Sino-Myanmar Border Conflicts

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
The Myanmar military has said it wasn't their aircraft because none of their GPS equipment says their aircraft crossed into China. Since they deny it... everyone of their aircraft that crosses the border should be shot down. They really can't complain then if they say it's not their aircraft. The only thing I can see that can be considered accidental is if the pilot thought the Chinese farmers were rebels. But here's were it's not an excuse. That means the pilot attacked indiscriminately unarmed people either way. He certainly didn't do a fly-by to see. Isn't there some human rights violation there? That's why no one should be complaining if China starts shooting down aircraft or killing Myanmar soldiers who cross into China.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
USA Today version of what has happened in Myanmar...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, USA TODAY

BEIJING — China scrambled fighter jets Saturday to patrol its southwestern border with Burma, also known as Myanmar, a day after a bomb dropped by a Burmese warplane killed four Chinese farmers and injured nine others, state media reported.

Authorities in Burma blamed the incident on ethnic Chinese rebels the Burmese army is fighting close to the border.

Beijing summoned the Burmese Ambassador on Friday night to lodge a diplomatic protest, the state news agency, Xinhua, said. The four victims were working in a sugar cane field near the border city of Lincang, in southwest Yunnan province, Xinhua said.

Burma's government, which uses Myanmar as the official name of its country, denied responsibility for the attack and said the rebels may have fired into China to stir trouble between China and Burma. The longtime allies' often difficult relationship has become further strained by Burma's moves toward democracy in recent years.

"It's possible that those fighting with us purposely created these attacks with the intent of causing misunderstanding between China and us," Zaw Htay, an official in the Burmese president's office, told Reuters.

Intensified fighting in recent weeks in northeast Burma's Kokang region has forced tens of thousands of people, including many ethnic Chinese, to flee into China across the often porous 1,240-mile border. China has given refugees "necessary relief and temporary settlements, which is appreciated by the Myanmar government," Xinhua said.

Beijing has previously denied Burmese claims that Chinese authorities have assisted the rebels by allowing them to launch attacks from Chinese territory. Burma has also said Chinese mercenaries fight with the rebels.

Multiple ethnic conflicts have continued for several decades in Burma, notably in border regions. Its military regime has undertaken a transition toward a more democratic system in recent years.

China, which did not join Western nations' decades-long isolation of the country to protest its military dictatorship and repression of rights, has dominated foreign investment there.

Elections planned for late this year will provide a crucial test of the Burmese government's commitment to greater political freedom.

The opposition party, led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, is likely to win the popular vote, but she remains barred from running for president by the country's army-drafted constitution.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
No country could defend everything at the same time and with same strength. But the purpose of military strategy is to discern potential threats and to act accordingly. It is like a man in combat moving its shields to parry blows of the opponent. Shield is not everywhere at the same time, but fighter skilled with shield could make it appear it is .

In this case, trouble in Myanmar started days ago. PLAAF should have anticipated potential incidents, and quietly move some of its assets from other sectors . And when the trouble is over just move them back to their original bases . Now they are doing just that but it is so too late for people killed. And more importantly, it shows potential opponents (real opponents, not Myanmar ) that PLAAF structure is rigid and slow to adapt. That may embolden them to attempt things they would not do if they feared from PLAAF swift response .

I agree generally with what you say apart from the underlined part.

It doesn't say that much about the PLAAF's speed in adapting to the situation, because we don't know when they orders actually came in for them to respond to higher alert.

In other words, it may be more of a political/strategic oversight in believing that no additional army and air force units were necessary, rather than an operational one. From what we can see it seems that mobilization and higher alertness only really began after the bombing deaths, and I'd say their pace of deployment in the last few days has been respectable.

So what the PLA's response in this case tells potential opponents is that the high echelons of the military and government didn't consider the border with Myanmar to be a very important or high risk border to monitor and respond to, until after bombs killed some of their own citizens.
 
USA Today version of what has happened in Myanmar...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Two major misleading statements in this article:
1) "The longtime allies' often difficult relationship has become further strained by Burma's moves toward democracy in recent years." Not true. The Myanmar government leadership had an internal reshuffle and effectively decided to strategically distance itself from China more than before and attempt to solicit Western investment, the byproduct of which is movement towards increased democracy.

2) "Authorities in Burma blamed the incident on ethnic Chinese rebels the Burmese army is fighting close to the border." Though technically true on a pure ethnology basis the rebel group does not identify their ethnicity as Chinese but rather Kokang based on their historical existence as a separate tribe and their geographic domain. They also do not identify with the modern state of China whereas the wording in the article leaves this point vague at best.
 

Ultra

Junior Member
HQ-9 is a long distance (125km range) SAM, similar to PAC-2 or S-300PMU. It is designed to take out SRBMs, cruise missiles, and bomber aircrafts (at long distance). It is an ideal weapon to deny enemy aircraft from flying into spaces like the Taiwan Straight, but not for point defense. I think the HQ-9 might have a minimum range of like 3km, so the LD-2000 would be a much better point defense weapon. Unfortunately the PLA does not have LD-2000 in large numbers. Overall the PLA might need something like the Pantsir-S1 in the future against similar situations.


Nope, China does have quite a few modern point defence systems in large number - namely:

ZBL-09
zbl_09_l4.jpg
HY82486-2.jpg
zbl-09_3.jpg

ZBL-09_30mm_SPAAG.jpg
e12db7d97223.jpg

 

Ultra

Junior Member
The difference is another country bombed and killed Chinese citizens on Chinese territory. The last time China built up troops and equipment on the Vietnamese border was the recent anti-Chinese riots that resulted in deaths and foreign property being destroyed. There was a build-up because of a non-military action. What was "supposedly" an emotional reaction by civilians immediately stopped as a result. I'd say killing Chinese citizens in China is even more a legitimate excuse for China to do what is necessary. No developed country would allow this if it happened to them.



No, you don't understand, massing troops will only create deeper rift and it will actually encourages nationalism on the other side, which will not disappear for generations to come. Vietnam, India , Taiwan, was all threaten by PLA's massing of troops, which all resulted in the local population's anger against Chinese and China at large, and fuelled their nationalism which was exploited by and encouraged by the politicians.

In Myanmar's case - they have a illegitimate ruler (the junta) which is hugely unpopular, but welds ultimate power through the military. By threatening or taking him out, it is win-win for China and Myanmar and the local populace will actually not resent China for once. Of course the strategic implication of taking out a dictator who is easier to control and coerce is not a wise move either. If Myanmar goes full democratic, it will be another flank PLA has to defend and it plays right into American's strategy of containment. What China need is only to threaten the junta only. He needs to be keep in check - much like how American manage the South America back in the days where most of south america was run by CIA backed dictators. If the dictator is not doing what they want, he would be threaten then removed! (eg. Manuel Noriega comes to mind)
 

delft

Brigadier
One point:
If Myanmar goes full democratic, it will be another flank PLA has to defend and it plays right into American's strategy of containment.
It will never be in the interest of Myanmar to attack China. This quote only makes sense if you mean by "fully democratic" being a satellite of US.
Remember that the NATO charter talks about defending democracy while Portugal for the first quarter century of its membership was a fascist dictatorship under Salazar.
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Type 95 SPAAA
type95-9.jpg
The%20Type%2095%20%28PGZ-95%29%20SPAAA%20system_01.jpg


BK1060
773bfe4d4cb02772.jpg


and of course....

LD-2000
choose-weapon-08_27_10-920-13.jpg
ld-2000-5.jpg
The Type 95 is the only point defense weapon I say deploying in large numbers. However, the FN-6 onboard is a very old MANPADs, nothing like the 57E6 missile of the Pantsir-S1. Also, I don't see any Type 95 deployed near the Burmese border. What I saw so far are HQ-12 medium-ranged SAMs and twin 35mm Oerlikon AAAs.
 

Franklin

Captain
No, you don't understand, massing troops will only create deeper rift and it will actually encourages nationalism on the other side, which will not disappear for generations to come. Vietnam, India , Taiwan, was all threaten by PLA's massing of troops, which all resulted in the local population's anger against Chinese and China at large, and fuelled their nationalism which was exploited by and encouraged by the politicians.

In Myanmar's case - they have a illegitimate ruler (the junta) which is hugely unpopular, but welds ultimate power through the military. By threatening or taking him out, it is win-win for China and Myanmar and the local populace will actually not resent China for once. Of course the strategic implication of taking out a dictator who is easier to control and coerce is not a wise move either. If Myanmar goes full democratic, it will be another flank PLA has to defend and it plays right into American's strategy of containment. What China need is only to threaten the junta only. He needs to be keep in check - much like how American manage the South America back in the days where most of south america was run by CIA backed dictators. If the dictator is not doing what they want, he would be threaten then removed! (eg. Manuel Noriega comes to mind)
I think once your territory is bombed and your citizens are killed you will have no other choice but to mass troops on your border. Not just China but any nation in the world. There is no country or government in the world that can sit still and do nothing after an incident like this.

And Myanmar is not going to be fully democratic. The junta has been cracking down on student protesters and ethnic minorities a like. And Aung San Suu Kyi is not allow to run for president. her party is allow to run for parliament and they might get a few posts in the government but the military will still be in control. And even if Myanmar is going to be fully democratic they will not join the US in containing China for her own national interest.
 
Top