Thread: World War Three

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

the government is making all the right moves economically, they are creating the conditions that will lead to the rise of democracy: a gigantic middle class and a non-Communist elite. Provided things continue the way they have, I predict legal opposition parties and the first free elections by 2020, maybe a few years earlier.

I hope you're right. Sounds like a wonderful thing...

Doesn't matter what China needs or doesn't need. What matters is that China has followed a pattern of revolution, disintegration, and reformation for thousands of years. It's what China does.

I think you are reading too much into history. The China of today is not the China of 3000 years ago. Its not even the China of 1949.

Right. Is this big election before or after a free press is created and full private property rights are enforced?

Private property rights has recently been codified in Chinese law. Its not always respected, but it shows they are moving in the right direction. Obviously the press isn't free, but that doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

And I think you are missing the forest while you study the trees.

I would say the same about you: You think democracy in China is impossible because they don't have a free press NOW that a revolution is the only thing that will bring it. You are looking at their present political situation and don't see any potential for reform.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Not that I am a China fan but your view is a bit simplistic. It does not explain why China survived while many others perished.

Nor does my view attempt to explain such.

-dale

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

I think you are reading too much into history. The China of today is not the China of 3000 years ago. Its not even the China of 1949.

And the China of 347 A.D. was not the same as the China of 247 A.D.

My point is simply that there is a huge weight of historical precedent that China has to overcome. Inertia if you will. By no means do I claim that it cannot overcome it, but I remain skeptical.

Private property rights has recently been codified in Chinese law. Its not always respected, but it shows they are moving in the right direction. Obviously the press isn't free, but that doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

"Nor does it mean that it will be" sez Dale the Skeptic.

I would say the same about you: You think democracy in China is impossible because they don't have a free press NOW that a revolution is the only thing that will bring it. You are looking at their present political situation and don't see any potential for reform.

Actually I am looking at an overall 3000 year view in gross and admittedly coarse perspective. And I do not see any potential for the kinds of reform that would make a truly free China, no.

-dale

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Not that I am a China fan but your view is a bit simplistic. It does not explain why China survived while many others perished.

Simply by sheer numbers. As Russians are fond of saying, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

Not even the Mongols could wipe the Chinese civilization out. That should tell you something.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Simply by sheer numbers. As Russians are fond of saying, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

Not even the Mongols could wipe the Chinese civilization out. That should tell you something.

Actually it does. People who subscribe to a single China history is wrong. Chinese history is akin to something like European history. The Chinese were never really united until after the Yuan Dynasty (Mongols). During Yuan, Southern China was united under the Soong Dynasty.

China is a multi-ethnic nation of 56 ethnic groups.

The Hans are 91.96 percent of the country’s total population, and the other 55 ethnic groups, 8.04 percent. As the majority of the population is of the Han ethnic group, China’s other ethnic groups are called the national minorities.

The Han inhabit throughout the country (they were also given incentives to migrate to non Han areas like Xingjian (Singkiang) ). They mainly inhabit the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River, the Yangtze River and the Pearl River valleys, and the Northeast Plain.

The national minorities, are also scattered over a vast area in approximately 64.3 percent of China, mainly distributed in the border regions from northeast China to north, northwest and southwest China. Yunnan Province, home to more than 20 ethnic groups, has the greatest diversity of minority peoples in China.

There are conflicts amongst them too.

Therefore, China is as diverse as any big country and with its share of problems.

They have the 'advantage' of a totalitarian regime and so calm and cohesiveness can be portrayed.

Once democracy comes as some are stating it will come, the true Colours of Benneton will be displayed. Even so, it will not reach the proportions of other ethnic groups since they are by culture more organised, calm, practical and cohesive.

My point is simply that there is a huge weight of historical precedent that China has to overcome. Inertia if you will. By no means do I claim that it cannot overcome it, but I remain skeptical.

Fair enough

"Nor does it mean that it will be" sez Dale the Skeptic.

lol nope it doesn't. But in my opinion it will prove to be so.

Actually I am looking at an overall 3000 year view in gross and admittedly coarse perspective. And I do not see any potential for the kinds of reform that would make a truly free China, no.

The way I see it, China's reforms will go at a very slow pace until the government makes a mistake. The way things are now, the people tolerate the government because it is increasing prosperity. If that stops, the people will demand changes. But because of the hundreds of millions of middle class people, it will likely be a non-violent change rather than a fullout revolution. When people have something to lose they tend to be more reasonable.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And you would be absolutely wrong. While Russia is no longer able to march to Beijing, the Russian Army is far stronger than the PLA (14 divisions are in the Russian Far East) and the PLAAF is flying Russian planes.

In terms of numbers, the Chinese have a considerable advantage. Back in the days of the Soviet Union, that Chinese advantage in numbers was negated by Russian qualitative superiority. Does Russia have superior quality today? I doubt it. Given their performance in Chechnya, and the current level of corruption, Russia's army is pretty much universally agreed to be a paper tiger. True, during WWII Hitler thought the same thing because of Russia's performance against Finland (which was a correct assumption, most of the existing Soviet army was encircled and destroyed during the first year, even as late as 1944 the Russian's were exchanging losses at a rate of 4-1), but the Soviet Union was able to grind the Wehrmacht down using superior industry and numbers. China has big advantages in both industry and numbers. Also, Russia's supply lines are much longer than China's, and largely reliant upon a few railroads. Given all these elements, it is difficult to see how Russia could beat China in a non-nuclear conflict.

Originally Posted by dalem

China again, gimme a break.

Keep in mind, O China Worshippers, that the "national power curve", whatever it might be determined to be made up of, is NOT linear. It is much easier for China to move from essentially Iron Age status to Industrial Age status than it will be for them to move from Industrial Age to Information Age, all while maintaining economic power, cultural identity (historically the PRE-EMINENT factor in Chinese social and political evolution), and defense.

Just ask Japan.

Yes, just ask Japan. In the space of 40 years, they were able to largely catch up with European powers, and WWI wiped out their national debt, then made them a creditor nation. World War II largely destroyed their economy, but they had created a fairly large industrial base to wage what was essentially two separate wars simultaniously. During the cold war they came to dominate many markets, until they peaked out at pretty much the largest size their economy could hope to get given their population (second to that of the United States). With China's population, even assuming that they do half as well as Japan has done, that should put them far and away at the top of the world insofar as their economy is concerned. With economic success comes the other sinews of great power status if the nation in question feels so inclined.

So I still don't understand why everyone feels that China is so overrated. One could say that the reason for Japan's success after WWII was due to American economic assistance, however we are doing pretty much the same for China, pegging their currency to an artificially low amount to the dollar, and allowing them to shut American goods out of their markets, incurring a huge trade imbalance. This is effectively making the world finance China's economic growth.

If that's the lesson you take away from Japan's massive hype and flameout in the 80s, then I see why you predict great things for China.

-dale

OoE is a Chinese Canadian and runs a Chinese Military Forum.

He is taken to be an expert on China, I believe.

I always value what he has to say about China, Russia and their equation with India.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

In terms of numbers, the Chinese have a considerable advantage. Back in the days of the Soviet Union, that Chinese advantage in numbers was negated by Russian qualitative superiority. Does Russia have superior quality today? I doubt it. Given their performance in Chechnya, and the current level of corruption, Russia's army is pretty much universally agreed to be a paper tiger. True, during WWII Hitler thought the same thing because of Russia's performance against Finland (which was a correct assumption, most of the existing Soviet army was encircled and destroyed during the first year, even as late as 1944 the Russian's were exchanging losses at a rate of 4-1), but the Soviet Union was able to grind the Wehrmacht down using superior industry and numbers. China has big advantages in both industry and numbers. Also, Russia's supply lines are much longer than China's, and largely reliant upon a few railroads. Given all these elements, it is difficult to see how Russia could beat China in a non-nuclear conflict.

All right, blow by blow.

1st, forget an all out war. Neither side has the legs nor the stomache for that kind of bloodletting and both countries would be losers. China burns while Russia freezes (along with almost everybody else in the northern hemisphere).

2ndly, both countries are embarked on a military modernization program with a reduction in mass at its philosophical core. For the Russians, this is a necessity. For the Chinese, they have far too much mass that is politically necessary but militarily a hinderance. The PLA could be reduced by half and still retain exact combat effectiveness. That's how bloated it is.

What this means is that the number of forces would be roughly equivelent between the two if war was declared. Both sides would want the war finished fast and decisive which means that both armies would want to kill each other. And this is where the Chinese are coming up short.

The Chinese are a positional warfare army; not a manouver army. The last major manouver war they've fought (the Korean War), they ended up with intolerable casualties (60-75% reduction in front line units). Hence, all their strategies are aimed at fixing the enemy and avoiding the manouvering so that they can bring decisive force to bear on the enemy.

It is EXACTLY the Russian performance in the 2nd Chechen War (not the 1st) that gives it a superiority over the Chinese and I don't mean the current occupation which is basically one set of thugs beating the crap out of the 2nd set of thugs. In the 2nd Battle for Grozny, the Russians shifted both assets and authority down to the company and platoon levels. Coy cmdrs and pltn ldrs were able to direct massive fire, including some AAA, without going through several echelons (ie, company to division). In short, the Russians can manouver down to the company and platoon level.

Get it?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

All right, blow by blow.

1st, forget an all out war. Neither side has the legs nor the stomache for that kind of bloodletting and both countries would be losers. China burns while Russia freezes (along with almost everybody else in the northern hemisphere).

2ndly, both countries are embarked on a military modernization program with a reduction in mass at its philosophical core. For the Russians, this is a necessity. For the Chinese, they have far too much mass that is politically necessary but militarily a hinderance. The PLA could be reduced by half and still retain exact combat effectiveness. That's how bloated it is.

What this means is that the number of forces would be roughly equivelent between the two if war was declared. Both sides would want the war finished fast and decisive which means that both armies would want to kill each other. And this is where the Chinese are coming up short.

The Chinese are a positional warfare army; not a manouver army. The last major manouver war they've fought (the Korean War), they ended up with intolerable casualties (60-75% reduction in front line units). Hence, all their strategies are aimed at fixing the enemy and avoiding the manouvering so that they can bring decisive force to bear on the enemy.

It is EXACTLY the Russian performance in the 2nd Chechen War (not the 1st) that gives it a superiority over the Chinese and I don't mean the current occupation which is basically one set of thugs beating the crap out of the 2nd set of thugs. In the 2nd Battle for Grozny, the Russians shifted both assets and authority down to the company and platoon levels. Coy cmdrs and pltn ldrs were able to direct massive fire, including some AAA, without going through several echelons (ie, company to division). In short, the Russians can manouver down to the company and platoon level.

Get it?

Two questions. One, do you think that the methods that the Russian's used can be effectively employed by anything other than their first line divisions (even during the Soviet Union's heyday, only a very small number of the 40 divisions on the Sino-Russian border were 1st line)? And second, what makes you think that, regardless of each side's intentions, the war will be short?

Russia hardly possesses the ability to conquer China, and while I think that China can take a good chunk of Siberia away from Russia, it is hardly realistic to think that the Chinese could ever get anywhere near the Urals. Even if China does not seize Siberia, it would be political suicide for the Chinese leadership that started the said war to admit defeat (and being driven from Siberia would be a great defeat), and therefore a fuller mobilization could easily occur by a political leadership that knows it can win a longer struggle.

The scenario that I see as being most likely is China securing large sections of Siberia after using brute force and numbers to defeat the Russian army, which will be tied to rail lines and supply depots (any mechanized army must live off of these). After this, a new front is formed facing whatever portion of the trans-Siberian railway that Russia manages to hold, and a long term stalemate ensues.

The one advantage that the Chinese have over the Russians in this respect is that while the Russian's are more capable of manuever warfare (I fully agree with you that Russian doctrine is far more flexable), they are also tied to fairly fixed objectives. The Russians must stay near rail lines and cities, all along a long border that can be cut at any spot. There are relatively few roads, and much wilderness that makes supplying a modern army away from existing infrastructure excessively difficult. Therefore Russia must fight for fixed objectives, and China's mass will then become quite effective.

At the small unit level, the Germans were far better than the Russians in WWII, but that didn't stop the Soviets from decisively defeating the German army on the strategic level on several occasions (Operation Bagration, Stalingrad, Kursk, ect). If a nation has a major strategic advantage in numbers and postion (the Chinese have both, with the advantage of interior lines in Manchuria), then it is hardly unrealistic for them to emerge victorious even losing solders at a rate of four or five to one tactically.

It is a pleasure debating with you by the way, you bring up excellent points, and things are not as clear cut as they first seemed.