The Foreign Policy Essay: Why China Will Become a Global Military Power

[Genesis]

Now now, let's not be too over-critical, my dear. China's CPC has made it known that it claims the South China Sea as its own. We know that many of the islands and shoals in that region are either controlled or inhabitted by various powers -- for example, Vietnam has administrative control of most of those islands, while the Philippines, Brunei and even Malaysia have administrative control over various other islands that China claims. Please refer to image #1:

If there's one thing I learnt from the Americans is it doesn't matter what the other thinks, I'll do my thing, stop me or deal with it.

Why should we compromise, let say we drop all claims, the Philippines and Vietnam will still claim those area as theirs. Which means what ever inconvenience it may have had on America will now be on China. Nobody ever seems to discuss what would happen if China did drop these claims, and hwo ridicules their claims are as well.

By dropping our claims, we would effectively back ourselves into a corner and severely limit our ability to project power, protect interests, and even conduct trade and military operations.

View attachment 184776
Image #1: list of islands effectively administered by China, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam.

Clearly China will not abrogate its claims now because doing so would weaken the national mandate of the CPC in leiu of the national image. At the same time you cannot expect Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam to abandon their shoals and islands which they already effectively administer -- outside the point of gun. Now can you ? So what can the region do? What can China do?

We don't care what the others do, we care what we do, continue the expansion of our navy and operation capability, continue to use the Gangis Khan strategy of encirclement, and move our interests into Indian Ocean and Africa, then turn back and start another front on the other side.

The difference will only be bigger not less, I'm sure you would agree on this point, not that the difference isn't enough now.

As you said national image is important, Philippines, if they win the tribunal will want to cash in, we will simply bait them, and even if we dont' get them here, we'll get them sometime, as long as we don't fire the first shot, we will have the initiative, and since we don't send warships, we will.

We don't have to turn it in our favor, just make it murky and questionable is good enough.

Well, if Sino-Japanese inter-ADIZ dynamic can shed some semblance of understanding on the possible solution to tihs is this --- differences in claims are natural and normal , but systems should be set in place either in the case of a maritime hotline to effectively reduce the instance of flare ups or -- at least have the mechanism in place to implement damage control in the event of an unforeseeable circumstance. You know -- as well as I do -- that Japan and China have ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zones) that crosses each other, yet at the same time there have been -- ZERO (0%) instance of shooting or military related deaths between the Japanese Air Self Defense Force and the People's Liberation Army Air Force. Why is this? Please refer to Image #2. Its because of responsible inter-governmental-based military to military communication mechanisms set in place. I believe the same thing can be implemented in South China Sea and in the greater ASEAN region.


View attachment 184777
Image #2: The Japanese and Chines ADIZ, note their cross-over.

Japan doesn't have anything to prove, China at this point don't need to prove much, at least not against ASEAN.

That's more than can be said for the others. ASEAN has a knack of shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by their current state of affairs. I have confidence in them to make some sort of bone headed play. If nothing else, we have an entire playbook to work with, but for them, it's like they are playing against the Legion of Boom, and the long ball is gone, and their quarterback isn't Rodgers, but more like Geno Smith.

 

[Aepsilons]

If there's one thing I learnt from the Americans is it doesn't matter what the other thinks, I'll do my thing, stop me or deal with it.

Why should we compromise, let say we drop all claims, the Philippines and Vietnam will still claim those area as theirs. Which means what ever inconvenience it may have had on America will now be on China. Nobody ever seems to discuss what would happen if China did drop these claims, and hwo ridicules their claims are as well.

By dropping our claims, we would effectively back ourselves into a corner and severely limit our ability to project power, protect interests, and even conduct trade and military operations.

I wouldn't expect the Chinese side to back-up from their claim nor would I want them to. Come on, we are students of politics and history here and know that there is art to Diplomacy. Having differences in territoriality isn't a barrier, on the contrary, I believe that differences can present opportunities for nations to work on their present communication channels , and present areas that can be improved upon. The intergovernmental channels between China and the nations it has qualms with in the South China Sea is limited -- it is not as robust and comprehensive as the ones between Japan and China. And I believe there are opportunities here for both your side and theirs (Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam).

We don't have to to always approach issues with such zero-sum mentality.

Japan doesn't have anything to prove, China at this point don't need to prove much, at least not against ASEAN.

That's more than can be said for the others. ASEAN has a knack of shooting themselves in the foot, as proven by their current state of affairs. I have confidence in them to make some sort of bone headed play. If nothing else, we have an entire playbook to work with, but for them, it's like they are playing against the Legion of Boom, and the long ball is gone, and their quarterback isn't Rodgers, but more like Geno Smith.

On the contrary. I believe and I know (as what many other researchers) that China has a lot to prove -- prove to the world namely its immediate neighbors who are equally joined to China's growth and the dynamism of Asia-Pacific as a whole. China's economic vibrancy as seen in the lens of the AIIB aperture allows us to appreciate how China is providing not only economic cooperation with development economies, but this vibrancy and relationship China is fostering with partners is a DIRECT result of sound non-confrontational , non-interventionalist policies that Beijing has emphasized upon these past 3-4 decades. Confidence on China as a responsible ascendant power is based on her actions and policies with neighboring powers.

The integrative nature of Japan and China (whose economies combined is over $15 Trillion) provides global reassurance of stability. China's recent forays to deal with Vietnamese through bilateral talks is also a manifestation of that maturation of power projection. China, afterall, did not sink or engage any Vietnamese naval ships during last year's Oil Rig debacle -- did it ? There was no war. China removed the rig, Vietnam -- unfortunately stormed international investor hubs -- but at the same time war and gun boat diplomacy was negated. Why did China pursue a non-confrontational policy -- in the end ? To preserve its image, and to preserve confidence the world has on China's 'Peaceful Rise'. As much as a I am a vehement Japanese Nationalist , I am also an admirer of Chinese strategic play.

Come now, from observing China's recent implementation of a Free Trade Agreement with Australia (a major US non-Nato Ally), to the developing ties Beijing has with South Korea that finally culminated into the 2014 China-South Korea Free Trade Agreement , to the recent warming relations between Japan and China through the bilateral agreement of the 4 Point Proposal. Also shall I even note China's own role in the 2002 Declaration of Code of Conduct in the South China Seas -- to which she remains a proponent for a binding treaty thereof to this day?

Thus , my dear @Genesis , the policies and procedures that China has adopted recently point towards our assessment that recognizes China (or at least the Chinese Government's) heeding and considering international assessment to its national agenda.



Kind Regards,
@Nihonjin1051

it's like they are playing against the Legion of Boom, and the long ball is gone, and their quarterback isn't Rodgers, but more like Geno Smith.

LOL !

Brah, ya need to chillz on dem ..naww what i mean?

 

[gambit]

China may have had the claim since the 40s, but China never made a serious effort to press it until you Americans humiliated us.

You may think us hitting your spy plane back in the 90s was aggressive to you, but looking at it from our perspective, you made us lose a pilot, putting carriers into the Taiwan strait to intimidate us, and stopping our shipment to Iran simply because you think we had something in there.

You can take that however you like, but the fact of the matter is that's how we felt, and looking at US history, that's exactly how you would also feel.

Is that a good enough reason to claim all of SCS? That's not up to you to decide.

Buddy, my story that I had a hot and heavy date with Miss Universe 2014 Gabriela Isler, complete with stained sheets in a penthouse suite at the Mirage resort in Las Vegas, got more substance than China's claim to the SCS. By the way, Ms. Isler was a virgin.

We are saying No to the US, but controlling this body of water is no indication of stopping freedom of navigation, as our see traffic even exceed yours, but even without this you cannot just say that's what we will do, the only thing you can say is that we will not allow US military presence there. That's only bad in your perspective, but actually has little impact on others.

Unless you are to assume China will be unreasonable in our actions, however that again is just your opinion.

You have no basis to say we will be like that, nobody does.

Indication ? No. But tacit to any control is the potential for denial. That is as obvious as there are men-only villages in your China.

The US is able to have a presence in just about every spot of the world's oceans thanks to our wealth that helped created the US Navy. We did it not because we want to control the oceans, that is simply not possible, but because we believe in the idea that the world's oceans, which includes many waterways, must be free of control by any country. Not merely should be, because 'should' implies a form of consensus, but MUST because of history where smaller and weaker countries were either conquered or became submissive to greater powers from being denied access to the seas. Look at the Cuban Missile Crisis for example of that denial.

While China will not be able to station ships within line of sight of each other to form a sea border of the SCS, China can do what the US does to the world's oceans, just on a smaller scale. China's wealth will be able to expand the PLAN to where her ships will be able to have 24/7/365 patrol presence throughout the region. Freedom of navigation mean ships must also be able to calculate and navigate the shortest possible routes, with consideration to traffic safety, in order to save money and time. With control of the SCS, China can claim to be magnanimous and allow passage but can also demand ships to obey traffic as China dictate due to 'national security' concerns. I am an Air Force guy and I can recognize that, so how about seasoned sailors ?

The US will not allow China to control the SCS. Fools on this forum may bring up China's intimidation of the Viets or the Phis as signs of US weaknesses but their stupidity have no effects on policy makers, whose opinions at this moment are about restraint. But WHEN, not if, the US Navy is ordered to keep the SCS free of Chinese control, and if China refuses to acknowledge the modern world as it is, the PLAN will cease to be a significant military factor in Asia. PLAN ships WILL become marine sanctuaries and recreational divers' tourism hot spots.

 

[Steakhouse]

Buddy, my story that I had a hot and heavy date with Miss Universe 2014 Gabriela Isler, complete with stained sheets in a penthouse suite at the Mirage resort in Las Vegas, got more substance than China's claim to the SCS. By the way, Ms. Isler was a virgin.


Indication ? No. But tacit to any control is the potential for denial. That is as obvious as there are men-only villages in your China.

The US is able to have a presence in just about every spot of the world's oceans thanks to our wealth that helped created the US Navy. We did it not because we want to control the oceans, that is simply not possible, but because we believe in the idea that the world's oceans, which includes many waterways, must be free of control by any country. Not merely should be, because 'should' implies a form of consensus, but MUST because of history where smaller and weaker countries were either conquered or became submissive to greater powers from being denied access to the seas. Look at the Cuban Missile Crisis for example of that denial.

While China will not be able to station ships within line of sight of each other to form a sea border of the SCS, China can do what the US does to the world's oceans, just on a smaller scale. China's wealth will be able to expand the PLAN to where her ships will be able to have 24/7/365 patrol presence throughout the region. Freedom of navigation mean ships must also be able to calculate and navigate the shortest possible routes, with consideration to traffic safety, in order to save money and time. With control of the SCS, China can claim to be magnanimous and allow passage but can also demand ships to obey traffic as China dictate due to 'national security' concerns. I am an Air Force guy and I can recognize that, so how about seasoned sailors ?

The US will not allow China to control the SCS. Fools on this forum may bring up China's intimidation of the Viets or the Phis as signs of US weaknesses but their stupidity have no effects on policy makers, whose opinions at this moment are about restraint. But WHEN, not if, the US Navy is ordered to keep the SCS free of Chinese control, and if China refuses to acknowledge the modern world as it is, the PLAN will cease to be a significant military factor in Asia. PLAN ships WILL become marine sanctuaries and recreational divers' tourism hot spots.

For now China still lacking the power punch to seriously inflict major damage to USN in SCS. All China need 5 to 7 yrs time frame for the formation of 3 PLAN carrier group and those newly completed military installment on the artificial island, China will pack a serious air power along with their naval force to confront USN in SCS. China military modernization concentrate mostly to match USN power in SCS. With China fight a naval battles close and near China water, China force multiply within the zone of the conflict will overwhelm 1 or 2 USN battle group. Quantity of China firepower will give China a major advantage, fighting in a open sea where both sides field equal capacity or China slightly weaker in advance military equipment, China can compensate high number of equipment for the lesser quality equipment compare to the USN. USN haven't fought a major naval war in the last 73 yrs, can't say USN had the naval combat advantage over PLAN but USN had many yrs experience on the operational of the aircraft carrier task force that nonstop launching aircraft will tilt the fight to USN favor. 5 yrs from now USN will meet their match against PLAN in SCS.

 

[gambit]

For now China still lacking the power punch to seriously inflict major damage to USN in SCS. All China need 5 to 7 yrs time frame for the formation of 3 PLAN carrier group and those newly completed military installment on the artificial island, China will pack a serious air power along with their naval force to confront USN in SCS. China military modernization concentrate mostly to match USN power in SCS. With China fight a naval battles close and near China water, China force multiply within the zone of the conflict will overwhelm 1 or 2 USN battle group. Quantity of China firepower will give China a major advantage, fighting in a open sea where both sides field equal capacity or China slightly weaker in advance military equipment, China can compensate high number of equipment for the lesser quality equipment compare to the USN. USN haven't fought a major naval war in the last 73 yrs, can't say USN had the naval combat advantage over PLAN but USN had many yrs experience on the operational of the aircraft carrier task force that nonstop launching aircraft will tilt the fight to USN favor. 5 yrs from now USN will meet their match against PLAN in SCS.

You got that 'analysis', and I use that word generously, probably from a pro-China forum where the admin staff actively remove any comment that may have even a tinge of 'pro-US' content.

It take the US at least 5 yrs to construct a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Granted, what China want may not be such ship, so let us be generous and say 3-4 yrs for something smaller but still larger than a helo carrier. Three to four yrs of construction seems reasonable. It will also require roughly the same amount of time to train crews -- plural -- per ship. You must have replacement for individuals who may be removed from carrier duty, anything from injuries to disciplinary problems. The training must be continuous and as varying as possible. Meaning one week in calm weather, the next week in high sea states. The training must also be as realistic to combat conditions as possible. Meaning inspectors must be allowed to 'kill' members of the crew, simulating combat casualties, to force the remaining members to compensate for decreased manpower. The list of training items is long and no one is better at such than US.

Do you really think that the PLAN can take on the US Navy in 5 yrs time just because China can build ships ? Of course you can, because you have been exposed to nothing but pro-China opinions that have no contributions from those who actually have military experience.

 

[Steakhouse]

You got that 'analysis', and I use that word generously, probably from a pro-China forum where the admin staff actively remove any comment that may have even a tinge of 'pro-US' content.

It take the US at least 5 yrs to construct a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Granted, what China want may not be such ship, so let us be generous and say 3-4 yrs for something smaller but still larger than a helo carrier. Three to four yrs of construction seems reasonable. It will also require roughly the same amount of time to train crews -- plural -- per ship. You must have replacement for individuals who may be removed from carrier duty, anything from injuries to disciplinary problems. The training must be continuous and as varying as possible. Meaning one week in calm weather, the next week in high sea states. The training must also be as realistic to combat conditions as possible. Meaning inspectors must be allowed to 'kill' members of the crew, simulating combat casualties, to force the remaining members to compensate for decreased manpower. The list of training items is long and no one is better at such than US.

Do you really think that the PLAN can take on the US Navy in 5 yrs time just because China can build ships ? Of course you can, because you have been exposed to nothing but pro-China opinions that have no contributions from those who actually have military experience.

China operate many shipyards, China at least have 2 largest shipyards can accommodated the building of 2 carrier at the same time, China have employed more ship builders compare to the US, you can't used the time for the completion of US carrier to measure the time for China to complete their building of the carrier, each nation and each shipping company used different method for the construction of their ship, China government can invest more resource for the shipping to complete the carrier within the estimate time of the completion, urgently China ca fully mobilize their whole national industrial chain to build up as much as aircraft carrier within the capacity of their shipping industry. China have the blueprint on how to build a similar Laoning Type carrier, China already sorting out all the kink refurbished the Laoning to sail under her own power, not like China lacking the infrastructure or experience of building warship. Loaning serve as a training carrier, she can produce many certified sailer to operate aircraft carrier while other carrier being build. Many technical learning can be done in the classroom and gradually move on firsthand training on the carrier itself. You think for 5 to 7 yrs not enough time for China to produce enough sailer or carrier pilot to operate on their new carrier? China isn't build their carrier without the central planning for personnel to operate on a carrier, China planed for constructing and operating carrier over 2 1/2 decade, China not rushed into build up a carrier task force without carefully study how to complete the goal within the time frame or the resource require. All the feasible plan already done over the last 15 yrs, now China implement their plan to construct the blue navy consist of a aircraft carrier.

 

[gambit]

China operate many shipyards, China at least have 2 largest shipyards can accommodated the building of 2 carrier at the same time, China have employed more ship builders compare to the US, you can't used the time for the completion of US carrier to measure the time for China to complete their building of the carrier, each nation and each shipping company used different method for the construction of their ship, China government can invest more resource for the shipping to complete the carrier within the estimate time of the completion, urgently China ca fully mobilize their whole national industrial chain to build up as much as aircraft carrier within the capacity of their shipping industry. China have the blueprint on how to build a similar Laoning Type carrier, China already sorting out all the kink refurbished the Laoning to sail under her own power, not like China lacking the infrastructure or experience of building warship. Loaning serve as a training carrier, she can produce many certified sailer to operate aircraft carrier while other carrier being build. Many technical learning can be done in the classroom and gradually move on firsthand training on the carrier itself. You think for 5 to 7 yrs not enough time for China to produce enough sailer or carrier pilot to operate on their new carrier? China isn't build their carrier without the central planning for personnel to operate on a carrier, China planed for constructing and operating carrier over 2 1/2 decade, China not rushed into build up a carrier task force without carefully study how to complete the goal within the time frame or the resource require. All the feasible plan already done over the last 15 yrs, now China implement their plan to construct the blue navy consist of a aircraft carrier.

It is not just about shipbuilding.

Do you know what is Emission Control (EMCON) ?

EMCON Keeps Ships Out of Sight

The first EMCON condition is EMCON alpha. "Alpha is what we use to disappear,"

The USS Ranger left California and entered EMCON Alpha for two weeks. During that time, the Ranger conducted air operations and her fighters 'attacked' Hawaii. No one found her within that two weeks.

Do you really think the PLAN can get enough training and real combat experience to take on the US Navy in five yrs ? Of course you do and we know where from. Even if China can build those carriers within five yrs, do you really think that in training there will no disasters and casualties that will force the PLAN to halt operations and perform self assessments ? Of course you do believe so. The PLAN will be perfect.

This is an adult forum and there are people with real military experience here. Go back to whatever kiddie sandbox you came from.

 

[Steakhouse]

It is not just about shipbuilding.

Do you know what is Emission Control (EMCON) ?

EMCON Keeps Ships Out of Sight

The USS Ranger left California and entered EMCON Alpha for two weeks. During that time, the Ranger conducted air operations and her fighters 'attacked' Hawaii. No one found her within that two weeks.

Do you really think the PLAN can get enough training and real combat experience to take on the US Navy in five yrs ? Of course you do and we know where from. Even if China can build those carriers within five yrs, do you really think that in training there will no disasters and casualties that will force the PLAN to halt operations and perform self assessments ? Of course you do believe so. The PLAN will be perfect.

This is an adult forum and there are people with real military experience here. Go back to whatever kiddie sandbox you came from.

The terrorist ISI or the Taliban without any freaking military experience can take on the well train military, do the Taliban waging guerrilla warfare require much training? Taliban strap up dynamite and blow up the US soldier need countless hours of training? How bout set IED to blow up US troop on patrol, how much freaking experience require to do the job? All you need the willful and committed people to carry out the task at hand? whatever it take during a war to killed your enemy, military training can't replace the actual war zone situation. When was the last time US navy engage in a real naval combat after WW2 against a highly advance naval force? None of a major naval war engagement in the last 73 yrs. You think China not train their naval to engage against any enemy in all scenario and condition, only The US exception that capable to train under all kind of situation? If you apply US naval training which allow US to defeat the enemy then you should apply the same to China. Whatever Advance weapons in US inventory that China aren't lacking in any of them. Why would a deadly accident shutting down a military program? Did US shut down the aircraft carrier when some deadly accident happen? No US continue to build as many as 11 aircraft carrier, China submarine accident that killed all the submariners but China didn't stop building up their submarine force, accident can only delay the progress of the program. As I say 5 to 7 yrs is a long time for China to gather all the experience and weapons platform needed to challenge the USN in the near future. As for your creditable military expertise, Who care to dispute your claim. I don't need any military experience to use logic to discuss in a military forum, get the fudge out with your badge of honor military service, this is an open forum, I know my opinion don't mean much but I will post my opinion when I feel it.

 

[gambit]

The terrorist ISI or the Taliban without any freaking military experience can take on the well train military, do the Taliban waging guerrilla warfare require much training? Taliban strap up dynamite and blow up the US soldier need countless hours of training? How bout set IED to blow up US troop on patrol, how much freaking experience require to do the job? All you need the willful and committed people to carry out the task at hand? whatever it take during a war to killed your enemy, military training can't replace the actual war zone situation.

So that is how the PLA will model its soldiers ? Suicide bombers ? I hope they do.

I see no reasons to take you seriously after this. We had enough from other clueless people.

 

[Steakhouse]

So that is how the PLA will model its soldiers ? Suicide bombers ? I hope they do.

I see no reasons to take you seriously after this. We had enough from other clueless people.

Japan the first to use kamikaze attack US carrier and battleship and very effective at that, when your in a desperate mode, human will take on a drastic measure no amount of training can prepare you for that kind of attack.

 

[Viet]

everyone can dream. If I recall, last time, chinese loser even lost the war against third rate military power as burma. perhaps it is time to learn that huge manpower plus weapons alone do not secure winning a war.

 

[jhungary]

Japan the first to use kamikaze attack US carrier and battleship and very effective at that, when your in a desperate mode, human will take on a drastic measure no amount of training can prepare you for that kind of attack.

dude, Taliban is not a bunch of rag-tag untrained type.........Who fired their gun hip style and walk on trail, kick cans and shit.

They have been fighting war since the 80s, non-stop, and almost everyone on this earth contributed to their training, US train some Mujahedeen, Russian did some Communist faction, Jordan and Syria did the rest

 

[Steakhouse]

They have been fighting war since the 80s, non-stop, and almost everyone on this earth contributed to their training, US train some Mujahedeen, Russian did some Communist faction, Jordan and Syria did the rest[/QUOTE]



You mean the population of the Taliban on the run to the remote mountain can sustain a well run military training? The fudge are you smoking?

dude, Taliban is not a bunch of rag-tag untrained type.........Who fired their gun hip style and walk on trail, kick cans and shit.

They have been fighting war since the 80s, non-stop, and almost everyone on this earth contributed to their training, US train some Mujahedeen, Russian did some Communist efaction, Jordan and Syria did the rest

Do you need to well train tactic on a suicide mission? No you don't need any kind of training to prepare for such attack. You commit to kill yourself and your enemy at the first sight of engagement.

 

[jhungary]

You mean the population of the Taliban on the run to the remote mountain can sustain a well run military training? The fudge are you smoking?

Dude, not all Afghanistan is mountain and cave, the South/Eastern part (Kandahar, Kabul) is flatland as well as Helmand Province. Heret Province. Basically, only the Eastern part, bordering Pakistan is mountain cave area.

But most Taliban fighter were trained oversea, in Syria, Jordan and Pakistan anyway

British father Cal Sarwar went undercover to infiltrate Taliban training camp | Daily Mail Online


You should put down your bong before you post.

Do you need to well train tactic on a suicide mission? No you don't need any kind of training to prepare for such attack. You commit to kill yourself and your enemy at the first sight of engagement.

lol, dude, it's not like what you say, just straps a bomb and blow people up....

how do you approach a bunch of soldier carrying a bomb without them noticing? Soldier, especially US soldier, are well trained. Not a bunch of moron. It's quite a lot of training involve to get the bomb to the place you want and then detonate and maximize your kill?? That's take some training.

It's not like they straps a bomb and blow up nothing but themselves, dude...

 

[Steakhouse]

Dude, not all Afghanistan is mountain and cave, the South/Eastern part (Kandahar, Kabul) is flatland as well as Helmand Province. Heret Province. Basically, only the Eastern part, bordering Pakistan is mountain cave area.

But most Taliban fighter were trained oversea, in Syria, Jordan and Pakistan anyway

British father Cal Sarwar went undercover to infiltrate Taliban training camp | Daily Mail Online


You should put down your bong before you post.




lol, dude, it's not like what you say, just straps a bomb and blow people up....

how do you approach a bunch of soldier carrying a bomb without them noticing? Soldier, especially US soldier, are well trained. Not a bunch of moron. It's quite a lot of training involve to get the bomb to the place you want and then detonate and maximize your kill?? That's take some training.

It's not like they straps a bomb and blow up nothing but themselves, dude...

No Taliban load up a truck full of bomb and blow up the checkpoint killed many security force, if the suicide bomber easily give away their dynamite strap on their body, how the fudge so many suicide bomb attack during the US occupation? If the suicide attack couldn't inflict any damage to the enemy, why would they wasted their life for such drastic tactic.