|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 8, 2009 9:07:53 GMT -5
This is just another example of a Skyfire train wreck, er thread derailment. His post was at least tangentially about China. Your reply was not. Don't blame him for your derailment. Actually, no, his post was not about the topic at hand in any way shape or form. It contained the word China, but was actually an excercise in Hilary bashing, based on misinformation and is Skyfire's preferred method of thread derailment. Want more evidence Dan? Go look at his latest posts in the "Protest" thread, where he lectures us all about the evils of the feminist movement. Be careful Dan, Skyfire will actually read your blaming someone else for derailing the thread as a sign of encouragement to his ridiculous posts. However, Dan, do carry on.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 8, 2009 9:31:22 GMT -5
MaybeNever: Chinese "projection", in terms of military doctrine, has, I think, never been a real goal of the PRC, however, the PRC does posess nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. As to the "human wave" tactical approach, it has not always been so. One of the centuries largest armoured battles took place in the mid 70's on the Soviet border, and put enourmous pressure on Soviet resources at a time when the Soviets were preparing for the invasion of Afghanistan. Projection as a military doctrine has always been a lower priority for the PRC. Their tactical doctrine in based on their strongest element, human resources.
I don't fear the Chinese military as an agressor weapon, but as one more chip in the international poker stakes. When the PRC has used military force, it has, for the most part, been successful in its aims. The PRC stopped the Americans in their tracks in Korea, annexed Tibet with minimal losses, pressured Vietnam to stop its ethnic cleansing of its Chinese minorities, established immediate control of Hong Kong when the lease expired, and has kept enourmous pressure on its northern border with Russia, and done the same to Taiwan. As an aside, the Russian territory that China claims is RICH in natural resources. It isn't just some icy tundra.
My point about the PRC military is not its usefulness as a weapon of agression, rather its usefulness as a weapon to ensure its geographical integrity, in the defensive sense, a means to ensure that the Communist Party remains in power, and another tool in its diplomatic toolbox. In the last instance, its use in this capacity has been mostly successful, as outlined in the several examples above.
I am not attributing expansionist policies to the PRC, except where long held claims to territory are extant, ie, Taiwan, the Russian-Sino border disputes and in Tibet. The incursions into Korea, and to a lesser extent, Vietnam, are examples of long-term thinking and the use of the PRC military to acheive those goals. In this, they have been very successful.
Again, it must be understood that I don't check under my bed each morning for PRC soldiers, but to underestimate the Chinese is a mistake. Growing economic and technological advances there are important developments, and the ability to repress dissent allows a modicum of internal stability that allows China to persue long-term goals.
I hope that's clearer. I don't think we have an essential disagreement, MN. I am not privy to Chinese diplomatic planning, but, the evidence thus far is that the military is an integral tool in their developing diplomacy, and when it has been used, it has been used successfully.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 8, 2009 11:49:14 GMT -5
This is just another example of a Skyfire train wreck, er thread derailment. His post was at least tangentially about China. Your reply was not. Don't blame him for your derailment. Yeah it might've been tangentially about China but it was another case of his Hilary hatered in play. The topic at hand is about China's military spending, not about Hilary going over to the Chinese and getting on her knees to beg for more money. Ironbite-nice try though.
|
|
|
Post by headache on Mar 8, 2009 13:50:38 GMT -5
By doctrine I mean how they use their forces, and how their military leadership employs those forces. The US has, since at least WW2, employed a doctrine known as Superior Firepower. Our soldiers are well-trained and well-equipped, but they are also (or are supposed to be) backed by the latest technology and the strongest hardware in vast amounts. The Chinese, like the Russians and like the combatants in WWI where other options weren't available, favor Human Wave doctrines that rely on sheer weight of numbers. Yes, the Chinese employ tanks and aircraft, but do they use them well? Do they know how to use them to properly support their soldiers? My guess is that the answer is no, but they've just never had the sort of knock-down fight that'd prove it. And without that doctrine backing their play, their military is much less of a factor in any rational appraisal of diplomacy. Of course we all know that diplomacy is rarely rational.... You are American, right? What makes you think that the American way of fighting war is a superior way? USA threw everything it had in it's arsenal sans nukes at Vietnam and still lost like savages. US faced a way to fight that they had no answer to. Tanks are great! I was in a self propelled artillery unit back in the days using M109's, a bit bigger and badder than tanks, but less useful in many combat situations. Completely useless against an enemy were you can not distinguish between civilians and combatants, nor very effective against a force of several hundred thousand individual soldiers attacking. The Germans got a good lesson in this on the Eastern front. Remember Stalingrad? German hardware was far superior to anything the Soviets had, but the Soviets had one thing the Germans could not overcome, manpower. Line after line of humans endlessly attacking you until you run out of supplies and then when the next wave comes, lights off! If there is one thing USA always has been bad at, it is learning from history and from other countries. Americans seems set on that they have to experience and make their own failures before they can heed notice. USA is spending more than the rest of the world combined on it's military and yet, defeating it is easy. If that doesn't tell you what a waste of money the US military currently is, nothing will.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 8, 2009 14:12:57 GMT -5
By doctrine I mean how they use their forces, and how their military leadership employs those forces. The US has, since at least WW2, employed a doctrine known as Superior Firepower. Our soldiers are well-trained and well-equipped, but they are also (or are supposed to be) backed by the latest technology and the strongest hardware in vast amounts. The Chinese, like the Russians and like the combatants in WWI where other options weren't available, favor Human Wave doctrines that rely on sheer weight of numbers. Yes, the Chinese employ tanks and aircraft, but do they use them well? Do they know how to use them to properly support their soldiers? My guess is that the answer is no, but they've just never had the sort of knock-down fight that'd prove it. And without that doctrine backing their play, their military is much less of a factor in any rational appraisal of diplomacy. Of course we all know that diplomacy is rarely rational.... You are American, right? What makes you think that the American way of fighting war is a superior way? USA threw everything it had in it's arsenal sans nukes at Vietnam and still lost like savages. US faced a way to fight that they had no answer to. Tanks are great! I was in a self propelled artillery unit back in the days using M109's, a bit bigger and badder than tanks, but less useful in many combat situations. Completely useless against an enemy were you can not distinguish between civilians and combatants, nor very effective against a force of several hundred thousand individual soldiers attacking. The Germans got a good lesson in this on the Eastern front. Remember Stalingrad? German hardware was far superior to anything the Soviets had, but the Soviets had one thing the Germans could not overcome, manpower. Line after line of humans endlessly attacking you until you run out of supplies and then when the next wave comes, lights off! If there is one thing USA always has been bad at, it is learning from history and from other countries. Americans seems set on that they have to experience and make their own failures before they can heed notice. USA is spending more than the rest of the world combined on it's military and yet, defeating it is easy. If that doesn't tell you what a waste of money the US military currently is, nothing will. I did not say that American doctrine was superior. The technical name is "Superior Firepower", but in fact it's fairly antiquated, and if Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan don't prove that then nothing will. It's rooted in the old... um, second-generation (I think?) thinking - big armies trading punches to the face, which is of course no longer true. That was the lesson we should have taken away from Vietnam, and lessons we should have been employing in our current theatres. That said, if the Chinese and the American armies went head to head, I'd bet on the American army provided it could hold together sound logistics. Whether or not it could is a different question. On the other hand, I don't have any military training or expertise whatsoever. Most of my understanding comes from books and simulation games, which are poor substitutes for West Point or battlefield experience. I'm not trying to hold up my views as some sort of last word on anything. Please don't assume that I am, or read more into my statements than is actually there. I realize that many of my countrymen are buffoons (without the US, FSTDT would barely exist, after all), but if I am a buffoon it is not because I am an American. Rather the opposite, really. I hope that's clearer. I don't think we have an essential disagreement, MN. I am not privy to Chinese diplomatic planning, but, the evidence thus far is that the military is an integral tool in their developing diplomacy, and when it has been used, it has been used successfully. It is clear. And I agree. My only point was that the conventional military is declining in importance on the world stage. That said, the PRC has proven itself quite deft in using its military as a diplomatic weapon, and I expect they will indeed continue to do so however they can find a way.
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Mar 8, 2009 20:56:17 GMT -5
Do you mean Vietnam? Because as soon as the Americans moved out, China sent in several divisions - which didn't do any better. No, actually, I was referring to Korea. As to the Chinese "invasion" of N. Vietnam, it was done to send a signal to the Vietnamese government. When the Americans pulled out, there was huge persecution of the Chinese ethnic minority in Vietnam, ie boat people. While the Chinese incursions into Vietnam were played out to a draw, the Vietnamese oppression of its Chinese ethnic minority ceased fairly quickly. This may have been the main reason for the incursions in the first place, not territorial expansion. Regarless, the oppression of the Chinese ethnic minority was ended. Ok. I put Korea on the north-east border, so I got confused. Didn't know about the minority oppression in Vietnam, I just assumed it was an attempt to drive russian influence away from the southern border.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 8, 2009 20:59:27 GMT -5
No, actually, I was referring to Korea. As to the Chinese "invasion" of N. Vietnam, it was done to send a signal to the Vietnamese government. When the Americans pulled out, there was huge persecution of the Chinese ethnic minority in Vietnam, ie boat people. While the Chinese incursions into Vietnam were played out to a draw, the Vietnamese oppression of its Chinese ethnic minority ceased fairly quickly. This may have been the main reason for the incursions in the first place, not territorial expansion. Regarless, the oppression of the Chinese ethnic minority was ended. Ok. I put Korea on the north-east border, so I got confused. Didn't know about the minority oppression in Vietnam, I just assumed it was an attempt to drive russian influence away from the southern border. That's the other "southern" border. The Russian-influence thing may be valid, too, but, the Russians were as eager to get out of Vietnam as the Americans were. From what I've read, the Russians neither trusted nor like their Vietnamese comrades, and the feeling was mutual.
|
|