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

91–100 of 109 posts

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

#91

Post by gaius »

argumentum wrote: post #87
gaius wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

For the same reason, the US oath of allegiance (not just for the army, but all state officials) is to the constitution not to the government. Even the "pledge of allegiance" is to "the flag", "the republic for which it stands" etc. So, no, you don't need an antiquated buffoonish taxpayer subsidized family to swear allegiance to in order to avoid politicization.

Please don't take this the wrong way but pledging allegiance to a bit of cloth sounds as silly to us as the Queen seems to you.

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

#92

Post by twoodfin »

argumentum wrote: post #89
vidarh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does. Just not one codified in a single document. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...

Umm .. from the top of that very page .. > Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."[3] Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[4] It follow…

I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but a constitution that can be changed more readily than the U.S. Constitution is still a constitution.

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

#93

Post by mike-cardwell »

gaius wrote: post #50
mike-cardwell wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's backward because it's not representative democracy. It's inherited political power. Even if you don't believe they have real power, it's still offensive to anyone that believes in representative democracy and selecting their leadership. Englishman here. If we had ousted the monarchy 100 years ago, I'm absolutely certain that today, it would have been considered a good thing and we'd have a yearly celebration abo…

Then to who or what to allegiance be sworn? Can you imagine the horror if someone like Tony Blair was personally in charge of the military?

If you really feel like you must swear allegiance to something, swear it to an ideal, not to a person or group. But if you feel like the armed forces need to swear allegiance to a person or group, why can't that be "the people" of the country they belong to? It's pretty much symbolic anyway.

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

#94

Post by argumentum »

gaius wrote: post #91
argumentum wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason, the US oath of allegiance (not just for the army, but all state officials) is to the constitution not to the government. Even the "pledge of allegiance" is to "the flag", "the republic for which it stands" etc. So, no, you don't need an antiquated buffoonish taxpayer subsidized family to swear allegiance to in order to avoid politicization.

Please don't take this the wrong way but pledging allegiance to a bit of cloth sounds as silly to us as the Queen seems to you.

Why do you think I "quoted" it, I agree it's ridiculous .. but at least it's qualified immediately after "and to the republic for which it stands".

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

#95

Post by hatbert »

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.

Sure, the J variant has upgraded engines and avionics, but the airframe is the same. The article simply says that the PLA uses the "Soviet designed airframe" of the Tu-16 and the "Soviet designed [...] An-12." It states neither that the PLA is using 50 year old airframes, nor that they are using 50 year old avionics.

So the grand-parent's comparison is entirely valid. Both the USAF and PLA use aircraft in primary roles that were designed half a century ago. And, frankly, there isn't anything wrong with that in either case. Physics hasn't changed in 50 years.

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

#96

Post by argumentum »

twoodfin wrote: post #92
argumentum wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm .. from the top of that very page .. > Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."[3] Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[4] It follow…

I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but a constitution that can be changed more readily than the U.S. Constitution is still a constitution.

But it's less of one.

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

#97

Post by twoodfin »

gaius wrote: post #52
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.

Why would China want to bankrupt the U.S.? They're a massively export-dependent economy and the U.S. is one of their biggest customers.

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

#98

Post by gaius »

twoodfin wrote: post #97
gaius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would China want to bankrupt the U.S.? They're a massively export-dependent economy and the U.S. is one of their biggest customers.

Sure, but there is more happening than just that. If China decides it wants to pursue its territorial claims against Japan say, then the mere threat of dumping T-bills will give the US pause before intervening. China only really needs the US while it is bootstrapping itself into a developed economy - once it has huge internal markets, it won't need them.

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

#99

Post by vacri »

jessaustin wrote: post #85
vacri wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like the Rifleman's Creed aren't political indoctrination? Every army has political indoctrination - it's how you motivate people to put their lives on the line for your goals.

I'm sure your general point is somewhat correct, but how is "This is my rifle" political? It seems more like a commitment to professionalism, like the Hippocratic Oath, but inverted.

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy.

It's basically saying "I will be an effective soldier for America". It's just one of many things working together to that end.

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

#100

Post by presidentender »

xiaq wrote: post #71

Chinese here. Wow it's actually hilarious to read how some western people see the PLA exactly the way we see DPRK army. I have no military experience, but with access to Chinese sources, I feel justified to point out some obvious errors: > 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 dee…

>Except for USA which actively provokes wars

In part, perhaps, to avoid accusations that we've forgotten how to fight.

Post reply on HN