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

61–70 of 109 posts

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

#61

Post by nl »

SavvyGuard wrote: post #38
eklavya wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

India has always felt that they had an understanding with China about the border. However they ignore the fact that China felt threatened by Soviet/Indian friendship.

Often they blame Nehru for being naïve, whilst at the same time blaming China for betrayal. I don't think those two arguments are very compatible.

In the end it was probably beneficial for India. They modernised their army, which let them defeat (Chinese ally) Pakistan pretty comprehensively.

But anyway, the Chinese military was pretty efficient in this war, which goes against the original article.

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

#62

Post by rmc »

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,…

ahem Northern Ireland? The UK army has a history there of using armed force against political opposition. Start reading about Bloody Sunday or internment without trail ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972) ) and onwards.

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

#63

Post by rmc »

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…

And the UK has used their armed forced on a part of the country that was in an undeclared civil war by an oppressed minority in the late 20th century.

You can spin this many ways.

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

#64

Post by argumentum »

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?

It's self-evidently backwards ..

----------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

- US Declaration of Independence

(while the USA is by no means perfect, there's hardly a more "perfect" and succinct expression of human rights than that)

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

#65

Post by nl »

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…

Take a Taiwan invasion scenario, which is the PLA’s top operational planning priority.

Oh pleaseeee!

The Chinese plan to invade Taiwan is political theater designed to reinforce their "One China" policy.

I'm sure it's the PLA's "top operation planning priority" in the sense that it's important they are seen to be planning in.

But in reality, the real priorities are these:

1) Gaining control of the oil and gas fields in the South China Sea

2) Deal with any internal unrest

3) What the f--k to do if conflict breaks out on the Korean peninsula

4) Ensuring energy supply by keeping sea lanes open to the Persian Gulf, and attempting to build, protect and control as many possible pipelines into China as possible.

Taiwan isn't even a real enemy. The trade ties between Taiwan and the mainland are almost as strong as between Hong Kong and the mainland.

Here's a prediction: The US will invade Cuba before China invades Taiwan.

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

#66

Post by argumentum »

rmc wrote: post #60
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?

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?

That's a dumb point. Neither should be ignored. There are two nation-states I am somewhat attached too: the United States (myself) and the Republic of India (through my parents). Both of these countries would not exist if their founders "ignored" the obvious political backwardness of the British.

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

#67

Post by forgottenpaswrd »

coldtea wrote: post #27
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…

> > For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the expense of training for combat. This means that 30 to 40 percent of an officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory. I very much doubt the conduct "small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory"…

You need to travel to China.

Now, not 20 years ago, if you want to be rich(or do anything by the way) there you need to be a member of the communist party.

And yes, it may surprise you but in communist party they discuss and study communism theory.

The "openness" is a survival strategy for them, a release valve if you wish. No way they could have survived that long without it.

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

#68

Post by dublinclontarf »

Article aside, the Chinese military (all branches) is rife with nepotism.

Family members, family friends and friends help get preferential placement and position.

To a large extent it's more about enforcing CCP control of the country and people than protecting it from invasion or invading.

In a place like China, you need to spend more money protecting yourself from Chinese people than from outsiders.

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

#69

Post by BugBrother »

democracy wrote: post #54
BugBrother wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think you are fully aware of that Wikipedia says this about 1944-1945, which was what I discussed:

"The Red Army occupation lead to the deportation to Siberia of more than 200,000 ethnic Germans of Romania (around 75,000 Transylvanian Saxons), Hungary and Yugoslavia. Most of them died in prison camps."

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

The Saxons in particular had lived many hundreds of years in Transylvania. (Or do you just approve of sending civilians to bad deaths, because of their ancestry?)

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

#70

Post by vorg »

Zuider wrote: post #39
thaumasiotes wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> China conquered China, unifying a large area of territory under one government

The land between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers is relatively flat, making it easier for the Han to unite. When the grand canal was built, the economies of scale of trade made the Tang prosperous.

> Historically, they have not shown much inclination to capture foreign territory and colonize it (even when they could have done so easily)

I don't know if they could have captured foreign territory easily. The hilly southern areas weren't always part of China, but they took it over when they were able. China's surrounded by forests to the southwest, mountains to the west, deserts to the north, and ocean to the east and south, all hard barriers to penetrate. It's easier for nomadic cavalry from the desert to come down and raid, they often did and even ruled China for 100 yrs.

The Chinese then built a navy and probably would have taken over various ports along the coast from Vietnam to Tanzania, but the Ming leaders were so afraid the Mongolians (or similar) would re-invade, they closed down the entire navy and diverted all military resources to securing the northern border, building the Forbidden City and Great Wall.

Like all governments, if they can take over more land, they will.

Post reply on HN