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.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.The Chinese don't see their military as their primary source of power.
Not sure how that works out, but OK.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.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.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.
Bookmarks