Deficiency for the whole of PLA

The fact of saying one child policy will reduce the morale of the soldiers and possibility of sending them to the front was a BS!

Chinese people by nature are patriotic and nationalistic.. If a war came and the necessity arise, surely I believe the younger Chinese generations will be enlisting themselves to fight the enemy. (No need for the parents to let them join)

I do believe they wouldn't ever wanted to be conquered or oppressed by another power than what had happened during the 19th and early 20th century...

Even if the numbers of people who are willing to join was not very large, but with China's population size (1.3 Billion), I don't think they will have difficulty in mobilizing 20-30 million men. Don't tell me 20 million wasn't enough??

Delbert said:

Even if the numbers of people who are willing to join was not very large, but with China's population size (1.3 Billion), I don't think they will have difficulty in mobilizing 20-30 million men. Don't tell me 20 million wasn't enough??

Click to expand...

Not to disagree with you... but what if really 20 million are enlisted during wartime, how are you going to provide for these 20 million militia? What are China going to use this 20 million for? Cannon Fodders?

I believe that China's military is pretty good in term of training and hardware... however unlike those in the 40s - 80s period, these soldiers had considerably less experience in war (basically they have not fought any real wars nowaday). I think that is also a problem... and a great deficiency for the Chinese military.

As to the those talk of one-child policy, are just cover up job for incompetent commanders (to push the blame of his own problem to the central policy).

And as to the patriotism of today's chinese - it is by far questionable, because there simply is no way to test it out and it is a big question mark that I believe no commanders or strategists would take too much into account when planning for their military issues.

solarz said:

One other thing that bothers me: the way this PLA officer worded his comment, it feels as if he is advocating that China can only win wars if it is willing to suffer high casualties. This is a mentality that runs counter against all the modernization that the PLA has undertaken. It makes one wonder if the mentality of PLA officers have been able to keep up with the technological modernization.

Click to expand...

I think when one goes to war, he has to prepare for the worst. If you go to war expecting to lose only a few lives and come out winning, it would be very hard to maintain the morale when the bullets start flying and bodies start piling up. It would be hard to win a war this way... So I think "willing to suffer high casualties" is the correct mentality that every soldier should have although the commanders canNOT plan the tactics based on this mentality.

So it would be yes AND no. "Yes" because one has to be prepared to "suffer high casualties" to win. "No" because the battle tactics cannot take advantage of the soldier's willingness to die to plan their strategies.

PLA has a lot of problems but one child policy is definitely not one of them. easy example, when the soldiers embarked on a death march into the quake zone in 08, i didnt see any hesitation from the younger ones. a well organized training system and strictly maintained discipline is good enough to render this "issue" irrelevant. i know plenty of soldiers who are their parents' only child in the CF and they are among the best soldiers i know.

solarz said:

One other thing that bothers me: the way this PLA officer worded his comment, it feels as if he is advocating that China can only win wars if it is willing to suffer high casualties. This is a mentality that runs counter against all the modernization that the PLA has undertaken. It makes one wonder if the mentality of PLA officers have been able to keep up with the technological modernization.

Click to expand...

that kind of mentality is a MUST. if you go to war thinking that its gonna be a breeze....well that's not a very good thing, the way things work in the army is that you always prepare for the worst. talk about zero casualty once you've achieved it.

pla101prc said:

that kind of mentality is a MUST. if you go to war thinking that its gonna be a breeze....well that's not a very good thing, the way things work in the army is that you always prepare for the worst. talk about zero casualty once you've achieved it.

Click to expand...

It's not about zero casualties, it's about this officer worrying about the combat effectiveness of the PLA because he thinks Chinese society today cannot suffer the same kind of casualty rate as in the Sino-Vietnamese war.

To me, that means he is relating PLA combat effectiveness with its willingness to suffer high casualties. That is a backward thinking and absolutely the wrong kind of message to be sending to the soldiers.

Yes, every soldier needs to be willing to lay down their lives, but it is the duty of commanders to ensure that such a sacrifice is rarely needed, and never in vain.

I think you do not really understand Chinese resolve and mentality when it comes to war preparation.

Having heard some interviews with members of the People's congress and military commanders, its clear that the kind of wars China plan and prepare for are very different to what the west anticipates.

When Chinese leaders consider wars, they look at the worst case scenario - aka WWIII. None of this ganging up on hopelessly outmatch opponents wars that the west has gotten into the habit of fighting.

Being prepared to sustain heavy losses is a completely different thing to expecting to sustain heavy casualties. It would be a serious error to associate the two as the same thing. And a national mentality that finds the odd death appalling is a far greater worry for military planners, as when near pears goes to war, you can expect to loose more men in a single engagement then the west have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan to date.

plawolf said:

I think you do not really understand Chinese resolve and mentality when it comes to war preparation.

Having heard some interviews with members of the People's congress and military commanders, its clear that the kind of wars China plan and prepare for are very different to what the west anticipates.

When Chinese leaders consider wars, they look at the worst case scenario - aka WWIII. None of this ganging up on hopelessly outmatch opponents wars that the west has gotten into the habit of fighting.

Being prepared to sustain heavy losses is a completely different thing to expecting to sustain heavy casualties. It would be a serious error to associate the two as the same thing. And a national mentality that finds the odd death appalling is a far greater worry for military planners, as when near pears goes to war, you can expect to loose more men in a single engagement then the west have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan to date.

Click to expand...

Not saying that the generals are wrong, but if it was WWIII that we are looking at... one-child policy will not come in play... nuclear will be flying everywhere and no matter how many children a parents would have make no difference...

However it is true that China military should always plan for the worst in case a war went badly on them, both politically and financially... so as to get more funding for their operations.

Actually many thought that the west never actually anticipate what the Chinese are anticipating is also wrong. US had always anticipate herself sustaining heavy damage or even losing battles to her opponents and had been warning her congress of this. This is also where the China threat theory came about... and this would also allow US or the west to have reasons for a couple of things like - active ABM, new weaponries, better funding and so better training, better facilities and better equipment.

China should do the same too... or it would hardly have any substaintial reason to ask for better (everything), since she is still at peace (more or less.).

solarz said:

To me, that means he is relating PLA combat effectiveness with its willingness to suffer high casualties. That is a backward thinking and absolutely the wrong kind of message to be sending to the soldiers.

Click to expand...

Well, I believe willingness to suffer high casualty IS tied with combat effectiveness. No matter how well trained you can be, if you fold in time of combat, your ability to fight becomes absolutely zero, meaning combat effectiveness = 0. A good example? See that translator in the movie "Saving private Ryan"? How effective is that coward? That's the combat effectiveness you'll get WITHOUT willingness to suffer casualty.

That's why every military in the world wants its soldiers to be tough. Where does that toughness come from? Every soldier will tell you that toughness comes from the willingness to give it all. Why do you think combat experience is so important? Without actually experiencing the moment that you might die and actually making the decision that you WILL accept that chance and are prepared to die, combat experience would be only like training with use of weapons and maneuvers.

Ask any soldier of any military in the world. The willingness to suffer high casualty is the most basic thing asked of the soldiers. In fact, that's what makes them so proud of themselves: the fact that they are willing to die for their country. If every soldier is willing to die, then collectively, that would be the willingness to suffer high casualty.

Of course, a military with both the willingness to suffer high casualty AND the help of advanced weapons will be invincible.

I think you are confusing the strategies of fighting wars with the mentality of a soldier. Doctrine-wise, a modern military cannot depend on tactics like human waves to win a war. I think this is what you think about. However, the general was talking about the mentality of a single soldier, his willingness to sacrifice, which is completely different from a combat tactic of using something like a human wave.

vesicles said:

Well, I believe willingness to suffer high casualty IS tied with combat effectiveness. No matter how well trained you can be, if you fold in time of combat, your ability to fight becomes absolutely zero, meaning combat effectiveness = 0. A good example? See that translator in the movie "Saving private Ryan"? How effective is that coward? That's the combat effectiveness you'll get WITHOUT willingness to suffer casualty.

That's why every military in the world wants its soldiers to be tough. Where does that toughness come from? Every soldier will tell you that toughness comes from the willingness to give it all. .

Click to expand...

During WW2 the allies often referred to Japanese troops as fanatics in their willingness to take high casulties or fight to the last man, the Germans had them with their SS Divisions.

While its interesting to note thse troops did not prevent the loss of a battle, you still expect the ordinary PLA fighting man to have the same attitude?