Pentagon sees China as greatest potential rival.

[Schumacher]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ceab0cfc-94de-11da-9f39-0000779e2340.html

Although it's stating what's already obvious to most, I think this is significant given it's what I believe to be Pentagon's first public admission that if they are to be overtaken in the future, it'll most likely be by China.
Good to see they stress cooperation for now at least.

[utelore]

The QDR states that the PRC is the greatest furture challenge to the U.S www.defenselink.mil and go to the QDR. On page 29 it goes into the PRC stuff into pretty good detail. The DoD seem pretty concerned with PRC tech in the area of Missiles and Electronic warfare. This is no surprise to me nor many of you guys. I have no doubt in my mind that the PRC will be the second most powerfull military on earth within 5 years time.....cheers ute.

[ahho]

The QDR states that the PRC is the greatest furture challenge to the U.S www.defenselink.mil and go to the QDR. On page 29 it goes into the PRC stuff into pretty good detail. The DoD seem pretty concerned with PRC tech in the area of Missiles and Electronic warfare. This is no surprise to me nor many of you guys. I have no doubt in my mind that the PRC will be the second most powerfull military on earth within 5 years time.....cheers ute.
sorry about this one liner, but i do think it is posted in world arms force.

IMO being concerned is not a problem but stating that is a threat is a bit odd i would say

[bass_man86]

sorry about this one liner, but i do think it is posted in world arms force.

IMO being concerned is not a problem but stating that is a threat is a bit odd i would say

IMO, I will start being concerned when the change their name to the Peoples Liberation Navy! To the best of my knowledge, they are the only navy in the world that is a branch of the army [?????] :D

[MIGleader]

Well, the Peoples liberation army navy was originally seen in the 50s as merely seen as a seaward extension of the massive Peoples liberation army, thus how it got its name. But as china moves towards a blue water navy, this idea is lost. So it might eventually become The PLN,. Maybe the PLAAF will become the PLAF too.

[silverpike]

another pathetic 'china threat' clamour! PLAN and PLAAF's capabilities are not even 1/10 strong of US's.. greatest potential rival , how? and when?
although PLA has been modernizing its force since 90's. chinese military power is still far away behind US and Russia, on some aspects(technology,industrial foundation,arm trade) behind UK, FRANCE, or even Japan! china is the only UNSC member that doesn't operate a single aircarft-carrier, and its nuclear power is also the smallest.
as world's most populated country and the 4th largest economy(will be the second largest in two decades), china still doesn't have a military force that assort with her position.
but still, in some people's eye, 'china threat' make sense...:confused: what china could possilbily do, not to be seen as a threat by some people? i don't know...will Pentagon stop bashing china if PLA are armed with spears? well ,they will certainly feel better if china disband PLA! but that's not going happen, dude!
chinese people are no fools, china will not disarm herself in order to please Pentagon!:mad: no matter what they say, PLA will choose not to listen!and why should they listen?:china:

IMO, I will start being concerned when the change their name to the Peoples Liberation Navy! To the best of my knowledge, they are the only navy in the world that is a branch of the army [?????] :D

PLAAF is also a branch of the army

[silverpike]

The QDR states that the PRC is the greatest furture challenge to the U.S www.defenselink.mil and go to the QDR. On page 29 it goes into the PRC stuff into pretty good detail. The DoD seem pretty concerned with PRC tech in the area of Missiles and Electronic warfare. This is no surprise to me nor many of you guys. I have no doubt in my mind that the PRC will be the second most powerfull military on earth within 5 years time.....cheers ute.

no it will not became the second most powerful military, not while Russians are still working, Japanese are still fishing...
china will be the second largest economy in two decades, only after then, its military force probably will be the second most powerful, but even that time, PLA still can not compete with US army, (due to its weak foundation).

finally, around 2050's, after chinese economy overtake US's.eventually it will have the potential power to rival US military, and prehaps even surpass US military. but i serious doubt Chinese people's willing to build a military empire. Unlike US, China is never in the entire history, a war hawk or a bully.

[coolstorm]

another pathetic 'china threat' clamour! PLAN and PLAAF's capabilities are not even 1/10 strong of US's.. greatest potential rival , how? and when?
although PLA has been modernizing its force since 90's. chinese military power is still far away behind US and Russia, on some aspects(technology,industrial foundation,arm trade) behind UK, FRANCE, or even Japan! china is the only UNSC member that doesn't operate a single aircarft-carrier, and its nuclear power is also the smallest.
as world's most populated country and the 4th largest economy(will be the second largest in two decades), china still doesn't have a military force that assort with her position.
but still, in some people's eye, 'china threat' make sense...:confused: what china could possilbily do, not to be seen as a threat by some people? i don't know...will Pentagon stop bashing china if PLA are armed with spears? well ,they will certainly feel better if china disband PLA! but that's not going happen, dude!
chinese people are no fools, china will not disarm herself in order to please Pentagon!:mad: no matter what they say, PLA will choose not to listen!and why should they listen?:china:



PLAAF is also a branch of the army

this is not quite accurate. on a purchasing power parity basis, china is the second largest economy in the world, and its industrial production capability is definitely larger than that of the uk's and france's. look at how many things are made in china nowaday.

regarding the number of nuclear warheads, china has the third largest nuclear weapon stocks in the world after Russia and the US with approximately 600 different types of nuclear weapons.

france has around 400-500, uk has around 300 only. so the uk is the country with the less nuclear power.

china is the only unsc PERMANENT memeber that has no aircraft carrier. there are 15 members in the unsc, and only 5 countries are the permanent ones with veto vote.

yet, china's military expenditure is the second/third largest in the world and a lot higher than the uk, france, and germany...

[silverpike]

this is not quite accurate. on a purchasing power parity basis, china is the second largest economy in the world, and its industrial production capability is definitely larger than that of the uk's and france's. look at how many things are made in china nowaday.

well , i am talking about GDP, the size of economy is always represent by its GDP, not purchasing power.
but anyway, u got my point, as a major economy in the world, china doesn't have a 'major' military force

regarding the number of nuclear warheads, china has the third largest nuclear weapon stocks in the world after Russia and the US with approximately 600 different types of nuclear weapons. france has around 400-500, uk has around 300 only. so the uk is the country with the less nuclear power.

and you base this assumption on what source? there is never any proof that china is the third largest nuclear country! offcially 2nd arty has no more than 200 warheads. besides china is serious lack of the ability to delivery its nuclear power. PLA's DF-3/DF-3A are obsolete pad launch models, DF-31's range is only 8000 km, besides 2nd arty only operate a small number of those missiles. not to mention US's TMD system...


china is the only unsc PERMANENT memeber that has no aircraft carrier. there are 15 members in the unsc, and only 5 countries are the permanent ones with veto vote.

well, you know what i mean, among five permanent members, only china has no aircraft carrier. that means PLA has no ability to perform beyond the region. china is also the only major country in the world that still have a split domain-taiwan.
at same time china have mare clausum disputes with Japan and south-east asian countries.(although those islands are clearly china's by international law)


yet, china's military expenditure is the second/third largest in the world and a lot higher than the uk, france, and germany


again, it's only an assumption, china's military expnditure is only 30 billion USD, you people just don't believe it, :confused: u know what, Pentagon should find the evidence before they point their finger at china and clamour 'threat'!:mad:
and does it ever occur to you that maybe some people just made those things up to support their china threat theory?
anyway, Japan's military expenditure is offically the second largest in the world, and they are not even suppose to have an army! :mad: how come i never heard anyone talk about 'Japan threat'?

[SampanViking]

among five permanent members, only china has no aircraft carrier. that means PLA has no ability to perform beyond the region. china is also the only major country in the world that still have a split domain-taiwan.
at same time china have mare clausum disputes with Japan and south-east asian countries.(although those islands are clearly china's by international law

Hi Silverpike. I think you make some interesting points, although I would only put Japan as a potential flashpoint more military action. Taiwan appears to be drifting back into the fold, South Korea is slowly realigning itself with its Asian Neighbours, only Japan seriously opposes China'a strategic aims in the region and of course is the US's only reliable ally left in the area. I can exoect to see a lot of pressure put on Japan vis a viz the US presence in Okinawa over the coming decade.

The other fact that I find fascinating about China at present, - Permanent UNSC Memeber, Worlds 4th largest economy and no Air Craft Carrier, etc is that China is still a developing country. Furthermore in ten years time when China becomes the worlds 2nd largest economy it will still be a developing country.

So there you are, the country that the USA sees as its biggest threat is a developing country and will continue to be a developing country for at least another generation.

The world really is a strange and crazy place.

[Schumacher]

Yes, it's really sad for those who support 'Asian Renaissance' to see one of the key Asian members Japan continuing to look more to US & the West in general than Asia. The the new Japanese FM even openly admits its US relations is above that with Asia, that's a first I think. No prize for guessing who benefits from this inter-Asian division.

As for China's growth, the estimates of the time it'll become the largest in the world range from 2020 to 2050 to some who say never. Of course, the PPP supporters say China is already there.
But all agree the per capita GDP will remain that of developing country for a long time which I tend to see it as positive as it could mean the potential to grow would still be good even after it reaches the top.

[PiSigma]

to those of you that think china's military expenditure is too high.. here's my comment

for a nation to protect 1.3+ people, it needs more money than a country trying to protect 60 million people. so unless china spends 2 trillion USD on defense every yr (4x of USA's Defence budge) since 4x the population, then does USA have any right to say anything about china's defense budget. until then, the only thing other nations may say is that china spends too little on defense.

[Aerodriver]

Silverpike could you post a link that shows......at same time china have mare clausum disputes with Japan and south-east asian countries.(although those islands are clearly china's by international law)
Thanks

[Roger604]

The Fog of War is thick:

USA exaggerates its true capabilities during peacetime

China hides and understates its true capabilities during peacetime


My impression is that the Army is generally non-hostile toward China, but the Airforce and the Navy views China has a strategic rival.

[bd popeye]

The Fog of War is thick:

USA exaggerates its true capabilities during peacetime

China hides and understates its true capabilities during peacetime


My impression is that the Army is generally non-hostile toward China, but the Airforce and the Navy views China has a strategic rival.

The US exagerates in peacetime? What are you posting about? You live in San Diego. You see those USN ships going in and out of port. If you don't..they do it daily. Do you think they go out to sea and do nothing? Just out there cutting dounuts in the water?? And nothing works as advertised? Ludricous. You go to school in La Jolla at UCSD. Right? I'm sure you hear and see those USMC aircraft flying overhead daily. Do you think they are just boring holes in the sky??? and there capablity is limited??

Personally I think the PRC is just not realeasing information. Over what fear I don't know.

I will not comment on the US Army's feeling toward the PRC.

As for comments about the USN and USAF. Roger I have to agree with you.

[silverpike]

Hi Silverpike. I think you make some interesting points, although I would only put Japan as a potential flashpoint more military action. Taiwan appears to be drifting back into the fold, South Korea is slowly realigning itself with its Asian Neighbours, only Japan seriously opposes China'a strategic aims in the region and of course is the US's only reliable ally left in the area. I can exoect to see a lot of pressure put on Japan vis a viz the US presence in Okinawa over the coming decade.

well, at the present time, while china's military still needs years of buildup, and still has very limited capability. everything has been push back for taiwan. PLA has to save all its resources and to invest them all on a future TaiWan war. TaiWan is what PLA call 'the fundamental interests of the country'.so china has to forbear her anger at the present time in some matters.
but that doesn't make china's disputes with Japan and south-east asian countries less important.
with Japan-Diaoyu island and with south-east asian countires-Spratly Islands.
those nameless islands are acutally no less important than TaiWan, the oil under them is enough to keep china running for another century. does this worth a war with Japan? oh yes!!! but...only after TaiWan...
TaiWan is the only key for china the pacific, only after retake TaiWan, china could put herself in a more advantageous strategic position.

ok, back to your comment...
Japan:not just a potential flashpoint, as i said before, there defintely going to be a conflict between china and japan for Diaoyu island, in other word,for oil.no one could possibly give them up,am i right?

TaiWan: it is not taiwan that appear to be drifting back, its only the KMT party. but sadly they no longer control the government and army.

south korean: well it's ture that they are slowly moving towards china. well ,they do not have much choices, not while their 'fundamental interests'(ultimately unification with the North) is largely depend on china's attitude.(if it was not china's support, there is no way a mad dog like Kim Jong IL still alives?)

South-Korea, Japan, TaiWan structure US's first island chain to blockade china(that's also the reason, china still does have a bule-water navy), china has been trying to break it for years.

ok, now japan is US's ally in the area and it has more puresure...whatever, but bear this in mind, that japan is no loyal dog of America, china knows better that japan has always been and will always be a despicable ambitious nation.what America doing is now is simply what chinese say 'farming the wolf'.





The other fact that I find fascinating about China at present, - Permanent UNSC Memeber, Worlds 4th largest economy and no Air Craft Carrier, etc is that China is still a developing country. Furthermore in ten years time when China becomes the worlds 2nd largest economy it will still be a developing country.

So there you are, the country that the USA sees as its biggest threat is a developing country and will continue to be a developing country for at least another generation.

The world really is a strange and crazy place.
try to visit a chinese villiage(not shanghai or beijing), you will have a better idea why china is a developing country.
china maybe a future economy power yes, but why US or other countries have to see its rising as a 'threat'? china has enough trouble handle its own domestic problem, and its military power is far from become a 'threat' to 'mighty' US. i am suprising that western people actually buy this thoery in the frist place!! u know what, they know too little about china.

[silverpike]

Yes, it's really sad for those who support 'Asian Renaissance' to see one of the key Asian members Japan continuing to look more to US & the West in general than Asia. The the new Japanese FM even openly admits its US relations is above that with Asia, that's a first I think. No prize for guessing who benefits from this inter-Asian division.

well, of course Japan will be close to the west. just read the history, as asian's frist industrial country, instead of helping other asian countries to resist the colonial invasion, look what they did to their weaker asian neighbours?! after all the things that happened in the past, do you think will asian countries ever turst Japan again? and will those countries let Japan leading asia, ever?
japan is an asian traitor,they bury their own reputation along with millions of lifes.


As for China's growth, the estimates of the time it'll become the largest in the world range from 2020 to 2050 to some who say never. Of course, the PPP supporters say China is already there.
But all agree the per capita GDP will remain that of developing country for a long time which I tend to see it as positive as it could mean the potential to grow would still be good even after it reaches the top.

the real economy position for china now likely to be the third. (consider both GDP and PPP, chinese economy should be larger than Germany) china's GDP is still only 1/2 of japan's and 1/5 of America's. china still got a long way to go!

china's per capita GDP is 1300 USD, again consider both the purchasing power and the undervalue currency, the real per capita GDP should be between 2000 USD to 2500 USD,which is still fairly low.

[Roger604]

The US exagerates in peacetime? What are you posting about? You live in San Diego. You see those USN ships going in and out of port. If you don't..they do it daily. Do you think they go out to sea and do nothing? Just out there cutting dounuts in the water?? And nothing works as advertised? Ludricous. You go to school in La Jolla at UCSD. Right? I'm sure you hear and see those USMC aircraft flying overhead daily. Do you think they are just boring holes in the sky??? and there capablity is limited??

Personally I think the PRC is just not realeasing information. Over what fear I don't know.

I will not comment on the US Army's feeling toward the PRC.

As for comments about the USN and USAF. Roger I have to agree with you.

Relax Popeye :) Of course I know that the US military is the finest and most advanced in the world by far. But I have read before (can't remember the article now) that the US's stated policy is to inflate its capabilities to deter other nations from even trying to compete. And I see the validity of this argument in the way the defense industry tries to blur the line between science fiction and reality: Hollywood-ize the US military.

[silverpike]

Silverpike could you post a link that shows......at same time china have mare clausum disputes with Japan and south-east asian countries.(although those islands are clearly china's by international law)
Thanks

http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ice/DIAOYU.HTM

abstract highlight the important part:
The term "Diao Yu Tai" in Chinese means "Fishing Platform". The earliest historical records of the islands are Chinese navigation records from 1403, and references to Diaoyu Islands occur in Chinese logs and Chinese maps of the Liu Chiu chain from that time. For several centuries, the Diaoyu Islands have been administered as one part of Taiwan and have always been used exclusively by Chinese fishermen as an base for fishing, both before and after World War II. (For more detail, see Prof. Kiyoshi Inoue's paper in 1972

In 1874, Japan took Liu Chiu Islands (Okinawa) from China by force when Chinese Ching Dynasty was involved in several wars with other foreign countries. However, the Diaoyu Islands still remained under the administration of Taiwan, a part of China. After being defeated by Japan in the Sino-Japan War, China ceded Taiwan to Japan under the Shimonoseki Treaty. As a part of Taiwan, the Diaoyutai Islands belonged to Japan at that time.
Taiwan was returned to China at the end of World War II in 1945 based upon the 1943 agreement of the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. The Japanese government accepted the terms that stated in these documents"...that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.

In 1951 Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed by Japan and the Allied Powers (excluding both the ROC taiwan and the PRC)stated that, "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Paracels". Article Four of the separate peace treaty signed between Japan and the ROC in 1952 declared that all agreements between Japan and China before 1941 were null and void. [2] As stated above, it is reasonable to take the mean that Diaoyu Islands should be returned to China because the Diaoyu Islands are one part of Taiwan. However, Japanese have maintained that the islands should not be included in these treaties. This issue remain quiet through the 1950s and 1960s probably because the these small uninhabited islands held little interests for the three countries.

The Diaoyu Islands issue had not been raised until ECAFE (United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East) suggested possible large hydrocarbon deposit in the waters off Diaoyutai in 1969 (actually, no oil has ever been found and no systematic search for oil has yet been carried out). In 1970, the U.S. and Japan signed the Okinawa Reversion Treaty which included Diaoyu Islands as part of Okinawa to be returned to Japanese rule. :mad: This Treaty was immediately challenged by both ROC (Taiwan) and PRC (mainland China). The dispute came into the open when the Japanese government delivered a note to the ROC government stating that its bids to exploit the oil potential around the island were not valid. [3] In September 1970, a Taiwanese gunboat planted the ROC flag on the islands. In December, the PRC intervened in this dispute, stating that the Diaoyu (and Taiwan) were China's territory and that exploitation of the area by foreign countries would not be tolerated. [4] At first the U.S. government appeared to support the Japanese claim. However, because the U.S. government wanted to improve relations with the PRC, it then took a neutral stance over the dispute. The U.S. claimed that its involvement could, "...in no way prejudice any underlying claims... The United States...considers that any conflicting claims are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned." [5] Since this time, the U.S. government has studiously avoided involvement in the dispute.


about Spratly Islands:
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E6%B2%99%E7%BE%A4%E5%B2%9B(chinese wikipedia source)

In the 1930s, France claimed the Spratly and Paracel Islands on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam. It occupied a number of the Spratly Islands, including Itu Aba, and administered them as part of French Indochina, this was protested by Chinese Nationalist government because France admitted that they found Chinese fishermen residing on the islands when the French war ships visited the 9 islands. The Chinese fishermen also torn the French flag after the ships left the islands. Following that Japan occupied some of the islands during World War II, and used the islands as a submarine base for campaigns in Southeast Asia. During the occupation, these islands were called Shinnan Shonio, lit. the New Southern Islands, and put under the Governance of Taiwan together with Paracel Islands. Following the defeat of Japan, the Kuomintang (nationalist) claimed the whole Spratly Islands (including Itu Aba) and accepted the Japanese surrender on the Islands. Japan renounced all claims to the islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. In the treaty with Republic of China, Japan again renounced all claims to the islands together with Paracels, Pratas & other island captured from China. However, the nationalist withdrew from Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands when they were defeated by the communists in 1949.

MOD edit: the color red is reserved for mod edits to bring attention to certain posts, so i changed the color to blue, it will stand out just as much. -- PiSigma
-sorry, i didn't know

[Schumacher]

well, of course Japan will be close to the west. just read the history, as asian's frist industrial country, instead of helping other asian countries to resist the colonial invasion, look what they did to their weaker asian neighbours?! after all the things that happened in the past, do you think will asian countries ever turst Japan again? and will those countries let Japan leading asia, ever?
japan is an asian traitor,they bury their own reputation along with millions of lifes...........

I know the history well dude, don't get me wrong, I agree Jpn deserves not to be trusted by other Asians given what they did & still do. I was only stating that the current situation is sad for Asians as a whole.

[silverpike]

I know the history well dude, don't get me wrong, I agree Jpn deserves not to be trusted by other Asians given what they did & still do. I was only stating that the current situation is sad for Asians as a whole.

well,ok, but you get me wrong dude,i don't want to bashing japan here. i am just saying why japan is more close to west than aisa, simply because its history.;) and many asian countries's attitude towards history leave japan no choice but to strengthen links with the west.
and... why is that sad? do you think asian countries should form a union like europe?

[tphuang]

The Fog of War is thick:

USA exaggerates its true capabilities during peacetime

China hides and understates its true capabilities during peacetime


My impression is that the Army is generally non-hostile toward China, but the Airforce and the Navy views China has a strategic rival.
No, the Russians exaggerates their capabilities. The Americans don't exaggerate or hide their capabilities. China hides its capabilities, but Americans exaggerate China's capabilities, so it works out to be about equal.

Army - non-hostile, because they are unlikely to face China.

[silverpike]

The Fog of War is thick:

USA exaggerates its true capabilities during peacetime

China hides and understates its true capabilities during peacetime


My impression is that the Army is generally non-hostile toward China, but the Airforce and the Navy views China has a strategic rival.

well ,USA is the protector of the current world order, china is the challenger of this order.
even there will be a conflict with china, i serious doubt US will send in any ground force.on land, PLA has unlimited war potential, which is the size.

[akinkhoo]

China doesn't need challenge the world order, its existance is enough to provide other nations with a means to resist US led world order. USA is finding it hard to influence other nations when these nations can look to China as an alternative 'solution provider'.

to the Chinese, it would just be silly for China not to take those businesses since the US isn't offering them equal oppotunity. to the US government, they see that as China challenging their international influence as they can no longer force a deal on other nations when they can get alternative from China.

i believe US need to decide if protecting it own economy or protecting it international influence is more important and make a deal with China. blaming China as a threat without trying to fix the problem at their end, seem very facism to me.

[Schumacher]

well,ok, but you get me wrong dude,i don't want to bashing japan here. i am just saying why japan is more close to west than aisa, simply because its history.;) and many asian countries's attitude towards history leave japan no choice but to strengthen links with the west.
and... why is that sad? do you think asian countries should form a union like europe?

Definitely not as close a union as Europe, Asia has much more differences economically & culturally even without the divisive historical issue.
Interesting u attribute Japan's stronger links with the west to Asian countries' attitude. Hope ur not implying Japan's own current attitude plays little role in the lack of reconciliation.

[silverpike]

China doesn't need challenge the world order, its existance is enough to provide other nations with a means to resist US led world order. USA is finding it hard to influence other nations when these nations can look to China as an alternative 'solution provider'.

to the Chinese, it would just be silly for China not to take those businesses since the US isn't offering them equal oppotunity. to the US government, they see that as China challenging their international influence as they can no longer force a deal on other nations when they can get alternative from China.

i believe US need to decide if protecting it own economy or protecting it international influence is more important and make a deal with China. blaming China as a threat without trying to fix the problem at their end, seem very facism to me.

well, to rise as a new major economy power itself is kinda challenge to the world order.
and yea, defintely, world will be a better place if we have more than one player! actually i hope Euro could be another player, we will be much safer in a balanced world,where all country is 'restrained'.
wether china is a threat or not for America, it's just a matter of attitude, what's America's attitude towards china? if America sees china as a threat, treat china as a threat, then china will be a threat, but if America sees china as a partner, then china will be a partner.

[silverpike]

Definitely not as close a union as Europe, Asia has much more differences economically & culturally even without the divisive historical issue.
Interesting u attribute Japan's stronger links with the west to Asian countries' attitude. Hope ur not implying Japan's own current attitude plays little role in the lack of reconciliation.

well, for yrs, japan trying to be a 'western country' . they call themself 'a european country in aisa' i don't why, they have to look down on asia and their neighbours.

it will a turly powerful union, if aisian countries gather together! china, india, japan, korea, and Asean countries. but never going to happen.

[coolstorm]

well , i am talking about GDP, the size of economy is always represent by its GDP, not purchasing power.
but anyway, u got my point, as a major economy in the world, china doesn't have a 'major' military force



and you base this assumption on what source? there is never any proof that china is the third largest nuclear country! offcially 2nd arty has no more than 200 warheads. besides china is serious lack of the ability to delivery its nuclear power. PLA's DF-3/DF-3A are obsolete pad launch models, DF-31's range is only 8000 km, besides 2nd arty only operate a small number of those missiles. not to mention US's TMD system...



well, you know what i mean, among five permanent members, only china has no aircraft carrier. that means PLA has no ability to perform beyond the region. china is also the only major country in the world that still have a split domain-taiwan.
at same time china have mare clausum disputes with Japan and south-east asian countries.(although those islands are clearly china's by international law)




again, it's only an assumption, china's military expnditure is only 30 billion USD, you people just don't believe it, :confused: u know what, Pentagon should find the evidence before they point their finger at china and clamour 'threat'!:mad:
and does it ever occur to you that maybe some people just made those things up to support their china threat theory?
anyway, Japan's military expenditure is offically the second largest in the world, and they are not even suppose to have an army! :mad: how come i never heard anyone talk about 'Japan threat'?

i am also talking about gdp on a purchasing power parity basis.

[FreeAsia2000]

No, the Russians exaggerates their capabilities. The Americans don't exaggerate or hide their capabilities. China hides its capabilities, but Americans exaggerate China's capabilities, so it works out to be about equal.

Army - non-hostile, because they are unlikely to face China.

Agreed.

Maybe people are seeing this from different perspectives. For Americans it has always been important to have a strong military so they can say 'we are the best' and 'we can kick ass' etc...

Whereas for China having a strong economy and strong alliances is more important because they regard influence as a sign of power.

As an exmaple from Pakistan maybe crazyinsane will understand this...important people in pakistani villages have a 'baitakh-gathering area' usually next to a tea shop. the important person's importance is judged by how many people will visit his baitakh.

Thus when foreign diginitaries visit china this is a matter of prestige for the chinese whereas when the american military attacks/invades/deals with somebody they dislike this is regarded as a matter of prestige for them.

I was reading a book once where some chinese paid complement to some english guy and said 'your face is like a mirror'...the english guy was puzzled and i thought it was pretty strange as well until i tried to tell my mum the joke in urdu and realised that it made perfect sense in urdu !

[Roger604]

Agreed.

Maybe people are seeing this from different perspectives. For Americans it has always been important to have a strong military so they can say 'we are the best' and 'we can kick ass' etc...

Whereas for China having a strong economy and strong alliances is more important because they regard influence as a sign of power.

As an exmaple from Pakistan maybe crazyinsane will understand this...important people in pakistani villages have a 'baitakh-gathering area' usually next to a tea shop. the important person's importance is judged by how many people will visit his baitakh.

Thus when foreign diginitaries visit china this is a matter of prestige for the chinese whereas when the american military attacks/invades/deals with somebody they dislike this is regarded as a matter of prestige for them.

I was reading a book once where some chinese paid complement to some english guy and said 'your face is like a mirror'...the english guy was puzzled and i thought it was pretty strange as well until i tried to tell my mum the joke in urdu and realised that it made perfect sense in urdu !

The reason why I made the comment earlier was because of the way the Pentagon announces their 'wares' way into the future. When some military scientist brainstorms an idea, which at the moment is not even science-fiction, the Pentagon talks to the press about it and the press makes it out to be imminent reality.

Look at Reagan's Star Wars. In 2006, we're still not sure if this is even possible. Look at the Aurora bomber (in the 80's). In 2006, the same project is still "in the pipeline" even after a zillion name-changes. Look at unmanned aerial platforms. Nobody is going to be fielding an unmanned fighter that can replace human fighters for a long time. Yet the movie "Stealth" makes people think stuff like this is in the American inventory.

It's really obvious the way the Pentagon and defense manfacturers manipulate public impression of America's military in order to project an aura of invincibility.

[Defense]

China's military spending modest: US scholar

=

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/10/content_4162102.htm


"I do not see how China's military spending is terribly threatening the vast military capabilities of the United States," Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said in an interview with Xinhua.

He said China's defense budget, with an official figure of some 30 billion dollars, is only a small amount in comparison to U.S. military spending which is going to be about 440 billion dollars next year, excluding the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.

"China's military spending is rather modest. It is not alarming," Carpenter said.

If the Pentagon said the global situation did not look very threatening, the United States had no obvious enemies other than terrorists or low-tech threats, Congress would significantly reduce the defense budget, Carpenter said.

"So the Pentagon currently has every incentive to portray the global threat environment in the most alarming terms," he said.

[DPRKPTboat]

The U.S. military seems to have a habit of exaggerating the capabilities of its so - called rivals. Although the Chinese military has been modernising rapidly, it is still behind western capabilities, as was the Soviet Union. The U.S. military is the dominant force in the world at the moment, although it always insists that it is rivalled by others. The Pentagon are just looking for another serious threat out there so they can secure their interests. They did it to Iraq, and they'll do it to other countries for years to come - including China.

[vincelee]

it's just the branches trying to get a bigger piece of the pie and the defense industry pushing them to get even bigger pieces. An almost self fulfilling prophecy.

[Fairthought]

The US has declared India a strategic partner. This comes in light of a pentagon report that declares China to be America's only meaningful military rival in the coming years.

America's agenda is clear, use India against China. But what exactly is the strategy? Here are two possibilities:

1. Divide and Conquer. This old adage served the Romans, and then the British, very well in their imperial expansions. But the point of divide and conquer is to make the factions weaker, hence easier for the imperialist to conquer them.

This does not fit with America's situation. First of all, America's agreement to sell nuclear technologies and F-18's to India will only make India stronger not weaker. That's just the opposite of the Divide and Conquer strategem. The only way that strengthening a country fits into a Divide and Conquer strategy is if America then instigates a war between China and India. This is not likely to happen as they are both nuclear armed nations.

Which brings us to our next possibility:

2. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Weaken your opponent by strengthening their enemies. This could backfire terribly, as the your opponent's enemies may often turn out to be your own enemies as well.

This also does not fit with America's situation. Just as China is likely to become a meaningful threat to America's military dominance in the future, so too is India at a later time. If America strengthens India, it will only accelerate India's rise to power, and likewise accelerate India into becoming a meaningful threat to America's military dominance.

The problem is neither strategy works out in America's interest.

What is important here is to get out of the constrictive mindset of the Pentagon and think outside of the box. Your enemy is not the one who is capable of mustering a meaningful threat to your military dominance. Your enemy is the one who is inherently hostile to your country.

Right now, China's hostility is based solely on America's interference on the issue of Taiwan. If America chose to abandon the rebel government of Taiwan, America could eliminate its enemy by becoming China's friend. This is far more efficient than trying to defend Taiwan. And has better future consequences than the current strategy America is pursuing.

[MrClean]

I don't think that simply not interfering in the Taiwan issue will totally eliminate China as a future strategic military threat. Especially in the eyses of the Pentagon, if we were to just not interfere and let Taiwan "reunite" as a province of China, it would probably just make them more of a threat to our presence in the region.

[taijisheng]

Right now, China's hostility is based solely on America's interference on the issue of Taiwan. If America chose to abandon the rebel government of Taiwan, America could eliminate its enemy by becoming China's friend. This is far more efficient than trying to defend Taiwan. And has better future consequences than the current strategy America is pursuing.

America become china's friend ? oh no, that is not what the u.s want, you see, they are HAPPY that they have found another enemy that can probably be their match. The u.s need enemies, their entire policital/millitary thinking is based on it, 2 generations of u.s army officers and politians grew up while facing big bad enemies, first Nazi germany, then USSR. Ever since the collapse of USSR they have been searching(and making) big enemies, but all they got are some small nasty coutries, no, they need a big nasty enemy.

The u.s need threats to survive, the u.s, as in its current state, can't possibly be defeated millitarily, but can decline over time due to lack of challenge and threat, thats why they want china to be strong enough and be their enemy. That's why Pentagon keep exaduate china's millitary power and potential threat. A new cold war is their dream, I bet many u.s generals now hate the ending of the last cold war.

[Zeus]

Right now, China's hostility is based solely on America's interference on the issue of Taiwan. If America chose to abandon the rebel government of Taiwan, America could eliminate its enemy by becoming China's friend. This is far more efficient than trying to defend Taiwan. And has better future consequences than the current strategy America is pursuing.
just like the British and the French did with Poland back in WW II... great strategy, it could really work.

[Troika]

just like the British and the French did with Poland back in WW II... great strategy, it could really work.

I think you trying to be sarcastic. But this is wrong example to use. Britain and France did not 'try to become friend of Nazi Germany' over Poland. Over Czechoslovakia, yes one can say that maybe. Not Poland. Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany over Poland. So your claim of the 'British and French' did with Poland in WWII by befriending Nazi Germany is wrong. In fact it is opposite, Britian and France was, like America ambiguiously is today, gurantor of Poland/ Taiwan against Nazi Germany/ China.

[Fairthought]

just like the British and the French did with Poland back in WW II... great strategy, it could really work.


Umm...Are you actually comparing China to NAZI Germany????

[Zeus]

Umm...Are you actually comparing China to NAZI Germany???? everyone thinks what they want to think and everybody believes what they want to believe...

[vincelee]

and you are guilty of that, most of all.

[Troika]

everyone thinks what they want to think and everybody believes what they want to believe...

I see that you did not acknowledge my correction of your faulty analogy. This is symptom of poor logic. It is not convincing to make assertions like you did, except to people who already believe in same thing. You must provide evidence or at least reasoning. So far you have given neither.

[Gollevainen]

:nono: Cut that out and focus on the actuall topic!!!:nono:

[Zeus]

:nono: Cut that out and focus on the actuall topic!!!:nono: sorry, won't ever happen again. you can delete all of them if u want to...

[Gangle]

The U.S. military seems to have a habit of exaggerating the capabilities of its so - called rivals. Although the Chinese military has been modernising rapidly, it is still behind western capabilities, as was the Soviet Union. The U.S. military is the dominant force in the world at the moment, although it always insists that it is rivalled by others. The Pentagon are just looking for another serious threat out there so they can secure their interests. They did it to Iraq, and they'll do it to other countries for years to come - including China.


Mostly either over or under, bad habbit i guess

[Gangle]

The U.S. military seems to have a habit of exaggerating the capabilities of its so - called rivals. Although the Chinese military has been modernising rapidly, it is still behind western capabilities, as was the Soviet Union. The U.S. military is the dominant force in the world at the moment, although it always insists that it is rivalled by others. The Pentagon are just looking for another serious threat out there so they can secure their interests. They did it to Iraq, and they'll do it to other countries for years to come - including China.


Mostly either over or under, bad habbit i guess...I think the biggest fear is china might be willing to go further then the US.

Example using nukes as a deterent against US regional intervention?

They should only be used to deter national destruction as far as i see it.

[FreeAsia2000]

Mostly either over or under, bad habbit i guess...I think the biggest fear is china might be willing to go further then the US.

Example using nukes as a deterent against US regional intervention?

They should only be used to deter national destruction as far as i see it.

I think you'll discover that america and france have already stated that they
are willing to use nukes to pursue their interests.

[KYli]

WASHINGTON (AP) - China is rapidly extending its military reach, buying more long-range aircraft and weapons that will allow it to compete with the United States and potentially pose a threat to other countries in the region, a Pentagon report said Tuesday.
The pace and scope of China's progress in modernizing its military suggests it is looking beyond Taiwan, the self-governing island that draws much of its attention, according to the annual study.
The new report echoes worries expressed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a China visit late last year about advances in its nuclear capabilities, and suggestions that the government should be more open about its intentions.
And while the report discusses various developments in China during the past year, many are incremental and do not represent any dramatic changes since the Pentagon issued its 2005 summary last July.
A spokesman for the Chinese embassy said he had not yet seen the report. Chinese officials have criticized similar past studies, saying China is not a threat and accusing the U.S. of manufacturing excuses to sell weapons to Taiwan.
According to the Pentagon document, improvements in China's long-term nuclear strategy and its precision weaponry ``have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region.'' It adds that China's leaders have still not adequately explained the purposes of the military expansion.
U.S. analysts have been surprised, the report says, by the pace and scope of China's military modernization. But there are still limits to the country's ability to fight a long-range war.
Paralleling China's advances during the past year have been similar increases in corruption in the country, as well as heightened protests by its people over property rights, pensions and labor conditions, the report says.
The pressing focus of the People's Liberation Army is still Taiwan.
According to the Pentagon, China has increased by about 25,000 the number of ground forces deployed to the three regions opposite Taiwan, and has upgraded the units with tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery.
China considers Taiwan part of its territory, and has threatened to invade if the island declares formal independence or resists Beijing's insistence on negotiating a reunification. The United States, which is Taiwan's main arms supplier, has cautioned both countries not to force a change in the status quo.
According to the report, in the past year China has:
Taken steps to buy transport and tanker aircraft from Russia, and expressed interest in attack planes than can operate from aircraft carriers.
Continued to buy short range ballistic missiles, estimated at the end of 2005 as between 710-790. Last year's report said China had deployed some 650-730 to garrisons opposite Taiwan.
On the Net:
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

05/23/06 15:47 EDT

[SampanViking]

China Distraction Syndrome

Maybe a peice of convenient timing, given that Mr Rumsfeld has been fingered by a senior Republican lawyer (cant remember his name{can barely remember my name these days:( }) as a likely candidate for a conviction as a war criminal.

Hardly surprising he would rather we were all thinking and talking about something "far more important"

BTW If anyone decides to follow this with silly posts about lobbing nukes at whosoever, they will find one detonating under their backsides;)

[KYli]

中國軍力報告：中海軍部署一半以上對付台灣



（中央社記者劉坤原華盛頓二十三日專電）今天出爐的美國國防部中華人民共和國軍力報告，對海峽兩岸的陸海空 軍及中國的飛彈力量有詳盡的描述與比較。從中國各軍種的軍力部署可以看出，中國仍以台灣為最大的假想敵，約 將三分之一以上的中國軍力被部署於台海地區，其中海軍更是以一半以上的軍力對付台灣。

(chinesenewsnet.com)


五角大廈報告指出，在海軍方面，中國有二十五艘驅逐艦，其中十六艘部署於東海或南海。台灣只有 兩艘驅逐艦。

中國有四十五艘快速戰艦（frigate），其中高達四十艘部署於東海或南海。台灣有二十二艘 快速戰艦。

中國有二十五艘坦克登陸艦，其中二十二艘部署於東海或南海。台灣有十二艘坦克登陸艦。

中國有二十五艘中型登陸艦，其中二十艘部署於東海或南海。台灣有四艘中型登陸艦。

中國有五十艘柴油潛艇，其中二十八艘部署於東海或南海。台灣只有四艘柴油潛艇。

中國有五艘核子動力潛艇，都未部署在東海或南海。台灣沒有核子動力潛艇。

中國有四十五艘配備飛彈海岸巡邏艇，其中三十四艘部署於東海或南海，台灣有五十艘配備飛彈海岸 巡邏艇。

在空軍方面，報告指出，中國有一千五百二十五架戰鬥機，其中四百二十五部署於台海航程範圍之內。台灣三百三 十架戰鬥機。

中國有七百七十五架轟炸機，其中二百七十五架部署於台海航程範圍以內。台灣沒有轟炸機。

中國有四百五十架運輸機，其中七十五架部署於台海航程範圍以內。台灣有四十架運輸機。

在地面部隊方面，中國有一百四十萬名部隊，其中四十萬名部署於台海地區。台灣地面部隊約有十三 萬人。

報告指出，中國有十八個集團軍，其中八個部署於台海地區。台灣只有三個集團軍。

中國有二十五個步兵師，其中九個部署於台海地區。台灣沒有步兵師。

中國有三十三個步兵旅，其中十二個部署於台灣地區。台灣有十三個步兵旅。

中國有九個裝甲師，其中四個部署於台海地區。台灣沒有裝甲步兵師。

中國有十一個裝甲旅，其中四個部署於台海地區。台灣有五個裝甲旅。

中國有三個砲兵師，三個都部署於台海地區。台灣沒有砲兵師。

中國有十五個砲兵旅，其中五個部署於台海地區；台灣有三個以上砲兵旅。

中國有兩個海軍陸戰旅，兩個都置於台海地區。台灣有兩個海軍陸戰旅。

中國有七千輛坦克，其中二千七百輛部署於台海地區。台灣有一千八百輛坦克。

中國有一萬一千門大砲，其中三千二百門部署於台海地區。台灣有三千二百門大砲。

在飛彈方面，中國有二十枚CSS-4ICBM飛彈及二十門發射器，射程達八四六○公里以上；十至十四枚CSS-3ICBM飛彈及十四至十八門發射器，射程在五四七○公里以上；六至十枚CSS-2IRBM飛彈及十四至十八門發射器，射程達二七九○公里以上；

中國擁有三十四至三十八枚CSS-5MRBMMod½飛彈，及十九至五十門發射器。射程達一七七○公里以上；十至十四枚JL-1SLBM飛彈及十至十四門發射器，射程也在一七七○公里以上；七十至八十枚CSS-6SRBM 飛彈及二百七十五至三百十五門發射器，射程為六百公里；一百至一百二十枚CSS-7SRBM飛彈及四百三十五至四百七十五門發射器，射程為三百公里。

此外，中國正在開發射程達八千公里以上的JL-2SLBM飛彈、射程達七二五○公里以上的DF-31ICBM飛彈、及射程達一萬一千二百七十公里以上的DF-31AICBM飛彈。

報告說，在這些飛彈中，射程六百公里和三百公里的飛彈多部署於台海地區。

[KYli]

Pentagon Finds China Fortifying Its Long-Range Military Arsenal

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Page A17

China's military buildup is increasingly aimed at projecting power far beyond its shores into the western Pacific to be able to interdict U.S. aircraft carriers and other nations' military forces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday that outlines continued concerns over China's rising strategic influence in Asia.

Chinese military planners are focusing to a greater degree than in the past on targeting ships and submarines at long ranges using anti-ship cruise missiles, partly in reaction to Taiwan Strait crises in 1995 and 1996 that saw the U.S. military intervene with carrier battle groups, the report said.


The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said. Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," it said.

The annual report to Congress on China's military power also highlighted Beijing's purchases of Russian weapons, its positioning of as many as 790 Chinese short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and its nuclear weapons modernization. It warned that advances in nuclear missiles are spurring a debate among some high-ranking Chinese strategists over whether Beijing should change its "no first use" doctrine that bars using nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack.

The 50-page report states that China's military buildup remains primarily focused on Taiwan, and notes that its current ability to sustain military power over long distances is limited. But the report also outlines Chinese military ambitions that go well beyond Taiwan, and reiterates the Pentagon's latest formulation on China's military threat, stating that "China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States."

China's defense budget is expanding apace with the new investments, the report said. Beijing officially projects a growth in defense spending of 14.5 percent this year to about $35 billion. But the report, citing the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, puts the actual funding at twice or triple that amount -- or as much as $105 billion -- when all military-related spending is tallied.

The report details how the Chinese military is investing in cruise missiles, precision weapons and guidance systems that could target ships, submarines, aircraft and airbases as far away as the "second island chain" including the Mariana Islands and Guam. As part of this strategy, China is buying Russian aircraft, such as the IL-76 transport and IL-78 tanker aircraft, and has shown interest in the Su-33 maritime strike aircraft. China is in the early stages of "developing power projection for other contingencies other than Taiwan," said Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

On Taiwan, the report said China had deployed about 100 more short-range ballistic missiles to garrisons opposite the island, increasing the total from 650 to 730 last year to between 710 and 790 now. "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction," Rodman said, adding that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."

The internal debate over China's nuclear policy of no first use is unfolding as the nation upgrades its nuclear arsenal to include more mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the DF-31A and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, according to the report. Both missiles are expected to become operable as early as 2007 and be capable of striking the United States, it said.

China's stated doctrine, reaffirmed last fall during a visit to Beijing by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is not to use nuclear weapons first. But senior U.S. defense officials said improvements in the quality and quantity of China's nuclear missiles had generated discussion among Chinese military and academic strategists over how and when to use them. "We take them at their word that they adhere to that doctrine," Rodman said. However, he said, "as their capabilities change they may be thinking about options that they didn't have before."

The report cites public comments by Chinese military officials and strategists stating that under certain extreme circumstances -- such as an all-out attack against the country by conventional forces -- that China should use nuclear weapons.

Any move to abandon the no-first-use doctrine would be "very destabilizing" in the region, a U.S. defense official said.

To address such concerns, the United States and China will soon start talks over nuclear strategy with the first U.S. visit by the head of China's nuclear arsenal, Jing Zhiyuan, the commander of the Second Artillery Corps, officials said. Jing will be hosted by his American counterpart, Gen. James E. Cartwright, chief of U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. No date has been finalized for the visit, Rodman said.

The strategic talks illustrate the Bush administration's two-pronged approach to China's military buildup set down in the 2006 National Security Strategy: to engage with Chinese military leaders to influence their choices while hedging against potential threats.

Experts on China's military differed on the significance of the debate over nuclear policy. "The real issue is not 'no first use.' The real issue is: Under what conditions China will use nuclear weapons . . . how bad do things have to get for the threshold to be crossed?" said Evan S. Medeiros, an expert at Rand Corp. He noted that some Chinese military commentators have stated that a precision strike by conventional weapons on China's nuclear facilities could be tantamount to a small-scale nuclear attack and lead China to consider using nuclear weapons.

Other experts played down the importance of the nuclear debate in China. "They are primarily interested in increasing conventional options in regional contingencies and vis-a-vis Taiwan," said Kurt Campbell, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[Player 0]

Actually, a stronger Chinese military will probably increase stability, instability caused by war, which is caused when the US goes to war with economically important nations, if China can increase its military power, it can better protect important allies, allies like Iran.

[Finn McCool]

Here comes Finn to draw another historical comparison!:)

This whole thread, and in a wider sense, the whole "China Threat" issue is an extension of the Rise of China, and the implications it has for the entire world. To me, the rise of China, and its increasing capability to challenge the United States make it completely clear that a "balance of power" is the natural path for nations. There can never be an unending or complete hegemony of one nation over all. There will always be balancing factor. That may be a good thing. But on the other hand, it means that no matter how good a nations vision is for the world (Bringing "civillization" to all=Britain and Rome, a worldwide workers paradise=Russia, a world ruled by secular freedom and democracy=the United States), it will always, eventually, be replaced by another. It remains to be seen what China's vision for the world will be. It will have one, because when a nation becomes powerful enough, it will think it is somehow different from all those that came before it and try to makethe world in it's image.

Now, granted, the fact that the Pentagon recognized China as a legitamate threat does not mean that China is about to become the world Hegemon, but it is a sign that China is indeed rising.

One last thing-The reason why the Pentagon cares more about China than other countries that are ostensibly more powerful in terms of militaries is that the US is much more likely to have a war with China than with France, Britain Russia or a lot of other countries.

[Shingy]

I don't know about any of you, but this consistent 'China threat' thing the US have got going on, in my eyes is just more propoganda they are drilling into the heads of their population, so they can have support from their public.
I don't think the US wants any nation to be able to rival its power and will keep anything like that from happening, i am sure it does like being a hyperpower, and this is just long term so they can have an excuse to stop China from growing or give them an excuse to invade them.

[isthvan]

I don't know about any of you, but this consistent 'China threat' thing the US have got going on, in my eyes is just more propoganda they are drilling into the heads of their population, so they can have support from their public.
I don't think the US wants any nation to be able to rival its power and will keep anything like that from happening, i am sure it does like being a hyperpower, and this is just long term so they can have an excuse to stop China from growing or give them an excuse to invade them.

I thin that you look at this from wrong point of view… US currently do not see China as mayor threat.
All this “China threat” talk is joust Pentagons way to get some more money for new weapons systems… Since” War on terror” started Congress is giving more money to infantry which is doing most jobs fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and cutting funds for all other military branches…
They have canceled lots of Army, Navy and Air force programs (RAH-66, new tank development, Crusader self-propelled howitzer etc.) and other programs will be build in smaller numbers then planed( navy DDX, P-8 MPA; USAF F-22 etc.).
Military needs new equipment if they won’t to preserve tech. leadership and preserve current capability level.
Since Congress doesn’t understand that current wars are not real wars but more police actions, they need to have some conventional threat to get funding for conventional equipment (destroyers, fighters, new tanks etc.)… And China perfectly fills that roll… That’s all…

[Kampfwagen]

I have always found that in all of history, animosity on this scale is common and inevitable. Not to say that it is not going to nesicarily blow up into a war between the nations, but rather saying that the rivalries are always going to be there. Isreal and the Philistines, Britian and France, Japan and Korea, Taiwan and China, America and the U.S.S.R. It just tends to happen, last for about a hundred or so years (used to be alot longer the earlier in history you got, usualy) with sporadic moments of peace and, in later centuries, trumped up with propaganda for a few years.

As an American, I feel like I just have to shake my head and groan at what our estemed leaders decide to point to some random spot on the map and say 'We hate these guys now, okay?' However, the history intrested part of me says 'I told ya so.'

As far as wether this whole thing is justified? Hard to say. Nations and their leaders tend to be paranoid, unless they really dont see themselves as important enough to be bothered. (This is not to say they actualy are, but when is the last time you heard anything about threats to, say, Madagasgar? Military wise anyway) So, it's possible that the Chinese could have similar feelings. Needless to say, the U.S is certantly becoming the bigger finger pointer here, as far as I can tell anyway. With a man like Rumsfeld in the office, it is hardly a suprise to me.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Use them for bus fare, or whatever...

[tphuang]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/detail.asp?GRP=D&id=82910

China military budget to keep climbing: think tank

2006/5/26
By Andrew Gray LONDON, Reuters


China's military spending may be about 1.7 times higher than officially stated and will continue to rise sharply, a leading international think tank said on Wednesday.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) assessment came a day after the Pentagon said China's military buildup had altered power balances in the Asia-Pacific region and called on Beijing to explain its actions.

The IISS said there was a growing risk that military competition between the United States and China would play an increasing role in relations between the two countries.

In its research, the London-based think tank focused on 2003. It estimated Chinese military-related expenditure for that year at US$39.6 billion -- based on market exchange rates -- compared to the US$23 billion officially stated.

The IISS also produced an estimate based on purchasing power parity which put the true figure at US$75.5 billion. IISS director general John Chipman urged some caution with that estimate but said the trend in Chinese military spending was clear.

"Expenditure is on a sharp upward trend and will remain so in view of popular and elite support for accelerated defence modernisation," he said at the launch of the IISS's annual survey of global might, "The Military Balance".

Please see BUDGET on page

China's military spending has risen by double-digit percentages for the last few years.

But Beijing has said its military poses no threat and that it spends less on defence as a share of its economy than many Western countries including the United States.

Chinese defence spending was 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2003, while the U.S. figure was 3.7 percent, the IISS said.

Washington has been raising alarms over China's defence modernisation for several years. Tuesday's annual Pentagon report on China's military power said Beijing had yet to adequately explain the purposes of its military expansion.

"The military dynamic of the U.S.-China relationship... remains implicitly but decidedly competitive, and there is little that augurs for change," Chipman said.

"With that, the risk will grow that this military dynamic will over time have a greater bearing on the tone and content of the relationship as a whole," he said.

The IISS said China's military spending was hard to calculate as official figures did not contain items which would be included in Western defence budgets such as weapons procurement from abroad and state subsidies.

But it said it had come up with its estimate thanks to increased transparency in Chinese budgetary planning and new research into Chinese language documents.

Interesting, using PPP to get that extraordinary figure of 3 times the reported budget. Other than that, the Pentagon analysis also seems to add certain dual use technology not accounted for by PRC. Either way, I think using PPP is a little over the board. Adding dual use stuff, that I can understand.

[Nethappy]

Chinese adding a couple of billion to it defence budget isn't really alarming as the U.S. and Japanese military bullshit want it to be. China just want a mordern defence force to defend it people and it national interst and the Chinese people deserve this protection from it goverment as much as any people from any country in the world. Considering more then 70% of China defence force are still using the 70's technology and the US have the most technological advance arm force in the world and still spending a trillion a year on it defence force, what the hell wrong with a country of 1.3+ people with a 70's technology base arm force increse 30 or even 60 billion a year on it defence. I really dun get all this, they are just trying to make a fool of them self.

As long as US treat China a threat sooner and later China will become a threat when it feel really threaten, even if it not one now. The US treating China a threat is actucally doing more good then back for the Chinese goverment back in China. As it help the Chinese goverment spur up nationalism which in turn help stabilize it people as it have a common goal fo making China stronger.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

US have the most technological advance arm force in the world and still spending a trillion a year on it defence force,

The US does not spend a trillion a year on defense. It spends $440 billion a year. No other country spends even a tenth of that. Closest is Japan at $40 billion, with China at $35 billion. The UK and France are between $30 and $35 billion, and Germany is at $29 billion.

[Roger604]

One of the reasons why China may be viewed as a threat is because it is seen as an entirely alien culture. At least with the USSR, the Russians have an underlying Eastern Orthodox (Christian) culture. Confucianism is totally different. Then you add to that the communist fervor of the Cultural Revolution, and you really have a culture and society that is seen as competely incompatible with Anglo-American liberal democracy.

Even outside the context of the "China threat theory", China really needs to develop an ideology that can be proudly displayed to other countries, so that other countries can understand China and feel more comfortable. For example: American big business, French avant garde art, USSR worker's paradise, etc. China needs to find its cultural niche (like maybe a modernized version of Confucianism / collectivism) and market it abroad.

[Gollevainen]

actually it isent so....Russia before and after USSR has always seen as alien by rest of the europeans....It migth not be so in close exemination but sure is that on prejudgements and in stereotypics. The fact that orthodox are christians was the sole 'unificating' factor that people could have when they really needed that link, but often it too was used as alienating factor...

[MIGleader]

I may have the answer...

China's leaders were all educated differently than america's politicians. america's leaders were all educated as lawyers, while china's leaders were engineers. This differnece of ideaology has led to our rifts.

read this article from businessweek

A Problem Of Perception
Why China and the U.S. aren't on the same page

Chinese President Hu Jintao arrives in Seattle next week for his first state visit to the U.S. During meetings with the likes of William H. Gates III, Yale University students, and finally President George W. Bush, there will be plenty of talking. Given the huge geopolitical and economic stakes riding on that dialogue, it's appropriate to ask: Why do China and America have such difficulty communicating? Advertisement

Sure, the two nations are half a world apart, geographically, historically, and politically. But the cause of their at times cacophonous discourse could lie in something less obvious: the strikingly different academic training of their political leaders.

The majority of American senators and congressmen were schooled as lawyers. But each of China's senior leaders -- all nine members of the Politburo's Standing Committee -- was trained as an engineer: President Hu in hydropower, Premier Wen Jiabao in geological structure, for instance. Perhaps the difficulties between China and the U.S. lie less with dissimilar languages, cultures, and histories, and more with the divergent ways of thinking between lawyers and engineers.

This is no small difference. Engineers strive for "better," while lawyers prepare for the worst. Failing to appreciate the implications of these different approaches (and the relating styles they engender) can lead to missed signals.

Such miscommunication occurred when a U.S. plane accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1999. When the Chinese government bused students from college campuses across Beijing to the U.S. Embassy to protest, American politicians assumed that Chinese leaders orchestrated the demonstrations to whip up nationalistic fervor. (To lawyers, the evidence was prima facie.) In truth, the Chinese leaders -- the engineers -- worried that if protesting students were allowed to march through the city, their ranks would swell with workers and ordinary citizens, creating an even larger, less manageable problem. So busing them contained, rather than exacerbated, the volatile situation.

Another dichotomy: More than 90% of Chinese, including professionals often critical of their government, saw the bombing as deliberate. But most Americans believed the bombing had been, as U.S. officials claimed, an accident due to the use of "old maps."

Why such disparity? The Chinese have an idealized picture of the U.S. as so technologically advanced that it would have been impossible for it to make such a stupid mistake. Americans, on the other hand, are quite used to their government's stupid mistakes.

More worrisome, most Americans perceive China as an economic predator concerned solely about its own welfare. Beijing does not deny its policies benefit its own people, as any legitimate government's would. But it asserts that in a global economy, China's stability and development are essential for world peace and prosperity. Disturb the former, it warns, and you disrupt the latter. Given that consequence, it's time the lawyers and engineers began communicating better.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_17/b3981043.htm

[Finn McCool]

That is very interesting. I believe that both the US and China see themselves as "special". To Chinese, China is and has always been superior, it is the Middle Kingdom. Americans see themselves as uniquely virtuous and as the rightful guardians of Freedom and democracy (terms used so much by politicians that they no longer have any meaning to me). Both countries have reasons to believe what they believe. For most of human history China has been the worlds most advanced, populous and powerful nation. The US also has been an influence for good on the world, and without it the world would be in much worse shape than it is now, even if the US has made many mistakes.

But perhaps in this age of globalization both countries should realize that there are no unique nations. There is no "best" country. Both must realize that they must do the right thing but also must view each other as equals.

when is the last time you heard anything about threats to, say, Madagasgar? Military wise anyway

Well Kamphwagen, I did use it as an example of a country China only barely has the capability to invade. So there you go. I'm probably being investigated by some insanely bored Madagascarean (is that how you say it?) Intelligence Service. If they even have one.;)

[Nethappy]

Even outside the context of the "China threat theory", China really needs to develop an ideology that can be proudly displayed to other countries, so that other countries can understand China and feel more comfortable. For example: American big business, French avant garde art, USSR worker's paradise, etc. China needs to find its cultural niche (like maybe a modernized version of Confucianism / collectivism) and market it abroad.

China does have a idealogy that they can be proudly of: China; it history and cofuncianism. It something that chinese are still very proudly and still effect moderm China and Chinese culture greatly. It just something that the west doesn't understand. China idealogy been there alot longer then any of the western ideology it not something which going be change, but nether doesn't it want to change anyone else. The west just have to learn to live with it and not try to change it as they see fit.

[Roger604]

I may have the answer...

China's leaders were all educated differently than america's politicians. america's leaders were all educated as lawyers, while china's leaders were engineers. This differnece of ideaology has led to our rifts.

read this article from businessweek


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_17/b3981043.htm


This corroborates what I've always thought. I've always noticed that China has a huge weakness because it is very weak in "soft power." A nation with great soft power can generate a very positive and attractive image of itself for other nations. When this image is even better than the reality, other countries (or people) can be fooled into acting against their own interest.

China does not manage its image very well. Nor is it particularly good at penetrating the image of other countries to get at the reality. The reason for this is that China lacks social science education! When everybody's a bloody engineer, nobody understands foreign societies, cultures, politics and history. America is the best at this, that's why they can predict historical and geopolitical trends so well.

[bd popeye]

Roger604 posted;
China does not manage its image very well. Nor is it particularly good at penetrating the image of other countries to get at the reality. The reason for this is that China lacks social science education! When everybody's a bloody engineer, nobody understands foreign societies, cultures, politics and history. America is the best at this, that's why they can predict historical and geopolitical trends so well.

Well said Roger. Engineers don't know anything about public relations.:o The PRC should develop a PR department..I'm sure thay have one in the works in time for the 2008 Beijing Olympics is comming up.....The PRC needs to boost it's modern image and still keep it's 4000 year old history & culture alive. With proper PR it can be done.:china: