Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
It is the bravado and brinksmanship that sparked the arms race.
|
Renew confidence is the direct result of modernization. I don't see how that could've been avoided. The PLA got their butts handed to them by the Vietnamese in the 1979 1st Sino-Vietnam War. The PLA returned the favour in the 1984 2nd Sino-VN War. As their modernization proceeds, the PLA would naturally gain more and more confidence (some justified, ie Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, maybe even India, some not justified, ie Japan, US,) against the array of foes they face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Remember the article said "get the cat to eat pepper" China has not made the other nations in the region dance to its tune with its actions so no peppers have been eaten-hence a Chinese strategic failure as the cats if not hunting the Chinese mice are at least now counting mouse holes.
|
Are you not reading too much into the article? It is about Chinese strategic thought, not about Chinese strategic success. Col Thomas is one of those who wants to know how his subject matters think. If you have not already, I do recommend you read more of his articles. They do dwell into the culture of the militaries he studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
The flip side also applies, should the navies of the region continue to allow the PLAN to act like a bully and exert a totally bogus claim on the resource rich Spratlys and harassment in international waters? China is the bully as much as the bullied. Again be it Chinese imperialism or tit for tat diplomacy no cats are eating peppers.
|
The Spratley claims dates back a long time and whether you agree with the stance or not, the Chinese had initiated force to claim the area back in the 1970s against at the time South Vietnam. They won that skirmish as well as a latter one against Vietnam in the 80s. So, the claim must be viewed in that context. They've won the right to claim through military victories long before the current challenges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Again I ask where is an example of Chinese strategic success in Asia after 1989.
|
I would've thought the 4 Party Talks concerning North Korea was a Chinese success. It was the Chinese who forced the North Koreans to come to terms with South Korea and the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
China has made blunder after blunder after the Tienanmen Square debacle. She has formed alliances with the wrong people, broken alliances with the right ones, acted like a bully and claimed a capability she does not have- but she has made sure arms dealers in Asia are enjoying a bull market at her long term expense.
|
Was there any other way for an emerging power to behave otherwise? With the collapse of the USSR, China lost the strategic balance that made her so attractive to the US. The same thing happened in Afghanistan when the Mujahadeen was no longer useful to the US. Instead of the US telling her Asian interests to shut the hell up vis-a-vi China (ie, Taiwan independence, the Philipines arresting Chinese fishermen, and Japan keeping her military out of disputed areas), Chinese interests were all of a sudden left to fend for herself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
1- the primary job of the state is to provide for the common good of its citizens. Defense is only one part of this.
2- You don't deal with external problems by pouring gasoline on a fire. China was ideally positioned after the Cold War and out side of economics she blew it.
|
New player still trying to learn the game.