Expanding the Chinese Military size (Please Read and Reply) this is important

redazncommieDXP said:

What does China gain from a dramatic and expensive increase in her navy? She still can’t sail around the world and project power the way the United States can, and her sphere of influence isn’t extended any farther than it already is.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this portion of the statement. China is a growing economic power and is in need of and consuming more and more energy. A stronger naval force will allow China to secure her energy interests for which she competes with other nations. This will become more and more critical for China as she consumates deals and treaties with nations for that energy, and particularly when some of those nation's are in direct conflict or opposition with the other world's economic and military powers, like the United States. We see this already taking places with nations like Iran and Venezuela.

China's current ambitious programs to buildup and modernize their navy reflects these realities IMHO.

Unless they reverted to using guerilla style attacks alongside a traditional military per se. I could envision several commando units, each unit capable of fighting on it's own without the need of communication. They could easily slow the onslaught/buy time for the traditional army to regroup. Once again, I urge unconventional warfare!

As for regards to the weapons tech, we must understand that the United States became a superpower in World War 2 simply because 1) They were not attacked on their home front/no damaged infrastructure and 2) They got the bomb first.

If any nation suddenly developed assasin's mace class weapons, they could easily turn the tide of war. That is why I also support an increase rather into sciences than conventional military, because in the future, no one will use conventional military tactics. My $.02 rant.

DarkEminence said:

Unless they reverted to using guerilla style attacks alongside a traditional military per se. I could envision several commando units, each unit capable of fighting on it's own without the need of communication. They could easily slow the onslaught/buy time for the traditional army to regroup. Once again, I urge unconventional warfare!

As for regards to the weapons tech, we must understand that the United States became a superpower in World War 2 simply because 1) They were not attacked on their home front/no damaged infrastructure and 2) They got the bomb first.

If any nation suddenly developed assasin's mace class weapons, they could easily turn the tide of war. That is why I also support an increase rather into sciences than conventional military, because in the future, no one will use conventional military tactics. My $.02 rant.

Click to expand...

No, the US became a super power because of its large economy and military. In 1945, the USN was bigger than every all the navy that existed in the history of the world combined. It's airforce was also the largest in the world.

60 years later the US still a super power because of its strong military supported by a strong economy. Actual military expenditures are only 3-5 percent of GDP. The smallest it has been in decades. Compared that to about 10-20 percent in World War II.

Russia was also a superpower post World War II and was for 4 decades. Not because it has the Biggest Nuclear arsenal in the world but its ability to influence events around the globe. Today, Russia still has the biggest Nuke arsenal, but no longer a superpower. Why, its ability to influence events worldwide is no longer there.

Reverting into a guerilla style partisan resistance is the least favorable option to fight a war. The best way to fight a war is on another person's country (you said so yourself). Commando units do inflict damage on a greater scale for it's size, but unless they can destroy an armored division, their value as the main line of defence is marginal at best. The best they can do is slow the enemy down. Also, with airpower, any attempts to regroup your main conventional force will be carpet bombed. (That is assuming that any safe haven can be attack regardless of political pressure)

Look at Lebanon, an expertly conducted guerilla conflict by Hezbollah and they couldn't stop the IDF from going where they want to go. Also, the damage to Lebanon's infrastructure was massive requiring decades to fix. What were the losses to the Israeli side? Minimal in both military and economic.

Increasing the size of China's military force is not the path to super power hood. A large lethargic army is more a burden than an asset. China needs smaller and more expeditionary oriented military to be a superpower. heck I would argue that the JMSDF has greater power projection than PLAN has.

heck I would argue that the JMSDF has greater power projection than PLAN has.

Click to expand...

Huh I thought that we already agreed on that one. The JMSDF has far more modern destroyers, capable of fleet air defence and ASW warfare and able to operate far from ports. Most of the PLAN (minus the sub force) is obsolete and would be unable to challenge the JMSDF.

IDonT said:

heck I would argue that the JMSDF has greater power projection than PLAN has.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with this statement more. And it all goes back to the country having a strong base economically, industrially, technologically, and more subtly logistically, culturally, and diplomatically.

A worthy infrastructure by nature invalidates the people's defence doctrine as the infrastructure is lost once the enemy is on your home turf. Furthermore with today's technology the possibility of being bombed back into the stone age so the speak is a real threat that is perhaps even worse than a ground invasion because it is of considerably less cost to the enemy.

Ground forces and a generally large military does not fare well against such an attack but in fact encourages an enemy to adopt such a strategy.

China appears to realize this as it invests heavily in the PLA's air assets and air defenses. The main reason why they don't focus more on developing the air forces is probably because of the backwards state of every branch of the PLA needing to catch up all at once. Note the resumed production of the H-6 bomber, new purchases of S-300 systems, and the aggressive pursuit of AWACS and missile development.

Towards the same proactive best defence is a good offence goal (against the enemy's offensive forces if not the enemy's home turf) is the pursuit of a fleet that can actually destroy, not just pose a threat to, hostile surface fleets, amphibious forces, and carrier battle groups.

In summary larger is not better and ground forces in China's current circumstance is rightfully eclipsed by air force and navy needs, though steady modernization is needed and is being carried out incrementally.

IDonT said:

No, the US became a super power because of its large economy and military. In 1945, the USN was bigger than every all the navy that existed in the history of the world combined. It's airforce was also the largest in the world.

Click to expand...

I think I said something like I rather they invest in tech. Perhaps I did not make this clear, but I was saying it is better to get 1 superweapon than a bunch of tiny toothpicks. That was why I was saying the US had an advantage because they had that one superweapon first which can easily set fires to fields of toothpicks.

IDonT said:

60 years later the US still a super power because of its strong military supported by a strong economy. Actual military expenditures are only 3-5 percent of GDP. The smallest it has been in decades. Compared that to about 10-20 percent in World War II.

Click to expand...

Good point. Not much I can say except good point. I probably should've paid attention to Wikipedia's definition...:coffee:

IDonT said:

Russia was also a superpower post World War II and was for 4 decades. Not because it has the Biggest Nuclear arsenal in the world but its ability to influence events around the globe. Today, Russia still has the biggest Nuke arsenal, but no longer a superpower. Why, its ability to influence events worldwide is no longer there.

Click to expand...

Russia is the most nuclear capable I agree. However, for some apparant reason, Russia no longer flouts its nuclear capability. Had they did, I'm sure they can be a superpower again and regain their prestige (a lot of prestige was lost in those accidents Russia had). No, I do not mean dropping bombs on some poor country like *insert poor country here that is not going to cause a flame war* but rather, do something to show the world that they are still a power? Perhaps *gasp* a 100 megaton bomb? They need to take a more...proactive approach to the world. (no offence to Russians, your military tech is the finest )

IDonT said:

Reverting into a guerilla style partisan resistance is the least favorable option to fight a war. The best way to fight a war is on another person's country (you said so yourself). Commando units do inflict damage on a greater scale for it's size, but unless they can destroy an armored division, their value as the main line of defence is marginal at best. The best they can do is slow the enemy down. Also, with airpower, any attempts to regroup your main conventional force will be carpet bombed. (That is assuming that any safe haven can be attack regardless of political pressure)

Click to expand...

I would like to point out the conflict in Colombia. You have a small group of well trained guerillas fighting against US trained (and sometimes) US forces that vastly outnumber. They still are fighting. Does that mean anything? It means that a small guerilla group can maintain the fighting for a long time. And you can't bomb them back to the stone age when you don't know where they are ("Sarge! I think we hit dirt!-Really? We got them?-No, we really hit dirt")

IDonT said:

Look at Lebanon, an expertly conducted guerilla conflict by Hezbollah and they couldn't stop the IDF from going where they want to go. Also, the damage to Lebanon's infrastructure was massive requiring decades to fix. What were the losses to the Israeli side? Minimal in both military and economic.

Click to expand...

Casualties are a natural part of war. Had the Lebanese were given say...an superweapon (but not too super, I'll just say only 1 biological/anthrax warhead, maybe two) I would think the casualties would be a little higher. You plant an anthrax bomb on a major Israeli route, and you'll slow them down for quite a bit. Bio suits slow an army down. And death slows them down even more.

IDonT said:

Increasing the size of China's military force is not the path to super power hood. A large lethargic army is more a burden than an asset.

Click to expand...

I could not have said it better myself. I rather have an increase in sciences (hopefully to develop a more nastier weapon, I know, a serious hypothetical). If not, I would have to use a guerilla style warfare. Perhaps this is slightly out of topic, but I can understand why DPRK wanted a superweapon and wanted to flaunt it. I mean, it looks pretty bad for them now (hell, it looks like they are in, well, hell) but it will change the strategies for attacking the North Koreans.

Feel free to disagree. I admit I am not experienced in war (and I don't plan to be), but from all the military doctrines/wikipedia I have read, I sound somewhat right

What I wanted to point out in my post about air and missile power is that North Korea still holds value to China as a buffer state, though it may not be the same value it held in the 60s. No one is saying that air power is useless, but as every poster has implied, it is a crucial SUPPORT role in an invasion. You can bomb and bomb and bomb China, but unless there are boots on the ground, the Party will remain in power and as soon as the bombing stops, they will begin rebuilding. So it is in China's interest that North Korea continue to exist, because North Korea makes it more difficult for hostile troops to set foot in China- after all, it is more difficult to launch an amphibious attack across the sea than it is to bridge and cross the Yalu River.

And Jeff Head, I am not arguing that China will not need an expanded navy at some point in the future. What I am saying is that a rapid military expansion of the scale the first poster was talking about is not in China's interest at this time. There will come a time when such an expansion is necessary, but that time is not now. A much slower growth (what the Party is doing now) is the right path to take.

redazncommieDXP said:

What I wanted to point out in my post about air and missile power is that North Korea still holds value to China as a buffer state, though it may not be the same value it held in the 60s. No one is saying that air power is useless, but as every poster has implied, it is a crucial SUPPORT role in an invasion. You can bomb and bomb and bomb China, but unless there are boots on the ground, the Party will remain in power and as soon as the bombing stops, they will begin rebuilding. So it is in China's interest that North Korea continue to exist, because North Korea makes it more difficult for hostile troops to set foot in China- after all, it is more difficult to launch an amphibious attack across the sea than it is to bridge and cross the Yalu River.

And Jeff Head, I am not arguing that China will not need an expanded navy at some point in the future. What I am saying is that a rapid military expansion of the scale the first poster was talking about is not in China's interest at this time. There will come a time when such an expansion is necessary, but that time is not now. A much slower growth (what the Party is doing now) is the right path to take.

Click to expand...

Afghanistan borders China. I know, marching through a desert, but after Iraq you have soldiers trained in desert warfare. Comrade, I missed the days when you had satelitle nations to protect your borders.

redazncommieDXP said:

And Jeff Head, I am not arguing that China will not need an expanded navy at some point in the future. What I am saying is that a rapid military expansion of the scale the first poster was talking about is not in China's interest at this time. There will come a time when such an expansion is necessary, but that time is not now. A much slower growth (what the Party is doing now) is the right path to take.

Click to expand...

Well, by today's standards, adding upwards of 80 major new combatants to their fleet in the last 4-5 years is a pretty rapid growth curve...certainly much more so than anyone else is doing right now. Clearly not as rapid as the poster of this thread implied, but my point is that they are already growing their Navy quickly, for the reasons I enumerated.

I want China to win against US. and china must have a powerful underwater force in the face of the challenge of the US navy.she must going on its 094 nuclear submarine programe,build atlease 12[