| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| China’s war without rules |
| 2004-07-01 |
| By Ming Zhang If China should engage in warfare sometime in the future, should it employ Western methods of war and should it be bound by Western "rules of war"? The highly provocative answer from two Chinese military officers is "no." In the 1990s, high-tech weapons seem to have reshaped the way wars will be fought in the future. The Gulf War in 1991 against Iraq and NATO’s air war earlier this year against Serbia demonstrated the power of a new generation of Western weaponry and theory. Western methods of war—often called the "Revolution in Military Affairs"—seem to have triumphed. But two senior Chinese air force colonels are not so sure. In early 1996, Qiao Liang and Wang Xianghui participated in the massive Chinese military exercises aimed at intimidating Taiwan during the runup to that island’s first presidential elections. In turn, the exercises prompted the United States to send two aircraft carrier groups to the area as a demonstration of military might. Later, the colonels met in a small town in southeastern China’s Fujian Province and pondered China’s military weakness compared to the United States. How could China defend itself against a nation that powerful—if it ever needed to? The result: a co-authored book, Chao Xian Zhan: Dui Quanqiu Hua Shidai Zhanzheng yu Zhanfa de Xiangding (Warfare Beyond Rules: Judgment of War and Methods of War in the Era of Globalization), published by the People’s Liberation Army Art Press in February. The central premise: If China ever has to defend itself, it should be prepared to conduct "warfare beyond all boundaries and limitations." The existing rules of war, according to Qiao and Wang, include a body of international laws and agreements developed over the decades by Western powers. As for methods of war, there is a kind of worship in much of the developed world of high technology and new weapons, areas in which the United States has a clear lead. But what is "right" for the United States, the authors say, may not be appropriate for China. Rest at the link |
| Posted by:Anonymous5089 |
| #23 Some of the assumptions of this pre-9/11 book would have read better in the 90's. The U.S. has demonstrated it still has a bit of "will." Many of the elements of A-symmetric warfare work best if you are invaded. If there is a Pentagon plan for an invasion of China, I would expect that it is pretty dusty. We might free Tibet or portions of "occupied China," but why would a bunch of imperialists like us want China if we decided not to make Iraq our 51st state. The Golden Dragon has a decent Mongolian barbeque. They can asymmetrically build a pyramid with their rubble, if they decide that they want a piece of us. I bet the book flies of the shelves of the Border Books in Pyongyang. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-07-02 12:22:15 AM |
| #22 Awright! Grown my own "stuff" too! I do buy the rake, matches, and rolling papers, but By Gawd the rest I do myownself! Lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-01 11:29:34 PM |
| #21 agreed Jen - and if I smoke, I roll my own, dammit |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-01 11:14:05 PM |
| #20 re: AK and anti-smoking: I can take care of my own health, thank you, without any intervention of the Nanny Police State! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-01 11:01:18 PM |
| #19 This is not a revolutionary work. It's a book by a couple of Colonels looking for accolades. American Colonels write much the same type of book. |
| Posted by: gromky 2004-07-01 10:57:13 PM |
| #18 "The anti-smoking campaign is another example of a well-fought guerilla war." The only war in the history of civilisation with the intention of making the enemy healthier. :-) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-01 10:53:57 PM |
| #17 Zenster, go tell it to Wall Street. And that I do, Edward. I shop at WalMart less than once a year and do my best to avoid purchasing Chinese goods whenever possible. It's too bad that so few Americans have the wits to realize the heavy costs attatched to WalMart's low price tags. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-07-01 9:24:24 PM |
| #16 If you mean that much of this is sensationalized, Mr. TowninWestVirginia, you're probably right. Not to worry - something else odd and icky will divert the MSM's attention soon enough. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-07-01 7:43:49 PM |
| #15 Wow! China is even scarier than Japan, which was scarier than the USSR which was scarier than the Nazis! No way we can defeat the yellow peril! Unless of course we do... but hell that don't sell papers. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-01 6:07:30 PM |
| #14 The idea is to strike in unexpected ways against vulnerable targets. A true revolution in war, the authors say, combines conventional with non-war actions; military with non-military actions. Which is not all that surprising, when one gets into that mode of thought. For example, the Japanese were able to eventually dominate the automobile industry by identifying a weakness and exploiting it. The anti-smoking campaign is another example of a well-fought guerilla war. Similarly, it becomes very hard or costly to change or remove something once it has become so interwoven into an infrastructure (Windows or Wal-Mart, anyone?). None of this is new. It's that few actually think large enough to combine all the elements into a strategy. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-07-01 5:53:44 PM |
| #13 "non-military war action." ...could also mean they'll stop exporting crap to us. I wonder if they think all the sporting ammo they ship is what sustains our military? |
| Posted by: Tobacconist 2004-07-01 5:38:27 PM |
| #12 Zenster, go tell it to Wall Street. :( However, I concede them one point: The driving force behind the costly U.S. weapon programs and its strategic thought is the notion of "zero casualties," the authors say. The United States balances its strategic goals against the possibility that it might have casualties in achieving them. The United States is increasingly unwilling to risk lives to achieve its goals. That is a mistake, the authors assert ... Someone's been watching our national media :-& |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2004-07-01 5:34:35 PM |
| #11 Interesting when all of these chinese military theorists talk about unconventional war they forget (as I mentioned in an above message) about the three gorges dam. Even if we don't hit it, there are other nations in the area that would have enough capability to take it out with horrible consequences for the chinese. |
| Posted by: Chemist 2004-07-01 5:00:55 PM |
| #10 Some excerpts: The driving force behind the costly U.S. weapon programs and its strategic thought is the notion of "zero casualties," the authors say. The United States balances its strategic goals against the possibility that it might have casualties in achieving them. The United States is increasingly unwilling to risk lives to achieve its goals. That is a mistake, the authors assert ... This is the fundamental flaw in Chinese military doctrine. In order to obtain the very highest loyalty from your fighting forces, commanders must demonstrate ultimate concern for their welfare. Chinese troops know that they are regarded as cannon fodder and will fight accordingly. America's military doctrine of independently thinking soldiers will never be outshone by any sort of dictatorial or totalitarian system. This translates into greater battlefield autonomy and less reliance upon prescribed procedures. That China still exhibits a dynastic attitude towards those expected to give up their lives for it is clear proof how nothing has changed since the communist era. But the colonels insist that there is still no complete "revolution" in U.S. military thought, because U.S. theory lacks the concept of "non-military war action." When contrasting "non-military war action" with "non-war military action," the authors are not merely playing a language game. Rather, the term attempts to expand the definition of warfare beyond commonly accepted bounds ... A thinly veiled hint at terrorism. That's all. Geographical security is an outdated concept, the authors argue, because threats to national security may not come from cross-border invasion, but from non-military actions. Definitions of security must now include geographical, political, economic, resource, religious, cultural, data, environmental, and near-earth space security ... And this should include China's proliferation of nuclear technology to Iran. This blatant attempt at destabilizing areas of external regional conflict so as to distract or deplete an opponent's military capacity needs to be seen for what it is. North Korea has already been bred up into a snarling regional menace, yet China seemingly pays no price for this. Beyond Rules emphasizes "asymmetric warfare"—for instance, guerrilla war (mostly urban), terrorist actions, and cyber attacks against data networks. The idea is to strike in unexpected ways against vulnerable targets. A true revolution in war, the authors say, combines conventional with non-war actions; military with non-military actions. "War" may include a blend of stealth planes and cruise missiles along with biochemical, financial, and terrorist attacks ... Here they freely admit terrorism into the complement of strategic assets. Although Beyond Rules is not official policy, some of the extreme methods recommended in it will cause outsiders to worry about China's commitment to the ban on chemical and biological weapons. Yet, the book does not advocate an expansionist policy for China. Although the means suggested in the book are more aggressive than the international norm, they would be employed only in national defense ... "Yet, the book does not advocate an expansionist policy for China." HORSESH!T. This sort of "total war" mentality is only designed for aggressive assault. You don't use bio-chem weapons to defend your own turf. Have the authors of Beyond Rules gone too far? Or is the book a way of suggesting that the United States has already gone too far down the road of military dominance? It cannot be helped if the politburo's Mandarins have finally realized how ineffectual their outdated and primative mechanized armaments are. As with Japan several decades ago, unable to obtain military ascendancy China seeks to gain economic primacy and thereby dictate global events. America and all other nations need to question the wisdom of financing China's imperialistic dreams. China's economic house of cards is about to collapse in a big way. It would be far better for other countries to quietly back away from the pyre that will consume this bloated and corrupt behemoth. Overwhelming bad bank debt, a massive AIDS epidemic, growing social unrest and a public which is increasingly unwilling to be steered away from Western style quality of living all signify major changes to come. Those nations who inextricably tangle their fortunes with China's own fateful and long overdue economic plunge will be in for a rude awakening. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-07-01 4:19:39 PM |
| #9 Mexican labor is expensive in dollar terms compared to China. So is Philippine labor, Malaysian labor, Thai labor, etc. This is mainly due to relatively underpriced Chinese currency and relatively high productivity. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2004-07-01 3:37:23 PM |
| #8 Zhang, you're forgetting that do to productivity gains man hours are becoming less and less of the cost of goods formula and shipping is becoming more and more relevant. As productivity increases the number of goods this holds true for increases. It is already true for cars and every day the product categories grow. Shipping is becoming the most expensive piece of the puzzle which is very bad for China. Also, in addition to the base shipping costs there is a markup to ship to America since we have a trade imbalance. It costs more to ship to America than to ship from America since we have so many ships leaving empty from our harbors due to our imports greatly outpacing our exports (except for services which obviously aren't shipped). |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-01 1:18:51 PM |
| #7 yank: When will US companies start building factories in Mexico to produce the rinky-dink garbage that is currently made in China. There has to be a savings in shipping and from being within NAFTA that would offset whatever advantages there is to building in China. And if there are more jobs in Mexico less Mexicans will seek jobs in America. Not going to happen. The average hourly wage for Mexican employees in the manufacturing sector is $4.80 an hour. The average Chinese employee works 10-hour days, excluding breaks, six days a week with Sundays off, for 500 yuan, which translates (assuming 25-work days a month) to 20 yuan a day, or 2 yuan per hour. The exchange rate is $0.125 per yuan. This means the average Chinese worker makes 25 cents per hour compared to the average Mexican's $4.80 per hour. This is why China is sucking in the world's manufacturing jobs, because China is dirt-poor - one of the poorest countries in the world. The Chinese workers who toil at foreign plants are the lucky ones - many have no work at all or make 5 cents per hour working for domestic firms. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-01 12:02:02 PM |
| #6 When will US companies start building factories in Mexico to produce the rinky-dink garbage that is currently made in China. Can't set up something workable in Mexico when half the damned population keeps trying to scale the fence in order to get in here. And if there are more jobs in Mexico less Mexicans will seek jobs in America. Can't count on that. A job in the U.S. likely pays better than a job in a Mexican factory would, and in general, everything in the U.S. is in better condition; infrastructure, services, etc. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-01 11:51:17 AM |
| #5 When will US companies start building factories in Mexico to produce the rinky-dink garbage that is currently made in China. There has to be a savings in shipping and from being within NAFTA that would offset whatever advantages there is to building in China. And if there are more jobs in Mexico less Mexicans will seek jobs in America. |
| Posted by: yank 2004-07-01 11:41:56 AM |
| #4 These guys are basically vacuuming up work by Western authors, adding a tint of Chinese conspiracy theory and wishful thinking, and passing it off as a revolutionary work. Conspiracy-minded Chinese view multilateral frameworks as part of a plan for American supremacy rather than the concessions to world opinion (i.e. America's enemies) that they are. They view asymmetrical warfare as something new and revolutionary when it is the product of wishful thinking. The fact that asymmetrical warfare is a loser's strategy is why Chinese troops are equipped with modern Western-designed weaponry rather than leather armor, the bows and arrows, swords, halberds, ballista and junks of their forebears. New weaponry isn't casually adopted by any military - there is significant institutional opposition to abandoning weapons systems that are known to work for Buck Rogers gear of doubtful reliability. When the US military adopts a weapons system, it undergoes continual testing in real-world situations until it breaks. Congressmen are not known to be patient with defense contractors who make balky toys that kill their constituents. The contention of Chinese writers that American weapons systems are fragile is just a load of horse puckey. If this were the case, they wouldn't spend so much time and money trying to steal the technology from American research facilities. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-01 11:32:41 AM |
| #3 ..should it be bound by Western "rules of war"? The highly provocative answer from two Chinese military officers is "no." If they want to take the gloves off, that's not a problem. The simple solution to their messy little idea of "warfare beyond all boundaries and limitations" would be to simply vaporize them all and let God sort 'em out, which works for me. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-01 11:20:46 AM |
| #2 *reads* I wonder when they will get a clue and realize that when(keyword) the rules are followed, they are followed because failing to do so.. has the potential to result in interesting side effects |
| Posted by: Dcreeper 2004-07-01 10:58:58 AM |
| #1 Funny, I still feel hungry even after reading the whole thing. The two Chinese colonels wonder if perhaps the US might collapse a la the USSR, unable to bear the economic burden of its military prowess. Uh, methinks that as economists these guys are great defense strategists. If Wal-Mart loses any more of its local zoning fights in the LA basin, that alone will measurably decrease China's GNP and lead to cuts in the Chinese defense budget. Overall their analysis seems very superficial and completely ignores the key to American military success and might: innovation, adaptation, initiative. The same things that make America so rich and provide the resources for a $2B B-2 bomber are what make the American military so effective. Coincidentally it's the same thing that makes the Shanghai skyline unrecognizable from 10 years ago. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-07-01 10:54:31 AM |