China is top 3 in everything except...

Equation

Lieutenant General
Panasian raised the issue of Chinese allies and oversea bases. There is the string of pearls that has incorrectly been hyped as a ring of naval bases.
Let's assume I am to build a string of secure lines for the PLAN to protect Chinese SLoC against as many continguencies as possible. As allies Myanmar and Cambodia would come to my mind as well as Pakistan.

Cambodia might have some qualms because of the support for the Red Khmer, but has overall been an old Chinese ally with an age old conflict with the US-ally Thailand. A connection to Cambodia can be established by land via Laos, that is poor and tries not to be on the wrong side and would like to profit from the proximity to China. There have been some tunnel building experiments along this route and China might show them how to build a safe military grade transport tunnel.

Myanmar wants economic development and certainly prefers Chinese attitudes of non-intervention to Western pressures, plus they share a large river and are reputed to have the most beautiful women (= makes them the natural ally China needs).

Pakistan, being allied to this country has always been a wild card, but India seems not available as Chinese ally as long as they agree to disagree on some border issues and continue negotiations year after year. Pakistan and India have a more beneficial relationship by saber rattling on the border and thus increase internal stability via an external enemy that even threatens with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a key Muslim country, for Central Asia as well as for the Persian Gulf due to cultural and military influence. Making it a nuclear power with some Chinese help has boosted that alliance and the good price of Chinese arms exports due to PPP have create a pretty solid China fanclub in Pakistan. That's something the so-called Pakistani "ally" USA is totally missing. Pakistan might prove one of the most valuable Chinese allies that has a population equal to Russia and still needs lots of economic growth, a reason to admire China's strides. Pakistan has huge capabilities and while not being the strongest ally available, it is a strong ally that China can help to lift to a higher levels in military, economics and education for mutual benefits.
Other than Pakistan the lessons learned might be well received in former East Pakistan, today Bangladesh, that can be reached by sea over a short distance from Myanmar, has always been very maritime oriented society and is neither far away from China overland, although India with some disputes with China there is in the way.

These three allies can provide secure connections to the landmass of China and would enhance the Chinese position in the South China Sea (Cambodia) as well as the Indian Ocean (Myanmar, Pakistan). A huge advantage of Myanmar is the waterway to China, while the others can be connected by roads, railways and possibly large transport tunnels. Transport tunnels, like the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, are a concept China has been experimenting with and that can be highly effective for future transportation (due to predictable conditions and thus constant reliable speed. It's for example enacted in subways to transport people, but can be expanded to freight. Tunnels offer the additional capability to run adjacent serviceable pipelines protected underground.
Pakistan&Afghanistan(a Pakistani backyard called strategic depth where the US currently plays nation building) and the region of Tibet plus adjacent provinces of China all offer a suitable place for experimenting with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to overcome the mountains into one of the oldest and major mining regions of the world.

Infrastructure will in my opinion be a major source of alliances with China and China does have a great history of infrastructure and transport innovation to build upon:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(a very interesting blog, especially on green and transportation technology).

Other than these three allies, Africa wants a post colonial infrastructure that is not just meant to carry the riches to ports and off to somewhere else, but helps to develop sustained economies. China is in part very modern, in part third world with a high ingenuity in solutions to improve their living standard at low cost. The assembled know-how of all these contributions to raise China out of poverty will likely also have a positive impact on Africa. Chinese willingness to settle and work in Africa, despite the unavoidable tension with native factions, will likely have a deep influence on African outlooks at China if China is capable to create mutual prosperity benefits for all partners. Each of these African nations is small and weak, but they are natives to Africa, a continent known for difficulties for foreign invaders and occupiers.

Excuse me that I again made such a long statement about my point of view.
What are your opinions about future Chinese allies? Will these provide significantly improved security benefits to China?

As far as Asia, I can see China having improving relations with Vietnam, and stronger ties with Laos and Malaysia.

In South Asia, Bangladesh could become China's nest ally in that region, assuming she isn't annexed by India in the future. Meanwhile Sri Lanka will open up more business and military ties with China.

In the Middle East and Central Asia, I can see Afghanistan play a major role for China as far as business and trades, but not militarily, I think the Taliban is coming back when US and NATO leaves in 2014. Kazakhstan will open up more business with China as they are also part of the SCO members.
 

Vini_Vidi_Vici

Junior Member
We're in the post-Cold War era, where pursuit of happiness and making cashish $$$ is more important than trying to kill one another. No body and no longer does any country want to obliterate another country, even Pakistan/India or US/Russia don't want to do that anymore. Even if you have just 50 nukes, it would be more than adequate to serve as a deterrence. There's nothing serious enough to make any country wanting to risk losing millions of population. Even when talking about oil or natural resources, it is not enough to fight over it and lose millions of your own population. Although there were indeed more than 1 million Iraqi death throughout the 8 years of invasion, but those were Iraqis. There's no way that the US government would be willing to lose a million US citizens over anything! So at this stage, as long as you have ICBM, 200-300 nukes are more than enough.

I personally think 200-300 estimate by Wikipedia and other sources is probably close to the actual figure, especially when considering the actual number in service. During the Cold War, China was too poor and didn't have that much resources to build that many nukes. But when China had the money and expertise to mass produce it, the Cold War ended. So the stockpile remained small.

At the end of the day, 200 Vs 2000 doesn't really make that big of a difference. Either one could take out millions of your population.

---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

I don't think China is top three in everything, especially when you look at the quality aspect. China's army is undisputedly the largest in the world, but if you look at the quality side, it's not that high. NATO and even Russian counterparts are 100% mechanized, the Chinese side is only partial, maybe 100% in some very elite divisions. The NATO and Russian forces have countless gunships accompanying their every move, whereas the total number of WZ9 is less than 100. WZ10 is too early to comment on.
On the other hand, quality of infantry weapon also differ drastically. Almost all NATO troops are equipped with ballistic vests, night vision, individual radio, and other countless gadgets. On the contrary, PLA soldiers would be lucky if they have a squad level radio for each person. PLA also lacks behind in CS4ISR infrastructure.

For the navies, China has one of the biggest tonnages, but the core warships are still pretty small by US and Russian standard. Both Russia, USN, JMSDF, Royal Navy, and French Navy are ahead of China in post 80s level warship tonnage. The difference in the sailor quality and operation experience is pretty big too.

China's air-force is the third biggest even when only counting 3rd and 3+ generation fighter jets. But the pilot's annual flight hours still lag behind compared to NATO standard.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
We're in the post-Cold War era, where pursuit of happiness and making cashish $$$ is more important than trying to kill one another. No body and no longer does any country want to obliterate another country, even Pakistan/India or US/Russia don't want to do that anymore. Even if you have just 50 nukes, it would be more than adequate to serve as a deterrence. There's nothing serious enough to make any country wanting to risk losing millions of population. Even when talking about oil or natural resources, it is not enough to fight over it and lose millions of your own population. Although there were indeed more than 1 million Iraqi death throughout the 8 years of invasion, but those were Iraqis. There's no way that the US government would be willing to lose a million US citizens over anything! So at this stage, as long as you have ICBM, 200-300 nukes are more than enough.

I personally think 200-300 estimate by Wikipedia and other sources is probably close to the actual figure, especially when considering the actual number in service. During the Cold War, China was too poor and didn't have that much resources to build that many nukes. But when China had the money and expertise to mass produce it, the Cold War ended. So the stockpile remained small.

At the end of the day, 200 Vs 2000 doesn't really make that big of a difference. Either one could take out millions of your population.

---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

I don't think China is top three in everything, especially when you look at the quality aspect. China's army is undisputedly the largest in the world, but if you look at the quality side, it's not that high. NATO and even Russian counterparts are 100% mechanized, the Chinese side is only partial, maybe 100% in some very elite divisions. The NATO and Russian forces have countless gunships accompanying their every move, whereas the total number of WZ9 is less than 100. WZ10 is too early to comment on.
On the other hand, quality of infantry weapon also differ drastically. Almost all NATO troops are equipped with ballistic vests, night vision, individual radio, and other countless gadgets. On the contrary, PLA soldiers would be lucky if they have a squad level radio for each person. PLA also lacks behind in CS4ISR infrastructure.

For the navies, China has one of the biggest tonnages, but the core warships are still pretty small by US and Russian standard. Both Russia, USN, JMSDF, Royal Navy, and French Navy are ahead of China in post 80s level warship tonnage. The difference in the sailor quality and operation experience is pretty big too.

China's air-force is the third biggest even when only counting 3rd and 3+ generation fighter jets. But the pilot's annual flight hours still lag behind compared to NATO standard.

Why is UK and France have larger nuclear arsenal than China? China is way bigger than UK and France in every respects except standard of living, GDP per capita, and etc... China even has an larger English speaking population than UK and USA combined. Yet, her nuclear arsenal #s (if they were to believed) are smaller than even tiny UK and France.
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
Why is UK and France have larger nuclear arsenal than China? China is way bigger than UK and France in every respects except standard of living, GDP per capita, and etc... China even has an larger English speaking population than UK and USA combined. Yet, her nuclear arsenal #s (if they were to believed) are smaller than even tiny UK and France.

China think that having more nuclear weapons will not make them more secure. Thoses weapons are costly. Why do they need to invest a lot of money to produce weapons "they will probably never use?". They had enough fissile materials to produce several thousands nuclear weapons decades ago; but they choose to not.

During the cold war they managed to deter the soviets for executing a nuclear lead armoured strike across to Lop Nor with less than a dozen nukes and none of them were ever mated to their rockets which would never even reach Moscow.

What is changing china nuclear strategy is the US BMD. It seems that the US don't want to share nuclear vulnerability with china.
That is why china is trying to made its nuclear weapons less vulnerable(SSBN, Underground tunnel, DF-31A etc) but i don't think they are planning to increase substantially their stock.
 
Last edited:

rott

New Member
Registered Member
I am willing to bet China has more nuclear weapons than sources like Wiki say. Obvious not 3000+ like articles on Yahoo reports but definitely more than the UK and France. You also have to take in account how powerful each country's nukes are. For example, a DF-41 is claimed to have more megatons than the entire Indian nuclear arsenal.

DF-41? Are you talking about the ICBM or the Arsenal?
 

maxx

New Member
What is changing china nuclear strategy is the US BMD. It seems that the US don't want to share nuclear vulnerability with china.
That is why china is trying to made its nuclear weapons less vulnerable(SSBN, Underground tunnel, DF-31A etc) but i don't think they are planning to increase substantially their stock.
You mean first strike?? Out of those, only SSBN can remotely defeat BMD, and that is through launching SLBMs from unexpected place. Your best bet are stealth bomber, orbiting nuke or hypersonic (with stealth) missile.
 
Panasian raised the issue of Chinese allies and oversea bases. There is the string of pearls that has incorrectly been hyped as a ring of naval bases.
Let's assume I am to build a string of secure lines for the PLAN to protect Chinese SLoC against as many continguencies as possible. As allies Myanmar and Cambodia would come to my mind as well as Pakistan.

Cambodia might have some qualms because of the support for the Red Khmer, but has overall been an old Chinese ally with an age old conflict with the US-ally Thailand. A connection to Cambodia can be established by land via Laos, that is poor and tries not to be on the wrong side and would like to profit from the proximity to China. There have been some tunnel building experiments along this route and China might show them how to build a safe military grade transport tunnel.

Myanmar wants economic development and certainly prefers Chinese attitudes of non-intervention to Western pressures, plus they share a large river and are reputed to have the most beautiful women (= makes them the natural ally China needs).

Pakistan, being allied to this country has always been a wild card, but India seems not available as Chinese ally as long as they agree to disagree on some border issues and continue negotiations year after year. Pakistan and India have a more beneficial relationship by saber rattling on the border and thus increase internal stability via an external enemy that even threatens with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a key Muslim country, for Central Asia as well as for the Persian Gulf due to cultural and military influence. Making it a nuclear power with some Chinese help has boosted that alliance and the good price of Chinese arms exports due to PPP have create a pretty solid China fanclub in Pakistan. That's something the so-called Pakistani "ally" USA is totally missing. Pakistan might prove one of the most valuable Chinese allies that has a population equal to Russia and still needs lots of economic growth, a reason to admire China's strides. Pakistan has huge capabilities and while not being the strongest ally available, it is a strong ally that China can help to lift to a higher levels in military, economics and education for mutual benefits.
Other than Pakistan the lessons learned might be well received in former East Pakistan, today Bangladesh, that can be reached by sea over a short distance from Myanmar, has always been very maritime oriented society and is neither far away from China overland, although India with some disputes with China there is in the way.

These three allies can provide secure connections to the landmass of China and would enhance the Chinese position in the South China Sea (Cambodia) as well as the Indian Ocean (Myanmar, Pakistan). A huge advantage of Myanmar is the waterway to China, while the others can be connected by roads, railways and possibly large transport tunnels. Transport tunnels, like the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, are a concept China has been experimenting with and that can be highly effective for future transportation (due to predictable conditions and thus constant reliable speed. It's for example enacted in subways to transport people, but can be expanded to freight. Tunnels offer the additional capability to run adjacent serviceable pipelines protected underground.
Pakistan&Afghanistan(a Pakistani backyard called strategic depth where the US currently plays nation building) and the region of Tibet plus adjacent provinces of China all offer a suitable place for experimenting with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to overcome the mountains into one of the oldest and major mining regions of the world.

Infrastructure will in my opinion be a major source of alliances with China and China does have a great history of infrastructure and transport innovation to build upon:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(a very interesting blog, especially on green and transportation technology).

Other than these three allies, Africa wants a post colonial infrastructure that is not just meant to carry the riches to ports and off to somewhere else, but helps to develop sustained economies. China is in part very modern, in part third world with a high ingenuity in solutions to improve their living standard at low cost. The assembled know-how of all these contributions to raise China out of poverty will likely also have a positive impact on Africa. Chinese willingness to settle and work in Africa, despite the unavoidable tension with native factions, will likely have a deep influence on African outlooks at China if China is capable to create mutual prosperity benefits for all partners. Each of these African nations is small and weak, but they are natives to Africa, a continent known for difficulties for foreign invaders and occupiers.

Excuse me that I again made such a long statement about my point of view.
What are your opinions about future Chinese allies? Will these provide significantly improved security benefits to China?

These developments mostly contribute to China's soft power and influence. The security benefits are marginal at best, even in the case of Pakistan. Pakistan is relatively weak when compared to India, and both countries have ingrained hostility with each other, which means it is pretty much a zero sum game for China's friendliness towards one or the other.
 

Kurt

Junior Member
Comparing China to the "small" UK or France.
Let's look at per capita PPP. Wikipedia says China is around 8,382$ (rough estimate).
France has 35,613 per capita PPP and the UK has 36,605$ per capita PPP.
Food is about 20% of expenditure in Europe, but can be significantly lower. If we assume you need 5,000$ PPP a year per capita to lead a healthy live and contribute to a war economy. Going below that ruins your health and kills you, making it impossible to contribute much to the war effort. A Chinese can now contribute 3,382$ PPP per capita, while French give 30,613$ per capita and British contribute 31,605$ per capita. that is 9-10 times the money China can raise. both have about 60 million inhabitants, thus a financial power available that compares to 600 million Chinese and both combined have the same financial war leverage as the whole of China. If you take into account that China did have a rapid growth, while the French and UK have been rich for decades, then you can deduct that both had much morer capability to build up maginificient armament, development know-how and other things in the past, then they still have quite an advantage because a decade ago they were each as wealthy as China.
The per capita disposable PPP income is even more limited for China because compareably small sums per capita have drastic standard of living repercussions that do not appear for the old industrial powers when they do raise higher amounts per capita to achieve the same sums for a similar purpose. The expected reply is now that Europeans are whimps and Chinese are tough. Well, read more about disposable income PPP per capita before you fall for that hybris.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Comparing China to the "small" UK or France.
Let's look at per capita PPP. Wikipedia says China is around 8,382$ (rough estimate).
France has 35,613 per capita PPP and the UK has 36,605$ per capita PPP.
Food is about 20% of expenditure in Europe, but can be significantly lower. If we assume you need 5,000$ PPP a year per capita to lead a healthy live and contribute to a war economy. Going below that ruins your health and kills you, making it impossible to contribute much to the war effort. A Chinese can now contribute 3,382$ PPP per capita, while French give 30,613$ per capita and British contribute 31,605$ per capita. that is 9-10 times the money China can raise. both have about 60 million inhabitants, thus a financial power available that compares to 600 million Chinese and both combined have the same financial war leverage as the whole of China. If you take into account that China did have a rapid growth, while the French and UK have been rich for decades, then you can deduct that both had much morer capability to build up maginificient armament, development know-how and other things in the past, then they still have quite an advantage because a decade ago they were each as wealthy as China.
The per capita disposable PPP income is even more limited for China because compareably small sums per capita have drastic standard of living repercussions that do not appear for the old industrial powers when they do raise higher amounts per capita to achieve the same sums for a similar purpose. The expected reply is now that Europeans are whimps and Chinese are tough. Well, read more about disposable income PPP per capita before you fall for that hybris.

That is extremely misleading. The main source of GDP generated in Europe is from the service sector. That is not going to be of much use to a war effort. The economy in peace time is very different from a war time economy. In this regard, France and UK *are* small players, as they simply do not have either the human or the natural resources to match big countries like China, USA, and Russia. Their only edge is in technology, and that gap is quickly narrowing.
 
Top