China's Offensive Capacity?

War can only happen in the foreseeable future between 2 bullshit nations or one big nation vs one bullshit nation like USA vs Iraq or China vs Taiwan but never China Vs India or China Vs Russia.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by this statement? Particulary reguarding the USA? Bullshit nation ?? Whatever do you mean? Please explain yourself in a calm and rational manner. I myself have never intennionally insulted anyone or any country in this forum. You should not either.

No need to worry about it, I take care of it...in my 'own' way:nono:

KYli said:

Idont, after WWII the Great Britain Empire was in the state of decline, there are little they could do but to ally themselves with US. If Britain had the power they had in 18 century, do you think they would be an allied to US.

There are no question that nations only look after their own interests, so there are no such thing as allied of inherant cultural and ideological.

Click to expand...

You and Miggy have misunderstand me. An alliance between two countries with similar culture, is much much stronger than an alliance between countries based on a mutual threat. For once that threat is gone, so is the alliance.

IDonT said:

You and Miggy have misunderstand me. An alliance between two countries with similar culture, is much much stronger than an alliance between countries based on a mutual threat. For once that threat is gone, so is the alliance.

Click to expand...

Your best friend will be your worst enemy, so yes two countries with similar culture will be much stronger alliance. But it don't gurantee anything else, when two countries with similar culture become enemy. They might became so bitter that hatred or resentment will last much longer and go deeper, so only nations interests will be more important in Alliance.

bd popeye said:

What do you mean by this statement? Particulary reguarding the USA? Bullshit nation ?? Whatever do you mean? Please explain yourself in a calm and rational manner. I myself have never intennionally insulted anyone or any country in this forum. You should not either.

Click to expand...

He means that war can only happen between a major power and a small state (like US and Afghanistan). Two major powers will not enter into a direct conflict -- but proxy wars can happen.

You and Miggy have misunderstand me. An alliance between two countries with similar culture, is much much stronger than an alliance between countries based on a mutual threat. For once that threat is gone, so is the alliance.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with IDonT very much, but I have to agree here.

States with similar cultures are "natural allies" and "unnatural enemies". In that sense, US and GB are natural allies.

But there are exceptions. More importantly, states with dissimilar cultures can end up as allies for external reasons, but in the course of that alliance, forge deeper links through political interaction and culture exchange.

Roger604 said:

I don't agree with IDonT very much, but I have to agree here.

States with similar cultures are "natural allies" and "unnatural enemies". In that sense, US and GB are natural allies.

But there are exceptions. More importantly, states with dissimilar cultures can end up as allies for external reasons, but in the course of that alliance, forge deeper links through political interaction and culture exchange.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true, US and GB are natural allied for many reasons. Simply implying they are allies because of their cultures will not be justified.

I just don't see the Culture thing had anything to do with deeper links, as much as history told us. There are many states with similar ideological fought each others, how many wars had China, Japan, vietnam and Korea had fought. And how many war the europe nations had fought each others, even US and Britain had fought few times before the WWII.

KYli said:

Not entirely true, US and GB are natural allied for many reasons. Simply implying they are allies because of their cultures will not be justified.

I just don't see the Culture thing had anything to do with deeper links, as much as history told us. There are many states with similar ideological fought each others, how many wars had China, Japan, vietnam and Korea had fought. And how many war the europe nations had fought each others, even US and Britain had fought few times before the WWII.

Click to expand...

True, but those wars are a function of distance. In the past, your own backyard was the world. Therefore, you only have your neighbors to fight and make alliances. The distances were just to great.
Now that the world is smaller, such conflict is possible.

IDonT said:

True, but those wars are a function of distance. In the past, your own backyard was the world. Therefore, you only have your neighbors to fight and make alliances. The distances were just to great.
Now that the world is smaller, such conflict is possible.

Click to expand...

True, but it just had prove my point, it don't matter if they shared same cultures as long as they have conflict of interest. They still are willing to fight each other, nations put interests against everything else. History told us that similiar nations will compete against each other for the leadership role before they are willing to engage against outsider force.

In my opinion, China needs to redress its quantity by introducing quality into its armed forces. In order to do so, China needs to evaluate its economic feasability, vis-a-vis the current growth. For such a thing to happen, China would need to weigh in the productive aspect of having a 2 million plus army. Whether that many troops are really needed, and if so, for waht purpose.

The basic doctrine, from what i gather, is that China's historical doctrine of its armed forces, has been defensive as opposed to offensive. Taking this into account, China would need to counter balance its rather lumbering weight of a big army, to a size which resembles more of the characteristics of a force multiplier.

Here technology plays a pivotal role. And unlike the United States, China has the advantage of shedding the burden of billions in R&D where starting from scratch would kill the economy. To that of an intermediatory technological advancement where proven or progressive technology is taken in. This allows China a far rapid pace in providing its armed forces with better equipement, at a cheaper cost.

The way i see it, over the next 20-25 years, China needs to shed atleast 900,000 troops in order to maintain a force that is able to project globaly.

Here there should be advancements in three aspects.

First one would be the army, where troops are trimmed down to about roughly 1.7 or 1.8 million. These are gradually trained and equipped with standard issue modern weapons. Also, the army needs mobility and for that China would need a significant capability in the Military Transport Dept (both fixed and rotary winged aircrafts).

Second one would be the airforce, where introduction to fighter aircrafts are based on two main capabilities. Range and detection. In terms of detection, China would need to develop a replica of Link 16 Datalink which would inter-connect not only the fighters with the AWACS, but also fighter with other fighters. As for range, well that should be achieved with Air Refuelers.

Third one would be navy, where its mobility and capability would entirely rest on carrier battle groups. For this, China would need to develop, over the next 15 years, aircraft carriers.

Dizasta76 said:

Here technology plays a pivotal role. And unlike the United States, China has the advantage of shedding the burden of billions in R&D where starting from scratch would kill the economy. To that of an intermediatory technological advancement where proven or progressive technology is taken in. This allows China a far rapid pace in providing its armed forces with better equipement, at a cheaper cost.

Click to expand...

This is almost verbatim what the leadership has been doing since the early 90's (fall of the Soviet Union).

Dizasta76 said:

The way i see it, over the next 20-25 years, China needs to shed atleast 900,000 troops in order to maintain a force that is able to project globaly.

Click to expand...

They've already done that. Currently, there are 2.3 million.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1249

Dizasta76 said:

First one would be the army, where troops are trimmed down to about roughly 1.7 or 1.8 million. These are gradually trained and equipped with standard issue modern weapons. Also, the army needs mobility and for that China would need a significant capability in the Military Transport Dept (both fixed and rotary winged aircrafts).

Click to expand...

I have no idea why you think their weapons are not "standard issue modern weapons." The newest Chinese tanks (like the ZTZ-99) are easily world-class. And they're making a new design with a gigantic main gun too.

As for transports, they're buying them from Russia. In sufficient qualities to mount a Taiwan invasion.

Dizasta76 said:

Second one would be the airforce, where introduction to fighter aircrafts are based on two main capabilities. Range and detection. In terms of detection, China would need to develop a replica of Link 16 Datalink which would inter-connect not only the fighters with the AWACS, but also fighter with other fighters. As for range, well that should be achieved with Air Refuelers.

Click to expand...

China has had these technologies operational since the late 90's / early 2000's, I think.

Dizasta76 said:

Third one would be navy, where its mobility and capability would entirely rest on carrier battle groups. For this, China would need to develop, over the next 15 years, aircraft carriers.

Click to expand...

People on this board have been saying that the Varyag will roll out of port as a training vessel somewhere around 2008.


I think your entire plan sounds perfect, but about 15 years too late. This isn't the "1990 PLA" anymore.