Personally, I think it's possible that China in the early Seventies was heavily influenced by the last scene of the film, Joe. But that could just be the "open sauce" talking.
Joe (1970) - youtube
Joe - wikipedia
Personally, I think it's possible that China in the early Seventies was heavily influenced by the last scene of the film, Joe. But that could just be the "open sauce" talking.
Joe (1970) - youtube
Joe - wikipedia
Thank you!
Chinese military power to me, and the Chinese, would be the use of "Military means." I can fully concede "other means" as being something different. Nothing new there.Quote:
You'll have to define "Define Chinese Military Power" for me though. What you call it likely isn't what the Chinese call it. I also don't see why making money has to be a point to denigrate authors either (everybody knows I don't make any money writing).
Not denigrating anyone, except to say there are things they state in their work, that they clearly do not know a lot about. A lot of their work is conjecture and uses paper thin evidence. Some of the things they state as being categoric are extremely contestable and context specific. All in all I see not a lot of worth in this work.
Agreed. Same as everyone.Quote:
The Chinese don't see their military as their primary source of power.
Not sure how that works out, but OK.Quote:
They see their population size and education level as a primacy of power.
Watched the English language CCTV for 2 years. I confess it gave me little insight.Quote:
Watch Chinese television for a few weeks and the internal dialog they are having is much simpler than most people seem to believe.
I'm not being "hostile." I just think it's not an insightful or even useful work and people gift it with insights and ideas that are just not there, once the words are subject to rigour. There is lot of clever sounding but ultimately empty stuff.Quote:
I'm just not sure why you popped off on the document "Unrestricted Warfare". The authors have given talks in the United States, there are numerous translations, and some are fairly poor. It is a government level document and I have never read one from any any country that didn't read like a grade school primer. So why the hostility?
I am merely cautioning anyone reading this thread with taking that publication seriously.
It's difficult to surpass Jan Gotlib Bloch in regard to future warfare anticipations.
He wasn't only quite accurate, but also intelligent enough to draw the correct lesson without an extremely wasteful trial & error procedure. The wasted value of this Cassandra was beyond imagination.
I admire how he succeeded in his research of sources without such a thing as the internet or inter-library lending.
I knew about the UW work for a decade, but I admit I've never really read it. It looked to me like one of the primary sources which are so widely cited that reading it first-hand would likely not reveal anything new. 'Breaking the Phalanx' was another example of such a work.
My impression based on second-hand info is that it's too early to judge the work, though. The future is the authorized judge, not us.
There's also the possibility that the written and published version of their findings/opinion is just the surface. Guderian's "Achtung Panzer" revealed only a few per cent of his ideas, for example.
UW is probably similarly designed to fire up the bureaucracy and new blood instead of revealing the real set of ideas.
2006 interview with Jed Babbin, co-author of Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States.
Given this scenario, shouldn't Taiwan, Japan, Australia and possibly Indonesia seriously consider developing their own nuclear deterrents?Quote:
Does China really want a war with us?
Yes, but not a nuclear war or an all-out conventional one. China wants war because without it they can’t achieve superpower status. China, like France, believes power is a zero-sum game. Without defeating us in at least a short war—say over Taiwan or somewhere else in the Pacific—China won’t have the ability to proclaim its hegemony over their region.
$$$
So how soon is this war going to happen? And what will it look like?
No one but the Chinese know. They’ll start it when it suits them, and not a moment sooner. It could take any number of forms, ranging from an attack on Taiwan to a cyber attack on the United States. (italics added)
Exclusive: China Craves War With U.S. - Human Events
Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States - Amazon
Also, regarding war with China, the paper strength of Xinjiang Military District suggests that Manas Air Base may become contested in short order:
PLA Ground Forces: Xinjiang Military Region - sinodefence.comQuote:
Southern Xinjiang Military District
4th Motorised Infantry Division
6th Mechanised Infantry Division
8th Motorised Infantry Division
11th Motorised Infantry Division
1st Independent Infantry Regiment
2nd Independent Infantry Regiment
2nd Artillery Brigade
Air-Defence Brigade
3rd Army Aviation Brigade
9th Engineer Regiment
Includes 6th Highland Mechanized ID:
PLA 6th Highland Mech IDQuote:
The 6th Mechanized Infantry Division, 2003.
17th Mechanized Infantry Regiment (Type 92 IFV)
18th Mechanized Infantry Regiment (Type 92 IFV)
Armor Regiment (Type 96 MBT, Type 88B MBT, Type 86 IFV)
311th Artillery Regiment (Type 02 100mm SP Assaulter, Type 89 122mm SPH and Type 83 152mm SPH)
Air Defense Regiment (Type 95 SP-AAA)
Also possible deployable, Ws-2d MLRS:
Ws-2d - sinodefence forumQuote:
Round Dispersion is 600 meters / 480, 000 meter range which is 0.00125 or 0.125%.
Apart from war in the Taiwan Strait, and a potential situation in Kyrgyzstan; considering that Pakistan and China are allies, would this complicate the AFPAK situation?
If the Chinese want us out of Manas they don't need to fight to do it. All they have to do is put the economic screws on the government of Kyrgyzstan and arrange for them to ask us to leave or restrict our presence to a point where the base becomes useless. Cheaper and way less mess.
The idea that "China" wants a war with the US is, alas, just plain stupid, though I don't doubt that it sells books. I'm sure there are people in China who would like a war with the US somewhere along the line. There are also many who would not. China has little incentive to rock any boats right now and they have a whole lot to lose. Their economy is completely dependent on trade and war could very quickly disrupt that. I'm sure China will keep pushing in every way they can, right up to the point where they anticipate possible negative consequences. I don't see them crossing that line. Right now business is good and the business people are calling the shots; they don't want things disrupted. If China went through a severe economic upheaval that could of course change... oddly, it is in our interest ultimately to keep them prosperous, just as it is in theirs to keep us prosperous.
"War in the Taiwan Strait" gets a lot of talk, but why would the Chinese do that? They could mount an air/missile attack on Taiwan, but that would mean risk for little if any gain. They can't take Taiwan at this point; they haven't the sealift capacity and the risks to them would be enormous, far greater than the prospective gain.
We often forget that the greatest threat to Chinese security is internal, not external. The Chinese government is less likely to forget that.
Couple things about China's banks that nobody brings up and they are critical in understanding how they beat us. First China is a sovereign nation and can and does create Sovereign Credit(debt free money)....it doesn't have to borrow money. China has no Federal Reserve:eek:, it is a nationalized banking system and because of that the banks are Policy driven not Profit driven. They are probably All broke by western standards but it doesn't matter if the debt becomes to bothersome they will just charge it off their books. What matters to China is physical production assets are placed inside it's own borders because that is real wealth not pieces of paper, they can and will print as many as they need so long as the relationship between money and physical production assets are kept in balance. Oh yea, where did they learn this, the US Constitution of course, Abe Licoln in paticular. Credit does not mean debt!!!!!!it is simply an accounting term for right side of the account ledger to keep track of money, it has nothing to do with debt.