China's stealth war on the U.S.

[PACKY]

Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the U.S. dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.

This saber-rattling comes while China is building a lot of sabers. Although its defense budget, estimated to be as much as $90 billion, remains a fraction of the United States', it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia. Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems — especially missiles and submarines — needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot20jul20,0,6226256.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

 

[PACKY]

yet another reason we need to stop buying chinese products.We are supplying the money to but the missles that are point at us...BUY AMERICAN

 

[mpshiel]

Wow, you are like the prophet of fear!

Unfortunately, however exciting it may be to want China to cast a huge shadow, it isn' there.

Now why would that be - would it be because the US, NATO, the EU and other allies have not actually sold any technology to China? Well yes, though the EU was going to break that but for some reason stopped thier deal (due to some sweet back door promises by the US I am imaginging) which causes China to declare that it was investing in Ship Building.

Why would ship building be a threat - well because China doesn't have any. Like China having nukes but virtually no long range missles. But in particular, China has no high technology (for instance Tawain has Chinese assembly factories of Widescreen TV - which are too advanced for China to build themselves) which includes most importantly - a modern communications system - China hasn't been able to buy a communications system in decades. Which means they might have the largest standing army but can't co-ordinate it as a modern army. They might have nukes, but virtually no satalites to use for targetting, no high speed computers to do logistics, no chips to put in new fighters, no high tech design factories, etc.

Now, while IBM has signed the largest computer deal with China, those Computers are 2 generations at least behind Tawain (which makes the chips which run the US military).

While China is creating a submarine fleet (active around 2010), they still are not considered a threat to north America. When China gets some new aircraft (they have a lot based on 1960's soviet designs...oh no!) and a few aircraft carriers to match (India has two!) - then start making spooky predictions.

 

[PACKY]

Wow, you are like the prophet of fear!

Unfortunately, however exciting it may be to want China to cast a huge shadow, it isn' there.

Now why would that be - would it be because the US, NATO, the EU and other allies have not actually sold any technology to China? Well yes, though the EU was going to break that but for some reason stopped thier deal (due to some sweet back door promises by the US I am imaginging) which causes China to declare that it was investing in Ship Building.

Why would ship building be a threat - well because China doesn't have any. Like China having nukes but virtually no long range missles. But in particular, China has no high technology (for instance Tawain has Chinese assembly factories of Widescreen TV - which are too advanced for China to build themselves) which includes most importantly - a modern communications system - China hasn't been able to buy a communications system in decades. Which means they might have the largest standing army but can't co-ordinate it as a modern army. They might have nukes, but virtually no satalites to use for targetting, no high speed computers to do logistics, no chips to put in new fighters, no high tech design factories, etc.

Now, while IBM has signed the largest computer deal with China, those Computers are 2 generations at least behind Tawain (which makes the chips which run the US military).

While China is creating a submarine fleet (active around 2010), they still are not considered a threat to north America. When China gets some new aircraft (they have a lot based on 1960's soviet designs...oh no!) and a few aircraft carriers to match (India has two!) - then start making spooky predictions.

tHE MOST DANGEROUS WEAPON THEY HAVE IS THE SHEER SIZE OF THEIR POPULATION...THAT COUPLED WITH HIGH EXPENDITURES OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT IS A REASON FOR ALARM...

 

[Zlex]

Wow, you are like the prophet of fear!

Unfortunately, however exciting it may be to want China to cast a huge shadow, it isn' there.

Now why would that be - would it be because the US, NATO, the EU and other allies have not actually sold any technology to China? Well yes, though the EU was going to break that but for some reason stopped thier deal (due to some sweet back door promises by the US I am imaginging) which causes China to declare that it was investing in Ship Building.

Why would ship building be a threat - well because China doesn't have any. Like China having nukes but virtually no long range missles. But in particular, China has no high technology (for instance Tawain has Chinese assembly factories of Widescreen TV - which are too advanced for China to build themselves) which includes most importantly - a modern communications system - China hasn't been able to buy a communications system in decades. Which means they might have the largest standing army but can't co-ordinate it as a modern army. They might have nukes, but virtually no satalites to use for targetting, no high speed computers to do logistics, no chips to put in new fighters, no high tech design factories, etc.

Now, while IBM has signed the largest computer deal with China, those Computers are 2 generations at least behind Tawain (which makes the chips which run the US military).

While China is creating a submarine fleet (active around 2010), they still are not considered a threat to north America. When China gets some new aircraft (they have a lot based on 1960's soviet designs...oh no!) and a few aircraft carriers to match (India has two!) - then start making spooky predictions.

They aren't a threat now, but I wouldn't take them so lightly.

Our current military advantage is founded on about three things; a] our past advantage in tech, b] the yet remaining area under a fast fading historical curve, a happenstance of the residue of the last world war, and c] the world's willingness to finance our debt and let us spend at WWII levels of defense spending, to the point where instead of defeating America on a battlefield, we can simply be bought for pennies on the dollar without firing a shot. Oooops.

While we continue to send about 5% of our undergaduates--and, half of them foregin nationals--into engineering and science, China has been and continues to send over 70%.

When it comes to deep submicron technology and the tools for developing same, guess who has owned the major toolmaker technology for years? Never mind the foundaries that no longer exist to build WWI era tanks; where are the Silicon foundaries for the 21st century battlefields? We are currently ruling the skies...in 1970s era fighter planes, and that includes the F117. The light we see on the horizon is someone else's century.

The #1 US undergraduate degree is currently accounting; just in time to address the highest growth rate outsourced career market there is(accounting.) The biggest piece of the US education juggernaut is geared up to produce a workforce... that is going to compete with $5/day labor in India. Good timing, that.

Oh yes, and more than a handful of sports marketers. A smorgasbord of economies fattened on the 'DisneyLand Experience' has continued that ride well into adulthood; the momentum here is precisely in the wrong direction; unpowered flight, drifting, anything goes.

Meanwhile, China and the rest of the developing world is hungry, and if we stop whining about it, will one day wake us all the Hell back up and re-energize American industry, just like Japan taught us how to make quality cars again. Christ, does anyone remember what US cars were like in the 70s and 80s? the fat ass hood ornamant Ford LTD? The Chevy Citation? And then, "K"-Cars?

China has its own best interests at heart; no ****. That is exactly why we will come to depend on them, as a competitor for the highground in the future. Because, as we have aptly shown over the course of the last 50 years, without a competent competitor for the highground, we, like all mere naked sweaty apes, slip to the level of our weakest competitor, and take the easiest path.

 

[BarbB]

What other country on earth could put together a 200,000,000 man army. They won't need nukes!

 

[PACKY]

What other country on earth could put together a 200,000,000 man army. They won't need nukes!

In the Korean war Machine gunners would burn out barrels of their guns shooting at the chinese..no matter how many they dropped they kept coming and coming...This is a very scary realization..If we ever had to go to war with china we would almost need to utilize tactical nuclear missles in order to neutralize teh large populations and threats.

 

[Billy Batson]

tHE MOST DANGEROUS WEAPON THEY HAVE IS THE SHEER SIZE OF THEIR POPULATION...THAT COUPLED WITH HIGH EXPENDITURES OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT IS A REASON FOR ALARM...

china's population hardly matters. in the case of nuclear war, their population size isn't an issue. a nuke doesn't destroy in terms of numbers. it destroys in sq. kilometers/miles. their biggest asset is their economy. the middle class that's growing there (but shrinking here), will want a standard of living that equals our own.

 

[Billy Batson]

In the Korean war Machine gunners would burn out barrels of their guns shooting at the chinese..no matter how many they dropped they kept coming and coming...This is a very scary realization..If we ever had to go to war with china we would almost need to utilize tactical nuclear missles in order to neutralize teh large populations and threats.

we no longer practice conventional warfare of several decades ago. our tactics have been refined since vietnam and guerilla warfare, gulf war 1 & the baltic states conflicts. we now air bomb our enemies before moving in with actual ground troops as the terrain allows for us. we no longer have the need to send in wave after wave of men into battle fields. our main concerns are now more rooted in urban warfare.

 

[PACKY]

fear mongering. aside from the all caps, it's also the wording. you're scared. admit it.

china's population hardly matters. in the case of nuclear war, their population size isn't an issue. a nuke doesn't destroy in terms of numbers. it destroys in sq. kilometers/miles. their biggest asset is their economy. the middle class that's growing there (but shrinking here), will want a standard of living that equals our own.

the above is an example of how to reason this out instead of jumping the gun and showboating your fears.

Your right I am scared for the future of America and our economy,Their population does matter in more then simply a military sense, more people means more production of goods and services as well as more of a drain on the worlds natural resources, I need not fear monger as Chinas actions sell themselves for what they are.

 

[Glaz]

Be afraid, be VERY afraid....mwhahahahahaha!!!!!! Run for the hills, we're all gonna die!!!!!Good thing is China is technically still communist, so we can dig out old cold war sayings like 'Better dead then Red!'.

 

[neverforsaken]

we no longer have the need to send in wave after wave of men into battle fields. our main concerns are now more rooted in urban warfare.

we may not need to. but there are always places that are better left undamaged and require boots on the ground. if for instance we want to take a city, we cant just bomb it. and if they want a city they will send in wave after wave of troops. if we go to war with them within the next decade, chances are i will have to fight them. the irony of being shot by a bullet purchased with money from america in exchange for a cheap product would be too much for me

 

[Caprice]

it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia.

Help me out here, isnt' Russia IN Asia???? What the heck continent is Russia in if it isn't in Asia? It sure as heck isn't Europe -- Russia spans too far east to be part of Europe!

Sorry, just trying to figure this out.

 

[Glaz]

Help me out here, isnt' Russia IN Asia???? What the heck continent is Russia in if it isn't in Asia? It sure as heck isn't Europe -- Russia spans too far east to be part of Europe!

Sorry, just trying to figure this out.

Its considered part of both Asia and Europe.

 

[Billy Batson]

we may not need to. but there are always places that are better left undamaged and require boots on the ground. if for instance we want to take a city, we cant just bomb it. and if they want a city they will send in wave after wave of troops. if we go to war with them within the next decade, chances are i will have to fight them. the irony of being shot by a bullet purchased with money from america in exchange for a cheap product would be too much for me

urban combat does not entail the same tactics as those involved in battle in forests and on hills. when we took fallujah, it we bombed it relentlessly, but also went into the city in small portions at a time. there are far too many variables to send in tens of thousands of troops all in at once. the civilian population mixed with enemy soldiers risks too much to gain.

 

[Caprice]

Its considered part of both Asia and Europe.

Yeah, I guess I can see that way of looking at it, but that doesn't change the fact that they are in asia too.

Small nitpic, but I don't like the idea of making China seem more powerful than it really is.

 

[neverforsaken]

urban combat does not entail the same tactics as those involved in battle in forests and on hills. when we took fallujah, it we bombed it relentlessly, but also went into the city in small portions at a time. there are far too many variables to send in tens of thousands of troops all in at once. the civilian population mixed with enemy soldiers risks too much to gain.

i dont remember fallujah being air bombed. i remember that they gave a few weeks notice for the civilians to leave. then surrounded the city with tanks. then they entered from the north with i think about 8 battalions and pushed south to force the insurgents into the southern most area of fallujah called the kill zone. i dont know if they bombed the kill zone or what though.

 

[mpshiel]

They aren't a threat now, but I wouldn't take them so lightly.

Our current military advantage is founded on about three things; a] our past advantage in tech, b] the yet remaining area under a fast fading historical curve, a happenstance of the residue of the last world war, and c] the world's willingness to finance our debt and let us spend at WWII levels of defense spending, to the point where instead of defeating America on a battlefield, we can simply be bought for pennies on the dollar without firing a shot. Oooops.

While we continue to send about 5% of our undergaduates--and, half of them foregin nationals--into engineering and science, China has been and continues to send over 70%.

When it comes to deep submicron technology and the tools for developing same, guess who has owned the major toolmaker technology for years? Never mind the foundaries that no longer exist to build WWI era tanks; where are the Silicon foundaries for the 21st century battlefields? We are currently ruling the skies...in 1970s era fighter planes, and that includes the F117. The light we see on the horizon is someone else's century.

The #1 US undergraduate degree is currently accounting; just in time to address the highest growth rate outsourced career market there is(accounting.) The biggest piece of the US education juggernaut is geared up to produce a workforce... that is going to compete with $5/day labor in India. Good timing, that.

Oh yes, and more than a handful of sports marketers. A smorgasbord of economies fattened on the 'DisneyLand Experience' has continued that ride well into adulthood; the momentum here is precisely in the wrong direction; unpowered flight, drifting, anything goes.

Meanwhile, China and the rest of the developing world is hungry, and if we stop whining about it, will one day wake us all the Hell back up and re-energize American industry, just like Japan taught us how to make quality cars again. Christ, does anyone remember what US cars were like in the 70s and 80s? the fat ass hood ornamant Ford LTD? The Chevy Citation? And then, "K"-Cars?

China has its own best interests at heart; no ****. That is exactly why we will come to depend on them, as a competitor for the highground in the future. Because, as we have aptly shown over the course of the last 50 years, without a competent competitor for the highground, we, like all mere naked sweaty apes, slip to the level of our weakest competitor, and take the easiest path.

I really don't understand this polemic as I can't quite locate the focus: that China is a threat because they take science degrees?

I assume you are referring to this article:

http://news.com.com/U.S.+losing+sha...g+grads/2100-7342_3-5780921.html?tag=pulse.tb

The United States has had a substantial lead in science and technology since World War II. With just 5 percent of the world's population, it employs almost a third of science and engineering researchers, accounts for 40 percent of research and development spending and publishes 35 percent of science and engineering research papers.

Many of the world's top high-tech firms are American, and government spending on defense-related technology ensures the U.S. military's technological dominance on battlefields.

In 2000, the paper said, 17 percent of university bachelor degrees in the U.S. were in science and engineering compared with a world average of 27 percent and 52 percent in China.

Yes, America will one day be surpassed by another nation, it or may simply create nuclear havoc and make the world an unlivable place, or we may have a uni-global nation. However, China is not a technological or specifically (as this OP is about) military threat to the United States (or even Europe for that matter) in this or even the next decade.

Beyond the cultural vision of China which extends into the military (that they are China and thus really only interested in traditional Chinese territory like Tawain or Japanese controlled Islands), they could create a 500,000,000 person army but if they can't cross 8,000 miles of ocean then what is the point. If Hitler was unable to invade Britian due to being unable to secure 16 miles of air superiority for an invasion - what exact and specific vision do you have to get this huge army to a suitable North America? The Japanese invaded and found that the northern route had so many problems to make it unusable.

Since the space shuttle was built on 80's technology, I am curious how you see the F-117, a fighter that requires advanced chip processors to get off the ground as 70's tech?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f117/

As the last three engagement areas have shown, with the current capabilities, there isn't anyone technologically close, though some work has been done on GPS blockers, there isn't an effective military off switch yet for the tech advantage. China is going into space - 1960's style. Do you think they would be risking their showcase achievement if they had a higher technology?

To the arguements that: the greatest threat are those who want to be like us. Well, that might be true - if so, you might want to stop sending those American corporations from Subway to Coca cola to preach that message.

Want a economic threat - look to the EU, China is far more interested, like the rest of the world in turning its citizens into consumers than it is in destroyng US markets (since it is much more interested in aquiring them).

 

[Maynard Keenan]

We use old fighters and we are building brand new ones. Ever heard of an F-22?

It would take China 2 decades to build a navel fleet that could even begin to be a threat.

They can't use nukes because of MAD.

If America falls it will not be because of any other country's military. It will be an economic collapse and a fall from our status as the richest nation of the world. It will be because we we have lost our edge in education and innovation. We have lost our way as a nation and we need to find it again. No one is threatening us but ourselves.

 

[Cjwinnit]

In the Korean war Machine gunners would burn out barrels of their guns shooting at the chinese..no matter how many they dropped they kept coming and coming...This is a very scary realization..If we ever had to go to war with china we would almost need to utilize tactical nuclear missles in order to neutralize teh large populations and threats.

Assuming China decided to go walkies, you can safely assume that the continental european NATO members would be concerned (it's a long march to Europe from China but it's not exactly new territory for them). India and the US would, of course, be really chuffed too.

The US, the EU and the Commonwealth adds up a population of about 2 billion people, in military terms that includes 4 nuclear weapons states. We'd give China quite a scare.