Thread: The Chinese Military’s Strategic Mind-set

Not better, just different- the American approach can be summed up in two terms the "carrot" or the "stick", not the or the "trick". Western action is usually pretty direct with concrete triggers that lead to very spelled out reactions good and bad. This a direct outgrowth of European and then American/Soviet hard power (guns, science, transoceanic navigation, industry, etc.)

Th last great western power to use an indirect approach to diplomacy was the Byzantine Empire. Even the great European diplomats and thier diplomacy (Peel, Bismark, Disraeli) relied on interlocking levers that would trigger direct clashes and action against each other in order to achieve thier goals.

Also you need to separate the jingoism (chaff) from the wheat. Talk about targeting an enemies computer networks via a third party is not new nor is it very robust. It might also point to a certain blind spot in thier strategic thinking. There is a trait I have noticed among many posters from emerging powers to assume that the currently powerful are decadent and weak. They then engage in braggadocio that over estimates thier capabilities and under estimates the enemies constitution and ability to not just withstand an attack but strike back.

Assume for what ever reason that the US and China end up at war and China uses a cell of Nigerian hackers to totally collapse 80% of America's computer networks. In the end so what, all that was lost was money and record most of which can be put back together by hand, did a single roll of toilet paper or bullet physically vanish- no of course not. Even if China causes a cascading failure of the power grid that puts America in the dark for months it is only temporary, no matter how hard life is until,the grid comes back up. Now what about the American response? China will still have thier physical assets devastated and find itself with a problem socially/domestically many time more painful than the social and domestic problems they caused in America.

In this case the cat that just licked the pepper and burned his mouth goes mousing because his cat eyes had earlier saw the mouse raising peppers and his ears heard the mouse tell his buddies,"hey watch this." This is America's ultimate edge- the claws and teeth are nice but it is information dominance before as well as during a conflict. 9-11 woke up the US's spy agencies and made the importance of knowing what current and potential enemies where thinking.

This article is less about China's capabilities to the Chinese but a shot across thier bows that says we are watching. If a public forum like this can discuss what the article means, what are the official policy wonks with super computers, professionals staffs, humint/elint access saying?

No I am not saying the indirect approach doesn't work, only that it has limits. I am simply calling it what it is- a power multiplier- not a power substitute.

Originally Posted by Inst

Like I said, I'm very stupid. You're being too subtle for me, but I think what I'm supposed to understand is that no other nation would have been creative enough to attack Vietnam in order to strike at the Soviet Union, and that, if the planning staff of other countries were given the task, they would choose a more conventional route.

Ok, my mind is fried because of the season rush but I will give the gist of the evidence

1) The Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty was not renewed only months before the war.

2) The Soviet encirclement of China was complete with Vietnam. The Soviet Army in the North. The Pacific Ocean to the West, India to the south and east, and Vietnam to the south.

3) The 38GA and the 39GA stayed north.

4) 3 Vietnamese capitals were destroyed by so called 2nd rate Chinese troops.

5) Deng Xia Peng did not blink at the casualties.

Zraver,

Col Thomas is well known in his publications about Soviet/Russian campaigns in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Originally Posted by Inst

Like I said, I'm very stupid. You're being too subtle for me, but I think what I'm supposed to understand is that no other nation would have been creative enough to attack Vietnam in order to strike at the Soviet Union, and that, if the planning staff of other countries were given the task, they would choose a more conventional route.

Still, what I think here is that this is better described not as Chinese, but simply, as "smart".

It's not smart or better, just a totally different mindset.

Like what zraver said, western thinking is very direct. We say what we mean and we mean what we say. We don't beat around the bushes and use a bushel of hints to kinda nudge someone into thinking what we might want to express.

Chinese civilization has been around continuously for 5000 some odd years. The inter personal relationship is very intricate and very refined. No one ever says what's on his mind. No one ever looks the other in the eye. That's considered very confrontational. Instead things are done in a very roundabout way.

I guess that's the easiest way to understand the Chinese thinking. No direct confrontation if at all possible. That's just not done. The west is not used to this kind of diplomacy.