From the documented evidence of past wars, we can deduced that by purely taking on a defensive stance is hardly enough for defending a nation from any successful incursion. Taking Iraq and Syria as an example, both boast to have powerful defence network that would render them almost impenetrable by foreign forces... but they are bombed pretty badly.
It just gave a conclusion that no matter how good your defence is... there are bound to have weaknesses and the West or US in particular, seemed pretty good at explioting these weaknesses... be it, their extremely well trained agents that spread across the globe or using of very high tech equipments to break the code, jam the system, etc. But the end result is, these so call impenetrable fortresses fell within minutes to hours.
Although many could argued that China's technology is much higher as compared to Syria and Iraq, she make use of her own hardwares and not the one supplied by Russia... but the same theory still applied. At the height of Cold War, Soviet Union is the enemy. The west spent time and resources looking into her technology and try to break it.
Now Soviet Union is no more the West and US had turned their attention to China. She is a growing power, and I doubt the US and the West didn't take that as a threat and studied into her defences like they did to Soviet Union's.
Thus in time or event of a war, I have this nagging feeling that China might be facing the same consequences as Syria and Iraq... her defences might not have collapsed in mere hours... but might not be able to withstand indefinately.
So by taking purely a defensive stances is never enough. I think China see this weaknesses too... that is why she is initiating lots of modernisation programs for her Air Force, Navy, second artillery and other amphibious forces... for these will be the needed to ensure her own safety when enemy's strike. These forces will not only be task with defending motherland... but will also be use as a striking force against any offensive nations.
Only by maintaining a large and powerful force capable of offensive missions will she truely be safe from being attack by foreign forces... as the saying goes, "The best defence is a good offense." (or something to that effect.)
It just gave a conclusion that no matter how good your defence is... there are bound to have weaknesses and the West or US in particular, seemed pretty good at explioting these weaknesses... be it, their extremely well trained agents that spread across the globe or using of very high tech equipments to break the code, jam the system, etc. But the end result is, these so call impenetrable fortresses fell within minutes to hours.
Although many could argued that China's technology is much higher as compared to Syria and Iraq, she make use of her own hardwares and not the one supplied by Russia... but the same theory still applied. At the height of Cold War, Soviet Union is the enemy. The west spent time and resources looking into her technology and try to break it.
Now Soviet Union is no more the West and US had turned their attention to China. She is a growing power, and I doubt the US and the West didn't take that as a threat and studied into her defences like they did to Soviet Union's.
Thus in time or event of a war, I have this nagging feeling that China might be facing the same consequences as Syria and Iraq... her defences might not have collapsed in mere hours... but might not be able to withstand indefinately.
So by taking purely a defensive stances is never enough. I think China see this weaknesses too... that is why she is initiating lots of modernisation programs for her Air Force, Navy, second artillery and other amphibious forces... for these will be the needed to ensure her own safety when enemy's strike. These forces will not only be task with defending motherland... but will also be use as a striking force against any offensive nations.
Only by maintaining a large and powerful force capable of offensive missions will she truely be safe from being attack by foreign forces... as the saying goes, "The best defence is a good offense." (or something to that effect.)