Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[tomahawk6]

Its a no brainer in a communist country to be a member of the party I can think of no better way than to use party contacts to get business contacts/contracts. While I have been watching China for a long time now I have found that the Chinese have been very impressed with how the US wages war and seeks to emulate our capabilities. It is a fact that if China is to be taken seriously as a military power they must have power projection capabilities. However China cannot afford to modernize its forces in its entirety so they modernize in selected areas such as improving the PLAN, selected modernization of the air force and modernization of its mechanized forces. For the next twenty years China will be a regional power with nuclear weapons. I doubt we will ever see the Chinese Navy for example have true global reach. Modern weapons are very expensive and China's military is too large for a massive overhaul. Remember the large army is as much for internal control as it is for national defense.

I was reading somewhere recently that the reason for so many different Chinese ship classes was because its almost like trial and error with a surface type. They may only build 2-3 ships in a class and move on to another class as a way to improve the design.Chinese ships are less capable than western ships and have been plagues with quality issues. Of course at some point in ship design they will finally have obtained enough experience to build a decent warship.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Its a no brainer in a communist country to be a member of the party I can think of no better way than to use party contacts to get business contacts/contracts ...

The sine qua non for the CCP is to find some way to legitimize its one party rule.  They have to find an acceptable way - to themselves and to the people - to garner the 'consent of the governed.'  We in the liberal democratic West are accustomed to the idea that such consent can only be obtained by a universal franchise and regular general elections.  We could be wrong; there might be other mechanisms which are acceptable to a deeply conservative society.  I don't know what it is but I am 100% sure the Chinese are looking for it.

... While I have been watching China for a long time now I have found that the Chinese have been very impressed with how the US wages war and seeks to emulate our capabilities. It is a fact that if China is to be taken seriously as a military power they must have power projection capabilities. However China cannot afford to modernize its forces in its entirety so they modernize in selected areas such as improving the PLAN, selected modernization of the air force and modernization of its mechanized forces. For the next twenty years China will be a regional power with nuclear weapons. I doubt we will ever see the Chinese Navy for example have true global reach. Modern weapons are very expensive and China's military is too large for a massive overhaul. Remember the large army is as much for internal control as it is for national defense ...

I would be careful about saying 'never.'

My assessment is that: China has no fear of an invasion by anyone.  Thus the PLA is being cut and cut and cut again and modernized at the same time.  (It is important to remember that the PLA performs a wide range of paramilitary tasks including e.g. those which equate to the US Border Patrol and Canada Customs.)

But: I believe the Chinese are intent upon building just the sort of global power projection capability tomahawk6 doubts we will ever see.  I'm not sure what their timetable might be: but 15 to 25 years sounds reasonable, as I read their past budgets.  Why?  China intends, as Lampton suggested, to restore "an equilibrium that persisted throughout much of recorded history."  That equilibrium was not just economic.  China was the key power in Asia 500 years ago - when there were no global powers.  Equilibrium, for the Chinese, means a rough parity in 'face' with the USA and India.

...
I was reading somewhere recently that the reason for so many different Chinese ship classes was because its almost like trial and error with a surface type. They may only build 2-3 ships in a class and move on to another class as a way to improve the design.Chinese ships are less capable than western ships and have been plagues with quality issues. Of course at some point in ship design they will finally have obtained enough experience to build a decent warship.

That would square with what i saw during a recent (2006) trip through South China.  I had no way to assess the utility of the many, many different warships - mainly smaller amphibious landing ships in a vast array of sizes and shapes - but it was clear that there were many varieties.

 

[Kirkhill]

The sine qua non for the CCP is to find some way to legitimize its one party rule.  They have to find an acceptable way - to themselves and to the people - to garner the 'consent of the governed.'  We in the liberal democratic West are accustomed to the idea that such consent can only be obtained by a universal franchise and regular general elections.  We could be wrong; there might be other mechanisms which are acceptable to a deeply conservative society.  I don't know what it is but I am 100% sure the Chinese are looking for it.

I don't know what legitimization model the Chinese might find but there are other models out there that we constantly ignore.  The clans and the loya jirga of Afghanistan are legitimate power brokers as far as the locals are concerned.  The same goes for those we regularly disparage as Warlords - the Sheikhs of Arabia and the leaders of the clans that infest the mountains from the Balkans to the Himalayas and from the Caucasus to Ethiopia (add in the Atlas if you like).  And the followers of various religious leaders, and even some mercernary leaders, all consider their leaders legitimate, even if we don't.

China's problem is that it has DE-legitimized every normal binding mechanism.  They took on the Warlords of Chiang Kai Shek first.  They "aren't ready" for the universal franchise.  They destroyed religion.  They even tore up the little red book and shattered the "cult of personality".  In a society that is split by class, ethnicity and "religion (including the secular religionists)" it seems that the only card they have left to play is  the Galtieri card - the external enemy.

Taiwan would be an interesting test piece for them.  If they can take Taiwan successfully then they could start thinking about challenging Japan in your 25 year time frame.  I don't think though, that taking Taiwan is a sufficiently sure thing that the Party is willing to risk failure.  They can contemplate what happened to Galtieri.

 

[LakeSup]

China is complicated by all the US and European manufacturing investment and infrastructure there.  Japan never allowed foreign companies a foothold but China (and India) are open for business.  Much capital is stranded there if things get tense. 

 

[CrazyCanuck]

The best time for China to invade Taiwan would be today, as the US would not have the ground forces to help the Taiwanese. The only way the US could help the Taiwanese would be through naval means and being so close to the Chinese mainland the danger to US forces could possibly be unacceptably high. I omit air strikes from Japan as I am not sure about the Japenese stance on another war with China. Now if China really wanted to stir the pot they would launch an attack on Taiwan and tell the North Koreans to invade South Korea. Now I doupt the Americans have the ability (in their current situation) to defend both of these places, so this will most likely force them to pick and choose who to 'save' and they are closer to South K(diplomatically) so that is probably where they would place the majority of their forces. Now I doupt the Chinese are interested in an all out war in their frontyard at this point in time so I believe that Taiwan is safe... at least for the next decade or two.

 

[George Wallace]

Boater

I think you have over simplified your assessment a tad.  If any of your scenarios were to happen the state of the world would be drastically changed.  The US and all other nations would upgrade their stance on the WOT to Total War and would concentrate on on part of the world which would include all of what you have mentioned; Asia.  I am sure you will be able to check the numbers that the US dedicated simultaneously to the campaigns in Europe and also those in the South Pacific during WW II and find that they greatly outnumber the resources they are currently dedicating to South Central Asia today. 

You also seem to have overlooked other nations who would be affected directly besides Japan, such as Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.  I am sure that NATO would also become involved immediately too, as would India and Pakistan. 

Would you hazard any guesses as to what Israel would unleash?

 

[CrazyCanuck]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6254155.stm
After looking at that I doubt Israel would want to get on China's bad side, but they also wouldn't want to get on America's so I'm pretty sure they would stay neutral.
As to NATO, Taiwan isn't their problem and judging by the less than stellar commitment to Afghanistan of some countries I doubt it would be of much use. As to over simplification, I was trying to think of what would occur if this happened today and I don't see the American economy on the level of production of war materials that it had during WW2. Any war on two fronts would also require the reinstation of the draft for a sufficient number of troops and I doubt this would go over well. I have trouble seeing India and Pakistan cooperate militarily against another nation but if they ended up on different sides they would probably nuke each other and that would take them out of the picture. Thailand is in no condition to fight a war as a coup just took place there and as to Australia and New Zealand my best guess is that they would support the US, though in what way I can't say for certain.

 

[George Wallace]

Actually CSA 105, I was throwing Israel in as a 'wildcard', and wondering what they would unleash on their neighbours given the opportunity that these scenarios may have presented with most of the world's attentions elsewhere.  I in no way intended to insinuate that Israel would be involved in any way as an Allie of the US or NATO.  As you point out, their interests are in the defence of their own lands and they have quite an arsenal with which to do so.  This could, however, turn into quite a 'sideshow' in itself. 

I don't think Boater realizes the alliances that have been developed and in some case have become quite binding.  NATO currently has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Attacks on a NATO member would involve all members.  I am sure any activities towards South Korea would involve UN Troops, which includes many other than NATO signatories.  South East Asia and the Pacific Rim nations also would have a stake in any activities in those areas.  India and Pakistan, although showing many hatreds towards each other, are also in alliances with other British Commonwealth nations. 

Boater's oversimplification of China and/or North Korea taking on the US on a second front is ludicrous.  The Politics and alliances involved would involve a large number of nations, not only from the Pacific Rim and South East Asia, but from around the World.

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Taiwan is not a NATO member, I do not see where NATO comes into play in defending it, now it may be Americas problem but that does not necessarily make it NATOs problem. Would the UN come into play here? Yes, but would NATO? that is debatable. As to oversimplification, I am neither a defence nor a political analyst, and to go into the depth of detail that you seem to be looking for would require me to write an essay, which I do not feel inclined to do. What I have said before was a scenario that I saw as a possibility, if you do not see it as so you are more than welcome to throw your own in.

 

[George Wallace]

Taiwan is not a member of NATO, but the US is.  The US 'supports' Tiawan.  Tiawan is also a strategic concern for Japan.  I imagine it is also a major strategic concern for other States such as Singapore, and other South East Asia nations. 

Have you though of the Russian interests that still exist in that area? 

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Russia may have interests but it's in no condition to wage a massive land war. And a quick question; how reliant are those South East Asian nations on China economically?

 

[George Wallace]

I would imagine they are quite reliant on economic centers such as Hong Kong, Macao, Shanghai, Canton, etc. as opposed to Bay Street, the DAX or Wall Street.

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Well in that case I doubt they would want to get on China's badside and strongly support the US. IF they were to be invaded by China it may be a different story, but I don't see any reason for China to invade them.

 

[chanman]

Is the PLAN *really* that big?

16 Type 051 Luda DDG's (from 1971)
2 Type 52 Luhu DDG's (from 1994)
1 Type 51B Luhai DDG (1998)
2 Type 52B Guangzhou DDG (2004)
2 Type 52C Lanzhou DDG (2004)
2 Type 51C Luzhou DDG (not yet commissioned)
4 Sovremmeny DDG's (two versions 1999, 2005)

Total: 27 destroyers + 2 on trials, 43 frigates + 4 building, some of the ships being fairly old.


After the sale of the Kidds and retirement of some oldies, the ROCN now has

4 Kidd DDG's
8 Knox FF
8 Perry FFG's
6 La Fayette FFG's


The ROKN has

7 KDX destroyers (built in the last few years), with 2 more on the way
9 Ulsan frigates


The JMSDF has

34 Destroyers including the 4 Aegis ships, with 3 more under construction, and more planned.


If/when the PLAN finally retires its oldest frigates, it's numbers aren't that unusual for the area or population or GDP... even Thailand has a light Harrier carrier.

 

[aesop081]

IMHO, the threat from the PLAN lies in its developing  SSN / SSBN capability

 

[CrazyCanuck]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55192/post-503368.html#msg503368

There's an article that I posted a few weeks ago that also talks about the Chinese upping their military spending.

 

[LakeSup]

The Chinese realize that , in large part, their current boom is the result of them making a lot of low cost stuff for US consumers to buy.  It is a symbiotic relationship...US companies (I work for one doing this) invest millions in building plants in China...using low cost labour to make products to ship to the US (and Europe, Japan..etc).  The US essentially exports their manufacturing base to China and gets low inflation in return.  Walmart is the #7 trading partner (country) with China!  In return China takes those trillions of US $ and buys US Treasuries which allows the US to run huge defecits.
Both sides gain and this is a really high stakes "game".  There may be tension at times (like the spy plane in 2001) or build ups of Chinese military (have to spend all  that money sometime) but I don't think it is anyone's interest to upset the apple cart and lose the "prosperity"
I think the BIG threat is when we lose enough jobs in North America and the unemployment rate goes up as a result...then politicians will stir the pot with trade barriers, etc which could increase tension.  Wait for the low cost Chinese cars to come to NA in 2008!

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is a strategic indicator –  I suggest such strategic indicators (or predictors of Chinese intentions and behaviour) are much more significant than the number or types of ships in the PLAN or the latest specs of Chinese combat aircraft and missiles.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act; my emphasis added:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8MKCAJ80.htm

China foreign currency reserves pass $1T

BEIJING

China's foreign currency reserves, already the world's largest, passed US$1 trillion at the end of November, two central bank researchers said in a paper released Saturday.

China's reserves have skyrocketed as the bank drains money from the economy by issuing bonds in an effort to contain inflationary pressures amid a flood of export revenues. The growth has prompted debate in China over how the country should use the mountain of money.

Reserves reached $1.039 trillion at the end of November, researchers Jiao Jinpu and Liu Xiangyun said in a paper released at a conference in Beijing, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

Outside experts had estimated earlier that China's reserves passed the $1 trillion mark in November. Since then, the reserves are believed to have risen to at least $1.1 trillion.

The central bank officially announces the size of its reserves only four times a year, and said in its last quarterly report they had risen to $987.9 billion by the end of September.

That mountain of money is equal to about 40 percent of China's annual economic output and accounts for half of all Asian reserves. Japan has the world's second-biggest foreign reserves, which stood at $875 billion at the end of December.

The composition of China's reserves is secret, but economists believe about 70 percent is in U.S. Treasury bills, much of the rest in euros and a small amount in yen.

Purchases of assets in other currencies are believed to be growing as the bank diversifies its holdings.

Economist Stephen Green at Standard Chartered Bank in Shanghai said in a report this week that the central bank made an estimated $29 billion profit last year from its foreign assets.

The central bank has been forced to buy up tens of billions of dollars worth of currency every month in order to keep the flood of money from China's trade surplus, which reached a record $177.5 billion last year, from igniting inflation.

Beijing has begun easing currency controls in an effort to reduce such strains.

Economists are debating how China's reserves might be put to use to address pressing needs.

Some have suggested Beijing use the money to buy oil and other resources abroad for China's booming economy. Others say it could pay for more schools and social programs.

A gentle reminder: China’s foreign currency reserves are about equal to the entire GDP of Spain, or Canada.

The fact that China holds, perhaps, as much as $700 Billion in US Treasury Bills means that China and the USA are hugely interdependent.  Neither is in a position to take risks with the social and economic stability of the other; in other words, their strategic interests are the same.  Both need stability (peace) in order to promote their own, interdependent, prosperity.  Countries with coincidental strategic interests need not be friends but they should not be enemies, either.

 

[Kirkhill]

Countries with coincidental strategic interests need not be friends but they should not be enemies, either.

However, neither need they be at peace.  Balance is the critical factor in all things - that yin and yang thing.  A good leader needs to know how much he can punish his friends and reward his enemies while still retaining arbitrary power.  Likewise it is not impossible that a government could see its role as determining how much friction it can impose on its friends, to slow down their progress, without turning them into enemies.

I don't think China (more critically the Party Oligarchy) wants a war with the US, the West or anyone else for that matter.  As long as the world operates on the US Dollar then the US Treasury has the high strategic hand.  They may want to curb the US a bit though, add a bit of friction.

Economically they have tied the Americans to them as much as they are tied to the Americans.  The Euro may or may not prove to be an effective counter to the Dollar.  Politically they are drawing "neutrals" away from the Americans.  Militarily it serves their interests to have the Americans dissipate their military dealing with sand, gravel, brushfires and insurgencies - none of which directly implicate them.

All of this allows "China" the chance to catch up with the US and leapfrog their ancient competitors, Russia and India.  The big factor for them though is, as always, time.  Can they keep their power base, the tax payers and labourers of China's provinces, under control long enough to catch up?  Or do they need to take more risks by increasing the friction to which the US is exposed to slow it down faster?

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Catch up as in; socially, economically, militarily, or politically?