Article

2005-11-17 China-Japan-Koreas

Chinese build a high-tech army within an army

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-11-17 13:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Shi, who spends most of his time working on an "informational" revolution that planners hope will one day allow them to "see" a battlefield with the same depth as the US military.

Won't make a bit of difference. The Americans do this so that they can support the guy on the end of the bayonet. They give the authority to act to the sergeant on the ground kicking in the door. The Chinese are doing this because they think it will allow them to micro-manage the battlefield. Its all cultural. Their sergeant will be just waiting to be ordered what to do next like a thousand other ones. That's when the system collapses. Too many decision points, too faster overwhelm the decision makers at the higher level trying to extend their personal control on the battlefield. Its the nature of the beast. You think the ComChi's are going to give thousands of sergeants authority? Heh.

Posted by Snineper Hupereck1825 2005-11-17 16:10|| 2005-11-17 16:10|| Front Page Top

#2 Article: "We [the US] spend $400 billion on defense. We don't have the right to decide other nations' threats," commented a career defense official in Washington.

I guess this must be CSM's pet liberal in the Pentagon talking. Other countries routinely criticize us for having a presence in their region, despite the fact that we've never attacked a country that didn't threaten American interests. What Rumsfeld said about the Chinese is no different from what the Chinese are saying about the US.

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-17 20:08|| 2005-11-17 20:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Article: Historically, in fact, China is not an aggressor. It rarely attacks.

CSM is peddling an academic shibboleth that happens to be patently untrue. You do not become the third largest country in the world by not being an aggressor. Besides, in the past 60 years alone, China has initiated border conflicts with India, the Soviet Union, Vietnam and the Philippines, not to mention attacked Korea right as UN forces were about to unify all of it.

If China is not an aggressor, the Ottoman and Spanish empires weren't aggressors either, since they spent most of the last 2 centuries falling apart. But how did those empires get built? China acquired Tibet in the 20th century - a territory that is fully 1/6 of total Chinese land holdings - but China is not an aggressor? Gimme a break.

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-17 20:19|| 2005-11-17 20:19|| Front Page Top

#4 It has devoted huge amounts of capital, thanks to a staqggering US trade deficit to create a small high-tech army using students educated in the US within its old 2.2 million-member rifle and shoe-leather force

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-17 20:24|| 2005-11-17 20:24|| Front Page Top

#5 besoeker: It has devoted huge amounts of capital, thanks to a staqggering US trade deficit to create a small high-tech army using students educated in the US within its old 2.2 million-member rifle and shoe-leather force

China developed its A-bomb and ballistic missiles before the era of Chinese trade surpluses. China is a more or less self-sufficient continental-sized power like Russia. Even if a US embargo were still in place, China would be developing its military rapidly - it is essentially a political rather than an economic decision. The key to rapid Chinese growth in recent years has been the government's abandonment of communist economic principles, combined with relative Chinese backwardness compared to its East Asian neighbors. American imports of Chinese goods have been important, but not essential to Chinese economic growth.

Bright Chinese college graduates don't join the Chinese military - in China, they are considered dead end jobs that pay very little - unless they're connected, in which case the opportunities for graft are quite lucrative. But corrupt recruits who get in via nepotism don't exactly help China build a modern military, do they? As to US-educated Chinese college grads, the vast majority of them stay in the US. The minority who return to China certainly wouldn't do anything as gauche as join the military, where a lifetime's pay wouldn't earn back the cost of their expensive foreign educations.

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-17 22:07|| 2005-11-17 22:07|| Front Page Top

#6 self-sufficient huh? What's with teh purchasing of steel, concrete, and oil in such huge quantities abroad? a head fake? Jeebus

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-17 22:43|| 2005-11-17 22:43|| Front Page Top

23:58 Zenster
23:44 Dave D.
23:16 Frank G
23:12 Jackal
23:10 Jackal
23:07 Jackal
23:07 Captain America
23:06 Slineting Jutch7676
23:04 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:57 Bomb-a-rama
22:57 badanov
22:55 badanov
22:43 Frank G
22:40 Eric Jablow
22:35 Atomic Conspiracy
22:33 Alaska Paul
22:26 Frank G
22:24 Atomic Conspiracy
22:23 Dirty Harry
22:20 Frank G
22:18 Frank G
22:10 anymouse
22:07 Elmenter Snineque1852
22:05 John Q. Citizen