Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chinese Dragon Awakens - Chinese Military Build-up

Rate this topic


Captain Nate

Recommended Posts

Far from being embargoed, the North Koreans are being bailed out, and it isn’t just the Chinese doing the bailing.

Since 1995, the following tons of food have been sent to North Korea

From U.S. - 2,063,894 tons

From China - 1,950,000 tons

From South Korea - 1, 900,000 tons

From Japan - 1,250,000 tons.

The evil, imperialistic capitalists in South Korea just announced another emergency shipment of 500,000 tons of rice to the worker's paradise to the north.

In addition, North Korea has received fuel and assistance in building nuclear reactors (with which to extort still more aid from us):

China - $1.43 billion in fuel

South Korea - $1.36 billion in fuel

Japan - $481 million in fuel

U.S. - $405 million in fuel

E.U. - $121 million in fuel

You can see some facts and figures HERE.

The North Koreans insist that all aid be turned over to the government for "internal distribution". So we can say with some certainty that we are helping the regime survive -- they sure aren't going hungry.

Then there is also NK's sales of missiles and nuclear technology to the Iranians, but I can't find any figures for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That was really my point about North Korea. They are about as embargoed of a nation as you can get over the last 50 years. So instead of letting the embargo do it's job and force the issue they dump food onto the govt. and like every single other instance in the world, the food donations go to feed the military and government 1st and keep the dictatorship in power. The UN and other world governments just don't have it to let embargos do their job. Just look at Iraq.

Can anyone think of the last time there was a genuine gunboat diplomacy styled embargo of a nation or an island? I am racking my brain and can't think of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that in order to find an actual "gunboat diplomacy styled embargo of a nation or an island" you'd have to go back to at least WWII. For example, the Japanese siege of the Philipines in 1941 and 1942. Kennedy actually sealed off Cuba during the missile crisis, but that stage of the embargo was pretty short lived. I can't think of a true long-term embargo in peacetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that in order to find an actual "gunboat diplomacy styled embargo of a nation or an island" you'd have to go back to at least WWII.  For example, the Japanese siege of the Philipines in 1941 and 1942.  Kennedy actually sealed off Cuba during the missile crisis, but that stage of the embargo was pretty short lived.  I can't think of a true long-term embargo in peacetime.

Without looking it up, I thought Kennedy was just going to demand any ship trying to get to Cuba be searched. If the Soviets sent a ship to Cuba, if it was inspected and only carried grains then it would be sent through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone think of the last time there was a genuine gunboat diplomacy styled embargo of a nation or an island? I am racking my brain and can't think of one.

Scott, the only one I can think of was the embargo the North imposed on the South during the U.S. civil war. As I recall, it was reasonably effective. The loss of the European cotton market hurt the South's economy and war effort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An embargo of China would only be possible with a fully mobilized war effort. Even then it would be tough to catch everything. Are we going to blow up a French ship bring ing supplies to the Chinese? Probably not. Can we blow the crap out of it once its off the boat. You bet.

China is already an oil starved country. Mobilizing for a war and conducting a war would run them dry. Especially since we would blow the crap out of all of the known oil reserves in the 1st week. So that is why I'm saying it would be over in 3 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, the only one I can think of was the embargo the North imposed on the South during the U.S. civil war.  As I recall, it was reasonably effective.  The loss of the European cotton market hurt the South's economy and war effort.

That was just about the last one that came to my mind as well. Sure there were a small number of blockade runners but for the most part the blockade was pretty effective. I know there are bound to be some equivalents in modern day African civil wars right and left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without looking it up, I thought Kennedy was just going to demand any ship trying to get to Cuba be searched. If the Soviets sent a ship to Cuba, if it was inspected and only carried grains then it would be sent through.

Yep, now that I think about it a little more, I bet you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the true nuclear capabilities/range that China has? I'm all for defending Taiwan (I really wanted to visit the place sometime during or after college, I hope I still can), but I really, really dislike the idea of a nuke hitting Los Angeles.

Also, as I am a bit rusty (read: completely ignorant, heh) on our military operations, is it known if we have any espionage and/or secret CIA ops going on in China? I suppose a CIA operation would be less effective in a country as large and well-established as China than it is for tin-pot South and Central American dictatorships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, as I am a bit rusty (read: completely ignorant, heh) on our military operations, is it known if we have any espionage and/or secret CIA ops going on in China?  I suppose a CIA operation would be less effective in a country as large and well-established as China than it is for tin-pot South and Central American dictatorships.

If we know that then they wouldn't be doing a very good job, would they?

Our intelligence on China is supposed to be notoriously bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember hearing recently that some Chinese general said they could hit us with a nuke. That really is very unfortunate (to the point of saying, "That sucks") about our poor intelligence. I know our attention is focused on the middle east right now, but I don't think we should forget about our secular foes in the far east.

Well, I'd still like to go to Taiwan or even Hong Kong, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'll have to go to Japan, heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China would destroy itself if it attempted to hurt the United States. China has become increasingly capitalistic over the past few decades, especially with the emergence of official government doctrine of "get rich first." The actually limitations on businesses are less in China because they want to develop the mainland. Political freedom is another story, there really is none. I am optimistic that once they see the benefits of freeing their citizens in a business manner will give way to freedom in China. Probably will not happen anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

What do you think? Is this a good sign?

"The Real Force Changing China: Capitalism"

http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=543

It's about a new Chinese reality television show promoting entrepreneurship. This looks like a good sign to me. It just seems to exemplify the brake of what the chionese people want and what their goverment wants.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article306573.ece

Edited by Al Kufr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you’re over estimating our military and underestimating the Chinese. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove China from Taiwan.

I seriously disagree with you. In fact I am quite confident in my assessment that the Chinese are incapable of invading Taiwan. I doubt they even have the capacity to land forces due to the massive amount of Coastal defenses that Taiwan has. But if they did and if they used every last one of their amphibious assaults ships in the operation, they would be able to bring something around 20,000 soldiers (all infantry) ashore . Now the trip across the formosa straight in these ships is not very quick, it would take several hours(if not more) to cross the straight, and several more hours to load the boats up, and several more to make it back to Taiwan, all while they are under attack from the air, land, and sea. Now these 20,000 soldiers if they make it ashore are going to get stuck there, with little air support (due to the incredible density of Taiwanese air defense, and the number of aircraft at their disposal), and minimal Naval Surface Fire Support. They would be surrounded by the better trained, better equipped, highly mechanized Taiwanese Army which would surround them and annihilate them.

The Chinese would have nothing on their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I doubt they could get the numbers they would need across the straight. That’s not what I was stating though. I said, I didn’t think we could get them off the island if they did manage to get there. Some day soon they might.

They would be surrounded by the better trained, better equipped, highly mechanized Taiwanese Army which would surround them and annihilate them.

What makes you think that Taiwan’s military is better trained and equipped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I doubt they could get the numbers they would need across the straight. That’s not what I was stating though. I said, I didn’t think we could get them off the island if they did manage to get there. Some day soon they might.

The Chinese simply do not have the capacity to stop us from taking back the island. The shear ammount of power we can direct at the Chinese military on the Island would be incredible. Within a couple of months we could get a naval force there like we had in the Gulf during the recent war. That is to say 5 Carrier Battle Groups. This would be on top of the dozens of strategic bombers, hundreds of fighter aircraft, and a large portion of the United States Marine Corps. The chinese have nothing to match it, either in size, trickery, or technology that they could bring to Taiwan to stop us.

The only traditional advantage the Chinese have over western armies is shear numbers (i.e. Korea), but we are not talking about something that is connected to the mainland. We are talking about an island, that has to be reinforced by sea and air. The larger the force the more dependent it is from resupply from mainland China. Which is a very bad thing for the Chinese, given the operation of US/British/Japanese Submarines and Aircraft in the Formosa straight, it wouldn't look pretty for the Chinese.

What makes you think that Taiwan’s military is better trained and equipped?

It is 20,000 infantry, they have no tanks, nor indirect support assets to speak of outside of mortars and sparatic NSFS. The Taiwanese would outnumber them damn near 10 to 1, and on top of that they would have tanks, howitzers, mortars, air support, and infantry support vehicles. This is assuming they don't get thrown back into the ocean within the first few hours of the fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is 20,000 infantry, they have no tanks, nor indirect support assets to speak of outside of mortars and sparatic NSFS. The Taiwanese would outnumber them damn near 10 to 1, and on top of that they would have tanks, howitzers, mortars, air support, and infantry support vehicles. This is assuming they don't get thrown back into the ocean within the first few hours of the fighting.

China possesses the world’s third largest armored force, with 10,000 main battle tanks, light tanks, and amphibious tanks in its inventory. PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) operates about 500~600 SRBMs, most of which are believed to be based in Nanjing Military Region opposite Taiwan. While the size of the force is likely to increase substantially over the next few years, the accuracy and lethality of the force also are expected to increase through use of satellite-aided guidance systems. The PLA is also developing land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs). These cruise missiles seem to have a relatively high development priority to ensure that Chinese forces will have greater conventional firepower.

China also has several nuclear powered submarines. Pluse several 4th generation Russian fighter/bombers.

In the last 10 years china has made huge strides in military advancement. They are advancing in all fronts in military technology. It would be a mistake to under estimate their force as the large clumsy, unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Iraq’s military during the gulf war was nowhere near the level of the Peoples Liberation Army is today. I don’t mean to be the PLA cheerleader, but I would like people to realize the upcoming potential of the PLA. It’s a serious threat that should not be ignored nor bushed off as an ineffectual force. To do so would be dangerous and careless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China possesses the world’s third largest armored force, with 10,000 main battle tanks, light tanks, and amphibious tanks in its inventory.

All of it is rendered irrelevant by the fact that they can not transport them to Taiwan, which was my point.

PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) operates about 500~600 SRBMs, most of which are believed to be based in Nanjing Military Region opposite Taiwan.
Can you give me a single example in the history of warfare where inaccurate conventional ballistic missiles have been effective? Their good for inspiring terror in the populace, but that's about all it's good for. Furthermore they (Taiwan) have an extensive array of PAC-2's which have been proven very effective against short range ballistic missiles in Iraq and Israel in both Gulf Wars.

While the size of the force is likely to increase substantially over the next few years, the accuracy and lethality of the force also are expected to increase through use of satellite-aided guidance systems.

Actually the Chinese military is shrinking and will continue to shrink if they want to modernize it to the point where it is at least close to western standards. We can maintain a very large and advanced force because our budget is 400 billion dollars and we have the infrastructure already built. They are running a budget of around 60 billion and they have a force larger then ours, do the math.

The PLA is also developing land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs). These cruise missiles seem to have a relatively high development priority to ensure that Chinese forces will have greater conventional firepower.
These cruise missiles are also very easily taken out by PAC-2/PAC-3. They are also irrelevant if China lacks the intelligence assets required to find the strategic targets these things are meant to hit.

China also has several nuclear powered submarines.

The US has over 50, not to mention the best ASW assets in the world. Since these Chinese nuke submarines are poorly made they are very loud. They are not the problem, Chinese deasil subs are the major threat.

Pluse several 4th generation Russian fighter/bombers.
I think you are referring to the Su-27/Su-30MK? These are very good aircraft, but you might want to check out how much flight time the pilots get and then compare it to the flight time American naval and airforce pilots get. Then compare the shear number of modern planes we have on the same level as the Su-27/Su-30 to the number of Su-37/Su-30s. You will find that these aircraft will be of little help.

In the last 10 years china has made huge strides in military advancement. They are advancing in all fronts in military technology. It would be a mistake to under estimate their force as the large clumsy, unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. 

But you must understand that the vast majority of their force is still that same unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Don't buy into all of this "China is the next super-power" garbage. The facts simply aren't there.

Edited by Praxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you must understand that the vast majority of their force is still that same unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Don't buy into all of this "China is the next super-power" garbage. The facts simply aren't there.

What concerns me about China is that they clearly now possess some significant fraction of the world's productive capability. Either that or the massive number of tools, furniture, electronic devices, etc., stamped "Made in China" are lying.

It is certainly logical to think that the money and technology behind that productiveness are going to radically scale up and improve the quality of their weaponry, given the nature of the Chinese government. It is also true that the engineering and scientific talent in China is growing at a rapid clip. Intel just funded a major new site in China, with 600 people as I recall, for doing advanced semiconductor work. Just one example of many.

I would much rather that Taiwan were getting such resources and attention, but I certainly don't see it in the products I buy or in most of the references I read about new investment and development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly logical to think that the money and technology behind that productiveness are going to radically scale up and improve the quality of their weaponry, given the nature of the Chinese government.

Their economy is so much smaller then ours, I don't see what your talking about.

It is a different thing to build hammers then it is to build highly advanced fighter aircraft, put highly trained pilots in them, and equip them with the latest weaponry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What concerns me about China is that they clearly now possess some significant fraction of the world's productive capability. Either that or the massive number of tools, furniture, electronic devices, etc., stamped "Made in China" are lying.

It is certainly logical to think that the money and technology behind that productiveness are going to radically scale up and improve the quality of their weaponry, given the nature of the Chinese government. It is also true that the engineering and scientific talent in China is growing at a rapid clip. Intel just funded a major new site in China, with 600 people as I recall, for doing advanced semiconductor work. Just one example of many.

Not to mention they've got Mickey Mouse now. :-\

I would much rather that Taiwan were getting such resources and attention, but I certainly don't see it in the products I buy or in most of the references I read about new investment and development.

Taiwan used to produce a lot of junk too, but now their economy is more developed. They have the 23rd best economy based on GDP (PPP) per capita, better than China (97).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China possesses the world’s third largest armored force,
Iraq had the world's 4th largest armed forces and they quickly became the second largest armed force in their own country. But then we set out to fight a war of occupation/liberation which China wouldn't be; it would be a stop them from setting foot in Taiwan and then smack the crap out of them so they get the idea to never do it again.
China also has several nuclear powered submarines.  Pluse several 4th generation Russian fighter/bombers.
We still outclass them.
In the last 10 years china has made huge strides in military advancement. They are advancing in all fronts in military technology. It would be a mistake to under estimate their force as the large clumsy, unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Iraq’s military during the gulf war was nowhere near the level of the Peoples Liberation Army is today. I don’t mean to be the PLA cheerleader, but I would like people to realize the upcoming potential of the PLA. It’s a serious threat that should not be ignored nor bushed off as an ineffectual force. To do so would be dangerous and careless.

I don't think you are a cheerleader at all. And I don't think that we are underestimating the PLA's abilities. But the PLA's advantages are much the same as Iraq's were at the begining of the Gulf war. They had the numbers and they did have some modern equipment, indeed much of which we had sold them. In the case of China our allies France and Israel have sold them some of their equipment along with Russian materials still doesn't add up to a winning combination.

From the earlier posts, I did say that quantity does have a certain quality and if the Chinese did throw enough Shipwrecks our way that they would indeed do some damage but when all is said and done there isn't a chance in hell that they would be able to actually make it with landing boats to set foot on the ground of Taiwan. It has to be taken by the Chinese without anything being broken so to speak which is really impossible. The last time anybody took over anything without massive damage was either Grenada or maybe the Falklands. And that was a case of numerical superiority to the ludicrous extremes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These cruise missiles are also very easily taken out by PAC-2/PAC-3.

Taiwan has a limited amount of PAC-3 missiles, far fewer then China's potential to produce LACMs. Not to mention that China also has the SA-20 which could shoot down the PAC-3There are several ways China could take Taiwan with out having a full-scale invasion. One of the more diplomatic ways is to politically isolate them. The number of countries recognizing Taiwan as a free and independent nation is small. Chinese president Hu Jintao has been racking up his frequent flyer miles as of late by traveling all over the world pressuring countries to recognize the “One China Policy”. In the first five months of this year Taiwan's imports from China stood at US$7.93 billion, representing growth of 29.1% and a share of 10.7% of the country's total imports. If China continue to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and financially it would be easier for them to persuade Taiwan to the “One China Policy”. China could also run a blockade on Taiwan. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would easily overpower the Taiwanese navy. Taiwan’s only hope would be for foreign intervention. The US could and should intervene if there was a blockade of Taiwan, but to what extend? Currently the USN would win a naval battle with the PLAN but at a cost of men and equipment. Also, China most likely won’t run a blockade on Taiwan tomorrow. No, the Chinese are if anything patient. They will continue with there massive upgrade and build up of the PLAN and it’s missile forces. The US FY04 Report to Congress on PRC Military Power(http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf) suggests that China is spending much more on its military than it is actually admitting. If the current trend continues the success against the PLAN would not be guaranteed in a naval scenario. The real question is would the US risk losing a carrier and other assets over Taiwan? During a time when our forces are stretched more and more due to Iraq and the war on terror, could we afford such a loss and still intervene with North Korea and Iran? Would the American public stand for massive losses that a confrontation with China would produce, over an island most of them could not even locate on a map. If you read the US FY04 Report to Congress on PRC Military Power report you will note that congress and the US military seem to be concerned about some of the same things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that China also has the SA-20 which could shoot down the PAC-3
What? The S-400 (SA-20) isn't even in service with Russia, let a lone China.

Your right, they don't have a lot of PAC-3s, but what they do have is a lot of PAC-2s which have been shown to be nearly as effective as PAC-3s.

There are several ways China could take Taiwan with out having a full-scale invasion. One of the more diplomatic ways is to politically isolate them. The number of countries recognizing Taiwan as a free and independent nation is small. Chinese president Hu Jintao has been racking up his frequent flyer miles as of late  by traveling all over the world pressuring countries to recognize the “One China Policy”. In the first five months of this year Taiwan's imports from China stood at US$7.93 billion, representing growth of 29.1% and a share of 10.7% of the country's total imports. If China continue to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and financially it would be easier for them to persuade Taiwan to the “One China Policy”.

We aren't talking about non-military options that China has.

China could also run a blockade on Taiwan. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would easily overpower the Taiwanese navy. Taiwan’s only hope would be for foreign intervention.
They are getting 4 Kidd class Destroyers which outmatch all but a few of China's newer destroyers. Not to mention that the western coast of Taiwan is flooded with land based anti-shipping missiles.

The US could and should intervene if there was a blockade of Taiwan, but to what extend? Currently the USN would win a naval battle with the PLAN but at a cost of men and equipment. Also, China most likely won’t run a blockade on Taiwan tomorrow. No, the Chinese are if anything patient. They will continue with there massive upgrade and build up of the PLAN and it’s missile forces. The US FY04 Report to Congress on PRC Military Power(http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf) suggests that China is spending much more on its military than it is actually admitting. If the current trend continues the success against the PLAN would not be guaranteed in a naval scenario. 

The real question is would the US risk losing a carrier and other assets over Taiwan?

Given that we have plenty of air bases in the mid east, having carriers there is superfluous. So yes, we would risk it, and if they took out a single carrier it would be at an amazing cost to the PLAN, making it an ineffective brown water navy that reinforcements could come in and annihilate in short time. Remember that the US has well over half a dozen super-carriers in mothball that could be called up in times of war.

During a time when our forces are stretched more and more due to Iraq and the war on terror, could we afford such a loss and still intervene with North Korea and Iran?
We station a boomer off their coast and threaten them with annihilation, they won't do a damn thing.

Would the American public stand for massive losses that a confrontation with China would produce, over an island most of them could not even locate on a map.

Describe, "massive"? Why do you believe there would be massive casualties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? The S-400 (SA-20) isn't even in service with Russia, let a lone China. 

I’m afraid you’re mistaken the SA-20 has been in service in Russia for many years. As stated in the Annual Report to Congress: The Military Power of the Peoples Republic of China 2005(http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/us/2005/d20050719china.html); in August 2004, China received the final shipment from Russia of four S-300PMU-1/SA-20 battalions. China has also agreed to purchase follow-on S-300PMU-2, the first battalion of which is expected to arrive in 2006.

Given that we have plenty of air bases in the mid east, having carriers there is superfluous.

Although we do have bases in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates it would still take several hours of flight and an air-air refueling to reach Teheran. We would lose the tactical advantage of having a carrier in the gulf. Pulse lets not forget the North Koreans. Its also true that we have mothballed carriers but they are mostly for test and spare parts. I don’t think we will have the 2 or so years to rebuild a Vietnam era carrier.

We station a boomer off their coast and threaten them with annihilation; they won't do a damn thing.

I thought about this too. What if we gave Taiwan a boomer? What would be the Chinese response? It would definitely make China think twice about attacking Taiwan, but least we forget China has a boomer as well. Not to mention nuclear weapons, I don’t think we'd risk nuclear war with China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...