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

51–60 of 109 posts

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

#51

Post by BugBrother »

matthewrudy wrote: post #46
bhrgunatha wrote: post #30

> Take a Taiwan invasion scenario, which is the PLA’s top operational planning priority. While much hand-wringing has been done in recent years about the shifting military balance in the Taiwan Strait, so far no one has been able to explain how any invading PLA force would be able to cross over 100 nautical miles of exceedingly rough water and successfully land on the world’s most inhospitable beaches, let alone capt…

I think the last point is valid, though. Taiwan people are very proud of their independence. I can't imagine how Beijing could approach winning over hearts and minds.

There are more than one way to skin that cat.

I've been working in Romania a while. The takeover here by Soviet after WWII wasn't ... nice. E.g. all grown people with German ancestry were sent to Siberia for at least years (lots of people in Transylvania). And so on.

tl;dr: One way to win someone's heart is by using a knife.

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

#52

Post by gaius »

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.

Reagan won the Cold War by bankrupting the Soviet Empire; it would be ironic if China defeated the US by the same means.

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

#53

Post by phaus »

Jtsummers wrote: post #13
phaus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Elite" pilots of the USAF, many of whom are in fact in the ANG, also fly 10 hours per month, or even less[1]. Often ANG pilots are even better than the full-timers because they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari. These commercial pilots get thousands of hours per year of flying, which is often much more than a full-time…

> they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari. It often goes the other way. Becoming a commercial airline pilot requires many hours in the cockpit. A great way to accomplish that is to become a USAF pilot. Your flight training is paid for (in fact, you get a salary to attend). You have a commitment (if you did ROTC it works o…

It can definitely work out in the opposite way as well. My father was a flight engineer in the navy, from his experience, the best pilots he ever worked with were part-timers looking for something exciting fun to do.

The handling characteristics can vary wildly, but I'm sure most pilots know that up front. My father's crew flew P3's, which is more closer to a civilian plane than a fighter jet, but there was still probably a pretty big difference.

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

#54

Post by democracy »

BugBrother wrote: post #51
matthewrudy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the last point is valid, though. Taiwan people are very proud of their independence. I can't imagine how Beijing could approach winning over hearts and minds.

There are more than one way to skin that cat. I've been working in Romania a while. The takeover here by Soviet after WWII wasn't ... nice. E.g. all grown people with German ancestry were sent to Siberia for at least years (lots of people in Transylvania). And so on. tl;dr: One way to win someone's heart is by using a knife.

Wikipedia says:

By year 1950 about 253,000 Rumäniendeutsche were expelled and 421,846 remained in Romania.[citation needed] By year 2011 about 36,000 remained as the result of mass migration to Germany. [4]

And for people involved in SS crimes - what do you think we should have done to them - sent them to St Tropez instead?

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

#55

Post by democracy »

matthewrudy wrote: post #49
Zuider wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think China is trying to build a nation that can thrive for another 1000 years. They're building great infrastructure and securing natural resources wherever they can. But they're doing it for the Chinese people. Invading foreign lands doesn't make sense in that view. But being patient on the Taiwan issue will pay off. Economics not militarism will likely lead to the reunification.

This is exactly it. This is the wisdom of the tiger.

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

#56

Post by arethuza »

r0h1n wrote: post #40
coldtea wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'd prefer to have a non-political head of state for the UK (like Germany and Ireland), but I'd rather have the current setup with the monarchy over direct control of the military by the PM.

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

#57

Post by goblin89 »

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…

That was the most interesting part for me:

> To mitigate the destabilizing effects of the PLA’s strategy, the U.S. and its allies should try harder to maintain their current (if eroding) leads in military hardware. But more importantly, they must continue investing in the training that makes them true professionals. While manpower numbers are likely to come down in the years ahead due to defense budget cuts, regional democracies will have less to fear from China’s weak but dangerous military if their axes stay sharp.

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

#58

Post by arethuza »

gaius wrote: post #31
thaumasiotes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

As far as I can tell, the status of the armed forces in the UK is rather complex - they do indeed report to the monarch in her/his capacity as commander-in-chief but they only legally exists because of Parliament repeatedly passing Armed Forces Acts every 5 years or so to legalize them otherwise they would be illegal under the 1689 Bill of Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Also worth noting that we don't have a Royal Army:

"Our Army is not called the Royal Army (unlike the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force) because, after a historic struggle between Parliament and monarchy, the British Army has always been answerable to Parliament and the British people. If you live in Britain today, the actions of the British Army have affected the culture, traditions, government and laws of the society you live in, and, on a global scale, are continuing to do so today."

Which I take as a reference to Parliaments New Model Army that won the English Civil War against the monarch:

http://www.nam.ac.uk/about-us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army

Having said that, Army officers that I have known tend (in private at least) to be somewhat skeptical about politicians of all parties and very clear that their ultimate allegiance is to the Monarch rather than the PM - given that PMs we've had in the last 15 years or so I'm rather glad of this.

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

#59

Post by rmc »

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?

The UK has no constitution.

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

#60

Post by rmc »

argumentum wrote: post #22
thaumasiotes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

The point is that we all know the UK has a decent, modern armed forces. If you claimed "They swear alleigance to the Queen, ergo they're backwards!" people wouldn't take it seriously. But people are claiming that about China. Should we ignore those complaints, like we'd ignore them about the UK?
Post reply on HN