Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

thediplomat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#31

Post by gaius »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #16
r0h1n wrote: post #7

This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political off…

I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?

There is a reason for this: so that the Army (or any of the other British institutions that nominally have the Queen at the top of their org charts) can't be politicized. That's the theory anyway, tho' New Labour tried their best to stuff the civil service and the BBC with their cronies. So when the PM of the day says "go and shoot the leader of the opposition" the soldier or marine or policeman can say "sorry mate, I actually don't work for you".

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#32

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #16
r0h1n wrote: post #7

This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political off…

I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?

[deleted]

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#33

Post by nl »

AaronIG wrote: post #24
nl wrote: post #9

Hmm. The Sino-Indian war dismissed as a minor border skirmish? It only went for a month, but it was in the Himalayas. Also, it only took the Chinese a month to get what they wanted[2]. Not to be outdone by the conventional army, China’s powerful strategic rocket troops, the Second Artillery Force, still uses cavalry units to patrol its sprawling missile bases deep within China’s vast interior. Is there any evidence a…

The (C)C-130J, which is what's used today, has little in common with the C-130A other than appearance. These aren't 50+ year old aircraft.

Yep, and note the careful wording in the original piece: "1950s Soviet designed airframe". Those aren't 50 year old planes either.

Production was performed by the plant at Xian, with at least 150 built into the 1990s. China is estimated to currently operate around 120 of the aircraft. The latest version is the cruise missile-carrying H-6K.[1]

They aren't exactly the most advanced plane in the world, but they don't need to be. It is disingenuous of the author to make it sound like the Chinese are doing anything dramatically different to what other nations do.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#34

Post by Zuider »

firstOrder wrote: post #6

> The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a party army, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political officers assigned to enforce party control...Chi…

Stalin purged 'his' army of any and all officers (not just generals) showing the remotest competence for fear that they could become a threat to his power. It was nothing to do with their 'loyalty'.

He proceeded to wage the war with an incompetence only equaled, and ultimately exceeded by Hitler. The cost in lives was appalling. Stalin did not win. Hitler lost.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#35

Post by InclinedPlane »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #16
r0h1n wrote: post #7

This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political off…

I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?

When Britain was a legitimate Monarchy this was a big deal. Today Britain is a liberal (in the classic sense) democracy so the tradition is merely a bit of an anachronism.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#36

Post by [deleted] »

r0h1n wrote: post #7

This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political off…

[deleted]

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#37

Post by Zuider »

beachstartup wrote: post #3

ah yes, the good ol' yellow peril two-step. weak, yet dangerous. smart, yet uninnovative. studious, yet aggressive. ubiquitous, yet surreptitious. industrious, yet backwards. cultured, yet barbaric. coy, yet brave. did i miss any?

I believe that you missed this (the actual point of the article): capable of starting a devastating war, but not, ultimately, of winning.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#38

Post by SavvyGuard »

eklavya wrote: post #14
nl wrote: post #9

Hmm. The Sino-Indian war dismissed as a minor border skirmish? It only went for a month, but it was in the Himalayas. Also, it only took the Chinese a month to get what they wanted[2]. Not to be outdone by the conventional army, China’s powerful strategic rocket troops, the Second Artillery Force, still uses cavalry units to patrol its sprawling missile bases deep within China’s vast interior. Is there any evidence a…

Well the Sino Indian war is much more a testament to the sheer incompetency and spinelessness of the then prime minister of India. He was caught off guard with the blatant abuse of Indian trust by China. There were no clear directives and because of this reinforcements were too late. The Indian Air Force at that time was vastly superior to what China had but again the fear and incompetence of Nehru got the better of…

According to the linked wikipedia article in the parent comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War#Events_leading_...

I'm confused what you mean about "blatant abuse of Indian trust." It throws pretty much everything else you say into question.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#39

Post by Zuider »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #17
aryehhoffman wrote: post #11

Time does not stand still, and to assume that China will is foolish. With wealth comes power, and China's military will likely be unrecognizable in 30 years. To underestimate one's enemy is simply stupid.

China has often been wealthy, but has rarely been able to conquer... anywhere. They're not the first, or twentieth, place I would look if I were worrying about foreign aggression.

China conquered China, unifying a large area of territory under one government. Historically, they have not shown much inclination to capture foreign territory and colonize it (even when they could have done so easily). Note that their current, de facto control of large areas of the African continent is a departure from tradition.

If they consider (or can rationalize) a territory to be rightfully part of China, then they will be inclined to be warlike. Right now, the presence of a large reserve of gas and oil in their area of influence, combined with increasing energy requirements in order to industrialize does give them a motive for war.

Re: China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military

#40

Post by r0h1n »

coldtea wrote: post #28
argumentum wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly does the UK clinging to a backward tradition justify the Chinese clinging to a backward tradition?

What does exactly make it a "backward tradition"? That you have other ideas about how things should be?

Can we at least agree that being ruled by a monarch, even a titular one, isn't progressive either?
Post reply on HN