China's military giving USA sleepless nights

last SG · 2010-01-28T19:12:24+00:00

Compared to Zhu Cheng Hu, this guy is mild. I am really not surprised that China has focused a lot of ELINT and maritime surveillance technologies. Afterall...

weasel1962 SG

"That former commie countries like china and vietnam and the former soviet bloc has embraced capitalism today only proves the failure of their founding ideology, and that the communist parties are still in power in vietnam and china today only means that they have a successful stranglehold on power." - fatum

---------------------------------------------

Just wanted to clarify this as well. I don't think communism was a successful theology. However, that is not the argument. The argument is that because a united NK would have been communist, the unified state would have become a failed state that NK is today.

The latter argument is incorrect precisely because of the failure to take into account that things can change as it had for the 2 major asia-pac communist regimes.

Fuck PAP & Lee Kuan Yew SG

The analogy of the Union versus of the Confederation in argument over the Tibet case seems rather flimsy. Tibet didn't choose to be part of China in the first place. Also, when Tibet had de facto independence for some thirty over years when China went back to "reclaim" it. Having been independent, and for such a long period of time, the Chinese reclamation is very much an invasion of another country even though it was not recognized. Which also boils down... is international recognition part of the definition of a country or sovereign state?

I thought Tibet was part of China since at least Qing dynasty? What about U.S alaska and hawaii? Tibet longer with China or alaska, hawaii longer with U.S?

Fatum SG

"But, I ramble and digress, back to your original arguments. Even if you disregard China's invasion of Tibet as a "domestic action", how do you explain away china's actions in the korean war ? Regardless of how the north or south koreans view China and the US, it is clear that China provided support to the communist north in invading the south, and later, unilaterally crossed her own borders, to go against a United Nations Sanctioned allied coalition made up of 16 different countries from around the world. Mind you, a dubious distinction isin't it ? to be the first to go against the UN, an uncomfortable bit of history for them, no doubt. And I guess nothing need to be said about the "vietnamese adventure" of 79'." - Fatum

-------------------------

I won't rehash most of the contentions about China being communist or not, or the issue about complaints etc esp when its equally non-verifiable on either end. But I tot the above is interesting enough to warrant a response.

Its historical fact and there were papers released in the chinese side that also researched the worries of the communist party during the pre-intervention days.

The paras between 5 and 6 in the link below highlights some of the arguments/sources surrounding that.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm

"The Chinese, it was reported, would not tolerate a U.S. presence so close to their borders and would send troops to Korea if any UN forces other than ROK elements crossed the 38th Parallel."

The PLA essentially acknowledged that the ROK were in their rights to unify the country but not UN forces.

The assertion for Chinese support prior to its intervention is incorrect. NPKA was predominantly supplied by the Soviets rather than the Chinese bet pre-24 June 1950 to the Oct 1950 intervention. It is definitely not clear that there was any PLA support at all. Arty, T-34 Tanks and its air force 180 yaks/migs were not items supplied by the PLA but by the russkis.

What was clear was the Chinese fear of US nukes. Truman actually threatened China with nukes.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Korean_War

The People's Republic of China, fearful of a capitalist Korean state on its border, warned neutral diplomats that it would intervene. Truman regarded the warnings as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN." On October 15, 1950, Truman went to Wake Island for a short, highly publicized meeting with MacArthur. The CIA had previously told Truman that Chinese involvement was unlikely. MacArthur, saying he was speculating, saw little risk. The general explained that the Chinese had lost their window of opportunity to help North Korea's invasion. He estimated the Chinese had 300,000 soldiers in Manchuria, with between 100,000-125,000 men along the Yalu; half could be brought across the Yalu. But the Chinese had no air force; hence, "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter."^[26] MacArthur, thus, assumed that Chinese were motivated to help North Korea, and wished to avoid heavy casualties.

On October 8, 1950, the day after American troops crossed the 38th, Chairman Mao issued the order to form the Chinese People's Volunteer Army. It was named in that way, so it would appear to the world that it was not a state-to-state war between China and the U.S. Those soldiers "volunteered" to fight.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Not to forget local sources.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_3/5.htm

There are more than enough sources indicating intervention was due to perception of danger to chinese national security.

to quote yourself, hindsight is always 20/20, but the hindsight's perspective, of course, depends on your point of view.

So now you're saying that the chinese did not support of the north korean invasion ? Or just prior to her own intervention ? How likely is that, given that swarms of soviet and north korean fighters were actually based in manchurian airfields, given that the chinese intervention came a scant three months plus after north korean's own invasion proper. Mind you, even the US took longer than that both times in Iraq.

And more importantly, I think you missed my point. my point is not about the chinese rationale behind her aggressions, my point is that the Chinese did unilaterally cross her own borders, did go against a UN coalition force in an action authorized by a UN resolution, did fight against 16 different countries from around the world, outside of her own borders mind you, whether it's to secure a puppet buffer state on her own border, to aid their "fraternal socialist allies", to fulfil joe stalin's wishes, or cos mao zedong liked south korean kimchi, is beside the point.

I suppose her own perceptions of her security would be what drives her action till today .... including the vietnamese adventure, the tibetan adventure, the sino-indian war, hell, they even have border issues with ...... Bhutan ! the happiest country in the world ! Oh, I'm sure it's to satisfy her own sense of security that she unilaterally claims the whole of the south china sea too? So really, whether it's tibet, korea, vietnam or the south china sea, China has shown that she has no compunction about unilateral military action against her neighbours, and really doesn't give a flying fark about what the rest of the world thinks.

But wait, if you think the chinese are arrogant and insufferable pricks now ... you ain't seen nothing yet .... wait till she gets richer and more powerful still. A Chinese superpower won't be the grinning, overbearing uncle sam lecturing you on free trade and human rights, she'll grab what she wants and to hell with the rest of the world.

And strangely, do anyone of you see the eerie parallel between the chinese actions of today and imperial japan prior to WWII ? The nips wanted to move south, to claim the natural resources there for herself. To do that she needed to neutralize the only force capable of intervention in the far east; uncle sam, so she geared herself towards a military conflict with the united states. The same thing today. The south china sea is rich in oil and gas and fishery resources, in addition, the spratleys is like an unsinkable aircraft carrier that dominates the whole of south east asia. And who is the only power that stands between her and her objectives, whether it's the south china sea, or taiwan ? In the 30s we have japanese subs cruising past guam, hawaii .... nowadays we have chinese subs shadowing US carrier battle groups, snorkeling around guam. Meanwhile, they launches cyber attacks, build their own aircraft carrier, weaponises space ........

I am sure military planners around the region, not just the US, are suspicious of china's intentions, it is just not politically correct to say so, after all, they are the incoming super power, they even make your kid's milk powder ....

Fatum SG

---------------------------------------------

The latter argument is incorrect precisely because of the failure to take into account that things can change as it had for the 2 major asia-pac communist regimes.

I would say certainly, it's easy to ponder the what ifs, but we just have to look at the present. Your argument is almost plausible, except that it failed to take reality into account. So, looking at what south korea is today, and what north korea is .... you say that perhaps, the north would have made better custodians of the whole country instead of the .... south ?

Just look at what the south koreans have done with their half, and what the north koreans have done with theirs ?

Or do you mean whatever the south koreans have achieved with half a country, the north koreans could do only if they had the whole to work with ?

dadeadman1337 SG

to quote yourself, hindsight is always 20/20, but the hindsight's perspective, of course, depends on your point of view.

Every country watches out for their own self interests, when the europeans and americans started colonising and exploiting asia did they care about us? When the UK fought in the opium wars was their purpose to save people or to sell drugs? The chinese are still behind the USA in terms of military tech, USA is afraid that its interests might be threatened thats why make a lot of noise

As romanista2001 SG

in actual fact, China and US are closest of allies.................just like during the Cold War, US and USSR were the closest of allies............

all these supposed rivalry is all made up to fool the rest of the world................consider this..........

a few years ago, there were incidents reported in the press about Chinese subs getting incredibly close to US carriers................and also Russian bombers flying directly overhead US carriers..............

you don't get that close to US carriers unless you're damn sure you're not gonna be fired on..............and the US carriers' captains would have attacked unless they were damn sure their carriers would come to no harm...........

the whole idea was to make people think China and Russia are rivals to US.....................a 'mindfuck' operation................

Fatum SG

Of course the everyone watches out for ther own self interest .... just that in this case the US's interests coincides with ours and the regions'.

I'm sure countries around the region would much rather have the 7th fleet patrolling the south china sea than see the whole of the south china sea under chinese domination. Mind you, Arapahoe is right, China has unilaterally claimed the whole of the south china sea, disregarding the interests, claims and EEZs of all the litoral states in the south china sea. Go dig out any map of the south china sea on the chinese web, and take a look.

Or do you think it's much more politic to swing behind the rising bully of the block already ?

dadeadman1337 SG

I wonder who will come to our aid if malaysia attacks?

Fatum SG

I wonder who will come to our aid if malaysia attacks?

our doctrine is to count on ourselves .....

but if you have served already ... you would have heard of the incident in the early 90s when the racist mamak they had in power in malaysia back then threatened to invade. Reservists were called up, arms and ammo were drawn and mines were laid in tuas.Go speak to the old birds, this really did happen.

But apparently, bush senior made a phone call to malaysia and parked a US carrier off mersing ...

There were other incidents, the last one I know being in 1998, over the CIQ issue. They actually had live firing exercises involving paratroopers in southern johor during our national day. It was locked and loaded then too. Our neighbourhood is not a simple place dude.

Fuck PAP & Lee Kuan Yew SG

in actual fact, China and US are closest of allies.................just like during the Cold War, US and USSR were the closest of allies............

That's nonsense.

Larryteo SG

Oh my goodness, I am very very scared leh... not being sarcastic, I am really very worried, what if one day China defeats the U.S.A and much of the western powers after a conflict, and goes forward to conquering countries in South East Asia, like Vietnam , Malaysia and SINGAPORE? And it is very easy for them to do it because China has 200 million army men...

dadeadman1337 SG

Haha Singapore majority chinese, not as bad.

Larryteo SG

Btw is it really true Malaysia really nearly invade Singapore once in the 1990s? Anyone got the article here ? I don't think MAL that stinking corrupt country ruled by fags have enough manpower and $$$ to invade us leh. We shoot down their penis towers in KL they cry like babies already.

Atobe SG

Not in the 1990s but just before Singapore got kicked out - during the tense months before 9 August 1965.

When the Malay ULTRA leadership that were plotting to takeover UMNO could not succeed in launching a surprise coup de'tat on Singapore with two battalions of the Royal Malay Regiment based in Johor - and have the entire Singapore State Cabinet arrested - there was no choice but to kick LKY and Singapore out of Malaysia.

The Royal Malay Regiment was stopped by then UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who warned Tunku Abdul Rahman that military means should not be used to resolve the tense political situation between the political leadership in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore.

The leverage that Harold Wilson had was that he threatened to withdraw British Military Forces deployed to help defend Malaysia against Indonesia Konfrontasi campaign.

This was the reason for the mad rush to build up a credible defense force when independence was effected - to prevent any possibility of a change of mind by the Malaysian leadership.

The intense attention given to Singapore's Defense remain unrelenting since 1965.

Sepecat SG

Its true that Malaysia wanted to invade Singapore in 1965 but were stopped by the British.

Don't count on any country helping us out when we are threatened with invasion or war. Singapore's philosophy is to defend ourselves and NOT depend on outside help.

Critically, we are a very small nation & a mere dot on the map. On the world stage, we will not be seen as the aggressor if we attack to defend ourselves.

Arapahoe SG

Of course the everyone watches out for ther own self interest .... just that in this case the US's interests coincides with ours and the regions'.

Or do you think it's much more politic to swing behind the rising bully of the block already ?

yeah i recalled back in the 90s Indonesia was shock to find the claim goes all the way down to their sea....

ahtansh SG

From what I see Taiwan needed those weapons to protect themselves and who else but USA dare to offend China at this moment. To USA, it is a Win/Win situation, they earn from the arm sales, get themselves military allies in that region and looks humane for taiwan's Democratic survivor.

US arms sales crucial for Taiwan

By Doug Bandow

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010

The Obama administration is preparing a new arms package for Taiwan. Ironically, selling weapons to Taipei may be the best way for Washington to get out from the middle of one of the world’s potentially most volatile relationships — the one between China and Taiwan.

Relations between the two are improving, yet the former continues to point more than 1,300 missiles at the latter. The threat of military force remains a backdrop to expanding economic and tourist contacts across the Taiwan Strait.

The US is positioned uneasily between them. Formally committed to the principle of one China and providing weapons to Taiwan for its defense, Washington cannot easily square the circle. As the People’s Republic of China (PRC) grows in economic strength and international influence, pressure will grow on the US’ relationship with Taipei.

Taiwan’s precarious situation was demonstrated by the transformation of Bush administration policy. By the end of his term former US president George W. Bush was holding back arms from Taiwan and limiting transit by Taiwan’s president across US territory — as had Bill Clinton.

The election of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in March 2008 was greeted with relief in Beijing and Washington. Ma has downplayed Taiwan’s quest for a separate international identity and promoted ties with China.

Yet the underlying substantive issues remain unchanged. The PRC sees only one outcome, whether the result of negotiation or ultimatum: Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

In contrast, Ma, no less than his predecessor, opposes submitting Taiwan to rule by the PRC.

At some point China’s patience is likely to fade. Continuing arms sales may be the best hope of forestalling conflict.

During the Cold War no one doubted the US’ will and ability to prevent the PRC from attempting to conquer or intimidate Taiwan. Neither is certain any longer.

Go to war with China and the 21st century looks a lot uglier, even if the US handily wins round one. And round one no longer would be a slam-dunk.

While the PRC cannot, at least for the foreseeable future, match US military power, it can create a substantial deterrent capability, sharply raising the potential cost of US intervention. Beijing’s increasing ability to sink US carriers with submarines and missiles alone would force any president to hesitate sending the Seventh Fleet into the strait for battle.

As protecting Taiwan goes from being a guaranteed freebie to a potential catastrophe, Taipei will no longer be able to rely upon the US. Taiwan has been a good friend for many years, but few US presidents would decide to protect Taipei if doing so put Los Angeles and New York at risk.

Arms sales offer the best path out of the Taiwan thicket.

In 2001 the Bush administration offered Taiwan a US$12 billion weapons package. For political purposes, the then opposition-dominated legislature blocked the purchases.

Then the Bush administration showed its pique with former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) by freezing arms sales to Taipei. The result was to accelerate the already disturbing erosion of Taiwan’s defensive capabilities.

Taiwanese weakness could be dangerous. Should the PRC grow impatient — and believe that victory would be swift and bloodless — the temptation to act could prove overwhelming.

Of course, even fulfilling Taiwan’s “wish list” would not enable it to defeat China in a full-scale war. But Taipei needs sufficiency rather than equality — a military capable of making any attempt at coercion more costly than the likely benefits of victory.

So far China has been cautious and pragmatic in exercising its increased diplomatic influence and military power. Taiwan needs enough military force with enough capabilities to reinforce these good instincts.

Before leaving office the Bush administration resumed arms sales. Now a new deal is in the works. The PRC responded that the US “should respect China’s core interests.”

Nevertheless, there should be no US retreat from the principle of selling Taipei the weapons that it needs for its defense. Taiwanese have built a free and democratic society. They deserve access to the tools that will enable them to defend that society.

Moreover, the best strategy for ensuring a peaceful resolution of Taipei’s status is a robust Taiwanese defensive capability. Selling arms is a far better option than intervening militarily in any conflict.

To presume that China, with far more at stake than the US, will forever back down would be a wild gamble. Whether Chinese concerns are driven more by nationalist passions or geostrategic concerns, the more direct Washington’s involvement, the more dangerous Beijing’s likely response. And there would be no greater calamity than a war between the US and China.

The US should not be expected to risk major war with nuclear powers to protect other states, however friendly or democratic. But Washington can help other nations defend themselves. Selling weapons to Taiwan would empower it without inserting the US into any cross-strait crossfire.

Sepecat SG

I believe the Chinese are testing the Obama Administration's resolve on Taiwan issue. Weapons sold to Taiwan or in the pipeline are mainly defensive in nature anyway.

Fuck PAP & Lee Kuan Yew SG

Seems that U.S is determined to divide China and Taiwan, prevent unification.

iceFatboy SG

just wondering if China managed to knock down most of US satellites.. will the US military go "blind"??

« Previous Page Next Page »