China's strident tone raises concerns in West

I see it this way; either alot of people die today or even more will die tomorrow. Sooner or later we are going to have to fight China, why not strike now before they fully modernize their military? Why wait? The longer we wait the more blood will be spilled when it finally happens.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
why not strike now before they fully modernize their military?

It'd be like tickling a rattler.

Force Size
Regular Army: 1,600,000
Armed Police: 600,000
Reserve: 800,000
Militia: 3,000,00

www.sinodefence.com...

That's a total of 6 Billion standing. Now add to that the numbers who would be willing to join up if there was a conflict and you can see why they might not be an easy target.

Hitting their cities with a pre-emptive nuke strike might blunt their abilities, but I doubt you're suggesting that.

Just my opinion.

Little edit on the math



[edit on 31/1/10 by masqua]

Oh... and China isn't sitting on its hands either. Here's a story out of India about a potential Chinese military base in Pakistan:



Pakistan buys most of its military ordnance from China, so it's pretty much a done deal. Consider the war in Afghanistan and it's proximity to Pakistan and you get the idea this might prove troublesome to the west.

China is starting to reach out and touch someone.

Originally posted by masqua
No war is ever won on the ocean or in the air. It takes ground troops to overcome and hold secure... a lesson from Viet Nam, Iraq and which we are now learning in Afghanistan.

True...
To a certain extent. An Army [even a large well equipped and trained one] if caught out in the open without proper air cover can be torn apart in a matter of minutes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/679e71ce8394.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c5e4b9f92ce.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5dd3553bc3d2.jpg[/atsimg]

"Highway of Death"

U.S. attacks against the Iraqi columns were conducted on two different roads: some 1,400-2,000 vehicles hit on the main Highway 80 north of Al Jahra (the "actual" Highway of Death) and, few days later, another 400-700 or so on the much-less known coastal road to Basra.

On the main highway, aircraft bombed the front and rear of the massive vehicle column of Iraqi Regular Army, trapping the convoy, and leaving sitting targets for later airstrikes. When visited by journalists the main highway had been reduced to a long uninterrupted line of destroyed, damaged, and abandoned vehicles, sometimes called the Mile of Death.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks for the response, Slayer69! It is always a pleasure to see your incite and analysis on topics like this. Now, you mention 20 or 30 years before the Chinese can give the US a run for it's money militarily. Perhaps, this latest scenario is nothing more than feeling out the Chinese to see what they will put up with before getting infuriated and attacking something. Kind of like the phrase coined by, boxer, Muhammad Ali, "The rope a dope."

Your debt chart shows that it is pretty evenly distributed, and maybe that is a good thing, for the time being. However, the debt held by the Chinese is still alarming, non-the-less. Plus, the Chinese continue to buy US Treasuries, so that debt holding ratio is only going to grow in the coming years. The Taiwan situation may be where the superpowers clash. It is a very testy issue for the Chinese, since they consider Taiwan part of China and the island to be an outlaw territory.

This latest attempt by the US will only embolden the Chinese with their claims, and may incite the hard-line stance with the repatriation debate. Lets hope the Chinese don't call the US's bluff. The sheer manpower of such a foe is what gives me the creeps. I know at the present their military is still in its infancy technologically. However, losing a few million to them, is nothing, but to the US; it would be devastating. Keep up the good work!

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
More like...
Central Asia The oil reserves there shrink the gulf states to nothing. It will be the flash point of the future.

That is interesting, but I have to respetfully disagree with you, Slayer.
If the war happens in central asia, it means the theater is moving northward toward kazakhstan, I just don't see that happening, but who knows.
It seems to me the theater is moving westward rather than northward, toward the middle east, afghanistan and iraq could be about wedging iran from the east and the west.
I know about central asia oil pipeline a long time ago. But regarding the Iraq war, I always have the suspicion that it's more than just about oil since its conception.


reply to post by masqua

The west is entrenching its position against the rising of chinese influence in the world, but not necessarily preparing for a global war. Of course the west wants to keep control of the world, but not through a global war, that's all I'm saying, masqua.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Read and understood, Slayer. However, the willy nilly attempt to escape with the plunder of Kuwait was hardly a well thought out military exercise.

Let's speculate in S Korea for a moment:

China and N. Korea join forces and invade S. Korea and are successful after a bloody hard fought conflict.

The US loses its bases there and the peninsula comes under the control of China.

The point I'm making is that China would have the manpower to hold the countryside, not just bases and valuable infrastructure. What was learned in Viet Nam was that centralized bases of operation were not enough if the country itself was open ground to the enemy. The supply lines stayed open and the war was eventually lost because of that.

The same exists in Afghanistan today.

If China EVER decided to install itself militarily in (ie.) Pakistan or Korea, they just may be able to do it AND hold it as long as they can receive resh troops and munitions. The key is land routes since their naval/air power is not (yet) up to snuff.

My biggest concern is what happens if China gets into a major conflict. How will its population react at the 'call to arms'? That's the million $ question.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Your debt chart shows that it is pretty evenly distributed, and maybe that is a good thing, for the time being. However, the debt held by the Chinese is still alarming, non-the-less. Plus, the Chinese continue to buy US Treasuries, so that debt holding ratio is only going to grow in the coming years. The Taiwan situation may be where the superpowers clash. It is a very testy issue for the Chinese, since they consider Taiwan part of China and the island to be an outlaw territory.

Until China becomes that competing global power the US is still in spite of everything presently a good investment. Most of the those "T-bills" were short term and have been or will be paid back now the bonds have up to a 30 year pay out. A lot can happen in the meantime. Also remember the other chart with the projected growth?

The US will also grow. OK so say we grow at a measly 3% vs China's sometimes real sometimes fake [Artificial Stimulus Spending] 8%.

That's a 3% growth in our now 13.5 Trillion [Formerly 14.1 Trillion] GDP vs China's 8% of a 6 Trillion GDP. You do the math.

This latest attempt by the US will only embolden the Chinese with their claims, and may incite the hard-line stance with the repatriation debate. Lets hope the Chinese don't call the US's bluff. The sheer manpower of such a foe is what gives me the creeps. I know at the present their military is still in its infancy technologically. However, losing a few million to them, is nothing, but to the US; it would be devastating. Keep up the good work!

Well my friend this is not the first time the US and China have butted heads over Taiwan. It will certainly not be the last. Why is this the signs of a shooting war?

Steely nerves my freind. This is exactly how the US played the game against the Soviets and CHICOM for decades.

It was called a Cold War.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
The west is entrenching its position against the rising of chinese influence in the world, but not necessarily preparing for a global war. Of course the west wants to keep control of the world, but not through a global war, that's all I'm saying, masqua.

It might not depend on the intent of the west, though. That's what I was saying when I compared how Japan entered WWII. It was over an oil embargo. Cut China off from its supplies (Sudan and Iran) and they will be driven to do something because of it.

This is why their presence and a possible base in Pakistan is worrysome. No-one wants to see Pakistan emboldened to take on India, for instance. Too many nuclear arms in that mix.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by SLAYER69
More like...
Central Asia The oil reserves there shrink the gulf states to nothing. It will be the flash point of the future.

That is interesting, but I have to respetfully disagree with you, Slayer.
If the war happens in central asia, it means the theater is moving northward toward kazakhstan, I just don't see that happening, but who knows.
It seems to me the theater is moving westward rather than northward, toward the middle east, afghanistan and iraq could be about wedging iran from the east and the west.
I know about central asia oil pipeline a long time ago. But regarding the Iraq war, I always have the suspicion that it's more than just about oil since its conception.

I have to agree with Slayer about the US influence in central Asia. It is about that pipeline to the Caspian. The big three: China, Russia, and the US are there in one way or another for the oil. I don't know if war will head to Kazakhstan, but all three powers are in the region to some degree as they plot for their piece of the pie.

Now, with Iraq, I think oil is part of it, but not the whole story. It is to maintain a military presence in the Middle East at all time. Iraq can be consider a buffer for Israel, between enemies to the east and a show of support by their superpower ally against countries like Iran. Also a continued military presence in Iraq is a fine staging area to conduct cross board intelligence gathering, espionage, and rally the counter-revolutionary activities among those opposed to the theocracy in Iran. Plus, it also offers a fine ground invasion route if war is ultimately declared. Then you have another staging area with the US in Afghanistan to the east of Iran.

reply to post by masqua

 

The west is entrenching its position against the rising of chinese influence in the world, but not necessarily preparing for a global war. Of course the west wants to keep control of the world, but not through a global war, that's all I'm saying, masqua.

The US is only stacking the deck in the event conflict ensues with China or Russia. They are practicing the military tactic of encirclement. The US has a presence in Eastern Europe, former Russian satellites considering membership in Nato, the Caucus with Georgia and their puppet, then Turkey and its bid for the EU, then the military presence in Afghanistan. In a nutshell, that is just against Russia.

Then, China has to be aware of a US presence on the Korean Peninsula, Japan, and a strategic partnership with Taiwan to the east. Plus, the US is on friendly terms with India to the South, and has a military presence in Afghanistan to the East. So, it appears that military encirclement is going on at the moment. Maybe it is to induce influence, pressure, or deterrence against China and Russia? The next 10 to 20 years should be interesting.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by masqua
Let's speculate in S Korea for a moment:

China and N. Korea join forces and invade S. Korea and are successful after a bloody hard fought conflict.

The US loses its bases there and the peninsula comes under the control of China.

The point I'm making is that China would have the manpower to hold the countryside, not just bases and valuable infrastructure. What was learned in Viet Nam was that centralized bases of operation were not enough if the country itself was open ground to the enemy. The supply lines stayed open and the war was eventually lost because of that.

The same exists in Afghanistan today.

Part of the problem with that analysis is that you failed to mention that the Vietnamese had the Northern territory [North Vietnam] which the US pretty much took a hands off approach. [outside of some bombings] from which they could recover and regroup to stage more attacks.

If China EVER decided to install itself militarily in (ie.) Pakistan or Korea, they just may be able to do it AND hold it as long as they can receive resh troops and munitions. The key is land routes since their naval/air power is not (yet) up to snuff.

My biggest concern is what happens if China gets into a major conflict. How will its population react at the 'call to arms'? That's the million $ question.

Well that brings into question supply lines and logistics. All of which can be the Achilles Heel.

Ever since Obama lost the Ted Kennedy's old seat, the President has adopted a populist approach to please the American people (especially those within his party) The Democrats enjoy a old fashion China bash, very appetizing for the unions. However, China is the key player when dealing with Iran and North Korea. As the article suggested, the United States-or the President-has significantly underestimated China's reaction.

Relations with Taiwan and their citizens were going well, up till now.

Reports in the media said the the US tried to contact to the Chinese defence department and no one answered the phone. A very worrying sign.


Remember, China is no Soviet Union. American defence chiefs would like to avoid a military conflict with the Chinese.
----------------------------------------------------------

For the last 10 years, China has drilled out mountains and used these new areas to building and strenghten it's military-which US spy satellites cannot penetrate.

Bad Obama, bad move.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Part of the problem with that analysis is that you failed to mention that the Vietnamese had the Northern territory [North Vietnam] which the US pretty much took a hands off approach. [outside of some bombings] from which they could recover and regroup to stage more attacks.

Exactly... and why was there such a hands-off approach? Could it be that there was a possibility of direct Chinese involvement in the war? It was one thing for Mao's millions to supply NVA, but another if they took up arms in support.

Well that brings into question supply lines and logistics. All of which can be the Achilles Heel.

Once again, you're right. Supply lines to Pakistan, for instance, would be crucial if they were to get into a fight with India or S Korea. The resistance to attacking Taiwan, for instance, is because of their lack of a sufficient navy and air force. Land routes, however, are another matter and I would suggest to be a doable option for them. If Taiwan were joined to the mainland, do you think it would have remained outside of Chinese control?

I don't think so.

A good question to ask right now would be: who will side with China if the balloon went up in SE Asia or even as a result of choking off their oil supplies? Indonesia?

[edit on 31/1/10 by masqua]

Originally posted by masqua
Let's speculate in S Korea for a moment:

China and N. Korea join forces and invade S. Korea and are successful after a bloody hard fought conflict.

The US loses its bases there and the peninsula comes under the control of China.

The point I'm making is that China would have the manpower to hold the countryside

Allow me to revisit this scenario...

We've seen this before. The Korean War. In this case China would be the aggressor. The UN would have an obligation to defend the South now you would not only be calling into the Fray the US but most of the NATO powers. Japan would also not sit idly by as a large part of their interests fall.

It makes for a very interesting discussion.

Originally posted by masqua
Exactly... and why was there such a hands-off approach? Could it be that there was a possibility of direct Chinese involvement in the war? It was one thing for Mao's millions to supply NVA, but another if they took up arms in support.

Actually the Soviets were the big dog suppliers more than the Red Chinese. The Chinese and Vietnamese were not good bedfellows.
But I see your point.

China - Vietnam War 1979

Rare footage of the Chinese attack on the highlands of North Vietnam. Includes scenes of female Vietnamese soldiers captured by the Chinese.

This war started as a result of Vietnam's attack on Cambodia over a border dispute. At the same time, Vietnam chose to fall on the side of the USSR/Russia. This miscalculation led to the Chinese attacking Vietnam to "teach the Viets a lesson"

The highlands of North Vietnam was captured, but at a very high cost in casualties to the Chinese. They then withdrew after having made their point.
But it was the Chinese who learnt a lesson in that they had to modernise their army.

reply to post by masqua


You bring up many good points masqua! I am in your camp on the manpower scenario, and it is really phenomenal the men the Chinese have at their disposal to put in the field. They could virtually occupy any country they desire in Asia on manpower alone. A conventional war with them is really just a pipe dream, because pound for pound when it comes to boots on the ground, the Chinese have supremacy in that regard.

Just looking back at the Korean War, when the Chinese crossed the Yalu river with millions of troops, thus, pushing the Nato force back to where they started. General MacArthur wanted to US nuclear weapons on mainland China.

On 9 December MacArthur said that he wanted commander's discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theatre. On 24 December he submitted "a list of retardation targets" for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power."

In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: "I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria." Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then "spread behind us -- from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea -- a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North." He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: "My plan was a cinch."

www.zmag.org...

At that time, the scenario was similar as it is today with the US having virtually air superiority. During the Korean conflict, the UN force had significant air cover and supremacy over the Chinese, but yet the horde had one of the greatest Generals in US history considering the nuclear option to push the Chinese back. Ultimately, President Truman relieved him from his post, but even General MacArthur saw the Chinese as a formidable ground force, as they remain today. So, in that regard, their manpower capability should be at least recognized as a legitimate threat, regardless of their infancy in military technology.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Interesting videos, and the Chinese got their tails handed to them in Vietnam. However, they went in there with guns blazing, failing to learn the terrain, and practically with the perception of the Vietnamese as a second-rate foe. Acting like bullies, a big surprise awaited them by the Vietnamese. At the time, the Vietnamese had just come off routing the United States, one of the most technologically advanced war machines on the planet, in a campaign that lasted almost 25 years if you want to count the war with the French. So, they had significant experience in warfare, and a battle hardened combat force.

The Chinese were fools if they thought by going into Vietnam it was going to be a cake walk. Apparently, the leadership wasn't watching the footage from the Vietnam War? The Vietnamese used the same non-conventional tactics as they did with the US, who was a far more superior force, as was the Chinese with manpower at that time.

They used the same tactics as Mao used against the Nationalist Army and the Japanese. The Vietnamese used tactics once used by Communist Chinese against them: with static warfare, sabotaging supply lines, light skirmishes followed by retreats to the hills, booby traps, and ambush tactics. The techniques used by Mao was even studied by Ho Chi Minh and utilized by the Vietcong against the US, years earlier. However, the Chinese were smart in one respect, and that was to disengage from that conflict when they did. If warfare continued, they would have walked into the "meat grinder, " themselves. Nice side note to the discussion!




[edit on 1-2-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by masqua


China only has 46 Helicopters. They can not project power like us or Russia for that matter. While their navy is making OK moves into the future they will never catch up to us. They can only threaten their neighbors.

India is a massive road block for them. Should those two become friends militarily then that will be the ball game for oil but really we have more than enough in America for along long time. My buddy works for Exxon, He has confirmed that Washington is strangling them so they can not get the oil out.

Its not really about oil though, Its what it has always been about ISRAEL.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Jakes51


Had Mac been ready for them they would have been torn to shreds. The Marines slaughtered many of them and eventually pushed them back so they are not so tough. When we bring our naval and air power into play they would be destroyed quickly.

Originally posted by Jakes51
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Interesting videos, and the Chinese got their tails handed to them in Vietnam. However, they went in their with guns blazing, failing to learn the terrain, and practically with the perception of the Vietnamese as a second-rate foe. They went in their like the bullies, and were they given a big surprise. At the time the Vietnamese had just come off of routing the United States one of the most technologically advanced war machines on the planet, in a campaign that lasted almost 25 years if you want to count the war with the French.

I'm not going to argue over if the US lost The Vietnam war. We did lose in my opinion. However militarily on the battlefield the North Vietnamese rarely bested us the way they did the Chinese.

That's all I'll say about that.