China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[Shahed]

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.

[bmolsson]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Azi Tohak]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

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.

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

[Azi Tohak]

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

Azi

[Pindar]

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.

[King of Atlantis]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

[King of Atlantis]

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

[Pindar]

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.

[rasoforos]

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...

[bmolsson]

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......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I didn't read the article.

Maybe you should before posting

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.

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."

[King of Atlantis]

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.

[bmolsson]

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......

[Zalmoxis]

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 ) 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.

[Shahed]

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

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[The Stranger]

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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

1000 ICBMs + China = US victory.

[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.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

1) Bethesda who own the rights to Fallout :P


BETHSADA SUCKS!

[Shahed]

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

[KafirChobee]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

WooHoo, the Welsh win.

(Bethesda is a village in Wales)