Shek

1. China's rise is an attempt to become a regional powerhouse, not a peer competitor of the US.
2. They have manpower, but that's only worth something if you wanted to fight a land war in China, which doesn't serve our purposes.
3. I'm not very well versed on all their military capabilities, but from the reviews done by OOE and some of the other professionals on the board, they exude more bark than bite.
4. Beyond Taiwan, I'm not aware of any significant power project capabilities that are a concern.
5. Their economy is very much intertwined with the US and stability in the Pacific Rim, meaning that they risk an economic implosion with a lot of youth and middle aged citizens that are educated and would probably prefer democratic reforms, an explosive combination for internal strife.
6. US and India have recently signed a strategic cooperation agreement. I haven't read much about it since when it was signed this summer, and so the details escape me, but this budding relationship has the potential to temper the regional ambitions of China. I'll live it to our resident Indians on the board to comment further.

In the end, China is someone to watch closely, but not to lose sleep over.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Semper Fi

"Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack."

Burn........I don't think our Sailors, Airmen and Soldiers are "extremely incompetent".

Mr. Ishihara must be on crack boys and girls.

lemontree

Sir,
We can capture a brigade objective single handedly (but that just my battalion )
our old motto was "Aut viam invenaim aut faciam"...find a way if there is none make one. Nothing is impossible for the Sikh LI.
Same system here.
Training us woud be your job sir.
Sir,
The time for questions is during training/exercises/TWETs, in operations we never question the CO of a fighting unit (unless he has proved wanting during normal command decisions).

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Ray

Colonel,

Much water seems to have flown down the Yalu since I last visited the thread.

One of the basic principles for planning any operation or even a tactical battle is that one must not underestimate the enemy. Though obvious to you, it might be of interest to others in the event they did not know.

Since the debate is on the strategic level, the political, psychological, morale, economic, industrial, military, strategic geopolitical realities and equations etc, all have to be taken into view and not merely the military technology or delude by playing only the numbers game [combat ratio].

Even in a stand alone mode of the above realities, I don't underestimate the Chinese Army nor do I take them to be brainless, regimented chumps who enter battle with the expertise of zombies.

Without going into the issues mentioned above, what worries me is that the greatest weapon that the Chinese have is that the loss of Chinese lives is not that important to their political leadership as it would be to other countries. When the value of life is immaterial, then you are facing a formidable enemy. This is an aspect that any democratic country that wishes to accost the Chinese, must understand.

An anology to this mentality is what is happening in Iraq. While the US is concerned and worried about the casualties and the number of dead figures, the Islamic terrorists aren't!

Likewise is the Communist Chinese mentality.

China maybe on the mend in so far as the value of human lives is concerned, but then it is not as fast as one may think it is. You know much about the Mongols. Superimpose that mentality on the Chinese after taking the sensitivity that has grown through modernity. The mentality is still very careless on the issue of the loss of human lives.

When a democratic country like India can withstand and bear the loss of manpower in a war without any massive national groundswell, one can well imagine what a brainwashed Communist manpower can withstand, which is the legatee of the Mongol mindset.

Now compare that with the US and countries that have similar mentalities as the US.

The US cannot withstand loss of it soldier citizens in huge numbers. since in the US the general public is more sensitive than any other country about losing US lives. It is a great phenomenon for any democratic nation and laud worthy values; but it does not work well when one is fighting a resolute enemy that does not have any value for their soldier lives.

One has to just observe what the Iraq war has done for the population of the US.

The Iraq War has created a massive divide in the US. This is not because a group of citizens do not accept the necessity of atttacking Iraq. In fact, all supported the cause. This divide is because of the US high value on lives of their soldiers. Even the Republican rumble can be heard. The divide is because too many lives are being lost for a cause that seems to have no end since the Iraqi terrorists, like China, have very little value for human lives. The same is the case with China as you yourself pointed out with the reference to the Sino Vietnamese skirmish where the value of human life was not worth a pinhead!

The bottom line is that while China will be ready to bear any loss in human lives, the US will not. And in a war, lives will have to be lost; there being nothing called a "no risk war".

Vietnam was lost because of the same phenomenon and not because the Viet Congs won the war because they were superior.

Take Korea, if you wish. Any other nation but China would have capitulated under the weight of the number of men killed. But, the Chinese came on and on, so much so the US and the world were led to believe, and even labelled the same, as "human wave" tactics, when in actuality the Chinese poured in a greater combat ratio than what other armies would do for the same objective. They had men to lose, but not the US.

Therefore, one should ponder if Chinese capbility to withstand an attack or invasion could be brushed under the carpet.

The fact that the US is entering in strategic relationship with countries on the Chinese rim would indicate that the US is well seized with the reality of the situation. If the US alone could take on China, then she would not be wasting time in forging strategic realtionships.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shek

Sir,

1. I agree that the Chinese government doesn't care much for their people, but a large segment of the population has the ability to think now and decide their own motivations for fighting vs. 55 years ago, when you didn't have the internet (granted, China has tried to control access and blocks websites, but this can only be so effective) or have a large number of citizens who you sent off to the capitalistic US for four years of education. The interal security forces may be able to "motivate" Chinese to support China within its borders, but I don't think you can expect the same kind of fanaticism outside its borders except in the case of Taiwan.

2. It's important to recognize the fissures about Iraq for what they are, and to not generalize too much. It was a pre-emptive war where the major justification that was hyped by the press and received too much focus from the Administration. The debate lies around going to war where there wasn't imminent danger. A military confrontation that results from a Chinese attack won't suffer from a deficiency in the "legitimacy" of the decision to go to war. However, I'd agree that casualty aversion will still be a factor.

3. The VietCong/VietMinh/whatever you want to call them were defeated and exerted negligible control over a handful of remote areas in the countryside by 1972. However, it was the lack of political backbone that prevent the US from consummating a victory during Christmas 1972 (when Haiphong had zero shipping traffic passing through the mined port and Hanoi could be bombed at will thanks to NVN having zero SAMs to fire at American planes) and beyond, instead, settling for a status quo cease fire and then withdrawing all advisors, soon to be followed by Congress shutting off funds completely to SVN. So, in the end, it was still in the loss column for the US, and it was still due to eroding political support, but I think it's important to point out the reality of the situation in 1972 so that people realize how the North Vietnamese won by the skin of their teeth and so that Americans can discover that the popular teaching of Vietnam (it couldn't be won) is wrong and use the lesson of "no more Vietnams" to mean we can win a COIN and that we can't allow public support to alter the strategic balance against ourselves through domestic discord. Unfortunately, it is only very recently that more focus has been placed on post-Tet, and so you have several generations in the US who still believe the popular mythology about the Vietnam War.

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

I do not under-estimate the Chinese but as with everything else, there is a limit to which the Chinese can tolerate losses. Their supply of men and especially materials is not unlimited. Losing armies is not a matter of losing lives but also irreplaceable equipment to which the Chinese can ill afford to lose in the numbers envisioned.

The days that the CCP and the PLA can tolerate 20,000 dead in a 30 day campaign is long over. Tianamen Square has shown that the populace has limits to what they will tolerate. While the CCP and the PLA can possibly justify that kind of losses to the populace, they have to win. They have to show something for it. The days of "teaching lessons" are long over.

You've mentioned both Korea and Vietnam. Two things that jumped very clearly out at the PLA. They cannot use deep infiltration nor partisan forces, being a foreign army. Even when they had supposedly have a friendly local support. Guerrilla activities south of the 38th Parallel was negligeble during the entire Korean War. In the 1979 1st Sino-VN War, Chinese speaking Vietnamese PLA troops acted more in a commando role than in a guerrilla mode. There was absolutely no local support.

In a war on the Chinese mainland, the strengths I've dismissed above would obviously more than compensate any material and technological advantage that we have but we have no interest nor the capability to mount such a campaign. We don't have the staging grounds. The Russians might but they've declined a long way.

The good Captain has detailed the VC disaster in the US-VN War but you might be interested in the Chinese operational disasters in Korea.

WAB - Korea: Reluctant Dragons and Red Conspiracies

The point, here, Sir, it was very easy to have gone the other way.

__________________
Chimo

Bulgaroctonus

Japan was an economic threat, while China is both an economic threat and an acute military threat. China has a standing army of approcimately 2.4 million, to my knowledge the U.S. has around half that, plus immediate reserves of many more million if necessary. They have nuclear weapons (est. number 400). The Japanese never had nuclear weapons. China is stronger, larger, and far more populous than Japan ever was. I think it is a mistake to quickly write off China as just an emphemeral trend.

I am very uneasy about China, I would like to see how all of you are able to cope with the anxiety.

Bulgaroctonus

I hope to hell you are right, because I am losing sleep over it.

Officer of Engineers

So freaking what? The Soviets with 450,000 men were more than ready to kill the Chinese 2.5 million man standing army. The Chinese have at most 25 warheads that can reach the US. The rest are targetted for Asia. The US has more than 10,000 warheads that can blast China back to the stone age.

Don't spout ignorant things, especially with professional soldiers who studied the situation.

Officer of Engineers

Hmmm, yeah, sure, right. What else have you guys done that I don't know about? On second thought, I don't want to know. Do I?

Bulgaroctonus

Building off of the eloquent post of Ray, some quick points have come to me. I will expand upon these later when I have more time.

In general, it seems like the Chinese are the reemergence of an ancient historical pattern, that of true militarism and ruthlessness. Ray pointed out that this can be seen in the Chinese-Mongol link. I think it is actually more appropriate to compare them to the Roman Empire, since China is more sedentary and political than the Mongol Empire ever was. I shall explain the similarities:

The Roman Empire thrived because it was able to field large, disciplined armies against enemies in a strategically coordinated manner. Similar to the Chinese, they did not inherently care about the lives of each soldier. Massive death was only negative insofar as it ground the Roman army to a halt. The Romans were even more ruthless than the general Chinese populace, engaging in the coplete destruction of cities (146 BC Carthage) and other acts of destruction. It was this unbridled war spirit that made them great and durable.

In politics, the Roman Empire and China share some traits. China is essentially an oligarchy, very close to autocracy when one considers the unanimous nature of the CCP, at least as far as I know. Of course, the Romans had the Emperors. When the Emperors were skilled, such as Augustus, Trajan, Heraclius, the Empire prospered and its armies were nearly unstoppable. The Chinese share this strength in that there are no serious obstacles to CCP power.

Compared to the U.S, the Chinese government is unhinged in its authority. True, they do have to watch the possibility of rebellion because of high casualties. However, the Chinese will brutally put down rebellions, such as they did in Tiananmen Square. Thus, I think the threat of internal dissent is not so serious for China.

Officer of Engineers

Good God, what a bunch of bull!

Bulgaroctonus

Hey, I'm not spouting anything or trying to disrespect any of the soldiers here.
I'm largely comparing China and Japan, not China and the Soviet Union, which is another matter. Can you expand on your point of the Soviet Army beating the Chinese? Also, how is that directly relevant considering the USSR is not existent and now Russia and China are allies.

I am aware of the nuclear inequality between China and the U.S. I did cite this in an earlier post. I am glad that is the case, but its not much comfort. Yes, we can easily destroy China, but does that mean we lose 25 major cities? I mean, that is still a nightmarish situation.

Also, of course my opinions are not going to be as professional as those of yourself or the other soldiers. So, just add that damper to whatever you read from me.

Bulgaroctonus

You really don't like my posts. Well, pleased to meet you. Is my analysis of the Roman Empire or China grossly inadequate or incorrect? If it is, please point out how it is.

Officer of Engineers

It means that 2.4 million army you so fear means absolutely squat in today's modern military circles. It did not mean anything back in the Cold War. Hell, it didn't even mean anything when Genghis Khan trampled China.

Again, since you don't know anything about Chinese nuclear practises, you're again spouting ignorance. Chinese nuclear strike packages are designed for a retallitory strike. It means that whatever survives an American 1st strike would be put together for a retallitory strike. That's assuming that anything survives an American 1st strike or 2nd or even a 3rd strike since it's them about 2 days to put the warheads and missiles together.

One thing I am sure, it won't be 25 American cities.

Then, don't try to impress us with stupid posts.

Just the Roman Empire alone since you're an expert at that. I won't even bother with the Chinese since you're obviously so ignorant of their history.

Battle of the Allia
Caudine Forks
Battle of Cannae
Arausio
Battle of Carrhae
Teutoburg Forest
Battle of Adrianople
Alaric's Sack of Rome