China Preparing For War

[CREWSAFE]

June 30, 2005


How long will it take for China to become the next superpower in the world and the US to become checkmated in the Far East?

China's new assertiveness in the world comes from bids to acquire U.S. appliance manufacturer Maytag and Oil Company Unocal. Beijing recently test fired its most
advanced and longest-range intercontinental missile, the JL-2. There have been some protests in the U.S. Congress, but seemingly only ambivalence from the Administration.

In a report from “Asia Times On Line,” on June 30, 2005, Michael Weinstein stated that following the acquisition in May of IBM's personal computer business by China's Lenovo Group, the bid for Maytag by Haier America Trading -- the U.S. arm of appliance giant Haier -- and the move to acquire Unocal by China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) mark a new stage in Beijing's export-driven strategy of economic development that is geared to make China an "all-round" great power with state-of-the-art industries in all strategic sectors.

Weinstein added that the test of the JL-2 missile, which has a 6,000 mile (9,656 kilometer) range, enhances China's military capabilities in order to make the country the dominant power in Far East and Southeast Asia, gradually eroding U.S. influence.

All of Beijing's political, economic and military moves show that Beijing's geo-strategy is firmly in place, and that the Chinese political rulers are confident the strategy is working.

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting concerns that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next few years. Some opinion commentators say that China will attack Taiwan around 2010-2015.

China's military buildup of new weapon systems, such as advanced warships, new Russian submarines, long range missiles with maneuverable warheads designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses, must be a sobering experience for all those in Washington who are mindlessly focused on the Middle East. Open news sources and reported intelligence analysis show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, which can only be a sign that China is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.

Every year, the Chinese navy conducts a major naval exercise in the South China Sea, where all fleets leave ports from Shanghai to Hong Kong. Many sail past Taiwan. Upon completion of the “exercise,” the fleet heads north returning to home ports with many sailing straight past Taiwan through what used to be called the Formosa Straits.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the potential for the Chinese fleet to turn right toward Taiwan instead of returning to homeports. How much reaction time would the US have to assist Taiwan -- hours or days?

According to Bill Gertz, writing for “Insight Magazine,” June 26, 2005, China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least ten percent for each of the past ten years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization. He added that the combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military might, and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what some unnamed “defense officials” view as a new 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 [is] able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," according to Gertz's sources.

Then there is China's extensive spy network in the US.





David Szady, Chief of FBI Counterintelligence Operations, is reported to have said that the Chinese use thousands of Chinese visitors, students and businessmen to gather data mostly from open sources or many unclassified documents. He said that there have been over 150,000 students, 300,000 diplomats, and delegations -- not counting the large number of tourist visitors to the US. Additionally, Szady says that China uses 3,200 front companies with links to the Chinese military to obtain information, equipment, and technology.

From time to time there are reports of protests and riots in rural China, fueled by corruption and the widening wealth gap, but Chinese authorities are quick to quash dissent and preserve stability.

Chen Yonglin, who was until recently a senior political officer at the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, Australia, said in an interview that China's communist leaders view the United States as their main enemy and are working around the world to undermine U.S. alliances.

Chen confirmed that China is engaged in large-scale intelligence-gathering activities in the United States that have netted large amounts of confidential U.S. government documents.

"The United States is considered by the Chinese Communist Party as the largest enemy, the major strategic rival," Mr. Chen told The Washington Times in a telephone interview from Australia, where he is in hiding after breaking with Beijing in May.

The US needs to pay more attention to our own strategic interest in the world. Chinese businesses have purchased large warehouses and shipping docks at both ends of the Panama Canal. Chinese-flagged ships or foreign-owned shipping carry much more international trade than U.S. shipping. China is actively courting many U.S. antagonists like Syria and Iran. South Korea is becoming friendlier with North Korea and China. Japan remains then only staunch ally of the US against any Chinese expansionism. Additionally, believe it or not, the Vietnamese hate the Chinese more than they do Americans and there may be room for some détente there.

China's continuing advancements could bring a “cold war” conflict between Beijing and Washington closer to confrontation. While the US tries to hold back Chinese expansion, even if that is possible, it only points to a high probability of destabilizing US economic and military alliances in the Far East. However, doing nothing only makes the possibility of Beijing's geo-strategic plans more likely to succeed.

We should look for Beijing to proceed confidently on its course and for Washington to be incapable of mounting any effective resistance.

[medicchick]

Any source on this? Is it an article or what?

[CREWSAFE]

Any source on this? Is it an article or what?
javascript:ol('http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Hayden_063005,00.html');

[OSU]

It's a love/hate relationship; I love to hear about stuff like what you posted, but on the other hand it's some really scary S$&%!

[Bailaviborita]

Good post. I am going to China in August and will be researching UNOCAL-type projects. Questions: 70% owned by Chinese govt.: good for US oil co? If we block their buying of US companies, will they ever deregulate their currency? (If not, then our economy will do worse compared to if they did most economists say). What is their future strategy when it comes to oil and other natural resources? How likely is China to ever go to war with us in the next 50 years, seeing as we are so closely linked economically with them? As their citizens gain wealth and opportunities, will they demand more freedoms and what will their govt. do?

[CREWSAFE]

John Shields: The China Factor

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

June 29, 2005


China's pursuit of energy resources and the projection of power and influence in Asia may eventually lead to a conflict between China and the United States. In a recent opinion piece that I wrote for Military.com, I talked about the importance of training to be prepared for an adversary who is highly trained and well equipped. The question was then posed, "Would our military be adequately prepared to meet the challenge?"

Unfortunately, world events may be pointed in a direction where we may have a conflict with a military force comprised of troops who have strong national pride, vast manpower and much improved weaponry.

Right now we're mired combating terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the world. As a result, our assets, both hardware and troop strength, are extended almost to the breaking point. Recruitment levels are much below expectations, so trained replacement troops are slow to come on line. We're also much more dependent on our National Guard and Reserve to take over major combat and support roles.

In addition to these issues is the fact that our intelligence agencies have either fallen asleep at the helm or have maintained a lax and perhaps cavalier attitude toward China's potential. They've downplayed Taiwan being threatened by China, thinking that if China ratcheted up war preparations in an attempt to perhaps retake Taiwan by force, American technology and power would be perceived as being too great to risk war.

Well, we've recently discovered that China is becoming a military power (striving for super power status) through stolen technology from the West, help from Russia and its own efforts to modernize its military.

Bill Gertz, Washington Times investigative reporter, discovered that the Chinese now have advanced missiles systems, land and sub-based, that can eventually be equipped with nuclear MIRV warheads that could defeat our defensive missiles now being installed. China has purchased sophisticated aircraft from Russia and has even produced their own fighter aircraft. The Chinese have manufactured 14 submarines that can be lethal; they have early warning aircraft systems, and surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles; and they have recently produced 23 amphibious landing craft capable of transporting troops to Taiwan.

The Chinese are concentrating a great deal of money and energy to engineer weaponry designed to defeat American aircraft carriers operating many miles off the China coast. This is a serious threat since carrier groups would constitute our main offensive force in case a conflict should break out with China.

Besides advanced weaponry that is more sophisticated than we first imagined, China has vast manpower and reserves that are trained and well indoctrinated.

One may ask, "How are the Chinese financing all this military equipment?" The simple answer is that the United States is supplying the resources through our purchases of inexpensive merchandise manufactured in China. Furthermore, the United States and other western countries are supplying advanced technology to help run China's manufacturing facilities, facilities that produce both consumer products and military hardware. This technology transfer allows China to bypass the research/development cycle, and reap immediate benefits from our efforts.

China is now flush with cash that it has gained from trade with the West, and is willing to spend that money not only to modernize their military but to purchase foreign companies and even attempt to use their new found influence in an attempt to isolate and undermine American strategic alliances.

China is making substantial inroads into South America and, even worse, is managing the Panama Canal, which could become a major choke point during a time of conflict.

It has been reported that there are between 50,000 to 150,000 Chinese citizens attending American universities. Most Chinese students are pursuing engineering and scientific degrees so they can return to China and beat us at our own game. Hopefully, they'll experience the benefits of an open society and demand changes when they return, but that's a waning hope because the Chinese Communist government doesn't tolerate dissention.

As reported by Chinese citizens seeking political asylum and contrary to some thinking in the United States, China views America as their principal adversary!

Now let's examine a possible scenario. There are a number of "hot spots" around the world that could further complicate the situation with China. There's the increased concern that Iran will produce nuclear weapons and could soon pose a real threat in the Mideast not only to United States troops and our allies, but to Israel as well. We know that North Korea has nuclear weapons and perhaps a delivery system that could hit Japan and select cities in the United States. Combine that situation with the anti-American leadership of Venezuela, where the United States gets much of our oil, and the instability in Africa, and there could be more trouble spots than we can handle.

If all or even some of these trouble spots get active on or about the same time, we could be attempting to put out brush fires almost everywhere in the world, which would give the Chinese an excellent opportunity to move against Taiwan.

If the Chinese are emboldened by their new military strength and believe they have the trump card that would emasculate the United States because of possible nuclear reprisal directed at our mainland, then we're in serious trouble. China could take military action against Taiwan and there's not much we could do to prevent it.

This then brings us back to the initial question: Do we have adequate troops and ample hardware to handle multiple conflicts? Are our troops being trained properly to handle the likes of China, if it gets belligerent?

The answer to that question is still an unknown, but it's one that our leaders should be asking and preparing for.

This "quicksand" situation in Iraq may be termed a "minor encounter" when compared to what may lay in store for us in the not too distant future. Let's hope we can show overwhelming strength in Iraq, something that only the Mideast people seem to understand, and get Iraqi troops trained ASAP to carry the load. At the same time, the military should be preparing for possible combat against a much more sophisticated adversary.

[Bailaviborita]

THanks- good stuff. Will incorporate into my before trip report.

[tryxter]

What was that weed imported from Korea, planted in the south along roadways to combat erosion? The last time I saw some it was overgrowing the trees, vines grabbing into everything.

Just seems familiar when I read of foreign investments, international students in such numbers they influence the economics of Colleges and Universities and illegal immigration so great it affects elections.

<b>Chinese labor for oil drilling eyed in Colo.</b>

By Andrea R. Mihailescu
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
July 11, 2005

Canadian oil giant EnCana is considering bringing in Chinese companies to construct and operate drilling rigs in the Colorado Rockies, as the region struggles to keep up with demand and rising energy prices.

EnCana, a major player in the Piceance Basin of western Colorado, said Chinese labor is cheap and the workers are well-educated. The move would be scrutinized in Washington, where politicians are uneasy about allowing Chinese workers to acquire access to U.S.-based oil and gas facilities.

"I am totally against the Chinese government running the jobs in our country," said Rep. John Salazar, Colorado Democrat, whose district is most affected by drilling. "With the Chinese government getting involved, it's not even a competitive business model."
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20050710-115332-2183r.htm

I wonder, why fight when you can buy.

[CREWSAFE]

The Department of Defense released today the 2005 China Military
Power
Report to Congress. The report can be found at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china.pdf.

[CREWSAFE]

Heritage think tank says US should not take sides in RP crisis
By Jose Katigbak, STAR Washington Bureau
The Philippine Star 07/20/2005

WASHINGTON — The United States should be strictly nonpartisan in the current political crisis in the Philippines, the influential think tank Heritage Foundation said.

Senior policy analyst Dana Dillon, in an article entitled "Crisis in the Philippines: What does it mean for the US?" said whether President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo stays or goes, efforts to encourage economic development and fight the war on terrorism in the Philippines are weakening.

"The United States has long been devoted to promoting both of these agendas, but Filipinos will view any American involvement in the current political crisis as meddling.

"Therefore, US efforts to help should advance the process without crossing the boundaries of Philippine sovereignty, responsibility and leadership," Dillon said.

He said Manila’s "descent into political chaos" triggered by opposition allegations Arroyo cheated her way to victory and close members of her family were involved in a gambling racket, presented the United States with three major concerns:

• The war on terrorism will continue to take a back seat to the political mess in Manila.

• Economic development and reform and trade expansion will be delayed as politicians focus on Manila politics; and

• Chinese influence will continue to expand while Arroyo fights for her political life. China has developed and refined a policy of helping regimes in trouble by offering considerable political and economic support and with her presidency in dire straits Arroyo will gladly accept more largesse from Beijing, Dillon said.

Despite these concerns there seems little chance Arroyo will be successfully impeached, he added.

The Heritage Foundation has deep connections in the US Congress and has been referred to by some as a shadow government.

Dillon’s article in the form of a Web Memo published by the foundation on Monday said while the crisis in Manila continues, statements from Washington should be measured expressions of support for the Filipino people, constitutional processes and the rule of law and should avoid any appearance of partisanship.

If requested, US assistance should be in the form of commissions or delegations of constitutional scholars to assist with constitutional reform, he said.

Some Filipino community leaders said it was regrettable that Arroyo who was at the height of her popularity in Washington only two years ago had been placed in such a position as to be almost a pariah to US officialdom.

In May 2003 Arroyo at the invitation of President George W. Bush made a state visit to Washington and was given a state dinner, one of only five Bush has hosted at the White House since assuming office in January 2001.

[TechRep]

If your willing to subscribe (very long and copyrighted) From the June issue of The Atlantic:

How We Would Fight China

The Middle East is just a blip. The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was
by Robert D. Kaplan

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/kaplan

A very "encompassing" look.

[Sigi]

The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was
by Robert D. Kaplan

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/kaplan


My computer is acting up and I cannot subscribe.

Why we would go to war with China?

[SOTB]

Why we would go to war with China?In short, they dominate the market of Barbie production. US women have managed to get Barbie's figure to more look like the idea of a "normal" women -- albiet still thin and attractive (their next step would be to give the doll "donelap" disease and a built-in requirement for access to Ken's bank account and credit card).

The US female population surely recognizes the inherent dangers of having a country of slim and attractive women -- who also NOW have access to surgically enhanced (and improved) breasts -- in a position to define the physical characteristics of a doll which may imply that a US child's mother is a FATass.

So thats why we will probably go to war....

[CREWSAFE]

In short, they dominate the market of Barbie production. US women have managed to get Barbie's figure to more look like the idea of a "normal" women -- albiet still thin and attractive (their next step would be to give the doll "donelap" disease and a built-in requirement for access to Ken's bank account and credit card).

The US female population surely recognizes the inherent dangers of having a country of slim and attractive women -- who also NOW have access to surgically enhanced (and improved) breasts -- in a position to define the physical characteristics of a doll which may imply that a US child's mother is a FATass.

So thats why we will probably go to war....

Barbie?

Me thinks the Tequila is flowing in Mazatlan...:p

[Dutch8654]

The war will start when the real deal Barbie-Stepford wife combo hits the market.:D

[Bailaviborita]

If your willing to subscribe (very long and copyrighted) From the June issue of The Atlantic:

How We Would Fight China

The Middle East is just a blip. The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was
by Robert D. Kaplan

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/kaplan

A very "encompassing" look.

Try this link: http://www.lanuevacuba.com/nuevacuba/notic-05-05-1003.htm

[Spinner]

The coming fight for oil

The roaring Chinese economy needs more oil. It's turning to America's friends to get it. Part three of a Tribune special report.

By Evan Osnos
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published December 19, 2006



ATASU, Kazakhstan -- The wind-raked scrub of this barren plateau reveals little hint of the revolution gurgling 9 feet beneath.

China's first international oil pipeline, buried in the Kazakh steppe, is a milestone for the world's newest empire--one forged not in the name of destiny or God, but in pursuit of the planet's most valuable resources.

From the Himalayas to the Yellow Sea, China's cities are exploding in size. Their factories are filling shelves around the globe. The country's brand-new middle class is buying cars so fast that China is on pace to have more vehicles than America in two decades.

China had enough oil to sustain itself just 15 years ago. Now it is one of the world's thirstiest oil addicts, importing 40 percent of what it needs. Only the U.S. consumes more.

Each new factory churning out goods made in China and each new car on Chinese highways adds to a ravenous appetite for raw materials, not only oil but timber, copper and soybeans. Satisfying that appetite has sent Chinese oil explorers around the world--first into the arms of America's enemies but increasingly to friends as well.

The 19th Century saw the British Empire and czarist Russia jockey for control of Central Asia in a Great Game of global strategy. Today the game is gathering again, this time between China and the U.S., as China makes its biggest push for influence in this oil-soaked region since the days of the Silk Road.

No nation is more in play than Kazakhstan, where China's new oil pipeline snakes for 620 miles and may one day reach the shores of the Caspian Sea.

Once known as little more than a Soviet nuclear proving ground, Kazakhstan has emerged as a test case for how China's economic transformation is redrawing the world's strategic map. Even as Kazakhstan opens the tap on the new Chinese pipeline, it is savoring U.S. attention, drawing a stream of visitors including Vice President Dick Cheney. In September, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev visited not only the White House but the president's parents at the Bush family homestead in Maine.

"The U.S. is a strategic partner," Energy Minister Baktykozha Izmukhambetov said in an interview, carefully picking his words. "China is also a strategic partner. China has a great future here."

But China's quest for resources is rubbing up against U.S. interests. In the UN, China is protecting energy allies Sudan and Iran against U.S.-led efforts to censure them. To secure its energy supplies, Beijing is expanding its military, venturing farther into the Pacific Ocean and spurring the U.S. to build up its forces in response. The sea is crowding, a realization underscored in October, when a Chinese submarine came unusually close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific.

Optimists see a prime chance for cooperation: The world's two biggest oil consumers could team up to find alternative energy sources and deepen naval ties.

Conversely, in an age of indisputably diminishing resources, the two sides may be edging closer to confrontation.

"You have two powers competing over the same sandbox," said Gal Luft, a China expert with the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. "As a country of China's size grows, there will be a moment when the moment of reckoning comes."

China's energy diplomacy poses an utterly new challenge to the U.S.: a rival that is growing in stature not by seeking to undo the American rules of the game, but by playing the game more and more like Americans.

"We understand this behavior because we see it in our own system," said Jonathan Pollack, a China specialist at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "It is as American as apple pie."

Life in the Kazakh oil patch

Even before the black armored Bentley had rolled to a stop, the front door swung open and a burly bodyguard popped out.

He glowered at onlookers and opened the rear door of the sedan. A relaxed, 50ish man in a powder blue sweater, pale linen jacket and dark sunglasses eased out, nodded to the crowd and slipped into the hotel, trailed by another guard.

No one there could--or would--say who he was, nor did anyone bat an eye. It was a typical scene at the 2006 convention of Kazakhstan's oil and gas market, a toast to the hydrocarbon where billions in petrodollars hang in the balance. The annual trade show in Kazakhstan's commercial capital, Almaty, draws oil executives from around the globe. They huddle over deals and cultivate the official gatekeepers of Kazakhstan's oil trove, which is expected to eventually yield as much as Iran's.

The country bristles with emblems of an oil boom: renovated five-star hotels, new entertainment palaces and shimmering government offices that smell of fresh paint. Astana, the Kazakh capital built from scratch in barely a decade, boasts splashy architectural ornaments such as the glass-pyramid Palace of Peace--all seemingly conceived to transform Kazakhstan from a desolate former Soviet republic into a Dubai-style wonder.

Kazakhstan owes thanks to all the major oil players. The U.S., Europe and, of course, China are vying for a piece of this behemoth nation, nearly four times the size of Texas and home to one of the largest oil fields discovered worldwide in the past 30 years.

By any measure, China is the most vibrant force in town.

In the largest foreign purchase ever by a Chinese company, China National Petroleum Corp. paid $4.2 billion last year for PetroKazakhstan, a Canadian owner of Kazakh oil fields. More recently, China's state-owned CITIC Group announced plans to buy another major Kazakh oil field if authorities agree: the Karazhanbas field on Kazakhstan's western border. It would give China an extra reason to finish extending its new pipeline farther west, tapping oil from beneath the Caspian Sea.

China insists the U.S. should not feel threatened by such moves. "China will never pose a threat to world energy security," China's energy czar, Ma Kai, wrote recently in a Chinese magazine.

Wedged between Russia to the north and China to the east, Kazakhstan traditionally has favored Russia. Trade over the vast Kazakhstan-China border was historically low, slowed by shabby roads and lingering border disputes.

But today, low-cost Chinese goods fill Kazakhstan's outdoor markets.

"We started our relationship with China from scratch. There was no trade between us. Now the trade is booming," said Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev, whose office looks out on a forest of cranes in the capital. "It has reached $6 billion, and I believe we have good prospects to increase that."

Nothing will help accomplish that faster than the pipeline China hailed as "the new Silk Road," a reference to the web of trade routes that ferried caravans from China to the Mediterranean for centuries. The pipe now handles 200,000 barrels a day but could carry twice that amount when an extension is completed.

This poses a dilemma for the U.S. Officially, Washington supports any pipeline that expands supply and transportation. Indeed, the U.S. spent years winning Kazakh support for an American-backed pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey.

But China's pipeline poses something entirely different: an oil project that helps broaden China's strategic footprint. And that is something the U.S. finds more complicated.

"There is some sense in the U.S. government that as China gets more influential in Kazakhstan, it is more interested in pushing the U.S. out of Central Asia," said Mikkal Herberg, an energy expert at the Seattle-based National Bureau of Asian Research. "So the feeling is: `Yes that's fine if China wants to get energy there, but not if it becomes part of a broader strategic competition.'"

Communist Party lifeline

Wang Lingyu's parents never owned a car. But on this day, the 36-year-old small-business man was buying his second.

"Two people need two cars," he said.

Barely three years after Wang and girlfriend Teng Hui bought their first car, they signed for a twinkling ice-blue Volkswagen hatchback last week. At a dealership in downtown Beijing, the $12,500 token of China's surging middle class was ready to roll out onto a boulevard paralyzed with midday gridlock.

For China's Communist Party, finding the oil to satisfy a nation of new car buyers, truck drivers and factory furnaces has become a matter of survival.

Through most of the 20th Century, the Middle Kingdom had little time for foreign policy. Invasions from abroad, internal revolution and tumultuous politics kept the world's most populous country distracted. After Deng Xiaoping unshackled the economy in the late 1970s with his exhortation "to get rich is glorious," China devoted its attention to getting rich.

But over the last decade, its scorching economic growth has driven a soaring need for natural resources. China alone contributed nearly one-third of the global growth in oil demand in that period, adding the equivalent of a medium-size country to world oil consumption each year, according to Herberg, the energy expert.

Where rice paddies stood 20 years ago, factories now guzzle a heavy diet of industrial materials. This past summer, a power shortage forced China to ration electricity to its factories for the fourth year in a row.

These shortages are a chilling sign to China's Communist Party. Leaders believe rapid growth that continues to create new jobs and lift millions more out of poverty is the best way to protect the party's future. If an energy shortage were to disrupt China's economic growth, it could send laid-off workers into the streets and threaten the grip of the party.

That urgency has propelled Chinese leaders, diplomats and engineers around the globe. Since the 1990s, they have used aid and trade to help win oil deals. In less than a decade, China's national oil companies have hoisted flags from Argentina to Kazakhstan.

Even for countries with strong relationships with the U.S., China represents an attractive alternative. Since 2004, three of China's state-owned oil firms have heavily invested in recovering Canadian oil sands. They also have deepened ties with Saudi Arabia.

"This is happening all over the Middle East," said Rashid Mohamed Rashid, the minister of foreign trade and industry for Egypt, the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel. "In the next seven or eight years, China will be Egypt's No. 1 trading partner. These are not just short-term deals. This is a long-term relationship that is being established."

The vast majority of that trade is one-way--consumer goods from China. Egypt has little in the way of natural resources that China needs. Yet Cairo hopes to promote its country as a gateway to markets and assets in Africa and the Middle East.

China has even tried to enter the U.S. market. In June 2005, Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. attempted to buy California-based Unocal Corp., but Congress recoiled and killed the deal. CNOOC withdrew.

But Chinese oil executives didn't scale back their ambitions. By last April, they had signed 139 deals around the world, according to a University of Michigan study.

That is the cost of keeping China's middle class happy enough. Holding gas prices within reach is the government's end of the bargain, allowing China's yuppie buyers, like Wang and Teng, to choose a zippy German car over a dowdy Chinese fuel-sipper.

"Since this is our second car," Teng said, "we're getting pickier."

Family cars are only part of the problem. Air travel is thriving, diesel-powered cargo trucks are plying new highways and generators are being used to keep factories running during electrical blackouts--a relentless demand that keeps China asking where it will find its next hit of oil.

The new Great Game

In August 2003, the U.S. and allies were scrambling to get control of Iraq and unlock its vast oceans of oil for world markets.

So no one much noticed when another alliance in a different oil-rich part of the globe flexed its first military muscles: Here on the Kazakh plateau, Chinese troops launched their first multilateral military exercises with Russia and two other former Soviet republics.

Since then, China has held more exercises with Russia and Kazakhstan. The allies also christened a joint anti-terrorism center in Uzbekistan, and China unveiled plans for an $87 million campus to train Central Asian police in battling "separatism, terrorism and extremism."

China also has nurtured an unlikely new powerhouse, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a once-obscure diplomatic grouping that has emerged as an alternative to the financial and political institutions of the West.

Critics dust off Cold War-era labels to warn of a "new Warsaw Pact." But the reality is something different: a more perfect union for the age of oil.

The group's six members--China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan--unite some of the planet's largest producers with one of its largest consumers.

The group does not shy from flouting the West. In May 2005, less than two weeks after Uzbek troops killed protesters in the eastern city of Andijan, drawing the ire of Western powers, Beijing greeted Uzbek President Islam Karimov on a state visit to China with a 21-gun salute.

Likewise, as the U.S. rallied support for sanctions against Tehran last June, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a speech to the Shanghai-based organization to extol a future in which "we should remove the word `sanctions' from the political literature of the world."

The group's boldest move came in July 2005, when it called for the U.S. to remove its military bases from Central Asia. Before long, the U.S. withdrew from Uzbekistan, and Washington is struggling to keep an air base in Kyrgyzstan.

The Shanghai group has emerged as an "alternative universe" to the European Union and the U.S., said Sean Roberts, Georgetown University's Central Asian affairs fellow.

"They have begun all the kinds of programs that other organizations like the EU carry out: training, economic assistance, humanitarian assistance," Roberts said. China, a single-party authoritarian state, even helped monitor elections in Kyrgyzstan in February 2005, he noted.

The White House is fond of Kazakh President Nazarbayev. Though the U.S. State Department and human-rights groups accuse him of suppressing opposition, Pentagon planners appreciate a relatively moderate Muslim leader who has allowed NATO planes to fly over his country to Afghanistan. He also is the only Central Asian leader to have sent troops to Iraq.

Some in Washington believe that China's thrust into Kazakhstan threatens America's foothold.

"Today all these interests are under attack, and the U.S. policy in Central Asia is embattled and under siege," Stephen Blank, a Central Asia expert in the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, said in testimony to a U.S. House committee in July.

Not everyone agrees that China's gain is America's loss in Central Asia. But there is no doubt that things are getting more congested in some of the world's most coveted territory--both on land and at sea.

Crowded waters

China's oil security comes down to a fragile reality: Four out of every five barrels it consumes pass through the Strait of Malacca, a single, pirate-ridden ocean choke point between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea.

President Hu Jintao declared two years ago that the dangers of the strait required an urgent search for alternatives. Chinese analysts dubbed it the nation's "Malacca dilemma."

Chinese leaders fear that those shipping routes are a weak link in their political lifeline. In the event of a crisis with the U.S., American naval ships could shut down China's oil supply.

The fear has rippled through defense circles. Last May, Gen. Xiong Guangkai, a former deputy chief of staff, told an international conference on energy security that "in the long term, the strategic race for the world's energy may result in regional tension and even trigger a military clash."

To avoid the seas and the perilous straits, China has examined a range of options from the plausible to outlandish, including pipelines to Burma and Pakistan or even a Panama-style canal across Thailand.

Most of those ideas will never leave the drawing board, but another strategy already is under way: a major military modernization that is transforming China's armed forces, a buildup that "already puts regional military balances at risk," according to the Pentagon's 2006 assessment of China.

A sober calculation of national economic and political interests is driving Chinese naval ships back onto the high seas at their greatest strength since the 17th Century. Over the past two decades, China has expanded its arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines and aircraft.

"It is an effort by the Chinese to say we have come of age," said Tai Ming Cheung, an expert on the Chinese military at the San Diego-based Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.

China is not expanding its military to antagonize the U.S., Western analysts say. On the contrary, Beijing has little incentive to provoke a costly arms race or a far more advanced military opponent.

Despite double-digit growth in recent years, China's military spending remains a fraction of America's half-trillion-dollar defense budget for 2007. (Officially, China says its military budget is $35 billion this year, though U.S. officials speculate actual spending could be nearly three times that amount.)

Nobody, it seems, is more eager to defuse tension with China than the U.S. commanders who have responsibility for the Pacific.

"We don't have a good sense of how they envision the use of that navy and where the navy will be going in the future," said Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Fleet, during a visit to Beijing in November.

Roughead and Adm. William Fallon, chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, are trying to improve naval relations with China. In September, two Chinese navy ships visited Pearl Harbor and San Diego for a joint search-and-rescue exercise.

The cooperation is intended to help avoid inadvertent incidents. On Oct. 26, a Chinese submarine surfaced close to the USS Kitty Hawk while the carrier was doing exercises in international waters near Okinawa. If the Kitty Hawk had been practicing anti-submarine drills, Fallon said later, the incident could have escalated into "something that was very unforeseen."

Along with building its navy, China is asserting itself more strongly beyond Asia as well.

From Jamaica to Brazil, China has dispatched about 20 military delegations to Latin America in the past two years. Beijing is winning influence by "offering resources to cash-strapped militaries and security forces with no strings attached," in the words of U.S. Army Gen. Bantz Craddock, commander of the Miami-based Southern Command, which covers Latin America.

More Latin American military personnel are going to China for training, Craddock told the House Armed Services Committee. And the traffic moves the other way as well, with Chinese officers and non-lethal equipment going to Latin America.

Hunger on the horizon

Looming above the Kazakh plains, hours from anywhere, five new oil-storage tanks form a steel skyline.

Construction crews swarm around them, welders' torches flaring and dump trucks trundling back and forth. The workers are racing to expand the Atasu pumping station, the beating heart of China's treasured pipeline.

It is another distant outpost along China's new horizon. With its economy on pace to surpass that of the U.S. by 2050, China will have to find more places like this, just as it will have to find more sources of corn, pork, fertilizer, coal, steel, wool, copper, cement and timber. The great reach of China's rise has already touched the forests of Papua New Guinea, the air over San Francisco and the oil fields of Kazakhstan.

And if all goes as planned, these hulking new tanks will soon hold as much as 628,900 barrels of crude--enough to satisfy China's craving for barely two hours.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

[flb3]

I know that this may come out of no where, but here is my opinion FWIW. China needs oil, not just for their economy, but their for their military forces as well. Seems that China may also be building up their military forces at this time. Not sure why, but I think it is all to get more oil. If they can't buy it, they will take it (Why else would they need to build up their military all of a sudden?). I think that is one reason why the US "sort of" kisses their butt to a point.

Also I keep hearing from my wife that China is helping the US financially for the Iraq war. To me it seems to be more to it than that. What it is I don't know.

flb3

[SN]

I


Also I keep hearing from my wife that China is helping the US financially for the Iraq war.

flb3

What is your wife's information source?

[flb3]

What is your wife's information source?

I was waiting for that question. She reads the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN.com and other liberal minded, anti-war news outlets. At least that is what she told me where she got the info from. I have searched for it on the internet and can't find squat. Guess my "google-fu" is no good here.:eek:

Due to the nature of my job, I have asked the people whom I work with and who are "in the know". From what they have seen and heard, they can not verify this one at all.



flb3

[Red Barron]

As for us kissing China's ass - they own a major portion of our US treasury bonds. Have built this up for years. They unload their position, we're up a creek without a paddle. Unfortunately, they have us by the balls.

[Bailaviborita]

I don't buy the "they will seize oil", "they are building up their military to seize oil", etc. claims. That reminds me of the simple view of the movie "Syriana". Unless China is out to throw the world, starting with us and them, into a full-blown depression, then them using their military to seize oil or doing anything with their military is insane. And since every expert I've talked to has told me that the thing their govt. fears the most is instability- I don't see them doing something that will crash their booming economy.

Most likely (what's that popular saying about the usual answer is usually the simplest explanation?) they need oil the same reason we do: oil powers things. Actually- they need it more than we do because their economy is growing by leaps and bounds. I think that in the last 10 years they've pulled more people out of poverty faster than anyone else in history. I think a prof once said they've pulled more people out of poverty in that span of time than all nations combined throughout history.

So- for them to do something to reverse that and send their nation (and ours) into a death spiral is something I equate to the JFK conspiracy theories.

[flb3]

That is what my wife was referring to in regards to China helping us fund the Iraq war.
flb3

[Bailaviborita]

So what is your opinion of what may happen if China decides to take their "fair" share of the oil forcefully?
flb3

First, I think that the question is slightly off the reality of oil economics. Oil is a commodity and it would be very hard for any one country, or even a small group, to change the fact that oil goes pretty much where it commands the best price. For example, Chaves hates us, but can't change the fact that it is better economically for him to export most of his oil to us.

But, for intellectual exercise, let's play the scenario out:

- China decides they need oil to be seized, so they invade a few 'stans and claim the oil fields as their own. (if you can think of a better scenario, let me know) They also sieze many off shore oil fields that are technically not in their waters. They deploy their Navy to protect these assets.

- I'd say first the UN would condemn the moves. WTO would instigate sanctions. Foreign investment into China would rapidly dry up. The million or so "guest-managers" from Taiwan in China would go home. Many other foreign managers would also leave due to the crack-down on internal unrest or the possibility of it. Chinese manufacturing would shut down for two reasons- not enough managers to keep it running and the U.S. demand would be forcibly cut-off.

- NATO starts to contemplate a military response to the 'stan invasions. The UN prepares a resolution and kicks China out of the Security Council. World price for oil jumps to insane levels. U.S. moves to counter the jumps in price by freeing up reserves, opening up lands to drilling, and increases refining capacity. California is forced (as other states are) under an emergency economic action to standardize all fuels to national standards (which lowers the price of oil for the entire U.S.). New foreign fields are opened and alternative sources of energy are vigorously pursued as the price of doing so becomes economically feasible.

- The Chinese economy goes into a recession quickly. Workers are laid off due to decreased demand from the U.S. China scrambles to find new sources of demand for their products, but Europe is slow to accept more plastic toy soldiers and engines not made by French unionists.

- Chinese companies have to lay off millions of workers due to the decrease in trade caused by the unstable economic/political situation. Meanwhile the U.S. deploys its Navy to cover-down on assets in the area. The Chinese Navy cannot match the U.S. Navy and it either leads to them attacking or pulling back from their newly gained assets. Meanwhile, Millions of Chinese workers start to take to the streets as their new-found wealth dries up and they are forced to eat grass again. Chinese troops at first kill thousands, but then join in the "people's revolution" and the commies are overthrown.

I skipped a lot- but if they fear instability, why would they do something so sure to cause it? Every Chinese person I talked to talked of the U.S. like we were best buddies. Only Americans have a fear of the Chinese. I think they will definitely be hardy competitors- sometimes they will do underhanded things- but for the most part they will help keep our inflation down and provide a source for our investment dollars. They will also invest in U.S. debt. It is a symbiotic relationship- one that grows more so every day. We need to realize that a lot of what is good for China from now on will be good for us and vice versa. I think most Chinese understand that...

[The91Bravo]

Great posts. Thanks to all for great info.
Steve

[ravenshield936]

First, I think that the question is slightly off the reality of oil economics. Oil is a commodity and it would be very hard for any one country, or even a small group, to change the fact that oil goes pretty much where it commands the best price. For example, Chaves hates us, but can't change the fact that it is better economically for him to export most of his oil to us.

But, for intellectual exercise, let's play the scenario out:

- China decides they need oil to be seized, so they invade a few 'stans and claim the oil fields as their own. (if you can think of a better scenario, let me know) They also sieze many off shore oil fields that are technically not in their waters. They deploy their Navy to protect these assets.

- I'd say first the UN would condemn the moves. WTO would instigate sanctions. Foreign investment into China would rapidly dry up. The million or so "guest-managers" from Taiwan in China would go home. Many other foreign managers would also leave due to the crack-down on internal unrest or the possibility of it. Chinese manufacturing would shut down for two reasons- not enough managers to keep it running and the U.S. demand would be forcibly cut-off.

- NATO starts to contemplate a military response to the 'stan invasions. The UN prepares a resolution and kicks China out of the Security Council. World price for oil jumps to insane levels. U.S. moves to counter the jumps in price by freeing up reserves, opening up lands to drilling, and increases refining capacity. California is forced (as other states are) under an emergency economic action to standardize all fuels to national standards (which lowers the price of oil for the entire U.S.). New foreign fields are opened and alternative sources of energy are vigorously pursued as the price of doing so becomes economically feasible.

- The Chinese economy goes into a recession quickly. Workers are laid off due to decreased demand from the U.S. China scrambles to find new sources of demand for their products, but Europe is slow to accept more plastic toy soldiers and engines not made by French unionists.

- Chinese companies have to lay off millions of workers due to the decrease in trade caused by the unstable economic/political situation. Meanwhile the U.S. deploys its Navy to cover-down on assets in the area. The Chinese Navy cannot match the U.S. Navy and it either leads to them attacking or pulling back from their newly gained assets. Meanwhile, Millions of Chinese workers start to take to the streets as their new-found wealth dries up and they are forced to eat grass again. Chinese troops at first kill thousands, but then join in the "people's revolution" and the commies are overthrown.

I skipped a lot- but if they fear instability, why would they do something so sure to cause it? Every Chinese person I talked to talked of the U.S. like we were best buddies. Only Americans have a fear of the Chinese. I think they will definitely be hardy competitors- sometimes they will do underhanded things- but for the most part they will help keep our inflation down and provide a source for our investment dollars. They will also invest in U.S. debt. It is a symbiotic relationship- one that grows more so every day. We need to realize that a lot of what is good for China from now on will be good for us and vice versa. I think most Chinese understand that...

good point
im a chinese myself
unlike US, we're more concerned with growing our country up to world standards, improving living, etc. firsthand
as for military, it's needed because the US loves to play by the gun, and the influence meant if PRC is to sit in where it should be in this world(1st), military is needed. the invasions by imperialism era(eight-nation alliance, japanese invasion of the '30s) strengthened our culturalism and nationalism --- this led to taiwan: chinese culture have strong sense of family value, including ethnic-wise. therefore to see taiwan be separated is against our values.

[benelli]

Why exactly is this in the LE forum?

[mdb23]

Good point.

[Parajuevos]

good point
im a chinese myself
unlike US, we're more concerned with growing our country up to world standards, improving living, etc. firsthand
as for military, it's needed because the US loves to play by the gun, and the influence meant if PRC is to sit in where it should be in this world(1st), military is needed. the invasions by imperialism era(eight-nation alliance, japanese invasion of the '30s) strengthened our culturalism and nationalism --- this led to taiwan: chinese culture have strong sense of family value, including ethnic-wise. therefore to see taiwan be separated is against our values.

Unlike the US, you're country is concerned about growing up to world standards?

The USA has some of the most stringent enviornmental regulations in the world. Does your country?

Maybe your rivers are dying, the fishermen are going out of business and your farm lands are rotting because you are having bad luck. Maybe the Gods are angry at you. It wouldn't have anything to do with the total disregard that the PRC and Chinese industry has for it's natural resources, would it? Is that why you have to buy up land in Brazil to grow Soybeans? Is it because mother nature has dealt your land a bad hand at the card table of life?

This eight nation alliance you talk about happened 108 years ago and came about because foreigners in your country were being butchered. Get over it.

Furthemore don't compare us with the Japanese invasion of your country, in the 1930s and 40s. If it weren't for the hated westerners, your country would probably be living under the Rising Sun right now.

As far as family values in the PRC, I doubt that a government the likes of which encourages limiting family size, to the point where infanticide has become a problem, as per male vs. female births, is exactly a model nation for family values.

Tibet, Tianneman Square, Korea, Vietnam all negate your inference that China is not a country that resorts to the gun.

You are planning your future very cunningly and unfortunately with the cooperation of the rest of the world.

You are ruining your natural resources, buying up land in other countries, engaging in lopsided trade and building up your military. Your plans are to encroach on other nations, with your military, once your land is depleted and polluted beyond use and your population becomes too big for your beloved PRC to support.

The world had better wake up. Your country is an economic and military threat that will grow over the next 25 to 50 years. Then we'll all see who lives by the gun. It may be too late by then for the rest of the world to do much about it. I hope not.

You call yourself a neutral, analytical person who loves democracy. You claim to be a Canadian immigrant but everything that you write identifies you as an admirer of the PRC. My opinion is that you are probably much more than just an admirer. How can anyone espouse views like yours and not be an active participant? I've read all of your posts,both on this thread and on the thread dealing with China and Iraqi oil deals. You are not the innocent democratically oriented person that you say you are.

[Tracy]

good point
im a chinese myself
unlike US, we're more concerned with growing our country up to world standards, improving living, etc. firsthand
as for military, it's needed because the US loves to play by the gun, and the influence meant if PRC is to sit in where it should be in this world(1st), military is needed. the invasions by imperialism era(eight-nation alliance, japanese invasion of the '30s) strengthened our culturalism and nationalism --- this led to taiwan: chinese culture have strong sense of family value, including ethnic-wise. therefore to see taiwan be separated is against our values.

Hey Ravenshield,

You forgot about the American Volunteer Group that went to China's aid before war was declared. As I recall, it was the only air support y'all had during WW2. Americans were helping Chinese before Mao's Long March.

For the record, we don't play by the gun. We are very serious about it because we understand the consequences a LOT better than you. We had nuclear weapons long before anyone else, yet we chose not to use them despite every provocation by your government.

You want first place in the world? How about you getting off your collective asses and doing something about the Taliban, Robert Mugabe, Dafur and a host of other annoying world problems?

Strong sense of Family Values? This from a culture that kills new-born baby girls because they're female? Riiight.

Taiwan doesn't want to be a part of you people and your ethnic cleansing. Get over it. You want the island? Then create an environment the people will flock to and prosper under. Tibet sound familiar? Although I do approve your crushing Islamo-fascists every chance you get.

You want to increase your Army's size? Go for it. They couldn't whip Vietnam's ass 30 years ago and I don't see much improvement in the interim.

Keep one very important thing in mind: You economy needs us more than we need you.

To paraphrase Nikita Kruschev: We will bury you.

No doubt you're an enlightened scholar and understand the subtext; but I'll explain for the audience at home. Your grandchildren will be capitalists just like us; and your dreams of a Maoist Utopia will be in the same hole as you.

[Starlight]

Nevermind.

[Parajuevos]

Ravenshield,

Have you seen the latest BBC report?

China is breaking the UN arms embargo on Sudan.

They have been supplying K8 trainers to the Sudanese government for two years and are currently training Sudanese pilots to fly Chinese Fanton Fighter Jets. Does this mean that they are directly affecting the carnage that is taking place in Darfur? Oh, I forgot. It's only the US that brings guns into the process, right?

China is also the main buyer of Sudanese oil.

But then, what's a little gun running, bribery and genocide among friends, especially when it's done for the purpose of bringing China up to the living standards of the west?

[bobofthedesert]

I'm a chinese myself

Of course you are, your protestations about loyalty to Canada notwithstanding. You view yourself as chinese first, last, and always. You have your residence/business in Hong Kong (previous post) but live in the land of "Golden Mountain". Anyone who lives or has lived in Vancouver knows all about the post Expo '86 "Asian Invasion", and knows from 20 years+ of dealing with you folks what your true feelings are, you are so arrogant and superior in your attitude that you can't hide it. Why don't you tell the members of this forum about your belief, expressed often by chinese there, that eventually you will "own" the lower mainland of B.C.. Tell them about the jewelery shop in Richmond (an almost entirely asian suburb that was farmland before the tidal wave of chinese immigration necessitated more housing) that had a sign up in the window in chinese saying "no western trade wanted"; a little inside joke until a white Canadian who spoke and read Mandarin came along.

If PRC is to sit in where it should be in this world(1st), military is needed.

Well, take your best shot. You know full well no one will be invading PRC, YOU will be the one doing to others what Japan did to you. I hope I'm around to take part in the whole thing on some level. At least you are now telling the truth about your true feelings, as opposed to your dissembling earlier posts.

to see taiwan be separated is against our values.

You have just directly contradicted your earlier statement on another post. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

I lived in Vancouver for a few years, with an Asian woman for 5 of them. I know you as you truly are, not who you claim to be. If you could, you would attmpt to brand me as a racist, where in fact you are the one who qualifies for that label based on your statement about ethnicity. If a Canadian of European descent attempted to immigrate to China what would the result be? Certainly nothing like you have received in Canada due to lack of frontsight (not a misprint) by the socialist fellow travellers of P.E.T. who infest the government to this day and have unfortunately been very sucessful in brainwashing the population. You do not attempt to fit in, you attempt to co-opt and take over. You self segregate and make snide remarks in your own language about non asian Canadians to their face, foolishly thinking that only chinese speak or understand chinese. There ARE Chinese who are integraed into Canada and are grateful to Canada to have a life where they are free and not subject to being sterilized forcefully, or having their children killed because they are female, but you are not one of them.

Tell the members of this board about how the PRC government uses it's intelligence agents to threaten and coerce chinese citizens on Canadian soil. Tell them about the massive intelligence gathering operation run out of the huge chinese embassy on Granville St..

[ravenshield936]

Hey Ravenshield,

You forgot about the American Volunteer Group that went to China's aid before war was declared. As I recall, it was the only air support y'all had during WW2. Americans were helping Chinese before Mao's Long March.

For the record, we don't play by the gun. We are very serious about it because we understand the consequences a LOT better than you. We had nuclear weapons long before anyone else, yet we chose not to use them despite every provocation by your government.

You want first place in the world? How about you getting off your collective asses and doing something about the Taliban, Robert Mugabe, Dafur and a host of other annoying world problems?

Strong sense of Family Values? This from a culture that kills new-born baby girls because they're female? Riiight.

Taiwan doesn't want to be a part of you people and your ethnic cleansing. Get over it. You want the island? Then create an environment the people will flock to and prosper under. Tibet sound familiar? Although I do approve your crushing Islamo-fascists every chance you get.

You want to increase your Army's size? Go for it. They couldn't whip Vietnam's ass 30 years ago and I don't see much improvement in the interim.

Keep one very important thing in mind: You economy needs us more than we need you.

To paraphrase Nikita Kruschev: We will bury you.

No doubt you're an enlightened scholar and understand the subtext; but I'll explain for the audience at home. Your grandchildren will be capitalists just like us; and your dreams of a Maoist Utopia will be in the same hole as you.

1. play by the gun: im referring to the cold war era. it's quite a lot of action in the 50s in many parts of the world
2. i dont know if china will really be #1, but reaching the status of superpower is definite. and as for intervention policy, PRC's more focused in domestic growth and fixing up its own issues right now. for fact PRC's less active in world theater, resolving world conflicts, and peacekeeping than the US
3. as for killing off girls: it's same as lotus feet. it's sth stupid. again, it's those stubborn folks who believe guys are more useful than girls, then they kill off their daughter. it's really cruel and im against those things myself. (i havent mention before, but we chinese really abide by traditional thoughts, therefore it's not unusual for old ignorant outdated thoughts to remain in those previous generations. it's only this generation that's starting to become better. also the population control is starting to ease off.) another argument is that despite the killing of the daughters, that's only one minor point that shouldnt be the reason to overlook the overall structure of our values and beliefs. for example chinese new year is the time when families always get back together from wherever they are for dinner.
4. macarthur considered using atomic weapon on PRC before. US also granted amnesity to some japanese war criminals of unit 731.
5. taiwan: mixture of aboriginals, immigrants, and nationalists. it's been a split of nationalists vs communists all along. ROC and PRC. either way it's maintained as in "china". however the changes of roc to republic of taiwan is a symbol of complete separate nation. and anyways, i neither agree nor disagree with taiwan's status quo. i want to remain neutral about the political status, since technically taiwan is run by another party with a different government system. however speaking by ethnicity,
whoever's part of the han family remains a han. , and there are a lot of hans in taiwan

6. as for ethnic cleansing, please explain.
7. as for army size: PLA's trading its size for more modernized and higher quality training and troops and equipment. to your point regarding sino-vietnamese war: if we compare korean war when PRC and NK vs UN,US,SK and still maintained a ceasefire.
8. PRC holds billions of US treasury bonds.
9. im from hk. for the 3rd time i've said, im not pro-PRC. i disagree with the corruption, the abuse, the inhumane treatment. i lived in democratic society, and now i live in vancouver. i prefer democracy. im from hk, so i lived and loved democracy. i support my culture, not the government.
and lastly

10. im neither pro-US, but i certainly dont hate. i speak against the anti-US and anti-japanese individuals in chinese forums. im one of those who try try to break the ice, because i see there's a lot of misunderstanding in the three groups.

in chinese eyes, american intervention in different parts of the world shows expansionism and national interests. taiwan strait +US = intruding "family matters". iraq war = oil. bombing of chinese embassy = on purpose. accusations of human rights+reports of abuse = western propaganda, gun culture + columbine high school shooting = americans love guns, okinawa = american outpost ready to enter chinese waters anytime. however many chinese dont missed the part that US is trying to help/aid some parts of the world. this came at the fault of disastrous results and government propaganda. also PRC also sees the distrust of US as PRC climbs the ladder in the world stage, fearing US will hinder.


in chinese eyes, many couldn't forget the atrocities the japanese committed. the unofficial apologies and repeated visits to the shrine by koizuma angers the chinese. (to "us"(im an exclusion), visiting the shrine means insincere apology, no remorse, and possible revival of japanese militarism. for the japanese, the shrine includes other national defenders, so their respect to the shrine isn't just homage to the class A war criminals alone. so the scenario goes: we think they're praying to the war criminals, when they're praying for their warriors excluding the war criminals, but just happens the war criminals have their names in the same shrine)
sadly the hatred are being taught by some of those of the past generation to the new. the rape of nanjing etc. also the japanese-taiwanese-american trio gives off uneasy feeling to some of those who are extreme patriotic/nationalistic radicals. they not only consider it a threat, they hate the three as they see japan and US will back taiwan into maturing its status quo as completely independent.

to the japanese, PRC as a growing nation with still grudges in the previous generation and the rapid growth in miltary and economy worries the japanese.

as for the US, PRC = a growing competitor that cant be trust, due to the non-transparent records and intentions of the PLA, and also the growth of its economy and its importance in teh world stage threaten/compete American benefits. the human rights and the red word(communist of course), as well as media's image of the PRC worries the people.

overall i see the problems to be misunderstand and not trusting each other. PRC's relations with taiwan and japan are making progress. it goes the same for sino-american relations. i hope to see improvements and cooperation, as that gets more done than killing each other. last thing i want to see will be war involving chinese, americans, and japanese. everyone's gonna get hurt real bad

[ravenshield936]

Ravenshield,

Have you seen the latest BBC report?

China is breaking the UN arms embargo on Sudan.

They have been supplying K8 trainers to the Sudanese government for two years and are currently training Sudanese pilots to fly Chinese Fanton Fighter Jets. Does this mean that they are directly affecting the carnage that is taking place in Darfur? Oh, I forgot. It's only the US that brings guns into the process, right?

China is also the main buyer of Sudanese oil.

But then, what's a little gun running, bribery and genocide among friends, especially when it's done for the purpose of bringing China up to the living standards of the west?

thanks for the reminder. irony the 5 major powers (france, uk, US, PRC, russia) are the major supplier of arms themselves isnt it. and yup i know PRC's been supplying weapons everywhere: africa, se. asia..many places.

[ravenshield936]

Of course you are, your protestations about loyalty to Canada notwithstanding. You view yourself as chinese first, last, and always. You have your residence/business in Hong Kong (previous post) but live in the land of "Golden Mountain". Anyone who lives or has lived in Vancouver knows all about the post Expo '86 "Asian Invasion", and knows from 20 years+ of dealing with you folks what your true feelings are, you are so arrogant and superior in your attitude that you can't hide it. Why don't you tell the members of this forum about your belief, expressed often by chinese there, that eventually you will "own" the lower mainland of B.C.. Tell them about the jewelery shop in Richmond (an almost entirely asian suburb that was farmland before the tidal wave of chinese immigration necessitated more housing) that had a sign up in the window in chinese saying "no western trade wanted"; a little inside joke until a white Canadian who spoke and read Mandarin came along.



Well, take your best shot. You know full well no one will be invading PRC, YOU will be the one doing to others what Japan did to you. I hope I'm around to take part in the whole thing on some level. At least you are now telling the truth about your true feelings, as opposed to your dissembling earlier posts.



You have just directly contradicted your earlier statement on another post. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

I lived in Vancouver for a few years, with an Asian woman for 5 of them. I know you as you truly are, not who you claim to be. If you could, you would attmpt to brand me as a racist, where in fact you are the one who qualifies for that label based on your statement about ethnicity. If a Canadian of European descent attempted to immigrate to China what would the result be? Certainly nothing like you have received in Canada due to lack of frontsight (not a misprint) by the socialist fellow travellers of P.E.T. who infest the government to this day and have unfortunately been very sucessful in brainwashing the population. You do not attempt to fit in, you attempt to co-opt and take over. You self segregate and make snide remarks in your own language about non asian Canadians to their face, foolishly thinking that only chinese speak or understand chinese. There ARE Chinese who are integraed into Canada and are grateful to Canada to have a life where they are free and not subject to being sterilized forcefully, or having their children killed because they are female, but you are not one of them.

Tell the members of this board about how the PRC government uses it's intelligence agents to threaten and coerce chinese citizens on Canadian soil. Tell them about the massive intelligence gathering operation run out of the huge chinese embassy on Granville St..

it's unfortunate you meet arrogant chinese, but that goes without saying i meet racist whites and white supremists too. i dont complain about that. dont generalize everyone. also if im here to destroy socnet with some stupid chinese-supremist and bigot, i'd have done that earlier. swear words is a statement itself. if my intention's to offend i dont need to go through paragraphs of discussions and replying.

and reading your post further i only feel you are directing your anger and hatred towards me about the classic "chinese taking our jobs"
do we kill your kids and request head tax on another ethnicity? bump people into reserves? if i dont attempt to fit in why do i need to learn english? you people hate us when we speak our mother tongue. you hate us again when we're speaking yours.

im from hk. i dont get killed off like in china. YOU can choose to doubt everything i say, but then that's your own issue.

and you do not know who i am. you are not me. your words are getting personal and offensive. also how do you know for certain what treatment immigrants from europe to china receive?
and also you say we are arrogant. but are all caucasians better? why are there cone hats?

and dont even get me started on stereotypes and racisms in n. america.

and guess what, immigrants work harder than some of those born locally because we either enter this country with loads of cash, or we work our butt off for a living. we have our ways of expressing our gratitude and love for this country. we come here for a better living. some came to this country with a PHD and ends up at mcdonalds, then work 80 hours for $6.50, not taking a break off on sunday while others smoke weed all day by the beach.

is it our fault for establishing business and bring in things we enjoyed in asia, to vancouver? is it a crime? you can detest our way of life, but the fact is we exist, and we have our way of life and thinking.

if we all have to enter canada and adopt completely, define assimilation.
dont blame us for other people's blunders. and i dont even get your statement with "i've been with 5 asian girls"
does that make you feel proud? or that you think 5 asian girls = all chinese thoughts?

or are you suggesting to me, asian fetish, or the classic "white guy and asian girls" thing again?

[ravenshield936]

Unlike the US, you're country is concerned about growing up to world standards?

The USA has some of the most stringent enviornmental regulations in the world. Does your country?

Maybe your rivers are dying, the fishermen are going out of business and your farm lands are rotting because you are having bad luck. Maybe the Gods are angry at you. It wouldn't have anything to do with the total disregard that the PRC and Chinese industry has for it's natural resources, would it? Is that why you have to buy up land in Brazil to grow Soybeans? Is it because mother nature has dealt your land a bad hand at the card table of life?

This eight nation alliance you talk about happened 108 years ago and came about because foreigners in your country were being butchered. Get over it.

Furthemore don't compare us with the Japanese invasion of your country, in the 1930s and 40s. If it weren't for the hated westerners, your country would probably be living under the Rising Sun right now.

As far as family values in the PRC, I doubt that a government the likes of which encourages limiting family size, to the point where infanticide has become a problem, as per male vs. female births, is exactly a model nation for family values.

Tibet, Tianneman Square, Korea, Vietnam all negate your inference that China is not a country that resorts to the gun.

You are planning your future very cunningly and unfortunately with the cooperation of the rest of the world.

You are ruining your natural resources, buying up land in other countries, engaging in lopsided trade and building up your military. Your plans are to encroach on other nations, with your military, once your land is depleted and polluted beyond use and your population becomes too big for your beloved PRC to support.

The world had better wake up. Your country is an economic and military threat that will grow over the next 25 to 50 years. Then we'll all see who lives by the gun. It may be too late by then for the rest of the world to do much about it. I hope not.

You call yourself a neutral, analytical person who loves democracy. You claim to be a Canadian immigrant but everything that you write identifies you as an admirer of the PRC. My opinion is that you are probably much more than just an admirer. How can anyone espouse views like yours and not be an active participant? I've read all of your posts,both on this thread and on the thread dealing with China and Iraqi oil deals. You are not the innocent democratically oriented person that you say you are.

yes it's long time ago the eight nation alliance. but the humiliation stayed as cultural shame. many have forgotten but it's enough to remind us not to be weak again. as for ww2, i never said i forgotten. canadians went to hk, my city, to fight. chinese did a lot of the fighting in ww2, being equivalent to german's version of russia in the western front.

as for family size. if we maintained the growth, overpopulation is the result. limiting is only fair. it's not like we are prevented to reproduce.

as for PRC using gun: we dont participate overseas matter, and after those events, we havent been in war since.

as for what happens in the future, i have absolutely no idea. dont ask me when PRC's gonna launch a nuke or something. again, im just a civilian, citizen of hk, born there, immigrated to vancouver.

and parajuevos
you can choose to question and doubt. but i can place my head on the bet that a real anti-US chinese is much much unimaginable

also im not admirer of PRC. we immigrated to canada because my dad hated the government. i dont know that much about the government, and im a proud supporter of traditional chinese, not simplified.

i argue against anti-american posters on a chinese forums

i dont care if you guys dont believe me, but i've stated. im not supportive of the government, nor against. if im a supporter, i'll be proud and to the mouth, not criticize its flaws.
someone here asked me to take a firm stand, and mine is: im neither supportive nor against PRC, nor to US. i criticize and praise what i see will be right and wrong. i love my people, and i cherish what i have. my freedom and what i own. i respect others and i expect the same. i didnt say "america must die", dont want to hear it, and i dont want to hear "chinese people must die"

better everyone enjoy what we have now 'cause nothing's permanent.

and i'll say this: if im supportive of PRC, i'll be throwing insults the moment someone insults my government.

and for your information, i criticize my own people when they're stubbornly justifying chinese occupation of tibet. i can send you the link if you want to read.

and if i offended anyone in my posts, i give my apologies

[bobofthedesert]

i dont even get your statement with "i've been with 5 asian girls" does that make you feel proud? or that you think 5 asian girls = all chinese thoughts?

LOL......You don't get it because I didn't say it. What I said was I lived with ONE asian woman for FIVE years. Read carefully. My point was that in those 5 years I had a lot of exposure to the asian community in "HongCouver" and some of their outlooks and opinions which people who live in Vancouver but don't have that level of interaction with the asian population don't get. I went to numerous social functions where there were hundreds of asians and I was one of perhaps 3 non-asians. It was an educational experience. It's OK if I am referred to in a derogitory manner as a "roundeye" in a language I am not thought to understand, but if I were to speak of "slanted eyes", I would be a racist.......

As for having an asian fetish, if I ever had one, I am completely cured....

The Vancouver area absorbed tens of thousands of asian immigrants in a few short years. It would be foolish not to nexpect some resentment from those who lived there previously that see the place they live changed drastically, and not for the better. I stand by my statement that an equivalent populational shift in the other direction would never be tolerated by the population or government in question.

[Matchanu]

i argue against anti-american posters on a chinese forums




It seems to me you want to spread your message to any and all forums, and whine to the mods when you think you are being picked on.


I have a feeling your stay here is going to be short lived, either by your own accord, or by ours.

My advice? Read more, post less. Get a feel for this board and how it operates. If you don't like the way things are run here, move on to something else.

[Parajuevos]

it's unfortunate you meet arrogant chinese, but that goes without saying i meet racist whites and white supremists too. i dont complain about that. dont generalize everyone. also if im here to destroy socnet with some stupid chinese-supremist and bigot, i'd have done that earlier. swear words is a statement itself. if my intention's to offend i dont need to go through paragraphs of discussions and replying.

and reading your post further i only feel you are directing your anger and hatred towards me about the classic "chinese taking our jobs"
do we kill your kids and request head tax on another ethnicity? bump people into reserves? if i dont attempt to fit in why do i need to learn english? you people hate us when we speak our mother tongue. you hate us again when we're speaking yours.

im from hk. i dont get killed off like in china. YOU can choose to doubt everything i say, but then that's your own issue.

and you do not know who i am. you are not me. your words are getting personal and offensive. also how do you know for certain what treatment immigrants from europe to china receive?
and also you say we are arrogant. but are all caucasians better? why are there cone hats?

and dont even get me started on stereotypes and racisms in n. america.

and guess what, immigrants work harder than some of those born locally because we either enter this country with loads of cash, or we work our butt off for a living. we have our ways of expressing our gratitude and love for this country. we come here for a better living. some came to this country with a PHD and ends up at mcdonalds, then work 80 hours for $6.50, not taking a break off on sunday while others smoke weed all day by the beach.

is it our fault for establishing business and bring in things we enjoyed in asia, to vancouver? is it a crime? you can detest our way of life, but the fact is we exist, and we have our way of life and thinking.

if we all have to enter canada and adopt completely, define assimilation.
dont blame us for other people's blunders. and i dont even get your statement with "i've been with 5 asian girls"
does that make you feel proud? or that you think 5 asian girls = all chinese thoughts?

or are you suggesting to me, asian fetish, or the classic "white guy and asian girls" thing again?

In your first paragraph you state that you are not here to destroy Socnet. No, you aren't because nobody here will buy your communist diatribe.

In paragraph six, you state that your people come here and work for $6.50 per hour even though some of them have a PH.Ds. Why would someone with a PH.D. come here and work for $6.50 an hour? Why wouldn't they stay in China and use their education to better the plight of their people? I'll tell you why. Greed and self interest.

You infer that we caucasions are racists. I say that you want us to change our culture to accomodate your people and that you don't care enough to stay home,where your culture originated and help the people, who you say that you love so much.

In paragraph seven, you whine that we westerners "detest your way of life" but "the fact is that we exist and have our way of life and thinking." This statement says it all. Your attitude is that the countries that your people immigrate to are supposed to adapt to you and not the other way around.

You protest too much about being neutral. I'll say what I said before. You are not neutral. I believe that you are a commie pipsqueak, who while living in the west and benefiting from it's financial opportunities, secretly hopes for the day when the hoards of people, from your beloved PRC, will be sufficiently entrenched, in all parts of the world, to control everything.

Furthermore, for someone who claims to be apolitical, you seem to have a very definite opinion about the perceived injustices that have been heaped upon your beloved PRC.

You are unable to hide your true beliefs with your patronizing and condescending dialogue. You are an opportunist and a PRC nationalist, regardless of your protestations of living in Hong Kong, "where the Carriers visit."

[ET1/ss nuke]

What was that weed imported from Korea, planted in the south along roadways to combat erosion? The last time I saw some it was overgrowing the trees, vines grabbing into everything.

Kudzu.

One is pretty, sweet-smelling, and seems harmless. Soon there are a thousand effectively performing menial tasks like stopping highway and railway erosion, but folks ignore the potential danger. Eventually, there are billions of them overtaking everything, and there may be no stopping the takeover short of nuclear war.

I love Chinese food. It smells sweet.

[ravenshield936]

LOL......You don't get it because I didn't say it. What I said was I lived with ONE asian woman for FIVE years. Read carefully. My point was that in those 5 years I had a lot of exposure to the asian community in "HongCouver" and some of their outlooks and opinions which people who live in Vancouver but don't have that level of interaction with the asian population don't get. I went to numerous social functions where there were hundreds of asians and I was one of perhaps 3 non-asians. It was an educational experience. It's OK if I am referred to in a derogitory manner as a "roundeye" in a language I am not thought to understand, but if I were to speak of "slanted eyes", I would be a racist.......

As for having an asian fetish, if I ever had one, I am completely cured....

The Vancouver area absorbed tens of thousands of asian immigrants in a few short years. It would be foolish not to nexpect some resentment from those who lived there previously that see the place they live changed drastically, and not for the better. I stand by my statement that an equivalent populational shift in the other direction would never be tolerated by the population or government in question.

hk have that problem before with vietnamese flooding the city when they escape from the communist, so i know the resentment
i lived in vancouver ever since i was 6, so i've seen things happen

anyways let's just leave it at that.

[ravenshield936]

It seems to me you want to spread your message to any and all forums, and whine to the mods when you think you are being picked on.
I have a feeling your stay here is going to be short lived, either by your own accord, or by ours.

My advice? Read more, post less. Get a feel for this board and how it operates. If you don't like the way things are run here, move on to something else.

thank you i'll be reading more. i've registered for a while, but i didn't take too much time into this forum until recently. and im not a whiny kid. the how not to post shows those with lots of attention seeking problems. and maybe i'm really sick of replying to the accusations by now, please don't assume who i am. when i say im not, i mean it, and i dont want to go through more words explaining. im here to seek good discussions and share ideas.
and for your information, i use only two military forums. the rest are either for bittorrent or entertainment. i stayed with this forum, and the reason i came here first place is because i enjoy the socnet stuff and reading about it. of course there are lots of terms i dont get because im not a professional. and yes i have fun in this forum, and im not planning to leave because of petty arguments cause of who i am. when i understand the forum and the folks here better i'll share goodies.:D

[Parajuevos]

im not planning to leave because of petty arguments cause of who i am. when i understand the forum and the folks here better i'll share goodies.:D

You don't seem to understand.

The arguments that have been directed to you because of your distorted, brainwashed and pro-PRC views are not "petty." They are based on reality which seems to be something that you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge.

Because we didn't jump aboard your communist band wagon, as you would have liked, does not make us petty.

[Matchanu]

I'm trying to decide if I should leave this thread open, considering is was started a few years ago anyway.

[ravenshield936]

In your first paragraph you state that you are not here to destroy Socnet. No, you aren't because nobody here will buy your communist diatribe.

In paragraph six, you state that your people come here and work for $6.50 per hour even though some of them have a PH.Ds. Why would someone with a PH.D. come here and work for $6.50 an hour? Why wouldn't they stay in China and use their education to better the plight of their people? I'll tell you why. Greed and self interest.

You infer that we caucasions are racists. I say that you want us to change our culture to accomodate your people and that you don't care enough to stay home,where your culture originated and help the people, who you say that you love so much.

In paragraph seven, you whine that we westerners "detest your way of life" but "the fact is that we exist and have our way of life and thinking." This statement says it all. Your attitude is that the countries that your people immigrate to are supposed to adapt to you and not the other way around.

You protest too much about being neutral. I'll say what I said before. You are not neutral. I believe that you are a commie pipsqueak, who while living in the west and benefiting from it's financial opportunities, secretly hopes for the day when the hoards of people, from your beloved PRC, will be sufficiently entrenched, in all parts of the world, to control everything.

Furthermore, for someone who claims to be apolitical, you seem to have a very definite opinion about the perceived injustices that have been heaped upon your beloved PRC.

You are unable to hide your true beliefs with your patronizing and condescending dialogue. You are an opportunist and a PRC nationalist, regardless of your protestations of living in Hong Kong, "where the Carriers visit."

for the last time, im not communist. STOP saying im communist PLEASE. and no you don't need to tell me why. my family knew this chinese doctor who left beijing with grudge against the government because they targeted intellectuals. tell me about it. cultural revolution's stupid and i hated it. my uncle is brainwashed and he's got the paranoid syndrome now. my great grandpa was a victim of being pitted in the cultural revolution. my parents took to the parade in '89, and we left in '94 to canada because we feared the government.

i didn't say caucasians are generally racist. my response is to someone who's implying we're invaders and self-weapons for the PRC kinda thing. i've met tons of white people that are very nice, and im not planning to let a few haters ruin everything.

ok as for the "way of life and things", we enjoy singing karaoke, and since there aren't any in canada, isn't it fine we start a karaoke place for chinese and the likes to have fun? canada's multicultural, so we see different ethnics expressing different cultures. we adapt to everyone here. we dont submit to one culture. i guess it's different in the US. i wont say you're wrong, but then because it's different upstairs, our beliefs are different. and let's just leave it as that.




ok for the last time im going to say this. i am not communist.
stop accusing me of something i've said im not. this is extremely irritating for me and i dont want to hear from anyone ever again to say i am. you can go and hate the PRC and government. i could care less. but if you bring a point about something worthy of mention, i will share. if it's something i don't know, share with me. i appreciate someone telling me about PRC breaking the weapons embargo recently.

ok no more accusations of me being a communist please. im really sick of this.

stop accusing me from this point on. if it's discussions related to foreign policy itself, i'll love to talk about it. if it's complains about my heritage, please no.

if someone mentions im a communist again, i'll see this as provoking.

[ravenshield936]

I'm trying to decide if I should leave this thread open, considering is was started a few years ago anyway.

the only thing i hope for from this thread from this point on is merely about thoughtful discussions about foreign policy. i'll apologize if i violated any rules or seemed rude or very leftist. im not communist and it's not my intention to do so, but maybe im giving a wrong idea to the folks here

otherwise if no discussion's happening, i'll move onto another thread and read something else.

[CV]

the only thing i hope for from this thread from this point on is merely about thoughtful discussions about foreign policy. i'll apologize if i violated any rules or seemed rude or very leftist. im not communist and it's not my intention to do so, but maybe im giving a wrong idea to the folks here

otherwise if no discussion's happening, i'll move onto another thread and read something else.

Commie scum!

WOLVERINES!!!!

http://www.spideysenses.com/wp-content/wolverines.jpg

[tnkspe119]

CV,

You had me laughing so hard I almost pissed my pants. As I was reading Ravens posts about being pissed about being a commie and then starts to say "please stop or I will consider this provocation"...I just knew someone would say it...glad you did I needed a good laugh:D

[mrwill]

The US has enough situational awareness of where China is placing it emphasis, both monetary and military-wise. It's just a matter of continuing to maintain our counter measures and develop our own abilities. It should be motivation for us to keep sharp and not get tunnel vision as far as the "enemy threat" goes. Their emphasis on military organized hacking and other electronic related attack abilities should be a good motivation for us to encourage our current and future generations to continue to develop their technology skills past reading their email.

[Parajuevos]

The US has enough situational awareness of where China is placing it emphasis, both monetary and military-wise. It's just a matter of continuing to maintain our counter measures and develop our own abilities. It should be motivation for us to keep sharp and not get tunnel vision as far as the "enemy threat" goes. Their emphasis on military organized hacking and other electronic related attack abilities should be a good motivation for us to encourage our current and future generations to continue to develop their technology skills past reading their email.

Excellent point.

[Johan]

chinese did a lot of the fighting in ww2, being equivalent to german's version of russia in the western front

Complete nonsense.

Communist and Nationalist Chinese were worthless against Japanese in fight in world war 2. Both avoid combat and retreat at first sign of fight, both have intention of saving military strength for civil war they know will happen after Japan is defeated (by the USA). Of course this does not stop them from accepting large amount of money, weapon, other aid from US and lying to the Nation that is fighting the Japanese who would otherwise turn all of China into slave labor.

As for your other comment-

"we think they're praying to the war criminals, when they're praying for their warriors excluding the war criminals, but just happens the war criminals have their names in the same shrine"

Japanese military commit many atrocity during world war 2. It is systemic atrocity, and people of Asia (majority being Chinese people) suffer the most.

But I wonder if your communist and nationalist join forces to protect people they claim so much to care about, maybe Japanese not walk on you like the door mat?

And activity of China since world war 2 has made China lose any moral superiority over Japan. Communism has always been and always will be superior killer of the innocent to any nationalism. When Chinese govt. person rage against Japan for daring to honor their fallen Soldier, the hand that points to Japan is covered in the blood of innocent person. So I would say in my best American English "Who gives a fuck what the Chinese think about any Japanese Shrine?" Stop worrying about Japanese Shrine and maybe get your 'soldier' to stop shooting unarmed pilgrim from Tibet:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hXC5RxhZUYw

To state the obvious- that PRC exists today is due to huge sacrifice by USA during world war 2. USA does not go to war to "save China", but the survival of China is a nice side benefit for people of China.

To all others reading- this person is not representative of Chinese people in my experience. Most I have met are very fond of USA, much more aware of actual history (and they are current resident of China). The Chinese person I have met have less regard for Germany and UK due to imperialist activity of these Nation in China during late 1800 early 1900 time.

[ravenshield936]

Complete nonsense.

Communist and Nationalist Chinese were worthless against Japanese in fight in world war 2. Both avoid combat and retreat at first sign of fight, both have intention of saving military strength for civil war they know will happen after Japan is defeated (by the USA). Of course this does not stop them from accepting large amount of money, weapon, other aid from US and lying to the Nation that is fighting the Japanese who would otherwise turn all of China into slave labor.

As for your other comment-

"we think they're praying to the war criminals, when they're praying for their warriors excluding the war criminals, but just happens the war criminals have their names in the same shrine"

Japanese military commit many atrocity during world war 2. It is systemic atrocity, and people of Asia (majority being Chinese people) suffer the most.

But I wonder if your communist and nationalist join forces to protect people they claim so much to care about, maybe Japanese not walk on you like the door mat?

And activity of China since world war 2 has made China lose any moral superiority over Japan. Communism has always been and always will be superior killer of the innocent to any nationalism. When Chinese govt. person rage against Japan for daring to honor their fallen Soldier, the hand that points to Japan is covered in the blood of innocent person. So I would say in my best American English "Who gives a fuck what the Chinese think about any Japanese Shrine?" Stop worrying about Japanese Shrine and maybe get your 'soldier' to stop shooting unarmed pilgrim from Tibet:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hXC5RxhZUYw

To state the obvious- that PRC exists today is due to huge sacrifice by USA during world war 2. USA does not go to war to "save China", but the survival of China is a nice side benefit for people of China.

To all others reading- this person is not representative of Chinese people in my experience. Most I have met are very fond of USA, much more aware of actual history (and they are current resident of China). The Chinese person I have met have less regard for Germany and UK due to imperialist activity of these Nation in China during late 1800 early 1900 time.

Go ahead and deny other nations' involvement in the war. US is correct for granting amnesty to Japanese war criminals of Unit 731 right? You think US can win WWII alone? You think US will win the Pacific theater if the Japanese were fighting the US alone?
Communism is a political ideology. Nationalism is the love of one's own nation. I don't know how you mix those together. They teach modern history in Grade 12. Never too late to take a summer course.
Oh and guess what:
Good job for figuring out someone's ethnicity just by reading several posts. Give yourself a pat. Tell us about aliens tomorrow.

[Richman]

I'm trying to decide if I should leave this thread open, considering is was started a few years ago anyway.

Keep it open please. It is still relevant today as it was a few years ago. Maybe deleting some of the irrelevant posts to get it back on track would be worth while.

I will say this though - and this is coming from a guy who has spent a substantial amount (years) of time in Asia (Japan and China) and who is married to a PRC woman - that the Chinese have been looking for something to be proud of for some time now. I can see it when I visit my in-laws, they don't trust or like the government but are proud to be Chinese. My mother-in-law sings the national anthem when it plays up on CCTV. She worked in the government and knows first hand how corrupt it is.

The Chinese know that they are a 3rd or 2nd class country compared to the "west" but the "progress" of late has given them something to be proud of. The Olympics is seen as their way of showing off their country and are going through great lengths to show off.

Their economy is growing fast but has many weak links and is going to snap at some point. When this happens they are going to hurt, and hurt very bad. There is not much of a backup plan, no cushion to accept a blow. I predict riots on a HUGE scale. Just like in the 80's with Japan, if the USA sneezes, China will get a bad cold.

Right now the majority of the population is concerned about monetary acquisition and how much they can accumulate. This desire has blinded them to the consequences of their actions. IE: Corrupt government + cutting corner contractor + a school building + earthquake = dead kids of parents who are too old to have another son to carry on the family name and business = pissed of population. The CCTV news had hit this bit of news although it was very slight, and is not mentioned at all now. My wife said they expected some protests on the 1 month anniversary, I don't know what happened.

I digress.

I expect (and would hope) that anyone from their home country be proud of it and want it to be number one. But ravenshield936 seems to believe the crap that comes out of Beijing. I have to point out a lot of lies and inconsistencies with the statements in the Chinese News to my wife. One time she told me she was watching news from Taiwan. I had to tell her it was a PRC "news" agency claiming to represent the Taiwan news and was actually home based out of Beijing.

ravenshield936 doesn't represent the majority of the Chinese population in the PRC (but his pride does) with what he says. He must be watching and believing everything on CCTV, which ranks up there with Al-jazeera IMHO. History and current events are screwed by those who present it. CCTV does a pretty good job at putting everyone down expect the PRC. HK used to be a good place when the British had it. Too bad they gave it back.

My wife loves the USA and will be a full blown citizen next year, although she says that our TV shows are too “open” for her. I just wish they would have taught basic stuff in school like why the moon shines at night, basic anatomy, and that water will not seep into your belly through your belly button and hurt the baby when you take a bath. :rolleyes:

[SOTB]

Blah-motherfucking-blah.You were given some friendly advice earlier about posting. You stated you understood and would heed that advice. As usual, whiners/trolls like yourself always come back looking to stir up more shit.

Read the stickies -- simply put, you are a flame magnet. STOP BEING ONE. If you don't know how to write in English well enough to do so without getting the readers pissed off, then ask someone for assistance.

Honestly, if you think you are coming to this board and will be given a platform from which to point out our flaws and preach the virtues of China, you're mistaken.

OK, you got another warning -- somewhat rare on this board. Make good use of it....

[NightLandNav]

Go ahead and deny other nations' involvement in the war. US is correct for granting amnesty to Japanese war criminals of Unit 731 right? You think US can win WWII alone? You think US will win the Pacific theater if the Japanese were fighting the US alone?
Communism is a political ideology. Nationalism is the love of one's own nation. I don't know how you mix those together. They teach modern history in Grade 12. Never too late to take a summer course.
Oh and guess what:
Good job for figuring out someone's ethnicity just by reading several posts. Give yourself a pat. Tell us about aliens tomorrow.

I only got that far.

Kid, it's not that you are insignificant, and have no hope of looking back on these years and grimace...

It's just that now you're in a phase where you really don't know WTF you're talking about, think you do, and don't recognize those who can see the difference.

"You don't know me."

Right now, a whole lot better than you do.


Even though I won't read any response you write after this, you'll write one.

...prove me right, and I still won't read it. So prove me wrong.

[Bro]

1. Are you aware that your handle is based off a mediocre at best Tom Clancy game based off a formulaic Tom Clancy novel?

2. Do you have a hot sister?? :D

Just wondering.

-Bro

[Silverbullet]

Go ahead and deny other nations' involvement in the war.

It's interesting that your writing style has changed all of a sudden. Now you are using punctuation, capitalization and your verbiage has changed as well.

I think you are playing a game and you're here to stir the pot.

You're a clown.

I suspect your stay is going to end abruptly.

[Richman]

It's interesting that your writing style has changed all of a sudden. Now you are using punctuation, capitalization and your verbiage has changed as well.

Hmmm, good catch. I didn't see it. I'm wondering if his IP is really from Vancouver BC or overseas?

[SOTB]

Hmmm, good catch. I didn't see it. I'm wondering if his IP is really from Vancouver BC or overseas?Nothing unusual when reviewed....

[Frog]

He's banned for 2 years.

[Richman]

Nothing unusual when reviewed....

Curiosity satisfied. Thanks.

I would hope that this thread gets back on track (and certain posts removed to keep its original integrity) as I am most interested in this subject. But it looks like "ravenshield" started this latest round and put this thread back on my radar screen....

xie xie

[Greenhat]

Complete nonsense.

Communist and Nationalist Chinese were worthless against Japanese in fight in world war 2. Both avoid combat and retreat at first sign of fight, both have intention of saving military strength for civil war they know will happen after Japan is defeated (by the USA). Of course this does not stop them from accepting large amount of money, weapon, other aid from US and lying to the Nation that is fighting the Japanese who would otherwise turn all of China into slave labor.


Not entirely true. Not only do some of the Chinese forces actually fight the Japanese, China tied down almost all of the Japanese Army for most of the war. The troops that the USA (Army and Marines), Aussies and Kiwis fought were mostly Japanese Marines (Special Naval Landing Forces - Rikusentai) with a few significant exceptions (the Phillippines being the largest).

From the point of view of tying down enemy forces, China was like the Soviets. From the point of view of beating enemy forces, China was nothing like the Soviets. :D

[Greenhat]

US is correct for granting amnesty to Japanese war criminals of Unit 731 right?

Seems to me that you are unaware of how International Law works. The Japanese could only be prosecuted for violations of International Law that they had agreed to. It isn't amnesty to not prosecute for portions of International Law that they weren't subject to.

You think US can win WWII alone? You think US will win the Pacific theater if the Japanese were fighting the US alone?

Admiral Yamamoto thought so.

[Sigi]

I don't buy the "they will seize oil", "they are building up their military to seize oil", etc. claims. That reminds me of the simple view of the movie "Syriana". Unless China is out to throw the world, starting with us and them, into a full-blown depression, then them using their military to seize oil or doing anything with their military is insane. And since every expert I've talked to has told me that the thing their govt. fears the most is instability- I don't see them doing something that will crash their booming economy.

Most likely (what's that popular saying about the usual answer is usually the simplest explanation?) they need oil the same reason we do: oil powers things. Actually- they need it more than we do because their economy is growing by leaps and bounds. I think that in the last 10 years they've pulled more people out of poverty faster than anyone else in history. I think a prof once said they've pulled more people out of poverty in that span of time than all nations combined throughout history.

So- for them to do something to reverse that and send their nation (and ours) into a death spiral is something I equate to the JFK conspiracy theories.
I agree. China has experienced the largest and fastest rise to world power of any country in history - larger and swifter than the US. In my opinion, a country of this size and growth will have to be given some substantial political - and even military - space commensurate with this power. I am not saying we should not draw lines with China, and certainly they should not be using this power for expansionism. But we have to give them space to grow, otherwise we're both in for a long series of confrontations and I don't see us getting a ton of support from the international community because it'll look as if we're jealous of their success. At least that's my opinion.

I think domestically our challenege is convincing our population that allowing China space to grow is not appeasement. We cannot allow them to use that power to expand 'an Empire' so to speak, but so far I have not seen that from China. From what I have read that is not what the people or the govt wish. Sure people bring up Taiwan, but like it or not China feels Taiwan is part of them, like Hawaii - I guess. I don't fully understand Taiwan so I won't pretend to know if their attitude is warranted.

We cannot draw lines everywhere on the globe, especially now with the rise of other world powers. We need to change our thinking to compete in the world today. Part of that is learning to use China in order to frame our future. It will take quite a while for China to catch us economically, but at the rate they're growing it could be sooner than later. So why not approach them not as a threat but as a partner in the world.

It is going to come to a point where China does catch us economically, and quite possibly militarily. Why fight this?

[Paranutz]

the only thing i hope for from this thread from this point on is merely about thoughtful discussions about foreign policy. i'll apologize if i violated any rules or seemed rude or very leftist. im not communist and it's not my intention to do so, but maybe im giving a wrong idea to the folks here

otherwise if no discussion's happening, i'll move onto another thread and read something else.

The point is, everyone is welcome, but you must accept the fact we are not Socialists. I for one, dislike anyone who threatens America. It can be economic or militarily. If PRC has ill will towards the US they better beware.:mad: About WWII, If The US decided to take the day off, Nazis would rule Europe and China would be a slave state of Japan. The US carried the burden on all fronts, even suppling the Russians. Tell that to all your friendly neighborhood Communists.

[Greenhat]

The US carried the burden on all fronts, even suppling the Russians.

Although we supplied the Russians with a significant amount of trucks, fighter planes and various other supplies, to claim that we carried the burden on all fronts is a bit over the top. The Russian peasant Soldier carried the burden on the Eastern front and we should not underestimate the burden that they carried or the role they had in the defeat of the Nazis. The Chinese (alone from 1933 until 1941) carried the burden in the CBI theatre, with significant help from small groups of Americans, larger groups of Brits and even larger groups of Indians. And though they weren't successful on the same scale as other theatres, we should not underestimate the burden that they carried. The British carried the burden alone from June of 1940 until the summer of 1941 in Europe, and their efforts to stay in the war may have been what allowed the Soviets to stay alive and eventually turn it around, and without the efforts of the British, what the US had to do in Europe would have been much, much harder.

[ksfa]

A few years ago... I heard a missionary, who works in remote jungle areas of Mexico, ask why the Chinese military would be training in the Mexican jungles. He even went to DC to report all that he had observed. I never heard about it again, but I wonder what was up or what happened to his information.

[Johan]

Not entirely true. Not only do some of the Chinese forces actually fight the Japanese, China tied down almost all of the Japanese Army for most of the war. The troops that the USA (Army and Marines), Aussies and Kiwis fought were mostly Japanese Marines (Special Naval Landing Forces - Rikusentai) with a few significant exceptions (the Phillippines being the largest).

From the point of view of tying down enemy forces, China was like the Soviets. From the point of view of beating enemy forces, China was nothing like the Soviets. :D

"Attention, class now begins". :)

I have some good time used to study pacific war, especially strategic aspect and "air-power" details.

First, to clarify- when I say "pointless" I talk of strategic aspect. I do not say this to slight bravery and hardship of Soldier on the ground. The error is with the officer making the strategic decision.

So Mr. Greenhat, here is summary of my understanding. I await correction (again). :)

Until end of war in Pacific, IJA unit in China can move at will. They face very light resistance, most from communist force acting as "guerilla" fighter. But most communist force are train and equip by soviets, and soviets use them to gather intelligence data on IJA forces that soviets know they will fight eventually. Soviet interaction with communist forces is similar to SOE in Europe. They train and equip them in Russia, send them into IJA-controlled China on sabotage, reconnaissance, usually not 'combat' mission.

Nationalist forces are almost useless, because they have inferior leadership on field of battle. Only Nationalist division that can fight are trained through all rank as US Army unit, equipped as US Army unit, under effective direction of US Army. I think there are 3? Maybe 5 division that are like this, and this is very small % of Nationalist forces.

Nationalist forces so poor that IJA overruns 2 USAAF B-29 base, against much larger number of Nationalist force.

Effort in India, Burma, even China is of no importance strategically however. Because US air forces (land and Navy) and US Submarine forces have almost eliminate ability of Japan to shift unit at strategic level. All of the IJA forces in China, Burma, India, and over half of Phillipine island- it was not necessary to engage them at all. They had no ability to influence strategic outcome of war by the time they are target by Allied forces. They cannot be moved to islands where they are needed for defense, they cannot be moved to Japan home island. The ship needed to move them will almost certainly be destroy by US submarine or aircraft.

My understanding is Burma and India- British leadership hope to keep these as part of empire after world war 2 is over, and so they feel they must 'liberate' them from IJA forces.

US focus in China was fault by US Generals after world war 2. "Waste of effort" because no amount of US leadership and logistical support could transform Nationalist forces into units able to take offensive action against IJA, and communist leadership is not trusted by US (for good reason).

Analysis by US Officer that I have read, they state that Macarthur is inept and promote friction between US Army and US Navy/US Marines, which result in 2 path of advance for US forces in Pacific and this is also wasted effort but USA is so strong industrially (Greatest Naval and Air Forces to ever see combat, probably for rest of time- this is USA in world war 2) that political leadership can 'humor' Macarthur. Pure military analysis of these US Officer after war- if all effort was with US Navy, end result is same, much fewer lives lost- American, Philipine, etc. Macarthur and his behavior is 'tolerate' by US President because Macarthur is very popular with many US citizen who are not aware of realities of leadership and direction of war in Pacific.

This is also why I say "US alone" in Pacific. UK, Australia, Indian- all have very brave Soldier and they do very hard fighting against very dangerous enemy. But without US presence, they are nearly as immobile as IJA forces.

I know this analysis is with 'all knolwedge' after war is finished for many years.

Be nice Teacher Greenhat, I bring some fresh berry to the class today. ;)

Respectfully,

[Johan]

From the point of view of beating enemy forces, China was nothing like the Soviets. :D

"Beating"? Maybe, if being drown by ocean is being "beaten" by ocean. You never had your turn to fight 30 million soviet, "Mr. Witt". ;)

Why, I should take your :D and- buy you a drink and shut up probably. ;)

Regards,

[tm3e]

The myth has been spread very effectively that the Red Army won through overwhelming numbers alone. In total the Red Army sustained 14.7 million permanent losses whilst inflicting 12.7 million permanent losses on the invading Axis forces.

[Johan]

whilst inflicting 12.7 million permanent losses on the invading Axis forces.

Where does this number come from? I have never seen this before.

Regards,

[tm3e]

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:P-HrJ8tnQegJ:www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf+David+M+Glantz+%27The+soviet+German+war+194 1-1945+myths+and+realities&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

[Greenhat]

"Attention, class now begins". :)

I have some good time used to study pacific war, especially strategic aspect and "air-power" details.

First, to clarify- when I say "pointless" I talk of strategic aspect. I do not say this to slight bravery and hardship of Soldier on the ground. The error is with the officer making the strategic decision.

From a strategic point of view, it all depends on the timeline.

So Mr. Greenhat, here is summary of my understanding. I await correction (again). :)

I learn a lot from you, Johan. Don't mind if I flip it around occassionally.


Until end of war in Pacific, IJA unit in China can move at will.

Definitely not true. If the IJA could have moved at will, they would have cut the supply lines for US supplies and completely destroyed the bases of the units like the AVG.

They face very light resistance, most from communist force acting as "guerilla" fighter.

In reality, how much resistance the IJA faced in a given area more often depended on the warlord that controlled that area. Some fought hard, some fought little, some fought not at all. The Communist forces had a tendency to do what you described, and try to maintain their forces for after the war.

But most communist force are train and equip by soviets, and soviets use them to gather intelligence data on IJA forces that soviets know they will fight eventually. Soviet interaction with communist forces is similar to SOE in Europe. They train and equip them in Russia, send them into IJA-controlled China on sabotage, reconnaissance, usually not 'combat' mission.

With the exception of using Chinese Communists to maintain tabs on Japan, none of this is true as far as I know. Neither the KGB or GRU put much effort into operations in Asia with the strong exception of Signet (they knew the Japanese would not attack from the East because of commo intercepts which allowed them to free up a lot of troops to fight the Nazis).

Nationalist forces are almost useless, because they have inferior leadership on field of battle.

Again, varied a great deal, depending on War Lord. Stilwell wanted to be able to give US aid based on how they fought. US DOS refused him that power.

Only Nationalist division that can fight are trained through all rank as US Army unit, equipped as US Army unit, under effective direction of US Army. I think there are 3? Maybe 5 division that are like this, and this is very small % of Nationalist forces.

More accurate would be "only nationalist divisions that can fight like US divisions".

Nationalist forces so poor that IJA overruns 2 USAAF B-29 base, against much larger number of Nationalist force.

Yep, but the fact that the IJA didn't overrun all of China in 12 years must also be taken into account. If the Chinese were as poor fighters as they have been portrayed, the Japanese would have overrun all of China, and in a lot less than 12 years... which would have freed IJA forces to be moved to strategic islands in 1941.

Effort in India, Burma, even China is of no importance strategically however. Because US air forces (land and Navy) and US Submarine forces have almost eliminate ability of Japan to shift unit at strategic level. All of the IJA forces in China, Burma, India, and over half of Phillipine island- it was not necessary to engage them at all. They had no ability to influence strategic outcome of war by the time they are target by Allied forces. They cannot be moved to islands where they are needed for defense, they cannot be moved to Japan home island. The ship needed to move them will almost certainly be destroy by US submarine or aircraft.

This is true from 1944 on, but not in 1943 and before. What difference occurs on Guadacanal in 1942 if the IJA can send a couple of divisions to reinforce it because they aren't tied down in China?

My understanding is Burma and India- British leadership hope to keep these as part of empire after world war 2 is over, and so they feel they must 'liberate' them from IJA forces.

Maybe. On the other hand, the tying down of as much of the Japanese combat power away from the Pacific Islands is a pretty significant task, and Indian Soldiers (the bulk of the Army in the Burma/India part of the theatre) prove to be pretty good at just that. Remember that Gurkhas and Indians make up a very large percentage of the Commonwealth forces. Does it make sense to abandon those major sources of combat power? Not to mention that strategic strikes against Bangkok, Japan, etc. aren't possible except from the CBI until the seizure of Saipan.

US focus in China was fault by US Generals after world war 2. "Waste of effort" because no amount of US leadership and logistical support could transform Nationalist forces into units able to take offensive action against IJA, and communist leadership is not trusted by US (for good reason).

I think if you research actual combat by the Nationalist Army both during the war against Mao and from Taiwan, you may be surprised at how good and professional some elements were and how hard they fought. Quality was inconsistent, but there were (and in Taiwan, still are) some very, very good troops and leaders as well as some very bad ones. I would contend that the problem was more around American Generals trying to turn Chinese Soldiers and Armies into western Armies rather than understanding the culture and using it to build an effective Army. As an example, railing against corruption instead of using the cultural norm.

Analysis by US Officer that I have read, they state that Macarthur is inept and promote friction between US Army and US Navy/US Marines, which result in 2 path of advance for US forces in Pacific and this is also wasted effort but USA is so strong industrially (Greatest Naval and Air Forces to ever see combat, probably for rest of time- this is USA in world war 2) that political leadership can 'humor' Macarthur. Pure military analysis of these US Officer after war- if all effort was with US Navy, end result is same, much fewer lives lost- American, Philipine, etc. Macarthur and his behavior is 'tolerate' by US President because Macarthur is very popular with many US citizen who are not aware of realities of leadership and direction of war in Pacific.

You need to find other analysis to read. MacArthur may be the most competent General in the US Army during WWII. His units suffered the lowest casualty rates (%) of any of the US ground forces. Surpasses even Patton in this regard. If MacArthur's approach had been the only one followed (it was Nimitz and King that wouldn't consider having the Navy subordinate to Mac, not the other way around), it is likely that US casualties in the Pacific would have been much, much lower. In WWII, MacArthur was extraordinarily successful... but most of the press went to the Marines who took massive casualties (more power to them. They were assaulting heavily defended island atolls). Marshall and King made the decision that the two-pronged assault would be made, in order to reduce the impact should failure happen on either prong (understanding that the risk of failure was higher in the Central Pacific because it was more subject to either naval or ground defeat). In addition, the South Pacific campaign was essential to support Australia.

This is also why I say "US alone" in Pacific. UK, Australia, Indian- all have very brave Soldier and they do very hard fighting against very dangerous enemy. But without US presence, they are nearly as immobile as IJA forces.

Hmmmm... I'll bet the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Navy would be surprised to hear that they didn't even have the ability to transport troops in the Pacific.

Remember, the Pacific is a very, very large piece of water. The US submarine forces were very successful in destroying Japanese merchant shipping because they could sit around the Japanese islands and knock out ships coming out of ports. It would have been a whole different ballgame if Japan had held China undetered and could ship IJA units from Chinese ports to locations needing reinforcement. The Japanese successfully engaged British warships because they knew those ships were enroute to Singapore. Most of the major naval battles occurred fairly near a landmass that brought the forces into conflict.

[Doctor_Doom]

Not entirely true. Not only do some of the Chinese forces actually fight the Japanese, China tied down almost all of the Japanese Army for most of the war. The troops that the USA (Army and Marines), Aussies and Kiwis fought were mostly Japanese Marines (Special Naval Landing Forces - Rikusentai) with a few significant exceptions (the Phillippines being the largest).

From the point of view of tying down enemy forces, China was like the Soviets. From the point of view of beating enemy forces, China was nothing like the Soviets. :D

Amen to that. It would be wrong to sa that the Chinese Nationalist forces through any meaningful contribution or intent were able to tie down Japanese forces, it was more that the Japanese army bit off more than it could chew, much like the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria vis a vis the Soviets. The Communist forces, ironically, did more proportionately than the Nationalist forces did agains the Japanese. The Japanese were fixated on China, a significant error for them, as only the most narrow-minded strategist would consider the US and allies as a sideshow. Fortunately the Japanese high command in the Imperial Army were precisely that narrowminded; it would have been a much tougher fight had the IJN been in overall command. An oft overlooked benefit of the Doolittle raid, to my mind...

[Doctor_Doom]

Definitely not true. If the IJA could have moved at will, they would have cut the supply lines for US supplies and completely destroyed the bases of the units like the AVG.

Actually, that was very close to the true situation. One of the main reasons why Stillwell consistently opposed the Chennault "strategy" of a China based aerial campaign. And amply demonstrated during the Ichi-Go offensives of 1944. The IJA was not abe to continually control territory away from the coasts and major railheads, but in terms being able to move at will against major air supply points that was indeed the case. Another point in evidence was the need to build the Ledo Road, even as the Hump route reached incredibly high tonnage delivered.

[Greenhat]

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:P-HrJ8tnQegJ:www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf+David+M+Glantz+%27The+soviet+German+war+194 1-1945+myths+and+realities&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1


Good find. Related to the myth that you mentioned, I agree. The T-34, IL-2, etc. are not the tools of an Army winning on numbers alone.

[Greenhat]

Actually, that was very close to the true situation. One of the main reasons why Stillwell consistently opposed the Chennault "strategy" of a China based aerial campaign. And amply demonstrated during the Ichi-Go offensives of 1944. The IJA was not abe to continually control territory away from the coasts and major railheads, but in terms being able to move at will against major air supply points that was indeed the case. Another point in evidence was the need to build the Ledo Road, even as the Hump route reached incredibly high tonnage delivered.

The fact that they could build the Ledo Road is evidence that the IJA could not move at will. Yes, they could move much more easily than forces in other theatres, but "at will" indicates an ease that isn't accurate.

[Doctor_Doom]

Glantz's work is excellent. The analysis of overlooked periods of war on the Eastern Front of Europe and the development of Soviet tactics is revelatory.

[Doctor_Doom]

The fact that they could build the Ledo Road is evidence that the IJA could not move at will. Yes, they could move much more easily than forces in other theatres, but "at will" indicates an ease that isn't accurate.

In Burma after years of fumbling, no the already overstretched IJA could not move at will, but in China proper the IJA's movement was not nearly so limited. The fact that a, by European standards, mostly footborne light infantry force could cover an area the size of Europe in late 1944 is, to me, the definition of ability ot move at will. Perhaps this is largely semantics. But the need for one of the most difficult road routes for supply to China, hardly a vital ally, to be built, when Chennault was actively arguing for exactly the type of air power that could not be supported (this against "Vinegar Joe", someone not exactly the favorite of the War Department) is a good sign of the precariousness of American air bases in China. These were directly the targets of the IJA.

[Greenhat]

http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/81931.jpg

February 1941. After 8 years of fighting, with no other enemies... this is how successful Japan had been in China.


http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/82405.jpg

February 1942. Note that despite the increased holdings in the Pacific, SE Asia, etc. China hasn't changed much.

[NightLandNav]

He's banned for 2 years.

Good call.


Use it wisely padawan.



...now I can get back into the historical discussion, 'cause it's getting good.

Chiang Kai-shek and Mao, was it not worth the effort for the Japanese to fight them for the resources available in China, or was it that the Japanese needed the resources but couldn't advance?

[Greenhat]

They obviously needed the resources... the ability to take and hold them? That was a different situation...

[Johan]

Mr. Tme3,

Thank you for the link/source. Glantz is excellent, I have read some of his book, I will read this source as well.

Mr. Greenhat and others,

I will be unable to discuss effectively for 1-2 days. I will "see you" then. Thank you for the discussion and education. ;)

Regards,

[ironpaw]

Read the stickies -- simply put, you are a flame magnet. STOP BEING ONE. If you don't know how to write in English well enough to do so without getting the readers pissed off, then ask someone for assistance.

I was going to comment on that. For a guy that claims he has been living in Canada since he was 6, his English is pretty piss poor...then again Hong-couver is notorious for its Chinese enclave...

That guy was annoying as hell. Reminded me of a lot of the Mainland Chinese guys I went to school with. I remembered once how we were debating about Tiananmen Square; alot of these PRC pricks kept saying that it was the student's/civie's fault, that they brought the massacre on themselves as they didn't listen to the government. I couldn't believe what I was hearing and called them something akin to fucking brainwashed commie bastards...

I'm Australian of Chinese descent. I too was born in Hong Kong, but I can't envisage myself being anything other then as an Aussie. Throughout my life I always avoided hanging out with Chinese (or any race/ethnicity) people exclusively; I can't stand these idiots who come to Australia but is unwilling to integrate themselves into society (not to mention I find Chinese chicks really unattractive :p). I was the only asian person on the school footy/athletic team. I was the only asian guy who dated "white" chicks. I've met so many Chinese people who has come over at a young age, and a decade later, still cannot speak English for shit. Its disturbing.

After almost 20 years in Australia, all I can say is that I'm grateful for the opportunities this country has provided me with. Especially for my beautiful Italian-Irish wife :o

And I really appreciate all the posts from Greenhat/Johan/everyone else...I love lurking for the wealth of knowledge which abounds here.

[ironpaw]

Chiang Kai-shek and Mao, was it not worth the effort for the Japanese to fight them for the resources available in China, or was it that the Japanese needed the resources but couldn't advance?

Its knowledge that Mao was a terrible tyrant...but I've always thought Chiang was an asshole as well. At least Mao pretended he wanted to fight the Japs before settling his beef with Chiang, for the sake of morale and nationalism. Chiang on the other hand didn't give a rats ass that the Japs were raping and pillaging from city to city...he just wanted to beat the commies at all cost.

I thinks guys like Zhang Xue Liang are the true patriots of the Sino-Japanese conflict. Can you imagine Gen Petraeus kidnapping his CinC in order to persuade him to fight the GWoT more effectively? And on top of that:

"In order to rid his command of Japanese influence he had two prominent pro-Tokyo officials executed in front of the assembled guests at a dinner party in January 1929. It was a hard decision for him to make. The two had powers over the heads of others. Zhang also tried to eliminate Soviet influence from Manchuria, but relented in the face of a Soviet military build-up. At the same time, however, he developed closer relations with the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Xueliang (not the best source...but the quickest!)

Poor bastard was under house arrest for the next 50 years...and after moving to Hawaii he didn't set foot on PRC or ROC again in order to "claim his political neutrality towards both the Communists and the Nationalists (Kuomintang)"

[Greenhat]

Although I am not a big fan of Wikipedia, I found this article to be reasonably accurate as an overview of China's involvement in conflict with Japan during the 1930s and 1940s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

I would pay particular attention to section 8.

[Fofo]

"The Japanese are a disease of the skin.
The Communists are a disease of the heart."

- Chiang Kai-Shek

I think that quote shows just how tunnel-visioned Chaing had become , not seeing just how big of a threat the Japanese military was to China. It appears that had it not been for the German assistance in training and equipping KMT troops, the AVG, and considerable aid from elsewhere, things in China would have turned-out much worse.

My grandparents (on my Chinese side) always claimed that the Commies got more credit than they deserved, and the KMT troops fought harder and more battles than they were credited.

One figure from the KMT military I find quite interesting is VMI graduate General Sun Li-Jen, AKA "Rommel of the East."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Li-jen


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDF1430F932A15752C1A9669582 60

Just wanted to input my .02 cents in the current discussion.

[Doctor_Doom]

Chiang Kai-shek and Mao, was it not worth the effort for the Japanese to fight them for the resources available in China, or was it that the Japanese needed the resources but couldn't advance?

China was always the central focus of Japan's war, even long after it became clear that it was the US that really should occupy all of Japan's capabilities. For Japan's command, the purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to give them a free hand in China, not to defeat the US as an end in itself. By that time Japan had suffered nearly a million casualties since 1937, and was essentially scraping the bottom of it's manpower pool.

Japan demonstrated the ability to advance deep into the war, invading India, the Rice Bowl offensives... they simply did not have the manpower to occupy China, no matter how inept or corrupt CKS's rule. Even within those areas shown as under Japanese control, effective control shrank over time to major rail lines and cities. At the time of surrender the vast bulk of Japan's Army was still in China, including the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria arratyed against the Soviets, but those numbers were simply insufficient. In a way CKS was right; Japanese forces were like a large number of fleas: enough to debilitate or eventually kill the dog, but not enough to make it fetch the stick the fleas wanted.

There are some authors who cite Prince Konoye and the IJN high command's belief that a more limited piecemeal carving-up of China was the way to go, but they were overruled by the IJA, who held ultimate command authority, and in any case the Super-patriots and the IJA hotheads essentially created their own foreign policy through their overly aggressive and insubordinate behavior. The IJN could not be outdone and lose face, thus they landed bluejackets immediately after the Marco Polo Bridge incident. The war spun out of control, and Nanking cemented Japan's feet in the China quagmire.

Nevertheless, Japan's main war aim always was to take China's resources for its own, but had jumped on the tiger's back with too few riders. (As an aside, this was exactly the situation that Lord North posited regarding the American Colonists and their rebellion in 1776.)

[Tracy]

We need to archive this thread...

Watching a German citizen do a Nine-Line on Chinese citizen over military effectiveness in WW2 was Hee-larious...

Good one Johan.

[Doctor_Doom]

blah blah blah self loathing (not to mention I find Chinese chicks really unattractive :p).

You just got into trouble with magician. I'd run and hide.

[ironpaw]

You just got into trouble with magician. I'd run and hide.

Lol. Hey its just my personal preference. Not saying there aren't hot chinese chicks around..but its pretty rare. I guess if they weren't Fob's either would help..

[Greenhat]

"The Japanese are a disease of the skin.
The Communists are a disease of the heart."

- Chiang Kai-Shek

I think that quote shows just how tunnel-visioned Chaing had become , not seeing just how big of a threat the Japanese military was to China.

I'm not so sure. Chiang Kai-Sheck's strategy for dealing with Japan worked, at the cost of many, many Chinese people. WWII gave Mao's people breathing room and the opportunity to build strength and support... which during the Civil War, they used to their advantage. Chiang Kai-Shek had a long-term view which was accurate.

I agree with Doc Doom that Japan could not defeat China. It wasn't logistically viable. And from that perspective, China is a lot like the USSR was for Germany. Too big a bite, and one that took a huge portion of focus and effort.

[Paranutz]

Although we supplied the Russians with a significant amount of trucks, fighter planes and various other supplies, to claim that we carried the burden on all fronts is a bit over the top. The Russian peasant Soldier carried the burden on the Eastern front and we should not underestimate the burden that they carried or the role they had in the defeat of the Nazis. The Chinese (alone from 1933 until 1941) carried the burden in the CBI theatre, with significant help from small groups of Americans, larger groups of Brits and even larger groups of Indians. And though they weren't successful on the same scale as other theatres, we should not underestimate the burden that they carried. The British carried the burden alone from June of 1940 until the summer of 1941 in Europe, and their efforts to stay in the war may have been what allowed the Soviets to stay alive and eventually turn it around, and without the efforts of the British, what the US had to do in Europe would have been much, much harder.

Thanks for the class, but I wasn't talking to you.

[Greenhat]

The value of Lend-lease:

The US sent:

$31.4 billion worth of supplies to Britain
$11.3 billion worth of supplies to the USSR
$3.2 billion worth of supplies to France
$1.6 billion worth of supplies to China

Approximate logistical cost of WWII?

Austria: $203 billion
France: $1,099 billion (506 billion of that for the Axis)
Germany: $3,124 billion
Italy: $1,074 billion (210 billion of that for the Allies)
Japan: $1,465 billion
Soviet Union: $2,442 billion
Commonwealth: $2,622 billion
USA: $9,313 billion (includes lend-lease, destroyers, etc.)
China: Unknown

The USSR produced the most tanks, SPs, artillery, mortars, attack aircraft.
The US produced the most machineguns, trucks, fighters, bombers, transport aircraft, training aircraft and all types of ships except submarines (Germany produced the most of those).

[Fofo]

I'm not so sure. Chiang Kai-Shek's strategy for dealing with Japan worked, at the cost of many, many Chinese people. WWII gave Mao's people breathing room and the opportunity to build strength and support... which during the Civil War, they used to their advantage. Chiang Kai-Shek had a long-term view which was accurate.

I agree with Doc Doom that Japan could not defeat China. It wasn't logistically viable. And from that perspective, China is a lot like the USSR was for Germany. Too big a bite, and one that took a huge portion of focus and effort.

That's true sir, perhaps I should have said Chaing Ki-Shek did not throw his full military strength against the Japanese military. However, in retrospect, he certainly did have a valid concern about the Communists.

I recall hearing about Nationalist forces using a scorched earth/delaying tactics policy to deny any gains by the Japanese, and any they would make were hard-won. They did work, but as you said, the Chinese suffered some horrendous losses in soldiers and civilians alike.

I'm in total agreement about Japan not being able to defeat China. Too large of a nation, too many people, too much resistance and not to mention Japan had many other places in the Pacific theater to send it's forces to fight.

It may seem odd that I've altered my opinion just like that ::snaps fingers::
but what has been mentioned in this thread is certainly true and maybe I got tunnel-visioned over the quote. :o :D

[Keganswar]

The value of Lend-lease:

The US sent:

$31.4 billion worth of supplies to Britain
$11.3 billion worth of supplies to the USSR
$3.2 billion worth of supplies to France
$1.6 billion worth of supplies to China

Approximate logistical cost of WWII?

Austria: $203 billion
France: $1,099 billion (506 billion of that for the Axis)
Germany: $3,124 billion
Italy: $1,074 billion (210 billion of that for the Allies)
Japan: $1,465 billion
Soviet Union: $2,442 billion
Commonwealth: $2,622 billion
USA: $9,313 billion (includes lend-lease, destroyers, etc.)
China: Unknown

The USSR produced the most tanks, SPs, artillery, mortars, attack aircraft.
The US produced the most machineguns, trucks, fighters, bombers, transport aircraft, training aircraft and all types of ships except submarines (Germany produced the most of those).

Those are some pretty interesting statistics. So by those numbers logistics and production power were a strong factor in winning the war. Do we still even have that kind of infrastructure, and if we did do we even have a chance in beating a modernized industrial Chinas production capability.


I think in order to have a shot at winning; we would have to have them solidly beat in the technology department. Because they have us beat right now in the manufacturing department.

[Greenhat]

Those are some pretty interesting statistics. So by those numbers logistics and production power were a strong factor in winning the war.

There is absolutely no question that logistics and production power were key factors to the Allies winning WWII. ;)

[Doctor_Doom]

Those are some pretty interesting statistics. So by those numbers logistics and production power were a strong factor in winning the war.

Some historians say it was the ONLY factor. Overstating this, of course, but if you are really interested, John Ellis' book "Brute Force" is eye opening.

I personally don't believe the USSR could have fought Germany nearly so effectively without American "soft" aid. After the massive defeats of 1941 for the Soviet Army to rebound and be in Berlin in less than 4 years was a result of Greenhat's aformentioned logistical insufficieny on the part of Germany, and American aid (especially transport).

[Keganswar]

Some historians say it was the ONLY factor. Overstating this, of course, but if you are really interested, John Ellis' book "Brute Force" is eye opening.

(especially transport).

Thank you for the suggested read. I find all this very fascinating.

[Greenhat]

Probably the two most important items that the US sent the Soviets in lend-lease?

Locomotives and trucks.

[Richman]

(not to mention I find Chinese chicks really unattractive :p).

OUCH! I'll take issue with that! My beautiful wife is a 5'2", 100 lb, Double D, long hair Chinese dictionary! Opposites attract I guess ;)

Now back to your regularly unscheduled history lessons of my favorite AO.....

[ironpaw]

OUCH! I'll take issue with that! My beautiful wife is a 5'2", 100 lb, Double D, long hair Chinese dictionary! Opposites attract I guess ;)

LOL. No offense intended...like I said before, I'm sure (and I've seen) there are some really attractive Chinese women. But I guess I just haven't met enough of them :p

And yeah, the opposites attract thing - +1

[Richman]

Personal inquiry here, not professional………

Would the current build-up be attributed to a perceived threat from a larger military force such as the USA? Or that a desire for status as a ‘superpower’ requires one to have the military might to back it up?

With the amount of ‘investment’ into PRC from the US and Europe, they can afford to modernize. Has the actual size of ground forces grown? I can’t find the numbers. Mostly the growth has been broken down and reported in how much RMB has been expended, but not in personnel.

I can attribute the costs going up to modernization. I have seen a couple of their bases first hand. The closer you are to a large metropolitan area, the better the facilities and equipment. The farther you go into the hinterland, the more austere the facilities.

The biggest modernization and growth has been attributed to China’s bolstering of navy surface ships, conventional and nuclear submarines, missile systems, nuclear missiles, satellites, and electronics. I can ascribe cause to the strain in the Taiwan Straits, and the desire for projecting influence internationally, such as in Africa.

I lean towards the idea that the PRC views the USA as a possible adversary should Taiwan declare independence. We have let it be known that we would support Taiwan should they be attacked. For the PRC, losing Taiwan to nationalists would be like the USA losing Hawaii to a bunch of rebels.

Can any of the historical strategic and tactical lessons from WWII be useful in a (hypothetical) future war? There are no more warlords but regional affiliation and pride remains strong.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

My beautiful wife is a 5'2", 100 lb, Double D, long hair Chinese dictionary!
Outstanding!!
This explains why you don't post online more often. :D

[NightLandNav]

...

Can any of the historical strategic and tactical lessons from WWII be useful in a (hypothetical) future war? There are no more warlords but regional affiliation and pride remains strong.

Regional identification and pride notwithstanding, every indication is than current Chinese nationalism is way beyond that point.

The last 60 years have accomplished at least that, the sense of singular nationality and the advantages of having a strong central government.

[Richman]

Regional identification and pride notwithstanding, every indication is than current Chinese nationalism is way beyond that point.

The last 60 years have accomplished at least that, the sense of singular nationality and the advantages of having a strong central government.

Externally it seems that way but there are things like Mandarin vs. Cantonese. The PRC says Mongolia is part of China but Mongolians say different and don't like the Chinese, and in a similar vein - Tibet vs. the PRC. Some people from various regions don't "look" Chinese so they get treated different or looked down upon (I saw this first hand).

The US has had similar issues (north vs. south, hicks vs. city slickers, liberals vs. conservatives, black vs. white) but if the US was attacked I believe that there would be a overall upsurge in patriotism. This is not to say that it wouldn’t happen in the PRC also, but there could be more of a “this isn’t my fight/country” response.

There are a lot of "believers" out there but racial, regional, or ethic stereo types are prevalent, even in the PRC media. The government stance is, of course, harmonious in theme in its broadcasts to the outside. But, why would the PRC government censor (block) internet websites if it trusts in the stability of its population? Even the Olympic torch's itinerary in China had issues due to concerns of internal problems. IE: (from an admittedly biased source) The Olympic Torch arrives in Xinjiang, as the death sentence awaits the Uyghurs
(http://new.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12527)

The local government advised people not to participate in the event but to watch it on the TV from the safety of their homes. Of the 3 thousand people who made their way to the square, the vast majority were Chinese, with very few Uyghur’s, the original local Muslim population. Before the commencement of ceremonies a minutes silence was observed in memory of the victims of the Sichuan earthquake. Banners and signs proclaimed that the minorities present in the region “get along well”.

A "singular nationality" has not been achived IMHO.

[Richman]

Outstanding!!
This explains why you don't post online more often. :D

She's 17 years younger than me too! Doesn't drink, likes to save money, works hard at keeping the house a home, old fashioned in family values, loves old cars, and is a great mother to our 8yo and 15mo old boys! I got lucky! :p:D

[NightLandNav]

Externally it seems that way but there are things like Mandarin vs. Cantonese. The PRC says Mongolia is part of China but Mongolians say different and don't like the Chinese, and in a similar vein - Tibet vs. the PRC. Some people from various regions don't "look" Chinese so they get treated different or looked down upon (I saw this first hand).

The US has had similar issues (north vs. south, hicks vs. city slickers, liberals vs. conservatives, black vs. white) but if the US was attacked I believe that there would be a overall upsurge in patriotism. This is not to say that it wouldn’t happen in the PRC also, but there could be more of a “this isn’t my fight/country” response.

There are a lot of "believers" out there but racial, regional, or ethic stereo types are prevalent, even in the PRC media. The government stance is, of course, harmonious in theme in its broadcasts to the outside. But, why would the PRC government censor (block) internet websites if it trusts in the stability of its population? Even the Olympic torch's itinerary in China had issues due to concerns of internal problems. IE: (from an admittedly biased source) The Olympic Torch arrives in Xinjiang, as the death sentence awaits the Uyghurs
(http://new.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12527)



A "singular nationality" has not been achived IMHO.

Nor will it. "Anglo-American", "African-American", "Latino-American", "(Asian)-American"...the same could be argued here on the premise of "singular nationality" alone.

A "sense" of singular nationality was intended to imply less of an identification racially, but rather that there was enough general identification nationality to garner sufficient loyalty for the central government in a time of war.

As you stated, our nation has experienced division along state lines during the Civil War that would not be possible at present.

To clarify, I was addressing the similar "sense" of singular nationality at present in China compared to the fractured regional political and social construct which existed in China from 1939-WW2.

For the most part I am basing this on what I have seen and been told on several trips to the PRC.

...which is the same criteria for an audience at a magic show in Las Vegas, and I try to keep that in mind. I'm not an authority on anything China, that much I can guarantee.

[Richman]

To clarify, I was addressing the similar "sense" of singular nationality at present in China compared to the fractured regional political and social construct which existed in China from 1939-WW2.


And to clarify more on what I was trying to say..... In certain regions, the traditional looking, Mandarin speaking Chinese are looked upon as occupiers within their own country (the PRC). There may have been several small civil wars in China had it not been for the PRC Army and absolute control over the populace IMHO.

I'm not an authority on anything China, that much I can guarantee.

Ditto for me. But I'm married to the subject so I'm stuck with the learning....

[Greenhat]

I think the biggest lesson to be learned from WWII regarding China is that China is a very, very big bite. Going to war with China is not a win-lose proposition. They won't be beat. They may not win, they won't lose (not in the sense of being conquered).

Hell, the Chinese can't conquer the Chinese (see Taiwan, Hong-Kong and the various regional differences). :D

As for the size of the PLA, approximate numbers currently are 2,255,000 active and 800,000 reserve. In 1950, the PLA was approximately 5 million strong. In 1953, it was 2.8 million. I think most of the increase and spending can legitimately be linked to modernization. Given the performance of the PLA in the '79 war with Vietnam, I think it shouldn't be any surprise that they would seek to modernize (reported shortcomings of the PLA included poor mobility, insufficient communications capability, poor logistical support and outdated weapons).

An interesting article: http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Defence_Arms_13/The_Pentagon-PLA_Disconnect.shtml

[Richman]

The link comes to a dead end for me (operation timed out).

I get that same message for most OCONUS IPs so it is probably my gov't firewall setup.

:(

[Greenhat]

The Pentagon-PLA Disconnect
By Dennis J. Blasko, China Brief 3/7/08
Jul 4, 2008 - 8:10:02 AM

Sun Tzu’s admonition “Know the enemy and know yourself� is a fundamental tenet of Chinese military strategy [1]. The books On Military Campaigns and The Science of Military Strategy include it as the first of 10 principles of war [2]. Moreover, Military Strategy reverses the sequence and puts “knowing ourselves� first [3]. Many articles from the official Chinese press illustrate the fact that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has an active program of self-evaluation and is well aware of its strengths and weaknesses, especially in relation to the United States’ armed forces.

Despite 2,500 years of tradition in “knowing yourself,� every year since 2005 the U.S. Defense Department has warned, “China’s leaders may overestimate the proficiency of their forces by assuming that new systems are fully operational, adeptly operated, adequately supplied and maintained, and well integrated with existing or other new capabilities� [4]. This assertion is listed among “misperceptions [that] could lead to miscalculation or crisis.�

While acknowledging today’s PLA is vastly improved over its larger, less-technologically-advanced self of a decade ago, some PLA officers have expressed frustration over this conclusion (as well as others) in the Pentagon reports [5]. Many foreign perceptions of the PLA do not comport with officers’ personal experience, what is written in official Chinese sources, and what is taught in professional military schools. Since 2006, the official Chinese media has published repeatedly a general assessment of Chinese military capabilities—sometimes called the “two incompatibles� or “two cannot suits�—that identifies surprising limitations for the force.

Smaller and Better, but Still Strapped for Cash

Since 1997 the active-duty PLA has been reduced by 700,000 personnel to about 2.3 million [6]. Unlike other militaries, PLA active-duty rosters include an unknown number of uniformed civilians [7]. Comparable American civilians working for the Pentagon would add over 650,000 personnel to the 1.36 million active U.S. military personnel, making it nearly the same size as the active PLA force [8]. But, as the PLA has become smaller, it has developed greater capabilities which cost more to sustain.

The announced Chinese defense budget has more than quadrupled since 1998 [9]. These increases have resulted in large pay and benefit increases; new uniforms, better food and living quarters; an array of new, mostly Chinese-made equipment, especially computers and communications gear; and increased tempo and realism of training exercises. Nonetheless, attracting and retaining qualified personnel is a problem, new equipment expensive to purchase, operate, and maintain, and China, too, faces increased prices for oil and other commodities. As a result, the PLA sees itself with minimal financial resources and consistently urges efficiency and thrift.

In 2006, the Army paper stated, “China is a large developing country. Money is needed in many aspects. The contradiction between the needs of military modernization construction and the short supply of funds will exist for the long run� (Jiefangjun Bao, August 8, 2006). A year later, the director of the PLA’s Finance Department emphasized the requirement to use “limited financial resources to ensure military modernization … the armed forces must find ways to improve their financial and economic management … � (Jiefangjun Bao, February 2, 2006).

Missions and General Assessment

The PLA has set the goal of “winning informationized wars by the mid-21st century� with milestones at 2010 and 2020 [10]. The military and security intelligentsia is now debating future requirements under the rubric of the “historic missions for the new stage in the new century.� New missions will “gradually� extend the reach of the PLA and emphasize “non-traditional security� operations such as antiterrorism, disaster relief, economic security, public health and information security, etc.

The PLA also has a multilayered deterrence mission, which includes China’s nuclear posture as well as deterring attacks on the mainland and preventing Taiwan from further movement toward independence. The Chinese armed forces are obsessed with defending China from long-range precision air strikes and repairing civilian infrastructure damaged during such attacks. Concurrently, security forces are preparing for a range of potential terrorist actions, including nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks.

PLA doctrine shares the concept of “peace through strength� prevalent in America during the Cold War. It understands that credible deterrence requires a capable military and the willingness to use it. But, according to The Science of Military Strategy, “Warfighting is generally used only when deterrence fails and there is no alternative,� and preferably, “strategic deterrence is also a means for attaining the political objective� [11].

Since 2006 official Chinese publications have stated on more than 20 occasions, “The level of our modernization is incompatible with the demands of winning a local war under informatization conditions and our military capability is incompatible with the demands of carrying out the army’s historic missions� [12]. This general assessment has been applied specifically to personnel development, training, logistics, and technology levels. For example, the director of the General Logistics Department wrote the PLA must address the issue of “an insufficient logistics modernization level [to win] informatized local wars and insufficient support capability for the requirement of fulfilling the historical missions� (Jiefangjun Bao, January 12, 2006). On June 19, 2008, PLA Daily reported:

All participants [at a Symposium on Military Management Innovation] held the view that the combat effectiveness of the troops today is nagged by “two cannot suits,� i.e., its modernization level cannot suit the demand of winning the IT-based local wars, and its military capability cannot suit the requirements for fulfilling its historical mission in the new century and the new period (PLA Daily, June 19).

The General Assessment and PLA Doctrine

These judgments, often called “contradictions,� are attributed to Hu Jintao and are clearly at odds with the Pentagon’s warning. They are, however, consistent with the long-term goal “winning informationized wars by the mid-21st century.� While most foreigners focus on new equipment, PLA officers understand their doctrine requires the integration of all forces, old and new, military and civilian, into joint operations that incorporate firepower, mobility, information operations, and special operations. In recent years, training for “integrated joint operations� has increased, but this year PLA headquarters placed primary emphasis on basic training, small unit training, and command and staff training (Jiefangjun Bao, January 21).

“Trump Card� weapons are one of many elements that must be integrated into complex campaigns. PLA war planners operate under the assumption that the PLA will be the weaker side in most scenarios so it will “use inferior weapons to defeat a superior enemy� (Jiefangjun Bao, April 3, 2006). People’s War, with its emphasis on deception, use of stratagem, fighting the enemy close in, political mobilization, and civilian support, is still “a fundamental strategy" [13].

Sun Tzu also taught, “All warfare is based on deception� [14]. Could these assessments be a strategic deception campaign? With the exception of the English-language “two cannot suits� example, nearly all of the roughly 20 references to this formula have appeared in Chinese [15]. Most are buried within longer articles that first praise the PLA for progress made, but then follow with the bad news. The intent of the message is to encourage the troops to greater action, “If we are complacent with the status quo and ignore reform, the only consequence that can come about as a result is that we will be left even further behind with respect to the great worldwide trend of new military changes by the strong militaries of the world� (Jiefangjun Bao, January 1).

Thus, while the use of this term is part of an internal propaganda campaign, the vast majority of instances are not intended for foreign consumption—though the Chinese could correctly assume that foreigners do read their newspapers (many of which are available on the internet). If the Chinese intend to deceive the Pentagon with these words, the Pentagon has not been swayed.

Specific Evaluations

After all routine major training exercises, unit leaders assess achievements and identify shortfalls. For example, commanders and staff officers were recently described as falling “far short in meeting the demands of joint operations� (PLA Daily, June 27), and a group army commander called for steps “to resolve the problem of training lagging behind operational requirements in practice … � (Jiefangjun Bao, May 27).

The Sichuan earthquake relief operations have revealed much about PLA joint operational capabilities. Though no weapons are involved, this deployment is being conducted according to PLA joint operations doctrine, providing a real-world test bed for the PLA. Within two weeks of the disaster, some 133,000 active-duty PLA and People’s Armed Police personnel and 45,000 reservists and militia were deployed (PLA Daily, May 30). Most traveled by road or rail, but in the first days of the operation the Air Force conducted what Xinhua called “its largest airlift yet� of some 11,420 troops (Xinhua News Agency, May 14). About 100 military helicopters (nearly one quarter of the Army Aviation inventory) were dispatched from all over the country. Civilian assets augmented these fleets.

While a “heroic� effort, the PLA Daily noted “the PLA’s long-distance rapid insertion capability [is] in a state of relative weakness� (Jiefangjun Bao, May 20). People’s Daily commented, “With this earthquake, we mustered as many helicopters as possible, but overall they were still too few, and their capabilities not yet improved� (Renmin Wang, May 22, 2006). The PLA will gain important experience from these efforts, but, just as important, the deployment offers an opportunity to evaluate its performance.

The view of the PLA as stated publicly by the Pentagon is quite different than the PLA’s internal evaluations published in multiple open sources. While the assessments described above should not result in complacency by the United States and China’s neighbors, the professional PLA leadership probably knows itself much better than some Americans think—just as Sun Tzu urged.

Notes

1. Sun Tzu., The Art of War, London: Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 84. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith. Emphasis added by author.
2. Wang Houqing and Zhang Xingye (eds), On Military Campaigns, Beijing: National Defense University Press, May 2000, p.86. Translated by Language Doctors.
3. Peng Guangqian and Yao Youzhi (eds), The Science of Military Strategy, Beijing: Military Science Publishing House, 2005, p. 230. This text actually lists this statement among the 10 “strategic principles for people’s war.�
4. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2005, p. 26; Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2006, p. 25; Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2007, p. 15; Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2008, p. 22. Emphasis added by author.
5. Based on author’s conversations with PLA officers in June 2006, November 2006, and April 2008.
6. Chapter IV, The People's Liberation Army, China's National Defense in 2006. Every other year since 1998, China has issued a White Paper on National Defense. All White Papers can be found at http://english.gov.cn/official/2005-08/17/content_24165.htm.
7. Chapter III, National Defense Construction, China's National Defense, July 1998.
8. U.S. personnel figures are available at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MMIDHOME.HTM. These numbers do not include contractors.
9. The growth of China’s announced defense budget can be traced in the series of its White Papers. See also Table 4, in Dennis J. Blasko, Chas W. Freeman, Jr., Stanley A. Horowitz, Evan S. Medeiros, and James C. Mulvenon, “Defense-Related Spending in China: A Preliminary Analysis and Comparison with American Equivalents,� United States - China Policy Foundation, May 2007, p. 19, found at http://www.uscpf.org/v2/pdf/defensereport.pdf. A key conclusion of that study is there is not “enough information to make a reasonable estimate of the total amount of Chinese ‘defense-related spending.’�
10. Chapter II, National Defense Policy, China's National Defense in 2006. Emphasis added by author.
11. The Science of Military Strategy, p. 224. Achieving “the political objective� through deterrence is consistent with Sun Tzu’s teaching, “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.� The Art of War, p. 77.
12. For a few examples, see Qiushi Article by General Political Department on Scientific Development Concept CPP20060802710009 Beijing Qiushi (Internet Version-WWW) in Chinese, August 1, 2006, No 15; JFJB Commentator on Training National Defense Students CPP20071214710011 Beijing Jiefangjun Bao (Internet Version-WWW) in Chinese, December 14, 2007, p 1; and PRC Army Paper Calls for New Situation in National Defense, Army Building CPP20080101701001 Beijing Jiefangjun Bao (Internet Version-WWW) in Chinese January 1, 2008. All translated by OSC. Emphasis added by author.
13. The Science of Military Strategy, p. 117.
14. The Art of War, p. 66.
15. The Chinese term, liangge buxiang shiying, has been translated in many ways. In addition to the renderings stated above, the term has also been translated as “two non-adaptations� or “two unsuitable points.� These variations in translations could cause confusion among those who only read the English.


Source:Ocnus.net 2008

[Richman]

GH-

Thanks for posting that!

[Frog]

’s� !

[Spinner]

Might as well piggyback on this thread instead of starting another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer

Could we be seeing the beginning of the end to the era of Carrier dominance over large swaths of ocean?

I know that there has been debate over the last couple of decades, not only concerning the increasing vulnerability of the large Carriers themselves, but also the support ships required to make them effective.

It's getting harder and harder to conceal your presence on the ocean, which wasn't the case 25 years ago.

Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 12 mins ago

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.

China may soon put an end to that.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea.

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.

The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment.

Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia's largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes.

"The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.

It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.

U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.

"We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy.

"China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore."

Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though — with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — its implications haven't been widely discussed in public.

Analysts note that while much has been made of China's efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews' level of expertise, training and experience.

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention.

"When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said.

Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.

The Pentagon has been worried for years about China getting an anti-ship ballistic missile. The Pentagon considers such a missile an "anti-access," weapon, meaning that it could deny others access to certain areas.

The Air Force's top surveillance and intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, told reporters this week that China's effort to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend.

He did not single out the DF 21D, but said: "While we might not fight the Chinese, we may end up in situations where we'll certainly be opposing the equipment that they build and sell around the world."

Questions remain over when — and if — China will perfect the technology; hitting a moving carrier is no mean feat, requiring state-of-the-art guidance systems, and some experts believe it will take China a decade or so to field a reliable threat. Others, however, say final tests of the missile could come in the next year or two.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.

That would usher in a "new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States."

While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D — which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads — has been much discussed by military buffs online.

A pseudonymous article posted on Xinhuanet, website of China's official news agency, imagines the U.S. dispatching the George Washington to aid Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

The Chinese would respond with three salvos of DF 21D, the first of which would pierce the hull, start fires and shut down flight operations, the article says. The second would knock out its engines and be accompanied by air attacks. The third wave, the article says, would "send the George Washington to the bottom of the ocean."

[Crue]

I think the biggest lesson to be learned from WWII regarding China is that China is a very, very big bite. Going to war with China is not a win-lose proposition. They won't be beat. They may not win, they won't lose (not in the sense of being conquered).

Hell, the Chinese can't conquer the Chinese (see Taiwan, Hong-Kong and the various regional differences). :D

As for the size of the PLA, approximate numbers currently are 2,255,000 active and 800,000 reserve. In 1950, the PLA was approximately 5 million strong. In 1953, it was 2.8 million. I think most of the increase and spending can legitimately be linked to modernization. Given the performance of the PLA in the '79 war with Vietnam, I think it shouldn't be any surprise that they would seek to modernize (reported shortcomings of the PLA included poor mobility, insufficient communications capability, poor logistical support and outdated weapons).

An interesting article: http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Defence_Arms_13/The_Pentagon-PLA_Disconnect.shtml

What is going to be the lesson learned from the Cold War? Could the Chinese get us into an arms race and spend ourselves until we have nothing left? That is if our own elected politicians don't beat them to it.

[Greenhat]

What is going to be the lesson learned from the Cold War? Could the Chinese get us into an arms race and spend ourselves until we have nothing left? That is if our own elected politicians don't beat them to it.

I think our own politicians have beat them to it. We're bankrupt.

[smp52]

Might as well piggyback on this thread instead of starting another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer

Could we be seeing the beginning of the end to the era of Carrier dominance over large swaths of ocean?

I know that there has been debate over the last couple of decades, not only concerning the increasing vulnerability of the large Carriers themselves, but also the support ships required to make them effective.

It's getting harder and harder to conceal your presence on the ocean, which wasn't the case 25 years ago.

If they finaly get the F-35 going, maybe we'll see a growth in the smaller light carriers like our LHD/LHAs (or even smaller) with the STOVL version and more UAV platforms that allow the fleet to have a de-centralized strike capability versus a large capital ship? I've always been a fan of the LHD/LHAs or other Harrier carriers; they don't have the same muscle as our super carriers, but if the Chinese are developing a super anti-ship missile, then we take the target away from them and still maintain the ability to project power.

It may be easier maintaining strike capability on a multi mission platform versus the large ships in leaner years, too.

[ET1/ss nuke]

It may be easier maintaining strike capability on a multi mission platform versus the large ships in leaner years, too.

It's cyclical. Carter's Secdef said the same thing. If you want cost effectiveness, a bunch of Wasp class gator freighters with F-35s would probably be cheaper. Not necessarily more effective, though, because keeping AWACS airborne, keeping a constant CAP overhead, and retaining S-3 long range ASW capability would eat into hangar space, meaning the ships would only retain mission effectiveness if several were deployed together, negating the savings of the one big carrier. Big carriers also serve as the hospital and fuel tanker for the entire battle group, among other functions, and those jobs would have to be picked up by other vessels.

[Keganswar]

Interesting article. I find it ironic that our consumer economy is funding the very weapons programs that will weaken us as a world power.

[Richard]

Are China and America on a collision course?
Trubowitz and Xuetong, CSM, 5 Aug 2010

Probably not. The greater threat is that President Obama and President Hu, preoccupied with domestic matters, will fail to muster the political will needed to find collective solutions to the international problems their nations share in common.

Peter Trubowitz is a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin and a senior fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. Yan Xuetong is a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University and director of the Institute of International Studies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0805/Are-China-and-America-on-a-collision-course

And so it goes...

Richard

[smp52]

It's cyclical. Carter's Secdef said the same thing. If you want cost effectiveness, a bunch of Wasp class gator freighters with F-35s would probably be cheaper. Not necessarily more effective, though, because keeping AWACS airborne, keeping a constant CAP overhead, and retaining S-3 long range ASW capability would eat into hangar space, meaning the ships would only retain mission effectiveness if several were deployed together, negating the savings of the one big carrier. Big carriers also serve as the hospital and fuel tanker for the entire battle group, among other functions, and those jobs would have to be picked up by other vessels.

Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts.

[RGR.Montcalm]

It's cyclical. Carter's Secdef said the same thing. If you want cost effectiveness, a bunch of Wasp class gator freighters with F-35s would probably be cheaper. Not necessarily more effective, though, because keeping AWACS airborne, keeping a constant CAP overhead, and retaining S-3 long range ASW capability would eat into hangar space, meaning the ships would only retain mission effectiveness if several were deployed together, negating the savings of the one big carrier. Big carriers also serve as the hospital and fuel tanker for the entire battle group, among other functions, and those jobs would have to be picked up by other vessels.

Think of the future supercarrier/gator freighter strike group as a 'hub and spoke operation'.

The supercarrier can carry a lot of aircraft, fuel, and act as the fleet hospital, the same way it always has while the smaller 'gator freighters' can act as 'gas stations', 'lily pads' or 'FAARPS', if necessary, to allow the supercarriers a little more sea space or cushion from the DF 21D...

[HighDragLowSpeed]

Composition versus disposition.

The Chinese have plenty of the former to be a military superpower. Unfortunately from my understanding, the disposition of their conventional forces is such that significant and sustained projection of military power beyond their own borders is still not really achieveable.

I'd use the brief Chinese military engagement with Vietnam as a good recent example.

[smp52]

Composition versus disposition.

The Chinese have plenty of the former to be a military superpower. Unfortunately from my understanding, the disposition of their conventional forces is such that significant and sustained projection of military power beyond their own borders is still not really achieveable.

I'd use the brief Chinese military engagement with Vietnam as a good recent example.

If the Chinese sell the technology to certain people or adapt it for platforms that aren't really blue water, but good enough in local areas, do they really have to project much beyond their borders? By default, if they deny the United States access to certain areas and their coastline, they don't really have to invest in traditional methods to project power beyond their borders. They could, hypothetically, exert control over areas surrounding the Straits of Malacca to Japan and have a major impact.

JMO, but based on stuff I've been reading lately, I don't think China is looking to be a super power in the same mold the USA is or USSR ever was. They've got way too many people and internal needs that have to be satisfied before ever considering that. I do think they want to exert super power like influence via economic means (by securing energy, transportation, raw materials, manufacturing), and being passive-aggressive militarily negating major advantages its competition has. Examples of that include the "String of Pearls" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_%28China%29) strategy. Gain enough economic muscle and hold a few hedges militarily. If Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_Landing_Helicopter_Dock) and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant_class_aircraft_carrier) are beefing up their LHD/light carrier capabilities, it's also a tool to exert regional control. This would also hurt us if we're going down the path of the "1000" ship Navy (http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27571).

From that standpoint, IMO, it would make sense to develop an effective (that's the big question here) long range anti-ship missile. That not only affects the aircraft carriers, but also Destroyers and Cruisers that can launch Tomahawks from distance, especially if they put it on a sub.


The supercarrier can carry a lot of aircraft, fuel, and act as the fleet hospital, the same way it always has while the smaller 'gator freighters' can act as 'gas stations', 'lily pads' or 'FAARPS', if necessary, to allow the supercarriers a little more sea space or cushion from the DF 21D...

The following are my geek thoughts, but it would be nice to invest in technology that would give our super carrier's the ability to strike deep without coming close and more refueling options (air or sea) from the surrounding ring of gator freighters as you mention, but ones that are even smaller than our LHD/LHAs, say the size of the light carriers the Spanish or Italians have (16- mid 20 k displacement). Just more of them. So in effect, the future fleet would have more fighting ships the size of LCS, less destroyers, more subs, more light carrier's/super cruisers, and less Super carriers (I still think we need them).

If we're not going to go head to head against the USSR anymore and we really don't concentrate firepower from multiple carriers unless we're invading someone, IMO having more 16-25k displacement platforms that can be true multi mission vessels would be cool (don't know if it's feasible or practical). Also, why can't we have UAV AWACS (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20071217.aspx). Instead of one big one or mid size like a Hawkeye, have multiple smaller ones fanned out in a network. Maybe my thoughts are outdated for flat out wrong, but I think we need some critical mass of ships to maintain hegemony of the seas and air surrounding it, where a ship becoming disabled isn't a major blow to the fleet's fighting abilities.

In short, shift concentration of power (even if it isn't cheaper) to the mid size vessels, have more of them, and use them more often.

[Greenhat]

SMP52,

You're talking about putting pilots out of jobs... neither the Air Force or Navy Aviation will agree to that!!

Btw, since most carrier aircraft (maybe all) have inflight refueling capabilities, I believe that a Carrier Battle Group already has the ability to strike from beyond the range of any (even these) anti-ship missile. Probably requires a rethink of strike packages, follow-up timing and a lot of other things, but unless they have an air or sub launched version, I don't see this having as big an impact as the article implies.

[smp52]

SMP52,

You're talking about putting pilots out of jobs... neither the Air Force or Navy Aviation will agree to that!!

Btw, since most carrier aircraft (maybe all) have inflight refueling capabilities, I believe that a Carrier Battle Group already has the ability to strike from beyond the range of any (even these) anti-ship missile. Probably requires a rethink of strike packages, follow-up timing and a lot of other things, but unless they have an air or sub launched version, I don't see this having as big an impact as the article implies.

Sir, I'd like to see more manned and unmanned aircraft if we increased light carriers, so hopefully the aviators will forgive me. :biggrin:

Get more airplanes and ships out on the seas. If F-35's stealth capabilities are an advantage we may not need the same concentration off one ship and spread them around the fleet.

I readily admit that this is thinking the worst case scenario (that the missile is capable and China aggressively deploys them), but a sub launched version has to be in the back of their minds. An older article, but it states China has been increasing its submarine capabilities (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/asia/25iht-25submarine.10349022.html).

[smp52]

It's cyclical.

Poking around, found this - our concept of the sea control ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship)in the 70s as you mentioned was the genesis of the modern light carriers around the world. Deja-vu indeed.

[Spinner]

Apparently, China's military power is growing. So says the Pentagon, and they're none too happy that they are doing their damndest to mask their moves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_china_military

I wonder if the Pentagon would be amenable to opening up our TS programs to China on a quid pro quo basis.

I thought not...

I wonder how much military to miltary contact we had with the Soviets during the height of the Cold War? I imagine most of our contacts came when we sent interceptors up to greet the Tupolevs coming out of the north, and high level contacts when tensions were at their highest.

More than likely, we'll overestimate how much strength they're developing over the coming years, and underestimate our own.

[ET1/ss nuke]

I wonder how much military to miltary contact we had with the Soviets during the height of the Cold War?

Quite a bit of physical contact underwater, thanks, and it didn't stop in 1991 by a long shot.

[grog18b]

China is becoming a more oil consuming Nation. They are starting to depend on the ability of using and being able to buy relatively cheap crude. When that supply starts to go, and those billions start getting hungry, hold onto your pre-formed berets. (Cross thread points?)

[Johan]

Report on effectiveness of Chinese 'anti-aircraft carrier' SSM are very overrated at this time.

The effectiveness of their ISR asset would have to be much higher than it is right now.

Also, by time they have ability to precision target at range (which would be required to be effective and reliable 'aircraft carrier killer'), who can imagine how effective US missile defense will be?

Modified SM-3 has intercept satellite in decaying orbit. Velocity of this satellite was ~35,000 KPH. This is much faster than speed of DF-21D re-entry vehicle.

If CVG is to be obsolete from this missile, why does China strive so hard to train and deploy their own? ;)

Regards,

[Spinner]

Quite a bit of physical contact underwater, thanks, and it didn't stop in 1991 by a long shot.

Yea, big time.

The Silent Service probably was a lot noisier below the service.

[Helmut]

Wasn't it Nixon who signed China as a trade partner opening massive imports and pioneering the relocation of our manufacturing to China during Vietnam? Funny to think a president empowered a nation with US dollars that had a hostile posture towards our Constitution and had just years before sent 1 million troops against us in Korea. My dad was in Vietnam in the late 60's. It would be interesting to know how much extra ammo and materials for war China was able to send to the NVA after that trade partnership went into effect?

I think it is also ironic that the American people will go up in arms about our troops treatment of prisoners, yet never question the child labor used to make their purse or the inhuman conditions of the factory that makes their shoes.

Then wasn't it Clinton who let the missile technology in the 90's go to the Chinese?

The easy dollar I am seeing is more important than the nation to those who claim to be its biggest protectors. Good hard work keeps people clean and honest, too bad we exported most of that.

Back to China and their intentions. I see they are building up their navy and their amphibious force. Countries do not do that for no reason.

[lavbo0321]

Apparently, China's military power is growing. So says the Pentagon, and they're none too happy that they are doing their damndest to mask their moves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_china_military

I wonder if the Pentagon would be amenable to opening up our TS programs to China on a quid pro quo basis.

I thought not...

I wonder how much military to miltary contact we had with the Soviets during the height of the Cold War? I imagine most of our contacts came when we sent interceptors up to greet the Tupolevs coming out of the north, and high level contacts when tensions were at their highest.

More than likely, we'll overestimate how much strength they're developing over the coming years, and underestimate our own.

Often times when China launches a new ship that A. We didn't know it was coming, B. We don't know where it went.

Our estimates on their Navy changes daily. Taiwan, I am sure is not to happy with China's growing amphib navy. One thing about the Chinese, is they are patient.

[Johan]

Wasn't it Nixon who signed China as a trade partner

Nixon diplomacy with China is regarded as one of most brilliant diplomatic maneuver of Cold War.

Regards,

[morelocks]

The internal food issues are an even bigger problem for them to manage. A multi-year drought or a sharp decrease in the ability to move food around can quickly cause problems for the Chinese government.

China is becoming a more oil consuming Nation. They are starting to depend on the ability of using and being able to buy relatively cheap crude. When that supply starts to go, and those billions start getting hungry, hold onto your pre-formed berets. (Cross thread points?)

[Helmut]

[QUOTE]Nixon diplomacy with China is regarded as one of most brilliant diplomatic maneuver of Cold War./QUOTE]
Wirklich?

[smp52]

Might as well piggyback on this thread instead of starting another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer

Could we be seeing the beginning of the end to the era of Carrier dominance over large swaths of ocean?

I know that there has been debate over the last couple of decades, not only concerning the increasing vulnerability of the large Carriers themselves, but also the support ships required to make them effective.

It's getting harder and harder to conceal your presence on the ocean, which wasn't the case 25 years ago.

Well, apparently based on THIS article (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/57974/99999999/1/1/), the Chinese managed to cobble technology for their missile from scrap US military surplus material along with help on their "space program".

Richard Fisher, who has kept close tabs on the transfer of military technology to China, says that a “U.S. source” recently told him what he had suspected all along: that from the tons of military scrap China bought from the U.S. a decade and a half ago, intelligence was gathered to develop the radar guidance system that is now being used in the Dongfeng-21C, which enabled the People’s Liberation Army to develop its DF-21D medium range ballistic missile for destroying American aircraft carriers.

[Trek]

Here is a revealing bit of information:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/slip-up-in-chinese-military-tv-show-reveals-more-than-intended-60619.html

The screenshots appear as B-roll footage in the documentary for six seconds—between 11:04 and 11:10 minutes—showing custom-built Chinese software apparently launching a cyber-attack against the main website of the Falun Gong spiritual practice, by using a compromised IP address belonging to a United States university. As of Aug. 22 at 1:30pm EDT, in addition to Youtube, the whole documentary is available on the CCTV website.

The screenshots show the name of the software and the Chinese university that built it, the Electrical Engineering University of China's People's Liberation Army—direct evidence that the PLA is involved in coding cyber-attack software directed against a Chinese dissident group.

Two days later the article was updated:

The University of Alabama at Birmingham made a statement after the news broke, noting that the IP address belonged to a website that was decommissioned in 2001 because it had been created against UAB rules. They said that they believe the purpose of the action demonstrated in the video was not to launch an attack from that website, but to block access to it, and that they're not aware of any such attack, past or present.

Is this article inaccurately mislabeling censorship software or was this a legitimate OPSEC breach by the Chinese?

[foxcolt13]

Thats nothing , they are building Fender Strat clones and selling them online as American Stratocasters, that really piss's me off.

[PONY_DRIVER]

Thats nothing , they are building Fender Strat clones and selling them online as American Stratocasters, that really piss's me off.

Sonsabitches!

[jtk317]

Thats nothing , they are building Fender Strat clones and selling them online as American Stratocasters, that really piss's me off.

They shall burn for that!!:mad::biggrin:

[tooslow]

say it isn't so...
TO WAR!

Thats nothing , they are building Fender Strat clones and selling them online as American Stratocasters, that really piss's me off.

[Spinner]

Here's an overhead shot of China's newest and firstest Aircraft Carrier at sea, taken from a commercial airliner.

It must be close to becoming operational.

http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/varyagfromabove.jpg

[ET1/ss nuke]

Here's an overhead shot of China's newest and firstest Aircraft Carrier at sea, taken from a commercial airliner.

I prefer periscope photos with crosshairs.

[KidA]

I prefer periscope photos with crosshairs.

Same, or see the image of a bomb dropping out that same window.

[grog18b]

By the looks of it... we have nothing to worry about. I've seen LEGO ships that look better.

[Fofo]

Put me down for a dozen Harpoon hits on her...

Not sure if it is true, but apparently the Shi Lang is missing her entire arrestor gear/cable system. Four sets were purchased recently- and at least one is used at the land concrete carrier mock-up. Let's see how long it will take for the Chinese to reverse-engineer the equipment, and make it reliable.

[iraqgunz]

I am not so sure I would underestimate the country that has alot of our debt.

By the looks of it... we have nothing to worry about. I've seen LEGO ships that look better.

[grog18b]

I am not so sure I would underestimate the country that has alot of our debt.

Oh... I don't know... Is that the ship they are going to send here when we tell them to suck that debt? :biggrin:

[Spinner]

So this first carrier is actually a retrofit/update of the ex Soviet carrier Varyag. Never completed, and the Chinese front company that bought it initially claimed it was to be used as a floating casino.

It should be interesting to see how they deploy it. I expect we'll see them building more than a handful over the coming decades.

[smp52]

This ship is keeping in line with China's regional aspirations IMO versus anything really aimed at us. Any country coming to table with one carrier against a magnitude more Supercarriers along with LHA/Ds in supplement will be mince meat.

The region has been spinning up similar capabilities:

Australia - 2 Canberra class ships on the way
India - 1 refitted Russian carrier on the way and 1 being locally built, former HMS Hermes in service.
Russia - 2 Mistral class ships being built by the French for them, Kuznetsov in service
Japan - 4 Hyuga class helicopter carriers, 2 already in service. A larger ship being planned.

[ddog79]

The deck near the bow looks like it is upturned, at least in this photo. The photo is not that detailed, but I didn't see any type of steam launch system. That leads me to believe it may be designed for some sort of STOVL aircraft, much like the British had the ramps on the front of their carriers for their Harriers. Does anyone have any good gouge on this ship?

[ET1/ss nuke]

Does anyone have any good gouge on this ship?

The ramp is used similarly to the way the Brits use theirs, but it is designed for use by Su-27 variants and MiG-29. The advantage is that they can get more planes in the air more quickly than we can with catapaults, but the downside is that they use up a chunk of fuel getting airborne which cuts into their range and aloft time. It's a good idea for launching interceptors, but for anything like a strike mission they would probably do a mid-air refuel after launch.

In addition, it was originally designed to carry helicopters (mainly Ka-27) and VSTOL - the Yak-141 was designed specifically for that purpose, but after the 1990s depression that aircraft never went into mass production. Our own F-35 is an unabashed rip-off of the Yak-141 design with stealth capability added on.

The ship carries a very powerful SAM and SSM armament. In that regard, it is practically a Kirov class battlecruiser with a hanger deck and flight deck attached. To accomodate that, it carries a much smaller complement of aircraft than one of our Nimitz-class carriers would.

It is steam propelled and can serve as a support ship for a surface battle group or as a floating base for replenishment of shore facilities or humanitarian relief. The electronics suite was never fully installed before the ship was delivered to the Chinese, so the radars, esm, ecm, and eccm systems are probably different than the original design.

[Fofo]

Also, the STOBAR configuration means the aircraft also, cannot carry much in the way of weaponry. I imagine the Russians and their Su-33's (which are due to be replaced with Russian-spec'd MiG-29K's being made for the Indian Navy) are pushing the ski jump design pretty close to maximum aircraft size and weight.

Without such high thrust to weight ratio jets like the Flanker, it's not going to work real well. Apparently, the Chinese are hard at work trying to figure-out how the hell to make an aircraft catapult work. They want their home-designed and built carriers to be conventional take off and landing.

Shortly before the end of the Cold War, the Russians designed and began to build the Ulyanovsk-Class. She was just under half-complete, and was similar in size and air wing size to the Forrestal-Class. This is supposedly the starting-point from which future Chinese carrier designs will begin.

[ddog79]

The ramp is used similarly to the way the Brits use theirs, but it is designed for use by Su-27 variants and MiG-29. The advantage is that they can get more planes in the air more quickly than we can with catapaults, but the downside is that they use up a chunk of fuel getting airborne which cuts into their range and aloft time. It's a good idea for launching interceptors, but for anything like a strike mission they would probably do a mid-air refuel after launch.

Good info, thanks. I didn't think the Chinese had VSTOL/STOVL aircraft, and I'm surprised to learn that "regular" jets can take off from a carrier with just a ramp and no catapults.

[Aries]

This ship is keeping in line with China's regional aspirations IMO versus anything really aimed at us. Any country coming to table with one carrier against a magnitude more Supercarriers along with LHA/Ds in supplement will be mince meat.

The region has been spinning up similar capabilities:

Australia - 2 Canberra class ships on the way
India - 1 refitted Russian carrier on the way and 1 being locally built, former HMS Hermes in service.
Russia - 2 Mistral class ships being built by the French for them, Kuznetsov in service
Japan - 4 Hyuga class helicopter carriers, 2 already in service. A larger ship being planned.

Why is a Nato member building warships for the Russians?

[smp52]

Why is a Nato member building warships for the Russians?

When it comes to French foreign policy as it pertains to defense items, they're prepared to sell products to anyone, including two opposing parties. If there weren't an embargo on China, the EU would be tripping over itself to get first in line. Overall, most of our Nato "Allies" would like to sell products to China, but US pressure has prevented it.

[Titleist]

Here's an overhead shot of China's newest and firstest Aircraft Carrier at sea, taken from a commercial airliner.

It must be close to becoming operational.

http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/varyagfromabove.jpg

"Looks just like a penis, only smaller." :cool:

[Colonel Flagg]

Some really interesting developments in Asia/Pacific region and Indian Ocean as well:

Not much coverage of Sri Lanka and the Chinese economic/political/military backstop that made crushing the Tamil Tiger insurgency possible a few years back and an opportunity for China to protect it's SLOC.

Same goes for the growing relationship between Vietnam and India(both traditional enemies of China), with India offering training to Vietnam for Vietnam's new ordered fleet of Kilo subs to counter China in the Spratleys.

And the latest news of very recent US high level visit to Myanmar/Burma and the forward deployment of USMC personnel in Aussie.

And the Chinese political chess in places like Fiji, Solomon Islands, and most everywhere else in the region that isn't JUST natural resource focused.

In my opinion, China's going to need 15-25 years minimum of massive investment and razor sharp focus to develop any legitimate/serious naval carrier force projection capability that would have even a slim chance of survival against a peer level opponent outside of a Mainland China supported bubble.

In oversimplistic terms for a simple infantryman like me to understand, I reckon we are already deep within Cold War 2.0(or "Peace in our time" redux?) with a very strong possibility of our existing decade plus of conflict moving almost seamlessly into another proxy or direct confrontation....and a growing focus on the naval part of the spectrum in the period moving forward as economic/political/military power grows in Asia.....

Considering the depth and breadth of the growing global financial crisis(and the fact that it's not over by a long shot), leveraging a multi trillion dollar military capability makes sense to me more and more every day as our ability to maintain force overmatch is likely to dwindle over time due to relative economic ability to sustain it......



Paper(T-bills), Scissors(Cyberwar), Carrier Battle Group



15, 10, or even 5 years ago, the idea of a global reboot sized event would not exactly sound like an appealing opportunity as there was simply too much to lose(9/11 placed the US military on a decade long war footing.....but America remained at The Mall)now, not so much...it could provide a solution(with winners and lots of losers) to maintain global dominance as well as an opportunity to effect considerable and necessary domestic structural change....like put the US economy of "war" setting to close the output gap trap.

I could easily imagine the current Chinese system getting sucked into the growing global financial crisis vortex and being replaced/supplanted by a decisive hard liner military to prevent collapse that would make Tiananmen 89 looks like Sesame Street.

Imagine if you had US military capability from circa 1949 to decisively abort Hitler's war machine back in 1936-1938?

Or do you wait until its a fair fight with draw down of forces due to economic difficulty and fart around until an existential threat rises again and we have less capacity to defend against it?

I hate war.....but if we appear to be destined by fate for conflict due to extreme financial system volatility, resource competition, a desire for power ascendancy to bust the global reserve currency power base, etc....I'd rather choose the time and place for the battle to defend it, rather than wait for the enemy to choose for me.

Do we kneecap China when the opportunity presents itself or accept inevitably diminished influence and control?

My 2 cents, not that it matters, says I'd rather initiate an ambush than hear "contact left".

[Aries]

Some really interesting developments in Asia/Pacific region and Indian Ocean as well:

Not much coverage of Sri Lanka and the Chinese economic/political/military backstop that made crushing the Tamil Tiger insurgency possible a few years back and an opportunity for China to protect it's SLOC.

Same goes for the growing relationship between Vietnam and India(both traditional enemies of China), with India offering training to Vietnam for Vietnam's new ordered fleet of Kilo subs to counter China in the Spratleys.

And the latest news of very recent US high level visit to Myanmar/Burma and the forward deployment of USMC personnel in Aussie.

And the Chinese political chess in places like Fiji, Solomon Islands, and most everywhere else in the region that isn't JUST natural resource focused.

In my opinion, China's going to need 15-25 years minimum of massive investment and razor sharp focus to develop any legitimate/serious naval carrier force projection capability that would have even a slim chance of survival against a peer level opponent outside of a Mainland China supported bubble.

In oversimplistic terms for a simple infantryman like me to understand, I reckon we are already deep within Cold War 2.0(or "Peace in our time" redux?) with a very strong possibility of our existing decade plus of conflict moving almost seamlessly into another proxy or direct confrontation....and a growing focus on the naval part of the spectrum in the period moving forward as economic/political/military power grows in Asia.....

Considering the depth and breadth of the growing global financial crisis(and the fact that it's not over by a long shot), leveraging a multi trillion dollar military capability makes sense to me more and more every day as our ability to maintain force overmatch is likely to dwindle over time due to relative economic ability to sustain it......



Paper(T-bills), Scissors(Cyberwar), Carrier Battle Group



15, 10, or even 5 years ago, the idea of a global reboot sized event would not exactly sound like an appealing opportunity as there was simply too much to lose(9/11 placed the US military on a decade long war footing.....but America remained at The Mall)now, not so much...it could provide a solution(with winners and lots of losers) to maintain global dominance as well as an opportunity to effect considerable and necessary domestic structural change....like put the US economy of "war" setting to close the output gap trap.

I could easily imagine the current Chinese system getting sucked into the growing global financial crisis vortex and being replaced/supplanted by a decisive hard liner military to prevent collapse that would make Tiananmen 89 looks like Sesame Street.

Imagine if you had US military capability from circa 1949 to decisively abort Hitler's war machine back in 1936-1938?

Or do you wait until its a fair fight with draw down of forces due to economic difficulty and fart around until an existential threat rises again and we have less capacity to defend against it?

I hate war.....but if we appear to be destined by fate for conflict due to extreme financial system volatility, resource competition, a desire for power ascendancy to bust the global reserve currency power base, etc....I'd rather choose the time and place for the battle to defend it, rather than wait for the enemy to choose for me.

Do we kneecap China when the opportunity presents itself or accept inevitably diminished influence and control?

My 2 cents, not that it matters, says I'd rather initiate an ambush than hear "contact left".

China is not Iraq. It is a nuclear power. You do not initiate war just for the sake of doing it.

[assertnull]

China is not Iraq. It is a nuclear power. You do not initiate war just for the sake of doing it.

Far as I've been able to gather from working with/talking to the Chinese (purely as a civilian, mind you) they have this almost religious belief, that the person who throws the first punch will always be fated to have their ass handed to them. So while they may be building up capability, I'm not all that sure they have heaps of intention of doing anything with it. Now, they try like hell to bait someone else into throwing first blows, or give technology to people we don't like, but far as I can tell this is all posturing on their end.

Could be wrong. But between that, and their impending aging crisis, I'd imagine if we can avoid direct clashes with them for ~20 years they'll slowly fade into the background (relatively speaking, of course, much as a billion people can be background). NB: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/china-growth-debt-currency-yuan-climate-markets-economy-myths_2.html

[Colonel Flagg]

China is not Iraq. It is a nuclear power. You do not initiate war just for the sake of doing it.

I agree.....

But it's hard to fail noticing the comparison in both conventional and nuclear force projection capability between say US/China...as well as say US and Pak/India/China.

As stated I hate war......but IF momentum toward a direct or significant proxy conflict between US/China is going to happen then it would make sense for the US to leverage it's force projection overmatch while that considerable overmatch still exists.

Nuclear is only one facet of the war equation.

But if Pak-India cooked off after a US/ISAF drawdown in Afghanistan, pulling in China....I would think it genuinely possible that nuclear weapons could be used without necessarily sucking the US into the conflict as a direct combatant.

[Aries]

I agree.....

But it's hard to fail noticing the comparison in both conventional and nuclear force projection capability between say US/China...as well as say US and Pak/India/China.

As stated I hate war......but IF momentum toward a direct or significant proxy conflict between US/China is going to happen then it would make sense for the US to leverage it's force projection overmatch while that considerable overmatch still exists.

Nuclear is only one facet of the war equation.

But if Pak-India cooked off after a US/ISAF drawdown in Afghanistan, pulling in China....I would think it genuinely possible that nuclear weapons could be used without necessarily sucking the US into the conflict as a direct combatant.


There is no need to war with China. Like another poster stated. They will fade away in a few decades. Besides, I would love to see how China could provide logistics to their Army say they were involved in a war away from their mainland like in Iran or Africa??? I see little force projection capability myself. This is a war that is not needed.

[DirtyDog0311]

Do we kneecap China when the opportunity presents itself or accept inevitably diminished influence and control?



I agree with everything you said. It always seems a historical lesson that we refuse to learn (or at least, those in charge refuse to learn) is that every time we go to war, we always seem to play "catch up" with the modern warfighting capabilities of the era. I do believe the saying that the pentagon is always 'trying to fight the last war' instead of preparing for the next one. China is going to be a problem. Our two countries are on a collision course eventually, and I think China sees that and is slowly preparing for that. Too bad our politicans can't see past the next election cycle.

On a lighter note.....he above quote cracked me up. Instantly reminded me of that scene in "The walking dead" where Shane kneecaps Otis to GTFO.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b115/mattyxvii/shanekneecapotis.jpg

[Aries]

I agree with everything you said. It always seems a historical lesson that we refuse to learn (or at least, those in charge refuse to learn) is that every time we go to war, we always seem to play "catch up" with the modern warfighting capabilities of the era. I do believe the saying that the pentagon is always 'trying to fight the last war' instead of preparing for the next one. China is going to be a problem. Our two countries are on a collision course eventually, and I think China sees that and is slowly preparing for that. Too bad our politicans can't see past the next election cycle.

On a lighter note.....he above quote cracked me up. Instantly reminded me of that scene in "The walking dead" where Shane kneecaps Otis to GTFO.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b115/mattyxvii/shanekneecapotis.jpg

We played catchup in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war 1, GW2, and Afghanistan? I don't think so.

[Colonel Flagg]

There is no need to war with China. Like another poster stated. They will fade away in a few decades. Besides, I would love to see how China could provide logistics to their Army say they were involved in a war away from their mainland like in Iran or Africa??? I see little force projection capability myself. This is a war that is not needed.

I guess it might be helpful to define war.

I would strongly prefer avoiding a direct conventional or nuclear conflict with China as I'm a firm adherent to the Vizzini Doctrine from Princess Bride :) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfWDilXZQEo

I agree that China will not likely possess the ability to project conventional military force against a peer or near peer outside of its immediate sphere of influence/control for quite some time to come.....it's military excursion against Vietnam in the late 70's is a prime example(although by now dated) of how NOT to accomplish such things.

But China is putting forward considerable effort to project it's diplomatic and economic power......I think it is inevitable that China will attempt to project military power as well....until then China will "battle" using it's money, it's voracious economy, a diplomatic full court press, and possibly less than conventional means to counter/confront the US and it's allies while China is still militarily weak....cyber, etc.

I've seen up close and personal the locust-like exploitation of natural resources by Chinese interests and I have to say I'm not a fan of amoral exploitation. I'm no hippy greenie......I'm more of a "farmer greenie"......keen to see development at a local/national/global level that includes the considerable harvesting of natural resources.....but done in a strategic and sustainable way.....not planetary resource gang rape....which is what I've seen Chinese interests doing with ancient South Pacific teak forests and fishing stocks.

I don't believe that statement is racist......but if anyone wanted to accuse me of it I guess I simply don't care...I must be getting old.

Maybe it's greed to want my children to possess the same opportunities(the ones that truly matter) and the same quality of life(again, that which truly matters) I've had...or better....but I think we've got too many monkeys on this rock without a coherent plan....so until we have a plan to freedomize our Galaxy and get off this rock I think we may be in for a monkey culling at some stage.

To me it "feels" distinctly like the quality of life/standard of living "ladder" we've been climbing for decades is currently at a stage where many in western nations are stuck in the middle rungs of the ladder...and are now clearly getting passed by many in the developing world as we see early stage tectonic shift in empire and economic critical mass from west to east....and beginning to notice...and get angry....which can lead to nasty populism/fascism/Pol Pot 2.0

I don't believe in a "we can all be winners" environment for my children in school/sports.....surely we can't all be winners globally either.....this is best exemplified by the decline in purchasing power parity experienced in many 3rd world nations over the last 30-40 years...to the point some regions should be redefined as 4th world...like Mali that's deforesting itself out of wood for cooking/heating.

If it's a choice of being a winner or a loser.....and there will be clear winners and clear losers moving forward....I think the choice is obvious which side we would all like to be on.

Maybe China defines war in a more superficially passive and very long term economic means of emasculating US industry and nurturing the US into China's number #1 pawn shop or crack house return customer.

Maybe the US continues to define war in a short sharp conventional conflict sense...find, fix, finish the enemy...maybe that's due to our short election cycle/attention spans.

After quite a few trillion of ultimately limited treasure spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with quite a few trillion more lost during the last 10+ years of occasional US financial strokes, and hallowing out of the US economy we could see a shift in mentality with a growing realization of US unipolar power mortality...instead of immortality from a mere 10 years a go.....which could, depending on who's got the keys to running the country, lead to greater risk tolerance for solution/resolution via conflict/crisis.

Personally, I think we're at war now in some respects or at the very least preparing the battlefield......I'd be incredibly disappointed if the US and it's core allies were not expending sufficient effort to shatter or distract China from within.

As I understand it China is expending a staggering level of effort to maintain domestic control in the event of civil insurrection....so maybe we should do more to help that along.

The "at war now" parts I think would probably be the 2.0 versions of partnering with the Vatican to support Solidarity in Poland to distract/shatter the Warsaw Pact.

I recall considerable effort on the part of the Reagan Administration to prevent Soviet Natural Gas from reaching Western Europe via very aggressive diplomacy, specialist economic embargo, and covert means to attrit Soviet energy industry to keep the SU broke and prevent it from making Western Europe it's crack whore...same with pushing Saudis to pump the Soviets broke.

I figure we will be seeing more of that...or signs of stuff like that.

Like maybe increased food inflation.....the average Chinese pay over half their income on food....double the cost of food(wage inflation not likely to keep up or factor at all) and Americans will complain....double the cost of food(and wage inflation not able to keep up entirely) and the Chinese will starve/riot.

Why not get more aggressive(up to but not including the point of direct conflict)......what can China do about it? They have our paper, we have almost a dozen carrier battle groups.

I see us locked in a real mess:

China's two biggest export markets are in BIG trouble....US double dip and EU collapse/retrenchment to the core...so therefore China will inevitably face considerable domestic problems from not being able to employ all those hundreds of millions of sustenance farmers.

Every political leader will be looking for someone to blame......it's always easier to blame the dirty evil foreigners....go to war and/or smash thru significant reform...although the value/success of the reforms is another challenge.

Aren't we on a near inescapable conflict trajectory(if time horizon is say 5-7 years extending to the end of this global financial crisis)?

To me I get this image of us in a Mexican standoff(holding a minigun and wearing body armor) with a whole lot of hombres and banditos drawing on each other...and all it's going to take is a village idiot with some fireworks to start the party.

I'm guessing the last man standing gets to sit at the head of the table for the next Bretton Woods.

Just some of my meandering BS.

[Titleist]

I guess it might be helpful to define war.

I would strongly prefer avoiding a direct conventional or nuclear conflict with China as I'm a firm adherent to the Vizzini Doctrine from Princess Bride :) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfWDilXZQEo

I agree that China will not likely possess the ability to project conventional military force against a peer or near peer outside of its immediate sphere of influence/control for quite some time to come.....it's military excursion against Vietnam in the late 70's is a prime example(although by now dated) of how NOT to accomplish such things.

But China is putting forward considerable effort to project it's diplomatic and economic power......I think it is inevitable that China will attempt to project military power as well....until then China will "battle" using it's money, it's voracious economy, a diplomatic full court press, and possibly less than conventional means to counter/confront the US and it's allies while China is still militarily weak....cyber, etc.

I've seen up close and personal the locust-like exploitation of natural resources by Chinese interests and I have to say I'm not a fan of amoral exploitation. I'm no hippy greenie......I'm more of a "farmer greenie"......keen to see development at a local/national/global level that includes the considerable harvesting of natural resources.....but done in a strategic and sustainable way.....not planetary resource gang rape....which is what I've seen Chinese interests doing with ancient South Pacific teak forests and fishing stocks.

I don't believe that statement is racist......but if anyone wanted to accuse me of it I guess I simply don't care...I must be getting old.

Maybe it's greed to want my children to possess the same opportunities(the ones that truly matter) and the same quality of life(again, that which truly matters) I've had...or better....but I think we've got too many monkeys on this rock without a coherent plan....so until we have a plan to freedomize our Galaxy and get off this rock I think we may be in for a monkey culling at some stage.

To me it "feels" distinctly like the quality of life/standard of living "ladder" we've been climbing for decades is currently at a stage where many in western nations are stuck in the middle rungs of the ladder...and are now clearly getting passed by many in the developing world as we see early stage tectonic shift in empire and economic critical mass from west to east....and beginning to notice...and get angry....which can lead to nasty populism/fascism/Pol Pot 2.0

I don't believe in a "we can all be winners" environment for my children in school/sports.....surely we can't all be winners globally either.....this is best exemplified by the decline in purchasing power parity experienced in many 3rd world nations over the last 30-40 years...to the point some regions should be redefined as 4th world...like Mali that's deforesting itself out of wood for cooking/heating.

If it's a choice of being a winner or a loser.....and there will be clear winners and clear losers moving forward....I think the choice is obvious which side we would all like to be on.

Maybe China defines war in a more superficially passive and very long term economic means of emasculating US industry and nurturing the US into China's number #1 pawn shop or crack house return customer.

Maybe the US continues to define war in a short sharp conventional conflict sense...find, fix, finish the enemy...maybe that's due to our short election cycle/attention spans.

After quite a few trillion of ultimately limited treasure spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with quite a few trillion more lost during the last 10+ years of occasional US financial strokes, and hallowing out of the US economy we could see a shift in mentality with a growing realization of US unipolar power mortality...instead of immortality from a mere 10 years a go.....which could, depending on who's got the keys to running the country, lead to greater risk tolerance for solution/resolution via conflict/crisis.

Personally, I think we're at war now in some respects or at the very least preparing the battlefield......I'd be incredibly disappointed if the US and it's core allies were not expending sufficient effort to shatter or distract China from within.

As I understand it China is expending a staggering level of effort to maintain domestic control in the event of civil insurrection....so maybe we should do more to help that along.

The "at war now" parts I think would probably be the 2.0 versions of partnering with the Vatican to support Solidarity in Poland to distract/shatter the Warsaw Pact.

I recall considerable effort on the part of the Reagan Administration to prevent Soviet Natural Gas from reaching Western Europe via very aggressive diplomacy, specialist economic embargo, and covert means to attrit Soviet energy industry to keep the SU broke and prevent it from making Western Europe it's crack whore...same with pushing Saudis to pump the Soviets broke.

I figure we will be seeing more of that...or signs of stuff like that.

Like maybe increased food inflation.....the average Chinese pay over half their income on food....double the cost of food(wage inflation not likely to keep up or factor at all) and Americans will complain....double the cost of food(and wage inflation not able to keep up entirely) and the Chinese will starve/riot.

Why not get more aggressive(up to but not including the point of direct conflict)......what can China do about it? They have our paper, we have almost a dozen carrier battle groups.

I see us locked in a real mess:

China's two biggest export markets are in BIG trouble....US double dip and EU collapse/retrenchment to the core...so therefore China will inevitably face considerable domestic problems from not being able to employ all those hundreds of millions of sustenance farmers.

Every political leader will be looking for someone to blame......it's always easier to blame the dirty evil foreigners....go to war and/or smash thru significant reform...although the value/success of the reforms is another challenge.

Aren't we on a near inescapable conflict trajectory(if time horizon is say 5-7 years extending to the end of this global financial crisis)?

To me I get this image of us in a Mexican standoff(holding a minigun and wearing body armor) with a whole lot of hombres and banditos drawing on each other...and all it's going to take is a village idiot with some fireworks to start the party.

I'm guessing the last man standing gets to sit at the head of the table for the next Bretton Woods.

Just some of my meandering BS.

I enjoyed the read. IMHO the first Bretton Woods was a sellout and disaster.:mad:

[jtk317]

Wow, if I'm understanding correctly the BW conference was basically laying groundwork for expanded international political corruption and probably made a lot of the pro-World Government crowd pretty happy. I hadn't even known of it before now. SOCnet rocks.

[Gebirgsjäger]

Found this on the Inet. Don´t know if this was posted under a different name.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18798685/37698448/name/Unrestricted+Warfare+.pdf

[Titleist]

Found this on the Inet. Don´t know if this was posted under a different name.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18798685/37698448/name/Unrestricted+Warfare+.pdf

Did you read it? Were you looking for comment on it's content? If the latter, I'll read it this weekend and get back to everyone in short order.

[Gebirgsjäger]

I´m at Chapter 4. But i didn´t expect a comment to it, it is a long and sometimes dry reading. But it fits to the topic. And it was thought as a information nothing more, nothing less. If anyone want to read this OK, and if not its OK too. If you want to give a short recapitulation on it, please do it.

Regards

Ulrich