Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: "China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Article: "China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military"

    From The Diplomat:

    In April 2003, the Chinese Navy decided to put a large group of its best submarine talent on the same boat as part of an experiment to synergize its naval elite. The result? Within hours of leaving port, the Type 035 Ming III class submarine sank with all hands lost. Never having fully recovered from this maritime disaster, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is still the only permanent member of the United Nations Security Council never to have conducted an operational patrol with a nuclear missile submarine.

    China is also the only member of the UN’s “Big Five” never to have built and operated an aircraft carrier. While it launched a refurbished Ukrainian built carrier amidst much fanfare in September 2012 – then-President Hu Jintao and all the top brass showed up – soon afterward the big ship had to return to the docks for extensive overhauls because of suspected engine failure; not the most auspicious of starts for China’s fledgling “blue water” navy, and not the least example of a modernizing military that has yet to master last century’s technology.

    Indeed, today the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) still conducts long-distance maneuver training at speeds measured by how fast the next available cargo train can transport its tanks and guns forward. And if mobilizing and moving armies around on railway tracks sounds a bit antiquated in an era of global airlift, it should – that was how it was done in the First World War.

    Not to be outdone by the conventional army, China’s powerful strategic rocket troops, the Second Artillery Force, still uses cavalry units to patrol its sprawling missile bases deep within China’s vast interior. Why? Because it doesn’t have any helicopters. Equally scarce in China are modern fixed-wing military aircraft. So the Air Force continues to use a 1950s Soviet designed airframe, the Tupolev Tu-16, as a bomber (its original intended mission), a battlefield reconnaissance aircraft, an electronic warfare aircraft, a target spotting aircraft, and an aerial refueling tanker. Likewise, the PLA uses the Soviet designed Antonov An-12 military cargo aircraft for ELINT (electronic intelligence) missions, ASW (anti-submarine warfare) missions, geological survey missions, and airborne early warning missions. It also has an An-12 variant specially modified for transporting livestock, allowing sheep and goats access to remote seasonal pastures.
    I thought the article was silly, since most armies prior to the modern era have been tasked with the defense of the sovereign. In that sense, they were political armies. What makes a military professional isn't who it's tasked with protecting, but whether its personnel are draftees or lifers. Dictatorships have often limited the number of lifers in their armies because of the fear of setting up a Praetorian Guard that can remove them at will. But that's got nothing to do with the effectiveness of an army of lifers tasked with keeping them in power.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Mithridates View Post
    From The Diplomat:

    I thought the article was silly, since most armies prior to the modern era have been tasked with the defense of the sovereign. In that sense, they were political armies. What makes a military professional isn't who it's tasked with protecting, but whether its personnel are draftees or lifers. Dictatorships have often limited the number of lifers in their armies because of the fear of setting up a Praetorian Guard that can remove them at will. But that's got nothing to do with the effectiveness of an army of lifers tasked with keeping them in power.
    By his examples, the USAF would also be outdated since we still use C-130s and B-52s.

    Easton used to write better articles.

    Comment


    • #3
      But you retire A-10, so there is hope :whome:
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #4
        Easton's article leaves him vulnerable to counterpoints about hardware issues he brings up. Things like the lack of nuclear deterrence patrols and still using the H-6 distract from the real point of the article- that the PLA is not nearly as prepared for a shooting war as many would like to think. Training and PME is still a work-in-progress as he points out. Their old/lacking hardware is relatively tertiary compared to their currently lacking personnel standards.

        Comment


        • #5
          Is there any Geopolitical theory from China? Any Rimlands, world islands etc having China in the center? Explaining how Chinese would like to project power?
          Any book, link would be highly appreciated.
          Thank you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Major View Post
            Is there any Geopolitical theory from China? Any Rimlands, world islands etc having China in the center? Explaining how Chinese would like to project power?
            Any book, link would be highly appreciated.
            Thank you.
            China isn't in a very good position to project power. Mountains and deserts along the Chinese border are substantial obstacles to both trade and military adventures towards China's neighbors. The majority of Chinese settlement and economic development has occurred near the coast, where easy access to the sea provides a way around the land barriers China faces. Unfortunately for China, the US Navy has a firm grasp on control of the seas, and the chain of islands surrounding China from the sea are all US allies. If China attempted to project power, the US Navy could setup a blockade using the island chain and quickly cripple the export dependent Chinese economy.

            Stratfor has a pretty good summary of the geopolitical situation in China. You can find it here: [Link Deleted]
            Last edited by TopHatter; 14 Apr 14,, 17:10. Reason: Please do not link to Wikileaks

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Major View Post
              Is there any Geopolitical theory from China? Any Rimlands, world islands etc having China in the center? Explaining how Chinese would like to project power?
              Any book, link would be highly appreciated.
              Thank you.
              I don't know specific pieces off the top of my head, but most of this stuff would be in Mandarin anyway.


              China isn't in a very good position to project power. Mountains and deserts along the Chinese border are substantial obstacles to both trade and military adventures towards China's neighbors. The majority of Chinese settlement and economic development has occurred near the coast, where easy access to the sea provides a way around the land barriers China faces. Unfortunately for China, the US Navy has a firm grasp on control of the seas, and the chain of islands surrounding China from the sea are all US allies. If China attempted to project power, the US Navy could setup a blockade using the island chain and quickly cripple the export dependent Chinese economy.

              Stratfor has a pretty good summary of the geopolitical situation in China. You can find it here: [Link Deleted]
              You're confusing power projection with something like the PRC actively contesting US interests. The PRC is already engaging in power projection- Gulf of Aden, the Mediterranean and exercises in the Indian Ocean. Regardless, reading what the U.S. (or anyone else for that matter) thinks of China's geopolitical situation does not address the question- what does China think of it?

              Comment

              Working...
              X