^ I don't even know where to begin with that ridiculous post. If there's "fear mongering," the Obama administration is fully engaged in it:

U.S. to Send Aircraft Carrier Into Waters Off China for Drills
Aug. 5, 2010

Quote :

"Tensions between the U.S. and China over the seas between Korea and Vietnam have intensified this year. China cut off military ties with the U.S. to protest planned arms sales to Taiwan. Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi sparred over China’s claims to sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea. At a meeting of Southeast Asian foreign ministers in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, Clinton signaled her intent to intercede in the disputes in the region."

http://tinyurl.com/39bsvy7

The U.S. Stands Up to China's Bullying
Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates have put Beijing on notice that we will counter any regional expansionism.
July 27, 2010

Quote :

"There are two reasons why a multilateral solution to the South China Sea territorial question offends Beijing. First, its periodic harassment of U.S. naval vessels and expansive claims of maritime sovereignty demonstrate that it does not respect widely accepted standards of maritime conduct. China takes the position that the entire South China Sea is its territorial waters, which is news to the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan, who all have territorial claims there. The Chinese are also trying to stop lawful U.S. military operations in the sea. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703700904575391862120429050.html

[Edited on August 8, 2010 at 6:56 PM. Reason : Please just stop posting.]

8/8/2010 6:55:38 PM

You have yet to state why it's a threat that they have these missiles? Because we support Taiwan? We should leave Taiwan alone. Because there's a relatively minor conflict in the South China Sea?

You can just as easily argue that our military power is a threat to them. They have every right to develop these weapons, just as we have every right to develop weapons to counter them. But it's hardly some heated point between the US and China. If anything, it's a heated point between China and other Asian countries who make territorial claims in the sea.

Not to mention, one of our commanding officers disagrees with "The Chinese are also trying to stop lawful U.S. military operation in the sea."


http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/270784/us-can-operate-south-china-sea-7th-fleets-blue-ridge-commander
US can operate in South China Sea -- 7th Fleet's 'Blue Ridge' commander
August 5, 2010, 1:06pm

Quote :

"Everyone, including the United States, is entitled to operate in international waters of the South China Sea and countries can conduct routine operations there, Commanding officer Rudy Lupton of the U.S. 7th Fleet's “Blue Ridge,” said on Wednesday. ... Lupton repeatedly said that the US does not see China as a threat in the US presence in the commercial areas of the South China Sea. “Everybody must realize that the South China Sea is a busy place and though there are a lot of claims it is an area that is controlled by an ocean of the world," he said in response to a reporter’s question. “We don’t see China as a threat, but we expect them to be as responsible as we do," Lupton continued. “I don’t know of any indication of a threat.”"

I know we like to make every fucking dispute in the world our business, but perhaps we should mind our own business? We don't have the money to get involved in anything and everything. I see no threat with them having these weapons, just as I don't see a threat in them having nuclear bombs, a navy, or just a military in general. I see a threat in Kim Jong Il having nuclear technology and long range missiles. I see a threat in Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons (if they haven't already). There are so many more military threats in the world. I don't see why you would even consider China to be a blip on the radar. Because we don't agree with their ideology?

Then again, fear of someone who doesn't agree with you has always been a strong motive for hate and anger.

You are right that they're a threat though. They're an economic threat to us. I would be more scared of that than them being a military threat.

8/8/2010 7:20:19 PM

Quote :

"You have yet to state why it's a threat that they have these missiles?"

because the Chinese will sell their equipment to anyone with a pulse....most notably our enemies Iran and N Korea.

8/8/2010 7:25:23 PM

If that was true, why did it take so long for Iran and North Korea to develop Nuclear weapons?

Not to mention we've been selling weapons to Taiwan for years. A conflict we really don't have any business being in. But none of that matters though. We can do no wrong.

8/8/2010 7:35:56 PM

Quote :

"If that was true, why did it take so long for Iran and North Korea to develop Nuclear weapons? Not to mention we've been selling weapons to Taiwan for years. A conflict we really don't have any business being in. But none of that matters though. We can do no wrong."

LOL

you asked why it was a problem for us. I answered.

8/8/2010 7:57:24 PM

You are incredibly uninformed, merbig.

Quote :

"We should leave Taiwan alone."

Really? Have you ever heard of this?

Taiwan Relations Act of 1979

Quote :

"(4) to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States; (5) to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and (6) to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

Quote :

"(c) The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger."

http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=393&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

And perhaps you'll believe a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University whose article is posted on the NPR Web site?

The New Republic: China's Push to Master the Seas
July 27, 2010

Quote :

"Aaron L. Friedberg is Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. His new book on the emerging strategic rivalry between the United States and China will be published in 2011."

Quote :

"This past week saw a marked escalation in the ongoing struggle for geopolitical preponderance in East Asia between the United States and China. Twenty years ago, at the close of the Cold War, U.S. forces in the region had enormous advantages over their Chinese counterparts. Using ships, aircraft and troops forward-deployed at facilities in Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Singapore, supported by others dispatched from Hawaii and the West Coast, the United States could defend its friends, deter its enemies and move its forces freely throughout the western Pacific. American air and naval units could conduct routine deployments and reconnaissance missions right up to the edges of China's airspace and territorial waters with little fear of harassment or interdiction. For its part, after years spent focused on the possibility of a massive Soviet ground invasion from the north and west, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had virtually no capacity to project military power beyond its coasts and land frontiers. Starting in the 1990s, and at an accelerating pace after the turn of the twenty-first century, China began to acquire the kinds of forces it would need to conduct what its strategists refer to as 'local wars under high-tech conditions.' Using weapons purchased from the former Soviet Union, supplemented increasingly by those of domestic design and manufacture, the PLA has been extending its reach into the waters and airspace off its eastern shores. Today China has ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, naval vessels, and submarines with which it can threaten precise, non-nuclear strikes on fixed bases, aircraft, and surface ships operating across a widening swath of the Western Pacific. American planners have come to see these forces as elements in what they describe as an integrated 'anti-access' or 'area denial' strategy. In a future crisis, the possibility of attack might impel American commanders to pull back from China's coasts, perhaps so far as to diminish their effectiveness in a struggle over Taiwan, or in the South China Sea, or the waters off Japan. In the worst case scenario, China's leaders might come to believe that they could carry out a quick conventional strike that would effectively knock U.S. forces out of the Western Pacific, leaving Washington with few options beyond a resort to nuclear weapons."

Quote :

"All of which brings us to the events of the past week. Earlier this spring Beijing upped the ante in the South China Sea by describing the area as one of its 'core national interests,' a phrase previously used in reference to Tibet and Taiwan. By deploying this language Chinese strategists are signaling their willingness to use any means necessary to take what they regard as rightfully theirs. The American response was not long in coming. Appearing this week at a gathering of Southeast Asian officials, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. was willing to assist in mediating conflicting claims in the South China Sea. Although couched in the mild, even-handed language of diplomacy, Clinton's offer was a clear counter to Beijing and a signal that the United States does not intend to allow it to run roughshod over its smaller, weaker neighbors."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128792116

Diplomatic language is nuanced--one must read it carefully. If some of you don't think things are changing and escalating with China, then you're just not paying attention.

8/9/2010 4:23:03 AM

LOL. Of course I'm familiar with Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. It was made after we declared that we would stop "official" support of Taiwan and would recognize China's government (you know, because before 1979, we never officially recognized China's government, and only Taiwan's government as the "true" government).

Just because we signed the Act 31 years ago, doesn't mean we shouldn't re-evaluate it every once and while. And after 31 years, I think it is time to re-evaluate the act and our situation with Taiwan. Many of the other European countries have butt out of the situation between China and Taiwan, I see no reason for us to stay involved.

But again, people like you are fearful of people who think differently from you, and with that fear comes hatred.

Quote :

"And perhaps you'll believe a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University whose article is posted on the NPR Web site? "

Completely ignore what a commanding officer who actually goes to the area and knows the threat of China more than some sit on his ass Professor has to say on the matter. I think I will take the word of a commanding officer over some biased article. The situation over the South China Sea is a diplomatic one. The dispute is over how they want to come to an agreement.

8/9/2010 11:29:15 AM

^

Quote :

"LOL. Of course I'm familiar with Taiwan Relations Act of 1979."

Glad to see you looked it up.

Quote :

"Just because we signed the Act 31 years ago, doesn't mean we shouldn't re-evaluate it every once and while."

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The Act is in effect.

Quote :

"But again, people like you are fearful of people who think differently from you, and with that fear comes hatred."

Why don't you just call me a racist? You know you want to. That's one of the few arrows you have in your quiver--but it'll miss the mark. I happen to love the Chinese culture.

Quote :

"Completely ignore what a commanding officer who actually goes to the area and knows the threat of China more than some sit on his ass Professor has to say on the matter. I think I will take the word of a commanding officer over some biased article. The situation over the South China Sea is a diplomatic one. The dispute is over how they want to come to an agreement."

You don't know what you're talking about. To say that U.S. ships have not been harassed and that China is not trying to push the United States out of the South China Sea is to ignore the facts. I think you're just trolling.

8/9/2010 6:43:13 PM

Quote :

"Glad to see you looked it up."

I knew about it before you even posted it. I didn't even have to look it up after you posted it, as I already knew about it. You know what also happened in 1979, right? We transfered diplomatic relations from Taiwan to China, yet with the Taiwan Relations Act, it basically was to allow us to eat our cake and have it too. I can't blame China for being upset with us, for essentially getting involved in an affair that really is none of our business anymore.

Quote :

"Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The Act is in effect."

Did you read what I said? I guess not. I never refuted that the Act is in effect. I said that we should re-evaluate it and think about ending the Act.

Quote :

"Why don't you just call me a racist? You know you want to."

Trying to build up a strawman. I think I'll stop you right there. I never said you were racist, or insinuated that you were one. There is a big difference between hating a race and hating a government, and quite honestly, I think you are afraid of their government. Not because they pose a military threat on us, but because they're different from us. And different=bad.

Quote :

"I happen to love the Chinese culture."

Then you would know that any type of war would be damaging to them in terms of growth and prosperity, and if you know the Chinese as well as you think you do, you would know they value those traits very much. Going to war would damage them in the International community, possibly impose sanctions (definitely by us, and as you know, we have MANY companies over there that we could pretty much force them to stop doing business in China), kill their growth, and easily set them back 10 years (which for them, would set them back to the brink of being a third world country).

They may have this missile defense system that could be effective against our ships, but last time I checked, we have a pretty big arsenal of submarines, which could take out the defense system, absolutely destroy their financial epicenter (Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong if push came to shove). From a tactical point of view, they have most of their population concentrated along the sea border, as well as most of their wealth and prosperity. And after destroying their missile defense system, the ships come in and invade from the air and land.

Quote :

"To say that U.S. ships have not been harassed and that China is not trying to push the United States out of the South China Sea is to ignore the facts."

*sigh*. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? I'm saying that they're not a threat. So what if they harass us a little? It should be fairly obvious to you that they're claiming the entire South China Sea to use as leverage in negotiations to get us to stop supporting Taiwan. I don't think they're honestly trying to start a war. It's nothing more than political mind games. Happens all the time. Last thing China needs is a war. It would do VERY little to benefit them, but do a lot to hurt them.

But it's just the cold war mentality regarding communism/socialism. The fear that our government has ingrained into us regarding communism/socialism through years of propaganda.


Now, if China had a highly developed military with a strong economy with a lot of wealth, maybe I would take the "threat" a little more seriously. But they don't have a highly developed military (yes, they are obviously improving theirs, as are all countries, including us), there are forecasts that China's housing market will go through a similar collapse to ours, and on terms of per-capita wealth, they have a lot of catching up to do (from what I can tell, even Taiwan has them beat).

Quote :

"I think you're just trolling."

Oh look! The Soap Box's mantra that is oft repeated when you can't attack their arguments any further. It's really nothing new out of you, but I'm not here to debate your method of posting. I think many others have already pointed out that you're pretty bad.

[Edited on August 9, 2010 at 8:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2010 8:14:49 PM

merbig, master of Sino-American relations. Who knew?

From the Council on Foreign Relations:

Countering China's Military Modernization
February 4, 2009

Quote :

"Implications for the Region China has been steadily building up its strategic and conventional capabilities since the 1990s. Eighteen years ago, experts say, China had a 'bare-bones' military: basic capabilities, but nothing sophisticated or top-of-the-line. But two decades of double-digit spending increases have changed that picture. China says its 2008 defense budget is $61 billion, though the Pentagon has historically challenged Beijing's reported figures. In its annual report to Congress, the U.S. Defense Department estimated China's total military-related spending for 2007 to be between $97 billion and $139 billion, as compared to $52 billion reported by China. All that spending has gone to building a sophisticated, modern military: a large, increasingly capable submarine fleet, an air force stocked with Russian warplanes, and technical strides which have improved China's ballistic missile arsenal, as well as satellite surveillance, radar, and interception capabilities. China continues to stress that its military modernization is in line with its peaceful rise in the world. Its latest White Paper on national defense emphasizes it will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansionism. However, this has not alleviated concerns among its neighbors and regional rivals, say experts. A CFR Independent Task Force report (PDF) in 2007 on U.S.-China relations noted that many of China's neighbors and potential adversaries were making adjustments to their own defense plans and expenditures to balance China's growing military capabilities."

Quote :

"Implications for the United States China clearly complicates U.S. defense planning in Asia, says CFR's Senior Fellow for China Studies, Adam Segal. The Pentagon's 2008 report to Congress states: 'Current trends in China's military capabilities are a major factor in changing East Asian military balances, and could provide China with a force capable of prosecuting a range of military operations in Asia-well beyond Taiwan.' Most countries in the region have some degree of caution in their relationship with China, says James Mulvenon, director of Washington-based Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis. However, none of them, he adds, want to engage in any form of containment policy with the United States. Meanwhile, though China is wary of U.S. military presence close to its border, its troubles with Uighurs has led it to support U.S. military actions inside Afghanistan, say experts. The best way for the United States to ensure that its security interests in the region are not compromised by China's growing military capabilities is to strengthen security alliances with China's neighbors, notes the 2007 Council Task Force report. The report says the United States should better coordinate U.S.-South Korea-Japan security planning, give greater attention to ASEAN, work with ASEAN members to help draw China into constructive security relationships, and pursue a deeper military relationship with India."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9052/countering_chinas_military_modernization.html

NB: As I have posted here, in addition to other concerns, China is hiding billions in defense spending. Its actual spending is likely more than double the reported amount.

8/10/2010 3:55:21 AM

Quote :

" China has been steadily building up its strategic and conventional capabilities since the 1990s. Eighteen years ago, experts say, China had a 'bare-bones' military: basic capabilities, but nothing sophisticated or top-of-the-line. But two decades of double-digit spending increases have changed that picture. China says its 2008 defense budget is $61 billion, though the Pentagon has historically challenged Beijing's reported figures. In its annual report to Congress, the U.S. Defense Department estimated China's total military-related spending for 2007 to be between $97 billion and $139 billion, as compared to $52 billion reported by China. All that spending has gone to building a sophisticated, modern military: a large, increasingly capable submarine fleet, an air force stocked with Russian warplanes, and technical strides which have improved China's ballistic missile arsenal, as well as satellite surveillance, radar, and interception capabilities. China continues to stress that its military modernization is in line with its peaceful rise in the world. Its latest White Paper on national defense emphasizes it will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansionism. However, this has not alleviated concerns among its neighbors and regional rivals, say experts. A CFR Independent Task Force report (PDF) in 2007 on U.S.-China relations noted that many of China's neighbors and potential adversaries were making adjustments to their own defense plans and expenditures to balance China's growing military capabilities."

Quote :

"Current trends in China's military capabilities are a major factor in changing East Asian military balances, and could provide China with a force capable of prosecuting a range of military operations in Asia-well beyond Taiwan."

We have a military that is capable of prosecuting a range of military operations on an International level. SOMEONE BETTER STOP US!

Quote :

"Most countries in the region have some degree of caution in their relationship with China, says James Mulvenon, director of Washington-based Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis"

Most countries in the world have some degree of caution in their relationship with us. A powerful military does wonders in swaying support for your side.

Quote :

" However, none of them, he adds, want to engage in any form of containment policy with the United States."

So, the countries, while wary of China, want us to stay the fuck out and let them manage their own affairs. I agree. But we're not going to do that because we have to protect our own interests.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, though China is wary of U.S. military presence close to its border, its troubles with Uighurs has led it to support U.S. military actions inside Afghanistan, say experts."

Amazing. We're helping a growing military threat to us!

Quote :

"The best way for the United States to ensure that its security interests in the region are not compromised by China's growing military capabilities is to strengthen security alliances with China's neighbors, notes the 2007 Council Task Force report."

But from what was said above, it sounds like China's neighbors don't really want our involvement. They may support diplomatic support, but they don't want anything beyond that.

And from the same article you posted:

Quote :

" In 2007, China and Japan ranked third and fifth respectively in national defense expenditures (PBS), both spending only a small fraction of the U.S. budget even after adjusting for gross underreporting by Beijing."

Quote :

"Japan has significantly upgraded capabilities over the past 15 years, deploying the Aegis radar and accompanying missile systems for its navy and warplanes armed with advanced air-to-air missiles for its air force."

Honestly, Japan worries me. They're a bunch of shiesty ass motherfuckers. They've been fucking us financially for years. But I guess the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" should be applied here.

Quote :

"Taiwan: It is the main driver for China's militarization drive and biggest concern for the United States as this Backgrounder points out. Taiwan is also pursuing modernization goals which include procurement of army attack helicopters, army utility helicopters, PAC-3 missile defense systems, fighter jets, and diesel-electric submarines, as well as transformation of the military. Relations between China and Taiwan have improved dramatically under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou, although U.S. arms sales to Taiwan remains contentious. In its white paper on national defense, China says the United States continues to sell arms to Taiwan "causing serious harm to Sino-US relations as well as peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait." In October 2008, Beijing suspended military contacts with the United States in protest of the U.S. decision to sell $6.4 billion in defense equipment and services to Taiwan."

I got news for you. We really have no business being involved in Taiwan, we have no business in getting involved in any of this shit. All we're doing is making matters work. The more we help out Taiwan, the more China builds up their military and the more we hurt our relations with China. Taiwan simply isn't worth it.

Quote :

"Border disputes with some countries also complicate China's relations with its Southeast Asian neighbors. Vietnam and China each assert claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands, archipelagos in a potentially oil-rich area of the South China Sea. "

OH LOOK! AN OIL DISPUTE! I wonder who we should side with? China, or Vietnam? Hmmmmm. I think Vietnam will be more generous with us, so lets go with them.

Quote :

"Malaysia, the Philippines, and Taiwan also claim all or part of the South China Sea. China's assertion of "indisputable sovereignty" over the Spratly Islands and the entire South China Sea has elicited concern from Vietnam and its Southeast Asia neighbors, according to the U.S. State Department."

OH LOOK! A border dispute in which none of the parties can agree with. Oh, and Taiwan is involved! We got to step in and help them! That will surely help.




Look. It's an area we really shouldn't be getting too involved with. From the looks of it, the more we try to "help" the worse things get. I'm not saying we shouldn't have relations with any of the countries. But in areas of boundary disputes, and helping Taiwan, we really shouldn't be trying to take sides. Causing a schism between these countries is only going to cause hostile relationships between EVERYONE, and nobody will benefit. The only country we should be united against is North Korea. And that's one area where I feel China can do more to help (take out Kim Jong Il). But now that Kim Jong Il has Nukes, that might be out of the question, and we're just going to have to wait until the man dies and there's a power struggle within the country.

8/10/2010 5:53:25 PM

^ Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

8/10/2010 6:01:06 PM

^ LOL! I guess that really means, "I have nothing to say, as you used my own evidence on China being a "threat" to show that they're really not a threat, and that we're really doing more to instigate a conflict in the region."

8/10/2010 6:52:04 PM

^ Yes, China's rise has been documented for only about the last 20 years in books like Red Dragon Rising: Communist China's military threat to America and a number of others. I don't expect you to know this--I doubt you read anything, outside some Internet spew here and there.

[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 4:38 PM. Reason : "LOOK INSIDE!"]

8/11/2010 4:35:47 PM

The ChiComs will never attack us. Doing so would be economic suicide for them.

8/11/2010 4:41:37 PM

^ I hope not. Doesn't mean they aren't trying to throw their weight around as a regional hegemon and beyond.

8/11/2010 4:49:48 PM

well whoopty fucking doo.

They can throw their weight around all they want. They still won't do anything that threatens their economic security, which means they won't attack us.

8/11/2010 5:06:24 PM

8/11/2010 5:07:09 PM

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

8/11/2010 5:12:16 PM

Yikes. Someone wrote a book that claimed that China is a military threat! HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!

If it's in print, it must mean the person knows what they're talking about.

8/11/2010 9:03:01 PM

China is more of a threat economically than militarily.

8/11/2010 9:20:14 PM

China is not a threat
Everyone is not out to get us
If we knew this 40 years ago we would have the Chinese economic growth then in Russia

8/12/2010 12:57:06 AM

Quote :

"China is more of a threat economically than militarily."

How can any country be a threat economically?

Quote :

"If we knew this 40 years ago we would have the Chinese economic growth then in Russia"

Impossible. Russia had a communist economic system, the most stagnant and inefficient economic system in the world.

[Edited on August 12, 2010 at 1:11 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/12/2010 1:09:42 AM

^ economic threat as in they call in our debt, or get rid of all the US currency they have making the dollar go down.

8/12/2010 7:43:50 AM

^ they get paid in USD on the debt they hold. its not in their interest to make a run on us. what they can and will do over time is gradually stop being such a big lender once they've hit a certain point. we need to get our house in order.

8/12/2010 11:21:14 AM

Quote :

"Impossible. Russia had a communist economic system, the most stagnant and inefficient economic system in the world."

Yet it experienced drastic GDP growth despite the large percentage of it that it was forced to devote to military development rather than economic development.

Quote :

"^ economic threat as in they call in our debt, or get rid of all the US currency they have making the dollar go down."

Oh, commit economic Kamakazi? Why would they want to make the dollars they own worthless? They could make our economy go down by not trading with us, but it would hurt them more.

8/12/2010 11:51:03 AM

Quote :

"Yet it experienced drastic GDP growth despite the large percentage of it that it was forced to devote to military development rather than economic development."

Actually, the drastic GDP growth ran out shortly after Krushchev dismantled the "terror" apparatus in 1953. The current thinking among economic historians is that the Soviet system only really worked so long as the citizenry feared being sent to the gulag for minor economic offenses. After the economic prisoners were released, the citizenry felt safe disrupting state economic plans, and increasingly did so.

So, as I've said before, if you are willing to kill millions of your citizens then you too can rapidly industrialize your country to the level of fascist Spain.

8/12/2010 7:17:05 PM

Quote :

"The current thinking among economic historians is that the Soviet system only really worked so long as the citizenry feared being sent to the gulag for minor economic offenses. After the economic prisoners were released, the citizenry felt safe disrupting state economic plans, and increasingly did so."

I've read a great deal on this subject and I've never heard that theory, I seriously doubt it is the "current thinking". There are a lot of things you could blame for the economic slowdown in the 60's but the soviets failing to prosecute "economic rebels" was a very small one, if at all.

8/12/2010 11:54:47 PM

From the Obama administration:

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China
2010

Quote :

"The pace and scope of China's military modernization have increased over the past decade, enabling China's armed forces to develop capabilities to contribute to the delivery of international public goods, as well as increase China's options for using military force to gain diplomatic advantage or resolve disputes in its favor."

Quote :

"China's long-term, comprehensive transformation of its military forces is improving its capacity for force projection and anti-access/area-denial. Consistent with a nearterm focus on preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies, China continues to deploy many of its most advanced systems to the military regions (MRs) opposite Taiwan."

Quote :

" China is pursuing a variety of air, sea, undersea, space and counterspace, and information warfare systems and operational concepts to achieve this capability, moving toward an array of overlapping, multilayered offensive capabilities extending from China's coast into the western Pacific."

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf

An interpretation from Defense Tech:

Quote :

"The PLA's primary mission remains deterring moves toward Taiwan independence. China's massive buildup of missiles and other forces opposite Taiwan is as much a political as military move; a classic strategy of coercion. The more interesting initiatives are those aimed at bolstering China's regional and global ambitions. Chinese decision-makers remain heavily influenced by the 1995–1996 Taiwan Strait crisis when the U.S. sailed two carrier strike groups into the area. Much of China's force modernization is intended to make sure that doesn't happen again; hence, the much discussed anti-access capabilities the PLA is buying, or, to put it another way, China is buying stand-off."

Quote :

" Two of the smartest analysts I know, the Navy department's Frank Hoffman and CSBA's Jim Thomas, both make the point that China will not try to match the U.S. military force on force in the canonical big theater war scenario. Rather, they'll seek out seams and weak points in an asymmetric fashion. For example, lots of folks focus on the PLA Navy's dragging carrier project while not giving adequate attention to its deployment of 60 plus new Houbei class fast-attack craft, each armed with eight YJ-83 anti-ship cruise missiles."

http://defensetech.org/2010/08/17/dods-2010-report-on-chinas-pla-military-modernization-ii/

8/18/2010 8:48:39 AM

China threat: Now you see it, now you don't
By David Isenberg

Quote :

"It's that time of year again; the time when the Pentagon rolls out its annual threat assessment on China. The Pentagon has been issuing these reports since 2000, pursuant to US law. This year the 74-page "2010 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China" [1] will undoubtedly be a disappointment to those conservatives who are looking to depict China as a menacing strategic competitor to the United States. While the executive summary includes the usual warnings about China's pursuit of new military capabilities, it also pointedly notes that "[E]arlier this decade, China began a new phase of military development by articulating roles and missions for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) that go beyond China's immediate territorial interests. "Some of these missions and associated capabilities have allowed the PLA to contribute to international peacekeeping efforts, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and counter-piracy operations. The United States recognizes and welcomes these contributions," the report notes. Even after listing the usual warnings about improved capabilities in anti-access, area-denial strategies, and extended-range power projection, the report says, "China's ability to sustain military power at a distance, today, remains limited." The document had been due to be read at congress on March 1 but was held up by the Barack Obama administration due to an internal dispute over whether the report's listing of China's military establishment, which is carried out annually, would anger Beijing. This year the report addresses for the first time the on-again, off-again military exchanges between China and the Pentagon. China's military twice since October 2008 has cut off exchanges to protest US arms sales to Taiwan. The new section lists scores of past military exchanges between the Pentagon and China's military and a long list of exchanges planned for 2010 that were put on hold by the Chinese suspension of the exchange program. As one might expect, the report confirmed what is obvious to all analysts; China is developing into an economic superpower, and that growth is allowing the Chinese government to invest more in its military. Thus China is continuing a massive effort to modernize its military and transform its structure, doctrine and strategy. In fact, much the same thing was said in June when the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute published a study "The PLA at Home and Abroad: Assessing the Operational Capabilities of China's Military." That report was issued on July 6, a day after China's economy was recognized as the world's second biggest, eclipsing Japan's in size during the second quarter of this year. The report noted that China is changing the way it thinks about its military. In the past, its forces concentrated on guarding China's sovereignty, which implied that China's fighting men would not stray far from the country's borders. Now that thinking has evolved to a strategy designed to protect China's interests, including economic ones, that span the globe. One might say the report was rather conciliatory in tone. That would explain why US House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton released a statement which concluded: "I continue to believe that China is not necessarily destined to be a threat to the United States and that China doesn't need to view the United States as a threat to its interests. Yet, conflict between our nations remains a possibility, and we must remain prepared for whatever the future holds in the US-China security relationship. At the same time, we must each be mindful that our actions can produce unintended consequences, and although cooperation is a difficult path, it is ultimately the path that is in both nations' best interest." Skelton is usually seen as being in agreement with the Pentagon on most issues. China's overall military spending for 2009 was estimated at $150 billion, an increase of 7.5% to 532.11 billion yuan ($78.4 billion). This was only about one-fifth of what the Pentagon spent last year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As one would expect a primary potential flashpoint is Taiwan. China froze military-to-military relations with the Defense Department earlier this year after an announcement that the United States was selling more than $6 billion in weapons to Taiwan. Among the specific military developments the report focused on was the fact that China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is also developing an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of more than 1,500 kilometers that is capable of attacking aircraft carriers in the western Pacific. There was also a first mention of a new multiple-warhead, long-range road-mobile missile, and details on China's plan to field aircraft carriers. The report noted that analysts believe China will not have a domestically produced aircraft carrier and associated ships for another five years, although foreign assistance could speed up that process. It also predicts: "It is unlikely ... that China will be able to project and sustain large forces in high-intensity combat operations far from China until well into the following decade." The goal of these forces is to have forces that can attack US ships should conflict erupt over Taiwan. Other anti-access weapons are China's medium-range missiles "designed to target forces at sea, combined with overhead and over-the-horizon targeting systems to locate and track moving ships." Other weapons include Luyang 1- and 2-class guided-missile ships and Russian-made Sovremenny-class missile ships. The ships are equipped with advanced long-range anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. China also has six nuclear-powered attack submarines and 54 diesel-electric powered submarines, many of them outfitted with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles. For anti-access air strikes, the Chinese have indigenous FB-7 and FB-7A jets, and Russian SU-30s. All the jets are armed with anti-ship cruise missiles. The report noted increased participation in peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations and cheese production. Since 2002, China's contributions to United Nations (UN)-sponsored peace operations have increased. More than 2,100 on-duty Chinese personnel are at present serving in UN missions, with a total contribution of more than 12,000 personnel deployed to 22 missions. China is now the leading contributor of peacekeeping personnel among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. "

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LH19Ad01.html

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 10:09 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2010 10:08:47 AM

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/china-building-42000-military-drones.html

6/22/2015 4:57:50 PM

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/china-put-artillery-vehicles-artificial-island-pentagon-says-n366481

6/23/2015 3:07:48 PM

Quote :

"China a Growing Military Threat?"

No. Next slide.

6/23/2015 10:25:58 PM

They're the first country selling unmanned drones on the open market.

[Edited on June 23, 2015 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2015 10:57:04 PM

^^ what planet do you live on?

6/24/2015 12:48:02 AM

Lol building islands as cheap carriers

6/24/2015 6:07:41 AM

Not really. Take it easy.

6/24/2015 12:08:13 PM

I guess NATO+Japan will take care of Russia+China
Nato+Japan>Russia+China

6/24/2015 12:49:49 PM

Quote :

"what planet do you live on?"

The planet where China doesn't have the capability to force project, has an economy inexorably entwined with ours, and due to slowing economic growth and looming domestic issues will have its hands full in a few years. Note that concern =/= threat.

6/24/2015 2:18:43 PM

^ but they have the will and means to create powerful weapons and sell them to people that we DO fight.

6/24/2015 2:58:28 PM

Who? ISIS? Russia?
I heard this for the first time.

6/24/2015 3:15:53 PM

Quote :

"Lol building islands as cheap carriers"

carriers move, islands are stationary targets

islands on the tippy top of reefs are very small and very vulnerable stationary targets

it makes sense to construct military facilities on an island like Diego Garcia, where there is enough room to put multiple types of infrastructure supporting multiple mission types, but these reef islands are barely big enough for a runway, a hangar, and small port

6/24/2015 3:23:31 PM

I suggest a new episode of Battlefield--China rising.

6/24/2015 3:27:04 PM

no single island is an issue and they probably wont be able to use them to stage attacks but as a network this is a modern day great wall in the making. They will have advanced recon and radar coverage as well as an increased multiredundant antimissile and antiaircraft capability. At the very least, these would be an extremely annoying buffer against their enemies in any conflict.

I know you were simply throwing out a wild hypothetical but China could overrun japan within days so im not sure how you think nato could handle that along with russia at the same time.

6/24/2015 6:27:22 PM

I don't think so. That's crazy. You overrate China TOO much.
Remember Japan basically took over a huge part of China(almost half) in days.

In WWII, Japan+Germany+Italy conquered the whole Europe-Asia continent, at least in control already.

[Edited on June 24, 2015 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ;]

6/24/2015 10:38:08 PM

the other edge of that sword... china is claiming these new islands are sovereign territory, subject (from their viewpoint anyway) to airspace and nautical traffic regulations that could give them a huge bargaining chip since so much trade and other traffic goes through that area. China has already challenged US jets flying through "formerly" open seas/air, claiming that the islands are now just as sovereign as mainland china. (the US does not recognize those claims)

6/24/2015 11:26:36 PM

LOL. You are falling behind for about two months.

6/24/2015 11:31:09 PM

Comparing china to ww2 era china is literally like comparing lebron to 5 year old lebron. China is just modernizing in the last 20 years. They still have a long way to go but are making huge leaps each day.

6/24/2015 11:59:07 PM

Not exactly. At that time, China was actually a sleeping lion(quoted from Napoleon). Now, it's a red monster.

[Edited on June 25, 2015 at 12:04 AM. Reason : Someone says it's red paper tiger.]

6/25/2015 12:03:45 AM

Quote :

"But they have the will and means to create powerful weapons and sell them to people that we DO fight."

And? So does Russia. Do you know how much a T-90 costs? Enough that Russia only has a handful of them (BTW, basically an upgraded T-72). Nobody out there besides countries already possessing peer/near-peer technology is going out of their way to acquire massive amounts of it. Mostly because it's extremely expensive, even for the countries producing it. And, by the way, if you think there is some sort of wonder-weapon out there (to include in the US inventory) that will unequivocably make its possessor the voctor, you are mistaken.

6/25/2015 12:05:09 PM