China's Emergence as a Superpower

[SWJED]

7 Feb Washington Times - China's Emergence as Military Power Splits Strategists on Threat to U.S..

A new Pentagon strategy report and recent congressional testimony by the director of national intelligence show the Bush administration remains divided on the threat posed by China's rise.

The Quadrennial Defense Review report made public last week bluntly states that China is the greatest potential challenge to the U.S. military and is rapidly building up its military.

John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, by contrast, stated in an annual intelligence threat briefing for Congress that China's rise is similar to that of democratic India. He left out any reference to the threat to Asia or the United States posed by the military buildup...

Some officials -- who dominate the State Department and the intelligence agencies -- consider China a nonthreatening state that will evolve into a benign power through trade and other global economic interaction.

Other officials, however, view China as a growing potential danger, engaged in strategic deception to mask hidden goals and objectives...

[Strickland]

Originally Posted by SWJED

7 Feb Washington Times - China's Emergence as Military Power Splits Strategists on Threat to U.S..

So if I understand the above article correctly, when the US pursues foreign markets, foreign direct investment, and foreign arms sales, it is simply pursuing its national interest through security cooperation; however, when the Chinese do it, it is some sort of aggressive move aimed at weakening US interests by destabilizing regional alliances in preparation for the forward projection of the PLA?

As Barnett writes, "until there are equal rules, we are not all equal."

[Jedburgh]

Amid all the discussion of China's current and potential capabilities to project power - economic and military - beyond its borders, here's some discussion of the internal stability issues China is facing...

RAND Congressional Testimony: Challenges to China’s Internal Security Strategy

...and a special issue of the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief

[Stu-6]

Has China really done anything aggressive? I mean they might be pretty rough on other Chinese but have they really threatened the US? I think we are looking for an enemy here. It seems that we want another Cold War. If I was a cynic I’d suspect a military-industrial complex

[Martin]

Stu-6, first two examples coming to mind:
A Chinese general threatened to use nuclear weapons.
The official line is that they will use force in case Taiwan declares independance, the direct implication of which is use of force against the US (because of alliance).

Also of consequence is how the Chinese dictatorship would handle themselves in a strong international position (assertiveness, need to unite people, etc). I remember reading that asian societies tend to want a hierarchy rather than a multipolar system.

I think the Chinese would gain more from draining the US of information by sending their people to the universities and spies in the industries rather than conquering it. If you'd have a threat from the Chinese in that case, it would be more of isolation and affecting opinion and policy in the US.

Just IMHO...

Martin

[Stu-6]

While you maybe right your examples ring hollow to me. I don’t recall China saying anything more threaten about nuclear weapons than any other nuclear state facing a strong conventional threat, to include the US during the Cold War. Also while China has made threats directed towards Taiwan there has never been a formal alliance between the US and Taiwan, to the best of my recollection from Nixon until the current administration the US was always deliberately ambiguous on the situation.

[Martin]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4...00e2511c8.html

Originally Posted by Financial Times

But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

About alliance:The US has stated that they would defend Taiwan. Whether or not you want to call it an alliance or not does not matter for the scenario.

Martin

[Martin]

Also recommend reading Unrestricted Warfare.

Take care,
Martin

[SWJED]

Via Terrorism.com - Unrestricted Warfare. By Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999 - translated by FBIS).

[FBIS Editor's Note: The following selections are taken from "Unrestricted Warfare," a book published in China in February 1999 which proposes tactics for developing countries, in particular China, to compensate for their military inferiority vis-à-vis the United States during a high-tech war. The selections include the table of contents, preface, afterword, and biographical information about the authors printed on the cover.

The book was written by two PLA senior colonels from the younger generation of Chinese military officers and was published by the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House in Beijing, suggesting that its release was endorsed by at least some elements of the PLA leadership. This impression was reinforced by an interview with Qiao and laudatory review of the book carried by the party youth league's official daily Zhongguo Qingnian Bao on 28 June.

Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed.

In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . . .The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it." (see FBIS translation of the interview, OW2807114599)
[End FBIS Editor's Note]

[Stu-6]

Originally Posted by Martin

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4...00e2511c8.html


About alliance:The US has stated that they would defend Taiwan. Whether or not you want to call it an alliance or not does not matter for the scenario.

Martin

I don’t know; I mean I see your point but to call a threat to Taiwan a threat to the US without a treaty seems a stretch, but you are certainly right in suggesting that war with Taiwan would most like involve the US. Still with such a loose standard could you not say that US talk about defending Taiwan could be seen as a threat to China, as they consider Taiwan to be a part of China?

[Martin]

Yes, that might be their perspective.

The USA defines her own moral and interests, not China. If the US believes it to be just, then you/we should stick the course. Of course one has to take into account consequences, etc, of saying that, but you get the point.

Martin

[Stu-6]

Well since we are evaluating their threats I think their perspective is the most relevant. And if it is their perspective that they are not being any more threatening than we are maybe their not really threatening us . . . Just a thought.

[Martin]

If both parties are threatening each other, that is escalation, not de-escalation.

If from their perspective they feel threatened or just do not like other people voicing their opinion and position in regards to, e.g. (there are other examples), Taiwan, that does not mean that their responses are less effectual. On the contrary, if they can make a case for their people I would say it is more threatening rather than less.

With that said, I am positive about China within the next 50 years, if handled correctly. Though I wouldn't support either containment nor all-out friendliness.

IMHO,
Martin

[SWJED]

16 Feb. Washington Times - Commercial Photos Show Chinese Nuke Buildup.

Commercial satellite photos made public recently provide a new look at China's nuclear forces and bases images that include the first view of a secret underwater submarine tunnel.

A Pentagon official said the photograph of the tunnel entrance reveals for the first time a key element of China's hidden military buildup. Similar but more detailed intelligence photos of the entrance are highly classified within the U.S. government, the official said.

"The Chinese have a whole network of secret facilities that the U.S. government understands but cannot make public," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "This is the first public revelation of China's secret buildup."

The photographs, taken from 2000 to 2004, show China's Xia-class ballistic missile submarine docked at the Jianggezhuang base, located on the Yellow Sea in Shandong province.

Nuclear warheads for the submarine's 12 JL-1 missiles are thought to be stored inside an underwater tunnel that was photographed about 450 meters to the northwest of the submarine. The high-resolution satellite photo shows a waterway leading to a ground-covered facility.

Other photographs show additional underground military facilities, including the Feidong air base in Anhui province with a runway built into a nearby hill...

[Jedburgh]

From RAND: Chinese Responses to US Military Transformation and Implications for the DoD

Chinese strategists have avidly consumed U.S. Department of Defense writings over the past 10 years and have keenly observed the changing nature of U.S. national strategy and military transformation. Commentary by People’s Liberation Army (PLA) experts on Operation Iraqi Freedom suggests that Beijing believes the Pentagon’s efforts at achieving a Revolution in Military Affairs are not just succeeding, but accelerating. Yet the concomitant acceleration of the pace of Chinese military modernization also suggests that the Chinese are not dissuaded by U.S. military prowess, but instead are driven by a range of strategic and military motivations to continue their efforts apace. This report examines potential Chinese responses to U.S. transformation efforts and offers possible U.S. counterresponses. It should be of interest to analysts, warfighters, and policymakers who seek to better understand the modernization trajectory of the Chinese military, and the potential implications of PLA efforts for U.S. military capabilities in a potential China-Taiwan scenario...

[SWJED]

Released yesterday - DoD's Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People's Republic of China.

The FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1202) directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report "…on the current and future military strategy of the People’s Republic of China. The report shall address the current and probable future course of military-technological development on the People’s Liberation Army and the tenets and probable development of Chinese grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy, and of the military organizations and operational concepts, through the next 20 years."

This report, submitted in response to the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act, addresses (1) China’s grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy; (2) developments in China’s military doctrine and force structure, to include developments in advanced technologies which would enhance China’s military capabilities; and, (3) the security situation in the Taiwan Strait.

The link contains five reports, 2002 through 2006.

I have also placed links to all the MSM buzz about the report on today's SWJ Daily News page

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by Stu-6

Well since we are evaluating their threats I think their perspective is the most relevant...

SSI, 2 Apr 07: Chinese Perceptions of Traditional and Nontraditional Security Threats

In order to begin to understand the motivations and decisions of China’s leadership, and in order to behave in a manner such that we can influence them, we must try to understand the world as China does. This research is an attempt to do so by examining the writings and opinions of China’s scholars, journalists, and leaders—its influential elite. It will show that China has a comprehensive concept of national security that includes not only defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity, but continuing its economic and social development and maintaining its international stature....

[goesh]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. China has the mind-set and wherewithal to sustain that axiom. They shoot protestors, they don't litigate with them. Recently in an outlying provence, there was some islamic unrest/agitation/suspected AQ activities. They went in and shot a whole slug fo them - end of discussion, end of story. I see no reason why China won't be the sole super power on the planet in about 40 years. They aren't burdened with the accouterments of Democracy for one thing. No flood of illegal immigrants to undermine employment and suck up benefits, no animal rights groups lobbying, no gay rights, no major, self-sustaining entitlement programs, no ACLU and NAACP, no NCAA, no FDA staffed by self-serving doctors, no separation of traditional and modern healing, no pro and anti gun groups, no drug cartels that hype disease for profit, no EPA and HIPPA regulations, no advocates for the mentally handicapped to breed freely, no civilian review boards for the police, no unisex bathrooms, no pet adoptions or pet psychologists and pet day cares and pet grooming industry, no affirmative action and no bra burning, no threats to cut funding for an authorized war simply for reasons of political gain/popularity, no halal and kosher food for their imprisoned miscreants, no costly tax-paid court appeals for convicted criminals, no public outrage and hearings over putting a pair of women's panties on the head of a detainee. They even make the families pay for the cost of the bullet to execute violent offenders. Why wouldn't such a practical people have secret tunnels and lots of nukes, be in outer space , have a dam with 9xs the output of Hoover dam and be implementing a massive road expansion project equal to our interstate system?

[tequila]

I'm interested in hearing about how pet adoption services weaken the Republic.

If you've ever been to China outside one of the big cities, and you actually speak Chinese --- the idea of China has the superpower of the world in 40 years is laughable. China will be enormously lucky, IMO, to have running water in all its urban facilities in 40 years' time.

[TROUFION]

Goesh, the ability to exterminate opposition and to stifle freedom does not make China great or even a powerhouse. If it did the Soviets would have won the Cold War. Repression works in the short term no the long. The Chinese are good at business true but they are sacrificing a lot to get there. All those organizations and peculiarities of American Society that you listed as bad things, they exist because they can, because the free people of this Country want them too, and to be extreme, a Government crack down of frivilous pet grooming would be even more wasteful than the activity itself. And while you may disagree with the ACLU and NAACP, you have to give them credit for defending the inalienable rights garaunteed by the Constitution. In China you and they would have no choice but to follow the party line. China is heading for some big shake ups, I believe she is like a big fat duck on a pond, you just don't see its legs spinning underwater.