For what does US over-estimate China's military power?

[indianguy4u]

Any takers for this article?

http://english1.people.com.cn/200505...24_186532.html

For what does US over-estimate China's military power?



On May 20, the US Department of Defence referred to the US Congress an annual report on "Chinese military power", playing the hackneyed theme of "China threat theory" again.

However in order to strengthen its persuasion, a large amount of fabricated contents, which are more seditious, were filled to the report such as the "huge Chinese military expenditure" in recent years, modernized progress of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) that will threaten the security of US army and the aggravated imbalance between the military powers across the Taiwan Straits.

Due to the over exaggeration the "report" suffered the queries and criticism from numerous professional research personages in the US immediately. The US former Ambassador to China James Lilley analyzed that "China threat" has been exaggerated by some Pentagon people maliciously.

The "report" says the Chinese military spending in 2003 reached 65 billion US dollars and was up to 70 billion US dollars in 2004. As to this, James Mulvenon, expert on the issue of China national defence with the US RAND (Research and Development) Corporation, thinks "The US government does not sit down and study the firsthand information on Chinese military spending, but "guess without restraint'." Just as what an article published by the US "International Herald Tribune" on April 8 said that US has already suffered from "the bigoted disease of China threat".

These wrong "evidences" stem from some very important persons from the US government. At the beginning of this year, Porter Goss spread that China military modernization constitutes the direct threat to US when he became the chief to head the US Central Intelligence Agency; then, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said while speaking to Senate's Military Committee that within 10 years, the scale of the Chinese navy will exceed that of the US.

Then, why does US Department of Defence spare no effort to exaggerate China's military strength constantly? To sum up, there are nothing more than five respects:

First of all, the US military and right-wing forces need China to be its strategic rival in order to reach the goal of "having the soldiers and conducting itself with dignity". It makes them eager to "make" a new strategic rival since the anti-terrorism war is drawing to an end, in order to maintain its position and force in the American political circles.

Professor of Political Science John Mearsheimer with Chicago University, the heavyweight personage in the US academic circles, said with ulterior motives, "China can not emerge peacefully" and "the possibility of making war is quite great". In order to cope with the emergence of China, the American right-wing conservatives and the military always stand together to make uproar for strengthening its military containment against China.

Second, make a favorable atmosphere for the US global strategic readjustment. According to American media, while planning to make "Chinese military power" report in Pentagon, US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld was organizing the senior aides and staff of the Department of Defence to make a secret report on the new military strategy of the American army.

The so-called "new military strategy" is to shift its defence emphasis in the East Asia to China progressively in its global military deployment in a certain sense. As long as the strategic emphasis is established, the US military will have a sufficient reason to require the US Congress to increase the military expenditure by a big margin.

Third, bear away the huge profit orders for the American interest groups of military industries. Regarding China as the strategic rival, the military and right wing forces are the biggest profit-making sides. As everyone knows, the US Department of Defence is in fact the advertiser and promoter for the products manufactured by the huge groups of the US military industries.

Fourth, exaggerate China's military strength for the excuse of its military sales to Taiwan. On one hand the US advises devoting more efforts to the military sales to Taiwan at home; on the other hand, it threatens the Taiwan authorities to make an early decision in order to buy more American weapons and said that otherwise, there will be no support for Taiwan's security. The enhancement of its military sales to Taiwan also brings benefits to the military industrial groups and the military.

Fifth it presses those who intend to strengthen their military technological cooperation with China. It exaggerates China military strength willfully, plays up China threat in the East Asia purposely as well as warns the European Union and Israel not to have their military technological cooperation with China.

Article carried on the People's Daily Overseas Edition, May 24, and translated by People's Daily Online

[Shek]

There are a few things that come to mind in general:

1) China doesn't publish truthful statistics on their defense expenditures, so estimates are required, which may or may not be fully on target
2) China's rhetoric over Taiwan and increased naval presence are not peaceful and defensive overtures
3) China has sustained a large increase in defense expenditures over the past few years, so the trend itself is disconcerting
4) Forcing down an EP-3 and buzzing others with their fighter jets

As far as the article goes, I think some of its conclusions are derived from blogs on the far right and far left and are laughable:

1) The war on terror is almost over (thanks to the Honorable Ms. Pelosi)
2) It's an excuse to line the pockets of the military-industrial complex
3) We need a strategic enemy now!

[indianguy4u]

What about (acc to article) US blackmailing Taiwan into buying its weapons?

[Shek]

What about (acc to article) US blackmailing Taiwan into buying its weapons?

I must have skipped over that part. Let's see, I live on an island only miles away from my archenemy who is developing a large naval fleet and cruise missiles capable of destroying me. Please don't force me into buying weapons that I can use to defend myself. The article also doesn't mention some of the defiant language used by the Taiwainese leader (I can't remember whether they have a President or Prime Minister). Anyways, IIRC, Bush had to have him tone down the rhetoric lest he start a war. I'd say that they bought the weapons more than willingly. I could be wrong as I am no China expert, but the minimal amount of stuff that I've read leads me to believe that the People's Daily is publishing as much "truth" as Pravda used to.

[Major Dad]

I must have skipped over that part. Let's see, I live on an island only miles away from my archenemy who is developing a large naval fleet and cruise missiles capable of destroying me. Please don't force me into buying weapons that I can use to defend myself. The article also doesn't mention some of the defiant language used by the Taiwainese leader (I can't remember whether they have a President or Prime Minister). Anyways, IIRC, Bush had to have him tone down the rhetoric lest he start a war. I'd say that they bought the weapons more than willingly. I could be wrong as I am no China expert, but the minimal amount of stuff that I've read leads me to believe that the People's Daily is publishing as much "truth" as Pravda used to.

Exactly, the PRC does a far better job of blackmailing Taiwan into buying US weapons than the US ever could.

As for Chinese weapons acquisitions, I think the best indicator is the fact that the EU will almost certainly drop their ban on weapons sales to China by the end of the year. They obviously believe there is money to be made in the Middle Kingdom.

[Officer of Engineers]

For what does US over-estimate China's military power?

Mostly because of dickheads like General Zhu.

Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing

[Officer of Engineers]

I like to put some perspective on the Chinese military program. In the past ten years only had the Chinese military budgets grown above mere survival levels. Though the Chinese had bought alot of weapons, alot more money went to fix leaking roofs and fixing the indoor plumbing and a few luxury items (heat in winter).

Even at $70bil US, the Chinese could not even hope to arm 10% of its force with the state-of-the-art systems. Yes, they made some impressive purchases but brand new SU-27/33/whatever are sitting more often than flying and KILO subs had more dry dock time than sea time.

Training budgets are extremely limited. With the exceptions of the Rapid Deployment Forces, most exercises are rehersals, not problem solving. And RDF qualifications is once every 3-4 years.

On the surface, the PLA is an impressive force. But look under the hood, there's alot to be desired.

[indianguy4u]

OoE,
Aren't u underestimating the chinese too much?

[platinum786]

Office of Engineers made an extremly valid point about the surface value of chinese forces, and under the hood....

what the threat is that if the stuff under the hood gets replaced, you might end up with a real threat.

[Ray]

Colonel,

You make the Chinese look like a Punch and Judy show.

While they are not capable of overseas operations, do you think that they are a pushover?

I wonder if any nation can launch an expeditionary operation on China in a conventional war profile.

THe moot point is to even threaten China, it can only be in a stand off profile initially i.e. nuclear and then maybe a close in is possible.

These are just off the cuff comments and I sure would like to know your views.

One must not underestimate the resolve of the common masses.

[Officer of Engineers]

Colonel,

You make the Chinese look like a Punch and Judy show.

Sir,

My apologies for a delay reply. It was one of those "what happenned and I don't know what I did" weekends.

The truth is, Sir, that the PLA knows its a Punch and Judy show. Alot of legacy thinking, weapons, organization, and just a general mess from the Great Proliterate Cultural Revolution.

Those in charge are trying to just deal with the nuts and bolts issue (reduce the communist lectures, increase training time, and fix that leaky roof and toilet) and those who wants to be in charge are trying to show that they could do a better job (with all those crazy scenarios about nukes, computer viruses, assasin's mace). In other words, Sir, their army is just as screwed up as yours and mine (and everybody else's).

While they are not capable of overseas operations, do you think that they are a pushover?

Sir, no one is going to invade China. However, my point is that they're not up to par even on what they want to do. Just on Friday, officially for the 1st time, we're told the PLA is moving towards the corps-brigade-battalion model which surprised the hell out of CDF. We have not seen any exercise or documentation concerning battalion.

The PLA is best described as a work-in-progress.

I wonder if any nation can launch an expeditionary operation on China in a conventional war profile.

Why not, Sir? I'm sure the InA is more than capable of waging offensive combat operations in its Area of Operations against the Chinese. The same goes for the Russians.

THe moot point is to even threaten China, it can only be in a stand off profile initially i.e. nuclear and then maybe a close in is possible.

Sir, it is not us who is threatening China but it is us who are standing in China's way, more specifically, the Taiwan issue.

However, as a historic note, despite recent Chinese rhetoric about using nukes, Chinese nukes had NEVER been primed for an exchange. Ours and the Russians had.

One must not underestimate the resolve of the common masses.

That the Chinese are willing to fight is a given. That they will win is not.

[Ray]

Thanks.

[Semper Fi]

Anyone know if Chinese nukes can reach the US?

[leib10]

They might reach Hawaii or maybe the Western seaboard. I'm not sure about the exact range of the Chinese missiles, whatever kind they are.

[EricTheRed]

better to overestimate than under