Video: Why a strong military is of the utmost importance to China

The video is in Chinese, hopefully some fellow forumites with more skills in translation can translate some of the highlights into English.

I feel that what the commentator is talking about is the key aspect that only the Chinese understand, and why so many other nations wrongly criticize China's military expansion.

[video=youtube;Jj0Ut9Djqsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj0Ut9Djqsw&feature=related[/video]

solarz said:

The video is in Chinese, hopefully some fellow forumites with more skills in translation can translate some of the highlights into English.

I feel that what the commentator is talking about is the key aspect that only the Chinese understand, and why so many other nations wrongly criticize China's military expansion.

[video=youtube;Jj0Ut9Djqsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj0Ut9Djqsw&feature=related[/video]

Click to expand...

Long story short, this guy said when he was younger, he personally saw Jap soldiers riding around in horses on Chinese land. Then he quoted from a book from about 2000 years ago, saying a country might be poor, but it has to have a strong military. Because since the 1850s, starting with the opium war, China had been invaded countless times. It is important that we have a strong military so we will never be invaded again.
He said "as much I hate the communist, at least they strengthened Chinese military, at least the white men don't dare attack China, the Japs don't dare to ride horses in China".

The Japanese have said in the 60-70s that "you guys are so poor, you can't even afford to wear pants, yet you're still trying to develop nukes" The Chinese foreign minister at the time said, "we would rather run around naked than not have nukes to protect ourselves"

His closing line was "not seeing Japanese soldiers riding around in their warhorses in downtown of Beijing, i'm relieved".



On the personal side:
I do agree with this guy's words. Being brought up in Canada, I'm heavily influenced by the Western belief of democracy, but also because of being raised by a loyal colony of the British empire, I learnt that democracy is only applied to the citizens within the empire.

Everyone here knows that United States of America is created upon the foundation of human equality, freedom of speech, press, and religion. Later additions included the protection of personal properties and belongings. These are very true and they exist until this day.

But, a BIG but, that is IT is ONLY applied to its own citizens. On the global scale, there is no higher body powerful enough to regulate all the countries. Just like the US constitution, that we all have God given rights to have our own possessions and the rights to protect it.
Just like the second amendment, when personal rights are violated, he/she has the rights to pickup arms and defend their rights. Then it applies to countries, which they all have the rights to develop their own military for national defense.

At the end of the day, we have not changed much since our pre-civilized ancestors. It is still very much a network of jungle justice. If China wants to keep enrich the country and bring wealth to its citizens, the navy has to expand to protect the shipping routes, and especially in the case of protecting citizens abroad.

Afterall, the world is better seeing through the untainted eye of a child. If another kid forces you to give him your candy, would you keep doing it or would you rather go home and ask your dad to teach you how to box?

Everyone here knows that United States of America is created upon the foundation of human equality, freedom of speech, press, and religion. Later additions included the protection of personal properties and belongings. These are very true and they exist until this day.

Click to expand...

Surely the protection of personal properties came before human equality. That's why it took so long and a civil war to abolish slavery.

delft said:

Surely the protection of personal properties came before human equality. That's why it took so long and a civil war to abolish slavery.

Click to expand...

He probably meant 'American human equality'. Since slaves were not considered as Americans, obviously they do not qualify for equality.

Cottage's slip is pretty telling, since that same attitude still dominates America today, only they included the African slaves by adding 'American' behind 'African'. But it's still different rules and standards to what rights and the degree of equality other humans can expect if they don't count as 'American'.

Some might say I am unfairly criticizing America for a 'fact of life', but then slavery was also a 'fact of life' not all that long ago. And is there anything inherently wrong or unreasonable to hold the view that all humans should be treated with equal rights and respect no matter where they come from? That a Somali or Iranian life is just as precious as an American, Israeli or Chinese life?

Andrew Marr raised an interesting point in his biography of the Queen about the 'humility of the hereditary' principle, which basically means a sense of humility (which is focused into a sense of duty by the Queen, but can be expressed in many other forms) borne of the knowledge that one has done nothing to earn one's extraordinary position.

Now, instead of promoting national pride by focusing on the idea that Americans are better than everyone else because America is the greatest nation of earth, Americans should be taught a national version of this 'humility of the hereditary'. The reasoning is that with the exception of a tiny select few, America will still be the great nation that it is today irrespective of whether anyone with an American passport was born in the USA or somewhere else.

If Americans could focus on feeling lucky to be born in America (which they are) instead of feeling that they deserve special treatment because they were born in America, well, I dare say America would be an even better place to live in, and Americans would not have anything like the level of resentment or hostility directed against them as they are currently being subject to.

If Americans had an attitude like that, maybe the rest of the world will say that America is the greatest nation on earth because it is the greatest nation on earth, instead of listing things like being the richest or the most military powerful as reasons why America is the greatest nation on earth.

Long story short, this guy said when he was younger, he personally saw Jap soldiers riding around in horses on Chinese land. Then he quoted from a book from about 2000 years ago, saying a country might be poor, but it has to have a strong military. Because since the 1850s, starting with the opium war, China had been invaded countless times. It is important that we have a strong military so we will never be invaded again.
He said "as much I hate the communist, at least they strengthened Chinese military, at least the white men don't dare attack China, the Japs don't dare to ride horses in China".

The Japanese have said in the 60-70s that "you guys are so poor, you can't even afford to wear pants, yet you're still trying to develop nukes" The Chinese foreign minister at the time said, "we would rather run around naked than not have nukes to protect ourselves"

His closing line was "not seeing Japanese soldiers riding around in their warhorses in downtown of Beijing, i'm relieved".

Click to expand...

Is it still considered a problem that there were some European incursions in China during the 19th century?
Is it considered a problem of insufficient military means that Europeans and Japanese were able to at least partly dictate China their will?

Sorry, but while I agree that international relationships are a jungle of some kind, I'm very much astonished how much blame is put on foreigners that exploited Chinese weakness like many other foreigners before them and in terms of control to a much lesser degree than the Mongols.
I wonder why he doesn't ask for example how could our ancestors let slip China from a world leading country in many fields intzo such a sorry state that wave after wave of foreign invaders overran it, Manchu, Europeans and Japanese?
If you ask these questions you get to the problems of managing China and have the foreign invasions as a result of massive interior errors that in the end where even able to destroy a giant. From this interior perspective you would have to acknowledge that something went wrong with Chinese society and the enforced end of isolation forced China back on its old path of glory and achievement.
I know, it's always the easy way out to claim military might instead of society's errors responsible.
But I'd like to know what you would consider errors of Chinese society that did lead a country of that capability almost slip into oblivion.
Thanks.

I do fully agree that current Chinese economic position is best served with increased SLoC protection, although I would put more emphasis on developing cooperation with other nations to ensure the security of connections and have a well-measured military development to serve within such a framework. It's never been a good idea to single handedly overpower the world because many other people will object to the brute use of military might.

plawolf said:

If Americans had an attitude like that, maybe the rest of the world will say that America is the greatest nation on earth because it is the greatest nation on earth, instead of listing things like being the richest or the most military powerful as reasons why America is the greatest nation on earth.

Click to expand...

Americas greatness is much more than that and many countries show a lack of gratitude for what America has given them. Eg Pakistan but considering you are more interested in focussing on the military aspects, its just as well that the USA has a powerful military/navy. Hu's recent statement in telling his navy "to prepare for war,"(Dec 2011) makes a farce in their claim of a "peaceful rise". Much to the relief of us who prefer freedom and democracy It has allowed the U.S. to increase her presence in the South China seas and Pacific, to counter any moves on the part of China to claim any territory she casts her covetous eyes upon, the second island chain for example.

You mean like how Pakistan was a long-time staunch Cold War ally of the US only to be dumped for India who was an ally with the Soviets? Anyone can ignore important facts to spin it to look like what they want.

bladerunner said:

Hu's recent statement in telling his navy "to prepare for war,"(Dec 2011) makes a farce in their claim of a "peaceful rise".

Click to expand...

Being prepared for war does NOT contradict peaceful rise. A desire for peace does not mean you have to become defenseless and hopelessly waiting to be bullied. As a matter of fact, being able to defend yourself is key to acquiring and maintaining peace.

Hu's recent statement in telling his navy "to prepare for war,"(Dec 2011) makes a farce in their claim of a "peaceful rise".

Click to expand...

In fact he did not say to PLAN "to prepare for war".
He say the PLAN should keep modernazing( or something like that)
As always there have been translation errors.

Whatever the statement said is irrelevant. It's just like they're alarmed that China is modernizing its navy in spite of the how the US says it protects the sea lanes for China. Or saying that for the rest of the military. "China has no threats so why are they modernizing?" They're going to think the same way no matter what. I recently saw on TV someone from a think tank say the US should get the Saudis to punish China because of Syria by cutting their oil supplies. Oh you mean the same oil they wanted to increase supply to persuade China on going along with sanctions on Iran? And that's why China doesn't obey the US because they would force China into a situation where they would have leverage over China. Talk about unappreciative... The US wouldn't have won the Cold War without China. And somehow they're offended when the appropiate appreciation isn't returned by those they screwed when they didn't need them anymore.