Article

2004-08-13 China-Japan-Koreas

China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymous5089 2004-08-13 7:47:17 AM|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Peking Olympics? Hell I'm prepared to got to war with China right after the Miami-FSU game.

No check that. Let's wait till after the World Series.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-13 9:50:29 AM|| 2004-08-13 9:50:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Those Chinese - so poor at queueing! Don't they see Iran and North Korea are at the head of the line? Half the Middle East think they've got what it takes to whack the Great Satan - you can't just push to the front 'cos your bigger. Why the impatience to get their butts kicked, anyway?

"In the 1998 book, the Chinese colonels suggested that a successful bombing by Osama bin Laden of the World Trade Center would be an example of this new "unrestricted warfare" concept."

...Apparently ignoring the fact that militarily 9/11 was no worse than a flea-bite. Chinese agents trying the same sort of stunts would incur the wrath of an unaffected American military. Chinese technology would be returned to a state that would make the Chin era look futuristic. What ankle-biting wankers.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-13 10:04:06 AM|| 2004-08-13 10:04:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Bulldog: Don't they see Iran and North Korea are at the head of the line?

Actually, Iran and North Korea are Chinese surrogates. North Korean ballistic missile and nuclear technology are of Chinese origin, as was confirmed during Libya's show-and-tell sessions after Gaddafi finally threw in the towel on his WMD program. China is using North Korea as a cut-out (or middleman) to proliferate technologies among America's enemies, on the assumption that the cut-out will be attacked, rather than China directly, if the US is targeted using those weapons. I think it's an extremely destabilizing strategy, but Washington's legalistic approach to these things may validate China's approach. My view is that if a Chinese-designed nuke goes off on US soil, we should nuke China's nuclear weapons and military bases, which can be done with missile subs lurking off the Chinese coast. Wiping out some of China's largest cities might also be on the agenda, depending on the body count at home. America's enemies must be convinced that they will be annihilated if future attacks of this nature are to be prevented.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-13 10:48:12 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-13 10:48:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "...a war that demonstrated to PLA strategists that U.S. military might is derived from its technological superiority."

Even Gentle could figure that out.

Posted by Raj 2004-08-13 12:57:32 PM|| 2004-08-13 12:57:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 militarily 9/11 was no worse than a flea-bite.

well i suppose everythings relative, and i'll forgive that in light of your living in the country that experienced the blitz. But id have to say that 9/11 was significant as a piece of strategic bombing. Direct effects - it took out a very large chunk of Manhattans office space, and disrupted the operations of a good chunk of the NY financial community for several days, as well as closing the Holland tunnel, the PATH train and several "tube" stations and lines, effectively disrupting lower manhattan transportation for months.

Indirectly, it led to the shutdown of the North American air space for several days, led to the closure of the NYSE for several days, and led to disruption to the economic life of lower Manhattan for months.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-13 1:05:20 PM|| 2004-08-13 1:05:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 LH: But militarily as a sucker-punch, it achieved nothing beyond a few casualties at, and evacuation of, the Pentagon. Beyond momentary shock, US military was in a perfect state to initiate reprisals. That's what I mean. Chinese attacks on city centre offices, even a large number, wouldn't come close to neutralising America as an enemy. So the theory that such "unrestricted warfare", or rather restricted to relatively inconsequential targets warfare, is just plain stupid.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-13 1:12:59 PM|| 2004-08-13 1:12:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Agree with LH, caveat tho, in that materially it was less that a flea bite. If the same sort of attacks had been continued the brain shock would have worn out quickly and the anger would have lead to an increase in the GDP...

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-13 1:15:11 PM|| 2004-08-13 1:15:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 What I meant was, what BullDawg said.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-13 1:15:50 PM|| 2004-08-13 1:15:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 but bulldog, thats the nature of strategic bombing, its cumulative, and synergistic. I dont know what the hell the Chinese mean when they take 9/11 as a tactical model - use of terror - undercover tactics, or what. Surely they dont mean strategic bombing confined to office buildings? Certainly this was the most devastating single attack on US domestic economic infrastructure since the war of 1812 - the Uboats attacking coastal shipping during WW2 may have been CUMULATIVELY more damaging, but not in any one day.

Presumably this means that combined with a conventional war in the Formosa Straights, they would use undercover means to attack select targets in the US. I could think of several that would have been as easy to hit as the WTC, but would more directly bear on US warmaking ability in the Pacific - though again none would be decisive by themselves, they could be important to a war in the straights that was otherwise a "near" thing.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-13 1:22:25 PM|| 2004-08-13 1:22:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 An ARMS race?!?!

SWEET!!!

Posted by Anonymous4021 2004-08-13 1:39:03 PM|| 2004-08-13 1:39:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 First, bombing office buildings is not what military folks define as strategic bombing. That falls under the category of terror bombing or civilian demoralization. Coventry was not strategic bombing, and neither was 9/11.

Second, reading the article, it states clearly that the authors pointed to 9/11 as an example of "unrestricted warfare." No kidding. Also, the Chinese have a not-so-little dam on a not-so-little river. They don't want to go playing "whack-a-civilian" casually.

Third, the Chinese military (and the North Koreans) engage in this bellicose verbosity periodically. It must be a face saving thing.

Fourth, any naval plan that relies upon Soviet-era Sovremenny destroyers and Kilo(!) class submarines to establish supremacy at sea is seriously flawed.

Fifth, talk of asymmetric warfare is fine, and we must perpetually be on our guard against complacency and overconfidence, but there are no shortcuts in nature. As many will recall, during the '70s, the Soviets thought they had the answer to U.S. carriers: they built hundreds and hundreds of Osa missile boats. Small, superfast and lugging around a couple of those massive, supersonic anti-ship missiles that we just used to dread. Third World countries bought them wholesale. Here's how you keep the Great Satan at bay on the cheap. As it turns out, in any sort of sea state, that superfast Osa turned into a tooth-rattling nightmare which rapidly broke down into a pile of junk.

Finally, all this talk of modernizing the Chinese forces is great, but is the Chinese leadership ready to see an officer corps imbued with independent thinking, a willingness to exercise initiative, and the ability to delegate decision making? I didn't think so. And individual initiative is the true hallmark of a professional fighting force.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-08-13 1:46:43 PM|| 2004-08-13 1:46:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 LH: I dont know what the hell the Chinese mean when they take 9/11 as a tactical model - use of terror - undercover tactics, or what.

What they mean is covertly supplying terrorists via third parties. By supplying known terrorist sponsors with ballistic missile and nuclear technology, they are able to strike at Uncle Sam without the blame being directly attributable to them. The motto seems to be: : "let a hundred well-armed terror organizations bloom".

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-13 2:21:50 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-13 2:21:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Asymmetrical warfare works in both directions. China should not forget that just like Egypt it has one of the juiciest targets on the planet. That being a little dam called 3-Gorges! Taiwan has aready threatened to take it out if they stage such an attack on Taiwan. The PRC responded by calling Taiwan pirates.

What's that saying about Glass Houses?

Posted by 3dc 2004-08-13 2:22:03 PM|| 2004-08-13 2:22:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 What a great point 3dc. Japan has a dog in this fight too.

My hope is that China's "growing expectations" by it's population, will some day temper their xenophobic ways. Thats what it will take Dreadnought in regards to your 'spot on' remark about their general staff. They could keep a tight ship as long as the population is cowed and poor. But with their expanding economy, well, welcome to the party folks.

Posted by Lucky 2004-08-13 2:33:41 PM|| 2004-08-13 2:33:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 First, bombing office buildings is not what military folks define as strategic bombing.

In the case of Govt office buildings in Belgrade and Baghdad it was. If taking out an office building affects your opponents ability to wage war it is. Whether it violates the laws of war or not is another matter - thats not what im addressing. But disrupting the US financial sector is, I think, of strategic value to AQ - though their failure of follow up denied them the synergistic effects that would have made it really matter. Breaking down a 21st c, 1st world economy is NOT a matter of taking down factories, for the most part. This isnt 1943.

From the point of view of China, attacking the financial sector probably wouldnt work, as it would take to long to affect US war fighting ability that way. Again, there are other targets, that could be of greater importance to them.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-13 2:47:47 PM|| 2004-08-13 2:47:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 LH: From the point of view of China, attacking the financial sector probably wouldnt work, as it would take to long to affect US war fighting ability that way. Again, there are other targets, that could be of greater importance to them.

I think you're missing the point. Chinese strategy is reliant on no single element, just as US military strategy does not rely on submarines, aircraft carriers or ballistic missiles individually. Supplying weapons to terrorists via third parties is part of the Chinese strategy - so is ratcheting up weapons acquisitions so that the amounts are now in the tens of billions on an annual basis. As is improving the training provided to Chinese troops.

Note that individual initiative isn't something unique to the US military - much of the push for this came from the lessons from American encounters with the Wehrmacht, which fought well despite material and manpower deficiencies. (The concept of a strong NCO corps comes from the German army - all of my ROTC buddies spent a lot of time studying the Wehrmacht's operations). The Arab notion of perpetual internecine warfare among the major players in the the government is pretty foreign to China and other Oriental states, which prize unity above all - which are closer to Nazi Germany in their notions of unity and nationhood. This is why individual initiative should be a relatively safe concept in the hands of Chinese troops.* Do not assume that the Chinese are automatons. They suffered great casualties during the Korean War in spite of their skilled fieldcraft because fieldcraft alone cannot overcome skilled and alert opponents. You need artillery and air cover to finish the job. The Chinese died by the hundreds of thousands in human wave charges not because they lacked initiative or were unskilled, but because there was no other way to cover the last few hundred yards of open ground with the mortars and burp guns they had.

* Arab governments deliberately hobble their militaries and discourage inter-service cooperation because they are afraid of military coups. The Chinese military is more like the Imperial Japanese military during WWII. I doubt loyalty will be a problem.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-13 3:20:11 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-13 3:20:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I for one am still waiting for the 1940 TOKYO OLYMPICS...

Posted by borgboy2001 2004-08-13 3:27:29 PM|| 2004-08-13 3:27:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 ZF,

Normally I'm with you, but I think you are offbase on the Chinese government's willingness to hand their generals increased authority. The German army of WW2 was a gift the Nazis inherited, and Hitler was constantly looking over his shoulder, worried about their loyalty, hence the creation of the SS and its eventual transition to a privileged field force. I don't believe the Imperial Japanese Army can be used as a model for the PLA because Japan was essentially a militarist society, Meiji notwithstanding.

Nowhere did I state that Chinese are automatons. In fact the problem with most militaries is not the programming: it's the lack of programming. Lower level troops simply aren't trusted with training and information, so when crunch time comes, they can't act because they have no information on which to base judgments.

I think the historical fear of warlords running amok will force the Chinese into the same old situation (just like the old Soviet regime): generals will continue to be picked for political reliability above military competence, which is a heavy drag on reform.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-08-13 4:05:08 PM|| 2004-08-13 4:05:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Normally I'm with you, but I think you are offbase on the Chinese government's willingness to hand their generals increased authority. The German army of WW2 was a gift the Nazis inherited, and Hitler was constantly looking over his shoulder, worried about their loyalty, hence the creation of the SS and its eventual transition to a privileged field force.

Actually, the SS was created first as a complement to and then later as a bulwark against the growing power of the SA. It wasn't until around 1935 or so, well after the NSDAP took power that the SS began to morf into a military force and even then it was split into the SS and the Waffen SS.

And even so, the Waffen SS was considered so powerful at the battalion level and higher because many of the senior officers, Colonel and higher were old Imperlia German Army retirees brought out to lead these new formations.

And the SS officer corps weren't all to a man loyal to Hitler, witness General Paul Hausser in March of 1943, commander of the I SS Panzer Korps in its operations against the Soviet 'Operation Star'; how he pissed off Hitler by making some militarily conherent mauevers against the Red Army.

Posted by Anonymous6068 2004-08-13 4:28:52 PM|| 2004-08-13 4:28:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Oopsie!

I am Anonymous6068

Posted by Anonymous6068 2004-08-13 4:31:00 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-13 4:31:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Oopsie!

I am Anonymous6068

Posted by badanov 2004-08-13 4:31:38 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-13 4:31:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I'm reading between the lines and finding this report very intersting if true. If true I take it to mean the PRC is afraid anti-missile defenses will work and their nuclear arsenal will be nullified so they have to move quickly ready or not.

Assemetrical warfare that could work for China. (a) The PRC already works with many of the South China Seas pirates from what I understand (at least their ports are used to repaint stolen vessels and shadow ships*). It wouldn't be too hard for the PRC to have agents provide shipping information to pirates to target and cripple the Taiwan economy. (b) China could arrange strikes to close down the Panama canal and tie up shipping. (c) China could arrange for a series of denial of service attacks or cyberattacks on the Taiwan power grid to harrass and hinder the Taiwan economy. (d) The PRC could arrange for agents to blow stuff up in Taiwan and blame it on Al Queda. (e) The PRC could also have naval exercises in the area around Taiwan to frighten off and harrass shipping. An informal blockade with some built in deniability. If this was done off and on over a period of years it could screw with the Taiwan economy pretty bad and they might capitulate somewhat. It might have the effect of forcing the US out of the region to avoid prematurely sparking a conflict while we're busy elsewhere.

All of this skirts the line, could be blamed on non-government groups (except the blockade), it would be economically painful, but it would not provide enough of an excuse for the US to go to War over.

* A stolen vessel is when you get a pirate crew to sign on and pretend to be crewmembers, then at the right time they take over the ship. A shadow ship is when a pirate ships pretends to be legit and takes on cargo, then disappears with the cargo. Generally they reappear under a different name in a different port.

Posted by Yank 2004-08-13 5:09:53 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-08-13 5:09:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I think you're missing the point. Chinese strategy is reliant on no single element, just as US military strategy does not rely on submarines, aircraft carriers or ballistic missiles individually. Supplying weapons to terrorists via third parties is part of the Chinese strategy - so is ratcheting up weapons acquisitions so that the amounts are now in the tens of billions on an annual basis. As is improving the training provided to Chinese troops.

i think we're in violent agreement, here. :)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-13 5:11:35 PM|| 2004-08-13 5:11:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 MacArthur was right after all...

Posted by borgboy2001 2004-08-13 5:23:14 PM|| 2004-08-13 5:23:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 dreadnought: Lower level troops simply aren't trusted with training and information, so when crunch time comes, they can't act because they have no information on which to base judgments.

Re information - the Chinese have a real problem with disseminating bad news. I think they view admissions of setbacks as too humiliating to face up to. This is why the Chinese, to this day, will admit to just over 100,000 dead during the Korean War, when American estimates are around 1 million. (In contrast, US estimates of enemy KIA during WWII and Vietnam were corroborated by the enemy. The Chinese commenters haunting various discussion boards apparently believe that the harsh punishments meted out for lying helped produce the truth - the reality is that soldiers who reported the actual losses were probably executed for "spreading counter-revolutionary propaganda"*). I think this Chinese distaste for unpleasant truths will help the US in any future confrontation.

Another Chinese weakness has to do with human resources. My experience with Chinese workers is that they are lackadaisical. Very lackadaisical. And this is the cream of the crop - recruited via above-market wages by the multinational firms in the booming coastal cities of China. If we extrapolate their (lack of) enthusiasm to the troops of the PLA, I suspect there is an even lower level of both competence and initiative in the Chinese military. Where the troops in Korea represented the cream of Chinese society, today's PLA represents the dregs - someone with a high school diploma makes about 700 yuan per month in the private sector, but only about 100-150 yuan in the military. The question for the Chinese military is whether - even if they have the werewithal to train up their people - they have recruits of sufficient caliber to absorb the training, given the competition for human resources with the much better-paid private sector.

* Communist officials who reported dismal production numbers during the disastrous famines of the Mao-engineered Great Leap Forward were executed for counter-revolutionary activity. Other officials fell into line by reporting production numbers well over the actual amounts, meaning that entire harvests were confiscated, leaving the peasants nothing to eat but tree bark, grass and vermin.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-13 5:28:12 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-13 5:28:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Zhyang Fei: These comments fit with a crazy idea I had. I wondered if Bin Laden was not the equivlant of Meyer Lansky (Murder Inc) and Jim Jones (Jamestown) together. Sort of a for hire terrorist with lots of duped belivers who will do whaterver he says God says to do. Perfect killers/terrorists with no idea that its a for profit Murder Inc.

Under that scenario China and Saddam and Iran and France and whatever letting contracts to him makes sense.

Posted by 3dc 2004-08-13 8:32:36 PM|| 2004-08-13 8:32:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#27

China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.

Hahahahahahahaha!

Bring it, assholes.

Yes, you can damage us. But we will destroy you.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-08-13 8:56:48 PM|| 2004-08-13 8:56:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 3dc: These comments fit with a crazy idea I had. I wondered if Bin Laden was not the equivlant of Meyer Lansky (Murder Inc) and Jim Jones (Jamestown) together. Sort of a for hire terrorist with lots of duped belivers who will do whaterver he says God says to do. Perfect killers/terrorists with no idea that its a for profit Murder Inc.

I doubt it - China can't really communicate with him without us finding out. We might not know what they talked about, but we'd know that they had talked. No, China's game is a lot more subtle than that - it's to arm anti-American terrorists via third countries that are known to use terrorism as a political lever - countries like Iran, Syria and Libya.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-13 9:18:18 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-13 9:18:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Through their ally against India, Pakistan.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-13 9:20:05 PM|| 2004-08-13 9:20:05 PM|| Front Page Top

15:53 Mr. Davis
15:47 Mr. Davis
12:21 Mr. Davis
12:20 Mr. Davis
12:05 Mr. Davis
12:01 Mr. Davis
11:58 Mr. Davis
11:55 Mr. Davis
11:43 Mr. Davis
13:51 Half
13:51 Half
16:14 Frank G
16:06 peggy
13:02 Federal Jones
08:28 Frank G
08:25 Gentle
08:24 Frank G
08:19 Frank G
07:52 Gentle
07:39 john
06:31 Bulldog
06:26 Bulldog
03:15 .com
01:54 Anonymous6075