• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sino Mongolian conflict, 1946
Border skirmish, same region with USSR, 1948

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

Invasion of Tibet, 1949,

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

Korean War, 1950-53

So which NEIGHBOUR did the Chinese ATTACK?

Sino Burmese war, 1956

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

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

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

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

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

Sino-Vietnamese war 1979.

Well, you got one at least.

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

Oh I do. Do you?

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going to bow out of this now, my point being that China is not a benign power, that it's growing strength internationally is not necessarily A Good Thing, and that it will be tempted to use any new military capability it develops, probably to the detriment of its neighbors.
 
really don't see invading Tiawan as being defensive in nature, unless the Taiwanese are preparing to invade and occupy mainland China?

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

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



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

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

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

%26-20013%3B%26-33775%3B%26-27665%3B%26-22283%3B%26-20840%3B%26-22294%3B.jpg


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



<a href=http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html>Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth</a>
 
The Indians made a very determined counterattack after the initial confusion. Obviously they had every intention of driving the Chinese out. [/quote]

Technically the key there is it was in fact a counter-attack, not an initial assault.  So while I admit this was a confusing one, and I can't really call either the agressor, China was technically the first to move its army against another in that conflict.
 
I agree, but it wasn't exactly a "Pearl Harbor" type deal.  Minor skirmished over the Line of Control had already occured and it was no secret to either side that a conflict was imminent, since BOTH sides claimed quite loudly that the other's forces were within "their" borders.
 
I would say the only thing making Taiwan Chinese is the remnants of the KMT and their progeny.   I think - notwithstanding the Japanese Army use of some indigenes as' movers' in jungle lane training - that Taiwan would have been much more closer to the Japanese sphere than now were it not for CKC 's temporary regrouping on the East side of the Formosa Straight.

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

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

Tom

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

From wiki:

ROC's population was estimated in 2005 as being 22.9 million, most of which are on Taiwan. About 98 percent of the population is of Han Chinese ethnicity. Of these people, 84 percent are descendants of early Han immigrants known as native Taiwanese (c: 本省人; p: Bensheng ren; lit. "home-province person"). This group contains two subgroups. The first subgroup is the Southern Fujianese (70 percent of the total population), who migrated from the coastal Southern Fujian region in the southeast of mainland China. The second subgroup is the Hakka (15 percent of the total population), who originally migrated south to Guangdong, its surrounding areas and Taiwan, intermarrying extensively with Taiwanese aborigines. The remaining 14 percent of Han Chinese are known as Mainlanders (å¤-省人; Waisheng ren; lit. "external-province person") and are composed of and descend from immigrants who arrived after the Second World War. This group fled mainland China in 1949 following the Nationalist defeat in the Chinese Civil War. Dalu ren (大陸人) refers to residents of Mainland China. This group excludes almost all Taiwanese, including the Mainlanders, except recent immigrants from mainland China, such as those made Republic of China citizens through marriage.

The other 2 percent of Taiwan's population, numbering about 440,000, are the Taiwanese aborigines (原住æ°'; yuánzhùmín; lit. "original inhabitants"), divided into 12 major groups: Ami, Atayal, Paiwan, Bunun, Puyuma, Rukai, Tsou, Saisiyat, Yami, Thao, Kavalan and Taroko.

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

Why not? Knowledge is power, no?  :)




 
"Why not? Knowledge is power, no?"

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

;)

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

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

Titan Rain
There seems to be a well-organized Chinese military hacking effort against the U.S. military. The U.S. code name for the effort is "Titan Rain." The news reports are spotty, and more than a little sensationalist, but I know people involved in this investigation -- the attackers are very well-organized.

Posted on December 13, 2005 at 04:39 PM | Comments (61) | TrackBack (5)

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

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

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


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

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

"Hacking effort against the US military"?  :D :D ooookay.
 
A little late to the discussion, but reading this thread reminded me of a tidbit from a recent Economist article on political problems in Taiwan.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited for typo
 
A good website on the Chinese military and any updates is here:
http://www.sinodefence.com/
The latest news is that the Chinese have taken delivery of 7 Kilo class submarines and a Sovremenny class destroyer.
 
The Chinese are into integrating diplomatic and military initiatives at a level we rarely consider:

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

Red China on the March
The People’s Republic moves onto Grenada.

By Steven W. Mosher

In January 2005, Grenada established diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China, breaking off its longstanding relationship with Taiwan in the process. The sudden move followed a hotly contested election in which the ruling party won by the smallest of margins. The PRC has opened a substantial embassy in the tiny island nation — Ambassador Shen Hongshun and entourage arrived in April — and is rebuilding, at considerable expense, the national soccer stadium that was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan in September 2004. Other aid has been promised, including funds for scholarships in China and the renovation of the main hospital.

China's move into Grenada clones a pattern it has followed elsewhere in the eastern Caribbean. Exactly the same scenario was played out last year in the neighboring island of Dominique, and some years ago in St. Lucia. Each of these island republics now has a full-scale Chinese embassy, a completed or promised national soccer stadium, and is receiving continuing aid. Dominica, for example, is slated to receive a staggering U.S.$112 million in aid, which works out to $1,600 for each of the island's 70,000 inhabitants. Some of this aid was cash, ostensibly to ease the government's cash flow problems. Coincidently, Chinese construction battalions have landed a number of government-funded infrastructural projects in the region, such as a contract to build a storm drainage system in Castries, the capital of St. Lucia.

Chinese immigration to the region is picking up, and a cultural offensive is underway. The relationships between China and the islands' ruling parties are increasingly cozy, with leading politicians regularly being invited to China for all-expenses-paid "familiarization" tours. Those not important enough for the "foreign guest" treatment receive their dose of propaganda in their own homes. Shows touting China's history, culture, and peaceful intentions are broadcast for hours on the islands' state-owned television channels — all paid for by Beijing, of course. Let a hundred flowers boom, one might say.

But Chinese moneybags-diplomacy is not cheap, and Beijing's rulers are not known for their largess — unless, that is, it serves their strategic interests. So what does Beijing hope to gain from its investments?

The immediate target is Taiwan, of course. By causing those few nations which still recognize the island-democracy to break off ties, Beijing hopes to undermine Taiwan's de facto independence and hasten the day of reunification — on its terms. The PRC is fighting the Chinese civil war even in the Caribbean. Look for St. Vincent and the Grenadines to break ties with Taiwan in the next year or two.

But this alone does not explain China's continuing aggressive and expensive efforts to bring these small nations — Grenada has less than 100,000 people — under its sway. With staffs ranging from five to ten people, these embassies are able to hold regular meetings and informal dinners with leading political figures, and to monitor the eastern Caribbean's political and economic environment on a daily basis. By way of contrast, the U.S. doesn't even maintain a single diplomat in any of these countries. Instead, the U.S. ambassador to Barbados is jointly accredited to the other island nations in the Eastern Caribbean and is a complete stranger to most eastern Caribbean figures in the public and private sector.

These islands are right in our backyard (the Caribbean has been called the soft and vulnerable underbelly of the United States), and China's actions in the West Indies are of a piece with their well known activities in Cuba and Panama. While none of these islands have any great military potential for electronic eavesdropping, and none sits aside a maritime choke point, it would be foolish to forget the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis of the early 1960s. Dealing with an expansive China in the Far East will be complicated enough without having a dozen aggressively pro-Chinese nations sitting in and around the Caribbean basin.

For now, however, it seems that China has a different purpose in mind. Recall that each of these independent nations is a member of countless international bodies, chief among them the general assembly of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. In some of these organizations, their representatives hold considerable rank. The ambassador from St. Lucia to the U.N. actually presided over the general assembly during its 2004 session. If the nations of the Caribbean could be induced to vote consistently with China in either of these bodies, this PRC-led bloc could become a force to be reckoned with. It would prove especially useful to Beijing in the event of a future confrontation with the U.S. over Taiwan, for instance, or over trade.

China is widely believed to be flaunting WTO rules, in part by keeping its currency significantly undervalued. (The recent 2.1 percent revaluation of the yuan was insignificant.) Suppose that an unfair trade case were brought against China by the U.S. government in the WTO. Such cases are resolved, ultimately, by a vote, with WTO rules requiring a supermajority of 62 percent of the member states. Who knows if the governments of Grenada, Dominica, and St. Lucia, having been the beneficiaries of significant amounts of PRC largess, would vote with the U.S. or with China?

What should we do to counter China's moves in the Caribbean? First, we must stop taking the region for granted, reacting only after the fact, as we did after a communist coup in Grenada in 1983. That crisis, it is well to recall, would have been much worse if other Caribbean nations had not taken a firm stand against the Russian and Cuban-supported coup, and voted in favor of U.S. intervention. Would the new crop of politicians, so assiduously courted by China, come down on our side in the event of a similar problem?

To put it another way, can we allow China, an up-and-coming superpower, to replace the U.S. as the predominant political influence in the region? Opening embassies in each of these states, so that we are in a position to make America's case directly to local government officials, is essential. Thwarting China's efforts to buy friends and influence governments requires not just foreign aid — although this should be increased — but private investment as well. Increasingly, foreign investment is coming from everywhere but the United States. A Free Trade Zone for the West Indies would be a good first step toward fixing this.

China has a long history of establishing tributary relationships between it and lesser states, supporting local tyrants in return for their allegiance. While we work to bring transparency and openness to China, we don't want China to bring corruption and deception to existing democracies and international organizations. The Caribbean can't wait.

— Steven W. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and the author of Hegemon: China's Plan to Dominate Asia and the World.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mosher200602140810.asp
       

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

Tom
 
Back
Top