China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[JeffC]

I found this 5 page essay to be very simplistic since it came to a certain conclusion (China's superpower status) after only reviewing three unrelated aspects of the entire PRC society (special ops emulation, academic exchanges, and cyber intrusion).

I felt that you gleamed only the very best aspects of the PRC (such as accumulation of US treasury bonds) while completely ignoring any of the massive challenges that they face (such as environmental degradation, widening wealth gap, brain drain, political unrest, government corruption, intellectual property rights, freedom of the press ect.)

You also made a reference to the 2008 Olympics in your conclusion which you had not referred to anywhere else in your analysis. You gave no evidence to back up your opinion that this was going to be the tipping point for superpower status.

A more convincing argument could be made if you had attempted to link the 3 aspects together somehow and provide more strategic depth (what does it mean for us?) to your analysis rather than repeating an event that already happened. For example, by not explaining the context behind the Chinese cyber intrusion (it was into an unclassified military network), you weaken your argument by omitting key facts.

Unfortunately, when analyzing total power of a state, you must analyze all aspects of that state and its civil/military society. I felt your analysis lacked comprehensiveness and also depth/context to make such a sweeping generalization.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this, since, from what you've written, you don't seem to have actually read my paper. In your opening paragraph, for example, you refer to the cyber espionage problem that I mention in my introduction as one of my 3 components supporting my argument, when, in fact, Cyber Espionage wasn't one of my 3 primary components at all.

You then call out only one aspect of my Military component (Chinese Special Forces) as if it was the only example that I used in my Military section. It wasn't. I also mentioned (via Cozad's testimony) C4ISR, Space and Counter-Space, IO, Electronic warfare, and nuclear weapon delivery systems (ICBMs).

You mis-identified my third component "Educational Development" as simply "academic exchanges", which is incorrect. "Academic exchanges" sounds like some kind of transfer student program.

Finally, you completely failed to identify my second component "Economic Development". I'm not sure how you managed to miss 25% of my essay, but clearly you did.

So, "hypo", since I've demonstrated that your criticism is built upon a pretty serious mis-reading of my analysis (assuming that you actually read it at all), responding to the rest of your post would be redundant. I will, however, offer this. Whether an analysis is 5 pages or 100 pages, it's useless if it isn't understood by the reader. That's why I included about 20 cites in those 5 pages. Just in case a reader, like yourself, was looking for a more thorough understanding of what I was covering.

[Stan]

I'm not really sure how to respond to this...

I'll just borrow one of your quotes real quick for my summation

12. Having DOOMED SPIES, doing certain things openly for
purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and
report them to the enemy.

[slapout9]

Hi JeffC, how about trying this. I learned this at the SMART wars workshop.

Simple country analysis:
1-system assets
2-system attitude
3-system technology state
4-system scope
5-system obstacles
6-system momentum

Do one for China and do one for the US and show who is winning or losing.

[JeffC]

Hi JeffC, how about trying this. I learned this at the SMART wars workshop.

Simple country analysis:
1-system assets
2-system attitude
3-system technology state
4-system scope
5-system obstacles
6-system momentum

Do one for China and do one for the US and show who is winning or losing.

That's an interesting application of Systems Analysis, but it would only show where the two nations stand today, and we already know the answer to that. In order to see if the U.S. will continue to be a Superpower in the future, you would need to look at trends, both in the U.S. and in China, and based on those trends, project an outcome at some point in the future.

[Ron Humphrey]

I would have to heartily agree that this was a well done paper, packed with good information and kept short sweet and to the point.

That being said as to where the future lies I find myself reviewing one main thought process.

China is adept at taking what works and doesn't work for others and learning from it. They have very little compunction about anything from ethical, moral, or social restriction in research, re-engineering, medical practice, etc unless it finds itself in conflict with the desires of the leadership.

They have seen what can happen to a society completely dependant on socialist or communist principles alone and have not failed to adjust some of their eco policies in this regard.

They have large enough populace that they can contain any number of types of societies within their borders while still maintaining the overwhelming communist base. And further more they are part and parcel one of the most planned out societies in history.

Any actions, reactions, planning or hope to understand their path must:

1- Take nothing for granted as possible or not

2- Expect to see any known weaknesses of democratic society well exploited

3- Expect to see economy of scales largely used for political and geographic goals

4- expect a willingness to work with any country who may help to create such instabilities as would be beneficial to said future

5- Always expect that they see what you see

Just somewhat of a part-time preoccupation of mine

[JeffC]

I would have to heartily agree that this was a well done paper, packed with good information and kept short sweet and to the point.

Thanks!

5- Always expect that they see what you see

I'll add one more to your list. Remember that no one sees everything, so anticipate what you don't know (easier said then done, of course).

[Global Scout]

JeffC,

While I enjoyed the paper, I thought it was inconclusive and I am not exactly sure what your point was. For example, China, and several other countries, are modernizing their military, and of course the U.S. Special Operations is seen as especially effective, so they'll adapt that model where it fits. As for UAVs, not only is China adapting them, so is Hezbollah, and I'm sure several other countries. Economic competition? France, Russia, UK, and a slew of others. My point is you could have selected a number of countries and have basically written the same paper with minor changes. I'm not arguing with your facts, but with your slant. China may be a looming menance to our national security, but this paper was not convincing. I think a serious counter argument could be made that China is very fragile on a number of levels, militarily, politically, and economically. I still enjoyed the paper though, thanks.