US: If China goes to war we will make it go back 100 years

[gambit]

Didn't I post that interview a couple of month ago Gambit?

If you did, your boys needed a reminder...

 

[CardSharp]

If you did, your boys needed a reminder...

I kinda still remember but thanks. One point though, he is one voice amongst many in the Chinese military, some agree with his points and some do not and I think he is probably the liberal side of establishment thinking.

 

[gambit]

I kinda still remember but thanks. One point though, he is one voice amongst many in the Chinese military establishment, some agree with his points and some do not.

I hope those who disagree far outnumber those who do agree and that the 'disagree' are far more powerful inside the Politburo...

 

[CardSharp]

I hope those who disagree far outnumber those who do agree and that the 'disagree' are far more powerful inside the Politburo...

Well there is something America can do to encourage these people and build better trust between the two sides (and tried and eliminated some of the horrendous miscommunication that exists)


When is a good time to talk to China's generals? How about ... right now!

By Zachary Hosford
Best Defense East Asian politico-military affairs deputy bureau chief

Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made an appearance at the Center for American Progress on Wednesday afternoon to appeal for the resumption of military-to-military relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

China most recently suspended military talks between the two countries in January of this year after the Obama administration proposed a $6 billion arms sale to Taiwan, primarily consisting of missile defense assets, helicopters, minesweepers, and communications equipment. Though the deal did not include any of the über-contentious F-16s or submarines, China vociferously protested nonetheless. Beijing has taken a similar stance in the past (it suspended mil-mil relations following a 2008 Taiwan arms sale as well), as evidenced by an April 2009 cable made public this week by WikiLeaks in which Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei calls potential arms sales to Taiwan a "very serious issue" that could "derail" the bilateral relationship.

But for now, the talks are back on. In September, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer announced that the mil-mil relations were "back on track." The following month, things took a step in the right direction when Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with Minister of National Defense Liang Guanglie in Hanoi, and separately, uniformed officers from U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) met with a Chinese military delegation in Hawaii as part of the U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA). Next week, they will report the results of that meeting to the Defense Consultative Talks in Washington, led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, one Michèle Flournoy, who will be hosting her counterpart, General Ma Xiaotian. If all goes to plan, next year Admiral Mullen will host his counterpart, General Chen Bingde at the Pentagon and Secretary Gates will travel to China, after being rebuffed earlier this year.

 

[CardSharp]

Some interesting follow up comments by retired navy, army officers.

Thanks for the interesting report by BD’s Far East reporter Zachary Hosford. Not wanting to be the skunk that spoils the lawn party I am curious about the purpose of such meetings between the military’s of both nations. Firstly, what is the ostensible objective for these talks? Secondly, what leverage do we have considering a dollar of Chinese military spending probably forces four or five dollars of American military spending (borrowed from China?) to offset growing Chinese capabilities?

My gut tells me the latter point is the real reason for Gates desire to engage the Chinese thus likely answering the first point. Gates observes the slow motion economic unraveling overtaking our country and likely realizes that the Chinese enjoy a distinct asymmetrical advantage in the impact of their defense spending upon America’s ability to fund our own armed forces future needs. Not being fools why would the Chinese want to alter this very favorable return on their defense investment?

Personally, I think Gates is the right man for this job and I wish him well on this endeavor and hope he succeeds. But I just don’t see what kind of an incentive the U.S. can offer to the Chinese in order for them to sacrifice an advantage? Notice how little success we are having in getting them just to modestly revalue the yaun? Why should they? The new rising China has normal nationalistic impulses of its own and a desire to become the dominant hegemonic power of East Asia and I just don’t see how we can alter that ambition while our own economic health is suffering from arterial sclerosis

response to above

To add to your comment JPWREL: resuming senior PLA and American counter-part dialogue is good. But it may not be the senior officers in the PLA that may necessarily present obstacles to better international military working relationships with America in the future.

It is the up and coming junior PLA officers who command ships, battalions, etc.,who as a general rule, have been steeped in anti-American rhetoric their whole careers to view America as the threat. And a wonderful tool having a potential enemy is, in giving everyone a common purpose toward modernizing, expanding, and training (something familiar to our U.S. defense industry).

Our military, perhaps specifically “my favorite Navy," should strive for more PLA(N) junior officer exposure toward America involving joint exercises, such as was conducted between the PLAN and the Australian navy back in September.

 

[CardSharp]

More comments

Is there really any driving reason for the PLA/PLA(N) or PRC as a whole to militarily confront the USA? Are we barking at nothing when the "threat" of Chinese expansion or hegemony is pushed in dialog as the threat of the future? Why would the Chinese snipe at their greatest market of their rapid manufacturing growth? With the USA taking the lead on attempts to secure Mideast oil reserves-- reserves that probably have more effect on China than the US-- why would China threaten the US? Do they really advocate military action against the US over Tawain, a relatively meaningless issue? I don't believe that the USA-China relationship has any similarity to the USA-Japan confrontaions of late 1930's. Is the United States afraid of the same Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere emerging again, this time from China?

Response

and can be a driving factor. Keep in mind former Teufel Hunden, that much of the PLA force, and most notably their rising junior officer corps, do not have the international exposure (though it's increasing) that you may have, and look suspiciously at America as encroaching upon them with a containment policy in the Pacific.

Folks I talk with don't necessarily think the Chinese feel threatened on an international level, but they - the PLAN - do harbor resentment toward what they see as medaling and resource exploitation in their region, and are prepared to challenge our presence in their near aboard as necessary (of course the Taiwan issue doesn't help that‘s driven by our defense industry).

 

[ajtr]

How can USA expect that it itself wont go back to stone age then.

 

[Donatello]

How can USA expect that it itself wont go back to stone age then.

because they are the breed of people, who are still blindly looking for Osama.

 

[Swatwolf]

The way I see it, the only way the USA can do that would be to launch a massive first wave of pre-emptive nuclear strikes on the major Chinese cities around the coast. I think the political, economic and overall implication of that makes this scenario extremely unlikely. Apart from this option as other users have pointed out, China or North Korea isn't Iraq, where a massive large scale invasion is possible due to coalescent from it's neighbouring countries that provided the USA troops with logistical support for insertion of mass troops and equipments.

The same scenario cannot be said on the Korean peninsula for example. So you can safely discount the 100,000 troops invasion theory, a successful invasion of North Korea will need at least a million never-mind 100,000 if you take into account of their ground forces and military hardware etc. Any troops build-up will not go unnoticed either and will ignite an arms race that could drag Russia into the equation, and it is highly unlikely that South Korea would allow their country to be used as a launching pad for any aggression on China, so that leaves Okinawa and Guam as the Americans only other possible forward bases for war with China, but even then a full scale war is not possible. (cue Afghanistan and why it is so importance for American military planners).

Unlike the Gulf war, China would not be fighting a blind war, with disabled foreign radar systems or antiquated or virtually non-existent Air defence systems and they will have plenty of asymmetric options to use. Just imagine what a Chinese retaliation would look like, especially to American interest in and around the region, and that is only speaking militarily. What Cmdr. Bell said was cynical, to the Korean people, because he never fully realized the implication of his words, what is surprising is that he is saying this so brazenly out in the open.

 

[gambit]

The way I see it...

The way I see it, the only way the USA can do that would be to launch a massive first wave of pre-emptive nuclear strikes on the major Chinese cities around the coast. I think the political, economic and overall implication of that makes this scenario extremely unlikely.

Should any tension between the US and China escalate to that point, all political and economic considerations will be swept off the table. It will be a war of survival.

Apart from this option as other users have pointed out, China or North Korea isn't Iraq,...

That does not guarantee a different outcome. People have got to stop making this empty comment. The 'Desert Storm' outcome was the result of a gross technological and military doctrine gap between the US and Iraq. True...That China and NKR has progressed since then, more so with China, but so is the US. As long as the technological gap exist in similar proportion, China will be at the same gross disadvantage as Iraq was. If there is a shooting war in the Korean peninsula and if China decide to abandon NKR, the NKRean military will suffer the same fate as the Iraqi mlitary.

where a massive large scale invasion is possible due to coalescent from it's neighbouring countries that provided the USA troops with logistical support for insertion of mass troops and equipments.

If they perceive either China or NKR to be as great a regional threat as Iraq was perceived by the ME countries, there will be that coalescence of armies against said threat.

(cue Afghanistan and why it is so importance for American military planners).

Cue General Liu Yazhou interview previous page.

Unlike the Gulf war, China would not be fighting a blind war, with disabled foreign radar systems or antiquated or virtually non-existent Air defence systems and they will have plenty of asymmetric options to use.

The Iraqi air defense was not initially blinded. We made it so. The PLA knows that Chinese air defense radars could be as severely crippled.

Just imagine what a Chinese retaliation would look like, especially to American interest in and around the region, and that is only speaking militarily. What Cmdr. Bell said was cynical, to the Korean people, because he never fully realized the implication of his words, what is surprising is that he is saying this so brazenly out in the open.

No surprise to me.

 

[below_freezing]

If Bell was so confident, he would've allowed his comments to be translated into English instead of left in Chinese. Or US would've attacked already. SK got its ship sanked and 4 people killed by artillery, I don't know a 2nd country that would stand that and not go to war.

The interview was carried out 6 years ago. The past 6 years has seen US stagnation while the rest of the world has moved forward. The only part of the interview I really agreed with was about the US's plan to not only contain us, but to keep us in low level equilibrium and destabilized.

 

[Swatwolf]

Again what you are saying is all hypothetical. How would the USA disable the Chinese sattelite and radar system, you would need to explain to me step by step for your arguments to be taken seriously. How was the Iraqi radar system disabled in the first place? Hint the biggest contributors are not the Americans. You should explain that to me as well. What logistical means could USA win a war against a country with 70+ submarines and thousands of airplanes and thousands of military bases? A total victory would be to blockade all supplies going through the south China Sea, to starve out the country over many many years, but lets not forget China is rich is natural resources and they have routes that go through Russia and Central Asia as well to get what they need, which is why the USA is so hell bent on Afghanistan like i said. USA have never fought
against jets in 4th generation in any war scenario i believe, and they never have to fight against a country with massive military, submarines and artillery force(north Korea) either, so the Iraq war reveals American superiority in having deployed Naval and airbases around the region, and their aircraft carriers strike group. But the very same logic does not apply to a pacific war. Before we go on you need to answer all my queries first.

 

[Swatwolf]

The way I see it...


Should any tension between the US and China escalate to that point, all political and economic considerations will be swept off the table. It will be a war of survival.


That does not guarantee a different outcome. People have got to stop making this empty comment. The 'Desert Storm' outcome was the result of a gross technological and military doctrine gap between the US and Iraq. True...That China and NKR has progressed since then, more so with China, but so is the US. As long as the technological gap exist in similar proportion, China will be at the same gross disadvantage as Iraq was. If there is a shooting war in the Korean peninsula and if China decide to abandon NKR, the NKRean military will suffer the same fate as the Iraqi mlitary.


If they perceive either China or NKR to be as great a regional threat as Iraq was perceived by the ME countries, there will be that coalescence of armies against said threat.


Cue General Liu Yazhou interview previous page.


The Iraqi air defense was not initially blinded. We made it so. The PLA knows that Chinese air defense radars could be as severely crippled.


No surprise to me.

If Bell was so confident, he would've allowed his comments to be translated into English instead of left in Chinese. Or US would've attacked already. SK got its ship sanked and 4 people killed by artillery, I don't know a 2nd country that would stand that and not go to war.

The interview was carried out 6 years ago. The past 6 years has seen US stagnation while the rest of the world has moved forward. The only part of the interview I really agreed with was about the US's plan to not only contain us, but to keep us in low level equilibrium and destabilized.

Then why are you posting something that is 6 years old?

 

[jagjitnatt]

China is very powerful today and it is often said that China is now so powerful that it can not be contained by even US. But I doubt these claims.

If ever US engages China, it would be the World War III. And in such a war, every country out there will have all its options open. Industrial revolution will spark everywhere. A wave of patriotism will take over.

But most importantly, US will have Allies, imp ones, the ones that can effectively contain China. China on the other hand, will only have Pak and NK by its side. US will never be alone. Chances are even Russia might side with the US to contain China's growth and avoid a new world order.

So the only way to contain China would be a war. And in that case, China won't survive. No offence to Chinese brothers, just my thoughts.

 

[gambit]

How was the Iraqi radar system disabled in the first place? Hint the biggest contributors are not the Americans.

Now that is very interesting. Are you 'hinting' at the technical level or at the operational level? Am beginning to suspect you do not know what you are talking about here.