China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

[Equation]

It is reasonable to assess that China will continue its attempt to exert regional hegemony in the western Pacific through selective intimidation of its neighbors and reinforcement of its resource and territorial claims. It is also generally agreed that America, together with treaty allies and partners in the region, has the only realistic ability to deter or thwart China from achieving its ambitions. Further, it is in America’s and other countries’ national interests that China not behave as a regional hegemon but rather “peacefully rise” as a responsible nation working within international norms and respectful of the rights of other nations. Since China may be unwilling to behave in accordance with these norms, the U.S. and allies need operational approaches to address the requirements of possible conflict.

Just by the tone of this article it's another attempt at "Do as I say, not what I do" foreign policy shoving down China's throats that the media keeps trying to convey.

 

[Blackstone]

Just by the tone of this article it's another attempt at "Do as I say, not what I do" foreign policy shoving down China's throats that the media keeps trying to convey.

On the other hand, the author is basically correct in China's coercive actions, and the US alliance is the only entity that could stop her.

 

[Equation]

On the other hand, the author is basically correct in China's coercive actions, and the US alliance is the only entity that could stop her.

Show me evidence of any Chinese "coercive actions" of its used of military force to subjugate it's neighbors. It's another propaganda loud mouth trying to get the world to look at China as the new boogeyman. The author's opinion reflects his goal of wanting to contain China at all costs by using neighbors to do the dirty work for the US.

 

[Blackstone]

Show me evidence of any Chinese "coercive actions" of its used of military force to subjugate it's neighbors. It's another propaganda loud mouth trying to get the world to look at China as the new boogeyman. The author's opinion reflects his goal of wanting to contain China at all costs by using neighbors to do the dirty work for the US.

Since when do coercive actions only flow out of gun barrels? There are many other ways to apply political, economic, and diplomatic coercion, and China is putting them all to good use. That goes for her white hull fleets too. I'll grant you there are China-threat chickenhawks aplenty in Washington. They're unusually loud, but it doesn't mean they're always wrong. And IMHO, the author got it right.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/URL]

 

[AssassinsMace]

Obama lied that China ruined environmental talks at Copenhagen. Obama lied about the big picture over cyber espionage singling out China. Is it hard to believe the pivot towards Asia was orchestrated and these disputes were engineered to get a reaction out of China in order to make the pivot acceptable? Obama did give Exxon permission to explore the contested area for Vietnam where China put up the oil derricks and isn't it these incidents that are being used to paint China as aggressive. Look at how Japan lied about how China was acting aggressive with fighter jets when they were doing that all along.

 

[Equation]

Since when do coercive actions only flow out of gun barrels? There are many other ways to apply political, economic, and diplomatic coercion, and China is putting them all to good use. That goes for her white hull fleets too. I'll grant you there are China-threat chickenhawks aplenty in Washington. They're unusually loud, but it doesn't mean they're always wrong. And IMHO, the author got it right.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/URL]

Since when does China protecting their oil rigs and islands to safeguard their sovereignty and interests are consider "coercive"? IMO the author is the chickenhawks conveying a demand that the status quo is the law of the world and therefore China should abide by it whether they like it or not. As a result this qualifies as a more aggressive nature to contain China to keep the status quo in place.

 

[Blackstone]

Since when does China protecting their oil rigs and islands to safeguard their sovereignty and interests are consider "coercive"? IMO the author is the chickenhawks conveying a demand that the status quo is the law of the world and therefore China should abide by it whether they like it or not. As a result this qualifies as a more aggressive nature to contain China to keep the status quo in place.

We're at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Geographer]

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 lost the Sino-Vietnamese war the same way the U.S. lost the Vietnam War. China won the battles but failed to achieve its strategic objectives. China invaded Vietnam to force Vietnam to stop its invasion of Cambodia. China failed in this regard. Vietnam pulled all its forces back from the Chinese border to protect Hanoi so China had a relatively easy time in the few provinces it occupied.

The other objectives were far less important than protecting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia--a Chinese ally. (China should be mighty ashamed it tried to protect Pol Pot and the genocidal Khmer Rouge.) Vietnam's economy was extremely weak in 1979 so there wasn't much industry to destroy. That's the same reason the U.S bombing campaign against Vietnam failed to make an impact in the war. Second, most of Vietnam's economy lay outside the few provinces the PLA occupied so even if the PLA wiped out the economy in those provinces, it didn't have much of a impact on the whole Vietnamese economy.

 

[Equation]

China lost the Sino-Vietnamese war the same way the U.S. lost the Vietnam War. China won the battles but failed to achieve its strategic objectives. China invaded Vietnam to force Vietnam to stop its invasion of Cambodia. China failed in this regard. Vietnam pulled all its forces back from the Chinese border to protect Hanoi so China had a relatively easy time in the few provinces it occupied.

The other objectives were far less important than protecting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia--a Chinese ally. (China should be mighty ashamed it tried to protect Pol Pot and the genocidal Khmer Rouge.) Vietnam's economy was extremely weak in 1979 so there wasn't much industry to destroy. That's the same reason the U.S bombing campaign against Vietnam failed to make an impact in the war. Second, most of Vietnam's economy lay outside the few provinces the PLA occupied so even if the PLA wiped out the economy in those provinces, it didn't have much of a impact on the whole Vietnamese economy.

They did? Didn't someone in the forum mentioned that Vietnam suffered the most POWs when the two side exchange prisoners (the rate was like to 10 to 1) after the war? Not only that China holds on to the territory that they gain on Vietnam and was very close to Hanoi all within a matter of a month.

 

[Blackstone]

They did? Didn't someone in the forum mentioned that Vietnam suffered the most POWs when the two side exchange prisoners (the rate was like to 10 to 1) after the war? Not only that China holds on to the territory that they gain on Vietnam and was very close to Hanoi all within a matter of a month.

Let's look at the bottom line that doesn't require any disputed casualty statistics. China had two strategic objectives going into the '79 war, prove to Vietnam's leaders their military alliance with the Soviet Union was worthless, and get Vietnam to pull out Cambodia. China was successful in the former and unsuccessful in the latter. The best anyone could reasonably say for China is it achieved limited success, but it in no way imposed its will on Vietnam. So, if "imposing one's will on the enemy" is victory condition in wars, then China failed and Vietnam has some rights to say it won the war.