China's new destroyers: 'Power, prestige and majesty'

[Cybernetics]

Definitely.

The key concept here is "fighting wars elsewhere." This is obviously what China aims at.

Without a truly blue water navy, that's impossible.

Of course, major countries like US will not be affected much as they also have power projection ability. For them, nuclear second strike capability is enough.

That's why Russia keeps humiliating the US globally and nothing happens.

Kudos to Chairman Mao for making China a nuclear nation. He said, "To be anti atomic weapon, we first need to have it."

There is a difference between peace and security.

• Peace means the absence of war or conflict. Pursuing the path of peace is seeking to avoid war and conflict.
• Security means one is free from harm or path of least harm to your life, interests, etc.

The two can overlap but the overlap is transient in the greater scheme of things. Since security concerns are usually addressed by measures that take a long time to develop, they should still hold importance in all matters of state affairs during fluctuation between peace and war.

"The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety o to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected."- Sun Tzu 这就是古人的智慧

Since reforms began, more emphasis was put on peace within some intellectual circles (hawks never changed) and this notion got stronger over time, now we are seeing a reversal where security is more valued.

People all around the world had been told the narrative of pursuing peace because war brings destruction, suffering and reversal of development. While true in some scenarios, such a narrow understanding of the world will bring about greater destruction, suffering, and reversal of development in the long term if history is the lens we look from. From the view point of peace, war is counter to your objective. While from the view point of security, war is just another measure or tool to achieve greater security. War may not always be the best option but sometimes it is. In reality nations rarely follow the narrative of peace because ultimately no one wants peace, people want security.

In terms of security, Mao was a visionary and an inflection point in Chinese history. In June 1950 China concluded the major campaign of the civil war (minor conflicts continued) and concluded nearly continuous major conflicts on the mainland often perpetuated by outside forces since the first Opium War in 1839, ending more than a century of war in China. Should China have stayed out of the Korean war and rebuild to pursue peace or plunge into another major conflict? Had China not participated in the Korean war, the century of warfare would have continued and brought even greater destruction. There wouldn't have been the option of economic development and reform, at least results wouldn't be like what it is today. The security damage on China and the Chinese people if the war was not fought would have been devastating. Our elders bit the bullet to make our current lifestyle, health, and piece of mind possible.

Not to go into too much detail but every time security was perused and the optimal choice was war, the result was ultimately positive (sacrifices were made and often costs were heavy). Every time peace was perused and war occurred, the result was negative (long term costs were even higher). The war doesn't need to be won in a classical sense every time but achieving security objectives is vital.

I think for a major nation like China, pursuing peace is utter stupidity. A leadership that isn't concerned about the security of 1.4 billion people is an useless one, I don't care what hippies and "intellectuals" say. Luckily currently China is not in that state. Security is not just about military and weapons, but how its used along with other elements that improve security. Another aspect of security is that within every setup there are inflection points where more investment into the model creates diminishing returns and there is no absolute security, only improved security.

The cascading effects of China's strategic projection is that more neighbouring nations would lean more towards China because they want to gain security (there are economic implications as well). This is both due to the realization that they could acquire strategic assistance and desire to avoid being the "no man's land" between two rivalling powers which in many cases would be the flash point of a potential conflict.

As cold as this sounds, from the perspective of the nation, even a few thousand soldiers dying in a conflict is not a tragedy (even if its every year), more people die from car crashes every year or from work place accidents part of a normal economy. Of course the soldiers have superb character and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for others but their selflessness is for the purpose of sustaining the life of the nation. It is unfortunate that such model citizens die but we must understand the bigger picture. What is a tragedy is allowing the degradation of the nation's interests, security, and well being. If one cares about lives, many fold more people would die (including the soldiers themselves) as a result of neglect to security than fighting necessary wars overseas. If you care about living with dignity or care about those living around you living with dignity, either you or someone else must make the ultimate sacrifice.

 

[Jlaw]

There is a difference between peace and security.

• Peace means the absence of war or conflict. Pursuing the path of peace is seeking to avoid war and conflict.
• Security means one is free from harm or path of least harm to your life, interests, etc.

The two can overlap but the overlap is transient in the greater scheme of things. Since security concerns are usually addressed by measures that take a long time to develop, they should still hold importance in all matters of state affairs during fluctuation between peace and war.

"The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety o to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected."- Sun Tzu 这就是古人的智慧

Since reforms began, more emphasis was put on peace within some intellectual circles (hawks never changed) and this notion got stronger over time, now we are seeing a reversal where security is more valued.

People all around the world had been told the narrative of pursuing peace because war brings destruction, suffering and reversal of development. While true in some scenarios, such a narrow understanding of the world will bring about greater destruction, suffering, and reversal of development in the long term if history is the lens we look from. From the view point of peace, war is counter to your objective. While from the view point of security, war is just another measure or tool to achieve greater security. War may not always be the best option but sometimes it is. In reality nations rarely follow the narrative of peace because ultimately no one wants peace, people want security.

In terms of security, Mao was a visionary and an inflection point in Chinese history. In June 1950 China concluded the major campaign of the civil war (minor conflicts continued) and concluded nearly continuous major conflicts on the mainland often perpetuated by outside forces since the first Opium War in 1839, ending more than a century of war in China. Should China have stayed out of the Korean war and rebuild to pursue peace or plunge into another major conflict? Had China not participated in the Korean war, the century of warfare would have continued and brought even greater destruction. There wouldn't have been the option of economic development and reform, at least results wouldn't be like what it is today. The security damage on China and the Chinese people if the war was not fought would have been devastating. Our elders bit the bullet to make our current lifestyle, health, and piece of mind possible.

Not to go into too much detail but every time security was perused and the optimal choice was war, the result was ultimately positive (sacrifices were made and often costs were heavy). Every time peace was perused and war occurred, the result was negative (long term costs were even higher). The war doesn't need to be won in a classical sense every time but achieving security objectives is vital.

I think for a major nation like China, pursuing peace is utter stupidity. A leadership that isn't concerned about the security of 1.4 billion people is an useless one, I don't care what hippies and "intellectuals" say. Luckily currently China is not in that state. Security is not just about military and weapons, but how its used along with other elements that improve security. Another aspect of security is that within every setup there are inflection points where more investment into the model creates diminishing returns and there is no absolute security, only improved security.

The cascading effects of China's strategic projection is that more neighbouring nations would lean more towards China because they want to gain security (there are economic implications as well). This is both due to the realization that they could acquire strategic assistance and desire to avoid being the "no man's land" between two rivalling powers which in many cases would be the flash point of a potential conflict.

As cold as this sounds, from the perspective of the nation, even a few thousand soldiers dying in a conflict is not a tragedy (even if its every year), more people die from car crashes every year or from work place accidents part of a normal economy. Of course the soldiers have superb character and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for others but their selflessness is for the purpose of sustaining the life of the nation. It is unfortunate that such model citizens die but we must understand the bigger picture. What is a tragedy is allowing the degradation of the nation's interests, security, and well being. If one cares about lives, many fold more people would die (including the soldiers themselves) as a result of neglect to security than fighting necessary wars overseas. If you care about living with dignity or care about those living around you living with dignity, either you or someone else must make the ultimate sacrifice.

Yes, Chinese leaders are dumb to want peace over security. In the west peace can only be achieved through war.
Chinese leaders must build a military that can bring the fight to someone else's land not in China.