China's Offensive Capacity?

Roger604 said:

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



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

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



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.



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



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.

Click to expand...

Well does sound pretty impressive, considering the fact that China's momentum is rollicking along, unimpeded! The only thing that needs to be done is abstaining from any provocative gestures that would only hinder in the current economic growth.

It is imperative that China manoeuvres to incircle tiwan, by forging economic alliance with regional players such as Japan (with a brave smile), Russia, South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore.

This would ensure the geo-political strategem tilting heavily in China's favor. Where China should manupilate and capitalize its advantage of economic strength.

Lastly, i'm sorry that i've come late to the party where China has achieved so much in so little time. I pray that both China and Pakistan can grow stronger, together and forge an economic bond which is as strong as its political alliance.

Funny how these conversations go round in circles.

I am really not worried about the state of China's equipment and capacity now. Yes much of the equipment is obsolete and certainly inferior to those neighbours with whom there can be said to exist a risk of conflict.

I say neighbours, but in reality I see only one. Japan. I know much more is said about Taiwan, but I think this risk is now vanishing rapidly over the horizon and a very new atmosphere of reconciliation and co-operation coming to the fore.

Sino-Japan relations on the other hand are a growing threat to the region, especially as Japan moves away from its recent Pacifist position. Combine this with traditonal rivalry, unfinished history and current disputes the outlook is certainly one that gives cause for concern.

Can we draw any conclusions as to the outcome if these two nations clashed, based on their current balance?

Well No, I do not think we can. No question that Japan is far better equipped and prepared than China and could certainly deliver a hard and quick kick to the PLAN PLAAF etc, where it hurt. But that is hardly going to be it. By this logic Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour would have been killer - knock out blows that put the US and GB out of WW2 permenantly. Obviously this was not the case.

It is not what your capabilities are at the beginning of a war that matters, but where they get too by the end of it. Any major conflict involving China will not a be a short 5 minute affair like Afghanistan or Iraq, it would last for years.

This gives China the advantage of being able to utilise its vast territory, inexhuastable manpower and massive Industrial/Production Capacity. These are the factors that will buy China the time it needs under war conditions to turn the tide in its favour and develop the capabilites it needs to win such a conflict. This is what the Allies did to the Axis in WW2 and that doctrine still holds true today.

I would further suggest that this is why the PLA is happy to continue its modernisation and development in the current graduated way, rather than mass replace its veteran inventory with contemporary designs in a hurry.

Now lets see if we can discuss these issues without the customary BS - Sampan

Yes Sampan, I agree. Howver, I do not think that long wars are particularly feasilble, or possible, for modern superpowers because of the threat of nuclear war and the increasing interdependence of globablization. I think that China should pick up its modernization pace, because it already has global economic interests, and is much more likely to be involved in smaller wars like Iraq or afghanistan that are caused by economic interests. For an account of how I think China would fight these wars, you can watch the military story thread, because when I have the energy and time, I'll finish my account of China invading a failed-state Indonesia, with a slightly more modern PLA.

First one would be the army, where troops are trimmed down to about roughly 1.7 or 1.8 million.

Click to expand...

The army is already at 1.8 million.

To Finn:

China can already wage wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but only if that country shares borders with China. The more modern elements of the PLA, such as the 38th and 39th GA, the marines, 3 airborne div's, and other RRU will have no problem dealing crippling damage to a small and weak state such as the 2001 Afghanistan and Iraq. The main thing PLA lacks right now is infantry - artillery and infantry - air support. Certainly PLA is not able to control forward close air support as efficiently as the US.

As for countries half of the globe away, yea, we need some carriers alright.

Finn McCool said:

China can deploy its forces in an offensive land war, as Ender said. Invading the -stan nations on its Western border would be easy for China. Nepal, Bhutan and India would be more of a logistic problem but the first two would be a cakewalk. Let's not talk about India.

The real trouble is in a force projection scenario. China could never do what the US did in Iraq (move an entire invasion force with all the logistic and combat support it needs all the way across the world). Although I don't know what capabilites the Chinese have as far as more limited operations. For example, could the Chinese invade Madagascar? (horrible example, but its size, distance, international clout/alliances (or lack thereof) and military capability make it the best one I could think of).

Click to expand...

i disagree with your scenario dat china could not project it's power like the US. if you know chinese history, you would know china had projected it power all the way to africa (zheng he) if not all the world. before western emerge from their egg shell (medievil)

the question is, why would china want to invent in this costly objectives, while it can save its money to buy a better living standard, i hope china wouldn't follow the way of the westerner did, like ww1 and ww2 , westerner destroyed and bankrupt all its saving from all its exploits of the natives peoples its conquered.

Hi Gaginang, please stay away from Political opinions as they are not permitted on this forum. Otherwise I would agree with you that modernising its society should be China's main priority.

Regarding China's power projection, I think I should make a point. In terms of overland power projection, the situation for China is probably not so far different from that of the US or NATO as you may think. Movement across territory will be controlled by the permission of other soverign states. Potentially China would have the ability to deploy troops to the borders of its SCO Allies, and this covers a vast distance through Asia and into Europe.

The difference though is at sea and Obviously here China is very limited in its capabilities. Even so, they should develop naturally in response to its legitimate trade security requirements, rather than as an all out Arms Race.

SampanViking said:

Hi Gaginang, please stay away from Political opinions as they are not permitted on this forum. Otherwise I would agree with you that modernising its society should be China's main priority.

Regarding China's power projection, I think I should make a point. In terms of overland power projection, the situation for China is probably not so far different from that of the US or NATO as you may think. Movement across territory will be controlled by the permission of other soverign states. Potentially China would have the ability to deploy troops to the borders of its SCO Allies, and this covers a vast distance through Asia and into Europe.

The difference though is at sea and Obviously here China is very limited in its capabilities. Even so, they should develop naturally in response to its legitimate trade security requirements, rather than as an all out Arms Race.

Click to expand...

I believe Chinese thinking about it's strategic interests is always going to be different than american. There's an interesting RAND pdf document on the two countries strategic thought if you can find it. basically China has always been more interested in influence than power.

Now as regards the sea I totally agree with you and this is going to be a big issue between the two in the future. at the moment the US keeps on trying to warn off china from attrmpting to even obtain parity and clearly this position cannot ever be accepted by the chinese.

My tentative conclusion is that, given realistic leadership, stability should hold between the United States and China so long as four conditions are met:

1. China continues not to challenge the United States on the high seas.
2. The United States accepts that China, and indeed other Asian powers, will grow relative to the United States in relative influence and power.
3. The Taiwan situation can be managed.
4. Leaders in both countries do not turn their publics against the other.

Click to expand...

It's a bit like a Rome and Carthage situation. Rome will in the end acquire the blueprints and amass a navy if it intends to be an independent power. Sea power as well as dominence in space are vital.

Hi Free Asia

Yes a good article, I am glad there are Professors that share my considered views

The Oil wars are an interesting point. Would the USN want to cut off Oil going to China to fuel US Owned Factories, making US financed products?

Would the PRC want to disrupt Oil going to the US to support American consumption habits?

This whole Globalisation business has the capacity of lowering the entire tone of an otherwise promising future war:roll:

Let's divide the short-comings into hardware and software categories.

Hardware would include things like military budget ($$), ships, planes, manpower, logistics.

Software includes training, experience, diplomacy, etc.

In the hardware department, the PRC today has the financial power to afford a modest sized military similiar to UK or France. As already demonstrated, UK has the "power projection" capability to re-take Falklands in the 1980's, and will continue to have such capability with the 2 future Aircraft carriers.

The PLAN is lacking in hardware (CV, carrier aircraft) and oversea supply bases. US, UK, and France all have oversea posessions or bases, the PRC does not. This would limit the PLAN's deployement by fuel, supply, & re-supply conditions.

IMO aircraft carriers are pretty expensive, so the PLAN could start off with smaller helicopter carriers and engage in oversea disaster relief operations to start.

In area of software, the PRC can afford to pay for good training, but the PLA lacks actual combat experience. US and UK gained a lot of combat experience through both Gulf Wars, and are improving their urban combat capability & experience in Iraq. The PRC has only sent very limited number of military police to assist in UN Peace keeping force in places like Haiti (?).

To improve experience, the PRC would have to more actively engage in oversea disaster relief operations, UN peace keeping missions, and possibly even following the US into "police actions" against 3rd world nations. Instead of saying training or actual combat experience is better, I'll say that both are needed in the "software" development.

adeptitus said:

Let's divide the short-comings into hardware and software categories.

Hardware would include things like military budget ($$), ships, planes, manpower, logistics.

Software includes training, experience, diplomacy, etc.

In the hardware department, the PRC today has the financial power to afford a modest sized military similiar to UK or France. As already demonstrated, UK has the "power projection" capability to re-take Falklands in the 1980's, and will continue to have such capability with the 2 future Aircraft carriers.

The PLAN is lacking in hardware (CV, carrier aircraft) and oversea supply bases. US, UK, and France all have oversea posessions or bases, the PRC does not. This would limit the PLAN's deployement by fuel, supply, & re-supply conditions.

IMO aircraft carriers are pretty expensive, so the PLAN could start off with smaller helicopter carriers and engage in oversea disaster relief operations to start.

In area of software, the PRC can afford to pay for good training, but the PLA lacks actual combat experience. US and UK gained a lot of combat experience through both Gulf Wars, and are improving their urban combat capability & experience in Iraq. The PRC has only sent very limited number of military police to assist in UN Peace keeping force in places like Haiti (?).

To improve experience, the PRC would have to more actively engage in oversea disaster relief operations, UN peace keeping missions, and possibly even following the US into "police actions" against 3rd world nations. Instead of saying training or actual combat experience is better, I'll say that both are needed in the "software" development.

Click to expand...

Hmm I think the PLAN is more likely to copy the English and French approach to the periods leading up to the 7 year war or the Pomeranian War

trade bases followed by military.