China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

[Lezt]

I don't think Vietnam will agree with your statement. In the last Sino-Vietnamese war, China did have an opportunity to demonstrate its abilities and only those with a naturalistic bias would share your views.

In any case, your comments are somewhat inflammatory.

Inflammatory or not, it is a fact. You like it or not, the USA can push her neighbors around; Russia can push Eastern Europe around; so what is wrong with a statement that the stronger can push the weaker around? that is a fact of life, deal with it.

I don't know how you can make your claim. China actually did quite well in the last Sino-Vietnamese, how would you judge otherwise?

Granted the strategic goal was not fully achieved; but:

1) demonstration that the USSR could not and is mentally unwilling to back her ally with a defense agreement; China mobilized 1.5 million troops along the border with the soviet union; and 20 million reserves were put on alert; and the invasion of Vietnam was done with second line troops so first line troops can be deployed against the soviet union, to deter a soviet intervention. The soviet union did not fulfill her treaty obligations to Vietnam.
2) set back and reset the Vietnamese economy so that Vietnam will not be competitive globally for a very long time; China implemented a scorched earth policy to reduce the industrial heartland in northern Vietnam that were not previously destroyed by B52s.
3) to force Vietnam to back away from Cambodia - which China failed.

The losses were also in favor of the Chinese army, even if you choose to believe the Vietnamese numbers; and the invasion force is comparatively small, it is smaller than the 6th army at Stalingrad, 200K men, with a 400K reserve.

So what China demonstrated is:
1) China have the will to go to war, even if it means it would be against a super power
2) China know how not to get dragged into a slow war (think Afghanistan, Iraq) that is just a drain on the economy

So how do you think that Vietnam would not agree with these statements? the land border issues between Vietnam and China were settled immediately after the collapse of the soviet union; why would Vietnam do so if it does not fear another beating from China?

 

[Brumby]

Inflammatory or not, it is a fact. You like it or not, the USA can push her neighbors around; Russia can push Eastern Europe around; so what is wrong with a statement that the stronger can push the weaker around? that is a fact of life, deal with it.

I don't know how you can make your claim. China actually did quite well in the last Sino-Vietnamese, how would you judge otherwise?

The contentious issue is not about US or Russia or their actions. You made a statement that China can beat the crap out of lesser regional powers. The only recent example of China's performance is the Sino Vietnamese war. I am not making any claim - you are. Please state the historical facts that would remotely resemble that the crap was beaten out of Vietnam by China.

You are expressing an opinion. Please don't confuse it as facts or an assumed outcome of any potential conflict.

 

[Lezt]

The contentious issue is not about US or Russia or their actions. You made a statement that China can beat the crap out of lesser regional powers. The only recent example of China's performance is the Sino Vietnamese war. I am not making any claim - you are. Please state the historical facts that would remotely resemble that the crap was beaten out of Vietnam by China.

You are expressing an opinion. Please don't confuse it as facts or an assumed outcome of any potential conflict.

what did I express?

If the question is can China beat the crap out of her minor power neighbors, I think the answer is yes.

I did not mentioned Vietnam, you took it to mean Vietnam and classify Vietnam is the "minor power neighbor" in my statement; which is your choice.

You are also the one who implied that china failed to demonstrate its abilities

n the last Sino-Vietnamese war, China did have an opportunity to demonstrate its abilities and only those with a naturalistic bias would share your views.

and my argument against Vietnam is presented in my subsequent post.

So the fact is, you chose to argue that Vietnam was a minor power, who was not beaten the crap out of by China in the last Sino-Vietnamese war. therefore, shouldn't you justify how you feel:

1) Vietnam is a minor power?
2) Vietnam did not take a crap beating?

The latter is the one which we will mostly disagree on - and you have not yet justified how, but if you consider a war that puts back a country's economy for 30 years as in the case for Vietnam and cost her her international prestige and allies. Then frankly, we disagree.

 

[Solaris]

1) Vietnam is a minor power?
2) Vietnam did not take a crap beating?

Yes, Vietnam is a minor power. No, Vietnam did not take a "crap beating". I'm pretty sure neither side gained anything significant out of the exchange except many thousands of lives lost. In fact, I would further suggest that Vietnam held its own very well against a major power like China. China failed to teach Vietnam any 'lesson' as was its goal. In that respect alone I would say that Vietnam (relatively speaking) got the better deal out of the exchange.

 

[Equation]

I mean, which major power had practiced total war in the recent years, or decades?

Bombing the crap out of Libya or fighting insurgents in Chechnya or steam rolling Iraq is not really equivalent to fighting another major power.

If the question is can China beat the crap out of her minor power neighbors, I think the answer is yes. If the question is can China fight a successful war against another major power like Japan; the answer of experience is that China is in the same boat as Russia, USA, France, Germany... they don't have experience fighting a total war in the past many decades.

Japan would be in that same inexperience boat as well.

 

[Pmichael]

Warfare is not about experience but about adaptation of new strategical and technological realities. The history is full of examples of young and unproven powers beat "more experienced" powers.

The experience card is something to give your favourite country a magical bonus.

 

[Lezt]

Yes, Vietnam is a minor power. No, Vietnam did not take a "crap beating". I'm pretty sure neither side gained anything significant out of the exchange except many thousands of lives lost. In fact, I would further suggest that Vietnam held its own very well against a major power like China. China failed to teach Vietnam any 'lesson' as was its goal. In that respect alone I would say that Vietnam (relatively speaking) got the better deal out of the exchange.

Solaris,

with all due respect,

Did China not teach Vietnam a lesson?

from the book: China's War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and Implications: page 91-92

Deng Xiaoping's whirlwind visit to the Unitited States from January 28 to Febuar 5 reaffirmed Beijing's decision to go to war with Vietnam. The fact is that Deng had discussed twice the possibility in confidence with President Jimmy Carter in the white house. The fist meeting was held in the afternoon of January 29 together with both sides' top aides. Deng carefully outlined China's tentative plans for a punitive attack against Vietnam, similar to the 1962 Sino-Indian War. He said "we consider it necessary to put a restraint on the wild ambitions of the Vietnamese and to give them an appropiate limited lesson". He also presented various possible Soviet Reaction and how China would counter them. All he requested was US moral support. He then asked President Carter's advice. Carter replied that Vietnam was being condemned for its aggression in Kampuchea, bit of China moved against Vietnam it might arouse sympathy for Vietnam, causing some nations to brand China as the culprit. Moreover, Carter added, China's military move would help to refute one of the best arguments for the new -Sino-American Relationship, that it would contribure to more peace and stability in Asia. Deng expressed his appreciation for Carter's comments but said that China could not leit its arrogant neighbors disturb the region with impunity.

... Deng replied, " China must still teach Vietnam a lesson". Deng also said that China would withdraw its troops after a short period of attack. As Carter observed: " my impression was that the decision had already been made, Vietnam would be punished"

China achieved most of the goals it set out:

1) Show that USSR will not back up her ally
2) Strengthen relationships with the USA
3) Reduce the economic and military strength of Vietnam
4) Get Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia

Only 4 was not achieved, the rest of it were achieved.

China also withdrew in less than 4 weeks - short as the Sino-Indian war as promised to Jimmy Carter before the invasion; so practically everything went according to plan for China

 

[Solaris]

from the book: China's War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and Implications: page 91-92

China achieved most of the goals it set out:

1) Show that USSR will not back up her ally
2) Strengthen relationships with the USA
3) Reduce the economic and military strength of Vietnam

Of the three supposedly achieved goals, which ones were military victories? 1) and 2) have no direct relation to military victory by China. China could have gotten its butt absolutely WHIPPED and still achieve objectives 1) and 2).

I dispute the significance of 3). If by "reduce" you mean lessen to any extent, then yes. But on the other hand, China also had a similar "reduction" in economic and military strength. Were either of these reductions significant to Vietnam? Not at all. Did Vietnam leave Cambodia? No. Did Vietnam become so weakened that it was unable to resist any further incursions by China or some other regional power? No. Did Vietnam lose the support of USSR? No, clearly it never really had it to begin with. So what did Vietnam lose that was of any significance? The answer is nothing.

 

[Equation]

Of the three supposedly achieved goals, which ones were military victories? 1) and 2) have no direct relation to military victory by China. China could have gotten its butt absolutely WHIPPED and still achieve objectives 1) and 2).

I dispute the significance of 3). If by "reduce" you mean lessen to any extent, then yes. But on the other hand, China also had a similar "reduction" in economic and military strength. Were either of these reductions significant to Vietnam? Not at all. Did Vietnam leave Cambodia? No. Did Vietnam become so weakened that it was unable to resist any further incursions by China or some other regional power? No. Did Vietnam lose the support of USSR? No, clearly it never really had it to begin with. So what did Vietnam lose that was of any significance? The answer is nothing.

Vietnam certainly didn't upgrade it's military or economy like China did. Did Vietnam dictate what kind of government Cambodia or Laos can have? NO. Did Vietnamese military had any kind of substance to enforce their will upon their neighbors? No.

 

[nemo]

I dispute the significance of 3). If by "reduce" you mean lessen to any extent, then yes. But on the other hand, China also had a similar "reduction" in economic and military strength. Were either of these reductions significant to Vietnam? Not at all. Did Vietnam leave Cambodia? No. Did Vietnam become so weakened that it was unable to resist any further incursions by China or some other regional power? No. Did Vietnam lose the support of USSR? No, clearly it never really had it to begin with. So what did Vietnam lose that was of any significance? The answer is nothing.

China completely destroyed the economic infrastructures (factories, livestock) of 3 of the Vietnamese provinces before they left. It's more significant then it seems because Vietnam purposefully located a significant number of their industries there to keep them away from the reach of the Americans and South Vietnam.

And note that China is much larger compare to Vietnam both in population and economy. Even if Chinese loss is similar to size suffered by the Vietnam (which I am doubtful), percentage wise Vietnam suffered much more damage.