China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.

Quote:

---

China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.

Alexandr Nemets
Newsmax/Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004

During the last several months, there have been numerous hints in the Chinese and Taiwanese media indicating that war is more likely than believed here in the West.

Some strategists suggest that the 2008 Olympics scheduled for Beijing constitute a key benchmark, after which a war may be possible.

However, it is clear that both nations are preparing for a conflict in the near term, and that 2008 may not be as pivotal as some experts believe.

In fact, China's media have been repeating the mantra in their news reports that the People's Liberation Army is preparing to gain a victory in this “internal military conflict in a high-tech environment.”

Chinese war planners have studied carefully the recent U.S.-Iraq War, a war that demonstrated to PLA strategists that U.S. military might is derived from its technological superiority.

China's military experts conducted similar studies after America's first Gulf War. One military study written by two Chinese colonels entitled “Unrestricted Warfare” suggested that China could not compete with America's technological prowess.

Instead, China had to develop “asymmetrical” warfare to defeat the U.S. in any conflict. Interestingly, “Unrestricted Warfare” became an instant best seller in China after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. 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, China feels much better positioned after the recent Iraq War and wants to challenge the U.S. on a technological level.

Almost instantly after the Iraq War, in May 2003, China's President and Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao declared at the party's Politburo meeting the necessity of “active support of national defense and modernization of the army.”

Hu emphasized the need for further integrating information technology (IT) into the PLA and mobilizing China's entire scientific and technological potential for PLA's needs.

As a result, the PLA's modernization in these areas has accelerated significantly.

Since the second half of 2003, the PLA has been engaged in the latest stage of its RMA – Revolution in Military Affairs – program, which was officially announced by the chairman of China Central Military Commission, Jiang Zemin, in his speech on Sept. 1, 2003.

He emphasized that that PLA should transform itself into a “smaller and much smarter science- and technology-based army.”

Jiang defined the major tasks of new PLA reform as follows:

* Reducing PLA's ranks, primarily ground forces, by 200,000.
* Maximizing IT and other advanced technologies – including nanotechnologies, space technologies, electromagnetic weapons, etc.
* Improving the educational and qualitative training of PLA servicemen.
* Transforming the PLA into an “army of one” that is comparatively smaller and of very high quality, similar to the U.S. Army.
* Acquiring the most advanced weaponry.

*

*

The Russia Connection

During 2003 and 2004, Russia – jointly with Belarus and Ukraine – has been a major source of advanced weapons for the PLA.

According to official figures from Russia's weapons export state monopoly, Rosoboronexport, Russia's total weapons export in 2003 approached $5.7 billion, making Russia the second largest arms exporter after the U.S. (Please note that China is arguably the leading arms exporter in quantity of arms transported, as its weaponry is considerably less expensive than that of the U.S.)

China has purchased 38 percent of Russian arms exports, or around $2.2 billion.

If one takes into account the weapons deliveries from Belarus and Ukraine to China, along with “double use” nuclear and space technologies supplied by Russia to China, then Chinese real arms imports from greater Russia would, in my estimation, be $4 billion.

Clearly, Russia and her allies have been a huge factor supporting the PLA in its rapid modernization and planned confrontation with the U.S.

3-Pronged Strategy

The PLA has been following its “three-way policy” of advanced weapons acquisition.

This three-pronged strategy calls for China to gain technologically advanced weaponry through (1) imports, (2) joint (Chinese-foreign) weapons R&D, and (3) independent weapons R&D within China.

The details of this mechanism were given in the article “China's military affairs in 2003,” published by the Taiwanese journal Zhonggong yanjiu (China Communism Research) in February 2004.

According to Taiwanese experts, though weapons import and joint R&D still play the major role in PLA modernization, the role of “independent R&D” has been increasing gradually.

Appointed in March 2003, new Chinese Defense Minister (former chief of Defense Ministry's Armament Division) Col.-Gen. Cao Gangchuan was personally in charge of this work.

He has tried to decrease China's dependence on Russian arms and increase the share of advanced weapons imports from Germany, France and Israel.

China also is engaged in joint weapons R&D projects with EU and NATO countries, including R&D of mid-range air-to-air missiles and highly precise satellite positioning (Galileo project).

The Air Force

China believes that in a conflict with Taiwan, air dominance will be key to a quick victory.

The PLA has been beefing up its PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and aircraft troops of the PLA Navy (PLAN).

Reportedly, by the end of February 2004, the PLAAF purchased from Russia 76 SU-30 MKK fighters belonging to the advanced “4 plus” generation.

PLAN air troops obtained 24 even more advanced SU-30 MKK fighters.

There is no data regarding future deliveries of the “finished” SU-30 from Russia to China; however, the Chinese aircraft industry is more or less capable now of producing the SU-30 as well as other fighters belonging to the fourth generation, or close to this level.

Dramatic modernization of China's First Aviation Industry Corp., or AVIC-1, from 2001 to 2004, is of principal importance here (the data in this account are given in the above-mentioned article in the Zhonggong yanjiu journal).

Four major companies are developing China's jet-manufacturing capability. Interestingly, each of these companies recently underwent radical modernization and upgrading, including advanced equipment obtained from Europe's Airbus, claiming the help is for “cooperation in passenger aircraft production.”

Shenyang Aircraft Corp. continued, in the past year, to produce SU-27 SK (J-11) heavy fighters from Russian kits at a rate of at least 25 units annually, and the share of Chinese-made components surpassed 70 percent.

The same company now prepares SU-30 MKK (J-11A) fighters for manufacturing.

In the frame of “independent R&D” within China, the Chengdu Aircraft Corp. has mastered the serial production of medium J-10 fighters and FC-1 light fighters. These planes reportedly can match the U.S. F-16 fighter.

Here are some other developments in China's air wing:
*
Guizhou Aircraft Corp. developed the advanced Shanying fighter-trainer, while Xian Aircraft Corp. mostly finished developing the new generation of FBC-1 (JH-7) long-range fighter-bomber, which became known as JH-7A.
*
Other enterprises, belonging to AVIC-1, mastered production of KAB-500 guided bombs and several kinds of air-to-air and air-to ground missiles.
*
By the end of 2003, the new generation of Flying Leopard, i.e., JH-7A, was being tested. This fighter-bomber's weapons include new air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles of beyond-vision range, guided bombs, etc. This aircraft is adapted for anti-radar reconnaissance, effective low-altitude strikes against large naval vessels, and general strikes of ground-based and naval targets.
*
By the end of 2004, as a result of supply from Russia and increased fighter production at AVIC-1 subsidiaries, the number of advanced fighters of various kinds in PLAN air troops and the PLAAF – including SU-27 (J-11), SU-30 (J-11A), J-10, FC-1, Shanying, FBC-1 (JH-7) and JH-7A – could surpass an estimated 400 units.

The Sea Component

China also sees its navy as critical in any successful assault on Taiwan.

The PLA Navy (PLAN) has numerous Chinese-Russian projects under way this year and next, including:
*
Purchase of two Russian Sovremenny destroyers, equipped with improved ship-to-ship supersonic cruise missiles (SSM) Sunburn 3M80MBE of 240 km range.

Initially, Sunburn had a range of 160 km. However, in 2001-2003, Raduga Design Bureau in Dubna (about 150 km north of Moscow) designed, under PLAN's orders, a much more lethal version of SSM.

Very probably, serial production of new SSM would be mastered in China, so it would be installed on two Sovremenny destroyers, purchased by PLAN in 1999-2000, on Chinese-built Luhu- and Luhai-class destroyers as well as Jiangwei-class frigates. According to media reports in the Hong Kong and Taiwan media, two new Sovremenny destroyers could be transferred to PLAN before the end of 2005.
*
Purchase of eight Kilo submarines, equipped by “super-advanced” 3M54E (CLUB-S) submarine-launched anti-ship missiles.

In 2003, China already obtained 50 missiles of this kind, which would greatly improve PLAN's striking capacity. China intends to organize production of these missiles. They probably also could be used on Chinese-built conventional submarines of the Song class.

New Kilo submarines could enter PLAN service in 2005 or the first half of 2006. (Information regarding destroyers and conventional submarines was repeated in several articles in Zhonggong yanjiu in January 2003 through February 2004 and in multiple media reports from Hong Kong during the same period.)
*
Construction of “093 project” nuclear attack submarines and the “094 project” strategic nuclear submarine, using Russian plans and technology, at Huludao (a port city in northeast Liaoning province) military shipbuilding plant. By the end of 2005, PLAN would have in its service at least two “093 project” and at least one “094 project” nuclear submarines.

Reportedly, Russia had to make significant improvements in design and weapons of these submarines, in accordance with Chinese customers' requirements.

Along with Russian contracts is the construction of a new generation of destroyers, frigates and conventional submarines at modernized shipbuilding plants in Dalian, Shanghai, Qingdao and Wuhan cities. An upgraded PLA could be capable pf establishing sea control around Taiwan in 2008.

Aso important is the fact that both the PLAAF and PLAN would be equipped, by 2008, with perfect military information technology systems, more precisely by C4ISR (command, control, computers, communication, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) systems, which would make the use of the listed weapon systems much more effective.

---

I heard this on the radio today and thought Id share.

It's obvious and has been obvious. China's a future world super power or has the capability to be one... Though being a super power entails more than killing things. China's a power on the rise and military rumblings especially in a totalitarian state is no surprise at all.

Besides, I wouldn't worry about a sudden strike on California...

First steps would be to crush Taiwan and possibly test out its military power. Then it would have to annex Korea and South East Asia. Then it would have to crush Japan and then into Alaska and possibly south to Australia. Then they would have to wander through Canada or land on the West Coast.

All this while either keeping Europe and Russia(who has border issues with China) neutral, keeping Pakistan and India from crapping themselves in fear of their big unrestrain neighbors, and sujugating the nationalistic historical tributary states in the South.

Basically, America's border's are buffered by many friendly/not liking China/no more imperialism states and a giant pond will with nuclear boomsticks.

I don't think the world would take kindly to China taking over the world.

There can be no direct war between the US and China, not without one of the two sides being able to effectively cancel the other's nuclear weapons, from the equation.

Interesting article.

I can really hear China in one voice: Bush here we come !!!! ~;)

Quote:

---

There can be no direct war between the US and China, not without one of the two sides being able to effectively cancel the other's nuclear weapons, from the equation.

---

Its the first part of the article thats truly scary not the build up of arms so much to me.

Gawain,

What in the first few paragraphs did you find so particularly disturbing? That the Chinese military observed our actions during the Iraq war? Every major European power had observers here during the US Civil war, and much of what they learned was incorporated into the Franco Prussian war, and later, WWI.

Or was it that they're waging a war of propaganda within the military. Truly shocking....

No offense man, but you're sounding like chicken little... China has been planning to develop enough muscle to throw it's weight around since early in Mao's day. I mean, hello, what do you think the Korean conflict was about?

I'm not sure if it's American 'short term memory syndrome' or what, but just because the Chinese are being more friendly to us economically and diplomatically over the past 20 years, doesn't mean they've changed their amibitions one iota. The question is, do they believe they can accomplish their goals strictly by force. Thus far, clearly not.

I think as a culture, they're a pretty nice folk, by and large, I love doing business over there and I respect the hell out of their culture. The people are warm, friendly, and very ambitious, all things I admire. But I never for one moment forget that this is competition.... they see a world where they lead, and at best we follow (if not serve), which, I must admit, is much how we see the world. I see nothing inherently scary in seeing a country that's really starting to develop envisioning some ambitious dreams. Their willingness to act to fulfill them, of course, must caution us that these are at best friendly rivals, not allies, and we must remain vigilant. But not fearful.

Wait a minute....I know what we can do. We can appease the Chinese and ask them nicely not to buy new weapons. That always works.

Azi

Quote:

---

Gawain,

What in the first few paragraphs did you find so particularly disturbing? That the Chinese military observed our actions during the Iraq war? Every major European power had observers here during the US Civil war, and much of what they learned was incorporated into the Franco Prussian war, and later, WWI.

Or was it that they're waging a war of propaganda within the military. Truly shocking....

No offense man, but you're sounding like chicken little... China has been planning to develop enough muscle to throw it's weight around since early in Mao's day. I mean, hello, what do you think the Korean conflict was about?

---

Yeah Im chicken little LOL. I expect them to build up militarily i said as much. Its thos part that worries me.

Quote:

---

Chinese war planners have studied carefully the recent U.S.-Iraq War, a war that demonstrated to PLA strategists that U.S. military might is derived from its technological superiority.

China's military experts conducted similar studies after America's first Gulf War. One military study written by two Chinese colonels entitled “Unrestricted Warfare” suggested that China could not compete with America's technological prowess.

Instead, China had to develop “asymmetrical” warfare to defeat the U.S. in any conflict. Interestingly, “Unrestricted Warfare” became an instant best seller in China after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. 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..

---

Now you tell me that doesnt scare you.

Here a found a better source for what I wanted to point out originaly.

Quote:

---

China's stealth war on the U.S.
Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the U.S. dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.

This saber-rattling comes while China is building a lot of sabers. Although its defense budget, estimated to be as much as $90 billion, remains a fraction of the United States', it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia. Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems — especially missiles and submarines — needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific.

ADVERTISEMENT
The Pentagon on Tuesday released a study of Chinese military capabilities. In a preview, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Singapore audience last month that China's arms buildup was an "area of concern." It should be. But we shouldn't get overly fixated on such traditional indices of military power as ships and bombs — not even atomic bombs. Chinese strategists, in the best tradition of Sun Tzu, are working on craftier schemes to topple the American hegemon.

In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.

"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."

Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" — clearly a red, white and blue enemy — would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."

This isn't just loose talk. There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That would be psychological warfare against a major Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, fall into the same category.

The bid by the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Co., to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the U.S.? Media warfare.

And so on. Once you know what to look for, the pieces fall into place with disturbing ease. Of course, most of these events have alternative, more benign explanations: Maybe Gen. Zhu is an eccentric old coot who's seen "Dr. Strangelove" a few too many times.

The deliberate ambiguity makes it hard to craft a response to "unrestricted warfare." If Beijing sticks to building nuclear weapons, we know how to deal with that — use the deterrence doctrine that worked against the Soviets. But how do we respond to what may or may not be indirect aggression by a major trading partner? Battling terrorist groups like Al Qaeda seems like a cinch by comparison.

This is not a challenge the Pentagon is set up to address, but it's an urgent issue for the years ahead.

---

READ THIS

Meh. Mutual anihillation worked well for 45 years didn't it? Why not do the same with China?

Azi

China has allowed itself to become virtually surrounded by hostile nuclear powers: India, Pakistan, Russian, North Korea, Japan (if threatened could quickly arm) and the U.S. This is not a particularly envious strategic situation.

Economically, over 40% of China's exports go to the U.S. Infrastructural development is tied to tens of billions in yearly foreign investment. Economically China does not have the capacity to wage a major war.

I dont think any "nation" will actually attack the U.S for a very long time, cause if we actually felt threatend that we might be beaten we have a very large supply of nukes.

Is it me or dont any of you get it? This isnt about open warfare. Read it once more.

Eventually the bombings would be tied to the chinese government and we would make it open warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Is it me or dont any of you get it? This isnt about open warfare. Read it once more.

---

I didn't read the article. If you are worried about a technological race China is ill suited for the task. A dynamic technological industry requires an open society where competition and innovation are the norm. Industrial theft or other attempts at mimicry are not sufficient as the core knowledge base cannot be replicated. The Soviets are the perfect example. They were never able to match the technological developments of the West despite spending roughly three times the GNP on the military and development.

Go and find how much China spends for its military and weapons....

Then go and find how much the U.S spends....

Then you ll know a) why there wont be a war anytime soon b) Who will be in a position to attack and who is effectively buying weapons not for defence but for active and straight away offensive military operations...


American governmental influence has always been based on the existance of a 'bad guy' , its easy to control your population this way. Since they ran out of USSR and since Afghanistan Serbia and Iraq are plainly not enough, chances are they will try to create some cold war fears about China.


Having said that, China is growing with 9-12% per year which means that its economy doubles every 6-7 years or so. They ve been doing that for a long time now and they dont seem to be stoping or overheating ( bloody efficient fical and monetary policy by a communist country, puts some 'capitalists' nations to sham e doesnt it? ~:) ). Chances are that in a couple of decades they ll be able to create and sphere of influence ( seing that most of the planet is sick and tired of US imperialism, all it will take is some more terms by ppl like Bush or even Clinton) and be able to cross the US as a superpower....but IF it happens its a long way in the future. Allienating their allies, who wouldnt mind cooperating and making money from China, wont help the US either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I didn't read the article. If you are worried about a technological race China is ill suited for the task. A dynamic technological industry requires an open society where competition and innovation are the norm. Industrial theft or other attempts at mimicry are not sufficient as the core knowledge base cannot be replicated. The Soviets are the perfect example. They were never able to match the technological developments of the West despite spending roughly three times the GNP on the military and development.

---

Soviet didn't have an open trade regime with the rest of the world. China has that. Most of the technology they need is transferred peacefully by hungry western companies. In other words, they don't have to develop so much themselves, the west does that for them...... ~:cool:

Quote:

---

I didn't read the article.

---

Maybe you should before posting ~D

Quote:

---

If you are worried about a technological race China is ill suited for the task.

---

If you read any of my posts you would know that this isnt my concern in the least. We are far ahead IMO. Thats way their talking of "unrestricted warfare" I gave a link to the entire book. I think you would find it very interesting.

heres just the end of it.

Quote:

---

Conclusion

[pp. 241-247 in original]

"Computerization and globalization...have produced several thousand global enterprises and tens of thousands of international and inter-government organizations." -- E. Laszlo

"Mankind is making progress, and no longer believes that war is a potential court of appeals." -- Bloch

At a time when man's age-old ideal of "the family of man" is used by IBM in an advertisement, "globalization" is no longer the prediction of futurists. An era in which we are impelled by the great trend of technological integration that is plastered all over with information labels, agitated by the alternately cold and warm ocean currents from the clash and fusion of civilizations, troubled by local wars rising first here then there and by domino-like financial crises and the ozone hole over the South Pole, and which causes everyone, including the futurists and visionaries, to feel strange and out of place - [such an era] is in the process of slowly unfolding between the dusk of the 20th century and the dawn of the 21st century.

Global integration is comprehensive and profound. Through its ruthless enlightenment, those things which must inevitably be altered or even dispelled are the positions of authority and interest boundaries in which nations are the principal entities. The modern concept of "nation states" which emerged from the Peace of Westphalia [1] in 1648 is no longer the sole representative occupying the top position in social, political, economic and cultural organizations. The emergence of large numbers of meta-national, trans-national, and non-national organizations, along with the inherent contradictions between one nation and another, are presenting an unprecedented challenge to national authority, national interests, and national will. [2]

At the time of the emergence of the early nation states, the births of most of them were assisted by blood-and-iron warfare. In the same way, during the transition of nation states to globalization, there is no way to avoid collisions between enormous interest blocs. What is different is that the means that we have today to untie the "Gordian Knot" [3] are not merely swords, and because of this we no longer have to be like our ancestors who invariably saw resolution by armed force as the last court of appeals. Any of the political, economic, or diplomatic means now has sufficient strength to supplant military means. However, mankind has no reason at all to be gratified by this, because what we have done is nothing more than substitute bloodless warfare for bloody warfare as much as possible. [4] As a result, while constricting the battlespace in the narrow sense, at the same time we have turned the entire world into a battlefield in the broad sense. On this battlefield, people still fight, plunder, and kill each other as before, but the weapons are more advanced and the means more sophisticated, so while it is somewhat less bloody, it is still just as brutal. Given this reality, mankind's dream of peace is still as elusive as ever. Even speaking optimistically, war will not be wiped out rapidly within the foreseeable future, whether it is bloody or not. Since things which should happen will ultimately come to pass, what we can and must focus on at present is how to achieve victory.

Faced with warfare in the broad sense that will unfold on a borderless battlefield, it is no longer possible to rely on military forces and weapons alone to achieve national security in the larger strategic sense, nor is it possible to protect these stratified national interests. Obviously, warfare is in the process of transcending the domains of soldiers, military units, and military affairs, and is increasingly becoming a matter for politicians, scientists, and even bankers. How to conduct war is obviously no longer a question for the consideration of military people alone. As early as the beginning of this century, Clemenceau stated that "war is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military." However, the history of the past 100 years tells us that turning over warfare to the politicians is not the ideal way to resolve this important issue, either. [5] People are turning to technical civilization, hoping to find in technological developments a valve which will control war. But what makes people despair is that the entire century is just about gone, and while technology has made great strides, war still remains an unbroken mustang. People still expect wonders from the revolution in military affairs, hoping that high-tech weapons and non-lethal weapons can reduce civilian and even military casualties in order to diminish the brutality of war. However, the occurrence of the revolution in military affairs, along with other revolutions, has altered the last decade of the 20th century. The world is no longer what it was originally, but war is still as brutal as it has always been. The only thing that is different is that this brutality has been expanded through differences in the modes in which two armies fight one other. Think about the Lockerbie air disaster. Think about the two bombs in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Then think about the financial crisis in East Asia. It should not be difficult to understand what is meant by this different kind of brutality.

This, then, is globalization. This is warfare in the age of globalization. Although it is but one aspect, it is a startling one. When the soldiers standing at the crossroads of the centuries are faced with this aspect, perhaps each of them should ask himself, what can we still do? If those such as Morris, bin Laden, and Soros can be considered soldiers in the wars of tomorrow, then who isn't a soldier? If the likes of Powell, Schwartzkopf, Dayan, and Sharon can be considered politicians in uniform, then who isn't a politician? This is the conundrum that globalization and warfare in the age of globalization has left for the soldiers.

Although the boundaries between soldiers and non-soldiers have now been broken down, and the chasm between warfare and non-warfare nearly filled up, globalization has made all the tough problems interconnected and interlocking, and we must find a key for that. The key should be able to open all the locks, if these locks are on the front door of war. And this key must be suited to all the levels and dimensions, from war policy, strategy, and operational techniques to tactics; and it must also fit the hands of individuals, from politicians and generals to the common soldiers.

We can think of no other more appropriate key than "unrestricted warfare."

---

I will say it again, if china goes and makes terrorist to get us, then we will do like we always have done and bring the war to them. As a nation with alot to lose surley china would realixe that it would risk much in starting a conflict.

The only way to be unaffected by WWIII is to live in a cave with nothing modern. I guess that is what bin Laden have figured out......

Lol, anyway, China doesn't stand a chance. First, their stockpile of nukes (IIRC bought secondhand from the Russians) aren't anywhere near strong enough to challenge the US'. In unconventional warfare, China may very well lose, (seeing as how 70% of the US' population will be monitored 24/7 in 2010 ~:rolleyes: ) the US government would find out quickly, and war would follow (it would be awkward if China had caused the 9/11 attacks). I'll agree that China can't take a 40% loss in its economy and survive such a war (as nations in Europe would probably stop importing from China as well), and it would have to fight by sending hundreds of men armed with sticks at American troops. What's funny is that Germany hosted the Olympics 3 years before WW2, now, if a war started three years after Beijing and dragged out for a year, it would coincide with the end of the Mayan calendar.

Now THIS is something every military enthusiast should read:

http://www.cryptome.org/cuw.htm

Truly a well thought out piece. Thanks for the link, Gawain.

To me it looks like those guys who wrote that are pretty smart, smart enough that they won't try to match the US militarily on it's own terms. This makes perfect sense. It's a highly thought out strategy and IMHO any nation with regional or global ambition would be wise to use it. In fact the USA is already using, or has the readiness to use, the majority of the components outlined by the text. Should that scare China or anyone else? (joke)

The sum of the article, which you should read plus the enclosed text posted by Gawain above is, seems to be a synthesis of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu:

Military

Atomic warfare
Conventional warfare
Bio-chemical warfare
Ecological warfare
Space warfare
Electronic warfare
Guerrilla warfare
Terrorist warfare

Trans-military
Diplomatic warfare
Network warfare
Intelligence warfare
Psychological warfare
Tactical warfare
Smuggling warfare
Drug warfare
Virtual warfare (deterrence)


Non-military
Financial warfare
Trade warfare
Resources warfare
Economic aid warfare
Regulatory warfare
Sanction warfare
Media warfare
Ideological warfare


Now out of these some industrialised nations (particularly the USA) already have a capability, demonstrated or potential in the following areas:

Atomic warfare
Conventional warfare
Bio-chemical warfare
Ecological warfare
Space warfare
Electronic warfare
Guerrilla warfare
Diplomatic warfare
Network warfare
Intelligence warfare
Psychological warfare
Tactical warfare
Virtual warfare (deterrence)
Financial warfare
Trade warfare
Resources warfare
Economic aid warfare
Regulatory warfare
Sanction warfare
Media warfare
Ideological warfare


The only places where US differs (publicly) is:
Terrorist warfare
Smuggling warfare
Drug warfare

Yes but if the US were to be pushed in such a direction I have no doubt that Terrorist Warfare, Drug Warfare, and Smuggling warfare would be used without a second thought. The American spirit is calm and predictable for the most part, but when something throws a wrench in the system Americans can be highly motivated zealots... we have more efficient ways of killing 2,000 people than flying an airplane into a building, we just choose to be the better men and not openly kill innocents on purpose. The West has a deeper understanding of the value of human life than places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or China.

we dont do it open, we just send them to oekraine and kill them there.

1000 ICBMs + China = US victory.

Some ppl here are forgeting something...

...IF nuclear warfare occurs, its not the one with the most missiles that wins....2000 missiles hitting your country wont make much difference than 1000. These missiles are just multiple times redundant.

...The only winner will be:

1) Bethesda who own the rights to Fallout :P

2) The countries smart enough to stay out of it..although there wont be much left in the whole planet anyway.



I think this post has turned into madness by the way...The Chinese are patient and entrepreunerial men. They have had a history of thousants of years, unlike the US. If World Domination is really what they want, they will just wait for a Century or so untill their economy is multiple times stronger than the US and EU combined. For the moment its working...Not everyone thinks in terms of bombs.

1) Bethesda who own the rights to Fallout :P


BETHSADA SUCKS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Some ppl here are forgeting something...

...IF nuclear warfare occurs, its not the one with the most missiles that wins....2000 missiles hitting your country wont make much difference than 1000. These missiles are just multiple times redundant.

...The only winner will be:

1) Bethesda who own the rights to Fallout :P

2) The countries smart enough to stay out of it..although there wont be much left in the whole planet anyway.



I think this post has turned into madness by the way...The Chinese are patient and entrepreunerial men. They have had a history of thousants of years, unlike the US. If World Domination is really what they want, they will just wait for a Century or so untill their economy is multiple times stronger than the US and EU combined. For the moment its working...Not everyone thinks in terms of bombs.

---

Right you are. Damm I'm beginnning to sound like Yoda in my old age :dizzy2:

Isn't China one of those little countrys' buying up all the USA paper (debt) it can get lay hands on? Generally speaking, they are far more apt to bankrupt us, than bomb us. Think it was USN&WR that pointed out that China now owns 25-30% of our paper (notes, bonds, etc) - the only war their interested in is an economic one. It was also reported that there are 350Million middle-class Chinese, and a growing group of neuvo rich that only cares about profit. China has introduced the latest form of Capitalism - or maybe it's PJ's NationalSocialism, but what ever it is - it's working (for them).

Nations winning economic warfare, do not create a military situation that what ruin it for them. Generally.

We cannot win a war against China; not without destroying us and the world in the process.

It should be stated that before the establishment of the Chinese Republic, China commanded 80% of the world's GDP. It's just getting back on its feet.

WooHoo, the Welsh win.

(Bethesda is a village in Wales)

Quote:

---

WooHoo, the Welsh win.

(Bethesda is a village in Wales)

---

I believe their reffering to Bethesda Maryland. ~;)

nah, it's Wales.

After all our language is known as "the language of heaven": evidence that God's on our side, we win.

YAY!

(I just like the idea of a small slate quarrying settlement in Wales winning if there were a nuclear war, don't bring reality to my attention)

China has already won....

All mostly sceptical rubbish. The Chinese enonomy is likely to crash soon due to over-growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derF

All mostly sceptical rubbish. The Chinese enonomy is likely to crash soon due to over-growth.

---

Dude, Economies grow for 4-5% and they overheat ( if thats what you mean by ' overgrowth' cause i still havent seen a country complaining about growing ) and then there is inflation and all that...however this happens fast...within a year or two, no more...

...Part of the Chinese economic miracle is that they manage to run on 9% ( official ) and 12-13% ( unofficial ) growth rates for more than a decade now and they manage to keep their economy from overheating or slowing down.

You cant just claim something like that without looking at the data first...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Feh, bring it on I say. Their fighters are equal to F-16s, eh? How would they deal with our F/A-22 Raptor Stealth Fighters, which can out-perform an F-16 5 to 1? They can't. How can they compete with our Nuclear Submarines? They can't.

A war with us would be embarassing for them. They'd lose control of the air and the seas very early on.

---

How many Raptors do you currently have? 5? 10? ~;)

And it´s pretty good to know that some of you don´t have a key to fire nukes. Have you ever heard about fallout? Throwing some ICBMs on China could contaminate the whole world... ~:handball:

Ignoring the fact that a) China's entire economy relies on trade with the US, and b) any neighbours to China aren't going to miss the opportunity to annex part of China whilst it gets slaughtered by the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

How would they deal with our F/A-22 Raptor Stealth Fighters, which can out-perform an F-16 5 to 1? They can't. How can they compete with our Nuclear Submarines? They can't.

---

They don't have to. The pilots and crews will be killed off before the war starts. They only smuggle in a few hundred thousands "illegal workers" and start the executions. I don't think they have any problems with you flying the US figthers..... ~;)

Is this what you call persecution complex?
China is growing and will propably keep on growing. They will be the biggest economy and the biggest military power. They do not have to attack the US to reach this goal. Once they are number one Taiwan will be theirs again.
The question is how will the West, how will the US react? I think if China comes close the US will try to start an arms race. If they feel the economic problems they will look for a military solution. Not a direct attack, but trying to cut off resources ... .
The article shows how much some Americans are already unsettled.

There is an artivcle in Newsweek (May 9th, 2005). They say that China's military budget rises by 10 percent per year. 'But it is still spending a fraction of what America does, at most 10 percent of the Pentagon's annual bill.'

I think China is rapidly modernizing its military,but not for a war against US.Chinas military equipment is mostly pretty much from 70`s.Ofcourse they are trying to modernize it.
The problem with US China relations is Taiwan.I dont believe that China´s ultimate goal is somekind of Crusade against US.Their purpose is to conguer back what they consider the rebellious province of Taiwan.So if the China and US want to avoid an war over Taiwan,they should really sit down and start negotiating somekind of compromise in that matter.I dont believe that an conflict between them is inevitable. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Feh, bring it on I say. Their fighters are equal to F-16s, eh? How would they deal with our F/A-22 Raptor Stealth Fighters, which can out-perform an F-16 5 to 1? They can't. How can they compete with our Nuclear Submarines? They can't.

A war with us would be embarassing for them. They'd lose control of the air and the seas very early on.

---

Raptor Shmaptor! Even if we took on China's air force with our conventional fleet of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s we'd mop the floor with them. I'll go one step further and say that even if China's entire air force was comprised entirely of state of the art post-Cold War Russian aerospace technology our pilots, training and tactics would ulitmately prove superior. As Chuck Yeager said during the Korean War, "It's the man, not the machine." In Korea the Mig-15 compared favorably to the F-86 and was superior in terms of firepower, speed and climbing ability. Both aircraft were extremely capable fighters. And yet the butcher's bill at war's end saw the F-86's kill ratio around 10-1!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Ignoring the fact that a) China's entire economy relies on trade with the US

---

Nope, not even close...the US just want to think of it this way. China is an FDI recipient from all around the world...

...and btw...if 2 countries are tied in such a trade dependence then its not that ones economy depends on the other, they are mutually dependent.






AND CAN WE STOP THIS 'ATTACK CHINA' NONSENCE PLEASE?
THANK YOU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Is this what you call persecution complex?
China is growing and will propably keep on growing. They will be the biggest economy and the biggest military power. They do not have to attack the US to reach this goal. Once they are number one Taiwan will be theirs again.
The question is how will the West, how will the US react? I think if China comes close the US will try to start an arms race. If they feel the economic problems they will look for a military solution. Not a direct attack, but trying to cut off resources ... .
The article shows how much some Americans are already unsettled.

There is an artivcle in Newsweek (May 9th, 2005). They say that China's military budget rises by 10 percent per year. 'But it is still spending a fraction of what America does, at most 10 percent of the Pentagon's annual bill.'

---

Do China have any reason to feel threatened by US ? Is there any US plans to invade China ? Of course not.
So why do China build up their armed forces ? With no threat ahead of them, what do they need their troops for ?
Do you see the logic here ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No offense, but I think you're just trying to be contrary.

---

~:grouphug:

I am rather curious about what the rest of the West would do if China started to misbehave.

I know what too many people would want (I’ll give you a hint, it starts with liberals and ends with the following), let me see if this rings a bell:

1935 Germany repudiates the treaty of Versailles and begins to re-arm (…humm…)
1936 Germany expands into the Rhineland, while the French and British do nothing (…Taiwan?)
1938 Germany waltzes into Vienna. The west sits (Korea?)
1938 Germany stars interfering Czechoslovakia and we get ‘Peace in our time’. Ain’t it grand!
1939 Germany marches into Czechoslovakia…(SW Asia?)
September 1st, 1939…I don’t really think I need to elaborate on that one do I?

I don’t know about you guys…but there is no way China would ever start a war! I mean…that would mean the US would have to blockade them and then…well…how on earth would they ever get their Champagne, or new Simpsons’s episodes or …whatever it is Britain exports… Geesh…it is a good thing we have our liberals to tell us that the alligator…erm…China…is just hungry for a little while. So long as we keep feeding him, I’m sure he won’t eat me!

Right…?

Azi

Sorry buddy...as much as I don't like China...they have managed to get us by the short hairs.

Like the money situation...aren't we in debt to them?

Azi

Wow, some of you guys are really paranoid... as though the Chinese were already poised to come into your houses at night en masse and wreck up the place......

:bow:

To be honest, I don't understand the money thing myself. But yes...as soon as China realizes it has no course short of nukes around the USN and USAF...we'll see...we'll see ~;)

All kidding aside, China does scare me. But Roark, you are a heckuva lot closer than I am!

Azi

Haha... Perhaps.

Oh, you meant this guy -----> ~:eek:

He appears to be trying to hypnotise me...

Yup yup...just ignore the snake sitting the living room...it is just there because it wants to enjoy the TV. It has no desires to eat anything you have. Such as a pet...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_usa...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

And may I be so bold as to throw the bull**** flag on this one?

Quote:

---

"The Chinese government attaches great importance to IPR (intellectual property rights) protection and will step up measures in this regard," he [State Councillor Tang] said.

---

Meh...Germany's rearmament in the 30s did not lead to anything bad did it?

Azi

China would never do anything. Japan would greet them with open arms, a handshake and a new model of electronic goods to buy if China would only finally unite with its wayward rebellious province of Taiwan. ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Dude, Economies grow for 4-5% and they overheat ( if thats what you mean by ' overgrowth' cause i still havent seen a country complaining about growing ) and then there is inflation and all that...however this happens fast...within a year or two, no more...

...Part of the Chinese economic miracle is that they manage to run on 9% ( official ) and 12-13% ( unofficial ) growth rates for more than a decade now and they manage to keep their economy from overheating or slowing down.

You cant just claim something like that without looking at the data first...

---

There was no reason to expect China couldn't grow like this. They had to make up for the Cultural Revolution and decades of its aftermath. In otherwords, the bar was so low that introducing some capitalistic reforms was guarranteed to be stunningly successful. It's a lot more impressive to grow from 1 to 100 than from 10 to 100, but in both instances the end result is the same: 100.

Growth rate numbers mean little, as long as there is continuing demand. And there is great demand for access to China's vast CHEAP labor pool and enormous population. It isn't inexhaustible, and that labor is eventually going to become more expensive.

Will a big bubble and big recession happen? Probably, but there must be some structural reasons for it, not just growth rate greater than X for Y years. (I have no idea when either.) Bubbles and collapses happen when the expectations far exceed the future demand. I've not been paying close attention to economists predicting doom and gloom for the Chinese economy--the articles I've read so far have not been compelling. Some analyst out there will be the canary and give the warning...and probably a bond analyst, and few will pay him/her much heed until they are looking back for clues later to what went wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Sorry buddy...as much as I don't like China...they have managed to get us by the short hairs.

Like the money situation...aren't we in debt to them?

Azi

---

Nope. I'm fairly safe saying that America is in no debt to any country other than to itself, our 3 Trillion Dollar Deficit isn't borrowed from other countries, it's borrowed from us! So when the Government decides it needs an SDI system they don't ask China for the money! They just reach into our own pockets and take it, in the form of back taxes and revenue. And Because we don't have enough money to pay for it they sort of give us a shoddy IOU like a Mafia drug dealer would give his landlord, of course we're pissed, but we know there is nothing that we can do about it. The Clinton administration did however return the favor in the 90s, and then the Bush adminstration put us as far back in debt as if a culmination of every American Presidency were put together and multiplied by three.

That is not correct. The deficit is over $7.7 trillion and will soon hit $8 trillion. $4.6 trillion of the debt is in treasury securities. These are held by many, including foreign nations, corporations, etc. So this debt is very real. The "intergovernmental transfers" (such as dipping into the SS funds) is the additional $3.1 trillion. As such it is less "real." It is equivalent to a company underfunding a pension fund...except with the govt there is no safety net for the pensioners if it fails.

Really the debt is not to ourselves, but borrowing from our children and grandchildren. It is theft from the younger generations. Each generation sticks it to the one below, damned irresponsible. So much for seniors lecturing kids about financial responsibility, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

There was no reason to expect China couldn't grow like this. They had to make up for the Cultural Revolution and decades of its aftermath. In otherwords, the bar was so low that introducing some capitalistic reforms was guarranteed to be stunningly successful. It's a lot more impressive to grow from 1 to 100 than from 10 to 100, but in both instances the end result is the same: 100.

---

True. If we take Sollow growth model, and also relevant sigma convergence theories and data, into account then china is indeed far away from its equilibrium and thus grow fast.

However, such high and consistent growth is rather miraculous. There are over a hundred nations which are way below their potential equilibrium and they do not grow adequately to support either Sollow or convergence. The reason is almost always bad economic management.

My point is that China has managed to realise its potential to grow and has done so very succesfully and in a highly consistent and organised way. Due to its natural resources and population this has been a herculean task and they did damn well. Most countries never do.

As a result I believe they will continue doing so unless something really unexpected happens.

Quote:

---

Growth rate numbers mean little, as long as there is continuing demand. And there is great demand for access to China's vast CHEAP labor pool and enormous population. It isn't inexhaustible, and that labor is eventually going to become more expensive.

---

True, growth rates on their own mean little. But when a country doubles in economy every 5-6 years then its a special case.

As you said China has hordes of cheap labour force that gave it an initial competitive advantage. But lets not fool ourselves, China is take really good measures to make sure the rising income and wage levels will not affect its growth and future economic robustness.

First of all is growing in 3 different layers. East is highly industrial and is rapidly becoming a 3rd sector financial and services centre. The central zone is industrialising and finally the west is still underdeveloped and a source of cheap labour ( the average income is about 10 times smaller in the west than in the east). This means that:

a) they will have sufficient cheap labour for the decades to come

b) they are becoming less and less dependent on cheap labour. Through FDI they have accumulated vast technological knowledge and process know-how, they have developed strong services sectors and financial centres that have overshadowed european and american ones ( Shanghai for example ).

So yes, China USED TO , produce cheap labour goods and to a large extend it still does. But it now also produces high-tech goods and provides a vast array of financial services at a very competitive way. When China reaches its growth potential, it will do show as a very technologically develop country.

In conclusion, the structure of the Chinese regime has allowed them to design and realise very-long-term plans and they will face minimal structural problem as their economy passed from rural to industrialised to services based.

Quote:

---

Will a big bubble and big recession happen? Probably, but there must be some structural reasons for it, not just growth rate greater than X for Y years. (I have no idea when either.) Bubbles and collapses happen when the expectations far exceed the future demand. I've not been paying close attention to economists predicting doom and gloom for the Chinese economy--the articles I've read so far have not been compelling. Some analyst out there will be the canary and give the warning...and probably a bond analyst, and few will pay him/her much heed until they are looking back for clues later to what went wrong.

---

I am an economist who has specialised in International Economics actually ~D

Of course bubbles and collapses happen and more often than not noone has predicted the external shock that causes a collapse untill its too late. So noone will come and give you a 100% chance that something will or will not happen. Just take a look at growth expectations and you ll see that economists get the wrong more often than BBC get the weather wrong :)

However, atm you will not find many independent and unbiased economists you will predict doom for China. Chinese economists havent made many mistakes for the past decade or so and frankly its very dificult to stagnate an economy thats its growing at a consistant 9-12% ( unlike an economy that grows at this percentage for only a year or two...then you almost always expect a negative growth correction ). Moreover if they keep protecting their economy from overheating as well as they do ( and U.S economists should take some lessons here...) they will do just fine.

I wont stake my name into an oppinion that the Chinese economy might not collapse, any economy can collapse. But I wouldnt bet on it.


P.S: Has anyone noticed how many Chinese men and women study Economics and Business in the UK at the moment? While I was studying for my masters half of the students were chinese, they are really preparing their people for the future.

Note to conservative U.S guys looking for the next 'bad guy' : Chinese people a) They are humans like you and me, not some sort of demon

b) They are very polite kind and friendly

c) Believe it or not...they do not talk about war all day, nor do they talk about attacking the US and turning it communist...maybe some conservatives should do the same for a change




P.S 2: What scares me is that IF China succeeds in becoming a Developed country then it will be the only country who used communism to achieve so. In essence a new form or communism and for a change a SUCCESFULL one. Proletariate dictatoship that allows the development of long-term plans of gradual development and free-market-conditions untill a developed free market economy emerges. Lets face it, it will change a lot of textbooks and it will affect the people's idea on how to get non-developing-economies into the right track.

It will also mean, us , economically right wing people, will have to say we were wrong for the first time. :bow: Time will tell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

That is not correct. The deficit is over $7.7 trillion and will soon hit $8 trillion. $4.6 trillion of the debt is in treasury securities. These are held by many, including foreign nations, corporations, etc. So this debt is very real. The "intergovernmental transfers" (such as dipping into the SS funds) is the additional $3.1 trillion. As such it is less "real." It is equivalent to a company underfunding a pension fund...except with the govt there is no safety net for the pensioners if it fails.

Really the debt is not to ourselves, but borrowing from our children and grandchildren. It is theft from the younger generations. Each generation sticks it to the one below, damned irresponsible. So much for seniors lecturing kids about financial responsibility, eh?

---

I have to agree to this. People shouldnt forget that budget and trade deficits are ran at a cost. Noone seems to care about how suicidical US economic policy has been and how the country becomes indebted against foreign countries and institutions. It will come back like a boomerang if nothing is done to correct the problem.

I sometimes think how irrational it is that the current U.S administration is currently financing wars with money it is constantly borrowing from foreign countries ( which on their vast majority oppose the waR)...thats world economics for you :charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Hey uh, no offense, but the Chinese are extremely racist. China is really not too high-up on my list of places to go. Yeah, they're people like you and me, but they're not angels.

---

Here we are, talking about attacking them because they are growing and we come and accuse them for racism? :dizzy2:

Yes they are not angels, but they are people like you and me, and we are not angels either. :)

Whoopee! Thank you Red Harvest. I don't know enough about the money situation to articulate my fears. It is the bonds thing that has me worried.

But rasoforos

Quote:

---

Note to conservative U.S guys looking for the next 'bad guy' : Chinese people a) They are humans like you and me, not some sort of demon

b) They are very polite kind and friendly

c) Believe it or not...they do not talk about war all day, nor do they talk about attacking the US and turning it communist...maybe some conservatives should do the same for a change

---

You could say the same thing about us Midwesterners (well, reverse #3). But we are not rampant racists like they are, no matter what you might have heard on the BBC. Our chinese grad student is not exactly well liked (the vast majority of our grad students are Taiwanese or Indian) but he is the most racist person I have ever met. Far more so than 'Billy-Bob' the Kansas hick. Maybe he is just a bad apple, but I have assurances, from him, his friends and family back home think the same things.

Azi

A few years ago there were riots in China because some black people were allowed to study there.

and 20 years ago there were some riots in the us as well, and 50 years ago some 6 mio jews had a shower...

racism exist everywhere, we can only try to be tolerant and tell people they are wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Note to conservative U.S guys looking for the next 'bad guy' : Chinese people a) They are humans like you and me, not some sort of demon

b) They are very polite kind and friendly

c) Believe it or not...they do not talk about war all day, nor do they talk about attacking the US and turning it communist...maybe some conservatives should do the same for a change

---

I am Chinese so might be able to spread some light on the issue at hand.
a) obviously
b) they're the same as everyone else. Perhaps the culture is more respectful than ours in the western world.
c) well the ones I know are far more worried about money than anything if you want the honest truth.

On a note on racism: Yes, conservative chinese people tend to be very superior and racist. I mean conservative in the oldest sense of the word, trying to preserve the 'old' ways. They believe chinese people are inherently superior. But that was the way of the world...

Personally, I don't see myself (or any of my friends) as any more racist than the ''normal'' population of the UK, if anything...less racist. But I guess in some senses we are more british than chinese culturally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ah_dut

I am Chinese so might be able to spread some light on the issue at hand.
a) obviously
b) they're the same as everyone else. Perhaps the culture is more respectful than ours in the western world.
c) well the ones I know are far more worried about money than anything if you want the honest truth.

On a note on racism: Yes, conservative chinese people tend to be very superior and racist. I mean conservative in the oldest sense of the word, trying to preserve the 'old' ways. They believe chinese people are inherently superior. But that was the way of the world...

Personally, I don't see myself (or any of my friends) as any more racist than the ''normal'' population of the UK, if anything...less racist. But I guess in some senses we are more british than chinese culturally

---

Thank you ah dut. Nice to hear from someone closer to the subject than I am.

To be sure, I like my friend. He's a good guy. But Sjakihata is right, there is rascism everywhere. The problem is it is self-propagating. Lumping is easy (I'm guilty of that myself :embarassed:) but knowing if it is true or not is hard.

I do not doubt that many Chinese (or Japanese or French or Brits or Americans [I could go on but I won't]) believe they are superior to country X for Y reasons. What I don't like is what I see of the Chinese leadership espouing that idea too. That is the dangerous part. Sounds awful familiar to too many examples in history (colonialism, Rome, WWII and on) for me to believe they are harmless.

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Thank you ah dut. Nice to hear from someone closer to the subject than I am.

To be sure, I like my friend. He's a good guy. But Sjakihata is right, there is rascism everywhere. The problem is it is self-propagating. Lumping is easy (I'm guilty of that myself :embarassed:) but knowing if it is true or not is hard.

I do not doubt that many Chinese (or Japanese or French or Brits or Americans [I could go on but I won't]) believe they are superior to country X for Y reasons. What I don't like is what I see of the Chinese leadership espouing that idea too. That is the dangerous part. Sounds awful familiar to too many examples in history (colonialism, Rome, WWII and on) for me to believe they are harmless.

Azi

---

My point is, what you put much better than me. There is racism everywhere: jsut some groups are more racist than others. Many people feel their country is superior. I just happen to think people of my country (china) think that more tan most...

The government will probably always try and spout nationalistic rubbish, that's a fact of life I will have to live with

China's cheap labour bank is vanishing because of their one-child policy, and most of the children being male. Don't forget that.

I'm not trying to be mean but in general there are 105 males born to every 100 females (therefore most babies would be naturally male anyway). Generally. What has happened in China is that people have been aborting female foetuses because of their gender. This has skewed the proportions even more.

I've been to China (mainland) a few times and I've never wanted to 'attack' them. I think manners count for more in Chinese society then they do in American, and there's a few other differences, but for the most part people are people.

Chinese don't discuss attacking the US not because they don't think about it but because they consider it rude to discuss politics with somebody you know you'll disagree with. You should be focusing on topics you can agree on and build harmony, such as getting rich together. But there's plenty of Chinese that have it in for America, just as there's plenty of Americans that have it in for China.

I read an article a week ago talking about a riot in a small city about an hour outside of Shanghai. The local peasants rioted and destroyed a factory, because the factory was releasing chemicals into the watershed & was destroying their crops. I was amazed to hear this, but it certainly makes the whole Taiwan equation make a lot more sense. China has a lot of growing pains going on right now, and those who are employed & living in the East Coast cities are doing exponentially better then people in the West or in rural areas. China is trying to address this by steering new foreign business coming in to western cities (like ChengDu (Agilent's China HQ), Xian (where Dell is setting up) and Guiyang (I think Panasonic). My point is that they know damn well things are a little imbalanced and a large group of the population is pretty upset that their boat isn't rising with the tide. China's trying to fix that, but it takes time and these people are impatient. One of the best diversions from domestic issues is a good national sovereigty crisis with a shadowy foreign power you know little about but who's 1) powerful and 2) appears menacing. The US, telling China to leave Taiwan alone, fits the bill perfectly, and I think if the US said "you know what, take Taiwan", the Chinese government would crap their pants.

Well, maybe not that extreme, but for the time being, I think they like the situation exactly as it is. For now, they can tell their people "Look, things may not be perfect, but the Americans are over there across the Taiwan Strait dreaming of ways to conquer us... it's unpatriotic of you to be focusing on your personal woes with things as they are..."

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to be mean but in general there are 105 males born to every 100 females (therefore most babies would be naturally male anyway). Generally. What has happened in China is that people have been aborting female foetuses because of their gender. This has skewed the proportions even more.

---

Or they abandon the girl. Fortuanetly, some, like my little cousin (well, she's not related obviously), can get adopted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

However, such high and consistent growth is rather miraculous. There are over a hundred nations which are way below their potential equilibrium and they do not grow adequately to support either Sollow or convergence. The reason is almost always bad economic management.

---

I see it as more of an authoritarian system running an entire country like a large business with well thought out goals. China isn't blazing new paths afterall, they are correcting decades of their own poor economic management and pulling themselves out of what was once a 3rd world economy. From my project work in Singapore, it looks to me like China is essentially using an adapted Singapore model. Also, many neighboring countries had already industrialized, so China had a lot of ground to make up. Essentially, they are the last big country to industrialize.

I see some brilliance to what they are doing, but it strikes me as "it's about time they figured it out." You can't ignore the decades of incompetence that preceeded the recent growth. I can't really see this as a triumph for communism, since they had to turn to capitalism to fix what communism had broken. In the end, I think the changes will transform the Chinese govt and people into something far less threatening than they are today--at least from a militaristic viewpoint.

Quote:

---

So yes, China USED TO , produce cheap labour goods and to a large extend it still does. But it now also produces high-tech goods and provides a vast array of financial services at a very competitive way. When China reaches its growth potential, it will do show as a very technologically develop country.

---

They didn't develop any of this. They brought outsiders in to show them how to do things, so that they could train their own people on how to build things. I've been aware of this for 16 years now. They have leveraged a cheap labor pool, enticed with a large potential market, and used their monopoly on the economy as big stick for getting exactly what they want. They have required that the plants built there be run by chinese and that most of the plant equipment be built by chinese, even when they were completely unqualified for the task and it cost much more to do so.

Quote:

---

In conclusion, the structure of the Chinese regime has allowed them to design and realise very-long-term plans and they will face minimal structural problem as their economy passed from rural to industrialised to services based.

---

Absolute control means no real internal obstacles to implementing one's plan. However, the structure is based on authoritarian control, and that is a big weakness, since it can be flawed and hidden, and the structure can be destroyed at the whim of those in power. I was in Singapore when SAR's was not yet named and the Chinese govt was working hard to suppress the cases, it was obvious to me at the time what was going on. (There were a lot of really nasty respiratory viruses hitting us in Singapore about the same time, so I was paying close attention to the headlines out of China related to their more severe virus.) I give this as an example of the hidden faults of such a regime.

Quote:

---

Of course bubbles and collapses happen and more often than not noone has predicted the external shock that causes a collapse untill its too late.

---

Actually, a major component of the tech bubble collapse was identified by a major bond analyst. Can't remember the name, but he was looking at the yields on the telecom bonds and started warning his clients to get out of those bonds immediately no matter how attractive they looked. I think he was about 6 months ahead on his call. What he recognized was that the telecom arms race had just about run its course, they were having trouble getting access to capital although their solvency was not yet being questioned. Since the telecoms were spending the billions that were driving the tech manufacturing giants, the result was predictable. For a similar sector crash to compare with, look at what happened to the theater chains in their massive buildout in the U.S. a few years before the telecom crash... They all went bankrupt because the "arms race" forced them to take on more debt than they could manage.

Quote:

---

I wont stake my name into an oppinion that the Chinese economy might not collapse, any economy can collapse. But I wouldnt bet on it.

---

I don't see collapse in the cards at all, but having a strong pull back or recession would not be a surprise to me. It simply is a matter of when. Because of the state control we still have a major "transparency" issue. Kind of like with all the major companies that were cooking their books feeding the U.S. bubble... Don't forget that China's system has been inherently protectionist. That lure has worked so far, because of the lure of cheap labor and their massive potential market. It won't work forever. Eventually, they will have to open up to imports.