Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[I_am_John_Galt]

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)?

 

[a_majoor]

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.

 

[a_majoor]

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002106.html

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."

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

 

[DBA]

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

 

[Dare]

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.

 

[a_majoor]

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......

 

[SlipStream]

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.

 

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[Long in the tooth]

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.

 

[Nielsen_Noetic]

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.

 

[daniel h.]

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.

 

[a_majoor]

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.

 

[a_majoor]

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.

 

[MikeM]

Just read today that China passed the anti-succession law, authorizing the use of force if Taiwan does indeed attempt to declare independance.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

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.    ???

 

[Brad Sallows]

>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.

 

[Whiskey_Dan]

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

 

[Long in the tooth]

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.

 

[P-Free]

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.