane.......
 

When it comes to chinese subs i would tend to agree with you.  Kilo-class SSKs and Han-class SSNs pose a very disproportionate threat to Taiwan and any allied nation.  As demonstrated during the Falklands conflict in 1982 by MHS conqueror, 1 single sub can force an entire Navy to remain in port.  I'm not saying that the US and PRC naval/air forces would not stand up and fight but trust me when i say that hunting subs is a difficult task ( and a tough skill to learn at that as i found out last friday !!).  One or two subs will require you to commit a vast amount of resources to counter it.  Also on the chineses side is the fact that in the last few years, ASW training in "western" forces has not been up to what it used to be.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 08, 2005, 21:51:14
36 single seat Su-27s, 40 Su-27UBK trainers, maybe 90 J-11s and about 100 Su-30MKK.
J-10 I believe is only just entering production, maybe 20-40 flying at most.

I believe the J-11's engines must still come from Russia.

Versus 150 F-16 and 60 Mirage 2000, and vastly better trained (in the US) pilots. Plus Patriot batteries on Jing Men and Taiwan proper.

Doesn't sound like very good odds to me. The Various Arab-Israeli wars do not instill much confidence in Russian training and tactics.

In the sea, the Chinese probably have a bit of an advantage with the new Russian SSKs (no one is willing to sell subs to Taiwan), but on the surface I'd still bet on Taiwan. Of course I welcome any of the air force and navy types here to correct me since this ain't my lane.......

I think it's generally believed that the Chinese, if things go down, will decide as a show of force to take Jing Men, and no doubt they could probably do it. 

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/su30.asp
According to this site. They have 152 SU-30MKK's, 24 SU-30MK2's and 90 J-11's. Of course, these are all estimates, and I would not personally guarentee any of these numbers, but the SU-30 is a very capable aircraft. This added to the other thousands of fighter aircraft of older models, but still using effective missiles. It's quite formidable. In an initial engagement, it is my estimation that they would closely follow US tactics and take out many anti-air defences as possible with SF/sabotage and missiles before launching a full air raid. They could level the entire surface of Jing Men. I wouldn't be very concerned with that island if I were the Chinese. It's likely if they even chose to strike, they would have less reservations than we do about using tactical nukes. We all have to remember, that those factories that make our little cheap trinkets will be converted to military purposes if such a large scale war were to break out. They'd start pumping out planes like there's no tomorrow. That's why, despite the initial battle damage, China can sustain a wide prolonged war far longer than Taiwan and can outmatch it's production easily. Without US and/or Significant Others, Taiwan will be "reunited".
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 08, 2005, 22:15:55
The source you cite gives 100, not 152 Su-30MKK in total, 76 air force, 24 navy.

I'm not sure how far they have progressed with the production of J-11s, but I doubt they are at this point capable of producing the engines, and may still be at the stage of just assembling Russian kits. I guess that's still pretty far from locally producing any variant of the Su-30, which is a much more complex piece of kit. Heck, the Ethiopians fly Su-27s, they're pretty bog standard nowadays.

In any case, perhaps it's time for me to bow out of the air force and navy discussion and leave it to the experts. All I know is that the New Chinese MBTs (T-89, T98) would beat the hell out of the Taiwanese M48s.......
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 09, 2005, 03:08:00
The source you cite gives 100, not 152 Su-30MKK in total, 76 air force, 24 navy.
"The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) acquired two batches of 76 Su-30MKKs between 2000 and 2003."
Emphasis on "two" and that's just til 2003.
Quote
I'm not sure how far they have progressed with the production of J-11s, but I doubt they are at this point capable of producing the engines, and may still be at the stage of just assembling Russian kits. I guess that's still pretty far from locally producing any variant of the Su-30, which is a much more complex piece of kit. Heck, the Ethiopians fly Su-27s, they're pretty bog standard nowadays.

In any case, perhaps it's time for me to bow out of the air force and navy discussion and leave it to the experts. All I know is that the New Chinese MBTs (T-89, T98) would beat the heck out of the Taiwanese M48s.......
Heheh, no doubt there, the hard part is getting them there and I can't say I'm an expert either, I'm just a pattern watcher. :P
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 09, 2005, 10:01:34
"The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) acquired two batches of 76 Su-30MKKs between 2000 and 2003."
Emphasis on "two" and that's just til 2003.

They mean 76 all together, not 76 each. See lower down on the page where they have a table of inventory. Each batch is 38 planes, that equips one air division.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on June 09, 2005, 12:47:51
So what your saying Brit is that Taiwan as a majority of citizens WANTS to re-join China if conditions are right (no communism)?

Ok. I can see that, and understand to a point.

Can the same be said about Tibet I wonder?

And I wonder what the States would do if Taiwan began direct overtures to do just that? The naval power balance in the area would be seriously threatened and not to the US's advantage. We can only hope a different administration (ideology wise) will be in if that situation ever happens.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 09, 2005, 15:06:07
So what your saying Brit is that Taiwan as a majority of citizens WANTS to re-join China if conditions are right (no communism)?

The Taiwanese are really just refugees from mainland China: they were followers of Chiang Kai-Shek, who was the ruler of China before the civil war ... they are really just different factions: would be like if there was a revolution in Canada and the current government was chased to Vancouver Island and remained there {I will avoid going off on an obvious tangent}.   The idea of an independent Taiwan is more of a second choice/compromise.  Moreover, there are very few (any?) native Taiwanese left: they are all "refugees" from the mainland.

Quote
Can the same be said about Tibet I wonder?

No, not even close: the Tibetans are a separate people and consider the Chinese as empirical rulers: they don't have any claim on China, they simply want independence.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 09, 2005, 15:48:57
Quote
The idea of an independent Taiwan is more of a second choice/compromise.  Moreover, there are very few (any?) native Taiwanese left: they are all "refugees" from the mainland.

The idea of independance is gaining ground In Taiwan, as more and more of the older generation die off, and the majority of Taiwanese will be composed of youngsters who have never seen the Mainland. The current ruling party of Chen Shui Bian was a fairly radical pro-independence party, although they had to tone down their rhetoric to increase their mass appeal, and even then they are presently what we would call a minority goverment( with about 35% of the vote, IIRC). CSB probably would not have won the last election had not the ruling Nationalist party split it's own vote with two competing candidates.

Quote
Can the same be said about Tibet I wonder?

Another whole different kettle of fish entirely, and again one woefully misunderstood in the west. To kick things off, let me dispell one of the common bits of misinformation parroted by the western press, that " China invaded Tibet in 1949, forcing the Dalai Llama to flee".  Continually I am astounded as supposedly "experts" in the area make this statement. Has anyone ever seen a pre-1949 map of China that did not include Tibet as being Chinese?  While the Tibetans are not Chinese and have valid reasons for seeking  independence, Tibet itself has been under Chinese rule since the 1600s. The notion that this land of Brad Pitt Nirvana was somehow annexed by the evil communists in 1949 is pure Hollywood fantasy that a quick reading of any historical work would dispell, but that is obviously too much work for most of the hippies out there.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Horse_Soldier on June 09, 2005, 16:09:54
Another whole different kettle of fish entirely, and again one woefully misunderstood in the west. To kick things off, let me dispell one of the common bits of misinformation parroted by the western press, that " China invaded Tibet in 1949, forcing the Dalai Llama to flee".   Continually I am astounded as supposedly "experts" in the area make this statement. Has anyone ever seen a pre-1949 map of China that did not include Tibet as being Chinese?   While the Tibetans are not Chinese and have valid reasons for seeking   independence, Tibet itself has been under Chinese rule since the 1600s. The notion that this land of Brad Pitt Nirvana was somehow annexed by the evil communists in 1949 is pure Hollywood fantasy that a quick reading of any historical work would dispell, but that is obviously too much work for most of the hippies out there.

And yet, all one has to do is a quick search on the internet:
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/north_east_asia/tibet/history.htm

Of course, all that is not to say that China's record with respect to Tibet since the Communist take-over hasn't been anything short of atrocious, but then again, Han Chinese suffered from Mao Zedong's mad schemes just as badly.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 09, 2005, 17:06:08
"The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) acquired two batches of 76 Su-30MKKs between 2000 and 2003."
Emphasis on "two" and that's just til 2003.

They mean 76 all together, not 76 each. See lower down on the page where they have a table of inventory. Each batch is 38 planes, that equips one air division.
You're right. My bad.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 09, 2005, 17:17:36
So what your saying Brit is that Taiwan as a majority of citizens WANTS to re-join China if conditions are right (no communism)?

Ok. I can see that, and understand to a point.

Can the same be said about Tibet I wonder?

And I wonder what the States would do if Taiwan began direct overtures to do just that? The naval power balance in the area would be seriously threatened and not to the US's advantage. We can only hope a different administration (ideology wise) will be in if that situation ever happens.
Many Taiwanese are being fooled into believing that a reunion would be formed with Taiwan being the dominant partner. Unfortunately, I think such a reunion would end up looking a lot more like China's slow totalitarian takeover of Hong Kong. The last election was mostly split along this issue.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 09, 2005, 19:06:26
common bits of misinformation parroted by the western press, that " China invaded Tibet in 1949, forcing the Dalai Llama to flee".  Continually I am astounded as supposedly "experts" in the area make this statement. Has anyone ever seen a pre-1949 map of China that did not include Tibet as being Chinese?  While the Tibetans are not Chinese and have valid reasons for seeking  independence, Tibet itself has been under Chinese rule since the 1600s. The notion that this land of Brad Pitt Nirvana was somehow annexed by the evil communists in 1949 is pure Hollywood fantasy that a quick reading of any historical work would dispell, but that is obviously too much work for most of the hippies out there.

I think this is a bit of an over-simplification: Tibet operated under suzerainty (almost entirely Chinese, but also under the British) and even had total autonomy for a few periods (although subject to numerous wars and border disputes) ... in any event, Tibet under Communist rule is nothing like anything it had previously experienced (to be fair to the Hollywood Hippies).
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 10, 2005, 00:38:13
Another one of those "OOPS" moments for US intelligence:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050609-120336-4092r

Quote
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Analysts missed Chinese buildup

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 9, 2005

A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize several key military developments in China in the past decade, The Washington Times has learned.

    The report was created by several current and former intelligence officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with the report.

    The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military capabilities.

    The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have become more critical of China's military buildup.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding its missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's expanding military capabilities.

    Among the failures highlighted in the study are:

    "¢China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
    "¢The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
    "¢Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared on the Internet.
    "¢Development of precision-guided munitions, including new air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
    "¢China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
    "¢The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.

    According to officials familiar with the intelligence report, the word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S. failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.

    Many of the missed military developments will be contained in the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which was due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its contents.

    Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames intelligence collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese military and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.

    Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government China specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military buildup.
    "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in the intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the system.
    A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government on China for 10 years.
    "This group's desire to have good relations with China has prevented them from highlighting how little they know and suppressing occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main enemy."


    The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime intelligence analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence, as his office's top intelligence analyst.

    Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical report by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.

    According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
    Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.

    Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security Council staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the U.S. intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr. Suettinger is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for comment, a spokesman said.

    John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.

    Among those who took part in the study were former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was among those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military in the past 10 years.

    Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former Army intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
   
Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

The fact the report was written by a bunch of ex Clintonites might make it seem like this is a case of Bush bashing until you remember the time-line: Mr Clinton was President ten years ago.

China also has something for those who favor freedom of expression:

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1118362904.shtml

Quote
China Cracks Down -- On Blogs
by Joe Gandelman

What more of a sign do you need that weblogs are a feisty new medium that has become disturbing to The Powers The Be in governments everywhere than what's now going on in China - a crackdown on blogs:

    The Chinese government has announced plans to police web forums, chat rooms and blogs alongside other websites.

    Websites in China have long been required to be officially registered. The authorities are now determined that blogs should also be brought under state control.

    Press advocacy group Reporters without Borders said the initiative would "enable those in power to control online news and information much more effectively".

    Private bloggers must register the full identity of the person responsible for the sites, the Chinese Ministry of Information Industry (MII) said. Commercial publishers and advertisers can face fines of up to one million yuan if they fail to register. All blogs and websites must be registered by 30 June.

Question: could some of the recent coverage by blogs in China about the anti-Japanese riots - and suggestions that the riots were at the very LEAST enabled by the Chinese government - have had something to do with it? The BBC story also adds these details:

    "The internet has profited many people but it also has brought many problems, such as sex, violence and feudal superstitions and other harmful information that has seriously poisoned people's spirits," said a statement on the MII website, explaining why the new rules were necessary.

    It has developed a system which will monitor sites in real time and search each web address for its registration number. Any that are not registered will be reported back to the Ministry, the statement said.

    Blogs are often used in countries where freedom of speech is limited as a way of speaking out against the ruling power.

    The new rules could be devastating for bloggers who do not toe the Chinese Communist party line, said Reporters Without Borders.

    "Those who continue to publish under their real names on sites hosted in China will either have to avoid political subjects or just relay the Communist Party's propaganda," the organisation said.

    "The authorities hope to push the most outspoken online sites to migrate abroad where they will become inaccessible to those inside China because of the Chinese filtering systems," it added.

Because, believe it or not, there is what is effectively the Great Firewall Of China:

    Known as the Great Firewall, the filtering system used by the Chinese government is not entirely unbreachable; for every new restriction and technical door that it slams shut, the Chinese people find a hack, a workaround or an entirely new way of communicating.


    According to official figures, about 75% of sites have already complied with the new procedure.


Lesson for bloggers everywhere: just as governments of all kinds may wish to scrutinize these uncontrollable (of the right and left) pesky blogs, bloggers need to scrutinize the government. All the more reason for bloggers to take a hard-line on any form of government regulation on their freedoms in the United States.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 10, 2005, 02:03:02
Heh, sorry, but the combination of "Washington Times" and "Bill Gertz" on top of anything tends to make my eyes glaze over. Bill Gertz might think of himself as an "expert" on this stuff but I'm pretty sure he's the only one.  :D  Most of the other stuff is vague enough to have some element of thruth to it, but I call BS on this one:

Quote
"¢The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on June 10, 2005, 02:57:55
Either way, to combine advance technology (and be able to use it properly) with China's sheer superiority in numbers would be a very frightening thing for US and other western powers. Aegis or not that is...

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 10, 2005, 11:13:12
Quote
China's sheer superiority in number

Sheer numbers of World War 2 vintage U-boats and destroyers?

I am very skeptical of this idea that large numbers of antique ships, with larger numbers of Mig-19 and Mig-21 derivatives, are going to be much good against a modern western navy and air force. Air force and Navy types please fell free to correct me.

I looked further into the Chinese AEGIS rumour. There are some photos on the internet of a new "Project 170" destroyer with some kind of phased array radar and vertically launched  Russian SAMs.  I'm still dubious.

I'll contribute some more tidbits on the history of the Chinese air force and navy. The history is really more my area of interest. I can barely tell the difference between an Su-27 and Su-30, and I don't know crap about modern naval warfare, so I'll shut up about that.

China actually had a pretty good (for a third world country) air force and Navy up until the late 60. In 1971, One of Mao's leading generals, one of his "Ten Great Marshalls", Lin Biao, who was his designated succesor, tried to stage a coup against Mao. The coup failed and Lin was forced to flee to the USSR, but he died when the plane he was flying crashed in Mongolia. Lin's supporters were purged from the party as one would expect.

Problem is that Lin, and many of his supporters were Soviet trained, and were the leaders of China's Air Force and Navy, which obviously demanded leaders with a more technical background, as opposed to the leadership of the army, which was lead by old loyalists of Mao. For the next 20 years the Air Force and Navy became the red headed stepchildren and got no funding, while the army got bigger and bigger. So today the Chinese air force and navy are still waaay behind in terms of technology, more so that one would think for a country of that size and wealth.


For our air force collegues on the board, here's a pic of a Chinese S-70 Blackhawk which they purchased from the US  before the 1989 weapons embargo. They are now flying again, as spare parts can now be procurred from Hong Kong.


(http://www.madogre.com/images/China_Military/China_blackhawk.JPG)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 10, 2005, 12:08:16
As Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevskii was wont to claim; "quantity has a quality of its own".

Certainly any allied air force or navy will achieve lop sided victory ratios against the current PLA, but after a while the allies will start running low on missiles, planes and ships have to be withdrawn for maintainence, pilots and crews need rest...but yet another wave of PLA attackers is on the way. Using Asymetrical tactics (from mass missile attacks, old SSKs laying mine fields, "non attributed" cyber attacks against enemy infrastructure) to decatitate the enemy and cut down the number of modern assets, then leading off the initial attack with the "best" systems, following up with waves or secondary systems drawn from the reserve pool and the Chinese will have the potential to beat down the opposition. It will take a while for more American carrier task forces to arrive , so a window then exists to consolodate any gains made during the initial push.

This analysis is rather one sided, of course. The Taiwanese will resist ferociously with whatever they have left, and the Allied forces will be preparing some unexpected moves of their own. In any event, this would be a messy scenario. Robert Kaplan's article is pretty clear on the consensus view of high ranking menbers of US PACCOM; "Getting into a war with China is easy. You can see many scenarios, not just Taiwan. But the dilemma is, how do you end a war with China?".
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 10, 2005, 12:17:07
Here is a very good web site that tracks Chinese defense trends/news.

http://www.sinodefence.com/
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 10, 2005, 12:24:46
To Brittany,

Just an fyi....there was a great article I read in the last three weeks on the social transformation taking place in Taiwan.  One of the most noteworhty changes was that a new Taiwanese idenity was forming and whereas the Chinese-affiliation percentages you stated were probably accurate 10 years ago, when given the choice between identifying themselves as "Chinese" or "Taiwanese" the numbers are now much closer to 30%:70% (Chinese:Taiwanese).

I'll see if I can't find it over the weekend but my recollection was it was either in the PINR, Council on Foreign Relations or the Asia Times.

Bottom Line:  It's only one source, but it is directly contradictory to the generalization that your making and in my opinion if accurate should give the Taiwanese people the right to self-determination.

Cheers,



Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 11, 2005, 00:54:55
Quote
Just an fyi....there was a great article I read in the last three weeks on the social transformation taking place in Taiwan.  One of the most noteworhty changes was that a new Taiwanese idenity was forming and whereas the Chinese-affiliation percentages you stated were probably accurate 10 years ago, when given the choice between identifying themselves as "Chinese" or "Taiwanese" the numbers are now much closer to 30%:70% (Chinese:Taiwanese).

I'll see if I can't find it over the weekend but my recollection was it was either in the PINR, Council on Foreign Relations or the Asia Times.

I don't doubt you. These opinion polls do tend to fluctuate with events like Chinese missile testing off the coast, etc. Taiwan is still a relatively new parlimentary democracy and things  tend to be more dramatic. I'm sure you've seen the TV coverage of Taiwanese MPs getting down to fistfights on live TV. That's the way democracies should work IMO. :)

I think Taiwan's internal politics are a little too murky even for me to delve into.....

(http://www.taipeitimes.com/images/2003/11/07/20031106203341.jpeg)

 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 11, 2005, 22:11:59
I'm sure you've seen the TV coverage of Taiwanese MPs getting down to fistfights on live TV. That's the way democracies should work IMO. :)

Harper's young and fit; this could be a good place for him to shine  ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 11, 2005, 23:13:40
Mark Styen on China. If he is even half way right, then China is dangerously unstable, and could tip out (attempting to deflect internal problems through external agression), or implode. Either way will be very ugly indeed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/06/12/do1203.xml

Quote
Who can stop the rise and rise of China? The communists, of course

By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 12/06/2005)

Seventy years ago, in the days of Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan, when the inscrutable Oriental had a powerful grip on Occidental culture, Erle Stanley Gardner wrote en passant in the course of a short story: "The Chinese of wealth always builds his house with a cunning simulation of external poverty. In the Orient one may look in vain for mansions, unless one has the entrée to private homes. The street entrances always give the impression of congestion and poverty, and the lines of architecture are carefully carried out so that no glimpse of the mansion itself is visible over the forbidding false front of what appears to be a squalid hovel."
   
Well, the mansion's pretty much out in the open now. Confucius say: If you got it, flaunt it, baby. China is the preferred vacation destination for middle-class Britons; western businessmen return cooing with admiration over the quality of the WiFi in the lobby Starbucks of their Guangzhou hotels; glittering skylines ascend ever higher from the coastal cities as fleets of BMWs cruise the upscale boutiques in the streets below.

The assumption that this will be the "Asian century" is so universal that Jacques Chirac (borrowing from Harold Macmillan vis-à-vis JFK) now promotes himself as Greece to Beijing's Rome, and the marginally less deranged of The Guardian's many Euro-fantasists excuse the EU's sclerosis on the grounds that no one could possibly compete with the unstoppable rise of a Chinese behemoth that by mid-century will have squashed America like the cockroach she is.

Even in the US, the cry is heard: Go east, young man! "If I were a young journalist today, figuring out where I should go to make my career, I would go to China," said Philip Bennett, the Washington Post's managing editor, in a fawning interview with the People's Daily in Beijing a few weeks back. "I think China is the best place in the world to be an American journalist right now."

Really? Tell it to Zhao Yan of the New York Times' Beijing bureau, who was arrested last September and has been held without trial ever since.

What we're seeing is an inversion of what Erle Stanley Gardner observed: a cunning simulation of external wealth and power that is, in fact, a forbidding false front for a state that remains a squalid hovel. Zhao of the Times is not alone in his fate: China jails more journalists than any other country in the world. Ching Cheong, a correspondent for the Straits Times of Singapore, disappeared in April while seeking copies of unpublished interviews with Zhao Ziyang, the Communist Party general secretary, who fell from favour after declining to support the Tiananmen Square massacre. And, if that's how the regime treats representatives of leading global publications, you can imagine what "the best place in the world" to be a journalist is like for the local boys.

China is (to borrow the formulation they used when they swallowed Hong Kong) "One Country, Two Systems". On the one hand, there's the China the world gushes over - the economic powerhouse that makes just about everything in your house. On the other, there's the largely unreconstructed official China - a regime that, while no longer as zealously ideological as it once was, nevertheless clings to the old techniques beloved of paranoid totalitarianism: lie and bluster in public, arrest and torture in private. China is the Security Council member most actively promoting inaction on Darfur, where (in the most significant long-range military deployment in five centuries), it has 4,000 troops protecting its oil interests. Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is an international threat only because Beijing licenses him as a provocateur with which to torment Washington and Tokyo, in the way that a mob boss will send round a mentally unstable heavy. This is not the behaviour of a psychologically healthy state.

How long can these two systems co-exist in one country and what will happen when they collide? If the People's Republic is now the workshop of the world, the Communist Party is the bull in its own China shop. It's unclear, for example, whether they have the discipline to be able to resist moving against Taiwan in the next couple of years. Unlike the demoralised late-period Soviet nomenklatura, Beijing's leadership does not accept that the cause is lost: unlike most outside analysts, they do not assume that the world's first economically viable form of Communism is merely an interim phase en route to a free - or even free-ish - society.

Mao, though he gets a better press than Hitler and Stalin, was the biggest mass murderer of all time, with a body count ten times' higher than the Nazis (as Jung Chang's new biography reminds us). The standard line of Sinologists is that, while still perfunct-orily genuflecting to his embalmed corpse in Tiananmen Square, his successors have moved on - just as, in Austin Powers, while Dr Evil is in suspended animation, his Number Two diversifies the consortium's core business away from evildoing and reorients it toward a portfolio of investments including a chain of premium coffee stores. But Maoists with stock options are still Maoists - especially when they owe their robust portfolios to a privileged position within the state apparatus.

The internal contradictions of Commie-capitalism will, in the end, scupper the present arrangements in Beijing. China manufactures the products for some of the biggest brands in the world, but it's also the biggest thief of copyrights and patents of those same brands. It makes almost all Disney's official merchandising, yet it's also the country that defrauds Disney and pirates its movies. The new China's contempt for the concept of intellectual property arises from the old China's contempt for the concept of all private property: because most big Chinese businesses are (in one form or another) government-controlled, they've failed to understand the link between property rights and economic development.

China hasn't invented or discovered anything of significance in half a millennium, but the careless assumption that intellectual property is something to be stolen rather than protected shows why. If you're a resource-poor nation (as China is), long-term prosperity comes from liberating the creative energies of your people - and Beijing still has no interest in that. If a blogger attempts to use the words "freedom" or "democracy" or "Taiwan independence" on Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal, he gets the message: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech." How pathetic is that? Not just for the Microsoft-spined Corporation, which should be ashamed of itself, but for the Chinese government, which pretends to be a world power but is terrified of words.

Does "Commie wimps" count as forbidden speech, too? And what is the likelihood of China advancing to a functioning modern stand-alone business culture if it's unable to discuss anything except within its feudal political straitjackets? Its speech code is a sign not of control but of weakness; its internet protective blocks are not the armour but the, er, chink.

India, by contrast, with much less ballyhoo, is advancing faster than China toward a fully-developed economy - one that creates its own ideas. Small example: there are low-fare airlines that sell  £40 one-way cross-country air tickets from computer screens at Indian petrol stations. No one would develop such a system for China, where internal travel is still tightly controlled by the state. But, because they respect their own people as a market, Indian businesses are already proving nimbler at serving other markets. The return on investment capital is already much better in India than in China.

I said a while back that China was a better bet for the future than Russia or the European Union. Which is damning with faint praise: trapped in a demographic death spiral, Russia and Europe have no future at all. But that doesn't mean China will bestride the scene as a geopolitical colossus. When European analysts coo about a "Chinese century", all they mean is "Oh, God, please, anything other than a second American century". But wishing won't make it so.

China won't advance to the First World with its present borders intact. In a billion-strong state with an 80 per cent rural population cut off from the coastal boom and prevented from participating in it, "One country, two systems" will lead to two or three countries, three or four systems. The 21st century will be an Anglosphere century, with America, India and Australia leading the way. Anti-Americans betting on Beijing will find the China shop is in the end mostly a lot of bull.
   
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 12, 2005, 00:59:59
Some comments on the previous Bill gertz article. (http://armscontrolwonk.com/) I wonder if our collegue TCBF is still following this thread....


Quote
it has 4,000 troops protecting its oil interests.

Well, this guy apparently gets his news from the National Enquirer.

4,000 foreign troops, with all their equipment and facilities, and no one is the wiser? Man those Chinese are good at hiding.

 Here's a previous article from the same source, with even more hilarious claims (http://www.cephasministry.com/news_china_sudan.html)

Quote
TENS of thousands of Chinese troops and prisoners forced to work as security guards have been moved into Sudan.

 ;D

I won't bother pointing out all the factual errors in the above articles. His points may not be complete hogwash, and hey, I'm just as prescient as he is, but his grasp of the facts does not inspire much confidence.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: MoOx on June 12, 2005, 04:13:52
steyn's usual factual errors aside, he's pretty incoherent too. china has major structural problems that get glossed over in the business press, but even so, its sheer size almost guarantees its economy will eventually become larger than that of the US, even if it is operating at a fraction of its full potential. do the math, you'll see.

i'm not sure what his solution is (steyn, being a 2nd-rate comedian rather than a serious commentator, rarely seems to have any), but if there is any hope for democracy coming to china, it lies almost entirely in encouraging further trade with them, and letting a middle class develop. that's how countries in the "anglosphere" became democracies. (after all, the UK wasn't really one until 1918, when people without land finally got the vote).

and as for intellectual property, the concept barely existed during the industrial revolution in the West, when ripping off other countries' textile and other production technology was the order of the day. but you can bet a richer china will have more incentive to safeguard its own IP if and when its economy develops to the extent it is more dependent on higher value-added goods and services.

if history is any guide (and it sometimes is), our biggest problems with china are short-term -- ie, taiwan.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on June 12, 2005, 13:31:04
.

if history is any guide (and it sometimes is), our biggest problems with china are short-term -- ie, taiwan.

     Of course, if history is any guide, our biggest problems with Germany were short term--ie, France, Poland, Holland, Belgium, etc.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 12, 2005, 17:37:37
Once again Brittany, I'm confused by the fact that you focus your attention on undermining an attack on the PRC's record and do so by picking one of the very smallest and least relevant sections of the article.

Disregarding all the other information (which in large measure is accurate) and just focusing on Sudan, I'd like you to comment on what you believe to be the veracity of the following statements:
1)  PRC state-owned companies have the biggest foreign share of Sudanese oil interests of any nation in the world (Russia is number two)
2)  Due to this, the PRC has been by far the single biggest roadblock to any real action in the UN due its public commitment to use its veto should the remainder of the UN try to pass sanctions.
3)  Finally, the PRC has been the primary arms supplier to the Sudanese Arab government which in turn have transferred many of those weapons to the Janjaweed who have used them murder, rape and ethnically cleanse an entire population.

Bottom Line:  I'd like you for the record state your position on the PRC because to date the only thing I've seen is support which I find deeply troubling.....

Thanks in advance,


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 12, 2005, 21:11:20
Quote
picking one of the very smallest and least relevant sections of the article.

1) The article was not about the Sudan, it mentions Sudan exactly once. So in this context, I suppose you could say that it isn't very relevent.But then, Sudan as a whole isn't very relevent in this day and age, to anyone,  is it?

2) The completely ludicrous claim of 4,000 Chinese soldiers on the ground undermines whatever position the author was trying to establish, betraying the fact that he knows very little about either China or Sudan. That Iraqi information minister guy was probably right about a lot of things too, but why don't we believe him? Heck, For starters I for one would like to see some cite to back up his quote on a quote about the Chinese not liking outwardly opulent displays of wealth. It's the first time I've ever heard of such a phenomenon.

Quote
Disregarding all the other information (which in large measure is accurate)

Uh, no it isn't, but OK.....


Quote
1)  PRC state-owned companies have the biggest foreign share of Sudanese oil interests of any nation in the world (Russia is number two)
2)  Due to this, the PRC has been by far the single biggest roadblock to any real action in the UN due its public commitment to use its veto should the remainder of the UN try to pass sanctions.
3)  Finally, the PRC has been the primary arms supplier to the Sudanese Arab government which in turn have transferred many of those weapons to the Janjaweed who have used them murder, rape and ethnically cleanse an entire population.

The article we are discussing, ridiculous as it is, makes NONE of those claims. How about you come back with some proof, and then we'll have something to discuss?

Quote
Bottom Line:  I'd like you for the record state your position on the PRC because to date the only thing I've seen is support which I find deeply troubling.....

What "Position" are you talking about? Do I support genocide in Sudan? No, I don't, but what does this have to do with anything? Chinese companies *may* (since you've already thoroughly researched your position, it won't trouble you at all to provide some sources) have the biggest stake in Sudanese oil projects, but I highly doubt they are the only ones, or the majority. Remember when Talisman sold their stake in Sudan to an Indian oil company? Do I approve of foreign oil companies investing in troubled spots around the world? It depends, would you like to explain to the Chinese why Chinese oil companies should stop doing something that Western oil companies have been doing for close to 100 years? For bonus points try doing that without mentioning Iraq and how the US protects it's oil interests. 

Don't you think it's a litle silly that one could have a single "position" on an entire nation and 1/4 of humanity? Almost sounds like something George W. Bush would come up with....

Upon reading some of your attitudes on Walmart and labour outsourcing, I'm afraid we may just have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Infanteer on June 12, 2005, 22:41:15
Hey, I like Walmart, I just got Sopranos Season 5 for a good price from there....
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 13, 2005, 20:05:06
Hey, I like Walmart, I just got Sopranos Season 5 for a good price from there....
I just bought a cheap Wall.

I apologize for that terrible terrible joke.  :dontpanic:
 ;D
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 14, 2005, 00:24:33
First, that's quite a chip you have on your shoulder....  ;D 

Quote
The article we are discussing, ridiculous as it is, makes NONE of those claims. How about you come back with some proof, and then we'll have something to discuss?

Obviously you and I read different material....I don't keep links to everything I read but here are a couple of quick ones.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC02Ad07.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

The short version is the PRC is tied in to just about every single tyrant on the planet in their effort to secure resources around the world.

Venezuela - the PRC is there.
Sudan - the PRC is there.
Zimbabwe - the PRC is there.
Iran - the PRC is there.

And before you think about arguing the point do some of the research yourself.

Use google.

China - Iran:  Guarantee by the PRC to buy $70 billion USD of petroleum products
China - Venezuela:  New support for Chavez government.  Large investment into Venezuelan oil/NGL project.
China - Zimbabwe:  Primarily securing mineral resources for cash and military equipment.
Etc.
Etc.

....and my generalizing friend, my "single" position is not on 1/4 of the population of the world.  It is on the PRC government body and strategically-managed state-owned corporations and their documented record.  Research it yourself.

One final note.... I'm not against outsourcing.  I'm against outsourcing to the PRC.  I would be more than happy to open markets to true allies who are undertaking democratic and rule-of-law reform.  My problem with the PRC is they are taking the profits from their trade balance with the western democracies and using those funds to bully a democratic government in Taiwan, to support Kim Il Jong and his nuclear program as well as the other nations I mentioned above.

By the way, nice reach with the GWB analogy.  Congratulations.  Your discourse has now reached the level of whiney protestor.  Seriously, that was really, really bad....

Cheers Brittany.

Have a good night, and once you've done your research I'll be interested to hear if your opinions have changed at all.

Best wishes,


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 14, 2005, 01:42:53
Quote
Obviously you and I read different material....I don't keep links to everything I read but here are a couple of quick ones.


Quote
And before you think about arguing the point do some of the research yourself.

What the devil.....  ??? ???

Look, I don't *think* you're being actively malicious here, but we are plainly not on the same page. I commented on an article predicting China's imminent demise, pointing out some of it's more obvious factual errors. Previously I had been commenting on the balance of military power between China and Taiwan, and I am of the opinion that the Chinese armed forces are still too far behind in technology and training to pose much of a threat to Taiwan.  You then come hijacking in with a litany of allegations, with no proof or source and completely irrelevent to the topic at hand (unless you are claiming that there are, in fact, 4000 or 700,000 Chinese troops on the ground in Sudan), demand that I give you my "position" on you allegations and now you want me to "do my own research"? Of course I haven't read any of the stuff you posted JUST NOW, am I suppose to read your mind or something?

If you're just trolling for a fight, I'm afraid I've no time for you.


As to the rest of your splurge, I'm sure most of it is probably factually accurate. So what? Are you saying that the Chinese tend to act just as any rational state actor would, and just as most Western nations acted during their transition to capitalism and industrialized economies, and most Western nations are still doing today? If so, then we are in agreement.

 

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 14, 2005, 14:49:00

What the devil.....   ??? ???

Look, I don't *think* you're being actively malicious here, but we are plainly not on the same page. I commented on an article predicting China's imminent demise, pointing out some of it's more obvious factual errors. Previously I had been commenting on the balance of military power between China and Taiwan, and I am of the opinion that the Chinese armed forces are still too far behind in technology and training to pose much of a threat to Taiwan.   You then come hijacking in with a litany of allegations, with no proof or source and completely irrelevent to the topic at hand (unless you are claiming that there are, in fact, 4000 or 700,000 Chinese troops on the ground in Sudan), demand that I give you my "position" on you allegations and now you want me to "do my own research"? Of course I haven't read any of the stuff you posted JUST NOW, am I suppose to read your mind or something?

If you're just trolling for a fight, I'm afraid I've no time for you.


As to the rest of your splurge, I'm sure most of it is probably factually accurate. So what? Are you saying that the Chinese tend to act just as any rational state actor would, and just as most Western nations acted during their transition to capitalism and industrialized economies, and most Western nations are still doing today? If so, then we are in agreement.


No, you took an op-piece containing large amounts of factual information and did your best to undermine it by pointing to one section about 4,000 troops (which frankly I have never seen mentioned although the number of PRC reps most associated with China National Petroleum Company has been estimated at over 10,000).

I then made a series of specific claims about what the PRC's currently involvement with the world's tyrants and questioned what the fundamental basis is for your position that "China can do no wrong."  (I have yet to see you post a single statement admonishin the PRC's for its record).

You then called BS on the claims I had made arguing I had not presented valid back-up information (eluding to the fact you must live under a rock because if you read any foreign policy documentation or even world economics information, the PRC's drive to secure world resource assets is one of the prime topics of discussion).

I then provided some quick back-up information verifiying the fact the claims I made are in fact accurate (which you've failed to admit to this point) and questioned what it was that you were using as your reference material if you were ignorant of all of the above things.

Your final post is the most classic in which you misrepresent the argument, call me a troll, claim you shouldn't be responsible for information not previously posted on the board and in general make excuses for the fact you cannot back up your position which appears to be "the PRC isn't that bad....let's blame Bush instead."

The only rationale I can come up with is you are very young and very inexperienced and have bought into a bunch of crap you've never done the research for yourself.

In the end, you can respond, you can ignore me, you have the right to do anything you like, but please don't go through life forming your world opinion based on headlines or protest plackards when there are infinite resources for you to dig deeper because it shouldn't be the responsibility of the culture to educate you, you must take proactive steps to educate yourself.

Regardless of what you do....good luck.



Matthew.    :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 14, 2005, 16:18:59
VDH with a somewhat more insightful look at China's place in the world. (Steyn is good for hitting you in the head and arousing argument, Hanson's arguments are compelling but more muted):


Quote
The Global Shift
The world will soon better appreciate the United States
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

Radical global power shifts have been common throughout history. For almost a millennium (800-100 BC) the Greek East, with its proximity to wealthy Asia and African markets and a dynamic Hellenism, was the nexus of Western civilization - before giving way to Rome and the western Mediterranean.

Yet by A.D. 300 the Greek-speaking half of the empire, more distant from northern European tribal attacks, proved the more resolute. It would endure for over 1,000 years while the fragmented West fell into chaos.

And then yet again the pendulum shifted back. The Renaissance was the product of Florence, Venice, and Rome as the Byzantine East was worn out by its elemental struggles with Islam and straitjacketed by an increasingly rigid Orthodoxy and top-heavy imperial regime.

But by 1600 the galley states of the Western Mediterranean were to lose their restored primacy for good, as to the north the ocean-going galleons of the Atlantic port nations - England, France, Holland, Portugal, and Spain - usurped commerce and monopolized the new trans-oceanic trade routes to Asia and the New World.

By the time of the industrial revolution, another radical shift had occurred in influence and power. The northern European states of England, France, and Germany, products of the Enlightenment, with sizable Protestant populations, outpaced both the old classical powers of the Mediterranean and the Spanish empire. And in early 20th century, the United States, benefiting from the Anglo tradition of transparency and the rule of law - combined with a unique constitution, exploding population, and vast resources - displaced the old European colonial empires and stood down the supposed new future of Soviet totalitarianism.

Globalization and technology, of course, can speed up these shifts and accomplish in a few years what used to transpire over centuries. We are told that a third of the planet, the two billion in China and India, is now moving at a breakneck pace with market reforms to remake the world. The old idea of a "population bombâ ? of too many people and too few resources has been turned upside down: The key is not how many people reside in a country but rather what those people do. A billion under a Marxist regime leads to terrible human waste and starvation; a billion in a market economy is actually advantageous - as seemingly endlessly active minds and arms flood the world with cheap consumer goods and rebuild a decaying infrastructure from the ground up.

Europe - high unemployment, layers of bureaucracy slow growth, unsustainable entitlements, ethnic and religious tensions, shrinking populations, unresponsive central governments - is often juxtaposed with Asia, as if its sun is setting just as the East's is once again rising.

So far the European Union's decision not to spend on defense; its inherited infrastructure and protocols; and its commitment to the rule of law keep the continent seemingly prosperous. It has some breathing space to decide whether it will reemerge as a rising power or be relegated to a curious museum for cash-laden tourists from Asia and America.

Somewhere between these poles is the United States. Pessimists point out that we increasingly don't create the cars we drive, the phones we used, or mirabile dictu, soon the food we eat. High budget deficits, trade imbalances, enormous national debt, and growing military expenditures will supposedly take their toll at last, as pampered Americans consume what by the new global rules they don't quite earn.

Optimists counter with their own set of statistics and point out that immigration and religion have ensured a steady if not rising population. Unemployment, interest rates, and inflation are low, and alone in the world America has an amazing resiliency and flexibility to fashion citizens and a single culture out of diverse races and religions. It also, of course, enjoys a unique constitution and laws that provide freedom without license.

We seem to enjoy the best of both worlds, symbolized by our two coasts that look on both east and west. Our European traditions ensure the rule of law and the vibrancy of Western civilization. Yet decades ago, unlike the EU, we understood the Asian challenge and kept our markets open and our economy free, often requiring great dislocation and painful adjustment. The result is that for all our bickering, we continue to remain competitive and flexible in a way Europe does not.

If we have avoided the state socialism of Europe that stymies growth, we have also already passed through all the contradictions of a breakneck capitalist transition - the dislocation of rural people, industrial pollution, unionization, suburban blues, ubiquitous graft, and petty bribery - that will increasingly plague both India and China as they leave the 18th century and enter the 21st.

But the real question is how both China and India, nuclear and arming, will translate their newfound economic clout and cash into a geopolitical role. If internal politics and protocols are any barometer of foreign policy, it should be an interesting show. We mostly welcome the new India - nuclear, law-abiding, and English-speaking - onto the world stage. It deserves a permanent seat on the Security Council and a close alliance with the United States.
China, however, is a very different story - a soon-to-be grasping Soviet Union-like superpower without any pretense of Marxist egalitarianism. Despite massive cash reserves and ongoing trade surpluses, it violates almost every international commercial protocol from copyright law to patents. It won't discuss Tibet, and it uses staged domestic unrest to send warnings to Taiwan and Japan that their regional options will increasingly be limited by Beijing.

China could rein in Kim Jong Il tomorrow. But it derives psychological satisfaction from watching Pyongyang's nuclear roguery stymie Japan and the United States. China's foreign policy in the Middle East, Central and South America, and Southeast Asia is governed by realpolitik of the 19th-century American stripe, without much concern for the type of government or the very means necessary to supply its insatiable hunger for resources. The government that killed 50 million of its own has not really been repudiated and its present successor follows the same old practice of jailing dissidents and stamping out freedom. When and how its hyper-capitalist economy will mandate the end of a Communist directorate is not known.

The world has been recently flooded with media accounts that U.S. soldiers may have dropped or at least gotten wet a few Korans. Abu Ghraib, we are told, is like the Soviet gulag - the death camp of millions. Americans are routinely pilloried abroad because they liberated Iraq, poured billions into the reconstruction, and jumpstarted democracy there - but were unable to do so without force and the loss of civilian life.

This hysteria that the world's hyper-power must be perfect or it is no good is in dire contrast to the treatment given to China. Yet Pavlovian anti-Americanism may soon begin to die down as the Chinese increasingly flex their muscles on the global stage and the world learns better their methods of operation.

So far they have been given a pass on three grounds: the old Third World romance accorded to Mao's Marxist legacy; the Chinese role as a counterweight to the envied power of the United States; and the silent admission that the Chinese, unlike the Americans, are a little crazy and thus unpredictable in their response to moral lecturing. Americans apologize and scurry about when an EU or U.N. official remonstrates; in contrast, a Chinese functionary is apt to talk about sending off a missile or two if they don't shut up.

The Patriot Act to a European is proof of American illiberality in a way that China's swallowing Tibet or jailing and executing dissidents is not. America's support for Saudi Arabia is proof of our hypocrisy in not severing ties with an undemocratic government, while few care that a country with leaders who traverse the globe in Mao suits cuts any deal possible with fascists and autocrats for oil, iron ore, and food.

Yes, we are witnessing one of the great transfers of power and influence that have traditionally changed civilization itself, as money, influence, and military power are gradually inching away from Europe. And this time the shake-up is not regional but global. While scholars and economists concentrate on its economic and political dimensions, few have noticed how a new China and an increasingly vulnerable Europe will markedly change the image of the United States.

As nations come to know the Chinese, and as a ripe Europe increasingly cannot or will not defend itself, the old maligned United States will begin to look pretty good again. More important, America will not be the world's easily caricatured sole power, but more likely the sole democratic superpower that factors in morality in addition to national interest in its treatment of others.

China is strong without morality; Europe is impotent in its ethical smugness. The buffer United States, in contrast, believes morality is not mere good intentions but the willingness and ability to translate easy idealism into hard and messy practice.

Most critics will find such sentiments laughable or naïve; but just watch China in the years to come. Those who now malign the imperfections of the United States may well in shock whimper back, asking for our friendship. Then the boutique practice of anti-Americanism among the global elite will come to an end.

©2005 Victor Davis Hanson
   
   
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 14, 2005, 19:03:07
Cdn Blackshirt:

Please provide proof for the following allegations:
Quote
your position that "China can do no wrong." 

or

Quote
your position which appears to be "the PRC isn't that bad....let's blame Bush instead."


or

Quote
the claims I made are in fact accurate (which you've failed to admit to this point)

or

Quote
you were ignorant of all of the above things.

I think will be very difficult, since I've not made any such statements, and have not disputed the accuracy of any of your sources (not because I trust you implicitly, but because I really can't be bothered anymore as they are irrelevent to our discussion. Do you really want me to try?). Apparently you're the only one who can see them.....

Until then, I really don't know what you're trying to get at, other than the fact that you hate China. Why don't you go back and read the stuff I actually posted, as oppose to the stuff you *think* I did, which in fact you pulled out of thin air, and see if you can find any factual errors? If you find any I'll be glad to retract my comments and apologize.

Obviously one of us here has a bit of a chip on the shoulder, but it sure ain't me.

BTW:

Quote
The only rationale I can come up with is you are very young and very inexperienced and have bought into a bunch of crap you've never done the research for yourself.


Ad hominem attacks don't really impress me as it does some of the others on the board, and do not help your credibility.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on June 15, 2005, 03:58:05
Well I'm glad I'm not the one in the middle of this brew ha ha (for once). But as someone once said of my ravings...   

...things are starting to not make much sense.

Do you guys even remember what the argument/debate was started about?

If so, then lets get it back on track. Whatever that was. ;D


Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 15, 2005, 11:39:59
Back on track it is"

http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2005/06/my_response_to_.html

Quote
My response to Scoble

In justifying Microsoft's filtering of politically sensitive Chinese words on MSN spaces, Microsoft's uber-blogger Robert Scoble writes: "I have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in."  He continues:

    I've been to China (as an employee of Winnov about seven years ago). I met with Government officials there. I met with students. I met with professors. They explained their anti-free-speech stance to me and I understand it. I don't agree with it, and I will be happy to explain to anyone the benefits of giving your citizens the right to speak freely, but it's not my place to make their laws. It certainly is not my right to force their hand with business power.

I lived in China for nine years straight as a journalist, and if you add up other times I've lived there it comes to nearly 12. I don't know what students and professors Scoble met with, and what context he met them in. But to state that Chinese students and professors have an "anti-free-speech stance" is the biggest pile of horseshit about China I've come across in quite some time. And believe me, there are a great many such piles out there these days.

In my experience, most Chinese, like all other human beings I've ever met, would very much like to have freedom of speech. This goes for students, professors, workers, farmers, retirees, religious practitioners, and even many government officials. Many said so to me in on-the-record interviews. Many more told me so privately, in trusted confidence over beers (or something stronger) among friends.

What they don't want is to lose their jobs and educational opportunities by pushing too hard at the restrictions their government has placed on their ability to speak. They work within the bounds of the possible, and since people in China can say a lot more now than they were allowed to say 20 years ago, most take the long-term view.

It's very true, most Chinese hate it when foreigners lecture them about how they should change. They hate being patronized. Many view the common American attitude of "we're here to save you and make you free" as condescending and hypocritical. They'd rather continue living under their extremely imperfect political situation in hopes that eventually it will change, and that this change will be accomplished by Chinese people in a Chinese way. Only then will they have ownership both of the change and of the result. Otherwise, the change will be considered foreign-imposed, and the Chinese violently detest foreign-imposed anything. Even ones who privately and quietly detest their government.

I agree with Scoble: no outsiders, including Microsoft, can force China to change. But nobody's asking Microsoft to force China to do anything. The issue is whether Microsoft should be collaborating with the Chinese regime as it builds an increasingly sophisticated system of Internet censorship and control. (See this ONI report for lots of details on that system.)  Declining to collaborate with this system is not "forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in."  Declining to collaborate would be the only way to show that your stated belief in free speech is more than ç©Âºè¯?: empty words. If you believe that Chinese people deserve the same respect as Americans, then please put your money where your mouth is.

But let's not single out Microsoft for trashing on this point. As this Open Net Initiative report and this 2004 Amnesty International report will make abundantly clear, China's filtering, censorship, and surveillance systems wouldn't be what they are today without lots of help from a number of North American technology companies.  Businessman and author Ethan Gutmann wrote about Cisco's particular contribution in this 2002 article which later became a book chapter.

In the name of free enterprise, Americans so far have acquiesced in U.S. companies' collaboration in the building and reinforcement of the Great Chinese Firewall. The Global Internet Freedom Act is being revived again in congress; but while the Act would allocate money to develop censorship-busting technologies, it makes zero mention of the U.S. companies whose technologies and software services are helping to strengthen this very censorship.

Scoble says it's better to be doing business in China than not, implying that this engagement is better for China and its freedoms in the long run. Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in economic engagement with China. But nobody said Microsoft shouldn't be doing business there. It's a question of how you do business and in what manner.

I can tell you one more thing about the Chinese. They hear what you say, then they watch how you do business. From there, it's pretty easy to figure out what your real values are.

Like this blogger, I support the ideal of targeted engagement with China, rather than indescriminate trade and "hoping" this will improve the lot of the Chinese. It is very obvious that the Chinese government uses its power to "direct" the wealth to support their power, military modernization, censorship, and corruption on a vast scale to grease the wheels and pay off suporters are the main beneficiaries, and the farmers in the rural west are simply ignored.

Since targeting is very difficult, and I personally am not in a position to do something directly about it, I have shopped for international mutual funds which are heavily weighted towards India, targeting my snall contribution to International wealth building towards a democratic nation. I hope the rest of you at least consider doing the same.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 15, 2005, 20:33:10
No thanks....I officially give up.



Matthew.    ;D
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Steve on June 15, 2005, 23:10:51
Speaking of recent developments in China..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46778-2004Aug6.html

Won't C/P here for brevity/space sake but in short, it seems the government is moving into and occupying peasant farmer land in rural China. The farmers staged a revolt due to the insane taxes imposed on them (plus land being taken away) and had quite the clash with what I'm assuming to be the PAP (they are not specific in the sources I checked) but I saw, on CNN a few minutes ago (which pushed me to write this post) one of the uniformed officers in the village and his uniform appeared to be consistent with their dress.

Anyhow, if you guys watch CNN you'll probably see it again soon enough. Once again Chinese officials are trying their best to quell down the clash and suppress information. The information that has leaked out has to deal with their intense propaganda naturally. From what I could gather, it seems the CPC is a bit worried that their attitude may spread to other less than happy areas nearby.

How utterly pathetic is that? How can China still call itself Communist with a straight face when they are oppressing and victimizing the very people that communism is supposed to protect and depend upon? By doing this to the proletariats/peasants they are in fact proving they are so far removed from Communism that it's now just a mask they wear to hide their dictatorship which in some ways eerily reminds me of Orwell's "Oceania" (after reading some of their own sites the comparison became more and more realistic).

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 15, 2005, 23:28:21
Did you mean PLA?

Communists have always opressed farmers, for the simple reason that farmers can be self sufficient from "the state". Why do you think Stalin arranged the "Harvest of Tears" in the Ukraine, or Mao savagely expropriated land and unleashed a terror against the "wealthy peasants"? Mugabe is doing the same thing against the "white farmers" for the very same reasons; destroy any possible places which can act independently from "the state".
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: paracowboy on June 15, 2005, 23:37:18
How utterly pathetic is that? How can China still call itself Communist with a straight face when they are oppressing and victimizing the very people that communism is supposed to protect and depend upon? By doing this to the proletariats/peasants they are in fact proving they are so far removed from Communism that it's now just a mask they wear to hide their dictatorship which in some ways eerily reminds me of Orwell's "Oceania" (after reading some of their own sites the comparison became more and more realistic).
you, ah, don't know too much about "Communism" in history do you? Welcome to reality. Why do you think we fought it for 50 years?
And then, (in Canada) abruptly surrendered to it, inexplicably.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 15, 2005, 23:52:26
The People's Armed Police, seperate from the army, is a  paramilitary organization responsible for internal security, similar in concept to the Interior ministry/MVD/FSB of the USSR and Russia. They can also be used as light infantry to defend cities. Although they are not really deisgned to be a counterweight against the army like their Russian counterparts are. They were not really much more than a centralized border police before 1989. Their numbers, training, and equipment, especially crowd control and riot control training and kit, were beefed up after the army made fools of themselves in that little fracas. 

And yes, this stuff is small potatoes compared to what's happened in the past. Being a peasant sucks.  >:(
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: MoOx on June 16, 2005, 01:53:25
And then, (in Canada) abruptly surrendered to it, inexplicably.

excuse my ignorance, but i missed that little development, maybe cause i've been out of the country a few years. does canada now have gulags, collective farms, central planning? or are you just trying to imply that communism is "not so bad"?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Steve on June 16, 2005, 03:02:50
Majoor: Nope, but Spears cleared it up

Cowboy: Yes, ah, I do know a fair deal about it. Welcome to reality. I know why it was fought for 50 years. My entire point is that China claims itself to be based on Marxist-Leninist principles, calls itself Communist and claims to work for the people when it does everything completely opposite. I was pointing out the glaring hypocrisy in their - and I suppose, every communist nations - actions. Get off the high horse already.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: paracowboy on June 16, 2005, 09:46:20
Quote
excuse my ignorance, but i missed that little development, maybe cause i've been out of the country a few years. does canada now have gulags, collective farms, central planning? or are you just trying to imply that communism is "not so bad"?
gulags: not so much. Collective farms: they tried screwing around with us a while back, but got stepped on. Central planning: oh hell, yeah.
Quote
or are you just trying to imply that communism is "not so bad"?
quite the opposite. Which is why I try to educate everyone I know (and complete strangers, for that matter) about the fact that we have been becoming more and more a Socialist People's Republik, and will continue to do so as long as the present government is in power.

Quote
My entire point is that China claims itself to be based on Marxist-Leninist principles, calls itself Communist and claims to work for the people when it does everything completely opposite. I was pointing out the glaring hypocrisy in their - and I suppose, every communist nations - actions
. hmmm, guess my 'facetious-ness detector' is N/S, then, because even with your explanation, I don't read that into your post. It reads to me as though it were written by someone with no familiarity with 'Communism on the ground', but a with firm grounding in the theories, who has been abruptly disillusioned. Maybe I'm pre-disposed to read that into your post because of the many young troops that I've had to actually explain the evils of 'Communism on the ground' to. I've had several youngsters in the past couple of years, who've honestly believed, due to their teachers, that Communists are the good guys, and that Capitalism/Democracy is the source of all evil. We have soldiers who would rather fight for a dictatorial system, than for Liberty. And that scares the hell out of me.

Quote
Get off the high horse already.
but I can see my house from here!
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on June 16, 2005, 11:45:51
Oh man. Why do I see the signals of descending into a conversation that has happened but a few times on this board? In this case, I'm staying out of this one (for now  ;D).

but I can see my house from here!

Must be a paraire boy. ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: paracowboy on June 16, 2005, 13:14:10
Oh man. Why do I see the signals of descending into a conversation that has happened but a few times on this board?
oh, I don't think so. I mis-interpreted a post. I'm at fault.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Steve on June 16, 2005, 15:43:06
Well, not to sidetrack further but I do want to clear the matter up:

I am familiar with theories and it's effect "on the ground" but you are partially correct with your analysis about being somewhat disillusioned. Not because I fall into that category of how some youngsters think the communists were the good guys (I don't believe that) but more so because I find it unfortunate that the system will never, ever, work. Communism is supposed to be everyone working to help eachother, sharing, blah blah won't go into detail cause you already know it. I was expressing a bit of disappointment on my part I guess, that such a utopian theoretical system will always be, theoretical.

No need to explain the USSR to anyone. Viet Nam is still a crap hole and I can't even begin to touch the tip of the iceberg of the stuff Communist movement did in that country. Mao's Cultural Revolution, Tianamen Square, the recent peasant clashes in China. Then you got all that internet censorship stuff .. well, the list just goes on, doesn't it? That's where my displeasure is expressed, that China still claims to be communist and work for the people when all it's doing is lobotimizing them so it can do as it pleases.

I suppose from a philosophical PoV, it's just too bad that such a system will never work because of the nature of man. That's what I was really getting at but I was, admittedly, vague with how I said it and it did tend to sound more like what you said.

With all that being said, just want to let this settle so the topic can get back at hand. Agreed?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: paracowboy on June 16, 2005, 17:19:47
Quote
With all that being said, just want to let this settle so the topic can get back at hand. Agreed?
hey, if you're happy, I'm happy. Like I said:
Quote
I'm at fault.

But I'm staying up here. Beats the heck outta walkin'. And chicks dig a cowboy.  ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on June 16, 2005, 23:38:36
     On paper, Communism is a beautiful system.  To get to true communism from the nasty state of (insert current political system) you have now, you must first pass through the dictatorship of the proletariate, where all property, real, human, and intellectual, is managed by the state, and a small group of enlightened leaders who will direct the people toward the goal of acheiving a true communist union.  People being people, and utopia being a crack-dream, once a dictatorship of the proletariat has been acheived, there it stays until forcably toppled.  Once absolute power has been concentrated into the hands of a few men/women, and all right to dissent has been removed, they will take whatever steps necessary to hold on to that power.  Whle the next generation of predator fight for succession of the old guard, the rising class of parasites learn to grow fat and rich off the wealth flowing from the masses to the leaders.  Those who wish to point out the corruption of the system, or who commit the terrible crimes of wishing to keep the goods that they have made, or the food that they have grown, can count on re-education camps (torture as a teaching device), or a showy trial, snappy execution, after which your family will receive a bill for the bullets they shot you with.
     To the people at the top, power and wealth are the goals, and the suffering of their people is irrelevant.  This makes expansionism popular, as the little people do the dying, and the new territorries (not having been drained for generatoins by parasitic party officials), can be looted to prop up the grossly inefficient economy, and swell the leaders already unbeleivable personal wealth.
      The Tiawanese people are so much better off than their mainland brethren, much as the West Germans were better off than the East, and for the same reason.  Germany united under the efficient system produced by the free and vibrant West.  China wants to swallow Tiawan, and suck it dry (kind of like what Russia did to East Germany).  China does not want to join with Tiawan, or enter into a partnership, they want to bring it under the yoke.  I've always wondered why the Tiawanese didn't pick up some toys from the Russians when they started demobilizing the bulk of their strategic rocket forces, China is the kind of neighbor that looks friendlier over a medium range ballistic missle.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 17, 2005, 01:13:31
Quote
On paper, Communism is a beautiful system. 

Not really, since no one, certainly not Marx or Engles, has really figured out a way to get to communism, we have no way of knowing whether it will work or not. If you read the Marx's body of work, it essentially says: "Well, eventually the prolitariat will overthrow their capitalist oppressors, as they always have, and then end ex!"  Actually achieving the first part has proven to be easier said than done.

In any case, don't you guys think you could go and start  a new topic to debate the communism thing? I think we all know that a purely communist approach to economics is no more viable than a purely capitalist one, the horse is dead, leave it be. You could replace the word "communism" above with "unbridled capitalism" or "libertarian anarchism" or any other academic social construct and get the same result as far as real world functionality goes.  Also, even a cursory examination of of China's social-political history will put it's current situation in perspective, and make the wide generalizations and urban myths (" after which your family will receive a bill for the bullets they shot you with."  ::)) sound silly in hindisght. Of course, the same goes for any other foreign country that one might try to understand.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 17, 2005, 14:31:13
Here's a bit of a development here at home (with a heavily-spun headline):

Quote
Private MP bill could harm relations with China

CTV.ca News Staff

Lawmakers will soon vote on a private member's bill that, if passed, could have serious ramifications for Canadian relations with China.

Introduced by Conservative MP Jim Abbott in April, the so-called Taiwan Affairs Act would upgrade Canada's relations with Taiwan.

The bill also opposes China's use of military force or economic sanctions against Taiwan. That policy would directly contradict Beijing, which earlier this year passed a law specifically authorizing the use of force to stop Taiwan from pursuing formal independence.

Although it stops short of calling Taiwan a state, the bill calls for improved economic, cultural, scientific and legal ties. It would also open the door to Taiwan officials to once again start visiting Canada.

China's ambassador in Ottawa, Lu Shumin, says that would be going too far.

"This bill which in essence is to advocate the changing basis of Taiwan and treat it as a separate country," he told CTV News, noting that would not jibe with Beijing.

And that has members of Canada's business community concerned their livelihood could be at stake.

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters policy director Gordon Cherry warns that Canada's telecommunications and aerospace sectors, for example, could face severe repercussions.

"The effect would be these multi-billion dollar, million-dollar deals that are in the works would be harmed by the bill," Cherry told CTV.

Abbott thinks it's nevertheless important to keep pushing the issue.

Considering the breakdown of the minority parliament, and the support, not only of the Bloc Quebecois, but also a handful of sympathetic Liberals, Abbott feels his bill's got a good chance of becoming law.

"There is a high probability that it could pass," he said.

This is not the first time Abbott has rallied Parliament to make Taiwan's official status an international issue.

In May 2003, the House voted 163-67 in favour of an official opposition motion introduced by Abbott -- urging the World Health Organization to grant Taiwan observer status.

At the time, the push to bring Taiwan into the WHO purview was fuelled by the deadly SARS crisis.

China voiced opposition at the time, but offered no formal retaliation.

Should Abbott's bill pass now, Ambassador Shumin said, it would put an inevitable strain on relations with Beijing.

"If this pass into a law, that will definitely harm the overall relationship. I think you will understand what that means. That means the relations of the two countries would not going forward but backwards.

"That would be quite serious."

As Canada's second-largest trading partner, senior cabinet ministers say there's legitimate reason to be worried.

According to International Trade Minister Jim Peterson, a diplomatic chill could lead to a freeze of economic activity.

"There is great potential loss and the Chinese have made it very clear to us in every meeting at a high level that a one-China policy is a priority for them," Peterson told CTV.

Taiwan history

In 1949, when China came under Communist rule, the island of Taiwan became the new home in exile of Chaing Kai Chek. Having failed to stop the Communists, Chaing took Taipei as the capital of the democratic Republic of China.

Ever since, the People's Republic of China -- comprised of mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau -- has maintained that Taiwan remains a renegade province.

Canada has had an official one-China policy since Ottawa established diplomatic relations with Beijing 35 years ago.

Answering critics who say Abbott's Taiwan Act would shatter Canada's 35-year policy, Conservative Foreign Affairs critic Stockwell Day says no way.

"We are clear in support of the one-China policy," he said. "But we also want to see Taiwan not threatened."

The United States signed its own similar Taiwan Act in 1979.

Economic Ties

In recent years, China's booming economy has become one of the main drivers of world growth. According to an annual report by Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, China's economic growth approached 10 per cent last year and exceeded most expectations.

Canada has long been poised to take advantage of its special relationship with China. Canada made its first wheat sale to the People's Republic of China in 1961. And Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1970 -- getting a five-year jump on the United States with this important trading partner.

China recently became Canada's second largest trading partner, just behind the United States. This was spurred by 49 per cent growth in trade with China in the first half of 2004 (compared with the previous year), bumping Japan out of its traditional number two spot.

Yet, Peterson said earlier this year the trade relationship between Canada and China was "minuscule" compared with its potential.

Most of Canada's exports to China are in the form of such raw materials as copper, zinc, and sulphur. There is still much more Canada could do to promote "value-added" industries such as education, travel and technology.

And there is a trade imbalance, highlighted in a report issued by Statistics Canada in June 2004:

- Between 1995 and 2003, Canada's exports to China rose 37.4%.

- During the same period, our imports from China quadrupled.

- In 1995, Canada's trade deficit with China was barely $1.2 billion.

- By 2003, the trade deficit had exploded to nearly $13.8 billion.

source: The Canadian Government in China (http://www.beijing.gc.ca/index.htm)

Prepared with a report from CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118867654973_114276854/?hub=TopStories
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 17, 2005, 23:40:14
Given the more advanced nature of Taiwan's economy, I suspect we could be doing boffo business with them shortly after China began "economic retaliation" against Canadian business recognizing Taiwan.

Lets face it, a billion peasants are still a billion poor people, and not at all the market for our value added products and services. China also needs our resources desparatly more than we need cheap consumer goods (most of which can be imported from India or other developing nations anyway), so the Dragon will be back with its food and water dish after it sees us prosper by feeding the "Little Tigers".
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 17, 2005, 23:54:21
FWIW, I'd like to point out that Chinese trade with Canada is miniscule compared to Chinese trade with Taiwan, a country with whom they are supposedly teetering on the brink of war. I had quoted some numbers, but later found out that they were from 2001 and outdated. In 2001, Chinese trade with Taiwan stood at about 4x that of that with Canada. Since then, Canada has dropped off most of the lists of China's major trade partners, so exact numbers are not as easy to find. China probably fears the loss of Canadian trade as much as they fear our army.

So, I think it's probably just a slow day at the newsroom....
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on June 18, 2005, 23:42:04
FWIW, I'd like to point out that Chinese trade with Canada is minuscule compared to Chinese trade with Taiwan, a country with whom they are supposedly teetering on the brink of war. I had quoted some numbers, but later found out that they were from 2001 and outdated. In 2001, Chinese trade with Taiwan stood at about 4x that of that with Canada. Since then, Canada has dropped off most of the lists of China's major trade partners, so exact numbers are not as easy to find. China probably fears the loss of Canadian trade as much as they fear our army.

So, I think it's probably just a slow day at the newsroom....
     So if our trade with the Chinese is so minuscule, we can afford to do the right thing (much as that idea shocks our politicians) and recognize the sovereign state of Taiwan, and establish formal diplomatic relations.  If China wishes to start a trade war, then go for it.  As China is trying to put on its best mask for the international community long enough to get access to the kinds of modern weapons and technology that sanctions have denied them, they are unlikely to risk that by acting against so small a player as Canada.  As they already conduct active intelligence operations in Canada against our citizens, and industrial espionage against our industry, its not as if we are reaping vast benefits from their "good" will.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 19, 2005, 01:07:48
Quote
So if our trade with the Chinese is so minuscule,

 ??? Miniscule? China is Canada's second largest trading partner. Although still peanuts compared to Canada-US trade.

Quote
the sovereign state of Taiwan,

No such thing exists yet. Presumably you mean the Republic of China.

Quote
its not as if we are reaping vast benefits from their "good" will.

Obviously some would have a different opinion on that.

Quote
As China is trying to put on its best mask for the international community long enough to get access to the kinds of modern weapons and technology that sanctions have denied them,

There's a little more to it that that, I assure you.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: neuromancer on June 19, 2005, 18:26:03
Great topic!!

First let me say that I was born and raised in Canada, and my wife was born and raised in China.

A major point a lot of people seem to be over looking is that after WW2 the powers in China were
roughly equal between the People Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang (the two partys combined forces to
repel the Japanese but after that threat was gone they went back to fighting each other for control of the country.)
The PRC succeeded in fighting the KMT out of china and chased them to Taiwan, the KMT retreated to Taiwan
which the KMT have occupied ever since.

At that time the land of Taiwan was part of China, the people who were already living in Taiwan before KMT arrived
were considered Chinese by all accounts, even among themselves, the KMT itself were definitly Chinese people (just of
a different political party). Taiwan really does belong to China. Anybody who says differently is selling something.

little fact: About 10 million Chinese died after WW2 when the PRC pushed the KMT
into Taiwan. It was a brutal and bloody struggle. After KMT retreated to taiwan the war ended and
that was when China began to rebuild.

Imagine if there was a war right now in Canada and the Easterners chased the Westerners all the
way back to Vancouver Island, and then stopped fighting. Would the Canadians who lost the war and who
are now living on Vancouver Island (part of the province of British Columbia) have the right to go
independent? How would the rest of Canada react to that?

Wouldnt that be considered a valid reason to go back to war?

Furthermore, Taiwan has never been recognized as an independent nation by the majority of the world.
There are only about 30-40 country's in the world that recognize Taiwan, and a good chunk of those country's
are small African/middle-eastern nations of no major significance. The only two major country's that
recognize Taiwan are USA and Japan, gee.. why do you think they recognize Taiwan? Hmm.. I wonder.

China has said they will not allow Taiwan to separate, China has effectively bound its own hands in this matter.
They have a strong system of honor over there (trust me) and to allow Taiwan to separate now would be a major
loss of face for them, something they simply can not allow no matter the cost.

Also, China has 1.3 billion people, their emerging economy is growing by 10% per year. Do the math. Not much
can really stop their economy at this point other than all out war with the West.

I really doubt America and Japan will come to Taiwan's aid if it comes to total war. Taiwan is just not worth it, and
both USA and Japan have a lot more to gain by trading and partnering with China (1.3 billion with an economy growing
by 10% per year) than they do with Taiwan.

In the end a lot of this comes down to money, and China has a lot more of it than Taiwan. What would be the ecconomic
insentive for USA coming to Taiwans aid against China? If USA doesnt join the conflict neither will Japan.

USA/Jpn will let China clean up its internal affair. They'll protest, but not much more than that.

The same way that Japan went from a smoldering wreck at the end of WW2 to an economic powerhouse is similar to whats
happening in China today, only a lot slower due their bloated socialist regime.

But they're gaining steam now so I think the West does well to play nice and not interfere in an internal conflict.

I have a feeling that the CIA report about 2020 is a lot more on the money than people realize.

China will emerge, and eventually capitalism will give rise to democracy in the middle kingdom.
The West will fade a little, and life will go on.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.  :dontpanic:
</rant>

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 19, 2005, 18:52:13
Quote
The only two major country's that
recognize Taiwan are USA and Japan,

This isn't true. Neither the US or Japan have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Remember that big deal back in the 70s when  the PRC took over China's Security Council seat and Nixon went to China? It kinda ended there. The Chinese love to accuse Japan of all kinds of things, they're still sore about Japan ruling Taiwan for 50 years, and from their naval bases in Taiwan, dominating the Chinese coastline (another reason why control of Taiwan is strategically important). But aside from that one mayor of Tokyo Ishihara, who most Japanese think is a lunatic, Japan has bee fairly careful not to rock the boat. Here's (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Foreign-relations-of-Taiwan) a list of nations that do have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. I found it interesting that Haiti was on that list, considering that until last month there were over 100 Chinese police officers in Haiti as part of the UN mission, responsible for training the Haitian police in methods of crowd control("Crowd control is easy, all you guys need is a few T-54s....." ;)).

Taiwan's biggest diplomatic victory of recent years was in the late 90s when they were briefly recognized by Nelson Mandela's South Africa. Mandela himself feeling a fraternal bond between the two countries. That ended after Mandela left office.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 19, 2005, 23:18:49
Imagine if there was a war right now in Canada and the Easterners chased the Westerners all the
way back to Vancouver Island, and then stopped fighting. Would the Canadians who lost the war and who
are now living on Vancouver Island (part of the province of British Columbia) have the right to go
independent? How would the rest of Canada react to that?
You mean, like how the Americans chased the British all the way up to Canada?..

There are situations and times where we must acurately realize the situation on the ground. That situation is that, at this current moment, Taiwan (ROC), is a defacto independant State in all matters but recognition.
Quote
Wouldnt that be considered a valid reason to go back to war?

Furthermore, Taiwan has never been recognized as an independent nation by the majority of the world.
There are only about 30-40 country's in the world that recognize Taiwan, and a good chunk of those country's
are small African/middle-eastern nations of no major significance. The only two major country's that
recognize Taiwan are USA and Japan, gee.. why do you think they recognize Taiwan? Hmm.. I wonder.
What is wrong with recognizing Taiwan, specifically?
Quote
China has said they will not allow Taiwan to separate, China has effectively bound its own hands in this matter.
They have a strong system of honor over there (trust me) and to allow Taiwan to separate now would be a major
loss of face for them, something they simply can not allow no matter the cost.

Also, China has 1.3 billion people, their emerging economy is growing by 10% per year. Do the math. Not much
can really stop their economy at this point other than all out war with the West.
That sort of growth is unsustainable. We will see how long that lasts after they are pressured to unpin the yuan.
Quote
I really doubt America and Japan will come to Taiwan's aid if it comes to total war. Taiwan is just not worth it, and
both USA and Japan have a lot more to gain by trading and partnering with China (1.3 billion with an economy growing
by 10% per year) than they do with Taiwan.
I would say that this statement is completely underestimating the will on the other side of the fence to keep Taiwan democratic and free. Taiwan is a prize for many reasons, and it is unacceptable, for many in many countries, to allow mainland China to capture it.
Quote
In the end a lot of this comes down to money, and China has a lot more of it than Taiwan. What would be the ecconomic
insentive for USA coming to Taiwans aid against China? If USA doesnt join the conflict neither will Japan.
You assume that the USA comes to aid only for economic reasons. That's another mistake. I would also state, that Japan might enter the conflict without the States overt assistance. Recent Chinese activity indicates that they're boiling up nationalist sentiments against Japan on a progressive scale. This, of course, has a reactive quality.
Quote
USA/Jpn will let China clean up its internal affair. They'll protest, but not much more than that.
Highly, highly unlikely.
Quote
The same way that Japan went from a smoldering wreck at the end of WW2 to an economic powerhouse is similar to whats
happening in China today, only a lot slower due their bloated socialist regime.
I do not think modern China's economy is very comparable to the virtually completely self sufficient and isolationist US economy (at the time).
Quote
But they're gaining steam now so I think the West does well to play nice and not interfere in an internal conflict.

I have a feeling that the CIA report about 2020 is a lot more on the money than people realize.

China will emerge, and eventually capitalism will give rise to democracy in the middle kingdom.
The West will fade a little, and life will go on.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.  :dontpanic:
</rant>
Yes, I've heard that before. Nothing to see, move along, indeed. There actually plenty to see, and plenty to observe. The idea that capitalism will definitely give rise to democracy is dependant on many variables. The first one is that the reigning power has to give up their post. I don't see that happening at all. What I see happening is, while many things are being privatized in China. It is merely a tool to attack the US. They have managed to drastically change the entire economic geography of the country with their trade policies. Upon the emergence of an eventual war, they will quickly renationalize their recently privatized factories and companies. The idea of a military economist will (many can say already does) exist.

The bottom line is: They can feign being the Good Guy, benign, or Better than Bush(tm) all they want, but if democracy is to be survived in the region, Taiwan must not fall. To state unequivically that Taiwan's failure must occur in order for capitalism and democracy to prevail, is at best disingenious.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: neuromancer on June 20, 2005, 03:00:24
Thanks Britney Spears, I didnt intend to missinform anyone, I was honestly mistaken myself.
Thanks for the link, very helpful. I've bookmarked it.

According to the link there are only 25 nations in the world that recognize Taiwan.
None of the countrys that recognize Taiwan are major world players, not even one.

You mean, like how the Americans chased the British all the way up to Canada?..
No, not at all, we're talking about chinese nationals fighting in their homeland. The only difference between them was
political party, not nationality. It would be like Liberals and Conservatives going to war inside Canada for who
gets to rule the country and (lets pretend) the Liberals win and chase the Conservatives to Vancouver Island.
Then instead of persuing them further and totally eradicating them from the face of the earth the LIBS simply
stop fighting both sides agree that the LIBS won, then they take stock and start to rebuild the country.

Maybe you need to do a bit more research on just what happened in China after WW2.

Other than that I really dont want to get into a spitting match with anyone, so Im just going to reply to one other thing you said.

Quote from: Dare
The bottom line is: They can feign being the Good Guy, benign, or Better than Bush(tm) all they want, but if democracy is to be survived in the region, Taiwan must not fall. To state unequivically that Taiwan's failure must occur in order for capitalism and democracy to prevail, is at best disingenious.

Your missreading me bud. I never said Taiwan MUST fall for democracy to prevail, thats just plain silly.

What I said; Taiwan WILL fall, Democracy WILL prevail in the end... notice how I present
them as unlinked events?
 
I really don't see China becoming Democratic any time within the next 10-15 years, if and when it does, it
will have little or nothing to do with Taiwan.

However, I do feel Taiwan is going to fall soon, I'd give it two years tops.

And as far as being "better than bush", I think you've completely missread chinese mentality.
They simply dont think that way, and they certainly dont buy into Bush's PR BS.

Sorry, not trying to be offensive or rude, but you could use a history brush up, and maybe
take a trip to China sometime. Who knows, maybe we'll all be there soon enough...  :warstory:


 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: neuromancer on June 20, 2005, 03:13:19
As they already conduct active intelligence operations in Canada against our citizens, and industrial espionage against our industry, its not as if we are reaping vast benefits from their "good" will.

What I love most!! How people are so willing to believe the worst without any proof, yet our big friendly neighbour to the south
is planning to divert a sewage river into Canada and we dont say anything because we have to play nice with George.

Not to mention Softwood or Beef. Lets look at real industrial/environmantal espionage happening in our front yard affecting
real lives of real Canadians before we go chasing shadows.

Im at the point that I am going to stop believe anything either Cons or Libs say soon, until this is all over.
Who knows when that will be... eh?

How the hell did I get so jaded?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 20, 2005, 07:28:52
     So if our trade with the Chinese is so minuscule, we can afford to do the right thing (much as that idea shocks our politicians) and recognize the sovereign state of Taiwan, and establish formal diplomatic relations.  If China wishes to start a trade war, then go for it.  As China is trying to put on its best mask for the international community long enough to get access to the kinds of modern weapons and technology that sanctions have denied them, they are unlikely to risk that by acting against so small a player as Canada.  As they already conduct active intelligence operations in Canada against our citizens, and industrial espionage against our industry, its not as if we are reaping vast benefits from their "good" will.

It was only a few years ago that CSIS publicly (through leaks) warned Canadians that France was - and, I believe, still is - conducting active aggressive industrial espionage in Canada.  Just over 35 years ago France actively attacked Canada - promoting secessionism, encouraging violence, and so on.  By any fair measure France was, and may well remain a greater threat to Canada than China is or is likely to become.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 13:03:07
No, not at all, we're talking about chinese nationals fighting in their homeland. The only difference between them was
political party, not nationality. It would be like Liberals and Conservatives going to war inside Canada for who
gets to rule the country and (lets pretend) the Liberals win and chase the Conservatives to Vancouver Island.
Then instead of persuing them further and totally eradicating them from the face of the earth the LIBS simply
stop fighting both sides agree that the LIBS won, then they take stock and start to rebuild the country.

Maybe you need to do a bit more research on just what happened in China after WW2.
You seem to have missed my analogy. As America and Canada were BOTH part of the same empire at the time, it was akin to the example you provide. Two political factions (Republican and Monarchist) making war on another. We are now two distinct and seperate countries, still one a Republic and one a Monarchy. How often do the British, or Canadians, brood about taking back America for the empire? Or is it just Chinese empires that get the distinction of being permitted an everlasting grudge?
Quote
Other than that I really dont want to get into a spitting match with anyone, so Im just going to reply to one other thing you said.
Your missreading me bud. I never said Taiwan MUST fall for democracy to prevail, thats just plain silly.
Of course it's silly, your statement that we should allow Taiwan to fall because we wouldn't want to have "interfered in an internal conflict", implies that you really aren't terribly concerned about losing a good democratic country to a very undemocratic country. Yet you insist that democracy will prevail, and that no one would or should defend Taiwan's democratic system. Should we all appease the tantrum of a giant kid (or in your words, "play nice").
Quote
I really don't see China becoming Democratic any time within the next 10-15 years, if and when it does, it
will have little or nothing to do with Taiwan.
I don't see how you can say that, at all. Taiwan has one of the most profound effects on China. If it did not, China would not make such a fuss.
Quote
However, I do feel Taiwan is going to fall soon, I'd give it two years tops.
You not only feel that Taiwan is going to fall, but you present that no one should, or would, defend her..
Quote
And as far as being "better than bush", I think you've completely missread chinese mentality.
They simply dont think that way, and they certainly dont buy into Bush's PR BS.
I'm not talking about Bush's PR. I'm talking about increasing Chinese nationalist anti-American propaghanda. Which certainly fits well with you calling Bush's PR "BS".
Quote
Sorry, not trying to be offensive or rude, but you could use a history brush up, and maybe
take a trip to China sometime. Who knows, maybe we'll all be there soon enough...  :warstory:
In your dreams, maybe. I'll go study those history books that tell me how the PRC has always had rightful claim to Taiwan (since the inception of time, apparently) and that the ROC has no rightful claim to anything (especially not Taiwan). I'll also study the history books that tell me how much of a public mandate to govern a communist dictatorship has over a free market democracy. I know these books exist in PRC and DPRK, they make great history books. If I ever find myself in China, I'll be sure to hit up the local book store and purchase a few.

You skipped an important question I had for you (not surprisingly, I might add). What is wrong with recognizing Taiwan, specifically?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 20, 2005, 13:38:00
...

What is wrong with recognizing Taiwan, specifically?

The answer, specifically, is that we, Canada, explicitly recognized that Taiwan is a province of China and that reunification is, consequently, an internal matter for the Chinese to settle amongst themselves.  Just over a year ago our (then) Foreign Minister, Bill Graham, said:

â ?Taiwan remains another sensitive issue in our relations with China. As recent events have shown, the possibility and scope for misunderstanding and escalation of tension remain high. We call on Beijing and Taipei to resume dialogue without preconditions, so that solutions can be found that fulfill the legitimate aspirations of people on both sides of the Strait. In keeping with the "One China" policy, which has underpinned Canada's approach for more than three decades, we believe that resolving the Taiwan question peacefully, in a manner acceptable to both sides, will further advance China's standing as an important and responsible pillar of the international system.
http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?publication_id=381075&Language=E

Earlier this year Canada and China issued a joint communiqué which said, in part:

â ? China reaffirms that there is only one China in the world, that the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government to represent all of China, and that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory.  Canada reaffirms its adherence to its One China policy and is opposed to any unilateral action by any party aimed at changing Taiwan's status and escalating tensions which would have an impact on the political stability and prosperity of East Asia.â ?
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=397

Canada's One China policy is clear and constant and has been since 1970.

At the risk of being repetitive:

"¢   What the Chinese say and what they do are not always, apparently - to outsiders - closely related.  The government in Beijing is repeating - as it has for 50 plus years - an official mantra: Taiwan is a rogue province; Taiwan will rejoin China; we are prepared to fight.  This is an important policy position but it is not the only position China takes on a wide range of issues.  China is an important country: a principle regional power and an emerging global power.  It has many, many fish to fry and it does a very good job of keeping most of the balls in the air at the same time - and whatever other analogies might be appropriate.  The Chinese government is highly sophisticated in balancing domestic and foreign policies and politics.

"¢   I do not think forced unification is going to take place any time soon.  There are manifest advantages, for China, in an independent Taiwan.

"¢   The Taiwan government agrees that Taiwan is an integral part of China.  The area of dispute is which of two ancient factions is the rightful government: the long gone (from its 1975 format) Kuomintang or the rapidly fading (from its 1976 format) Communists in Beijing?  Many people in Taiwan (and on the mainland, too) hope that over a reasonable length of time (which need not be measured in short, four year political mandates as in the West) Hong Kong will, indeed, take over China - bringing a great reduction in corruption, general respect for laws, competent, honest courts and some form of conservative constitutional democracy.  When, rather than if, I think, that happens there will be no significant impediments to reunification.

"¢   What is not in anyone's interest - certainly not in China's or Canada's , is a shooting war between China and the West.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 13:40:06
What I love most!! How people are so willing to believe the worst without any proof, yet our big friendly neighbour to the south
is planning to divert a sewage river into Canada and we dont say anything because we have to play nice with George.

http://www.primetimecrime.com/Articles/Media%20Articles/NP%20China.htm
http://www.asianpacificpost.com/news/article/195.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover012605.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/15/spies050615.html
http://www.faluninfo.ca/nodes/54/
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118953947201_114363147/?hub=TopStories
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050617/wl_canada_afp/canadapoliticschina_050617174215
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040925/RCHINA25/TPBusiness/International
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17644

1000 agents, eh? Nothing to see here, move along. Look at the nasty Americans!

Yeah, yeah.. right.

A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven. ;)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 13:59:36
The answer, specifically, is that we, Canada, explicitly recognized that Taiwan is a province of China and that reunification is, consequently, an internal matter for the Chinese to settle amongst themselves.  Just over a year ago our (then) Foreign Minister, Bill Graham, said:
Fortunately, there is growing pressure to change that position.
Quote
â ? China reaffirms that there is only one China in the world, that the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government to represent all of China, and that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory.  Canada reaffirms its adherence to its One China policy and is opposed to any unilateral action by any party aimed at changing Taiwan's status and escalating tensions which would have an impact on the political stability and prosperity of East Asia.â ?
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=397
It's good to know our values are prosperity and stability over democratic principles and justice.
Quote

"¢   What the Chinese say and what they do are not always, apparently - to outsiders - closely related.  The government in Beijing is repeating - as it has for 50 plus years - an official mantra: Taiwan is a rogue province; Taiwan will rejoin China; we are prepared to fight.  This is an important policy position but it is not the only position China takes on a wide range of issues.  China is an important country: a principle regional power and an emerging global power.  It has many, many fish to fry and it does a very good job of keeping most of the balls in the air at the same time - and whatever other analogies might be appropriate.  The Chinese government is highly sophisticated in balancing domestic and foreign policies and politics.

"¢   I do not think forced unification is going to take place any time soon.  There are manifest advantages, for China, in an independent Taiwan.
If China believes that, then why is it every time Taiwan comes close to declaring independence, China threatens obliteration? Do you believe it all to be a show? I think they are very serious and genuine in their threats.
Quote
"¢   The Taiwan government agrees that Taiwan is an integral part of China.  The area of dispute is which of two ancient factions is the rightful government: the long gone (from its 1975 format) Kuomintang or the rapidly fading (from its 1976 format) Communists in Beijing?  Many people in Taiwan (and on the mainland, too) hope that over a reasonable length of time (which need not be measured in short, four year political mandates as in the West) Hong Kong will, indeed, take over China - bringing a great reduction in corruption, general respect for laws, competent, honest courts and some form of conservative constitutional democracy.  When, rather than if, I think, that happens there will be no significant impediments to reunification.
How can you say that Hong Kong will take over China, when the reverse has already occured?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3658503.stm
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/09/china9325.htm
One country, two systems? Not for long..
Quote
"¢   What is not in anyone's interest - certainly not in China's or Canada's , is a shooting war between China and the West.
In the short term, perhaps.

EDIT: Spelling error.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 20, 2005, 14:14:25
...
Not for long..In the short term, perhaps.

EDIT: Spelling error.

And therein, I think, lies one of our fundamental problems: we do not understand that the short term might, and when dealing with Asia should mean decades.  This hideous fascination with right now does not serve us well - it ranks right down there with the cult of celebrity worship.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 20, 2005, 14:14:53
I don't agree with what neuromancer or Dare  has posted, but I think there are still some fundemental misconceptions that are being repeated ad nauseum in the contex of our discussion.

For example, Dare, your talk of "free markets" and "democracies" do little to support your arguments. Every single one of the Asian "Tiger" economies were built on the basis of heavy state intervention, directing national efforts towards rapid, export oriented industrialization. Of the major "Tiger" economies, Japan was ruled by a foreign imposed goverment and Taiwan and South Korea were ruled by single party military juntas. Taiwan's first democratic election occured in 1991, the year when single party rule by the family of Chiang Kai Shek, in power since the 1920s, ended. The military junta in South Korea was overthrown in 1989. The rapid economic ascent of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, the beacons of democracy in the east, was certainly neither "free market" or "democratic", and quite on the contrary were completely dependent on 1) A centrally planned economy, forcibally supplanting an agrarian society with an industrial one, and 2) Repressive, single party authoritarian goverments who used military force  to quell the inevitable dissent.  Although freedom and democracy  eventually came about with economic prosperity, as they do in most developed nations, it is definetly a mistake to think that the opposite is also true.  If you guys want examples of how "free market" economics has resulted in "prosperity", you'd be better off looking in Latin America, where some of the same events are once again repeating themselves.

This isn't meant to be an attack directed at anyone in particular, but again I urge all of the posters here to take off their western-centric blinders about "freedom" and "democracy", do some more reading about the history of the region and try to understand these events in a wider context.


Back on topic, If I were the great leader of the PRC, the LAST thing I would want to do is paint myself into a corner by whipping up more public bloodlust for a goal that is militarily and politically impossible to attain (forced reunification). I'd much rather just suck up the temporary embarrasment now (eh, who cares, I'm still the communist dictator, I still have nukes, bring on the dancing slave girls,  it's all good) say "meh, off you go then." to the Taiwanese and instead capitalize on the economic and cultural ties that are already in place. Given a few years of peace and prosperity on both sides of the strait and the fact that economically Taiwan is already in the Chinese sphere, Taiwan will naturally gravitate into the fold of the Chinese empire willingly. Worst case scenario, in 10 years Taiwan will be China's Canada: wealthy, nice place, nice people, like to wave their little flags and tell people that they aren't Chinese, but everyone knows that they really are....

But I'm too laid back to ever become a politician......
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 14:22:29
And therein, I think, lies one of our fundamental problems: we do not understand that the short term might, and when dealing with Asia should mean decades.  This hideous fascination with right now does not serve us well - it ranks right down there with the cult of celebrity worship.
No, you misunderstand. I meant, in the short term, it probably does not benefit us. I am thinking long term.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 14:32:44
I don't agree with what neuromancer or Dare  has posted, but I think there are still some fundemental misconceptions that are being repeated ad nauseum in the contex of our discussion.

For example, Dare, your talk of "free markets" and "democracies" do little to support your arguments. Every single one of the Asian "Tiger" economies were built on the basis of heavy state intervention, directing national efforts towards rapid, export oriented industrialization. Of the major "Tiger" economies, Japan was ruled by a foreign imposed goverment and Taiwan and South Korea were ruled by single party military juntas. Taiwan's first democratic election occured in 1991, the year when single party rule by the family of Chiang Kai Shek, in power since the 1920s, ended. The military junta in South Korea was overthrown in 1989. The rapid economic ascent of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, the beacons of democracy in the east, was certainly neither "free market" or "democratic", and quite on the contrary were completely dependent on 1) A centrally planned economy, forcibally supplanting an agrarian society with an industrial one, and 2) Repressive, single party authoritarian goverments who used military force  to quell the inevitable dissent.  Although freedom and democracy  eventually came about with economic prosperity, as they do in most developed nations, it is definetly a mistake to think that the opposite is also true.  If you guys want examples of how "free market" economics has resulted in "prosperity", you'd be better off looking in Latin America, where some of the same events are once again repeating themselves.
Surely, you do not think that South Korea and Taiwan are not currently free market democracies? (Ugh, ugly double negative.)
Quote
This isn't meant to be an attack directed at anyone in particular, but again I urge all of the posters here to take off their western-centric blinders about "freedom" and "democracy", do some more reading about the history of the region and try to understand these events in a wider context.

Back on topic, If I were the great leader of the PRC, the LAST thing I would want to do is paint myself into a corner by whipping up more public bloodlust for a goal that is militarily and politically impossible to attain (forced reunification). I'd much rather just suck up the temporary embarrasment now (eh, who cares, I'm still the communist dictator, I still have nukes, bring on the dancing slave girls,  it's all good) say "meh, off you go then." to the Taiwanese and instead capitalize on the economic and cultural ties that are already in place. Given a few years of peace and prosperity on both sides of the strait and the fact that economically Taiwan is already in the Chinese sphere, Taiwan will naturally gravitate into the fold of the Chinese empire willingly. Worst case scenario, in 10 years Taiwan will be China's Canada: wealthy, nice place, nice people, like to wave their little flags and tell people that they aren't Chinese, but everyone knows that they really are....
Many like to try to normalize a state as being as rational as a normal person, like you or I. Unfortuntaly, and especially with such a large state controlled by so few, irrational and unexpected outcomes may become the norm.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 20, 2005, 14:38:56
Quote
Surely, you do not think that South Korea and Taiwan are not currently free market democracies? (Ugh, ugly double negative.)

What!? Read the damn thing again.



Quote
Many like to try to normalize a state as being as rational as a normal person, like you or I. Unfortuntaly, and especially with such a large state controlled by so few, irrational and unexpected outcomes may become the norm.

Empircal evidence neither supports or refutes this assertion, but if you want to offer up something other than the "rational actor" model of foreign affairs, feel free. Personally, I'm quite partial to the "revolutionary feminist" model: I blame penises for all the world's troubles. 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 15:11:33
What!? Read the darn thing again.
I did read it. I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you agree Taiwan is a free market democracy, I don't see how that hampers my usage of the terms.
Quote
Empircal evidence neither supports or refutes this assertion, but if you want to offer up something other than the "rational actor" model of foreign affairs, feel free. Personally, I'm quite partial to the "revolutionary feminist" model: I blame penises for all the world's troubles. 
Well, I'm sure I can pull up quite a few Psych sources on Group Think and Mob Mentality, and it's unpredictable nature (but I'm way too lazy to do that). Real Politik is the most often used forumla when dealing with a state, but when dealing with a small cabal, you must be aware you're really dealing with the whims, emotions and desires of a few. Not the material needs of the masses. The reality is, states are not always doing what we think they are, and even if they are, they sometimes make mistakes, even at that scale. Many people are shocked when they find out about the local serial killer, because they can't imagine why anyone would do that. And they only can't imagine anyone doing it because they can't imagine themselves doing it. It might not seem logical to you for mainland China to attack Taiwan, but as the other fellow mentioned (and about the only thing said I agree with), China is locked in on this. Years and years of making the promise. It's a national obsession that has always been backed by threats. It may be national suicide to attack a US naval battlegroup, but that's exactly what they're planning and I don't see much deviation in the area of threat/force. I only see a different PR tactic to soften their image and make alliances. Sure, democratic activists and capitalist entrepreneurials have made progress, I just don't see it as sufficient, nor a force that is turning the tide.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 20, 2005, 16:22:38
Every single one of the Asian "Tiger" economies were built on the basis of heavy state intervention, directing national efforts towards rapid, export oriented industrialization ... Although freedom and democracy eventually came about with economic prosperity, as they do in most developed nations, it is definetly a mistake to think that the opposite is also true.
Well said!

Quote
Back on topic, If I were the great leader of the PRC, the LAST thing I would want to do is paint myself into a corner by whipping up more public bloodlust for a goal that is militarily and politically impossible to attain (forced reunification). I'd much rather just suck up the temporary embarrasment now (eh, who cares, I'm still the communist dictator, I still have nukes, bring on the dancing slave girls,  it's all good) say "meh, off you go then." to the Taiwanese and instead capitalize on the economic and cultural ties that are already in place.
I suspect here you are in danger of wearing "western-centric blinders" yourself ... I was about to add to this, but it looks like Dare beat me to it in the the latter half of his most recent post.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 20, 2005, 17:34:27
I said, a couple of pages back, â Å“...Canada, explicitly recognized that Taiwan is a province of China and that reunification is, consequently, an internal matter for the Chinese to settle amongst themselves.â ?

Dare responded:

Fortunately, there is growing pressure to change that position.


Is there; from where?  It certainly has not been detected by anyone with a six figure salary in DFAIT nor, as far as I can tell, is it anywhere on the Liberal Party of Canada's agenda.  Even the Toronto Star vacillates lest it shed Chinese-Canadian subscribers.

I'm sure good, honest, hard working, down right decent Canadians are writing letters â “ and then the PM goes and speaks to the Canada China Business Council.  http://www.ccbc.com/ Call me, please, when he, or even Pierre Prettycurls goes and talks to whatever remains of the Canada-Taiwan Trade Association, if it still even exists.  There are extensive e.g. technology trade partnerships between Canada and Taiwan, including some involving government agencies like the NRC but the last time I can recall a Minister talking to the Taiwanese was back when John Manley was still Minister of Industry â “ and a lot of water has passed under the bridges since then.

My sense of the politics here is that everyone likes Taiwan but nobody really cares.  Taiwan is a valued and trusted source of technology and it is a good, albeit small market.  China, on the other hand, looms large on every well paid mind â “ and, generally, favourably, too.  No one, except maybe TorStar, seems to be really upset re: China spying on Falun Gong supporters â “ as someone else pointed out (here?) some people seem to agree that there are some strange, cultish people at the top of Falun Gong â “ maybe the Chinese have cause to worry.  I do not detect any deeper anti-Chinese or pro-Taiwan feeling amongst the Conservatives, save that a few (and a few like minded Liberals) have a generic fear of the yellow peril lurking just off-shore.

That's my personal take on it.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: neuromancer on June 20, 2005, 18:43:30
http://www.primetimecrime.com/Articles/Media%20Articles/NP%20China.htm
http://www.asianpacificpost.com/news/article/195.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover012605.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/15/spies050615.html
http://www.faluninfo.ca/nodes/54/
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118953947201_114363147/?hub=TopStories
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050617/wl_canada_afp/canadapoliticschina_050617174215
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040925/RCHINA25/TPBusiness/International
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17644

Good links, interesting stuff for sure!
Some of that stuff is pretty old though, like the media buy up, that seems to have happened right after
the Tienimen Square fiasco. The rest though is pretty interesting.

However again, look at the big picture; Even if China is spying they certainly are not the only ones.
I still rather focus on whats happening south of our border first, certainly there are larger and more pressing issues there.

Not that we should allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by anyone, in any way.
Not by China, not Russian, not America. Nobody.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on June 20, 2005, 18:48:46
" Worst case scenario, in 10 years Taiwan will be China's Canada: wealthy, nice place, nice people, like to wave their little flags and tell people that they aren't Chinese, but everyone knows that they really are...."

- You said a lot more about Canada here than you did about Taiwan.
 Picture of Mel Hurtig on your wall?    ;D

"I blame penises for all the world's troubles."

- Good point.   Eliminate penises, and all the worlds troubles would be over in a generation.   Two, tops.

"Not that we should allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by anyone, in any way.
Not by China, not Russian, not America. Nobody."

- But it's the Canadian way - Canada:   The welcome mat of the Western World.

Tom

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 20, 2005, 18:56:03
Call me, please, when he, or even Pierre Prettycurls goes and talks to whatever remains of the Canada-Taiwan Trade Association, if it still even exists.  There are extensive e.g. technology trade partnerships between Canada and Taiwan, including some involving government agencies like the NRC but the last time I can recall a Minister talking to the Taiwanese was back when John Manley was still Minister of Industry â “ and a lot of water has passed under the bridges since then.

The Canada-Taiwan Trade Association was dominated by caucasian-Canadians wanting to do business in Taiwan: there weren't enough people on the "other side of the table".  It was dissolved and and most of the members joined the (larger and more senior) Taiwan Chamber of Commerce.  Anyway, from where I sit trade with Taiwan is as strong as ever, and I'm sure the statistics support this (although I don't have any at my fingertips).  I don't disagree with the contention that the government might be paying less lip service to political support of Taiwan, but nothwithstanding multi-million dollar "trade mission" boondoggles, free enterprise goes where the (demand and supply) markets dictate.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: neuromancer on June 20, 2005, 19:03:06
I said, a couple of pages back, â Å“...Canada, explicitly recognized that Taiwan is a province of China and that reunification is, consequently, an internal matter for the Chinese to settle amongst themselves.â ?

I wonder if this has anything todo with Canadas past issues regarding unification with Quebec, or are we simply
being political and keeping our noses where they belongs?

Quote
My sense of the politics here is that everyone likes Taiwan but nobody really cares.  Taiwan is a valued and trusted source of technology and it is a good, albeit small market.  China, on the other hand, looms large on every well paid mind â “ and, generally, favourably, too.  No one, except maybe TorStar, seems to be really upset re: China spying on Falun Gong supporters â “ as someone else pointed out (here?) some people seem to agree that there are some strange, cultish people at the top of Falun Gong â “ maybe the Chinese have cause to worry.  I do not detect any deeper anti-Chinese or pro-Taiwan feeling amongst the Conservatives, save that a few (and a few like minded Liberals) have a generic fear of the yellow peril lurking just off-shore.

Generic fear, lol. Indeed, I agree but I laughed at that experssion just the same.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on June 20, 2005, 21:34:32
I just love the one China policy.  It illustrates the innate cowardice of the great nations of the world, or at least their willingness to abandon their principles if the price is right.  What would the nations of the west have done in the 1950's if the DDR would have declared a "One Germany Policy" whereby we could either recognize our ally (West) or the Soviet puppet (East)?  I think that the list of nations backing West Germany would be a little longer than the ROC claims today.  How quickly we forget that the ROC, whose remaining territory is Tiawan, WAS our ally during WWII against Japanese, and the communists who formed the  Peoples Republic were not.   The nations of the west are fond of wrapping ourselves in the defence of democracy, freedom, and human rights, but largely to justify actions that are to our immediate advantage.  Now don't get me wrong, we often do so to oppose those who truly are dangerous and/or evil, but I find that we are utterly uninterested in threats to democracy, freedom, or human rights where large, well armed, modern nations are involved.  Real politics is necessary, I don't argue that.  I just get a little sick at the transparent hypocrisy involved; but I was only a soldier, not a diplomat.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 20, 2005, 21:55:57
Quote
the communists who formed the  Peoples Republic were not.

Where did you get this?

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 22:06:26
I said, a couple of pages back, â Å“...Canada, explicitly recognized that Taiwan is a province of China and that reunification is, consequently, an internal matter for the Chinese to settle amongst themselves.â ?

Dare responded:

Is there; from where?  It certainly has not been detected by anyone with a six figure salary in DFAIT nor, as far as I can tell, is it anywhere on the Liberal Party of Canada's agenda.  Even the Toronto Star vacillates lest it shed Chinese-Canadian subscribers.

I'm sure good, honest, hard working, down right decent Canadians are writing letters â “ and then the PM goes and speaks to the Canada China Business Council.  http://www.ccbc.com/ Call me, please, when he, or even Pierre Prettycurls goes and talks to whatever remains of the Canada-Taiwan Trade Association, if it still even exists.  There are extensive e.g. technology trade partnerships between Canada and Taiwan, including some involving government agencies like the NRC but the last time I can recall a Minister talking to the Taiwanese was back when John Manley was still Minister of Industry â “ and a lot of water has passed under the bridges since then.

My sense of the politics here is that everyone likes Taiwan but nobody really cares.  Taiwan is a valued and trusted source of technology and it is a good, albeit small market.  China, on the other hand, looms large on every well paid mind â “ and, generally, favourably, too.  No one, except maybe TorStar, seems to be really upset re: China spying on Falun Gong supporters â “ as someone else pointed out (here?) some people seem to agree that there are some strange, cultish people at the top of Falun Gong â “ maybe the Chinese have cause to worry.  I do not detect any deeper anti-Chinese or pro-Taiwan feeling amongst the Conservatives, save that a few (and a few like minded Liberals) have a generic fear of the yellow peril lurking just off-shore.

That's my personal take on it.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118867654973_114276854/?hub=Canada
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/03/12/2003245898
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050616/CHINA16/National/Idx
http://www.duncanmp.com/speeches/c357.html

There are growing movements towards recognition. Certainly not with much official interest in the Liberal government.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on June 20, 2005, 22:10:42
Good links, interesting stuff for sure!
Some of that stuff is pretty old though, like the media buy up, that seems to have happened right after
the Tienimen Square fiasco. The rest though is pretty interesting.

However again, look at the big picture; Even if China is spying they certainly are not the only ones.
I still rather focus on whats happening south of our border first, certainly there are larger and more pressing issues there.

Not that we should allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by anyone, in any way.
Not by China, not Russian, not America. Nobody.
There is no question that they are not the only ones and we must defend against all espionage, but 1000 agents is (I have to emphasize) *alot*. That is a huge operation. And I have a feeling that it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on June 20, 2005, 22:17:58
Where did you get this?


http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/g385_2001/seagrave3.htm
 http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Long-March/Long-March-history-01.html

As the above links show, the Chinese communists were supported by the Soviets, and the Chinese nationalists by the US.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 20, 2005, 22:31:04
I see, and so by your reasoning, the USSR was not an ally during WW2 either? Not that it really matters, since during World War 2,  the Eighth Route and new Fourth Armies were nominally under the command of the Nationalists, and received no support from the USSR.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on June 21, 2005, 01:32:42
Seems to me it's time some enterprising Canadians made a movie about the battle of Kapyong, just to watch the Comrades squirm.  "Canada fought WHO?"

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 21, 2005, 01:51:24
Yes, but the only way it would be made is if it got a grant from the CBC and National Film Board.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on June 21, 2005, 19:37:35
"Yes, but the only way it would be made is if it got a grant from the CBC and National Film Board."

-Too true.

"It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion"

â ” Joseph Goebbells


Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 21, 2005, 23:42:31
An analysis of why the "Little Tigers" are more likely to come on side with the Western alliance:

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson062005.html

Quote
Security Threats Warm Our Allies
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, is busy trying to strengthen the American alliance. In recent months, members of his government have announced new joint military arrangements with the U.S. and announced to the South Koreans that, unlike Japan, they are not to be trusted with sensitive American intelligence.

Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have been doing just the opposite. They proudly talk up an all-European military force to vie with NATO and insist their stagnant economies will not resort to the American model.

Of course, we saw these markedly different approaches to relations with the U.S. most starkly over the war in Iraq. Japan sent troops immediately, while Germany and France actively opposed American efforts to topple Saddam Hussein.

Japan, however, hasn't always been so warm nor Europe so cool to the U.S., and current global strategic realities largely explain their quite different attitudes to America.

Like the trans-Atlantic relationship, the Japanese-American partnership arose from the ashes of World War II, and in the 1970s and 1980s Japan was every bit as prone to fits of anti-Americanism. Japanese leftists once pushed for withdrawal of American troops. The Japanese right used to lecture us about the superiority of Japan Inc. and brag of a new defiant generation "that could just say no" to U.S. fair trade nagging.

Fury over our bases in Okinawa always seemed to exceed the European inconvenience about U.S. troops in Germany. Japan had far less cultural resonance with the U.S. than did Europe.

Why, then, is Japan suddenly warm while Europe is so cool? Is the Bush administration clumsy in Berlin and adept in Tokyo?

No. Rather, the answer is the rise of China and the collapse of the Soviet Union. For the Japanese government, China and its nuclear protégé, North Korea, are not abstract threats. Indeed, they are within tactical missile range.

If Europeans dream Chinese break-neck capitalism means only lucrative business, the Japanese fear such dynamism will more likely lead to a new bully in their own backyard.

If Japan once had bouts of anti-Americanism when its neighbor China was asleep, Europe was relatively friendly to us when we kept 300 Soviet divisions from its borders.

The moral? Trashing the United States can be a sport for some when one nearby communist enemy disappears but not so for others when another such enemy ascends close by.

Of course, domestic politics, trade issues and clumsy American diplomacy also help fashion the U.S. image abroad. Still, a government's anti-American rhetoric is often predicated on its perceived self-interest.

For all the furor over George Bush's "smoke 'em-out" rhetoric, there are a variety of historical and geographical factors beyond our control that determine the relative popularity of the U.S. abroad.

The small countries Denmark and the Netherlands were invaded twice in the last century by the German Reich. Eastern Europe was swallowed up and nearly ruined by the Russians. These places will thus always be more receptive to the U.S. than a larger and more secure post-Cold War France and Germany.

New Zealand, meanwhile, tucked safely behind a shielding Australia tends to embrace anti-Americanism. If a naked New Zealand faced Communist China, Islamic Indonesia and Malaysia and nuclear North Korea, it might be more receptive to the visits of U.S. warships.

In calmer times, South Korea heralded its "Sunshine" policy of engaging the North. Predictable anti-Americanism followed.

But after a failed appeasement policy, the shocking disclosure of North Korean nuclear capability and some scary rhetoric by Kim Jong-Il, trashing the U.S. fell out of fashion in Seoul. That South Korean about-face was understandable when the U.S. announced it was sending some American soldiers off the Demilitarized Zone and down to Pusan - or home.

Perceptions of the U.S. are also in constant flux. Greece, for example, was once the most anti-American state in Europe, nursing understandable wounds over past U.S. support for creepy dictators in Athens.

But the European Union is no longer a cash cow and still without military muscle - and thus of dubious value in a scrape. At the same time Greece's age-old rival, Turkey, shows disturbing signs of Islamic fundamentalism, conducts provocative flights in the Aegean, and talks tough on Cyprus. Suddenly for the Greeks, the conciliatory and militarily powerful U.S. and its 6th Fleet don't seem so hegemonic after all.

Through all of this vacillating, the American superpower's behavior remains about the same. And despite all the shouting and angry editorials, a nation that is strong, democratic and willing to help does not look too bad.

After Iraq, we think the loud hostility of Germany, France and the Arab autocracies represents a global consensus. It doesn't.

The world changes as we speak. With new economic powerhouses like China and India, universal concerns about terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism and recognition of how weak both the E.U. and the United Nations are in a real pinch, expect easy, fashionable anti-Americanism to recede.

Indeed, it already has. Just ask a warm Japan - and look soon for the same change of mood in a once cool but now increasingly vulnerable and worried Europe.

©2005 Victor Davis Hanson
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 27, 2005, 17:14:17
Quote
Chinese dragon awakens
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 26, 2005
Part II: Thefts of U.S. technology boost China's weaponry
   
    Part one of two
   
    China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

    U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

    China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.

    "There's a growing consensus that at some point in the mid-to-late '90s, there was a fundamental shift in the sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense planning," said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker in the Pentagon. "And what we're seeing now is a manifestation of that change in the number of new systems that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems and the interoperability of the systems."

    China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization.

    The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.

    "We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said.

    For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China's military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines.

    The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait "grim" and said the country's military could "crush" Taiwan.

    Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said.

    The war fears come despite the fact that China is hosting the Olympic Games in 2008 and, therefore, some officials say, would be reluctant to invoke the international condemnation that a military attack on Taiwan would cause.

    Army of the future
    In the past, some defense specialists insisted a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a "million-man swim" across the Taiwan Strait because of the country's lack of troop-carrying ships.
    "We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998, 1999," the senior Pentagon official said. "And in fact, what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even quadrupling their capability on an annual basis."
    Asked about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, the official put it bluntly: "In the '07-'08 time frame, a capability will be there that a year ago we would have said was very, very unlikely. We now assess that as being very likely to be there."
    Air Force Gen. Paul V. Hester, head of the Pacific Air Forces, said the U.S. military has been watching China's military buildup but has found it difficult to penetrate Beijing's "veil" of secrecy over it.
    While military modernization itself is not a major worry, "what does provide you a pause for interest and concern is the amount of modernization, the kind of modernization and the size of the modernization," he said during a recent breakfast meeting with reporters.
    China is building capabilities such as aerial refueling and airborne warning and control aircraft that can be used for regional defense and long-range power projection, Gen. Hester said.
    It also is developing a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, or MARV, for its nuclear warheads. The weapon is designed to counter U.S. strategic-missile defenses, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The warhead would be used on China's new DF-31 long-range missiles and its new submarine missile, the JL-2.
    Work being done on China's weapons and reconnaissance systems will give its military the capability to reach 1,000 miles into the sea, "which gives them the visibility on the movement of not only our airplanes in the air, but also our forces at sea," Gen. Hester said.
    Beijing also has built a new tank for its large armed forces. It is known as the Type 99 and appears similar in design to Germany's Leopard 2 main battle tank. The tank is outfitted with new artillery, anti-aircraft and machine guns, advanced fire-control systems and improved engines.
    The country's air power is growing through the purchase of new fighters from Russia, such as Su-30 fighter-bombers, as well as the development of its own fighter jets, such as the J-10.
    Gen. Hester compared Chinese warplanes with those of the former Soviet Union, which were less capable than their U.S. counterparts, but still very deadly.
    "They have great equipment. The fighters are very technologically advanced, and what we know about them gives us pause for concern against ours," he said.
    Missiles also are a worry.
    "It is their surface-to-air missiles, their [advanced] SAMs and their surface-to-surface missiles, and the precision, more importantly, of those surface-to-surface missiles that provide, obviously, the ability to pinpoint targets that we might have out in the region, or our friends and allies might have," Gen. Hester said.
    The advances give the Chinese military "the ability ... to reach out and touch parts of the United States -- Guam, Hawaii and the mainland of the United States," he said.
    To better deal with possible future conflicts in Asia, the Pentagon is modernizing U.S. military facilities on the Western Pacific island of Guam and planning to move more forces there.
    The Air Force will regularly rotate Air Expeditionary Force units to Guam and also will station the new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle known as Global Hawk on the island, he said.
    It also has stationed B-2 stealth bombers on Guam temporarily and is expected to deploy B-1 bombers there, in addition to the B-52s now deployed there, Gen. Hester said.
   
    Projecting power
    China's rulers have adopted what is known as the "two-island chain" strategy of extending control over large areas of the Pacific, covering inner and outer chains of islands stretching from Japan to Indonesia.
    "Clearly, they are still influenced by this first and second island chain," the intelligence official said.
    The official said China's buildup goes beyond what would be needed to fight a war against Taiwan.
    The conclusion of this official is that China wants a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond the two island chains.
    "If you look at the technical capabilities of the weapons platforms that they're fielding, the sea-keeping capabilities, the size, sensors and weapons fit, this capability transcends the baseline that is required to deal with a Taiwan situation militarily," the intelligence official said.
    "So they are positioned then, if [Taiwan is] resolved one way or the other, to really become a regional military power as well."
    The dispatch of a Han-class submarine late last year to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan was an indication of the Chinese military's drive to expand its oceangoing capabilities, the officials said. The submarine surfaced in Japanese waters, triggering an emergency deployment of Japan's naval forces.
    Beijing later issued an apology for the incursion, but the political damage was done. Within months, Japan began adopting a tougher political posture toward China in its defense policies and public statements. A recent Japanese government defense report called China a strategic national security concern. It was the first time China was named specifically in a Japanese defense report.
   
    Energy supply a factor
    For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.
    The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power.
    China "is looking not only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes [from the Middle East], but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan," the report said.
    The report said China believes the United States already controls the sea routes from the oil-rich Persian Gulf through the Malacca Strait. Chinese President Hu Jintao has called this strategic vulnerability to disrupted energy supplies Beijing's "Malacca Dilemma."
    To prevent any disruption, China has adopted a "string of pearls" strategy that calls for both offensive and defensive measures stretching along the oil-shipment sea lanes from China's coast to the Middle East.
    The "pearls" include the Chinese-financed seaport being built at Gwadar, on the coast of western Pakistan, and commercial and military efforts to establish bases or diplomatic ties in Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand and disputed islands in the South China Sea.
    The report stated that China's ability to use these pearls for a "credible" military action is not certain.
    Pentagon intelligence officials, however, say the rapid Chinese naval buildup includes the capability to project power to these sea lanes in the future.
    "They are not doing a lot of surface patrols or any other kind of security evolutions that far afield," the intelligence official said. "There's no evidence of [Chinese military basing there] yet, but we do need to keep an eye toward that expansion."
    The report also highlighted the vulnerability of China's oil and gas infrastructure to a crippling U.S. attack.
    "The U.S. military could severely cripple Chinese resistance [during a conflict over Taiwan] by blocking its energy supply, whereas the [People's Liberation Army navy] poses little threat to United States' energy security," it said.
    China views the United States as "a potential threat because of its military superiority, its willingness to disrupt China's energy imports, its perceived encirclement of China and its disposition toward manipulating international politics," the report said.
   
    'Mercantilist measures'
    The report stated that China will resort "to extreme, offensive and mercantilist measures when other strategies fail, to mitigate its vulnerabilities, such as seizing control of energy resources in neighboring states."
    U.S. officials have said two likely targets for China are the Russian Far East, which has vast oil and gas deposits, and Southeast Asia, which also has oil and gas resources.
    Michael Pillsbury, a former Pentagon official and specialist on China's military, said the internal U.S. government debate on the issue and excessive Chinese secrecy about its military buildup "has cost us 10 years to figure out what to do"
    "Everybody is starting to acknowledge the hard facts," Mr. Pillsbury said. "The China military buildup has been accelerating since 1999. As the buildup has gotten worse, China is trying hard to mask it."
    Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.
    "Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 27, 2005, 18:42:34
Well, that's one side of the story.  Here's another:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200506/27/eng20050627_192610.html
Quote
The Pentagon plays up "China threat theory"

The pentagon's evaluation on China's military spending is "seriously inflated", said a Rand research report on the annual report on the military power of China by US Department of Defence, which will be delivered to the Congress soon. The report said that the play-up of "China military threat" theory on purpose should be rectified.

China's military expenditure suffers repeated "inflation"

On May 19, the Rand Corporation referred a report to the US Air Force entitled "The Modernization of Chinese National Defence: Opportunities and Challenges", which gave an assessment of the future development of Chinese military power. In this report, many senior Rand experts on China affairs believe that Chinese spending on national defence accounts for about 2.3 to 2.8 percent of its GDP. According to latest data Rand has gained, in 2003, the total military expenses of China were between 31-38 billion US dollars.

The figure was already 70 per cent higher than that published by the Chinese government. Yet the Pentagon claimed in its 2003 report that the year's military outlay was as high as 65 billion US dollars, still 71 per cent higher than the highest Rand estimation.

The US Congress passed its National Defence Authorization Act in 2000, requiring the Department of Defence to hand in "report on Chinese military power" to the Congress annually with analysis on China's present and future military strategy. In such reports, the Pentagon has more than once viciously exaggerated Chinese military outlay, spreading "China threat theory." In 2004, Pentagon offered a 54-page report with tens of thousands of words, trying its utmost for exaggeration and instigation. The report asserted luridly that China's military expenditure reached between 50-70 billion US dollars.

Later, a Pentagon spokesman preached that the Chinese army is devoting itself to the modernization drive and developing a capacity to win a partial war under high-tech conditions. Accordingly, the Department of Defence will continue to closely monitor Chinese army's modernization process, "especially that involving Taiwan".

What is the Pentagon up to?

Therewith, on the expenses, the US government does not sit down to make an earnest research on the first-hand data, but instead, indulges in guessing, said James Mulvenon, an expert on international issues and one of the authors of the Rand report. So, the Rand has to correct "many estimations from the US government".

Many international observers pointed out that strong political motives and huge economic interests have been driving the Pentagon to recklessly fabricate "China threat" theory.

First, exaggeration of China's military power can not only exacerbate Congress suspicion and hostility against China, but also dredge for benefits for all US military departments in order to obtain a bigger defence budget. The exaggeration can also enable the US to find a pretext for its opposition to the European Union's lifting of arms embargo on China and for making public opinions in order to enlarge its arms sales to Taiwan.

A long way for developing Chinese military power

The report believes that whether China's economy can maintain a rapid and sustainable growth will be a decisive factor influencing the changes of its defence expenses. As the world second largest economy in many fields, China has enough economic strength to build a modernized powerful army. Experts from the Rand forecast that, despite the prediction that by 2025, the growth rate will be down to 3 per cent from the present 9 per cent, China will by then still retain an economic scale more than three times the present size.

Meanwhile, Rand experts also pointed out that in the next 20 years, the speed and way of the military power growth will be affected and conditioned by many factors, including the reduced scale of cheap labor force, the sharp reduction of bank savings caused by the use of savings due to the aging population, dwindled exports and the decline of industrial output caused by market saturation, financial frailty with high risks and problems existed in agriculture and rural areas.

To sum up, the Rand report believes that although there is a good momentum for the development of the military power, it will not be a smooth path. It is too early to preach "China military threat" theory, as there is a long way to go with heavy responsibilities ahead for Chinese national defence and the army building.

This article is carried on the Global Times, June 24, and is translated by People's Daily Online

Now, you can argue that The People's Daily is just a government controlled propaganda machine â “ as some say about e.g. Fox News, where Bill Gertz (who wrote the piece just above) works as an analyst.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 27, 2005, 20:48:29
A good analysis of free trade with China. For people who think it is the "best hope", it has a lot of potential, but it will still take a long time to turn things around internally. In my opinion, we should be mounting an all out effort to invest in the Indian economy; to provide a counterweight to China, as well as to support a fellow democracy.

As for those who are concerned about outsourcing manufacturing jobs to the third world; unless we get our own act together, the flow of jobs will continue. People want quality products at low prices. (Why do you think the "big three" American car makers can only sell their products with steep discounts and incentives?). Canada's high tax and regulatory environment is certainly an impediment to investing in manufacturing capacity or hiring workers.

Quote
The Insanity of Smoot Schumer and Hawley Graham
Their China policy defies economic history.

If a store is selling quality products at low prices, why would anyone want to shut it down? This rhetorical question was asked by economist Arthur Laffer last week in connection to an unprecedented attack on China trade by numerous U.S. senators. In response to the China bashing, the stock market plunged.

How fitting that such a misguided approach to both the economy and national security would come on the 75th anniversary of the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff bill. According to economist Thomas Sowell, that massive tariff helped trigger the Great Depression, with U.S. unemployment rising from 9 percent in 1930 to 16 percent in 1931 and 25 percent in 1932.

Today, senators Smoot Schumer and Hawley Graham have proposed a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese imports unless China raises significantly the value of its yuan currency. The senators seem to be angry at a rising bilateral trade deficit resulting from Chinese imports to the U.S. But so what? Free trade only empowers our consumers. In the last couple of years the U.S. has created about 3.5 million new jobs, the unemployment rate is only 5.1 percent, and the nation's GDP is expanding at a 4.5 percent pace. Meanwhile, China's economy continues to climb near a 10 percent rate, with the heretofore impoverished Chinese population slowly but surely entering the modern realm of rising global prosperity.

Schumer and Graham believe that a higher yuan would narrow the trade deficit. But Alan Greenspan completely disagrees. The Fed chairman told a Senate panel that â Å“some observers mistakenly believe that a marked increase in the exchange value of the Chinese renminbi [yuan] relative to the U.S. dollar would significantly increase manufacturing activity and jobs in the United States. ... I am aware of no credible evidence that supports such a conclusion.â ?

More, Art Laffer argues that a stable yuan linked to the dollar has promoted strong economic growth at low inflation for the U.S., China, and the rest of the world. â Å“We have outsourced Alan Greenspan to China,â ? said Laffer, â Å“and that's a good thing for everyone.â ?

Think of the dollar-link as China's gold standard, stabilizing the value of its currency and attracting foreign investment inflows to rebuild its economy. Destabilizing the yuan would be just as disastrous as the so-called Asian contagion of 1997-98 when Robert Rubin and the IMF forced the smaller Asian Tiger economies to de-link from the greenback. That only led to recession in the Pac Rim and intense deflation around the world.

Ironically, since the dollar has been floating freely, the dollar-linked yuan has also floated compared to a market basket of currencies. Between 1995 and 2001 the yuan-dollar appreciated by nearly 50 percent and in recent years has fallen by about 30 percent. Both the U.S. and China adjusted internally to deflation and inflation. But the common link between the two has given the yuan global financial confidence while at the same time giving the U.S. enormous leverage over the Chinese economy. What's wrong with that? We buy their goods and they invest in our country through the purchase of Treasury bonds and more recently through direct investment in large U.S-based corporations (like Maytag and Unocal).

Unlike the sale of defense-related technologies there's no national security problem here. American firms like Anheuser-Busch, the Bank of America, and numerous tech firms are all investing in China. This is free and open trade for the mutual benefit of both nations. Trade and monetary cooperation also provide the basis for national security cooperation, especially in the areas of stopping nuclear proliferation in North Korea and protecting a free Taiwan. (Interpolation; this has yet to be demonstrated)

Clearly China is not perfect, though it has reduced government ownership of the economy from 90 percent twenty years ago to about 30 percent today, according to Laffer. Yes, the communist government in Beijing prevents free elections and free speech, continues to persecute religious groups, and has a record of pirating music and software as well as other intellectual property. But according to a recent study by the Council on Foreign Relations, China has also changed 2,600 legal statutes to comply with World Trade Organization rules.

The freedom to trade and the freedom to choose are central to the economic freedom that's necessary for nations to grow and prosper. Centuries of economic history confirm this, and yet some people seem to want to repeat the worst mistakes of the past. Open trade and currency stability enormously benefit both the U.S. and China and may well lead to improved international relations. Why do senators Smoot Schumer and Hawley Graham want to disrupt the 21st century march to peace and prosperity?

Cutting off your nose to spite your face makes no sense for individuals, nor for nations. Hasn't history taught us that free trade is part of the solution â ” not the problem?

â ” Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow's Money Politic$.
        
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200506241442.asp
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on June 27, 2005, 21:35:38
Chinese economic expansion is a worry, in the sense that a resource starved Chinese economy, coupled with the highest ever potential for power projection, leads to fears of another Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which was unacceptable when forged by the Imperial Japanese Navy, and is no more tolerable from Red China.  Ask Tibet how the Chinese respect the sovereignty of their neighbors, when they calculate that they have the ability to take what they desire.  Building up the Indian, Taiwanese and other Asian democratic economies will act to keep those nations aligned with us, rather than China, and serve to counterbalance the growing Chinese economy.  It is not in our long term interest to allow the Chinese to form an economic hegemony in Asia, as economic, political, and military power are far too closely linked in the centralized Chinese authoritative state for such an economic hegemony to lead shortly to nothing less than the fall of a second Iron Curtain, this one over Asia, not Eastern Europe.
      As long as the balance of power is preserved in the east, then China's economic expansion can be directed towards international intergration, rather than regional domination, with its attendant military/political dangers.  Just as with the Japanese in the last century, stopping the Chinese expansion is most easily accomplished in the beginning, tentative forays, and becomes prohibitively expensive if they are allowed enough early successes to throw their whole weight behind it.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on June 27, 2005, 23:42:35
Quote
Chinese economic expansion is a worry, in the sense that a resource starved Chinese economy, coupled with the highest ever potential for power projection, leads to fears of another Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

So I presume US and North American enonomies don't need resources to grow, right?  Our standards of living were achieved without the need for any resources and with absolutely no harm to the enviroment?

This is the thing about protectionists that annoy me: It always has to be us versus them, and it's always about me me me, but they've never got the guts to come out and admit it. I see the same idiotic ranting from people who whine about losing their tech jobs to cheaper workers in India. " Don't let them take OUR jobs!"  ::)  Because how can anyone give a job to an Indian when a white man is forced to go back to school and learn a *real* skill, right? God darnit I was born in Canada so I've got a RIGHT to be overpaid and those dirty Indians will just have to go without.

Tell me, what exactly is it about the Chinese and the Indians that makes them undeserving of resources/jobs? 50%(or some ridiculous number) of Americans and Canadians drive their behemoth SUVs 2 blocks to the 7-11 but god help us if those evil Chinese ever get more oil than they need for their little ditty wagon ambulances to get over those dirt roads huh? 

Look, if you're angry and paranoid that the Chinese and Indians might want to raise their standard of living up to 1/4 of yours, because that just means less grease and slightly more expensive gas for you, then come out and say it and you can at least be consistent. Please stop with the silly morality play because I'd like to see you go face to face with a Chinese or Indian man and explain to him why you deserve the jobs and resources more than he does.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: neuromancer on June 28, 2005, 00:41:03
Please stop with the silly morality play because I'd like to see you go face to face with a Chinese or Indian man and explain to him why you deserve the jobs and resources more than he does.

What a great comment!  :salute:

However I think your overstating something as well. I dont think most people are so very concerned with Mr Chang getting
a higher standard of living and that costing us slightly higher gas prices, as you put it. Instead, I think people
are more worried about CPC gaining so much of an advantage that they use their newly aquired power to
dominate/destroy/do-bad-thing.

I dont begrudge Mr Change buying a new dvd player, good for him. But China as
a world player is a little worrysome. Not because I begrudge anything for China,
no, I just worry because they are gaining power so incredibly quickly!

Internally china must just be a total beehive right now! Im worried
the beehive might turn into a powder keg.

Also, it is a worry because power corrupts, as history proves nicely, and
China is indeed becomeing powerful.

I sincerely think China is occupying a very powerful position right
now, and enless they defeat themselves by bad planning then they definitly
have the potential to move into an even more powerful place in the world
market and global scheme. I just hope they do so with grace and wisdom,
not arrogance and a great big chip on their shoulder.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on June 28, 2005, 22:51:40
So I presume US and North American enonomies don't need resources to grow, right?   Our standards of living were achieved without the need for any resources and with absolutely no harm to the enviroment?
    Actually, you totally missed the point.  I encourage them to seek those resources through free and open trade.  I oppose quite strongly any moves towards appeasement on our part that would permit them to take these resouces by direct force of arms, or threat of same.  I encourage China to join more fully in the world economy.  I think that the intergration of the growing Chinese economy with that of the rest of the world can only lead to a greater understanding, and a general lessening of tensions on all sides.  That is behind door number one.  Behind door number two, is China determining that they have the force to seize the resources that their growing economy needs, the power to defy and or intimidate the west into non-interference, and tight enough domestic control to pay the cost in blood and treasure to pull it off.  The problem with China choosing door number two is that it is awfully hard to return to door number one, once you've started playing conquistidor, and a whole heck of a lot of people get to die when China guesses wrong about what we will let them get away with.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Infanteer on June 29, 2005, 05:54:08
Interesting article by William Lind - although he may not always be on the ball, his writing is interesting to read - thoughts?:

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Lind_062405,00.html

Quote
----

William S. Lind: The Sun Also Rises

June 24, 2005

[Have an opinion on a William Lind column? Sound off in the Discussion Boards.]

For the first time since 1942, Japan has resumed the strategic offensive. Since the beginning of the year, Japan has claimed the island of Takeshima, now occupied by South Korea; seized control of an area in the South China Sea also claimed by Beijing; and, most ominously, announced that Tokyo might intervene militarily to defend Taiwan.

Taiwan was Japanese from 1895 to 1945, a fact that neither the Chinese nor the Taiwanese have forgotten; if they had to chose, many Taiwanese would rather be governed from Tokyo than from Beijing.

I do not know what has motivated the Japanese government to resume the strategic offensive. I do know it is a mistake. Japan's low-profile, defensive strategy has served her well for more than half a century. It is exactly the right strategy for a Fourth Generation 21st century, where survival will depend heavily on staying off other people's hit lists. As in the 1930s and early '40s, Japan shows an odd sense of timing.

The Takeshima issue offers an example. A divided Korea is very much in Japan's interest. By laying claim to what is now Korean territory, Japan brings South and North Korea together. In fact, North Korea missed an opportunity. Had Pyongyang said that in the face of any Japanese claims, the armed forces of both Koreas were one in defending Korean soil, it would have scored a propaganda triumph.

While a united Korea would be no danger to the United States, it would be perhaps the most dangerous state threat to Japan. Even today, South Korea's navy and air force are structured more for a war with Japan than for a conflict with North Korea. Any war with Japan, including an aggressive one, would be wildly popular with the Korean people. Asian memories run deep, and Japan's current military weakness offers an opportunity that may not last forever (although given Japan's demographics, it might).

Taking the offensive against China is an even greater blunder on Tokyo's part. Here, the danger is less Chinese aggression than internal Chinese dissolution and the regional instability that would result. Any humiliation of China by Japan damages the legitimacy of the Beijing government. A Chinese defeat by Japan and America in a crisis over Taiwan could well bring that government down. Contrary to neo-con blather, its likely successor would not be parliamentary democracy but a new "Period of Warring States" within China, which is to say Fourth Generation war throughout the most critical part of the Asian landmass. The resulting chaos would not be good for Japanese interests, especially if nukes started to fly. Putting a few on Japan would be an easy way for a Chinese contender to establish its patriotic credentials.

Predictably, the strategically imbecilic Bush administration is supporting Japan's new offensive posture. In reality, with its military forces tied down in the Middle East, the last thing America needs is a new source of crises in East Asia. The mix there is already volatile enough; adding a Japan on the strategic offensive is the equivalent of smoking in the powder magazine.

American interests require that both China and Japan follow defensive strategies - as indeed they require the United States to follow a defensive strategy. China wants to do exactly that, knowing that time is on her side. Only the Taiwan question is likely to push here to take the offensive, which means we should let that sleeping dog lie. As for Tokyo, I suspect the new Japanese offensive would collapse quickly if Washington quietly signaled its disapproval. Without American support, any rising of the Japanese sun will quickly prove a mirage made of hot air.

All that is required is a morsel of strategic sense in Washington. Alas, that horizon remains blank.

 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on June 29, 2005, 08:35:58
An unfriendly view of free trade with China:

Quote
China's Charge
We ignore China's acquisitions strategy at our peril.

What are we to make of the hostile takeover bid for Unocal Corporation unveiled Thursday by the PRC's state-owned China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC)? Is it, as the Chinese and their friends would have us believe, just another commercial transaction â ” an example of the natural and desirable free movement of capital and a test of America's oft-stated commitment to free trade?

Or is it, instead, but the latest manifestation of a long-term â ” and increasingly ominous â ” Communist Chinese plan for translating its immense trade surpluses into strategic advantages â ” advantages that will ineluctably redound to the detriment of the United States and its vital interests?

Despite efforts to construe this proposed purchase as desirable by Wall Street types and others whose willingness to do China's bidding has earned them the derisory moniker of â Å“panda-huggers,â ? a sizeable bipartisan group on and off Capitol Hill is correct in perceiving CNOOC's gambit as very much the latter.

At this writing, it is far from clear whether the Bush administration will concur. In the face of critical comments about the deal last week, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan aligned themselves with the see-no-evil crowd. The sheer brazenness of the CNOOC play for a U.S. oil company at a moment when energy is much on Americans' minds, however, may translate into a case of strategic overreach by China â ” and compel even an unwilling executive branch to oppose such a purchase.

It is not just that a PRC takeover of Unocal vividly illuminates the many moves the Communist Chinese have been making all over the world lately to acquire and otherwise assure access to energy resources. From Siberia to Venezuela, from Indonesia to Sudan, from Iran to Canada, from Azerbaijan to Cuba, China's efforts can be seen â ” in a world in which such resources are certainly finite, and possibly contracting â ” as designed not only to secure them for Chinese needs, but to take them off a global market upon which the United States is increasingly dependent.

Indeed, China's yawning appetite for oil has contributed directly to the soaring costs of gasoline at America's pumps in recent months. Thus, the in-your-face quality of this proposed purchase â ” whereby U.S.-owned energy assets, know-how, and technology would migrate to what is, at best, a competitor â ” is sure to produce widespread opposition across the country that official Washington cannot ignore.

The larger problem, however, is that China is not simply interested in cornering the market on energy â ” and the Unocal deal underscores this point. The oil company happens to own the only mine in America capable of producing what are known as â Å“rare earthâ ? minerals: the MolyCorp mine in Mountain Pass, Calif. These minerals are used today in a host of important industrial applications, including as ingredients for permanent magnets. Such magnets are critical components in many advanced weapon systems, for example the U.S. military's precision guided munitions known as JDAMS.

According to George Washington University professor Peter Leitner, an expert in strategic technologies and materials, the MolyCorp mine was shut down a few years ago in the wake of several suspicious instances of alleged environmental damage. In Leitner's estimation, it was no coincidence that family members of top Chinese officials (known as â Å“princelingsâ ?) had been tasked a short time before with securing a dominant position in rare earth minerals for the PRC. An agent for the princelings representing the PRC's rare-earths industry in San Francisco even boasted that he would put the MolyCorp mine out of business. In any event, the United States today depends entirely on imports of rare earth minerals largely from, guess where â ” China.

In short, Communist China's play for Unocal is of a piece with a broader plan for securing dominant positions with respect to strategic energy resources, minerals, materials, technologies, choke points, and regions all over the planet (including, notably, our own hemisphere and Africa). The unifying purpose: China is positioning itself to supplant the United States economically and strategically and, if necessary, to defeat us militarily in the decades to come.

In keeping with the admonitions of the ancient Chinese strategist, Sun Tsu, the PRC appears confident that by doing the first two decisively, it can accomplish the third without having to fire a shot. Just in case, Beijing is also feverishly giving its armed forces the capability to fight us should push come to shove.

It is against this backdrop that the China National Offshore Oil Corporation's attempt to outbid the American oil giant Chevron Corp. by nearly $2 billion for Unocal must be viewed. With the resources of the unfair-trade-enlarged Chinese national treasury at CNOOC's disposal, no firm in the American private sector is likely to be able to compete financially.

Therefore, it will almost certainly require government action to prevent Beijing from once again having its way with sensitive American assets and national-security equities. And such action will probably only be forthcoming if a larger view of the stakes is adopted by American officials â ” particularly those in the Treasury Department-led interagency group responsible for evaluating potentially problematic foreign investments.

Unfortunately, past experience with this Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) does not inspire much confidence. Treasury â ” whose job it is to encourage foreign investment in this country â ” is the classic fox guarding the chicken coop. And federal departments such as Defense and State that are supposed to bring national-security-mindedness to CFIUS deliberations have rarely voiced objections to the piecemeal sell-off of strategic American assets, let alone succeeded in blocking them.

A contributing factor to this sorry record has doubtless been the absence of any formal national appraisal of the strategies being employed against us by the Chinese and their business operations. In a letter to congressional leaders last week, Richard D'Amato and Roger Robinson, the chairman and vice chairman respectively of the congressionally mandated U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, warned that quadrennial reports required by law concerning â Å“whether foreign governments or companies have a coordinated strategy to acquire U.S. critical technology companiesâ ? have not been submitted for the past twelve years. Presumably, that is because â ” were such studies to be rigorously done â ” their findings would be inconvenient to the panda-huggers and their agenda.

Clearly, in today's China, we are up against a country that has a strategy to acquire U.S. critical technology companies. If we continue to ignore it â ” let alone enable it by acquiescing to the sale of companies like Unocal â ” we will do so at our peril.

â ” Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is an NRO contributor and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
        
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200506280909.asp
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on June 29, 2005, 09:47:39
So I wonder if it can be said that China is a "True" free market economy since they have no social programs to speak of to sap their spending, and can use almost all of their revenue to basically take over the world financially?

Oh, and line the pockets of a few at the top.

2 billion over bid from Chevron? Holy cow!!
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 29, 2005, 12:52:32
So I wonder if it can be said that China is a "True" free market economy since they have no social programs to speak of to sap their spending, and can use almost all of their revenue to basically take over the world financially?

Oh, and line the pockets of a few at the top.

2 billion over bid from Chevron? Holy cow!!


The big problem with the Unocal bid is the strategic implication that you have the PRC owning large energy reserves in Thailand, Mayanmar, Bangladesh and Indonesia.  Now should the PRC attack Taiwan, what are the odds that any of those nations would be willing to restrict energy exports in protest out of fear of military action by the PRC to secure those assets.  This is not to mention the fact that since the PRC plays by "The Art of War" rulebook, it is likely that a good portion of the CNOOC employees deployed to these non-PRC locaitons would be dual-functioning agents of PRC intelligence.

Bottom Line:  We have to be aware that they are buying a lot more than reserves when they try to make acquisitions like this....they are buying political control and a large stick with which to threaten the nations in which the reserves are located.   In short, sell them Maytag, sell them IBM, but this one crosses the line.  I should add that if they want to buy whole companies on world markets, then they should play by the rules and be willing to sell whole companies to foreign interests as well (which they will not do now)....



Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Gunner on June 30, 2005, 19:23:35
Chinese dragon awakens

By Bill Gertz
The Washington Times

First of two parts

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

    U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

    China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.

    "There's a growing consensus that at some point in the mid-to-late '90s, there was a fundamental shift in the sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense planning," said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker in the Pentagon. "And what we're seeing now is a manifestation of that change in the number of new systems that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems and the interoperability of the systems."

    China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization.

    The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.

    "We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said.

    For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China's military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines.

    The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait "grim" and said the country's military could "crush" Taiwan.

    Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said.

    The war fears come despite the fact that China is hosting the Olympic Games in 2008 and, therefore, some officials say, would be reluctant to invoke the international condemnation that a military attack on Taiwan would cause.

    Army of the future

    In the past, some defense specialists insisted a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a "million-man swim" across the Taiwan Strait because of the country's lack of troop-carrying ships.

    "We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998, 1999," the senior Pentagon official said. "And in fact, what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even quadrupling their capability on an annual basis."

    Asked about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, the official put it bluntly: "In the '07-'08 time frame, a capability will be there that a year ago we would have said was very, very unlikely. We now assess that as being very likely to be there."

    Air Force Gen. Paul V. Hester, head of the Pacific Air Forces, said the U.S. military has been watching China's military buildup but has found it difficult to penetrate Beijing's "veil" of secrecy over it.

    While military modernization itself is not a major worry, "what does provide you a pause for interest and concern is the amount of modernization, the kind of modernization and the size of the modernization," he said during a recent breakfast meeting with reporters.

    China is building capabilities such as aerial refueling and airborne warning and control aircraft that can be used for regional defense and long-range power projection, Gen. Hester said.

    It also is developing a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, or MARV, for its nuclear warheads. The weapon is designed to counter U.S. strategic-missile defenses, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The warhead would be used on China's new DF-31 long-range missiles and its new submarine missile, the JL-2.

    Work being done on China's weapons and reconnaissance systems will give its military the capability to reach 1,000 miles into the sea, "which gives them the visibility on the movement of not only our airplanes in the air, but also our forces at sea," Gen. Hester said.

    Beijing also has built a new tank for its large armed forces. It is known as the Type 99 and appears similar in design to Germany's Leopard 2 main battle tank. The tank is outfitted with new artillery, anti-aircraft and machine guns, advanced fire-control systems and improved engines.

    The country's air power is growing through the purchase of new fighters from Russia, such as Su-30 fighter-bombers, as well as the development of its own fighter jets, such as the J-10.

    Gen. Hester compared Chinese warplanes with those of the former Soviet Union, which were less capable than their U.S. counterparts, but still very deadly.

    "They have great equipment. The fighters are very technologically advanced, and what we know about them gives us pause for concern against ours," he said.

    Missiles also are a worry.

    "It is their surface-to-air missiles, their [advanced] SAMs and their surface-to-surface missiles, and the precision, more importantly, of those surface-to-surface missiles that provide, obviously, the ability to pinpoint targets that we might have out in the region, or our friends and allies might have," Gen. Hester said.

    The advances give the Chinese military "the ability ... to reach out and touch parts of the United States -- Guam, Hawaii and the mainland of the United States," he said.

    To better deal with possible future conflicts in Asia, the Pentagon is modernizing U.S. military facilities on the Western Pacific island of Guam and planning to move more forces there.

    The Air Force will regularly rotate Air Expeditionary Force units to Guam and also will station the new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle known as Global Hawk on the island, he said.

    It also has stationed B-2 stealth bombers on Guam temporarily and is expected to deploy B-1 bombers there, in addition to the B-52s now deployed there, Gen. Hester said.
     
    Projecting power

    China's rulers have adopted what is known as the "two-island chain" strategy of extending control over large areas of the Pacific, covering inner and outer chains of islands stretching from Japan to Indonesia.

    "Clearly, they are still influenced by this first and second island chain," the intelligence official said.

    The official said China's buildup goes beyond what would be needed to fight a war against Taiwan.

    The conclusion of this official is that China wants a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond the two island chains.

    "If you look at the technical capabilities of the weapons platforms that they're fielding, the sea-keeping capabilities, the size, sensors and weapons fit, this capability transcends the baseline that is required to deal with a Taiwan situation militarily," the intelligence official said.

    "So they are positioned then, if [Taiwan is] resolved one way or the other, to really become a regional military power as well."

    The dispatch of a Han-class submarine late last year to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan was an indication of the Chinese military's drive to expand its oceangoing capabilities, the officials said. The submarine surfaced in Japanese waters, triggering an emergency deployment of Japan's naval forces.

    Beijing later issued an apology for the incursion, but the political damage was done. Within months, Japan began adopting a tougher political posture toward China in its defense policies and public statements. A recent Japanese government defense report called China a strategic national security concern. It was the first time China was named specifically in a Japanese defense report.
     
    Energy supply a factor

    For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.

    The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power.

    China "is looking not only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes [from the Middle East], but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan," the report said.

    The report said China believes the United States already controls the sea routes from the oil-rich Persian Gulf through the Malacca Strait. Chinese President Hu Jintao has called this strategic vulnerability to disrupted energy supplies Beijing's "Malacca Dilemma."

    To prevent any disruption, China has adopted a "string of pearls" strategy that calls for both offensive and defensive measures stretching along the oil-shipment sea lanes from China's coast to the Middle East.

    The "pearls" include the Chinese-financed seaport being built at Gwadar, on the coast of western Pakistan, and commercial and military efforts to establish bases or diplomatic ties in Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand and disputed islands in the South China Sea.

    The report stated that China's ability to use these pearls for a "credible" military action is not certain.

    Pentagon intelligence officials, however, say the rapid Chinese naval buildup includes the capability to project power to these sea lanes in the future.

    "They are not doing a lot of surface patrols or any other kind of security evolutions that far afield," the intelligence official said. "There's no evidence of [Chinese military basing there] yet, but we do need to keep an eye toward that expansion."

    The report also highlighted the vulnerability of China's oil and gas infrastructure to a crippling U.S. attack.

    "The U.S. military could severely cripple Chinese resistance [during a conflict over Taiwan] by blocking its energy supply, whereas the [People's Liberation Army navy] poses little threat to United States' energy security," it said.

    China views the United States as "a potential threat because of its military superiority, its willingness to disrupt China's energy imports, its perceived encirclement of China and its disposition toward manipulating international politics," the report said.
     
    'Mercantilist measures'

    The report stated that China will resort "to extreme, offensive and mercantilist measures when other strategies fail, to mitigate its vulnerabilities, such as seizing control of energy resources in neighboring states."

    U.S. officials have said two likely targets for China are the Russian Far East, which has vast oil and gas deposits, and Southeast Asia, which also has oil and gas resources.

    Michael Pillsbury, a former Pentagon official and specialist on China's military, said the internal U.S. government debate on the issue and excessive Chinese secrecy about its military buildup "has cost us 10 years to figure out what to do"

    "Everybody is starting to acknowledge the hard facts," Mr. Pillsbury said. "The China military buildup has been accelerating since 1999. As the buildup has gotten worse, China is trying hard to mask it."

    Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.

    "Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Gunner on June 30, 2005, 19:26:46
Thefts of U.S. technology boost China's weaponry

By Bill Gertz
The Washington Times

Second of two parts

China is stepping up its overt and covert efforts to gather intelligence and technology in the United States, and the activities have boosted Beijing's plans to rapidly produce advanced-weapons systems.

    "I think you see it where something that would normally take 10 years to develop takes them two or three," said David Szady, chief of FBI counterintelligence operations.

    He said the Chinese are prolific collectors of secrets and military-related information.

    "What we're finding is that [the spying is] much more focused in certain areas than we ever thought, such as command and control and things of that sort," Mr. Szady said.

    "In the military area, the rapid development of their 'blue-water' navy -- like the Aegis weapons systems -- in no small part is probably due to some of the research and development they were able to get from the United States," he said.

    The danger of Chinese technology acquisition is that if the United States were called on to fight a war with China over the Republic of China (Taiwan), U.S. forces could find themselves battling a U.S.-equipped enemy.

    "I would hate for my grandson to be killed with U.S. technology" in a war over Taiwan, senior FBI counterintelligence official Tim Bereznay told a conference earlier this year.

    The Chinese intelligence services use a variety of methods to spy, including traditional intelligence operations targeting U.S.. government agencies and defense contractors.

    Additionally, the Chinese use hundreds of thousands of Chinese visitors, students and other nonprofessional spies to gather valuable data, most of it considered "open source," or unclassified information.

    "What keeps us up late at night is the asymmetrical, unofficial presence," Mr. Szady said. "The official presence, too.. I don't want to minimize that at all in what they are doing."

    China's spies use as many as 3,200 front companies -- many run by groups linked to the Chinese military -- that are set up to covertly obtain information, equipment and technology, U.S. officials say.

    Recent examples include front businesses in Milwaukee; Trenton, N.J.; and Palo Alto, Calif., Mr. Szady said.

    In other cases, China has dispatched students, short-term visitors, businesspeople and scientific delegations with the objective of stealing technology and other secrets.

    The Chinese "are very good at being where the information is," Mr. Szady said.

    "If you build a submarine, no one is going to steal a submarine. But what they are looking for are the systems or materials or the designs or the batteries or the air conditioning or the things that make that thing tick," he said. "That's what they are very good at collecting, going after both the private sector, the industrial complexes, as well as the colleges and universities in collecting scientific developments that they need."

    One recent case involved two Chinese students at the University of Pennsylvania who were found to be gathering nuclear submarine secrets and passing them to their father in China, a senior military officer involved in that country's submarine program.

    Bit by bit

    To counter such incidents, the FBI has been beefing up its counterintelligence operations in the past three years and has special sections in all 56 field offices across the country for counterspying.

    But the problem of Chinese spying is daunting.

    "It's pervasive," Mr. Szady said. "It's a massive presence, 150,000 students, 300,000 delegations in the New York area. That's not counting the rest of the United States, probably 700,000 visitors a year. They're very good at exchanges and business deals, and they're persistent."

    Chinese intelligence and business spies will go after a certain technology, and they eventually get what they want, even after being thwarted, he said.

    Paul D. Moore, a former FBI intelligence specialist on China, said the Chinese use a variety of methods to get small pieces of information through numerous collectors, mostly from open, public sources.

    The three main Chinese government units that run intelligence operations are the Ministry of State Security, the military intelligence department of the People's Liberation Army and a small group known as the Liaison Office of the General Political Department of the Chinese army, said Mr. Moore, now with the private Centre for Counterintelligence Studies..

    China gleans most of its important information not from spies but from unwitting American visitors to China -- from both the U.S. government and the private sector -- who are "serially indiscreet" in disclosing information sought by Beijing, Mr. Moore said in a recent speech..

    In the past several years, U.S. nuclear laboratory scientists were fooled into providing Chinese scientists with important weapons information during discussions in China through a process of information elicitation -- asking questions and seeking help with physics "problems" that the Chinese are trying to solve, he said.

    "The model that China has for its intelligence, in general, is to collect a small amount of information from a large amount of people," Mr. Moore said during a conference of security specialists held by the National Security Institute, a Massachusetts-based consulting firm.
     
    In the learning phase

    Mr. Szady acknowledges that the FBI is still "figuring out" the methods used by the Chinese to acquire intelligence and technology from the United States.

    Since 1985, there have been only six major intelligence defectors from China's spy services, and information about Chinese activities and methods is limited, U.S. officials said.

    Recent Chinese spy cases were mired in controversy.

    The case against Katrina Leung, a Los Angeles-based FBI informant who the FBI thinks was a spy for Beijing, ended in the dismissal of charges of taking classified documents from her FBI handler. The Justice Department is appealing the case.

    The case against Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was suspected of supplying classified nuclear-weapons data to China, ended with Mr. Lee pleading guilty to only one count among the 59 filed.

    The FBI has been unable to find out who in the U.S. government supplied China with secrets on every deployed nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, including the W-88, the small warhead used on U.S. submarine-launched nuclear missiles.

    "I think the problem is huge, and it's something that I think we're just getting our arms around," Mr. Szady said of Chinese spying. "It's been there, and what we're doing is more or less discovering it or figuring it out at this point."

    Mr. Bereznay said recently that Chinese intelligence activities are a major worry. FBI counterintelligence against the Chinese "is our main priority," he said.

    In some cases, so-called political correctness can interfere with FBI counterspying. For example, Chinese-American scientists at U.S. weapons laboratories have accused the FBI of racial profiling.

    But Mr. Szady said that is not the case.

    China uses ethnic Chinese-Americans as a base from which to recruit agents, he said.

    "They don't consider anyone to be American-Chinese," Mr. Szady said. "They're all considered overseas Chinese."

    So the answer he gives to those who accuse the FBI of racial profiling is: "We're not profiling you. The Chinese are, and they're very good at doing that."
     
    Pushing an agenda

    China's government also uses influence operations designed to advance pro-Chinese policies in the United States and to prevent the U.S. government from taking tough action or adopting policies against Beijing's interests, FBI officials said.

    Rudy Guerin, a senior FBI counterintelligence official in charge of China affairs, said the Chinese aggressively exploit their connections to U.S. corporations doing business in China.

    "They go straight to the companies themselves," he said.

    Many U.S. firms doing business in China, including such giants as Coca-Cola, Boeing and General Motors, use their lobbyists on behalf of Beijing.

    "We see the Chinese going to these companies to ask them to lobby on their behalf on certain issues," Mr. Guerin said, "whether it's most-favored-nation trade status, [World Health Organization], Falun Gong or other matters."

   The Chinese government also appeals directly to members of Congress and congressional staff.

    U.S. officials revealed that China's embassy in Washington has expanded a special section in charge of running influence operations, primarily targeting Congress.

    The operation, which includes 26 political officers, is led by Su Ge, a Chinese government official.

    The office frequently sends out e-mail to selected members or staff on Capitol Hill, agitating for or against several issues, often related to Taiwan affairs.

    Nu Qingbao, one of Mr. Su's deputies, has sent several e-mails to select members and staff warning Congress not to support Taiwan.

    The e-mails have angered Republicans who view the influence operations as communist meddling.

    "The Chinese, like every other intelligence agency or any other government, are very much engaged in trying to influence, both covertly and overtly," Mr. Szady said.
     
    Taking technology

    The real danger to the United States is the loss of the high-technology edge, which can impair U.S.. competitiveness but more importantly can boost China's military.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the Department of Homeland Security, is concerned because the number of high-profile cases of illegal Chinese technology acquisition is growing.

    "We see a lot of activity involving China, and I think it would be fair to say the trend is toward an increase," said Robert A. Schoch, deputy assistant director in ICE's national security investigations division.

    Mr. Schoch said that one recent case of a South Korean businessman who sought to sell advanced night-vision equipment to China highlights the problem.

    "We have an awesome responsibility to protect this sensitive technology," he said. "That gives the military such an advantage."

    ICE agents are trying hard to stop illegal exports to China and several other states, including Iran and Syria, not just by halting individual exports but by shutting down networks of illegal exporters, Mr. Schoch said.

    Another concern is that China is a known arms proliferator, so weapons and related technology that are smuggled there can be sent to other states of concern.

    "Yes, some of this stuff may go to China, but then it could be diverted to other countries," Mr. Schoch said. "And that is the secondary proliferation. Who knows where it may end up."

    As with China's military buildup, China's drive for advanced technology with military applications has been underestimated by the U.S. intelligence community.

    A report prepared for the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission found predictions that China was unable to advance technologically were false.

    In fact, the report by former Pentagon official Michael Pillsbury highlights 16 key advances in Chinese technology -- all with military implications -- in the past six months alone.

    The failure to gauge China's development is part of the bias within the U.S. government that calls for playing down the threat from the growing power of China, both militarily and technologically, Mr. Pillsbury stated.

    "Predictions a decade ago of slow Chinese [science and technology] progress have now proved to be false," the report stated.

    Unlike the United States, China does not distinguish between civilian and military development. The same factories in China that make refrigerators also are used to make long-range ballistic missiles.

    At a time when U.S. counterintelligence agencies are facing an array of foreign spies, the Chinese are considered the most effective at stealing secrets and know-how.

    "I think the Chinese have figured it out, as far as being able to collect and advance their political, economic and military interests by theft or whatever you want to call it," Mr. Szady said. "They are way ahead of what the Russians have ever done."

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: neuromancer on July 02, 2005, 01:53:42
Ok. Now Im gong to just pull one out of my hat.

But maybe all this arms build up is just a Chinese self-defense syndrome.

Remeber, these are the same people that built a 6350km wall about 450 years ago
to keep out turkic and mongol raiders.

Again, just pulling this idea out of my hat, but what if the arms build up in China
is a similar, although modern, attempt at overkill-self-defense?

cheers!
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on July 02, 2005, 19:00:49
Ok. Now Im gong to just pull one out of my hat.

But maybe all this arms build up is just a Chinese self-defense syndrome.

Remeber, these are the same people that built a 6350km wall about 450 years ago
to keep out turkic and mongol raiders.

Again, just pulling this idea out of my hat, but what if the arms build up in China
is a similar, although modern, attempt at overkill-self-defense?

cheers!
      The difference between protective and projective force is critical in deducing intent.  Protective force is military force which is generated in and limited to that country (like our Leopards; we can't deploy them so they are NOT a method of force projection).  Projective force are those military forces deployable outside your homeland, to enforce the will of your nation upon another. The Chinese concentration on developing a blue water navy, sufficient heavy sealift for large scale assault operations, better sea based SAM and aircraft based Air to Air missiles indicates that they are preparing a force mix consistent with force projection, not simple protection.   The Chinese prepare for assaults outside Chinese territory, such assaults expected to be resisted by naval surface and aviation forces.  Since this is the war they are preparing to fight, one of Chinese offensive operation against targets that may be protected by heavy air and naval aviation assets, one can only assume that they are aiming at Tiawan, and preparing to go through the US Pacific fleet if it gets in the way.  Since Russia and China joined together in denouncing the US from unilaterally interfering in the sovereignty of other nations in dealing with their internal rebellions, directly linking Chechnya and Tiawan in this context, it appears that China is laying the political groundwork to permit offensive operations without fear of international reaction.  The strong language used in recent Chinese legislation prohibiting Tiawan (ROC) from making any formal declaration of independence, shows that they are still resolved to take Tiawan, by force if necessary.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on July 02, 2005, 21:20:02
On a doctrinal scale, every major army in the world has been moving away from the passive defence of the cold war to force projection in order to safeguard national interests outside of their borders. The Chinese are just late to the game because of their internal problems.

Also, modern strategic thinking emphasizes smaller, faster, harder hitting units for both offense and defence. The big deal for a country surrounded by enemies ike China is that speed can replace numbers. Instead of keeping huge numbers of troops to secure  every hostile frontier,  a smaller more mobile force can quickly deploy to trouble spots.

One of the main reasons for the 1979 Vietnamese fiasco was that the Chinese were forced to deploy second line militia units because the bulk of thier first line units had to stay on the northern border to guard against a Soviet intervention. 1979 and GW1 pretty much convinced the Chinese (and rightly so) that a strategy of static defence("People's War") was obsolete.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on July 03, 2005, 04:35:05
the current GW2 may convince them that they need modern, mobile proffessional expeditionary forces (as per the USA), but for their own homeland defence, a massive 'village militia' "peoples war" is the answer if they have to give up ground - as per the Iraqis.

Our previous posts about Chicom espionage appears to have been supplemented by Bill gertz, above.

Still, they do make a damn good M-14.

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on July 03, 2005, 08:05:07
For those who do not view Bill Gertz as credible..
Quote
China aims spy network at trade secrets in Europe
By Damien McElroy
(Filed: 03/07/2005)

'Defector' reveals Beijing's plan to use espionage to achieve its objective of commercial dominance

A network of Chinese industrial spies has been established across Europe as the Communist government's intelligence agencies shift their resources and attention from traditional Cold War espionage towards new forms of subterfuge aimed at achieving global commercial dominance.

The extent of the spying was laid bare after a leading Chinese agent "defected" in Belgium. The agent, who has worked in European universities and companies for more than 10 years, has given the Sûreté de l'Etat, the Belgian equivalent of MI5, detailed information on hundreds of Chinese spies working at various levels of European industry.

With the number of Chinese entering Europe about to increase as Beijing relaxes travel restrictions, Western intelligence agencies fear that the spying will be even more difficult to combat. Britain is likely to be one of the countries where significant infiltration is planned.

"There is a large Chinese intelligence operation in northern Europe spanning communications, space, defence, chemicals and heavy industries," said Claude Monique, a Brussels-based intelligence analyst.

"The Chinese agent has given details of hundreds of experts and their activities. As a result national inquiries have been launched, certainly by the German, French, Netherlands and Belgian agencies and, I believe, in Britain too."

A former British official, who runs a private consultancy specialising in fraud and risk management in Beijing, said that the Ministry of State Security systematically extracted the information it wanted from Chinese people travelling aboard, including tourists, businessmen and scientists.

"Any ethnic Chinese with relatives or business interests in China is vulnerable," he said. "There are a large number of people who live at or travel to key locations who are regularly debriefed or given orders to obtain various types of strategic information that Beijing finds is militarily or economically useful.

"Traditionally, the Chinese who went abroad since the late 1970s for trade or study purposes were in businesses controlled by the state. That apparatus of spying has grown over time as Chinese ambitions have risen."

Visa regulations easing restrictions on Chinese tourism have recently come into force in the UK, as well as continental Europe, and attempts to monitor travellers' activities and telephone calls are at risk of being overwhelmed. A spokesman for the security services said that Chinese spying already represented a significant intelligence challenge that mirrored the threat previously posed by Russian agents.

The defector making the allegations of spying in Belgium has refused to come forward in public because he has not yet received political asylum. He is described by Western intelligence officials as a leading figure in the Chinese Students and Scholars' Association of Leuven, an alleged front organisation based in a Belgian university town that co-ordinated industrial espionage activities across Europe.

According to an intelligence official, the association enabled Beijing's Ministry of State Security to maintain contact with a wide spectrum of Chinese citizens living across the continent: "The Chinese operate at many levels, from the pure intelligence agents based at embassies to researchers sent to Europe for training to individual citizens who work apparently independently for five or 10 years until they are in a position to prove their usefulness."

Among the companies targeted by the Chinese network, according to Belgian officials, is the French communications company Alcatel. It is contracted to build the €1 billion ( £676m) Galileo satellite communications system that European leaders have promoted as a rival to the American Global Positioning System, which has a monopoly of satellite communications systems.

The Western intelligence official said that China had been brought in as an official partner on the technology, largely because its successful espionage made it futile to keep Beijing out.

The strongest complaints about Chinese spying have emerged in America. David Szady, the chief of FBI counter-intelligence operations, has said that China is rapidly eroding America's technological superiority: "I think you see it where something that would normally take 10 years to develop takes them two or three.

"What they are looking for are the systems or materials or the designs or the batteries or the air-conditioning or the things that make that thing tick," he said. "That's what they are very good at collecting, going after both the private sector, the industrial complexes, as well as the colleges and universities in collecting scientific developments that they need."

A recent report to the American House of Representatives listed 16 "remarkable" Chinese technological breakthroughs that could have been achieved only by industrial espionage. These included a supercomputer that runs at speeds previously achieved only by America and Japan. Sophisticated communications systems, advanced satellite technology and advances in nano-technology were also identified as suspect in the report.

Among recent Chinese military advances, which experts believe increase Beijing's military strength in the sensitive Taiwan Strait, is a new cruise missile copy of America's Tomahawk weapon and a sea-borne defence system based on stolen Aegis system blueprints.

A Chinese adage holds that one good spy is worth 10,000 men. As China strives to displace America and Europe as a global economic powers, that ancient insight could help propel the country to new economic heights.

BG Group

Foster Wheeler

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms & Conditions of reading.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/03/wchin03.xml
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 03, 2005, 09:31:36
Welcome to the world.

China is doing to us what everyone else is doing to us, has been doing to us and will continue doing to us as long as we are a first world country.

We are, rightfully, concerned about spying by America, Brazil, China and so on and so forth, and we have been for some time.  As I have mentioned before, China is just a newcomer.  Much of the French space and high tech programmes were stolen, including stolen from us, 

(See: http://vikingphoenix.com/news/archives/1997/mil97004.htm  especially (bear in mind, please, it is a 1997 story) â “
... a Southern Ontario company that does classified work for the Department of National Defence called in a security expert specializing in electronic countermeasures because it fears it may be a target of France's foreign intelligence service, the DGSE, which is well-known for its electronic intelligence interception capabilities.

"They see a great potential to be hit," says Doug Ralph, the former RCMP veteran hired to protect the company from clandestine electronic surveillance. He wouldn't elaborate, except to say, "The threat is out there. The French are known, it's documented, that they're good at what they do in their trade craft."

(It was the DGSE a few years ago that allegedly bugged the Air France seats of Northern Telecom officials and reportedly sabotaged a major Nortel contract in Hungary by forwarding the information to French competitors. Nortel didn't respond to a request for an interview for this story.)
)

If memory serves the French were quite miffed at being singled out as a major threat to Canada's security â “ even more than they were miffed about being caught red-handed committed espionage and major crimes in New Zealand.  Canada, to its credit, did not apologize to France â “ Canada needs never apologize to France for anything, ever.

We need a vigorous counter-intelligence programme in Canada â “ a secretive programme, I suggest.*

We also need to bear in mind that we have few, very, very few friends and even they are not above spying on us when it suits their purposes.  In my opinion our list of friends does NOT include: Austria, Belgium, China, Djibouti, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Moldova, Nigeria, Oman , Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Slovenia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe (no UN member states appear to start with W or X).  That does not mean that many, even any of those states are our enemies â “ they are, simply, not our friends.  I think we can count solidly, consistently friendly nations on one hand.

I'm not apologizing for China but I am not prepared to get all excited about the Chinese being, finally, unmasked â “ being caught doing what everyone else does, including most of our so-called friends and allies, like the friend which is one of the two countries in which our Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, holds citizenship.

----------

* I understand and accept that, in a democracy, especially, we need to watch the watchers and the watchers need to ensure that their vital tasks enjoy a measure of public support which involves, consequentially, some publicity â “ even a bit of scare mongering, now and again.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on July 03, 2005, 14:31:25
Welcome to the world.

China is doing to us what everyone else is doing to us, has been doing to us and will continue doing to us as long as we are a first world country.

We are, rightfully, concerned about spying by America, Brazil, China and so on and so forth, and we have been for some time.  As I have mentioned before, China is just a newcomer.  Much of the French space and high tech programmes were stolen, including stolen from us, 

(See: http://vikingphoenix.com/news/archives/1997/mil97004.htm  especially (bear in mind, please, it is a 1997 story) â “
... a Southern Ontario company that does classified work for the Department of National Defence called in a security expert specializing in electronic countermeasures because it fears it may be a target of France's foreign intelligence service, the DGSE, which is well-known for its electronic intelligence interception capabilities.

"They see a great potential to be hit," says Doug Ralph, the former RCMP veteran hired to protect the company from clandestine electronic surveillance. He wouldn't elaborate, except to say, "The threat is out there. The French are known, it's documented, that they're good at what they do in their trade craft."

(It was the DGSE a few years ago that allegedly bugged the Air France seats of Northern Telecom officials and reportedly sabotaged a major Nortel contract in Hungary by forwarding the information to French competitors. Nortel didn't respond to a request for an interview for this story.)
)

If memory serves the French were quite miffed at being singled out as a major threat to Canada's security â “ even more than they were miffed about being caught red-handed committed espionage and major crimes in New Zealand.  Canada, to its credit, did not apologize to France â “ Canada needs never apologize to France for anything, ever.

We need a vigorous counter-intelligence programme in Canada â “ a secretive programme, I suggest.*

We also need to bear in mind that we have few, very, very few friends and even they are not above spying on us when it suits their purposes.  In my opinion our list of friends does NOT include: Austria, Belgium, China, Djibouti, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Moldova, Nigeria, Oman , Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Slovenia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe (no UN member states appear to start with W or X).  That does not mean that many, even any of those states are our enemies â “ they are, simply, not our friends.  I think we can count solidly, consistently friendly nations on one hand.

I'm not apologizing for China but I am not prepared to get all excited about the Chinese being, finally, unmasked â “ being caught doing what everyone else does, including most of our so-called friends and allies, like the friend which is one of the two countries in which our Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, holds citizenship.

----------

* I understand and accept that, in a democracy, especially, we need to watch the watchers and the watchers need to ensure that their vital tasks enjoy a measure of public support which involves, consequentially, some publicity â “ even a bit of scare mongering, now and again.
I think a key element of the concern is the *scale* and nature of Chinese espionage operations and their consistent escellation. I also agree that we should ramp up our counter-intelligence capabilities even more than the average per-capita of nations of comparable population and economics. I do not consider it scare mongering when it is a genuine threat to national security.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 03, 2005, 16:41:50
I think a key element of the concern is the *scale* and nature of Chinese espionage operations and their consistent escellation. I also agree that we should ramp up our counter-intelligence capabilities even more than the average per-capita of nations of comparable population and economics. I do not consider it scare mongering when it is a genuine threat to national security.

My guess is that a significant share of the information Gertz and company are giving us was composed in counter-intelligence agency communications departments.   Those agencies have a vested interest in provoking discussions just like this one.   That doesn't mean the Chinese, and others, do not pose a real threat to our national security.   It does mean that threats need to be advertised.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on July 03, 2005, 16:53:58
I trust that none of us here have any illusions as to the agenda and "accuracy" of either Mr. Gertz, or The Washington Times. for whom Mr. Gertz works. I mean, really, a newspaper that in 20+ years has never made a penny in profit, created by a guy(below) who thinks of himself as "The Messiah" and with his wife "The true parents of human kind", to "fulfill god's desperate desire to save the world"?  Ooookaaay then.....

(http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/images/moon/kingofpeace2.jpg)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Infanteer on July 03, 2005, 20:10:17
I liked the previous picture of you better, Britney....
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Dare on July 03, 2005, 21:17:22
My guess is that a significant share of the information Gertz and company are giving us was composed in counter-intelligence agency communications departments.  Those agencies have a vested interest in provoking discussions just like this one.  That doesn't mean the Chinese, and others, do not pose a real threat to our national security.  It does mean that threats need to be advertised.
So you think this information is barely more than propaghanda?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on July 03, 2005, 23:24:33
For real propaganda, we can read the "People's Daily". The Chinese are meanwhile working on a cooperation agreement with Russia (would be superpower + has been superpower. There is an interesting combination of motives).

While this blog is a bit over the top, it is illuminating:

http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/07/diabolical_move.html

Quote
Diabolical Moves on the Global Chessboard

China and Russia reaffirmed their strategic alliance in summit talks and took a broad -- if veiled -- swipe at US global power by vowing resolute opposition to attempts by any state to "dominate international affairs."

Pamela aka Atlas is back from Gay Paree (eurodisney for adults, they are in complete denial) to find the most startling news story of the week virtually ignored by all media.

China and Russia, enemies - a love story.

In this axis of evil, who metaphorically  is Stalin and who is Hitler..........? My guess is China will be the one that screws Russia much the way Stalin was screwed.

Putin stressed there were "vast bilateral possibilities for inter-regional cooperation," adding that Russia and China "intend to develop our military ties and cooperation" He said the neighbors would hold joint large-scale military exercises by the end of this year.

Beijing and Moscow have particularly sought to enhance security cooperation through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which also includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and has made fighting "extremism" in Central Asia a prime goal despite growing Western criticism of hardline methods by regional governments to counter unrest.

This new love affair is a strategic alliance to counter America's hyperpower and increasing influence in the Middle East, Asia and Eastern European regions.  The two are going to start joint military operations. Also - the countries they are talking about are fighting for Freedom.

Democracy is poison to totalitarian regimes. Poison to societies of fear.
Natan Sharansky understood  the critical difference between the world of fear and the world of freedom,  the former the primary challenge is finding the inner strength to confront evil. In the latter, the primary challenge is the moral clarity to see evil An alliance between two world powers - two of the  greatest violators of human rights - is an alignment in the global chessboard of diabolical proportion.

It is the fear of freedom that America is spreading, sowing, that these regimes will stop at nothing, nothing to stop. And we in America must stop the hand wringing and be absolute in our moral clarity. As Natan Sharansky so brilliantly explained in The Case for Democracy, without moral clarity, sympathy can also be placed in the service of evil.

A world without moral clarity is a world in which dictators speak about human rights even as they kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and even tens of millions of people. It is a world in which the only democracy in the Middle East is perceived as the greatest violator of human rights in the world.

A lack of moral clarity is also the tragedy that has befallen efforts to advance peace and security in the world in the world. Promoting peace and security is fundamentally connected to promoting freedom and democracy. Sharansky learned from his teacher Andrei Sakharov, the world cannot depend on leaders who do not depend on their own people.

THINK ABOUT THAT




Diabolical Moves on the Global Chessboard

China and Russia reaffirmed their strategic alliance in summit talks and took a broad -- if veiled -- swipe at US global power by vowing resolute opposition to attempts by any state to "dominate international affairs."

Pamela aka Atlas is back from Gay Paree (eurodisney for adults, they are in complete denial) to find the most startling news story of the week virtually ignored by all media.

China and Russia, enemies - a love story.

In this axis of evil, who metaphorically  is Stalin and who is Hitler..........? My guess is China will be the one that screws Russia much the way Stalin was screwed.

    Putin stressed there were "vast bilateral possibilities for inter-regional cooperation," adding that Russia and China "intend to develop our military ties and cooperation" He said the neighbors would hold joint large-scale military exercises by the end of this year.

    Beijing and Moscow have particularly sought to enhance security cooperation through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which also includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and has made fighting "extremism" in Central Asia a prime goal despite growing Western criticism of hardline methods by regional governments to counter unrest.

This new love affair is a strategic alliance to counter America's hyperpower and increasing influence in the Middle East, Asia and Eastern European regions.  The two are going to start joint military operations. Also - the countries they are talking about are fighting for Freedom.

Democracy is poison to totalitarian regimes. Poison to societies of fear.
Natan Sharansky understood  the critical difference between the world of fear and the world of freedom,  the former the primary challenge is finding the inner strength to confront evil. In the latter, the primary challenge is the moral clarity to see evil An alliance between two world powers - two of the  greatest violators of human rights - is an alignment in the global chessboard of diabolical proportion.

It is the fear of freedom that America is spreading, sowing, that these regimes will stop at nothing, nothing to stop. And we in America must stop the hand wringing and be absolute in our moral clarity. As Natan Sharansky so brilliantly explained in The Case for Democracy, without moral clarity, sympathy can also be placed in the service of evil.

    A world without moral clarity is a world in which dictators speak about human rights even as they kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and even tens of millions of people. It is a world in which the only democracy in the Middle East is perceived as the greatest violator of human rights in the world.

    A lack of moral clarity is also the tragedy that has befallen efforts to advance peace and security in the world in the world. Promoting peace and security is fundamentally connected to promoting freedom and democracy. Sharansky learned from his teacher Andrei Sakharov, the world cannot depend on leaders who do not depend on their own people.

    THINK ABOUT THAT




Quote
Diabolical Moves on the Global Chessboard

Pamela_dining_1China and Russia reaffirmed their strategic alliance in summit talks and took a broad -- if veiled -- swipe at US global power by vowing resolute opposition to attempts by any state to "dominate international affairs."

Pamela aka Atlas is back from Gay Paree (eurodisney for adults, they are in complete denial) to find the most startling news story of the week virtually ignored by all media.

China and Russia, enemies - a love story.

In this axis of evil, who metaphorically  is Stalin and who is Hitler..........? My guess is China will be the one that screws Russia much the way Stalin was screwed.

    Putin stressed there were "vast bilateral possibilities for inter-regional cooperation," adding that Russia and China "intend to develop our military ties and cooperation" He said the neighbors would hold joint large-scale military exercises by the end of this year.

    Beijing and Moscow have particularly sought to enhance security cooperation through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which also includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and has made fighting "extremism" in Central Asia a prime goal despite growing Western criticism of hardline methods by regional governments to counter unrest.

This new love affair is a strategic alliance to counter America's hyperpower and increasing influence in the Middle East, Asia and Eastern European regions.  The two are going to start joint military operations. Also - the countries they are talking about are fighting for Freedom.

Democracy is poison to totalitarian regimes. Poison to societies of fear.
Natan Sharansky understood  the critical difference between the world of fear and the world of freedom,  the former the primary challenge is finding the inner strength to confront evil. In the latter, the primary challenge is the moral clarity to see evil An alliance between two world powers - two of the  greatest violators of human rights - is an alignment in the global chessboard of diabolical proportion.

It is the fear of freedom that America is spreading, sowing, that these regimes will stop at nothing, nothing to stop. And we in America must stop the hand wringing and be absolute in our moral clarity. As Natan Sharansky so brilliantly explained in The Case for Democracy, without moral clarity, sympathy can also be placed in the service of evil.

    A world without moral clarity is a world in which dictators speak about human rights even as they kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and even tens of millions of people. It is a world in which the only democracy in the Middle East is perceived as the greatest violator of human rights in the world.

    A lack of moral clarity is also the tragedy that has befallen efforts to advance peace and security in the world in the world. Promoting peace and security is fundamentally connected to promoting freedom and democracy. Sharansky learned from his teacher Andrei Sakharov, the world cannot depend on leaders who do not depend on their own people.

    THINK ABOUT THAT

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 05, 2005, 13:00:17
I think this article from today's Globe and Mail points us at the 'real' Chinese 'threat' and the underlying reason for the current US anti-Chinese rhetoric.

My emphasis  at the end.

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050705.wxryuan05/BNStory/Business/
Quote
G8 leaders confront China challenge
Beijing aims to deflect pressure on yuan

By BARRIE MCKENNA

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 Updated at 3:49 AM EDT
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Washington - His name isn't on the program, but Chinese President Hu Jintao will be the guy everyone wants to talk to when world leaders gather at the posh Scottish golf retreat of Gleneagles tomorrow for their annual summit.

The Group of Eight leaders are expected to take advantage of the cozy environs to press Mr. Hu to inflate the value of the yuan.

The yuan, which has been pegged to the U.S. dollar for a decade now, has become a proxy for a fierce global debate over China's emergence as an economic power. Critics accuse China of keeping the yuan artificially low in order to flood the United States and other key export markets with everything from bras to brake pads.

The conventional wisdom is that while China is likely to bend a little, perhaps even some time this year, the immediate impact won't be dramatic. U.S. Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan and other experts have cautioned that raising the value of the yuan -- even letting it float -- would have a relatively small effect on the swelling U.S. trade deficit.

 And it won't diminish a growing chorus of anti-Chinese rhetoric from U.S. industry and its allies in Congress, who blame China for stealing millions of factory jobs.

"The baby steps that the Chinese are inclined to take won't provide political cover in Washington, and it won't change the economic dynamics," argued Daniel Rosen, once an economic policy adviser to former U.S. president Bill Clinton and now a New York-based business consultant specializing in China.

"A modest revaluation of the yuan would have no significant impact on the U.S. trade deficit and it wouldn't do a thing for all those laid-off factory workers in Ohio."

There is a growing anti-Chinese mood in the United States, and it's not just because of the yuan. Increasingly, many Americans see China as an economic rival and a competitor for oil and other scarce resources. A bid by Chinese state-run oil firm China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC) for U.S. oil producer Unocal Corp. has already become a political flashpoint in Congress. If Unocal accepts the takeover, the Bush administration is likely to face intense pressure to block the deal on national security grounds.

A concession on the yuan by the Chinese would do little to ease these broader concerns, suggested Russell Smith, a former trade counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives energy and commerce committee "The noise level may subside for a while, but it won't change the dynamic of U.S.-China trade, and it doesn't resolve the question of how we deal with China as an economic and political superpower," said Mr. Smith, trade policy adviser at law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher in Washington.

It's been two years since a Chinese leader attended a G8 summit. The United States purposely didn't invite the Chinese to last year's summit on Sea Island, Ga.

But China has become too important to exclude, or ignore. In the past two years, China has expanded its share of global trade by two-thirds while doubling its foreign currency reserves to nearly $700-billion (U.S.) on the strength of booming exports.

This week's summit is the first of several milestones in the coming months that G8 officials hope will prod the Chinese to move. Mr. Hu is slated to make his first visit to the United States in September. A month later, China plays host to the Group of 20 meeting of finance ministers and central bankers.

In mid-November, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow must report to Congress on whether China is guilty of currency manipulation. And Mr. Snow has warned that's exactly what he'll do unless the Chinese show some hint of currency flexibility soon. That could open the door to unilateral sanctions against China.

The U.S. Congress has also signalled that if Mr. Snow isn't prepared to get tough, it will. A bill that would slap a 27.5-per-cent blanket tariff on all Chinese imports unless the yuan is revalued enjoys broad support from Republicans and Democrats.

But some analysts said China is unlikely to bow to these threats.

"This meeting will be China's chance to flex its geopolitical muscles and stake out its seat at the table with the global superpowers, where it belongs," said Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, N.Y.

Unless China sees the benefit of revaluing the yuan, it's unlikely to respond to pressure from the United States or Europe, Mr. Weinberg suggested. And so long as Americans keep buying Chinese-made products at Wal-Mart, filling Chinese coffers with U.S. dollars, there's little incentive for the Chinese to move, he said.

"It is not in China's interest to revalue its currency," Mr. Weinberg explained. "It will not do so willingly, and no one can compel it to respond to dictates from Washington and Brussels."

And yet top Chinese finance officials know that revaluation is necessary, inevitable and almost certainly good for the country's long-term economic health, analysts said.

The last thing China wants is to see the U.S. economy come undone because of unsustainable trade and current account deficits.

On the other hand, the Chinese fear that any sign of weakness would tip currency speculators that its central bank "can be gamed," Mr. Rosen said. And so the Chinese will be looking for an out in the months ahead -- a chance to move when people least expect it and when the international spotlight fades.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The biggest threats to America's economic security are:

"¢   A spendthrift administration; and

"¢   A gimme culture - fuelled by cowardly legislatures and administrations which refuse to reward saving/investing over consumption.

(Parenthetically: the best thing to be done to and for Canada since 1967 was the GST - consumption taxes work: they raise revenue and they reward savings.

Two things contributed to Canada's current enviable federal financial position in the world:

1.   GST revenues; and

2.   Offloading of social programme costs to the provinces - which also shifted the deficits downwards.)

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Zipper on July 05, 2005, 14:15:17
2.   Offloading of social programme costs to the provinces - which also shifted the deficits downwards.)

On a sidenote that would be better on some other thread no doubt. The above would work even better if some of that offloading downward continued to the municipalities to bring it closer to those who need it (read less bureaucracy).
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on July 05, 2005, 16:24:02
On a sidenote that would be better on some other thread no doubt. The above would work even better if some of that offloading downward continued to the municipalities to bring it closer to those who need it (read less bureaucracy).

Actually, we have quite enough "downloading", which in the case of London is claimed to consume $352 million dollars of "our" budget. In other words, Queens park is dictating what programs we "must" have, and also defining the city budget (without my voting Dalton McGuinty for mayor either).

IF we are really serious about reducing government spending and getting our financial house in order, then we might consider "unloading" instead. Many government programs at all levels are basicly welfare for people, groups and companies which either don't need the money (many profitable companies get millions of dollars in subsidies); or wouldn't exist without the handout. Frankly if you are not going to offer a good or service that I want, why should I be forced to pay for that good or service through my taxes?

Shifting deficits and debts downward is only a shell game, the total amount of Canadian debt is still enormous, and combined with the unfunded liabilities of pensions (everything from CPP to Military Pensions) we are still hanging over the abyss. Economic corrections which would inconveinience the Americans would probably have our economy completely unravel, and only Alberta, which has no debt and a large resource revenue base will emerge unscathed.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 05, 2005, 19:16:59
The GST did reduce and, eventually, eliminate the deficit â “ it was helped by EI premiums and downloading but it was, mainly, Lyin' Brian Mulroney's much hated (by ignorant Canadians) GST which put our fiscal house in order. (Source: statement(s) by David Dodge, DM Finance ('92 to '97), now Governor of the Bank of Canada, to the press and to parliamentary committees in the late '90s â “ I'm too lazy to go find them but he did say that).

Canadian politicians â “ including most Conservatives â “ are spendthrifts.  They are not quite as bad as the current crop in the USA, but they're close.  The Bush administration's spending is disgraceful and is endangering America.

 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 06, 2005, 13:03:14
Back to China.

As I have said before, and elsewhere, some of this sabre rattling, on both sides of the Pacific, is just that, and some, also on both sides, is just fear mongering aimed at distracting public attention from other, equally pressing problems.

This is from today's Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050706/CHINA06/TPInternational/?query=Alarm+bells+sound
Quote
Alarm bells sound over China's 'fascist society'

Economic clout, perceived militarism sparking fear in Washington and Tokyo

BY GEOFFREY YORK
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2005 UPDATED AT 11:47 AM EDT

BEIJING -- A sudden drumbeat of panicky warnings about China's growing military and economic power is sparking fears that the United States and Japan could soon be entangled in conflict with the world's most populous nation.

The ominous warnings have been everywhere in the American and Japanese media in recent weeks, ringing alarm bells over China's rapid military modernization and its voracious appetite for Western corporations.

Pentagon officials have been quoted anonymously as saying that China is a "fascist state" of Nazi proportions. One major U.S. magazine, The Atlantic, has published a cover story on how the United States would wage a war with China. Another magazine, The New Republic, has suggested that China could be "the first nation since the fall of the Soviet Union that could seriously challenge the United States for control of the international system." Both the United States and Japan are preparing new official defence papers that will focus largely on the Chinese threat. Both papers have been leaked to sympathetic media, and the leaks portray China as a potentially belligerent superpower with a frightening arsenal of missiles and high-tech weaponry.

The Japanese defence paper is warning that China has shifted to "aggressive" military strategies -- including an expansion of its naval activities -- that must be carefully watched, according to a report this week in the Yomiuri Shimbun, an influential Japanese newspaper.

In a major speech in Singapore last month, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave a preview of the Pentagon defence paper. He sharply criticized the Chinese military buildup, predicting that China's advanced new missiles could hit targets around the world.

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?" he said. "Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?"

China's economic muscle is equally alarming to both countries. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 398-15 to oppose a Chinese takeover of Unocal, the California-based oil giant. The resolution said the takeover bid by CNOOC Ltd., the state-owned Chinese oil company, would "threaten to impair the national security of the United States."

A white paper by the Japanese trade ministry this month, meanwhile, is warning of the growing risks of investment in the Chinese market. It suggests that Japanese investors should shift production to Southeastern Asia instead.

Beijing is expressing outrage at the foreign criticism. Yesterday it lashed out at Japan, accusing it of adding a "chill" to the already frosty relationship between the two Asian neighbours.

"The two white papers smack of all-out hostility on the part of Japan, which is counterproductive," the state-owned China Daily newspaper said in an editorial. "Its attitude toward China is an unease over its neighbour's progress." The comments by Mr. Rumsfeld have provoked similar anger from Beijing.

"In trumpeting the 'China threat theory' abroad, Rumsfeld's intention is to evoke doubts and worries among China's neighbouring countries, so as to drive a wedge in the relations between China and the East Asian neighbours," said the People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, in a front-page article last month.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, rejected the American criticism of China's military spending. The annual U.S. military budget, he said, is 77 times bigger than the Chinese military budget in per capita terms.

But with no hint of any slowdown in China's military growth, and with CNOOC still pushing ahead relentlessly in its pursuit of Unocal, the controversy over China's intentions is bound to continue. Much of the U.S. commentary is painting China as a potential successor to the Soviet Union.

"China's emergence as a growing power could threaten America's role as the primary guarantor of stability in Asia," a lengthy article in The New Republic concluded last week.

The Washington Times, a right-wing daily with close links to the Pentagon, predicted that China could be ready to attack Taiwan within two years. "We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," it quoted a senior U.S. defence official as saying.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The danger is that the media - state controlled or just rabidly partisan - can whip up fear and hate and expectations.   The leaked white papers have already served their purposes - they are propaganda rather than considered policy.

We, the American led West, need to have a serious, strategic debate about how we plan to live with China in 2050.   We need to contain China in an array of socio-economic snares while it, gradually but inevitably, evolves into a law abiding, law respecting, albeit, probably, conservative democracy and trading partner and competitor.   The alternative is a land war in Asia which is a stupid choice.

We need to be prepared to fight China, and to win, but we mustn't plan on it - and there is a big difference.

Edit: I mean prepare and plan in the political/strategic sense.  The military must plan and prepare for operations in war anywhere and everywhere, but politocal leaders must plan to contain not fight.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 06, 2005, 13:22:11
Containing is exactly what we â “ many, only loosely affiliated Western nations, led by Canada when Louis St. Laurent was Minister of External Affairs â “ did to the United States in the '40s.

St. Laurent and some others understood that the new world order â “ King used that phrases in about 1940 to describe Canada's changing relations with Britain and the USA â “ needed an engaged America.  Many (St. Laurent less so) feared that isolationism would rise again in America, quickly and powerfully, as soon as the war was over.  Although the United Nations was, essentially, an American invention and although Truman and Acheson were committed internationalists, many people feared â “ with some justification, I think â “ that the American people are naturally and historically isolationist.

Truman was succeeded by another committed internationalist: Eisenhower and we had a decade plus during which America consented to be ensnared within a vast maze of agreements and alliances and arrangements â “ all of which tied it, more and more tightly, to a real new world order â “ one managed by voluntary standards.  That order is a fair guarantor of peace and prosperity so long as all the real superpowers join and remain 'in.'
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Aden_Gatling on July 06, 2005, 19:21:52
We need more of this (discrediting and destabilizing the Chinese government):
Quote
Hackers 1, China 0
by James Dunnigan
July 5, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

Hackers, apparently Chinese, worked their way into the website of a Chinese government Internet security firm, and defaced the company web page. This caused some embarrassment, although the company, Beijing General Security Service, was not noted for Internet security, but for hiring and supervising 4,000 "internet security guards" to monitor what Internet users in the Chinese capital do online. While much message traffic on message boards and in chat rooms is monitored with software (often from American suppliers), human monitors are needed to go after "subversive citizens" who might be speaking in code. China is making a determined effort to prevent the Internet from becoming an uncontrolled source of information the government does not approve of.

Police states, like China, have a serious problem with the Internet. They need it, for economic reasons. The Internet has become part of the worldwide economic infrastructure. But the Internet also allows unfettered exchange of information. For a police state, this is bad. A police state remains in power, in part, by controlling the media. China has a booming economy, and cannot afford to lock down, or keep out, the Internet, as has happened in police states with poor economies (North Korea, Cuba, Burma). So China is adding more software, and personnel, to police Chinese Internet users. So far, their approach has made many casual Internet users wary of saying, or looking for, anything the government does not approve of. But millions of more savvy Chinese Internet users know of ways to get around the â Å“Great Firewall of China,â ? to do as they wish on the Internet. This attack on the Beijing General Security Service was just a reminder that the Chinese war on the Internet is far from over.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005756243.asp
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on July 15, 2005, 03:12:55
Subject: CCP Believes Australian Government Can Be Bought

Chen Yonglin: CCP Believes Australian Government Can Be Bought
Jun 24, 2005


Picture:Chen Yonglin at the press conference on June 22, 2005 (The
Epoch
Times)

When Chen Yonglin, the former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) diplomat
seeking asylum in Australia, first announced his intention to defect,
he
told the world about the close relationship between the CCP and the
Australian government, and stressed that the CCP operates a 1,000
person
spy network in Australia. Since then the media has been trying to
follow
up on this sensitive topic, but Chen has remained silent. On June 22nd
Chen held a press conference during which he began to elaborate on his
knowledge of the dealings between the two governments. What follows
are
excerpts of Chen speaking at the conference.

China Seeks To Make Australia Part of Its "Great Border Area"

"In February of 2005, Zhou Wenzhong, the Chinese Vice Minister of
Foreign
Affairs, held a meeting at the Chinese Embassy in Australia with the
ambassadors and consuls general to Australia and New Zealand, and the
general consuls and the diplomats in charge of political affairs. I
accompanied Qiu Shaofang, the general consul of the Chinese consulate
in
Sidney, to attend the meeting.

"The main purpose of the meeting was to implement the decision made
during
the 10th Meeting of the Chinese Diplomats in Foreign Counties held in
mid-August of 2004, at the suggestion of Hu Jintao, the General
Secretary
of the CCP, to make Australia part of the "Great Border Area" of
China.
They asked each consulate to provide its point of view and suggestions
for
the next step.

"During the meeting, Zhou Wenzhong shared information about the CCP
Central Government's strategic planning toward Australia and the
United
States, which is related to the close ties between these two
countries.
The CCP wants to break through the military union of the two countries
and
turn Australia into a second France. It hopes to shape Australia into
a
country that dares to say "no" to the United States.

"China first started crafting its plan to reshape Australia when it
learned that Australia was planning to give up ties with Asia in favor
of
stronger ties with the United States. At that time the free trade
negotiations between Australia and the United States were at a climax
and
Australia had high hopes of being included in the North America Free
Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Meanwhile, Australia had a big court case pending
with
Guangdong Province in China, concerning natural gas, which was making
it
less and less popular with the Chinese government.

"In March of 2003 Tang Jaixuan, the Chinese Minister of Foreign
Affairs,
visited Australia and questioned the Australian government on certain
issues, including issues related to Falun Gong. On the day before Tang
Jiaxuan arrived in Canberra, Alexander Downer, the Australian Minister
for
Foreign Affairs, signed an article banning Falun Gong practitioners
from
setting up signs and banners or using loud speakers to protest in
front of
the Chinese embassy. Since then Downer has continued to sign similar
articles every month, which has made Tang Jiaxuan very happy.

"That same year, China initiated the celebration of the 30-year
anniversary of the establishment of the relationship between China and
Australia. The Chinese government sent many groups to Australia to
promote
Chinese culture and political ideology.

"In 2003 when Hu Jintao visited Australia he received unprecedented
treatment in Canberra. Bob Brown, a congressmen belonging to the
Greens-
the opposition party- was not allowed to enter the building where
congress
was being held. This was done to prevent the attendance of dissidents
and
Falun Gong practitioners that might have shown up as the congressman's
guests. Hu Jintao was delighted and commented to his staff that this
was a
sign that the Australian government could be influenced.

"In 2005 when Wu Bangguo visited Australia, he requested the same
treatment- not to see or hear any protestors or dissidents. Next Year,
China plans to send Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to visit
Australia,
and in 2007 Hu Jintao will be in Australia to attend the World
Economic
Summit."

The CCP Thinks The Australian Government Can Be Bought

"Over the past several years, Chinese officials have successfully
built
close personal relationships with their Australian counterparts, all
for
the purpose of establishing leverage in the Australian government. The
CCP
is convinced that the Australian government can be coerced to follow
its
aims through application of economic pressures and incentives. It
plans to
use economic pressure to force Australia to cave on political and
human
rights issues.

"The dialogue on human rights between China and Australia over the
past
several years was merely a show put on to appease the Australian
public.
In fact, there was no progress made. When high-ranking Australian
officials visited China, they did not raise any human right issues. I
knew
what was said during their visits, because a summary news brief of
each
visit was sent to the consulate."

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Helped the CCP to Wriggle Out
of a
Difficult Lawsuit

"Due to the nature of my work as a diplomat, I have witnessed many
instances of secret dealing between the Chinese and Australian
governments, and such knowledge has weighed heavily on my conscience.
I
know that the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Chinese
Embassy in Canberra share all of their information with each other.
The
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs even gives suggestions to the
Chinese government on how to handle difficult political issues.

"For example, Zhang Cuiying, a Falun Gong practitioner, lodged a
lawsuit
in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the former Chinese
president and the 6-10 Office for genocide, torture and crimes against
humanity. Based on an article of the national amnesty code of
Australia,
the lawsuit was not handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, but by a special substitute process. This greatly embarrassed
the
Chinese government and caused it much distress, because it did not
want to
have to face Falun Gong practitioners in open court proceedings.

"To help the CCP, the Australian Department for Foreign Affairs and
Trade
provided several solutions. Dr. Geoff Raby, Deputy Secretary of the
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, promised the
Chinese
government that when he visited China in March, 2005 that he would ask
for
the materials from the Supreme Court, cancel the lawsuit by the Falun
Gong
practitioners and put an end to the charges against the Chinese
leader.
Raby later regretted making this offer.

"The Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade offered another
solution: to
have the Chinese government send a representative to stand trial in
place
of the leader, and thus expedite the lawsuit. The Chinese government
did
not adopt this suggestion and instead decided to put pressure on the
ministry, which resulted in the ministry's cooperation in preparing
many
legal documents to assist the CCP."

Chen ended the press conference with this comment: "I have witnessed
too
many secret deals between the Australian and Chinese governments. I am
really concerned that I will be betrayed. Therefore, in case I should
run
into sudden misfortune, I have spoken my mind to the public."

Please see Part I, "Chinese Defector Tells of Government Plot" and
Part
II, "Chen Yonglin Describes Abduction by Chinese Agents in Australia".

(<http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-24/29770.html>;)


You are able to help and please do help:

1. You may help Australian by letting more Australian or citizen in
Commonwealth countries to aware the story.

2. Talk to your local MPs, Senators. They may be able to help.

3. Write letters to Australian government to express your concern.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on July 15, 2005, 16:50:18
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/14/china.taiwan.nuclear.reut/index.html

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- A senior Chinese general has warned that China was ready to use nuclear weapons against the United States if Washington attacked his country over Taiwan, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Friday.

Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army who said he was expressing his own views and did not anticipate a conflict with Washington, nevertheless said China would have no option but to go nuclear in the event of an attack.

"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," he told an official briefing for international journalists.

A spokeswoman for China's Foreign Ministry noted that the general had said in the article he was not speaking on behalf of the government. A spokesman later said the ministry was looking into the matter.

The Defense Ministry declined to comment, saying the Foreign Ministry had organized the event at which the general spoke.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of China, and has vowed to bring the self-governed democracy back into the fold. In March, China's parliament passed an anti-secession law authorizing the use of "non-peaceful means" to do so.

Zhu said the threat to escalate a conflict might be the only way to stop one because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war with the United States.

"If the Americans are determined to interfere ... we will be determined to respond," he said.

"We Chinese 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," he added.

China first tested a nuclear bomb in 1964. It has declared a policy of not using such weapons unless it has already suffered nuclear attack.

The newspaper observed that it was unclear what prompted the remarks, but noted that they were the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

During a visit to Beijing earlier this month U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said there should be no unilateral change in the status quo over the disputed island of Taiwan.

"That means that we don't support unilateral moves toward independence by Taiwan. It also means that we are concerned about the military balance, and we'll say to China that they should do nothing militarily to provoke Taiwan," she added.



Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Kernewek on July 15, 2005, 19:49:30
Doesn't seem like some South Korean children have much affection for the Japanese:
http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?s=584a34d836c56dc1a4aed2d8c8bed659&showtopic=1558
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Kernewek on July 15, 2005, 19:57:57
Oh yes, and this too,
http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?s=584a34d836c56dc1a4aed2d8c8bed659&showtopic=1550

It's the same thing from above, but with different pics and an introduction.

About the Australians being bought by China, the Americans have a similar feeling regarding China's shopping for Unocal.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3265441

Perhaps we Canadians should also be wary of China's investments into our oilfields?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: dante7sins on July 17, 2005, 16:44:48
This is very scary. From a lot things i read and from PBS front line, it seems china will become even more hostile in the future with conflicts over raw goods, ie: oil n' grain. Since they need these goods in order to maintain their economy, they will import these from other countries.  China atm doesn't have the ability to project force beyond its immediate area but they are pursuing a blue water navy in order to protect their interests. China is also spying on canadians too...
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-19/29643.html
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1408570.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1408571.htm
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on July 17, 2005, 17:19:17
like it or not, theyll transform into the world superpower in the next decade or two.

I dunno how they would fight a war really though, how do you feed that many soldiers?
the logistics of the whole thing are crazy.
Theyd probobly find a way though.

Something else that im certain is a sure thing, is the invasion and devouring of taiwan.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: daniel h. on July 17, 2005, 22:17:51
like it or not, theyll transform into the world superpower in the next decade or two.

I dunno how they would fight a war really though, how do you feed that many soldiers?
the logistics of the whole thing are crazy.
Theyd probobly find a way though.

Something else that im certain is a sure thing, is the invasion and devouring of taiwan.


That assume that we live in the same political paradigm. It is mostly western corporations that have made China powerful...China is dependent on resources which are running out, and in other's possession.

China was allowed to become more powerful. They did some of it on their own, but if they had to rely on their own market, they would have fewer people to sell to, as they have undervalued labour and have few who can afford their products. They have industrialized, but could have political instability as they pay people horribly and are very repressive.

They won't be THE superpower, the  world will be multi-polar.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on July 17, 2005, 22:39:55
This should be added to the China "superthread" in the politics section.

As you wish, sire. :)

One thing to note is, given China's political system and culture, Generals (or anyone else) do not just "sound off". The political give and take we take fro granted watching American politics simply does not exist in China, statements are allowed to be made in support of government policy and for very specific purposes.

Should Taiwan be invaded, the best and most practical response would be counterstrikes against the Chinese mainland to disrupt the logictical support of the invasion force, and allow the Taiwanese to neutralize and throw out the attackers. The General is clearly attempting to raise the stakes against that response, and limit American and Allied options.

China has become more powerful for many reasons, our tapping into their human resources is perhaps the primary driver of current economic growth (as is our very short term point of view; i.e. the next quarterly report), but rest assured they have their own drives and motivations, many of which clash with our interests.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on July 20, 2005, 23:13:17
Fourth Generation war to the nth power. Interestingly enough the date of publication is close to Al Qaeda's "Declaration of War" against the West, and both are coincident with the nadir of the Clinton Administration. When you look and act weak, people will try to take advantage of you.

American (and Western) political and economic power can be deployed against this threat, and mostly by benign policies like opening investment and free trade opportunities to fellow democracies, and strengthening potential partners like India. Other methods like "international law warfare" will have limited effect as the American public become impatient with the obstructionist UN, and "ecological warfare" may end up rebounding horribly on the perpetrator (one reason Biological Warfare is more potential than reality).

Still a prescient warning against threats coming from way out of arc.

Quote
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot20jul20,0,89656.column?coll=la-home-headlines

China's stealth war on the U.S.

Max Boot

July 20, 2005

Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the U.S. dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.

This saber-rattling comes while China is building a lot of sabers. Although its defense budget, estimated to be as much as $90 billion, remains a fraction of the United States', it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia. Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems â ” especially missiles and submarines â ” needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific.

The Pentagon on Tuesday released a study of Chinese military capabilities. In a preview, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Singapore audience last month that China's arms buildup was an "area of concern." It should be. But we shouldn't get overly fixated on such traditional indices of military power as ships and bombs â ” not even atomic bombs. Chinese strategists, in the best tradition of Sun Tzu, are working on craftier schemes to topple the American hegemon.

In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.

"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."

Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" â ” clearly a red, white and blue enemy â ” would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."

This isn't just loose talk. There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That would be psychological warfare against a major Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, fall into the same category.

The bid by the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Co., to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the U.S.? Media warfare.

And so on. Once you know what to look for, the pieces fall into place with disturbing ease. Of course, most of these events have alternative, more benign explanations: Maybe Gen. Zhu is an eccentric old coot who's seen "Dr. Strangelove" a few too many times.

The deliberate ambiguity makes it hard to craft a response to "unrestricted warfare." If Beijing sticks to building nuclear weapons, we know how to deal with that â ” use the deterrence doctrine that worked against the Soviets. But how do we respond to what may or may not be indirect aggression by a major trading partner? Battling terrorist groups like Al Qaeda seems like a cinch by comparison.

This is not a challenge the Pentagon is set up to address, but it's an urgent issue for the years ahead.

Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on July 20, 2005, 23:29:50
Quote
In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.

"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."

Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" â ” clearly a red, white and blue enemy â ” would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."

OOOHHH!

Has anyone here read this work? I was going to bring it up earlier, but I didn't think there would be enough interest.

It's kind of old news, but it caused quite a stir when it came out!
Read the translation here (http://missilethreat.com/static/19990200-LiangXiangsui-unrestrictedwar.pdf) :)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on July 20, 2005, 23:42:25
Quote
This isn't just loose talk. There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That would be psychological warfare against a major Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, fall into the same category.

The bid by the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Co., to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the U.S.? Media warfare.

 :D :D :D

Resource warfare, indeed!
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on July 21, 2005, 21:16:14
Quote
Tied on Taiwan
Current U.S. defense policy suffers from needless restrictions.

By Gary Schmitt & Dan Blumenthal

Deterring China's attempt to coerce Taiwan into unification with the mainland through military force has been United States policy for five decades The success of that policy has rested on Taiwan's willingness to maintain a robust self-defense capability and, in turn, on America's retaining the ability to project military power quickly and decisively into the region in a time of crisis. To support this policy, the Pentagon assists Taiwan through a program of arms sales, in developing a modern military force, and by investing in our own capabilities to meet Chinese aggression.

As important as these measures are, neither Taiwan nor the United States is getting its money's worth because of the unnecessary restrictions placed on our military-to-military ties with Taiwan. In some cases these restrictions are just petty, such as requiring Taiwanese military personnel to wear civilian clothes when they train in the United States, or forbidding Taiwanese pilots from wearing name badges on their flight suits during U.S. training. In other cases, they are far more serious and debilitating. Chief among these cases is the self-imposed prohibition on trips by U.S. generals, admirals, and senior defense officials to Taiwan.

In order to develop an appreciation for Taiwan's specific military needs and, in turn, to spell those needs out to America's civilian policymakers, U.S. generals and flag officers have to be able to visit Taiwan and see its military in action. Although visits by expert teams of U.S. captains and colonels to Taiwan can and do help, these lower-ranking American military officers lack the authority and the â Å“jointâ ? command experience of general officers necessary to have an effective exchange with Taiwan's senior military leaders. And, back home, anyone familiar with the ways of Washington knows that having a well-informed general or admiral make a case for a new initiative is vital if it is to be given a respectful hearing by senior military and civilian decision-makers.

Similarly, it is difficult for Taipei and Washington to discuss contingency responses to possible Chinese aggression when U.S. generals and flag officers are not able to meet regularly with their Taiwanese counterparts. Again, colonels and captains can talk about a lot of things, but only the most senior officers can really push their respective institutions to be forthright about what they can and cannot do, and to take whatever steps are necessary to fix holes in those plans. Failing this, too much uncertainty can creep into our contingency planning and, in turn, create doubts about our actual ability to deter Chinese aggression.

Should deterrence fail and conflict erupt in the Taiwan Strait, we currently face the prospect of managing an ad hoc coalition. Senior officers from Taiwan and the United States will have had little opportunity to discuss routinely and in depth how to fight together. The mid-career officers who are currently the backbone of professional-service relationships with Taiwan cannot be expected to make strategic decisions with the full confidence of their governments during wartime. A general officer tasked with executing a contingency plan would benefit greatly from familiarizing himself with Taiwan's command centers, terrain, and operational capabilities. Indeed, one only has to think back to the difficulties the American military had operating with its key NATO allies â ” with whom they had trained and held high-level exchanges for years â ” in Kosovo to realize just how difficult a situation we might face in the case of a military conflict in the Strait. The cost of the current restrictions could come at a high price, then: diminished American military effectiveness and, potentially, increased loss of American lives in combat.

Although China will object to allowing U.S. general and flag officers in Taiwan, the proposal would not violate the existing American policy toward China and Taiwan. The current restrictions on visits to Taiwan by general officers are based on â Å“guidelinesâ ? issued by the State Department's Bureau of East Asian Affairs in 1979 following the Carter administration's decision to end formal relations with Taiwan and establish them with Communist China. But the restrictions were not part of any formal agreement with China, nor was it in response to any particular demand by Beijing. In short, this is a self-imposed proscription which has not been properly reexamined in light of either America's obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act or the growth of a much more capable Chinese military force. Indeed, permitting U.S. generals and flag officers to visit Taiwan would reaffirm the essentials of America's one-China policy: While the United States does not endorse any specific political outcome on unification, it is also committed to preventing the mainland from attempts to annex the island by force.

The American policy of deterring Beijing from using military force against Taiwan and reassuring Taipei in its dealings with the mainland has facilitated peace and great cross-straits economic growth for decades. But it is a policy that is increasingly put in jeopardy by the ongoing development of China's military power. Removing an outdated restriction on defense cooperation with Taiwan is a sensible step to take now in light of this new threat. The idea that generals and admirals can travel to China, Libya, and Uzbekistan but not Taiwan is a restriction that is not only ridiculous on its face but, increasingly, dangerous to the very men and women who will be asked to risk their lives should deterrence fail.

â ” Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century. Dan Blumenthal is resident fellow in Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute and former senior director for China, Taiwan, Hong, and Mongolia in the office of the Secretary of Defense.
   
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/schmitt_blumenthal200507210813.asp
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on July 22, 2005, 11:31:37
Quote
Assessing China's Mini-Float
What it will mean to trade, the markets, and the U.S.

Yesterday, China adopted a managed float of its currency, the yuan, ending the dollar-peg system that has lasted since the early 1990s. (Malaysia followed suit.) China will now use an undisclosed basket of currencies to set the value of the yuan, and will announce the resulting dollar/yuan exchange rate on a daily basis. For July 21, this was 8.11 yuan per dollar, about 2 percent stronger than the 10-year 8.27 yuan per dollar peg. China will also limit intraday moves in the dollar/yuan exchange rate to plus or minus 0.3 percent.

China's basket, I believe, is primarily made up of dollars, and also may include euros, yen, and several other currencies in relation to their trade with China. To maintain a basket, China would not in any way be required to change the makeup of its (now largely dollar-based) international reserves, but it may gradually match its reserves with the currency weights in the trading basket. Note, however, that some 90 to 95 percent of all China's foreign trade is denominated in dollars, minimizing the â Å“needâ ? for the country to significantly alter its reserve composition.

In its announcement, China stressed phrases that the U.S. and G7 had encouraged: â Å“Moving into a managed floating exchange rate regime based on market supply and demand. ... RMB [yuan] will no longer be pegged to the U.S. dollar and the RMB exchange rate regime will be improved with greater flexibility.â ?

The U.S. had made noises in recent weeks that a move was expected, and Malaysia's immediate parallel move indicates that China's move was in fact coordinated.

If the U.S. maintains its initially positive reaction, China's announcement will be a constructive development in that it will have relieved protectionist tension and, at least for a while, the threat of the Bush administration allowing current tariff legislation to make progress. It also reduces the risk that the U.S. Treasury would name China a â Å“currency manipulator.â ?

I don't, however, think this will have a major impact on world financial markets or trade flows. The impact would only be significant if the new regime were managed in such a way as to allow for larger yuan-dollar changes over a relevant time horizon.

In this respect, I do not assume that China's move is necessarily the â Å“first in a series of moves,â ? or that it automatically translates into an effective â Å“crawling pegâ ? by which China's currency would begin a long upward march against the dollar. Rather, China may use this move to satisfy U.S. and EU demands for greater flexibility â ” and I stress here that China sees strong domestic and economic reasons to oppose large-scale currency appreciation.

This managed float also does not materially change the fundamental value of the dollar (established by U.S. monetary policy), commodity prices expressed in dollar terms, or bond yields (which are more heavily influenced by the value of the dollar, inflation expectations, and U.S. monetary policy).

On the margin, China's move should be viewed as mildly favorable for equities, commodities, Asian currencies, and the Mexican peso, and a mild negative for dollar-denominated bonds.

By having taken maxi-revaluation scenarios off the table, the move is likely to reduce speculative â Å“hot moneyâ ? flows into China. These flows were the largest single contributor to China's FX reserve accumulation over the past twelve months. As such, China's FX reserve accumulation would be likely to slow in the months ahead.

How will the U.S. react? I assume positively. Where will China peg the dollar today? I assume at roughly 8.11 yuan per dollar in order to make clear the stability of the new system. What additional announcements will China make in the near-term regarding capital account flexibility? I expect it to liberalize capital outflows, perhaps in the near future.

â ” David Malpass is the chief economist for Bear, Stearns.   
     
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_malpass/malpass200507220842.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/darda200507220844.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_nugent/nugent200507220843.asp

Are two other comments on the issues involved with the "China trade". Once again, I would hope free traders expand their horizons to include the "Litle Tigers", India and the Anglosphere nations as a means of diversifying portfolios and reducing the various risks that may accrue from over dependence and investment in the Chinese market.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 22, 2005, 17:39:23
DoD released a report today on the Chinese military. Good read.

www.defenselink.mil/ad...-1561.html
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on July 22, 2005, 19:33:13
DoD released a report today on the Chinese military. Good read.

www.defenselink.mil/ad...-1561.html
      The good news of the report, they are not yet ready to act unilaterally, as they do not yet have the blue water capacity to supply and defend an invasion force, and are not yet able to guarentee sufficient electronic dominance to neutralize Tiawanese command and control to assure success in landing operations.  The bad news of the report is that they are well on their way to assuring these elements, and spending freely to accomplish this goal.  The implications are clear, far from being an unthinkable act, war to secure Tiawan is being not only planned but prepared for.  The data on Chinese satelite coverage and anti-satelite capabilities, electronic warfare, both conventional and HEMP nuclear, makes it clear that they are quite prepared to deny the west any long range low risk options to interfere in Chinese actions.  This leaves the question of would the US and its allies risk a direct conventional war half way around the world with the only Eastern Superpower.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on July 25, 2005, 14:00:37
A passage from "The Anglosphere Challenge". India may well be our "ace in the hole" when it comes to dealing with China. From today's Instapundit http://instapundit.com/

Quote
A STRONG ANTITERROR SPEECH from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh:

    Every time terrorists strike anywhere all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law must stand together and affirm our firm commitment to fight this scourge resolutely and unitedly. I sincerely hope that all of those who cherish and value open and free societies will join hands in the war against terrorism wherever it is fought. I wish the people of London well. I pray that their lives will soon return to normal and they can resume their celebrations for having been chosen the venue for the 2012 Olympics.

And, like Blair and Howard the other day, he sounds as if he's read Jim Bennett's book:

    Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day. . . .

    It used to be said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I am afraid we were partly responsible for sending that adage out of fashion!

    But, if there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English speaking people, in which the people of Indian origin are the single largest component.

    Of all the legacies of the Raj, none is more important than the English language and the modern school system. That is, if you leave out cricket!

As The Economist recently noted, India is moving much closer to the United States these days -- and vice versa. I guess they've all read Jim Bennett's book.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on August 01, 2005, 04:05:46
It does this old imperialist's heart good to hear those words of PM Manmohan Singh.  ;D  Interestingly enough I was just taking a look at the Indian Army ORBAT the other day on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Regiment_of_the_Indian_Army.  In addition to the ranks, drill, attire and symbols the Regiments have maintained there Raj designations, particularly true of the Indian Army Gorkhas (eg 1st King George V's Own).

Anyway enough pining for the "good old days" ;).

Anybody else noted in this lengthy confab on the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (the Sequel) the latest non-Kyoto agreement amongst the US, Japan, S.Korea, Australia, India and China?  I found it fascinating.  With this one treaty the US relegates the European Kyoto agreement to the dustbin where it belongs and at the same time opens the door to removing a casus belli in the future.  WWII Pacific, and arguably WWII Europe, were Energy Wars.  Japan and Germany needed it.  Everybody else had it and weren't to willing to share.

Now China's big push is for energy to fuel 400,000,000 Honda and Hyundai knock-offs (Pook's estimate of future market - 1 car / 2.5 people and 1,000,000,000 people).  This, more than ideology, is driving expansion into the South China Seas and associations with central Asia.  India needs a similar amount of energy.  America would be just as happy to wean itself and everybody else off of Arab oil and onto something else.

The American's have their own coal and nuclear sources. They have technology, money and management skills.
The Aussies have coal and uranium to sell and need something other than oil, which they import.
The Japanese and S. Koreans import oil, but have investment capital, technology and factories.
The Indians and Chinese need a better energy solution than oil as well and represent a massive market - either draining current oil reserves pushing up prices or driving new investment in something else.  (I refuse to use alternative because everybody thinks windmillls and photocells, neither of which will cut it).

With that mass of bodies, better than half the world's population and most of the world's future growth potential, any solution is likely to put your average Middle Eastern Despot's nose out of joint.  Have to reduce the annual Rolls Royce and Bentley budget donchano.  Also upsets old Europe and the environmentalists - both pluses in my book.

I believe it was Larry Niven or Jerry Pournelle that pointed out that with energy anything is possible.  Sand can be fused into glass walls for houses.  Drinking water can be distilled from sea water and pumped anywhere.  Deserts will bloom, the Arctic will thaw (OK that's happening anyway), the Lion will lie down with the Lamb and peace will guide the planets - at least until Saturday Week, after the World Cup finals.

Anyways, hyperbole aside, it makes for a really interesting RealPolitik play.  Wonder why we weren't invited to join the club?  Sounds like a lot of investment dollars moving soon.

Cheers.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on August 01, 2005, 18:49:34
Anyways, hyperbole aside, it makes for a really interesting RealPolitik play.  Wonder why we weren't invited to join the club?  Sounds like a lot of investment dollars moving soon.

Investment dollars are moving at a rate of $6 billion a year into Alberta to open the "Tar Sands" to the global market. There was an interesting article in Macleans (June 13 2005) suggesting the influx of wealth will drastically alter the political power arrangements here in Canada (which may be a good thing), although it was given as an either-or scenario ("It's Alberta's oil if you live in Alberta and it's Canada's oil if you live in Ottawa" pg 37). Perhaps not surprisingly, the idea it belongs to the investors who bet on these projects never seems to be discussed anywhere in the article.

Canada could become a nexus in the potential "Eagles vs the Dragon" scenarios, since both the United States and China will want access to the tar sands, and our political culture, economy and military are not up to the task of effectively gainsaying who should get access.

In terms of WW IV, American access to the tar sands will reduce the pressure to seek short term solutions or (heaven forbid) accommodation with terror supporting regimes in order to maintain a stable energy market. Kirkhill is correct that other alternatives need to be examined as well, but tar sands are THE short and medium term solution to the energy needs of the West; and also remove the "oil weapon" from the hands of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Jihadis, and reduce the amount of funding these regimes get through the sale of oil.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on August 01, 2005, 19:06:47
Arthur, wouldn't simple logisitics determine who gets access?  Multiple exisiting pipelines, proliferating in the near future, internal lines of communication if you will, vs movement by sea, especially if the movement is contested would seem to make the logic simple.

Investors or not, it would be exceedingly difficult for an offshore, or for that matter a remote power like Ottawa, to force the transfer of "assets in the ground" in the face of a domestic desire not to do the same.

Let's not think about the Iraqi scenario of destroying infrastructure to prevent the transfer, how about oil companies deciding not to produce or the Alberta government temporarily suspending licences.  Unless there are willing producers (eg Chinese oil workers in Alberta) and secure lines of communication (Chinese guards on the pipelines?  A blue water Chinese Navy?) I think we and the Chinese would be hard pressed to ensure them supply in the face of both domestic and American desire not to supply them.

Whatever arrangements are made are going to have to be acceptable to all.  Unless the RCR and R22R plan on ganging up on the Alberta oilfields  ;D.

Cheers.  Chris.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on August 01, 2005, 19:43:52
Quote
the idea it belongs to the investors who bet on these projects never seems to be discussed anywhere in the article.

Perhaps because it's completely ridiculous? Pray, explain how exactly these projects and the oil sands "belong" to their investors. Are they going to go to provincial bench in Edmonton and get a court order to  put all the oil on a big ship and take it back to China? Those French and Russians who invested so much (supposedly) in Iraq before 2003 must still be rolling in it, right?

I never thought I would ever need to explain the merits of naked military force to readers here at army.ca, typically as bloodthirsty as anyone else,  but what the hey.

Gentlemen, international investors, when investing in other countries, take into account this little thing called "Sovereign risk". The risk that the host country's goverment might one day decide your investments to be detrimental to their national securty and wellbeing, and expropriate your entire investment. 

Small countries fear US investment because US military power puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to sovereign risk. Chinese investments in the US or Canada must account for sovereign risk. since if the US gov't decided to unilaterally seize all Chinese assets in the US, there's nothing  they can do about it. When Guatamela or Panama decides to seize US assets, they generally, if history is any guide,  find the gringo investors back the next week with friends from the 82nd Airborn and USMC to show them the error of their ways. This generally does not happen between industrialized nations.

So in the case of the tar sands, so what if the Chinese buy the entire thing? What if one day we decided it wasn't such a great idea and just took it all back? Are they going to invade Canada? I imagine we should be a little bit more of a speedbump than the Iraqis were.

Energy security is gained by force of arms, not by open market transactions, which for a fungible commodity such as oil are pretty much meaningless anyway. People whine about the Chinese purchase of Unocal without understanding that Unocal is a concept that doesn't even exist on paper,  only on the computer memories of the NYSE.  Energy security is when the entire flow of oil from the Persian gulf flows only under the eye and at the whim of your CVBGs, and only to countries that you like. I'd say the current setup isn't going to change anytime soon, no matter how many nearly bankrupt oil companies the Chinese take over.  In the mean time, open markets, at least amongst the industrialized nations, are the best way of ensuring that everyone gets equitable treatment, and to stave off future conflicts.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on August 01, 2005, 23:17:17
Perhaps not surprisingly, the idea it belongs to the investors who bet on these projects never seems to be discussed anywhere in the article.

This was in reference to internal Canadian politics, since the thrust of the Macleans article was that the oil either belongs to Alberta or to Ottawa. Without the private investors, it will just sit in the ground as it has for several million years and be a benefit to no one regardless of which province claims ownership.

The sovereign risk argument is quite correct, but before the 82nd Airborn cuts the new pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast, there are a lot of other options and plays available. However you slice it, a pair of hostile and aggressive powers arm wrestling over the Canadian economy will have some "spillover" effects on the likes of you and I, manifesting itself in the political, legal and economic spheres in ways I am sure no Canadians will enjoy regardless of their political views.

Kirkhill, the logistics arguments are unsettled, since in the past, Canada made great efforts to ensure the flow of resources was East-West rather than North-South. Pipelines are being built both to the United States and to the BC coast, with vast amounts of money being used to build the infrastructure (and who knows what might be going on below the surface as well?) This is probably the most open and obvious manifestation of the effects I am referring to in the previous paragraph, and you can imagine the sudden hash court challenges, environmental regulations, native land claims and so on "could" make of what should be a fairly orderly investment process, especially if they are being spurred on by outside interests.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on August 01, 2005, 23:41:37
Good points. My last post was needlessly confrontational, I apologize. I should keep the finger off the trigger for a bit....
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on August 02, 2005, 15:37:18
Right enough Arthur.

At the end of the day though, as Britney was noting, there is the situation when the guns are silent and the situation when they are not.  In 1941 Standard Oil was selling Venezuelan Oil to the Fuhrer.  In 1942 it wasn't (or at least not as much).

Chris.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on August 05, 2005, 11:57:41
Building the Western alliance:

Quote
Indian Tiger
Anglospheric alliance rising.

By Larry Kudlow & William P. Kucewicz

In what could become the world's most significant 21st-century strategic alliance, a strengthened partnership is forming between the two largest English-speaking democracies: the U.S. and India. President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cemented bilateral ties in recent White House talks, paving the way for greater trade, investment, and technological collaboration. In time and with the cooperation of other friendly powers in the region â ” notably, Japan and Australia â ” this new alliance could emerge as an essential counterweight to China. Essentially, it will be an Anglospheric alliance in Asia and the Pacific Rim.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, commenting on the multipoint joint statement issued following the White House meeting, declared the two countries had forged "a broad global partnership of the likes that we've not seen with India since India's founding in 1947."

But it's the economic front that has the greatest potential. The world's largest democracy, peopled by an industrious and increasingly educated population, is among the fastest growing economies, with real GDP expanding at a 5.9% average annual rate, seasonally adjusted, over the last eight years, including a 7.0% gain in the 2005 first quarter.

However impressive this performance may be, India's economy has had to endure some stifling restrictions â ” and in certain cases outright bans â ” on foreign direct investment. FDI, in fact, hasn't grown in at least five years, averaging around $1.3 billion per quarter since 2000. In some sectors, such as retailing, mining, and railways, FDI is strictly prohibited, while in others, like banking and telecommunications, foreign investment is permitted but closely regulated.

The new bilateral accord promises to change this, and there's every reason to be optimistic. Informal links are being forged every day as large numbers of India-based firms service IT equipment and software in the U.S. In addition, India's current stock-market boom owes much to international investors. Foreign portfolio investment in India totaled $3.8 billion in the first quarter of 2005 versus $4.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 and $3.7 billion in the first quarter of 2004. These inflows compared with a 2000-2003 quarterly average of just $840 million.

The performance of Indian equities has been nothing short of fabulous, with many prices doubling and even tripling in the past two years. The Bombay Sensex 30 Index is up about 150% since May 2003, and the broad Bombay Stock Exchange 500 Index has gained around 175%. Particularly impressive have been the nearly 200% rise in the IT Index and increases of roughly 250% in both the Consumer Durables and Capital Goods Indexes.

A small public sector and concomitant low taxes have also aided the economy. In the 2004-2005 fiscal year ended March 31, the Union (or central) government's net tax revenue amounted to 7.9% of nominal GDP and total receipts equaled 10.8%. With expenditures running at 17.6% of GDP, last year's fiscal deficit (or total government borrowing requirement) equaled 4.5% of GDP, according to the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.

Prime Minister Singh, as finance minister in the early 1990s, crafted many of the reforms responsible for India's economic renaissance, including lower tariffs, fewer import and forex restrictions, the lifting of industrial licensing and price controls, and a reduction in the top marginal income-tax rate from a staggering 97.5% to a more sensible 35%. Sound monetary management nowadays leaves little room for complaint, with consumer price inflation trending around 4.4% on a twelve-month basis over the past five years. Monetary stability has helped keep interest rates down, too. Since 2000, 10-year government bonds have yielded 7.8% on average, making for a mean real interest rate of 3.4% over the period.

But only through an ever-increasing ratio of financial capital to labor capital will labor productivity make the gains necessary for substantial improvements in the country's overall standard of living. Capital availability will rise with the expansion of the domestic economy, of course. But more is needed. Given the immense size of its labor force, India requires massive injections of foreign capital to make the investments in technology and equipment needed to augment output per hour. So, of the panoply of potential governmental reforms, liberalizing foreign capital flows is far and away the single most important one.

If India becomes a more hospitable home for foreign investment, their economy can grow 10 percent yearly for the next decade, representing an economic shot across China's bow. Embracing Anglo-Saxon market economics will strengthen both the Indian and American economies, thereby adding even more power to the new diplomatic entente.

â ” Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is host of CNN's Kudlow & Company and author of the daily weblog, Kudlow's Money Politic$. William P. Kucewitz is editor of GeoInvestor.com and a former editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal.
        
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow_kucewicz200508041929.asp

Welcome the newest "middle power"; as the years go by it will be India which sets the agenda for the other middle powers, since it is a notion which has the people and economic resources coupled with the willpower to make thier mark in the world.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 04, 2006, 12:33:59
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1141474839078&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=

China plans steep hikes in military budget
14.7% increase continues trend
Mar. 4, 2006. 07:30 AM
ASSOCIATED PRESS

BEIJING — China's military budget will rise by 14.7 per cent this year to the equivalent of $40 billion Cdn, a government spokesman said today.
The figure was announced by Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for China's legislature, the National People's Congress, on the eve of its annual session.

China has announced double-digit spending increases for its 2.5-million-member military nearly every year since the early 1990s.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: big bad john (John Hill) on March 04, 2006, 12:37:21
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4773358.stm

China's military budget jumps 14% 
 
The Chinese army is the biggest in the world
China has said it will increase its military spending by 14.7% this year to 283.8bn yuan ($35.3bn; £20bn).
However, a spokesman for the Chinese parliament said much of the rise would be to cover fuel and salaries and that China was a "peace-loving nation".

Jiang Enzhu said the US spent a greater proportion of its economy on defence and that China had "no intention of vigorously developing armaments".

The US has several times accused China of understating its military budget.

Neighbours' concerns

China's armed forces are the biggest in the world and have seen double-digit increases in military spending since the early 1990s.

  China is committed to a path of peaceful development

Jiang Enzhu
Chinese parliament spokesman
The increases have caused concern for neighbours Japan and Taiwan.

The US has also expressed fears over the spending on the 2.5m-strong military.

Washington has several times accused China of understating its military budget.

It said last year's spend was not the $30bn stated but closer to $90bn.

China insists its spending is in line with rises in other governments.

Mr Jiang said: "China's defence budget has risen in recent years along with the development of its economy.

"But the proportion of the budget given over to defence spending is much the same as in past years."

China also says its military spending is dwarfed by the US. The US department of defence had a base budget of $400bn in 2005.

Mr Jiang said China's increases would go on salaries, new equipment, training and higher fuel costs.

He added: "I wish to emphasise that China is a peace-loving nation. China is committed to a path of peaceful development."

 
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: karl28 on March 04, 2006, 14:19:52
China keeps talking about being a peaceful nation . Now I am not an expert by any standards and this will sound real cheese so I apologize up front but a guy I new from high school had this crazy shirt that said peace through superior fire power .I'm wondering if that is the peace that china is thinking of  but like I said I am by far not expert on this so its just my two cents .
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on March 04, 2006, 14:33:58
Related to Bruce's observation maybe?

An acquaintance in Seattle is indicating that there is currently a world-wide shortage of titanium which is pushing the prices way up.  We use it in our industry to build salt-water resistant equipment like heat exchangers and pumps.  It is also used in many other alloys subjected to high-stress environments - turbines and armour as I understand it.  It is considered a strategic metal and is integral to a lot of modern weapons systems.

If the west isn't building aircraft and tanks (although it is building a lot of armoured vehicles) who is using up the titanium supplies?  It may be going into the civilian market.  Then again, maybe not.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on March 04, 2006, 15:06:48
Take a good look at who is picking up the pieces in Africa, now that the cold war no longer has NATO/Warsaw pact arming training and supporting the regimes of Africa, China has started to play a large role.  Africa has the resources, and represents the potential market that China needs. India acted as a break to Chinese expansionism on land, but hegemony in Africa is attainable.  South America is another area where Chinese capital and influence is being felt.  Perhaps the day will come when the OAS sees the protector in China that the Arabs found in Russia in the 50-60's.  China is moving to become a true superpower, and they are playing the long game; taking the time and investment to sew up whatever can be had without resistance, against the day when they feel they can/must take what is left against resistance.  This is not a condemnation, my own family has followed the Union Jack to conquer a quarter of the globe when we played that game.  The problem with China's quest for hegemony rests in its willingness to use its massive military, and the lavish spending to bring its quantity up to the qualitative standards of the military leaders. The continued technological transfers to the Chinese from the west really worry me, we cannot match their quantity, so why are we so hot to assist them to matching our quality?  What happens when they reach out to take something (Like Taiwan) and we tell them no?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on March 04, 2006, 15:30:43
Excellent point mainer.

I had forgotten the source issue - titanium is mined in Africa, amongst other places.

Was it on this site that I read an article commenting on the fact that the West's emphasis on human rights in international affairs is tying its hands by denying it the ability to make the deals that China makes?  They do not care if the person they sign the contract with has the full legal and moral right to sign the contract - only that they have sufficient de facto right as to allow the contract to be signed.  Once signed China can "support" the contract in the same manner that our ancestors supported contracts out of places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, Vancouver and Halifax.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 04, 2006, 15:39:41
Nice to see this thread ‘alive’ again.

This is from today’s Globe and Mail, from the Focus section.  It supports mainerjohnthomas’s point:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060304.CHINA04/TPStory/?query=
Quote
China keeps bad company
Beijing is willing to make deals with the most reprehensible regimes and its growing influence is threatening to undercut the U.S. democracy crusade.

GEOFFREY YORK reports

Saturday, March 4, 2006 Posted at 2:30 PM EST

BEIJING -- When Chinese President Hu Jintao jets into Washington next month for his first White House summit, he will be arriving not merely as an economic rival of the United States but increasingly as a geopolitical rival.

For the first time since the days of Mao Zedong, the Chinese leadership is emerging as a quiet threat to U.S. dominance on the world stage. This time, however, Beijing is not pushing the discredited ideas of Maoism and Marxism. Instead, it is offering a more alluring idea: that the autocracies of the developing world can stand up to Washington's pressure by forming their own profitable alliances in business and trade.

From Angola to Zimbabwe, from Myanmar to Sudan, some of the world's nastiest regimes are enjoying the fruits of China's financial support. With its newfound economic muscle and its amoral zeal to do business with anyone, China is propping up a host of tyrants and dictators who might not otherwise survive.

Most of the geopolitical rivalry will be politely ignored in the discussions between Hu Jintao and George W. Bush. But the enigmatic Chinese President will be viewed warily in Washington, where concern is growing that China now has the economic clout to challenge the U.S. democracy crusade in the "rogue states" of the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
As China moves rapidly toward superpower status, its model of moral neutrality is increasingly attractive to many developing countries -- especially at a time when the United States is often seen as a self-righteous bully. The new mantra of Chinese foreign policy was enunciated by a deputy foreign minister, Zhou Wenzhong, when he was asked about China's support for the brutal military regime in Sudan, which stands accused of war crimes and genocide. "Business is business," Mr. Zhou said. "We try to separate politics from business. I think the internal situation in the Sudan is an internal affair, and we are not in a position to impose upon them."

What Mr. Zhou failed to mention was the self-interest of the dealings between China and Sudan. In the wake of U.S. sanctions against it in 1997, Sudan needed a foreign sponsor. China, meanwhile, needed oil to fuel its economic boom. Beijing supplied tanks and fighter aircraft to Sudan in a deal beneficial to both sides.

Today, Sudan provides 10 per cent of China's oil imports, while Beijing provides enough economic and diplomatic aid to shield Sudan from U.S. pressure.

This basic creed -- business comes first, and self-interest is all that matters -- was more explicitly illustrated last year when Beijing gave a red-carpet welcome to Uzbekistan strongman Islam Karimov.

Just two weeks earlier, Mr. Karimov's regime had launched a bloody crackdown on peaceful protesters in the town of Andijan, killing hundreds of them.

But when he arrived in Beijing, he was given a 21-gun salute and a state dinner. China called him "an old friend of the Chinese people" and praised him for his crackdown on the "extremists." And then the two countries rewarded each other with a $600-million (U.S.) oil and gas deal.

Iran and North Korea provide another example. China is giving so much economic and diplomatic support to both regimes that they can resist U.S. pressure to dismantle their nuclear programs.

Again, self-interest is at the core of these alliances. Iranian oil is the biggest item in the $10-billion annual trade between Iran and China -- and this two-way trade is expected to jump to $100-billion a year as a result of a new deal to send Iranian natural gas to China.

In the Korean peninsula, China provides 80 per cent of North Korea's consumer goods and 40 per cent of its foreign trade, and it has invested about $2-billion in infrastructure. Look at any of the world's most autocratic regimes and you can usually find a Chinese role in propping it up. China is providing billions of dollars worth of military aid to countries such as Russia and Myanmar, despite their internal wars and human-rights abuses. It has close relations with Cuba and Venezuela.

It gives loans and military aid to Robert Mugabe, the iron-fisted ruler of Zimbabwe, who has offered China access to his gold and platinum and other mineral resources. It gave a $2-billion loan to Angola, a key supplier of oil to China, despite the country's long record of human-rights abuses. It gave military aid to Nepal, even after its king seized absolute power last year.

China has another reason for its moral neutrality, of course. By promoting the concept of non-interference in domestic affairs, it is making it harder for the outside world to interfere in its own domestic policies, including its human-rights abuses, its jailing of dissidents, its crackdown on Tibet, its attacks on religious freedom and its threats of war against Taiwan.

China's global influence has been immensely strengthened by its economic boom, which is triggering a far-reaching shift in the worldwide balance of power. Its extraordinary growth has helped legitimize a new model of governance, sometimes called the "Beijing Consensus."

In the years of triumphalism after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the "Washington Consensus" dominated the ideology of most developing countries. This was the ideology of privatization, deregulation, free markets and democratic governance, all promoted heavily by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from their head offices in Washington.

The Beijing Consensus rejects the Washington Consensus and promotes other priorities: rapid growth, state-led development, technological modernization, state intervention in the economy, tight political control over society to ensure social stability, and a respect for "national sovereignty" regardless of a regime's internal practices.

"The Washington Consensus was a hallmark of end-of-history arrogance; it left a trail of destroyed economies and bad feelings around the globe," says Joshua Cooper Ramo, a consultant and professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing who coined the term "Beijing Consensus" in a paper for the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

"China's rise is already reshaping the international order by introducing a new physics of development and power," he wrote. "China's new ideas are having a gigantic effect outside of China. . . . China is in the process of building the greatest asymmetric superpower the world has ever seen, a nation that relies less on traditional tools of power projection than any in history and leads instead by the electric power of its example and the bluff impact of size."

The ideas of the Beijing Consensus, he wrote, are "defined by a ruthless willingness to innovate and experiment, by a lively defence of national borders and interests, and by the increasingly thoughtful accumulation of tools of asymmetric power projection."

China is too cautious to embrace these ideas as an official doctrine, but it clearly approves of them. In an article in People's Daily last year, Chinese scholars praised the concept of a Beijing Consensus. "Because of its . . . practical superiority, it will be a 'consensus' accepted by more and more people and of growing influence in the world, particularly among developing countries," former Beijing University president Wu Shuqing said.

As the China model expands across the developing world, the United States is still struggling for a response. But its anxiety is growing. One U.S. scholar, Kenneth Lieberthal, says there is a split among China-watchers in Washington. One group sees China as a potential enemy of the United States by about 2020. The other group sees China as an inevitable enemy by 2020.

And so, despite the friendly rhetoric that will emanate from the White House when Mr. Hu arrives in Washington, many U.S. strategists will see him not as a partner but as a competitor -- perhaps the only competitor strong enough to challenge U.S. dominance in the world.

Into Africa

China had warm words of praise for Robert Mugabe when the autocratic Zimbabwean ruler arrived in Beijing last year.

The tyrant of Harare was given an honorary degree by the leaders of Beijing's foreign affairs college, who lauded him for his "brilliant contribution" to diplomacy and international relations. Chinese officials called him "a man of strong convictions, a man of great achievements [and] a man devoted to preserving world peace."

In Zimbabwe, where Mr. Mugabe is widely reviled as a dictator, China has rushed to provide gifts to the strongman. It donated the roofing material for his lavish $9-million Saddam Hussein-style palace and filled it with luxurious knickknacks.

China has also given him military hardware, fighter aircraft, interest-free loans, technology for his censors and secret police, and even T-shirts for his election team. Thousands of Chinese businessmen and farmers have poured into Zimbabwe, replacing the Western investors who have almost all withdrawn from the country because of Mr. Mugabe's blatant human-rights abuses.

It's all part of China's relentless campaign to win influence in Africa. While the West is losing interest in the continent, Beijing sees it as a crucial source of oil and minerals.

The signs of Chinese largesse are evident all across Africa. Luxury housing is a popular gift. In addition to the roof for Mr. Mugabe's palace, China donated almost $7-million to build a palace for the President of Namibia. When it gave a $2-billion loan to Angola, it included a gift of a housing compound for high-ranking Angolan officials -- surrounded by a security fence to ensure that the rabble cannot enter.

More than luxury villas are involved, of course. China launched Nigeria's first satellite into orbit and has promised more help on satellite launches. It has invested $300-million in copper mines and other industrial projects in Zambia. It has become the top supplier of military aid to Sudan.

In exchange for its generosity, China has signed at least 40 oil agreements with various African leaders, and it has signed a further 31 agreements to provide debt relief.

Chinese investment in Africa soared to $18-billion in 2003, up from $10-billion in 2000. At the same time, China has become the third-biggest trading partner in Africa, behind only the United States and Britain. Trade between China and Africa reached almost $30-billion in 2004, up by 59 per cent from the previous year.

All of this has helped to guarantee future supplies of oil and minerals to fuel China's industrial growth. But more than these concrete rewards, China has gained something else: a huge increase in influence in the developing world.

It remains to be seen how China will exploit this influence, but so far it has provided one obvious result: It has helped to ensure the survival of the rulers of Zimbabwe and Sudan, two of the most autocratic and abusive regimes in the world.

-- Geoffrey York

© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

(Reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 04, 2006, 15:46:59
Quote,
It remains to be seen how China will exploit this influence, but so far it has provided one obvious result: It has helped to ensure the survival of the rulers of Zimbabwe and Sudan, two of the most autocratic and abusive regimes in the world.

No, it can't be true...its must be the Americans fault somehow. ::)
China,
billions of unwitting slaves to support an unscrupulous regime bent on subversive world domination...
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 05, 2006, 13:52:14
Found these 6 sat photos of China's secret nuclear facilities. Rather good imagery from a commercial satellite, you can imagine how good military imagery is. 8)

The US is moving 6 LA Class Attack subs from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This will raise the total number of subs to 31 and 21 in the Atlantic.

http://www.imagingnotes.com/go/page4a.php?menu_id=23
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: chanman on March 06, 2006, 00:49:12
After the mention of satellite imagery, I had to do a bit of a double take at the title of the linked article:
Quote
The World’s First Look at China’s Underground Facilities for Nuclear Warheads

China builds new sub base on Hainan Island: http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/fr/fr060224_1_n.shtml (http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/fr/fr060224_1_n.shtml)

I wonder if that's what the USN EP-3 was looking at when that fighter collided into it.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 06, 2006, 01:24:53
Quote
China,
billions of unwitting slaves to support an unscrupulous regime bent on subversive world domination...

Really? Would you care to elaborate?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 06, 2006, 14:24:42
No
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 06, 2006, 17:09:52
I didn't think so.  ;D
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on March 06, 2006, 21:07:02
I didn't think so.  ;D
     You could always go to Tibet and ask them what he means.  Or you could enquire of the rust coloured smear in Tienanmen Square.  You could perhaps wander to the shores of Tiawan where the watch nervously as their neighbor eyes them with unconcealed avarice and ramps up both its rhetoric and arms production.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 06, 2006, 21:14:58
"Really? Would you care to elaborate?"

Bruce, I can't believe you turned that down.

The sad thing is, they make really good M-14s.  Must be all of those well educated Falun Gong slave labourers in the NORINCO factories.

Tom

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 06, 2006, 21:27:15
Quote
You could always go to Tibet and ask them what he means.  Or you could enquire of the rust coloured smear in Tienanmen Square.  You could perhaps wander to the shores of Tiawan where the watch nervously as their neighbor eyes them with unconcealed avarice and ramps up both its rhetoric and arms production.

I've addressed all of these at length in previous threads, except for the Tiananmen one, which doesn't seem to me particularly good evidence for a Chinese plot for world domination. Pretty good indication of what happens to hippies in third world countries, though.

So, same offer: Have new arguments? Care to elaborate?

Quote
Must be all of those well educated Falun Gong slave labourers in the NORINCO factories.

I can't understand this infatuation with "slave labour". I got news for you, guys: Wages in China are  pretty damn low! The major element of cost in any product made in China will be materials and capital (plant, machine equipment). Do you seriously think anything can be produced in China more cheaply with unwilling slave labour than SKILLED workers willingly working their fingers to the bone for 15c/hour? And producing RIFLES, no less!  ;D This sounds like a twist of the "Chinese resturants/Cat meat" story, where no one ever bothers to think about the cost of Chicken/Beef in North America(pretty damn low) vs the theoretical cost of procureing and proccessing cat/dog meat, also considering that dog meat is generally considered to be a delicacy by the Chinese, you might as well be worried about Mcdonald's slipping a lobster tail into your Big Mac.

Aside from the fact that there's no evidence at all to support either assertion, neither of them even make any economic sense. Let's try and engage the mind a little, shall we?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on March 06, 2006, 22:45:05
     2.5 Million men under arms, 15% yearly increases in their military budget without any external threat to justify the increase, an arms race not against an external rival, but against some perceived need for unopposable military superiority.  You can Google to search out China's military expansionism in the recent past, unless of course you are in China, in which case such an internet querry could cost you your freedom and/or life.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 07, 2006, 00:23:50
Quote
2.5 Million men under arms,

Compared to almost 5 million under arms in 1985 with more cuts still on the way? Of course, both you and I know that these numbers are meaningless in the context of modern warfare, especially since the nature of socialist militaries like Chinas would mean that a large percentage of the "soldiers" are (literally) farmers, construction workers, ballerinas and opera singers who happen to work for the PLA, but who most likely have seen a rifle all of once in their lives.

I'll assume you meant this as a strawman.

Quote
15% yearly increases in their military budget without any external threat to justify the increase,

Is this a joke? You honestly believe China has no external threats to contend with?

Quote
an arms race not against an external rival, but against some perceived need for unopposable military superiority

Elaborate please. Which "arms race" are we talking about? The replacement of the Mig-19s which still compose of the bulk of the Air Force? The WW2 vintage Romeo class SSKs and Kotlin class DDs (are these even DDGs?) that still compose the bulk of the Navy? Unopposable military superiority indeed....... 

Quote
You can Google to search out China's military expansionism in the recent past

I've done a lot more than Google, and suprisingly enough, I haven't found ANY evidence of "China's military expansionism". I've said as much in this thread (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,36723.15.html) and asked for some specific examples, but no one took me up on the offer. If you have some examples then I am anxious to hear them.

Quote
unless of course you are in China, in which case such an internet querry could cost you your freedom and/or life.

No, it won't. The Chinese block access to sites that they find offensive, such as wikipedia and the BBC. All you'll get is a 404 page not found.


Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 07, 2006, 00:28:13
"Is this a joke? You honestly believe China has no external threats to contend with?"

- He might not want to say 'Yes' but I will : China has no external threats to contend with.

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 07, 2006, 00:42:52
Quote
No, it won't. The Chinese block access to sites that they find offensive, such as wikipedia and the BBC. All you'll get is a 404 page not found.

I suppose this is why the US Senate is castigating American companies who provide limited search services, technical assistence to maintain the "Great Firewall of China" and providing the names of Chinese citizens who use the Internet to exercise the right of freedom of expression to the Chinese government? http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39864.0.html

If I find something offensive in the BBC, I turn it off. If I find an inaccurate or poor entry in Wikipedia, I attempt to modify it. I don't expect someone else to turn it off on me or for me, and such action is offensive to the dignity and rights of adults who it is being done to.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 07, 2006, 00:53:24
Quote
- He might not want to say 'Yes' but I will : China has no external threats to contend with.

You don't think that the US, with its historical attitude towards China, counts as an external threat? The large American armies and navies, and those of American satellite states like the Philippines and Taiwan surrounding China's borders seem to indicate otherwise. Perhaps American intentions are purely benelovent, but recent US military activities would make that a rather unconvincing argument.

Or how about Japan? With the world's second largest military budget, the most powerful air force and navy of any Asian nation, and a (real this time) history of militaristic expansionism, you can't see them being a threat?

Osumi class LST. You see it's for "self defence".....
(http://www.strange-mecha.com/jsdf/jmsdf/lst4001.JPG)

Russia? India? Vietnam? I think China is the only country in the world that has fought wars against both North and South Vietnam, as well as both the USSR and the US.......

Quote
I suppose this is why the US Senate is castigating American companies who provide limited search services, technical assistence to maintain the "Great Firewall of China" and providing the names of Chinese citizens who use the Internet to exercise the right of freedom of expression to the Chinese government? http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39864.0.html

If I find something offensive in the BBC, I turn it off. If I find an inaccurate or poor entry in Wikipedia, I attempt to modify it. I don't expect someone else to turn it off on me or for me, and such action is offensive to the dignity and rights of adults who it is being done to.

I never said it was a good thing, I(when I am in China) and most Chinese hate it too, I was merely pointing out that the claim of 
Quote
could cost you your freedom and/or life.
was inaccurate.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on March 07, 2006, 01:29:39
I never said it was a good thing, I(when I am in China) and most Chinese hate it too, I was merely pointing out that the claim of   was inaccurate.


http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170012004

 http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2002/Dec/0059.html

     Britney, I should have included these links in the original message.  When I said that internet searches could result in your summary imprisonment and possible death, I was actually basing that on the results of those Chinese who have encountered the benevolence of the Peoples Republic, and its outstanding tradition of respecting human rights (as set forth both in its own laws, and the UN Charter).  The links above describe real people, engaging in the same activities that you and I are engaging in right now, suffering punishment from a brutal and repressive regime that mocks its own laws.  Forgive me if I am suspicious of the motivations of the leadership of the Peoples Republic, but their own actions prove them hypocritical and brutal liars.  Heavily armed hypocritical brutal regimes have a nasty tendency to not mention to their neighbors when they plan to invade.  Its a sad little trend in human history.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: chanman on March 07, 2006, 01:44:15
Going back to Taiwan, I wonder if the current president is going to try something more provocative than what he has already in the next two years.  His term ends in 2008, and his support last election was thin enough that it seems unlikely that he will return to power.  The opposition KMT, which ARE for reunification, and their allies maintained a slim majority in the legislature.

Oddly enough, it seems that time works against both causes.  The people in Taiwan who arrived or immigrated from China in the first half of the 20th century are getting older, and their children and grandchildren have less and less attachement to what some of their relatives may still think of as home.

On the other hand, economic ties between the two are growing rapidly.  It may eventually reach the Canada-US level of economic integration.

Emphasis added in bold

Quote
Onshoring
Jan 13th 2005
From The Economist print edition


Taiwan is shifting much of its manufacturing to the mainland

IN THE smoke-and-mirrors statistics for foreign investment in China, Hong Kong appears as the biggest investor, followed, oddly, by the Virgin Islands. Trailing in sixth place, behind Japan, South Korea and America, is Taiwan. But if investments were traced back to their true origins, Taiwan might well turn out to be the largest.

The capital flow from Taiwan to China is turning the mainland into a global leader in information-technology (IT) equipment, albeit one that still relies mainly on imports for the more advanced components. In 2002, China overtook Japan and Taiwan to become the world's second-largest IT hardware producer after America. The steep upward curve of China's IT exports is almost exactly matched by its imports of IT components from Taiwan. China is now the world's biggest IT hardware exporter to America. Yet more than 60% of these exports are made in China by Taiwanese companies.

China's latest list of its top 200 export companies is headed by subsidiaries of Taiwanese IT firms: Hon Hai Precision Industry (whose exports from China in 2003 were worth $6.4 billion), Quanta ($5.3 billion) and Asustek ($3.2 billion). Altogether Taiwan has 28 entries on the list, all of them high-tech companies. Far from being undermined by competition from China, Taiwanese IT businesses are benefiting from their production on the mainland, increasing their global market share across a broad range of products, says Nicholas Lardy of the Institute for International Economics in Washington.

Thanks to a huge trade surplus with mainland China, Taiwan has built up the world's third-biggest holding of foreign-currency reserves: a record $239 billion at end-November 2004. Taiwan is second only to Japan as a source of Chinese imports. And for Taiwan, China is the biggest export market. Taiwanese companies employ some 10m people on the mainland. For China, worried as it is about growing unemployment, this is an enormous contribution to stability. In just a few years, a strong economic symbiosis has developed across the Taiwan Strait.

Take the city of Dongguan in Guangdong province (which borders on Hong Kong). The municipality is a vast sprawl of factories, many of them Taiwanese, stretching mile after mile through what were tiny villages a few years ago. Dongguan is awash with Taiwanese money, much of which has been there for a decade or so. Dongguan was an obvious choice for the first wave of Taiwanese investors who flocked to the mainland after the Taiwan government began to ease investment restrictions in the early 1990s. It is close to Hong Kong, which together with nearby Macao offers the only direct flights from Chinese cities to Taiwan.

To start with, Dongguan was a magnet for low technology, labour-intensive industries. But since the late 1990s, Taiwanese investment in the mainland has moved rapidly up the technological ladder. Dongguan is still booming, but the investment hotspot has shifted north to the Yangzi River valley, particularly in the area around Shanghai, an area with good access to skilled workers and potentially better placed for China's domestic market. The town of Kunshan, an hour's drive from Shanghai, has become almost a replica of Taiwan's high-tech industrial zones. Some 300,000 Taiwanese businessmen and their dependants now live in the greater Shanghai area, causing property prices to soar.

Taiwan is rife with stories of kidnappings, robbings and murders of Taiwanese businessmen on the mainland. There is also speculation about how many really make money; Tsai Ing-wen, a former head of Taiwan's mainland-affairs office under President Chen, estimates that only half of them do. Even so, more than 70,000 Taiwanese firms have set up on the mainland, notwithstanding political tensions, Taiwan's restrictions on some investment and the absence of direct flights. “This is a time of global competition,” says Preston Chen, chairman of the Ho Tung Group, which has invested over $100m on the mainland. “If you don't go [to China], others will, and the first to suffer will be you.”


In Dongguan, some Taiwanese businessmen in low-value-added industries are getting restless as the stampede of Taiwanese capital shifts to the north. Some have begun to move elsewhere, including neighbouring Vietnam. “If you come back in ten years it's hard to say whether you'll find any Taiwanese business here,” says Juei Chen Wong, the boss of a Taiwanese electric-wire factory in Dongguan.

He is exaggerating: more likely, other Taiwanese businesses less dependent on cheap labour will move in. For labour-intensive manufacturers geared to the export market, China may be losing some of its shine. But the new wave of Taiwanese investment is looking for skilled labour, and is setting its sights not only on markets abroad but also on a fast-growing group of affluent consumers in China itself. This investment is helping to transform China's trade, now fuelled increasingly by higher-value-added production. In 2003, China exported some $130 billion-worth of electronic and IT products, up 41% on the previous year. Such products accounted for nearly one-third of total exports. Chinese officials say that output of IT products will triple by 2010.

To achieve this, China needs Taiwanese businesses, even if they support independence. In May 2004, the Communist Party's mouthpiece, the People's Daily newspaper, accused Hsu Wen-lung, the founder of Taiwan's Chi Mei Group, which has a large chemical plant on the mainland, of using his profits for pro-independence causes. But China has not taken any direct action against the company. “There are a very small number whom we do not welcome,” says Mr Zhang, the Chinese government spokesman. “But as long as they uphold the law, we let them invest. We have not said we will expel them.”

So near and yet so far

At government level, the two sides still bicker over what they call the “three direct links”: communication, trade and transportation, which have been disrupted since the end of the civil war. But barriers have been quietly dismantled. Mail is channelled through Hong Kong; direct telephone calls have been possible since the 1980s; cross-strait cargo shipping can be routed through a third area, but can go directly if not carrying local freight.

The absence of direct flights except to Hong Kong and Macao is the biggest nuisance, though it really is no more than that. If you set off an hour before dawn from downtown Taipei, you can reach most of the big cities on the mainland by the afternoon. But direct flights would certainly help. Getting to Shanghai currently takes six or seven hours. Flying direct would take 90 minutes.

The Taiwan government estimates that direct air and sea links would reduce shipping costs by 15-30%. Sea transport would be twice as quick, and air travellers would save $390m a year. But direct flights are fraught with symbolism, so both sides are determined to extract maximum political advantage from any move they make.

For Taiwan, direct flights are part of a bigger question: how much economic integration with the mainland it should allow. Should it stop trying to curb investment in certain technologies; open its doors wider to trade with the mainland; and allow mainlanders to work, invest and holiday in Taiwan? The economic arguments are compellingly in favour, particularly in information technology.

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3535161 (http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3535161)

As for the military - the trend in Asia seems to be to expand lately.

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=157104 (http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=157104) has some more info on ongoing changes in China's military

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/at/russian_arms/ (http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/at/russian_arms/) lists some arms sales - In the last few years, for instance, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, and the RoK have all bought/planned to buy new combat aircraft.


EDIT:  Attached something some might find interesting.  Labour in China is cheap, but in comparison to some of the neighbours, not THAT cheap
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 07, 2006, 01:49:23
"You don't think that the US, with its historical attitude towards China, counts as an external threat?"

- Historical?  I grant you there have been some disputes, but a lot of allies died helping the Chinese defend themselves in - and even before the USA entered -  WW2.  Flying Tigers, and all that.

- It was China that invaded Vietnam - "To teach them a lesson"  - in 1979. (I was in Cyprus at the time, and we were almost as surprised as the PLA at how fast the Viets mobilized their village defence forces and re-deployed their reserves.  I guess being at war for a while hones ones skills. )

- I don't think anyone envisions imposing their will on China by inserting an Army onto Chinese soil.  Most of the Chinese fascism of the moment is a holdover from the Communist Party of the Long March generation, and probably provides an attempt to prevent a serious deterioration of their civil structure which might in fact lead to the worlds first nuclear civil war.

It's a tough call: the out of control train keeps going faster and faster, but you can't find a clear spot to jump off.  So you keep looking, hoping to find a soft spot, all the while realizing that the train will eventually go so fast that no soft spot in the world will do you any good.

So:  At what point do you unite the populace in a war to liberate Formosa?  Or will a miscalculation result in another Falklands?

Tom

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: chanman on March 07, 2006, 02:01:27
"You don't think that the US, with its historical attitude towards China, counts as an external threat?"

- Historical?  I grant you there have been some disputes, but a lot of allies died helping the Chinese defend themselves in - and even before the USA entered -  WW2.  Flying Tigers, and all that.

Britney might be referring to foreign military presence and concessions to Imperial powers until WW2 really got under way.

Quote
It's a tough call: the out of control train keeps going faster and faster, but you can't find a clear spot to jump off.  So you keep looking, hoping to find a soft sopt, all the while realizing that the train will eventually go so fast that no soft spot in the world will do you any good.

So:  At what point do you unite the populace in a war to liberate Formosa?  Or will a miscalculation result in another Falklands?

Tom

Since his decline in popularity, the incumbant president in Taiwan might try to do the same thing with an independence bid.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 07, 2006, 02:09:54
"Britney might be referring to foreign military presence and concessions to Imperial powers until WW2 really got under way."

- Yup. Hence my: "I grant you there have been some disputes,"

"Since his decline in popularity, the incumbant president in Taiwan might try to do the same thing with an independence bid."

- So, you equate a bid for independance with a full blown amphibious and airborne assault?  Please explain.

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: chanman on March 07, 2006, 02:16:48
Quote
- So, you equate a bid for independance with a full blown amphibious and airborne assault?  Please explain.

Similar in that in both cases, the respective parties are taking an internationally confrontational position in order to rally nationalist sentiment and political support maybe?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 07, 2006, 02:41:08
Quote
Britney, I should have included these links in the original message.  When I said that internet searches could result in your summary imprisonment and possible death, I was actually basing that on the results of those Chinese who have encountered the benevolence of the Peoples Republic, and its outstanding tradition of respecting human rights (as set forth both in its own laws, and the UN Charter).  The links above describe real people, engaging in the same activities that you and I are engaging in right now, suffering punishment from a brutal and repressive regime that mocks its own laws.  Forgive me if I am suspicious of the motivations of the leadership of the Peoples Republic, but their own actions prove them hypocritical and brutal liars.  Heavily armed hypocritical brutal regimes have a nasty tendency to not mention to their neighbors when they plan to invade.  Its a sad little trend in human history.

The issue is far more complex than that, and your original statement that an internet query would result in imprisonment or death is still inaccurate. The people mentioned in your links were imprisoned for dissemination of subersive information, not seeking it.

Look, you're going off on a tangent here. Censoring the internet is peanuts compared to the other nasty things that the regime has been responsible for.  I'm not trying to apologize for the actions of the regime in this matter, but life in the third world sucks, eh? I don't see how this indicates that there is some Chinese plan for world domination afoot.

Quote
- Historical?  I grant you there have been some disputes, but a lot of allies died helping the Chinese defend themselves in - and even before the USA entered -  WW2.  Flying Tigers, and all that.

I was thinking more about post WW2. Things sort of went sour after 1949.

Quote
I don't think anyone envisions imposing their will on China by inserting an Army onto Chinese soil.

No one expected Desert Storm to be as succesful as it was. Hence my comment about the uselessness of comparing sheer numbers of soldiers. The Chinese military leadership has already seen the writing on the wall. Hence the shift from the old defence in depth and numbers to well equiped and MOBILE rapid reaction forces. This is the same shift that we (NATO) have already gone through, the Chinese just didn't realize it until 1991. The change is just beginning. The Chinese army is still organized to fight the USSR.

Quote
t's a tough call: the out of control train keeps going faster and faster, but you can't find a clear spot to jump off.  So you keep looking, hoping to find a soft spot, all the while realizing that the train will eventually go so fast that no soft spot in the world will do you any good.

So:  At what point do you unite the populace in a war to liberate Formosa?  Or will a miscalculation result in another Falklands?

They've done a lot better than anyone really expected them to. See Russia for an example of how it could be far worse.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 07, 2006, 03:14:32
"They've done a lot better than anyone really expected them to. See Russia for an example of how it could be far worse."

- I actually think Russia has done it better.  Whether they continue as a nominal democracy remains to be seen, but at least the party left office - for awhile.

"Things sort of went sour after 1949."

- Hardly the USA's fault, was it?

"No one expected Desert Storm to be as successful as it was."

- Invading a country of 21,000,000 is not invading a country of 1,200,000,000.  For defence, the PLA peasent army  - with a professional cadre and the 400 nukes (of which maybe 100 are ICBMs)  are deterrent enough.  The bulk of the Japanese Army fought the Chinese - not the Americans.  If the Japanese then could not do it with the bayonet, I doubt ANY country, or group of countries today could give it a shot.  You know how the west - include modern Japan in this case - abhors ground combat, and Russia and India lack the transportation and logistics to just harass the edges.

So, who, seriously, are they worried about, other than themselves?

Tom


Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 07, 2006, 03:45:27
Quote
- Hardly the USA's fault, was it?

I didn't say it was anyone's fault, but as it turns out the USA spent a few decades trying to "contain" China, and they didn't like it.

Quote
- Invading a country of 21,000,000 is not invading a country of 1,200,000,000. 

I meant Desert Storm, AKA GW1, not GW2, although the lesson is the same: A green, inexperienced but well equipped and technically competent western army smashed an experienced WW1 army with 60s era soviet equipment. The defeat of the Iraqis was so total, the Americans didn't NEED to actually invade Iraq(and thus get caught up in the defence in depth which is what the Chinese/Iraqis would have expected) to achieve their political aims.  The Chinese were trying to do the same thing in 1979 and it was a complete disaster.

What the Chinese realized was that an all out invasion would be unlikely, but a regional, high intensity, short duration conflict where training, equipment, mobility and airpower counted for more than numbers or political indoctrination would now be the norm. Thus the new emphasis on power projection, rapid downsizing of the army and (most importantly) the establishment of professional NCO academies and much more enticing NCO career progression, something that most third world armies never manage to pull off. This type of western style army would NOT be very well suited for wars of conquest (that would require numbers), but better for the type of regional skirmish that the Chinese leadership envision themselves getting into around, say, the Diaoyu islands or the South China sea.  To put this into a cultural context, defeat in these kinds of little wars was exactly what send China into the downward spiral in the late 1800s, and no Chinese, whatever their political bent, wants to see a repeat of that era.

Thus, I would argue that the current shifts in Chinese military posture is not an indication of aggressive expansionism but only an adjustment to face modern military realities.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 07, 2006, 14:08:35
Chinese military official calls for stepped up training, denounces Taiwan independence
06-Mar-2006 05:32 GMT
News Service: The Associated Press
BEIJING_China's military is ready to step up training and boost its ability to defend the nation's territory, a top army official said in remarks published Monday, warning Taiwan against attempting to declare independence.
"We resolutely oppose 'Taiwan independence' and will never allow 'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name and by any means," the official Xinhua News Agency quoted Guo Boxiong, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, as saying.
China stepped up its rhetoric against Taiwan after the self-ruled island's president, Chen Shui-bian, recently shut down a Taiwanese government body devoted to seeking unification with the mainland.
The two sides have been divided since 1949, but Beijing claims Taiwan as its territory and has threatened to use force to attain unification if necessary.
Guo denounced Chen's move as a step toward independence for Taiwan, calling it a "grave provocation" that would seriously undermine peace and stability, Xinhua said.
"We will make utmost efforts with maximum sincerity to safeguard and promote peaceful and steady development of relations across the Taiwan Strait and seek peaceful reunification," Guo told a gathering of military delegates to China's parliament in Beijing.
On Sunday, the government announced that its military budget will rise 14.7 percent this year to 283.8 billion yuan (US$35.3 billion; euro28.6 billion). China has announced double-digit spending increases for its military nearly every year since the early 1990s, causing unease among its neighbors.
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - MARCH 08, 2006
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Iterator on March 07, 2006, 21:10:04
defeat in these kinds of little wars was exactly what send China into the downward spiral in the late 1800s, and no Chinese, whatever their political bent, wants to see a repeat of that era.

Perhaps "little wars" is a bit subjective as both a term and as the cause of the downward spiral. As well as the numerous "foreign adventures" (a completely subjective term) there was the Taiping Rebellion (how many millions of people need to die for it to be a "big war") and, if you weren't referring to the Taiping Rebellion as a "little war", you appear to be glossing over its contribution to the downward spiral.

Combating the Taiping Rebellion, the Nien Rebellion, and the Moslem uprisings in the west would severely weaken an already floundering state.


Quote
Thus, I would argue that the current shifts in Chinese military posture is not an indication of aggressive expansionism but only an adjustment to face modern military realities.

I would argue that aggressive expansionism (is there leisurely expansionism?) by China has historically been contained by either China's own tendencies towards feelings of (hmmm....) condescension of non-Chinese cultures, and by China's ability to be preoccupied with internal uprisings and rebellions (it wasn't just Mao or the 20th century Civil War).

While the historical holds on Chinese expansionism may not now be present, I would agree that Chinese expansionism is not the likely course, for the near future. China is a growing threat because it is growing, and shares no common bond with other nations.

You do bring up 1979, which is the more likely threat from China, limited military punishments against nations that impede China's interests (Gunboat diplomacy - no irony), or as a show of force. Or squatting in disputed areas and then daring anyone to move them.


On another note - China is often heard complaining about the Japanese occupation, but says nothing of when it was an imperial power. China might not have occupied much more territory then it now has, but it did control other nations by threat and demanded tribute be paid to it - No apologies from China for its demands for concubines from Korea for the Emperor.


Again though, I agree, any nation in China's position would be doing exactly the same militarily. A nation of that size and economic power won't sit around without any modern military capability.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 07, 2006, 23:44:39
Quote
Perhaps "little wars" is a bit subjective as both a term and as the cause of the downward spiral. As well as the numerous "foreign adventures" (a completely subjective term) there was the Taiping Rebellion (how many millions of people need to die for it to be a "big war") and, if you weren't referring to the Taiping Rebellion as a "little war", you appear to be glossing over its contribution to the downward spiral.

Combating the Taiping Rebellion, the Nien Rebellion, and the Moslem uprisings in the west would severely weaken an already floundering state.

Examine the context of the Taiping rebellion more closely. The defeat of the Qing in the two Opium wars, their inability to check the expansion of western commercial interests, the bankrupcy of the Imperial administration due  to indemnities and looting in the aftermath of the peace treaties were crucial in the Taiping rebellion's beginnings and later success. Nor is it lost on the Chinese that the rebellion was crushed largely with Western arms and advisors (Remember "Chinese" Gordon? He's a household name in China to this day). While the Qing certainly had a host of other internal issues that served to undermine their rule, in purely military terms the British and French invasions (Both were limited wars) were one of the principle causes of the Qing decline in the mid 1800s. Of course, lets not forget the Boxer rebellion (another reaction to Qing weakness in the face of the Western imperial powers) and the Sino-Russo-Japanese wars of the early 1900s whcih were the final nails in the Qing coffin.

Besides, it's always more fun to blame the evil foreigners, the Chinese are no exception to this rule. One must take into account that influence in strategic thinking regardless of its historic validity.

As an aside, I always like to half seriously point out  that Hong Xiu Quan's theology was supposedly influenced quite heavily by an American Baptist missionaries, and the Taiping rebellion as an example of Fundamentalist American Protestant theocracy.   :)

Quote
I would argue that aggressive expansionism (is there leisurely expansionism?) by China has historically been contained by either China's own tendencies towards feelings of (hmmm....) condescension of non-Chinese cultures, and by China's ability to be preoccupied with internal uprisings and rebellions (it wasn't just Mao or the 20th century Civil War).

While the historical holds on Chinese expansionism may not now be present, I would agree that Chinese expansionism is not the likely course, for the near future. China is a growing threat because it is growing, and shares no common bond with other nations.

Fair enough. No serious disagreements here, although I personally would emphasize a different set of factors.



Quote
On another note - China is often heard complaining about the Japanese occupation, but says nothing of when it was an imperial power. China might not have occupied much more territory then it now has, but it did control other nations by threat and demanded tribute be paid to it - No apologies from China for its demands for concubines from Korea for the Emperor.

That's a pretty awful comparison. 8 years of occupation and the massacre of millions, versus demanding a marriage to cement an alliance during a period where it was customary to do so? Somehow I can't see those as being on the same level.

In any case, the ancient Chinese tribute system was generally meant as a token show of respect for the dominance of Chinese civilization and culture, and reciprocated with a similar transfer of Chinese goods to the tributees. Sometimes this evolved into goverment sactioned trade, but  it was never used to economically subjugate wholesale entire countries like Western colonialism was.



Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 08, 2006, 00:49:55
I think they could accomplish the same aim, yet perhaps be a bit more subtle.  In a decade or two (well, OK, three), we may well be buying high quality Chinese made autos like we buy high quality Japanese and Korean ones now.  China will be even more dependant on the security of international sea lanes for trade, and there may come a time when certain countries in the west urge China to help with the burden of 'global policeman', much as the Japanese have been asked to assist (with funding).  Sabre rattling across the Straights of Formosa are counter-productive to the aim.

If China truly does plan 'long term', they should listen to their western educated anylists when they explain which messages push the wrong buttons in Washington.  They could modify the message and accomplish the same mission.

The sale of IRBM and advanced SAM and ASM technology to governments the west considers less than stable could perhaps be explained in better terms - or stopped.  It's not like they need the money.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2006, 00:50:15
Britney:

Are you sure you're not confusing lack of capability with lack of intent when you state "... it was never used to economically subjugate wholesale entire countries like Western colonialism was."  In China's various empires most of the subjugated states were City-States or regional empires of City-States,  just as they were in the West, the Middle East, India and the Americas.  The reason that those older empires didn't expand it that they were restricted to the speed of a man on horseback to act and communicate and the ability of the mark one eyeball to see.  Tribute empires were common everywhere.  The fact that the Chinese never got past such an empire doesn't seem to me to indicate any greater disposition not to seek a greater empire.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 08, 2006, 00:54:20
Well, at one point a faction did decide not to maintain a seafaring capability.  Had they not taken that turn, the Americas may well have been colonized from the west coast rather than the east.

Now THAT would make an interesting premise for an alternate history series of novels.

Brit, got lots of time on your hands?

Tom
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 08, 2006, 01:24:31
Quote
In China's various empires most of the subjugated states were City-States or regional empires of City-States,  just as they were in the West, the Middle East, India and the Americas.  The reason that those older empires didn't expand it that they were restricted to the speed of a man on horseback to act and communicate and the ability of the mark one eyeball to see. Tribute empires were common everywhere.  The fact that the Chinese never got past such an empire doesn't seem to me to indicate any greater disposition not to seek a greater empire.

See TCBF's point about the decision to not maintain a seafaring capability. The Chinese of the Ming dynasty made a decision to b forego seaborne expansion "over the horizon", as it were. Chinese culture even before that had already been insular, and military thinking shifted from naval power to the construction of the Great Wall (The "Ming Wall" that you see today). China has pretty much never had a professional military like the Romans or the 16th Century European powers, and the Chinese concept of defence has for millenia been to station military colonies made up of peasant conscripts on it's borders, near a big honking wall. The Manchu "Banner armies" of the 17th Century being a short lived expection that provided China with most of it's modern day Non-Chinese holdings in Tibet and XinJiang, before being swallowed into the Sinicized Manchu administration.  The concept of having professional colonial armies specifically for service outside its borders simply doesn't exist in Chinese thinking. I suppose it is possible that such ideas may one day develop but I've not seen any evidence of this happening.

Quote
Now THAT would make an interesting premise for an alternate history series of novels.


1421: The Year the Chinese Discovered the World (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/books/review/02WILFORT.html?tntemail1)

The Years of Rice and Salt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt) The Plague does European civilization in, and world development centers instead on Islamic and Chinese empires.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 08, 2006, 01:41:03
Good thing Gavin Menzies was a RN Submarine Commander: a lot of his critics appear to be bent on hunting him to exhaustion.  Oh well.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Iterator on March 08, 2006, 07:07:36
Examine the context of the Taiping rebellion more closely. The defeat of the Qing in the two Opium wars, their inability to check the expansion of western commercial interests, the bankrupcy of the Imperial administration due  to indemnities and looting in the aftermath of the peace treaties were crucial in the Taiping rebellion's beginnings and later success. Nor is it lost on the Chinese that the rebellion was crushed largely with Western arms and advisors (Remember "Chinese" Gordon? He's a household name in China to this day). While the Qing certainly had a host of other internal issues that served to undermine their rule, in purely military terms the British and French invasions (Both were limited wars) were one of the principle causes of the Qing decline in the mid 1800s. Of course, lets not forget the Boxer rebellion (another reaction to Qing weakness in the face of the Western imperial powers) and the Sino-Russo-Japanese wars of the early 1900s whcih were the final nails in the Qing coffin.

So much was going wrong for China all at the same time: Floods, Wars, Strife, and the final acceptance that the world had moved forward while China had not. There is no shortage of factors that go into the collapse of imperial China.

A century of nothing but context, and there is no way to view the Taiping and Nien Rebellions without the foreign attacks, but without them (and the other mid-century uprisings) there might have been some longevity in the empire.

Quote
Besides, it's always more fun to blame the evil foreigners, the Chinese are no exception to this rule. One must take into account that influence in strategic thinking regardless of its historic validity.

No matter how valid Chinese xenophobia might appear to someone in China - that it exists at such a level only adds credence to seeing China as a threat - as it shows a China unable to see the context of foreign actions.

Quote
As an aside, I always like to half seriously point out  that Hong Xiu Quan's theology was supposedly influenced quite heavily by an American Baptist missionaries, and the Taiping rebellion as an example of Fundamentalist American Protestant theocracy.   

The Heavenly Kingdom did have some progressive ideas. Who knows, maybe if a new religion catches on with the peasants there will be another need for the Ever Victorious Army.


Quote
That's a pretty awful comparison. 8 years of occupation and the massacre of millions, versus demanding a marriage to cement an alliance during a period where it was customary to do so? Somehow I can't see those as being on the same level.

In any case, the ancient Chinese tribute system was generally meant as a token show of respect for the dominance of Chinese civilization and culture, and reciprocated with a similar transfer of Chinese goods to the tributees. Sometimes this evolved into goverment sactioned trade, but it was never used to economically subjugate wholesale entire countries like Western colonialism was.

Yes it is an awful comparison - an awkward attempt to vilify. Moving forward from that though - the tribute system varied in levels of severity, but it did always show vassal status. You can't seriously say China's relationship with Korea was one of Trading Partner can you?

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 08, 2006, 12:25:09
Quote
So much was going wrong for China all at the same time: Floods, Wars, Strife, and the final acceptance that the world had moved forward while China had not. There is no shortage of factors that go into the collapse of imperial China.

A century of nothing but context, and there is no way to view the Taiping and Nien Rebellions without the foreign attacks, but without them (and the other mid-century uprisings) there might have been some longevity in the empire.

I meant in terms of purely military factors. Of course other socio-economic factors did play a role but there is hardly a military remedy for those. Besides, I think modern westerners have difficulty understanding how much the economic issues were a direct result of defeat in the Opium wars. For example, China in the 18th and 19th centuries had a two metal currency system based on silver bullion for large transactions(i.e. rents on land) and copper coins for smaller ones (daily expenses for peasants). The massive outflow of silver currency through the opium trade resulted in decades of rapid inflationary pressures (copper being worth less and less) that crushed peasant farmers and sent millions fleeing the land into banditry (or opium addiction). The sheer size of the post war indemnities(another outflow of silver) were such that the goverment was for years simply bankrupt, and being forced to squeeze the peasants for more cash to purchase foreign weapons in the hopes of coming out in one piece in the next foreign war, which of course never happened.

Quote
No matter how valid Chinese xenophobia might appear to someone in China - that it exists at such a level only adds credence to seeing China as a threat - as it shows a China unable to see the context of foreign actions.

That works both ways, of course.

Quote
Yes it is an awful comparison - an awkward attempt to vilify. Moving forward from that though - the tribute system varied in levels of severity, but it did always show vassal status. You can't seriously say China's relationship with Korea was one of Trading Partner can you?

Of course not, you're trying to view pre-19th century relations with a modern concept (equal trading partners) in mind. Why would the Chinese view the Koreans in the 15th century as an equal trading partner? The disparities in the levels of economic development between China proper and the prehiphery most of the time was so great that nations like Korea and Japan were generally eager to pay tribute (a minor expense with no economic consequence)in return for either Chinese technology or political support. I just don't think the 18th-19th century Western concept of aggressive colonial expansion(generally based on a percieved racial superiority) can really be applied.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2006, 12:54:59
Quote
(generally based on a percieved racial superiority)

Don't even go there.  The Chinese not only demanded tribute from vassals but they took tribute as their divine right - by reason of "racial superiority".  This was their attitude up until the 19th century and made the shock of encountering the west all the greater.  This in turn fired the Boxer rebellion, Sun Yat Sen and ultimately Mao Tse Tung.

The Japanese saw the world in similar terms, as did the Muslims, as (no doubt) did the Veddic peoples of India when the Northern Races came through a couple of thousand years ago.

Racial Superiority is not a White Problem.  It is genetically coded in every race.  Every race seeks to survive and prosper in a competitive environment.  It is simply a reality of the geo-politics as much as mountains and rivers and cities.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 08, 2006, 13:13:21
No it isn't. Cultural chauvunism is one thing, but the pseudo-science of scientific racism as a cornerstone and rationale of imperialist ideology is purely a Western European/American phenomenon arising out of a need to exlain in rational terms the holocaust that was unleashed upon the Native Americans and the enslavement of blacks. No equivilant ideology or body of writings such as scientific racism and "the white man's burden" exists in other cultures and slavery based soley on race does not exist anywhere else in the world.

Check out the number of extremely successful non-Chinese emperors in Chinese history.

Perhaps this could be spun off into a different topic.


*And the "Muslims" are not a race.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 08, 2006, 13:18:01
Yep, nice to know the "white man" [your words] are the only ones 'big" enough to want to understand and reason why......notice your lovely Chinese culture won't.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on March 08, 2006, 14:14:57
What the Chinese realized was that an all out invasion would be unlikely, but a regional, high intensity, short duration conflict where training, equipment, mobility and airpower counted for more than numbers or political indoctrination would now be the norm. Thus the new emphasis on power projection, rapid downsizing of the army and (most importantly) the establishment of professional NCO academies and much more enticing NCO career progression, something that most third world armies never manage to pull off. This type of western style army would NOT be very well suited for wars of conquest (that would require numbers), but better for the type of regional skirmish that the Chinese leadership envision themselves getting into around, say, the Diaoyu islands or the South China sea.  To put this into a cultural context, defeat in these kinds of little wars was exactly what send China into the downward spiral in the late 1800s, and no Chinese, whatever their political bent, wants to see a repeat of that era.

Thus, I would argue that the current shifts in Chinese military posture is not an indication of aggressive expansionism but only an adjustment to face modern military realities.

The force structure of the modern Chinese military does not seem well suited for regional skirmishes in the south China sea, or other "regional" duties, but seems very explicitly structured around asymmetrical counters to "blue water" forces, denying them the ability to enter or conduct operations (for example, US carrier Battlegroups attempting to reinforce Tiawan). That they can also conduct regional operations of this sort is more of the fallout effect, just as the United States has sufficient capability to conduct "2 regional wars" gives it the ability to take on smaller taskings as a side effect. In terms of numbers, the Chinese still overmatch almost any conceivable force in the region, either individually or in combination with regional or external allies. Numbers still count, even if it is just a means of forcing the enemy to expend his logistics stocks before you do, so having an airforce of MiG 19 and 21 derivatives is not always a bad thing (especially if used in conjunction with 800+ short range ballistic missiles).

As a side note, I have read 1421, and while it is a good read, the idea of a "round the world" expedition seems very tenuous at best, and I would like to see a lot more supporting evidence before I buy into the treasure fleets breaking out of the Indian ocean. The "why" they never seem to have gone on and colonized the Indian Ocean basin or the West Coast of North America is an interesting one, if they really are that insular then much of how we "read" Chinese civilization and actions needs to be reappraised.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 08, 2006, 14:52:12
No it isn't. Cultural chauvunism is one thing, but the pseudo-science of scientific racism as a cornerstone and rationale of imperialist ideology is purely a Western European/American phenomenon arising out of a need to exlain in rational terms the holocaust that was unleashed upon the Native Americans and the enslavement of blacks. No equivilant ideology or body of writings such as scientific racism and "the white man's burden" exists in other cultures and slavery based soley on race does not exist anywhere else in the world.

Check out the number of extremely successful non-Chinese emperors in Chinese history.

Perhaps this could be spun off into a different topic.

*And the "Muslims" are not a race.

Oh geez....

Last time I checked Western European/American weren't a race either.  Regardless, that's an absurd statement to make.  The Japanese and Chinese both have a long history of racial superiority as cornerstone of their civilizations and that other races by virtue that they were divine and others were not, were inferior.  Wars of expansion by those civilizations were therefore fought to "for their race to gain land, resources and territory from other inferior races."  Of note, although politically incorrect, tribal warfare in Africa is fought on the same grounds.  If they see their race as Hutus and Tutsis as an inferior race, then that war of expansion was no less racially motivated than the Nazi expansion into Poland.

On the other hand both the American Manifest Destiny and British Imperialism although obviously bigoted, were about expanding their ideologies.

Got anymore apologist merde to share with us?



Matthew.   ::)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 08, 2006, 15:06:43
"No it isn't. Cultural chauvunism is one thing, but the pseudo-science of scientific racism as a cornerstone and rationale of imperialist ideology is purely a Western European/American phenomenon arising out of a need to exlain in rational terms the holocaust that was unleashed upon the Native Americans and the enslavement of blacks."

- I don't recall ever reading a rational or scientific explanation for either.

" No equivilant ideology or body of writings such as scientific racism "

- if it is rascism, it is not scientific. If it was scientific, it would not be rascism.  Right? 

 " and slavery based soley on race does not exist anywhere else in the world."

- The Arab enslavement of blacks in Africa?

Slavery was on it's way out in the USA anyway.  It was a paternalistic form of cradle to grave socialism (albiet colour coded) that was ill suited to an emerging technical revolution requiring educated, motivated workers.  How hard will a slave work? Just hard enough to avoid being beaten, and that is not good enough to build an economy on.  Just ask the Communists.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 08, 2006, 15:31:15
Quote
As a side note, I have read 1421, and while it is a good read, the idea of a "round the world" expedition seems very tenuous at best, and I would like to see a lot more supporting evidence before I buy into the treasure fleets breaking out of the Indian ocean. The "why" they never seem to have gone on and colonized the Indian Ocean basin or the West Coast of North America is an interesting one, if they really are that insular then much of how we "read" Chinese civilization and actions needs to be reappraised.

As I understand it is discredited in most scholarly circles, although I have not yet read it.

Quote
Last time I checked Western European/American weren't a race either. 

Of course not. Took them the better half of a century to realize it though. See why I called it a pseudo-science?

Quote
The Japanese and Chinese both have a long history of racial superiority as cornerstone of their civilizations and that other races by virtue that they were divine and others were not, were inferior. Wars of expansion by those civilizations were therefore fought to "for their race to gain land, resources and territory from other inferior races." 

Cite? I grant you that the Japanese conquests during WW2 did have a racial element, but the Japanese have proven themselves remarkably adaptable when it comes to foreign influences.

Quote
Of note, although politically incorrect, tribal warfare in Africa is fought on the same grounds.  If they see their race as Hutus and Tutsis as an inferior race, then that war of expansion was no less racially motivated than the Nazi expansion into Poland.


*shrug* I think you're right to some degree, but equating tribal warfare in Africa with the Nazis? Straining credulity if you ask me, but I'm not an expert in that conflict so I will limit my comments.

Quote
On the other hand both the American Manifest Destiny and British Imperialism although obviously bigoted, were about expanding their ideologies.

Really? Do you require me to provide some quotes from American and British leaders to indicate what they thought of the "little brown men"?

Quote
Got anymore apologist merde to share with us?

I'm not apologizing for anyone, but if you have something factual to share with us, I'm all eyes.

Quote
- I don't recall ever reading a rational or scientific explanation for either.

Well, yeah, that would be why we've advance past that stage now, haven't we?

Quote
- The Arab enslavement of blacks in Africa?

Slavery was on it's way out in the USA anyway.  It was a paternalistic form of cradle to grave socialism (albiet colour coded) that was ill suited to an emerging technical revolution requiring educated, motivated workers.  How hard will a slave work? Just hard enough to avoid being beaten, and that is not good enough to build an economy on.  Just ask the Communists.

Try this:

Quote
Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]

This is sort of going all over the place here, but it is generally accepted that the institution of slavery in 19th century Europe and America were unique in that black Africans and Native Americans(before most of them died) were slaves SOLEY by virtue of their skin color, and that all sorts of scientific pronouncements were made in an effort to justify this. Consider the Dred Scott case, where it was decided that a black man, even in a non slave holding state, could be stripped of his rights and "returned" to the south on the word of any white man, with no legal recourse. While slavery in some form or other existed throughout most of the world, it was usually based on the premises that POWs were considered spoils of war.  The Romans, Arabs, Indians, and mostly everyone else never considered a specific race or color of people to be only suitable for slavery, and there was never a general law to prevent Romans and Arabs from becoming slaves themselves through debt or criminal behaviour. They, and that includes the Chinese, generally found it much more economical to enslave their fellow citizens than to bring in large numbers of fit young foreigners.

Quote
It was a paternalistic form of cradle to grave socialism

Sorry, I'm not easily offended but I find this offensive.

James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong is a good introduction to the whitewashing, if you will pardon the pun, of the history of American race relations.



Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2006, 16:52:41
Quote
Cite?

Quote
Do you require me to provide some quotes

So which way do you want to carry on this discussion...

What a pile of claptrap you do spout.

By the way Britney .... congratulations.  You managed to push enough of my buttons to make me forget an earlier vow to ignore you.

Thanks for the reminder.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 08, 2006, 17:57:02
"Sorry, I'm not easily offended but I find this offensive."

- Why?  Of course it was an odious, murderous, callous system.  But so are many other forms of totalitarian systems.  Whether a person is enslaved on a plantation because they are another race, or enslaved in a labour camp because they are politically unreliable is moot.  One is as bad as another, no?

Rascist  view other races as inferior.

Communists viewed other political animals as inferiour.

Islamo-fascists view Jews, specifically, and infidels in general as inferior.

PETA-toids view carnivores as inferior.

Are these forms of injustice not merely variations on a theme, or has what Bruce Catton once called "The undigestible lump that was slavery" become the new "White Man's Burden?"

Oh, and I would not be suprised if tribal issues in Africa exceded the holocaust in deaths.  Rwanda proved that the ratio of 12,000,000 in ten years set by the Germans can be exceded in short spurts.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 08, 2006, 18:14:06
Quote
The Japanese and Chinese both have a long history of racial superiority as cornerstone of their civilizations and that other races by virtue that they were divine and others were not, were inferior. Wars of expansion by those civilizations were therefore fought to "for their race to gain land, resources and territory from other inferior races." 

What exactly am I saying that so offends you? I asked as politely as I could for clarification of the above statement because I've never encountered such a view in any of my readings, either Western or Chinese. For example, what/who is the source of the quote? If there is a "long history", then why can you not provide an example?

Quote
So which way do you want to carry on this discussion...

Do you dispute my statement? I am asking if you want a quote because I really don't think any are neccesary, as it is fairly common knowledge amongst historians that scientific racism was a cornerstone of 19th century Western imperialism. Asking for a cite for something so obvious would seem to me meaningless fillibustering, but if you want one just say so and I will provide it.

None of this is meant to be offensive or accusatory, I'm certainly open to discussion on any of my points, but until one of you actually comes back to clarify/qualify your points as I have requested, or indeed bring back something, anything factual to debate(as Iterator has done quite eloquently), there's nothing else I can add here.

Quote
- Why?  Of course it was an odious, murderous, callous system.  But so are many other forms of totalitarian systems.  Whether a person is enslaved on a plantation because they are another race, or enslaved in a labour camp because they are politically unreliable is moot.  One is as bad as another, no?

That isn't the typically accepted meaning of "cradle to grave socialism" and you know it, but let us get back to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 08, 2006, 18:30:26
"That isn't the typically accepted meaning of "cradle to grave socialism" and you know it, but let us get back to the topic at hand."

- In retrospect, I should have written "a murderous, brutally extreme example of cradle..."  The point formed in my mind that way because the changing economy of the USA was in the process of rendering slavery uneconomical and therefore finally financially - as well as morally - obsolete.

In any case, now that we have finished illustrating the methods by which various cultures convince themselves that other cultures have been far more murderous than their own, we should ask ourselves:

Is the Chinese Central Committee receiving sound advice on the reason the west looks suspiciously on their build up?    Have they made a risk assessment regarding the state of their economy and the effect on trade - if any - saber rattling over Taiwan may have?

Do they Care?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Iterator on March 08, 2006, 22:16:34
I meant in terms of purely military factors. Of course other socio-economic factors did play a role but there is hardly a military remedy for those.

Well... Its not that I don't see your point, there are differing opinions on what are the precursor events, the main events, and the "final-straw" events of the end of Imperial China.

The Opium Wars and the Treaty obligations were huge consumers of China's wealth, Taiping and Nien prevented China from regaining much of that wealth (by preventing tax and revenue flow, and further accelerating increased military expenditure).

Aside from what "cost" more, just indicating that the mid-century rebellions and uprisings might not have occurred without the Opium Wars (or at least without the outcomes), and that because of this the Opium Wars can be seen as more the root cause of the downfall - is a strong position by itself - so I will cease trying to prevail against it (or constructing really, really long sentences).

Quote
Besides, I think modern westerners have difficulty understanding how much the economic issues were a direct result of defeat in the Opium wars.

Well if you feel you understand it, and I feel I understand it, and we're both modern Westerners, we probably should allow other modern Westerners some benefit of the doubt (it is the modern Westerner way of doing things :) ).

Quote
That works both ways, of course.

Re: Xenophobia.
It would, but have we agreed that modern Western nations are xenophobic? I'm no longer sure that I even think China is.


Quote
Of course not, you're trying to view pre-19th century relations with a modern concept (equal trading partners) in mind. 

Re: Imperial China's relationship with Korea.
Then aren't you viewing Western colonial expansion from 50 to 550 years ago with a modern Western concept (egalitarianism and democratic freedoms) in mind?


Quote
Why would the Chinese view the Koreans in the 15th century as an equal trading partner? The disparities in the levels of economic development between China proper and the prehiphery most of the time was so great that nations like Korea and Japan were generally eager to pay tribute (a minor expense with no economic consequence)in return for either Chinese technology or political support. I just don't think the 18th-19th century Western concept of aggressive colonial expansion(generally based on a percieved racial superiority) can really be applied.

Fast thread! Half a dozen posts and I haven't responded to this one yet. I'll make a combined response to the above quote and from posts after the one I'm responding to:

   - China, along with Egypt, India, Greece, Rome, Britain, and most other cultures (especially in their prime), all have projected cultural bigotry and viewed other cultures as being barbaric or culturally illiterate. I have been swayed to agree that this is not the same as projecting racial superiority.

   - Most cultures seem to have had slavery, or at least servitude, and this was not confined to outside their race. As an example: Dublin was once a major slave trading port. Some cultures did have (or developed) conventions to allow only slaves from outside their own tribes.

   - Christian conquest/conversion of Europe was probably the leading cause of European/Christian restrictions on European/Christian slaves (manpower shortages would also factor in)


I submit that if the Americas, Australia and the South Pacific islands had not been "discovered" and colonized, there would have been far less slavery by the Western nations.

Combining the perceived need for mass slavery, the restrictions on European/Christian slavery, and the rebirth of Western sciences led to a toxic and entrenched level of racial perceptions. If other cultural spheres had met the same circumstances would their racial views have been altered? Would Western Imperial racial views have been altered if the circumstances had been different?

I don't know.

But what was then is not now. Western philosophical thought did not stop (for most), and has progressed. Western reactions to developments in China should not be mistaken for Western practices in China in the previous millennium. And China today should not be viewed as just Imperial China set in contemporary guise.



And to merge up with TCBF :

Quote
Is the Chinese Central Committee receiving sound advice on the reason the west looks suspiciously on their build up?    Have they made a risk assessment regarding the state of their economy and the effect on trade - if any - saber rattling over Taiwan may have?

Do they Care?

I will speculate that yes, they have done a risk assessment and they do care, at least enough not to try for the closer rocks, Quemoy and Matsu. Arguably they should have enough overall military capability now, so why wouldn't they? Does China believe that:
   1) a negotiated settlement is inevitable?
   2) the assessed success rating is not high enough?
   3) the assessed international economic response rating is not high enough?
   4) the assessed international military response rating is not high enough?
   5) it's the whole enchilada approach (and see 1 - 4 above)?


And side note to a_majoor :

Quote
As a side note, I have read 1421, and while it is a good read, the idea of a "round the world" expedition seems very tenuous at best, and I would like to see a lot more supporting evidence before I buy into the treasure fleets breaking out of the Indian ocean.

I agree it was a nice read up until the Cape of Good Hope, after that, even taking it from his point of view - well... I didn't need to wait until reading the critiques.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Britney Spears on March 10, 2006, 01:00:20
Well, how do they say, six of one and half dozen of the other?



Quote
I will  speculate  that yes, they have done a risk assessment and they do care, at least enough not to try for the closer rocks, Quemoy and Matsu. Arguably they should have enough overall military capability now, so why wouldn't they? Does China believe that:
   1) a negotiated settlement is inevitable?
   2) the assessed success rating is not high enough?
   3) the assessed international economic response rating is not high enough?
   4) the assessed international military response rating is not high enough?
   5) it's the whole enchilada approach (and see 1 - 4 above)?


Perhpas I could add that the Joe public setiment in China right now ranges from "We can do Taiwan easily", to "We can do Taiwan but they'd give as good as they'd take", and that only the threat of US intervention currently limits China's ability to act. As far as I can tell the military leadership has a substantially more realistic view of the situation, but obviously does not want to admit their weakness. If the actions of Taiwanese business is any indication, it would seem that the locals are fairly optimistic about the prospects (and by "locals" I mean large multinational corporations).
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 10, 2006, 14:12:21
I suppose this go go two ways, the Logical Solution and the  Human Solution.  Logically, this may eventually 'sort itself out', as did the Berlin wall.  Of course, THAT could have turned out far worse as well.

But it didn't, and - all other things being equal -  would it probably take some fairly serious internal disputes to cause:

1. Taiwan to poke the giant in the eye with a pointed stick, then hope the world will save them (in the end, they won't); and/or

2.  China to pull an Argentina and expend precious political capital by seizing that which will end up theirs eventually anyway?

Does the mainland truly see Taiwan as a shining example of a 'free Chinese people' which creates a subversive threat merely through it's existance, or is the root of the perceived threat less politically dogmatic and more cultural?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: chanman on March 10, 2006, 21:29:28
It probably depends on who you're talking to, and how they're feeling that day.

I think a lot of people will sleep a little easier if the KMT wins the next presidential election in a couple years.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: TCBF on March 11, 2006, 01:42:40
Maybe if they won it on the mainland, you mean?

 ;D
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Thucydides on January 04, 2007, 11:27:03
The emphasis on submarines makes sense if the aim is to undercut the USN and be able to enforce naval blockades against Tiawan, Japan or other littoral areas. I am curious if the PLA has the command and control capabilities to effectively use a large submarine force.

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2007/01/chinese-building-up-submarine-forces.html

Quote
Chinese Building Up Submarine Forces
China has begun construction of its second Yuan class attack sub that will likely be deployed by 2010. "The new submarine is a key element of China's huge increase in submarine forces that some analysts say reveals Beijing is on a war-footing, while many U.S. military and intelligence officials play down Beijing's arms buildup. "(source)

Since 2002, China has deployed 14 new submaries with more in the works, an astonishing number. Two nuclear powered attack subs are also being built by China. "China also purchased four diesel Kilo submarines from Russia and is getting eight more over the next several years."(id)

Discovery of the first Yuan-class submarine in the summer of 2004 will long be remembered for the surprise of the deployment. The submarine was built and deployed without ever being detected in development by U.S. intelligence agencies in what officials say is part of a string of intelligence failures on the Chinese military buildup. Officials said the reason the submarine remained secret was that it was built completely underground in a secret Chinese production facility that included underground waterways to a port.

The question must be asked, why are so many in Washington, Ottawa, London and elsewhere not taking the threat China poses more seriously? China should not be viewed as an ally, partner, or even as a competitor. It is a potential enemy and a massive violator of human rights, a threat to its neighbors, and the main culprit behind the violence in Sudan.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: warspite on January 04, 2007, 14:00:59
Another light on the China threat board just clicked from green to red.....
This only goes to show the danger china poses, and we should begin expanding our navy for our own safety (wether we can expand our navy due manning issues and financial constraits is unkown to me)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: GUNS on January 04, 2007, 15:33:00
There is only one way to fight China's military expansion. STOP buying products made in China.

We are only providing the necessary funds for China to do what they are doing.

Canadians have lost jobs due to China's ability to undercut costs.

First there was a fear that we would have to learn German, then it was Russian. Now it would appear that our children's children will have to brush up on their Chinese.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: George Wallace on January 04, 2007, 15:41:31
There is only one way to fight China's military expansion. STOP buying products made in China.

We are only providing the necessary funds for China to do what they are doing.

Canadians have lost jobs due to China's ability to undercut costs.

First there was a fear that we would have to learn German, then it was Russian. Now it would appear that our children's children will have to brush up on their Chinese.

Have you ever wondered why Power Corps' Maurice Strong, Paul Demarais, and our friend Chretien are so heavily invested in China?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 04, 2007, 15:45:53
The ‘threat’ posed by China’s naval build-up – and it is a real build-up – is that every dollar devoted to new submarines and even aircraft carriers is a dollar which cannot be used to buy US bonds which, in their turn, underwrite the incredibly stupid and wasteful spending spree upon which President George W Bush has been embarked lo these six years.  In case someone hasn’t noticed the Chinese are financing an American spending spree.  Chinese taxes underwrite American governments’ (plural) programmes and services; Chinese labour makes things Americans could only dream of owning if they had to make them at home, at their current wage rates; China is poised to replace Canada as America’s top trading partner.  China is a ‘threat;’ riiiiiight.

I am reminded in the China as enemy rhetoric of the world about 100 years ago.

There were, circa 1900, two emerging ‘threats’ to Britain’s global hegemony – to Pax Britannica: Germany and America.  In 1904, in what must rank as one of stupidest foreign policy blunders in the 1,500 year history of an independent Britain, Britain succumbed to panic about Germany and signed the incredibly dumb Entente Cordiale with France which led Britain, inextricably, into World War I, which, left to itself, could have been, should have been just another in the centuries old series of Franco-Prussian wars - which are good for the human gene pool because they reduce, however slightly, the number of ‘breeders’ from each national group.

The situation was remarkably similar to the world today.  Britain was just coming off a disastrous military adventure in Africa – the Boer War – which had shattered the myth of British military invincibility.  Britain was financing its lifestyle from:

•   Imperial revenues;

•   Invisible exports – a service economy; and

•   Bond sales to, inter alia America and Germany.

The Brits were dumb in the Edwardian era; they made enemies out of competitors because they forgot the old lesson that a balance of power between competing states and empires is easier to maintain than a unipolar imperium.  We, the American led West, are the inheritors of Britain’s global influence; we need not repeat their mistakes.

Let us acknowledge China’s ‘build-ups’ for what they are: the actions of an emerging, competitor super-power.  Competitor ≠ enemy.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: PQLUR on January 04, 2007, 16:02:18
Forget learning French or English in school as a second language . . .  :army:
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CrazyCanuck on January 04, 2007, 16:26:49
The ‘threat’ posed by China’s naval build-up – and it is a real build-up – is that every dollar devoted to new submarines and even aircraft carriers is a dollar which cannot be used to buy US bonds which, in their turn, underwrite the incredibly stupid and wasteful spending spree upon which President George W Bush has been embarked lo these six years.  In case someone hasn’t noticed the Chinese are financing an American spending spree.  Chinese taxes underwrite American governments’ (plural) programmes and services; Chinese labour makes things Americans could only dream of owning if they had to make them at home, at their current wage rates; China is poised to replace Canada as America’s top trading partner.  China is a ‘threat;’ riiiiiight.

I am reminded in the China as enemy rhetoric of the world about 100 years ago.

There were, circa 1900, two emerging ‘threats’ to Britain’s global hegemony – to Pax Britannica: Germany and America.  In 1904, in what must rank as one of stupidest foreign policy blunders in the 1,500 year history of an independent Britain, Britain succumbed to panic about Germany and signed the incredibly dumb Entente Cordiale with France which led Britain, inextricably, into World War I, which, left to itself, could have been, should have been just another in the centuries old series of Franco-Prussian wars - which are good for the human gene pool because they reduce, however slightly, the number of ‘breeders’ from each national group.

The situation was remarkably similar to the world today.  Britain was just coming off a disastrous military adventure in Africa – the Boer War – which had shattered the myth of British military invincibility.  Britain was financing its lifestyle from:

•   Imperial revenues;

•   Invisible exports – a service economy; and

•   Bond sales to, inter alia America and Germany.

The Brits were dumb in the Edwardian era; they made enemies out of competitors because they forgot the old lesson that a balance of power between competing states and empires is easier to maintain than a unipolar imperium.  We, the American led West, are the inheritors of Britain’s global influence; we need not repeat their mistakes.

Let us acknowledge China’s ‘build-ups’ for what they are: the actions of an emerging, competitor super-power.  Competitor ≠ enemy.



+1

This is going to sound a bit leftist, but instead of taking a confrontationl approach to China, why does the west not work harder and help grow China into a real legimate democracy. This has already been happening to a point as China has made great strides since the last 50 years. It still has many areas to work on of course; poverty and human rights for example. The stratigic advantages to having China as an ally would be enormous in my veiw at least. I'm not saying we should go and invite them into NATO tomorrow, just that we should help them become a democracy though non-confrontational diplomatic means. This of course would be heavily dependent on the Chinese politicians, but hey, two super-powers on your side are better than one ;D
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: PQLUR on January 04, 2007, 17:18:28
Good point Boater, I agree with you that China would be a huge ally but modern China has brought about a lot of queries for Westerners: Why the Chinese economy has taken a sudden leap? Why China can bring forth such a top basketball star like Yao Ming? Will China use up all the global oil reserve? Will China eventually overtake the U.S. in term of its economic strength?
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: GAP on January 04, 2007, 17:24:02
Just because China has started doing some things that sell over here, and other things that make it look like it is changing, never, never forget that the goal of the Chinese is total domination. How they get there is irrelevant, they just want to get there.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CrazyCanuck on January 04, 2007, 17:31:44
The goal of any major power is domination in one form or another, but I also do not believe that the US will not remain top dog forever, no power in the world has ever been able to achieve this. As it looks like China is a raising power I believe it is in the best interest of the West to make it as sympathetic to us as possible before it can exert too much control over our economies, and if this means pushing democratic reforms through diplomatic means (such as Harper's stance last summit) I believe we should pursue those reforms for our own good.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: GAP on January 04, 2007, 17:50:00
If you seriously think that the manner in which the West treats China is going to speed them up towards democratic rule...dream on.  I am not trying to slag you or your opinion, but I seriously believe what I just said, and even just a quick view of Chinese history will confirm it.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: CrazyCanuck on January 04, 2007, 18:04:19
Most great ideas start out as dreams, but all I'm saying is that if there is anything that we can do to further China's democratic development in the future we should seriously consider doing it, allies are always better to have than enemies. I do not believe we should appease them in anyway or overlook any of their indiscretions as that would be setting a dangerous precedent. In a sense lets at least try to put them on the same path as India. (China and India are apples and oranges, but it's the idea behind India's transformation not so much the country itself that I see as significant.)
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: GAP on January 04, 2007, 18:27:28
If China ever embraces a form of Democracy, it's going to by way of a massive bloodbath. To accomplish anything remotely similiar to democracy they, the populace must first depose those who's star has been hitched to the Communist Party for 40+ years.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on January 04, 2007, 21:05:00
The best counterweight to China is to support Taiwan,Japan, Australia and India. Japan already see the PLAN as a threat to the home islands and it appears that they are taking a forward leaning position.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 10, 2007, 16:06:11
Here is an interesting analysis from the current (Jan/Feb 2007) issue of Foreign Affairs, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86109/david-m-lampton/the-faces-of-chinese-power.html

It is a bit long (nearly 4,500 words) but well worth the read.   I have highlighted some (20+) bits I find especially important.

Quote
The Faces of Chinese Power
By David M. Lampton

From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007

Summary: Accurately assessing the rise of China is a critical task. Yet U.S. policymakers often overestimate China's military might. And if they continue to view China's power in substantially coercive terms when it is actually growing most rapidly in the economic and intellectual domains, they will be playing the wrong game, on the wrong Þeld, with the wrong team.

David M. Lampton is Dean of Faculty, George and Sadie Hyman Professor of China Studies, and Director of China Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. This article was adapted from his upcoming book, The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money, and Minds.

MISUNDERESTIMATIONS

Assessing China's growing power incorrectly has always proved to be hazardous. U.S. policymakers have underestimated China's power at least twice since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, once catastrophically and another time with serious consequences for U.S. credibility. In the fall of 1950, one U.S. official dismissed the possibility that the war-weary government in Beijing would intervene to stop the United States' drive to unify Korea. "I don't think China wants to be chopped up," he said. But he was wrong, and this and other misjudgments led to Beijing's intervention in the Korean War, at enormous human cost to China, the United States, and the Korean people on both sides of the 38th Parallel. President Bill Clinton also underestimated China. In 1993, his administration threatened to suspend normal tariff treatment if Beijing did not improve its human rights record within a year. China proved tougher than expected, and the Clinton administration made an embarrassing U-turn as the ultimatum was about to expire. The episode convinced the Chinese that Washington's tough talk on human rights was little more than campaign rhetoric and that for the United States human rights were an interest secondary to strategic and business concerns.

Accurately assessing the power of China is still a critical task today, especially with renewed tensions on the Korean Peninsula and continuing volatility in the Taiwan Strait. Overestimating China's leverage over North Korea is a problem. Since 2002-3, the Bush administration has subcontracted most of the effort to halt North Korea's nuclear programs to Beijing, mistakenly assuming that Beijing has the power and the inclination to stop Pyongyang. The Chinese government does not want nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has considerable leverage over Kim Jong Il, but exercising this power would bring substantial costs to China, and its muscle is unlikely to be sufficient if the United States does not simultaneously give North Korea positive incentives to comply. Washington and Beijing may be cooperating better now, following North Korea's nuclear test in October 2006, but it remains far from clear whether Beijing can compel Pyongyang to accept an agreement that may seem contrary to its core interests.

In terms of economic power, Americans tend to exaggerate China's role as a seller and exporter while underappreciating its activities as a buyer, importer, and investor. And they underestimate China's intellectual, leadership, diplomatic, cultural, and other symbolic power. If U.S. policymakers continue to view China's power in substantially coercive terms when it is actually growing most rapidly in the economic and intellectual domains, they will be playing the wrong game, on the wrong field, with the wrong team.

THE BALANCE OF POWERS
 
Power is the ability to define and achieve one's goals, especially relative to the capacity of others to define and achieve their own. Over 40 years ago, the sociologist Amitai Etzioni broke down the concept of power according to the means employed to exercise it: coercion, material inducement, or intellectual motivation. Power can be constraining, remunerative, or normative -- expressing, to put it crudely, guns, money, or ideas.

Chinese leaders are working to develop all three kinds. After dozens of interviews and meetings with senior policymakers, midlevel officials, scholars, and policy analysts in China, as well as government officials in neighboring countries, it is apparent to me that their broad objective is to modernize China in order to boost its military, economic, and intellectual might. Their strategy involves both openness (or globalization) and reform through marketization and urbanization, while they deemphasize and limit political liberalization. Their goal distinguishes China from both the Soviet Union, a military giant but an economic Lilliputian, and Japan, so far an economic giant but largely a bystander in military and diplomatic matters.

The Chinese people do not see their quest for economic growth as upsetting a global equilibrium; they see it as restoring an equilibrium that persisted throughout much of recorded history. As Angus Maddison, an economic historian at the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands, points out, from the first century AD until the early nineteenth century, China's economy represented between 22 percent and 33 percent of total global GDP, peaking around 1820. With the industrialization of Europe, the United States, and Japan, and with China's collision with the West and Japan, China's share of global GDP declined, down to 4.5 percent by 1950. The figure stayed at that level until Deng Xiaoping succeeded Mao Zedong in the 1970s. This long drop, and the national tragedies it generated, is known to every Chinese schoolchild as the hundred-plus years of "national humiliation." Since the late 1970s, China's economy has been regaining its share of global GDP; according to the International Monetary Fund, the figure reached 15.4 percent in 2005. Although admittedly imprecise, these data underscore at once China's progress to date and the great distance the country has yet to go.

Fortified by both globalization and its economic policies, China has thus become an ardent supporter of the existing international economic order -- an almost total reversal from Mao's opposition in the 1950s and 1960s. In international relations, dominant states typically want to preserve the status quo and rising states want to change it. But today, it is China that wants to preserve key features of the current world order, whereas the United States, the lone superpower, seems bent on shaking it up by creating "coalitions of the willing" assembled outside established international organizations. China's national strategy is designed to continue its fast domestic economic growth, the regime's principal legitimizing factor besides nationalism; attract maximum resources (technology, investment, and strategic materials) from the international system; and reduce external threats that might deplete its resources. This strategy does not emphasize rapid military growth, and with good reason: fast expansion of the armed forces would alarm the outside world and likely produce countervailing coalitions; high military expenditures would also drain Beijing of badly needed human and material resources just as President Hu Jintao, emphasizing the importance of turning China into a "harmonious society," sets out to expand human, environmental, and infrastructure investment for those Chinese left behind by the country's rapid development. After Mao's dependence on coercive power and Deng's on economic power, China now seeks a more balanced mix that also uses "idea power."

IRON FIST, VELVET GLOVE

Coercive power typically has four broad uses: homeland defense, deterrence, power projection, and reassurance. Beijing is enhancing its capacities along all these dimensions. It is attaching particular importance to reassuring its neighbors and to using military, economic, and diplomatic instruments to do so.

The Chinese military budget has been growing at double-digit rates for about 15 years (in terms not adjusted for inflation). Beijing is not worried about the threat of a land invasion and so has continually cut its ground forces since the 1980s, while upgrading the remaining forces and the military's communications capabilities and capacity to conduct joint operations. It is worried, however, about the ability of its small nuclear force to withstand a first strike. Thus, it is modernizing and somewhat enlarging its arsenal. (It could, according to U.S. Department of Defense estimates, have 60 intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2010.) And it is seriously concerned about the possibility that Taiwan might permanently break away from the mainland: Beijing has deployed 700 to 800 missiles within striking distance of the island, increased its amphibious capabilities, continually upgraded its naval and air forces at a significant pace, and sought to discourage Washington from intervening if a conflict in the Taiwan Strait occurs. Still, China's capacity to project meaningful conventional military power far beyond its borders is quite limited and will remain so for a considerable period. As one Chinese military officer recently explained to me, "Earlier this year in the Solomon Islands we had to evacuate people, but we lacked airpower, and had to lease [foreign] aircraft, and Australia was helpful. In the Lebanon-Israel war [of the summer of 2006], we had to lease aircraft to get our nationals out."

One key challenge for China's grand strategy is to continue military modernization without overburdening the domestic budget. (According to official Chinese sources, China's military expenditures in 2004 were 12.7 percent of total expenditures.) China's military budget is growing at the same rate as is the total budget but not as rapidly as some components of the total budget, such as those for rural support, health, education, and welfare. Given the decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in October 2006 to "put people first," the tension between military and domestic spending promises to become a bigger issue.

Another medium-term challenge will be to manage the anxieties of other states, especially the United States' concerns about its commitments to Taiwan. Have China's growth and the greater economic interdependence between the island and the mainland made Taiwan indefensible militarily? What would be the consequences of an attack for U.S. policy, given that, according to a recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll, 61 percent of Americans would oppose deploying U.S. troops "if China invaded Taiwan"? Thus, for China, reassurance is now key. As one Chinese scholar put it to me, "We used to hide our power, deny our power. But then this became increasingly impossible as our strength increased. We had to find ways to reassure people, use power constructively, because our power became increasingly undeniable."

In late 2002, Beijing reviewed its interactions with other nations' militaries and law enforcement and space agencies. It encouraged such exchanges partly in order to increase the comfort level of foreigners with the Chinese armed forces. After a tsunami hit the Indian Ocean region in 2004, China kept a low profile, sending a small contingent of military personnel on a humanitarian mission. Almost by stealth, of all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, China has become the largest contributor of military observers, peacekeepers, and police to UN operations around the world. These deployments have included missions to Haiti and southern Lebanon, where Beijing pledged to send 1,000 personnel after the war between Hezbollah and Israel last summer. China has observed and conducted joint exercises with the militaries of Central Asian states, Australia, France, Germany, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, and the United Kingdom, among others. In September 2006, the U.S. and Chinese navies held their first joint naval search-and-rescue exercise, off the coast of California. Chinese law enforcement agencies have also cooperated with the U.S. Container Security Initiative to secure freight from three of China's largest ports, and Beijing cooperates with Latin American and European countries on space projects, such as satellites, and hopes to work with the United States in this area as well.

Despite China's velvet-glove approach, its neighbors are wary, mindful that its capabilities are mounting and its intentions could shift. This is one reason that virtually every country in the region welcomes a strong U.S. presence. Even Beijing may have quietly approved the U.S. government's statement, in October 2006, that it will continue to provide a nuclear umbrella for Japan and South Korea, because the move reduces the pressure on Tokyo and Seoul to acquire their own nuclear deterrents against North Korea.

SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS
 
Even more important to China's grand strategy are its efforts to strengthen its economic power and build what Beijing hopes will be a stabilizing middle class. So far, China has done rather well, thanks to a high national savings rate, rapidly growing and improving secondary and tertiary education, increased expenditures for research and development, the fact that a significant fraction of the population is still of working age, an expanding middle class, massive investment from ethnic Chinese abroad and foreign investors in search of high-growth opportunities, the productivity-enhancing content and continuity of Beijing's economic policies, and a growing private sector. Economic power, the most convertible form of strength, makes China attractive in a world that respects material success.

One should not assume that China's growth rate will slow dramatically anytime soon. But it is time to see it for what it is. Most outside observers exaggerate China's strength as a seller and underestimate its capacities as a buyer, investor, and aid provider.

This is partly because of China's dramatically rising global trade surplus. It holds $1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves -- a significant fraction in U.S. government debt instruments -- and surpassed Japan as the holder of the most foreign exchange reserves in February 2006. China's global share of industrial output as measured by real value added went up from 2.2 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 2002. In textiles, shoes, sporting goods, and, increasingly, electronics, China is already a superpower, and Chinese exports have affected manufacturing employment in other countries, such as Mexico.

There is, however, another side to the story. The fact that an item bears a "Made in China" label does not mean that it was actually made in China. China hosts final assembly stages, which add less value, while lucrative parts of the production chain remain in other countries. (In 2002, value added per capita in the manufacturing industry in the United States was more than 15 times that in China.) In other words, China takes all of the heat for profiting from the globalized production chain even though, as the last link, it reaps only a modest share of the products' value. China, therefore, seems stronger than its underlying production capabilities actually make it. Although exports accounted for over 30 percent of China's GDP in 2005, firms with foreign investment accounted for 57.3 percent of total exports and about 85 percent of high-tech exports. A critical implication is that if the United States throws up barriers to nominally Chinese exports, it will be punishing its friends, its allies, and itself along with Beijing.

Meanwhile, China's strength as a buyer and an importer is underappreciated. China's middle class continues to expand. China was the third-largest consumer of luxury goods in the world in 2006 -- and the third-largest market for Rolls Royce vehicles. Because China imports so many of the primary and intermediate goods used to make its exports, it has given the rest of the world, particularly Asia, a piece of the action and, therefore, an interest in its success. Since 1979, Chinese imports have grown at an annual average rate of nearly 15 percent, making the country today the world's third-largest importer, after the United States and Germany. In 2003, China accounted for 68 percent of Taiwan's export growth, 36 percent of South Korea's, 32 percent of Japan's, 28 percent of Germany's, and 21 percent of the United States'. One report by the Chinese government estimates that 3-4 million jobs in South Korea are related to trade with China. Asian economies that previously exported predominantly to the United States, such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, now do so to China. One official in Canberra quipped to me that the Australians now define their interest vis-à-vis China as being the export of "wools, alumina, iron ore, and educational services." Throughout much of Asia, the perception of China has changed from threat to economic opportunity.

As China's "going global" strategy gains steam, its role as an investor abroad is also growing. Beijing's ability to coordinate corporate investment, tariff and other trade policies, development assistance, and military aid is a potential asset when competing with more pluralized systems. In late 2005, a poll by China's International Chamber of Commerce reported that 23 percent of responding firms intended to increase their investment abroad in 2006. At the end of 2005, China announced that its cumulative foreign investment totaled $57.2 billion, up from $7.6 billion in 2000. China's sizable social security and insurance funds are also beginning to seek opportunities for investment abroad.

Many developing nations appreciate the deals Beijing offers, especially since it doles out investments without imposing conditions, other than the recognition of its "one China" policy. In late 2003, after securing a promise of $500 million in loans, trade increases, and tariff reductions from Beijing, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf gushed, "The past belongs to Europe, the present belongs to the United States, and the future belongs to Asia." Chinese investment is aggressively sought by Latin America, Russia, Southeast Asia, and Africa -- as well as by U.S. municipalities. A Chinese-owned plant for refrigerators was put into operation in Camden, South Carolina, in March 2000; in Ardmore, Oklahoma, there are plans for a Chinese joint venture to run an auto plant that would employ about 550 people. Beijing is taking a page out of Tokyo's playbook: building production capacity in countries that are losing manufacturing jobs in order to get closer to its consumers and forestall protectionist countermeasures. An August 2006 article in Caijing magazine on lobbying in the United States advised, "An effective and long-term solution [to China's image problem in the United States] is to build a factory or to set up a company on the soil of the United States. This means hiring American employees -- their influence over the congressmen from their constituency is much stronger than any foreign institution or enterprise."

MARK THE WORDS

Besides coercion and material rewards, Beijing is using symbolic, intellectual, ideological, diplomatic, and cultural resources to increase its influence. It is strong in some of these areas and weak in others, but Americans generally tend to underestimate its capacities in this domain.

Corruption remains a serious problem for the Chinese leadership. Nonetheless, as former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has said, "The quality of people in charge of China is impressive. ... They have capacious minds, analytical and quick on the uptake." Equally important, the Chinese Communist Party is growing and recruiting dynamic new members. Professor Cheng Li, of Hamilton College, reports that in 2004, 34 percent of private-enterprise owners were CCP members. China's leaders are relentless travelers and spend substantial time with foreign dignitaries; China's diplomats are capable, experienced, and language proficient, and they increasingly understand their host societies.

China currently lags greatly behind in discovering and developing new technologies, but its capacity to innovate with production processes and adapt existing technologies to local markets is growing. It is boosting expenditures for research and development, and as of 2006, there were 750 research-and-development centers backed by foreign investment in the country. Beijing is also building its own global communications and broadcasting systems, with increasingly diverse programming, and heavily investing in the promotion of Chinese language education worldwide.

In that spirit, it promotes all kinds of exchanges. Chinese corporations and universities are increasingly recruiting talent globally, and a growing percentage of technically proficient and business-proficient Chinese students who studied abroad are returning to China. In 2003, China surpassed Japan as the leading source of Asian tourists (spending $48 billion in the process), and it is estimated that by 2020 Chinese will be taking 100 million trips abroad every year.

The payoff in terms of image is good, even though China's reputation in the United States still suffers. International public opinion polls uniformly reveal that Americans have more negative views of China than do most other people, predisposing Washington to be tougher with China than are other governments. In fact, according to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center, the BBC, and The financial Times and Harris Interactive, in much of the world, including most of Europe, China is perceived more favorably along many dimensions than is the United States. And although other nations generally do not wish to emulate China's political system, its combination of high-speed economic growth and apparent stability is a development path that appeals to many.

These quickly developing facets of Chinese "idea power," however, should not obscure two countervailing considerations. first, the Chinese political system does not adequately reflect the diverse interests of the increasingly pluralized society that marketization, urbanization, and globalization have created. Consequently, the CCP's legitimacy is not robust, and the government tends to play the nationalism card in moments of stress. Second, the Chinese system's appeal, at home and abroad, rests largely on the country's economic success. If China's economic performance falters, the system's weaknesses will become more apparent.

HOME, SWEET HOME
 
Beijing's priority is sustained, rapid economic growth, because growth is fundamental to the regime's legitimacy -- and most everything else. Even China's foreign policy is judged by its consequences for growth and internal stability. Chinese authorities are also fixated on domestic incidents of social disorder: increasingly, Beijing simultaneously represses dissent, pursues reform, redistributes resources to neglected regions and social sectors, and makes intermittent efforts to fight corruption.

China's leaders have an ambitious domestic agenda that will preoccupy them for decades. They are struggling to achieve a precarious balance between rising demands and the state's capacity to meet them. Between now and 2020, about 300 million rural dwellers will move to cities, bringing with them huge needs for infrastructure. (At that rate, the government will have to build a city the size of New York every four months for the next 14 years.) China already counts 111 million Internet users and a middle class that numbers, according to midrange estimates, 130 million people. But the disparity between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. Whereas ten percent of the national population lives on incomes higher than those of residents of moderately developed nations, according to the Chinese scholar Hu Angang, more than 50 percent of the population lives on incomes typical of the world's poorest states. Many governments at the county and township levels are starved for revenue. China's population is aging: the ratio of workers to the elderly is anticipated to drop from 6.4 to 1 in 2000 to about 2 to 1 by 2040. There is no effective nationwide social security system, and it is unlikely there will be one before the demographic challenge hits. Other major issues include severe health-care delivery problems, infectious diseases, and educational inequalities.

Chinese power is also limited by the international system itself. Nations balance against threats. Beijing is coming to realize, just as Washington and Tokyo do, that for every international action it takes, an equal and opposite reaction will occur. As China's global trade surplus mounts, so does pressure that it revalue its currency; Beijing has long resisted the push, but it is slowly acquiescing. If China extracts resources from poor nations, brings its own laborers to low-income countries already burdened by unemployment, tries to strong-arm regimes that recognize Taiwan, or cozies up to local elites who alienate their own people, Chinese interests will face resentment (or even riots, as recently occurred in Zambia). If China fails to fulfill its promise to invest $100 billion in Latin America by 2014, its credibility will suffer. If China deploys more missiles that can hit Japan as well as Taiwan in the Taiwan Strait, Tokyo will react by deploying antiballistic missiles and strengthening its Self-Defense Forces. China is already surrounded by skeptics: according to a mid-2006 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 93 percent of Japanese surveyed, 76 percent of Russians, and 63 percent of Indians thought that China's growing military power was a "bad thing" (95 percent of Chinese thought it was a "good thing"). In short, the rise of Chinese power generates global responses that Beijing cannot fully control and that may not be in its interest.

ALL ABOARD
 
For the United States, the rise of China can mean only one thing: engagement. Washington has no choice. China is too big, too important, too dynamic, and has too many other nations with an interest in cooperating with it to be pushed around. Americans cannot compel cooperation; they must earn it on the strength of their ideas and the two countries' mutual interests. For one thing, Washington must stop defining Chinese power principally as a military challenge; otherwise, it will squander scarce resources and push Beijing to adopt the type of truculence Washington wishes to avoid. Instead, the United States -- and the rest of the world -- will have to adapt to the centrality of economic and idea power in China's national strategy. As China becomes more competitive, the United States must move up the value-added ladder. And there is no way to effectively do so with a large percentage of the U.S. population testing "below basic" in reading and math or with health-care costs reaching 18 percent of GDP, as is predicted will happen by 2014.

China wants to be a responsible stakeholder in the international system because it recognizes that the system works to its broad benefit. But like Washington, Beijing will define its responsibility according to its interests. Regarding the Korean Peninsula, for example, Washington asserts that a responsible position is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons; Beijing would also prefer to see no nuclear weapons on the peninsula, but it places primacy on avoiding war. As of late 2006, Beijing was most concerned about the economic progress of its 1.3 billion people, whereas the United States was focused on a broad range of security issues, not least of which was nuclear proliferation.

The danger is that the outside world will feel Chinese power principally through the massive, often unintended spillover effects of its appetite for economic growth. Although Beijing's domestic and foreign policies are not malevolent by design, they often have harmful effects, and for those countries on the receiving end of them, intentions may not matter much. A major focus of U.S.-Chinese cooperation should be to reduce the causes and consequences of such unintended spillover effects, especially in the areas of energy and the environment, particularly in regard to global warming.

This, of course, will require putting an end to the mutual suspicion that currently afflicts U.S.-Chinese relations. Both sides could take positive steps. Beijing needs to accelerate policies that reassure the outside world -- for example, increasing transparency in its military budget. China would boost confidence enormously if it stopped deploying more missiles across from Taiwan. Additional deployment does little to further deter Taiwan's independence movement, but it alienates Taiwan's people and creates anxieties throughout the region, especially in Japan.

For its part, Washington should instill trust in Beijing by not acting in ways that jeopardize China's nuclear deterrent. Both sides would benefit from much more extensive military-to-military exchanges and cooperation in space. The United States, China, and Japan must find ways to reduce the acrimony in Sino-Japanese ties and build a security partnership. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's trip to China in October 2006, his first abroad as prime minister, was a good first step, but there are mountains of suspicion and resentment yet to be scaled. China's growing power calls for other states to respect the country and work with it constructively. The twenty-first century requires U.S. leaders who have the imagination to see possibilities for cooperation with China and to devise ways to motivate Americans to meet the economic and intellectual challenges that China's dynamic growth increasingly present.

I double emphasized this point ” the Chinese Communist Party is growing and recruiting dynamic new members. Professor Cheng Li, of Hamilton College, reports that in 2004, 34 percent of private-enterprise owners were CCP members” because I think it (expanding the CCP’s membership) is one of the ways the Chinese are trying to legitimize their government – to gain the all important ‘consent of the governed’.  I expect to see increased membership in the Party, proper, and some nascent democracy within the party – election, etc.

Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: tomahawk6 on January 10, 2007, 17:16:54
Its a no brainer in a communist country to be a member of the party I can think of no better way than to use party contacts to get business contacts/contracts. While I have been watching China for a long time now I have found that the Chinese have been very impressed with how the US wages war and seeks to emulate our capabilities. It is a fact that if China is to be taken seriously as a military power they must have power projection capabilities. However China cannot afford to modernize its forces in its entirety so they modernize in selected areas such as improving the PLAN, selected modernization of the air force and modernization of its mechanized forces. For the next twenty years China will be a regional power with nuclear weapons. I doubt we will ever see the Chinese Navy for example have true global reach. Modern weapons are very expensive and China's military is too large for a massive overhaul. Remember the large army is as much for internal control as it is for national defense.

I was reading somewhere recently that the reason for so many different Chinese ship classes was because its almost like trial and error with a surface type. They may only build 2-3 ships in a class and move on to another class as a way to improve the design.Chinese ships are less capable than western ships and have been plagues with quality issues. Of course at some point in ship design they will finally have obtained enough experience to build a decent warship.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 10, 2007, 18:42:28
Its a no brainer in a communist country to be a member of the party I can think of no better way than to use party contacts to get business contacts/contracts ...

The sine qua non for the CCP is to find some way to legitimize its one party rule.  They have to find an acceptable way - to themselves and to the people - to garner the 'consent of the governed.'  We in the liberal democratic West are accustomed to the idea that such consent can only be obtained by a universal franchise and regular general elections.  We could be wrong; there might be other mechanisms which are acceptable to a deeply conservative society.  I don't know what it is but I am 100% sure the Chinese are looking for it.

... While I have been watching China for a long time now I have found that the Chinese have been very impressed with how the US wages war and seeks to emulate our capabilities. It is a fact that if China is to be taken seriously as a military power they must have power projection capabilities. However China cannot afford to modernize its forces in its entirety so they modernize in selected areas such as improving the PLAN, selected modernization of the air force and modernization of its mechanized forces. For the next twenty years China will be a regional power with nuclear weapons. I doubt we will ever see the Chinese Navy for example have true global reach. Modern weapons are very expensive and China's military is too large for a massive overhaul. Remember the large army is as much for internal control as it is for national defense ...

I would be careful about saying 'never.'

My assessment is that: China has no fear of an invasion by anyone.  Thus the PLA is being cut and cut and cut again and modernized at the same time.  (It is important to remember that the PLA performs a wide range of paramilitary tasks including e.g. those which equate to the US Border Patrol and Canada Customs.)

But: I believe the Chinese are intent upon building just the sort of global power projection capability tomahawk6 doubts we will ever see.  I'm not sure what their timetable might be: but 15 to 25 years sounds reasonable, as I read their past budgets.  Why?  China intends, as Lampton suggested, to restore "an equilibrium that persisted throughout much of recorded history."  That equilibrium was not just economic.  China was the key power in Asia 500 years ago - when there were no global powers.  Equilibrium, for the Chinese, means a rough parity in 'face' with the USA and India.

...
I was reading somewhere recently that the reason for so many different Chinese ship classes was because its almost like trial and error with a surface type. They may only build 2-3 ships in a class and move on to another class as a way to improve the design.Chinese ships are less capable than western ships and have been plagues with quality issues. Of course at some point in ship design they will finally have obtained enough experience to build a decent warship.

That would square with what i saw during a recent (2006) trip through South China.  I had no way to assess the utility of the many, many different warships - mainly smaller amphibious landing ships in a vast array of sizes and shapes - but it was clear that there were many varieties.
Title: Re: The Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
Post by: Chris Pook on January 10, 2007, 20:52:26
The sine qua non for the CCP is to find some way to legitimize its one party rule.  They have to find an acceptable way - to