Why would the Chinese understand the nature of war any more than the Americans, French, Serbs, Iraqis, Iranians, or Israelis? Those governments know the nature of war and are still happy to engage in small conflicts.
First off, that list of yours is all over the place. Surely you can realize the vast difference between the nature of wars fought by the likes of the Israelis in defending their national existence to the likes of wars of choice fought be America in invading Iraq or the French bombing Libya?
If you were trying to make some kind of point, it has been quite effectively undermined by the poor choice of examples to use.
China hasn't fought one in THIRTY YEARS. Nearly half the population wasn't even alive then. Is the education system preaching the ideals of peace? Maybe.
Most Israelis were not alive during the Holocaust. Do you think modern Israelis have forgotten the pain of that experience?
It is a similar case for China. The 'hundred years of shame' has been such a traumatic experience for China that it is deeply embedded in the racial memory of the modern Chinese race. That is a lamenting story of the horrors of war and occupation and weakness. That creates an unchallenged prominence to defense, but the aim is to make sure something like that could never happen again. It also makes it much easier for the Chinese to be empathetic towards a nation or people under foreign attack/occupation, which in itself is a strong disincentive towards unwarranted aggression. It is not merely some diplomatic gamesmanship that Beijing is so firmly against military intervention.
But not the military. The whole military system exists to make soldiers fearless, believe that they can win, and believe that the fight will make their country stronger. A military education is not a peace education, it's an education glorifying the military way of doing things. If you grow up through the Foreign Ministry, you're more likely to believe diplomacy can solve the world's problems.
That just makes me strongly doubt how much you actually know about military men, especially higher ranking officers.
There is a good reason why NCOs can only go so far up the chain of command and the really high ranking posts are held exclusively by people who have graduated from military academies.
Your common dog soldier might be trained like the way you described (and most of them know better despite the training), but a soldier and a officer's training should be centered on the defense of their homeland and nation. Only idiots would train their future military leaders to think they will make their country stronger through war, as that is a sure fire way to make sure you start WWIII and will likely end up on the loosing end of it.
The role of high ranking generals in the government is to give good sound, realistic military advice and options. Their opinion would hardly be worth listening to if they are all frothing at the mouth screaming WHAAAARRRGH! as the answer to every problem, and they only behave like that in the most silly movies (or satires).
Multiple posters like plawolf and supercat believe my statements are some kind of Western hatred of China. Their rationale seems to be "You're a Westerner, you only know Western thinking, therefore you're wrong."
Come on, when have I ever dismissed your arguments on such ridiculous grounds? I have given you clear, detail explanations as to why I disagree with you.
Frankly, it is beneath you to resort to such lazy cookie-cutter responses trying to cast those with a different opinion as you as something they are clearly not.
Human psychology and organizational psychology doesn't change whether you're born in Beijing or Paris.
And we are all shaped and influenced by our experiences and memories, and history, especially traumatic history, shape and influence nations and peoples as surely as experiences and memories do individuals.
China would do well to learn from the experiences, good and bad, of the West. One of the lessons the West learned in the aftermath World Wars I and II was that the military has an insatiable desire for war, therefore a democracy with strong civilian control was necessary to yoke those tendencies. It wasn't that Western militaries were full of bad people, it's just the organizational culture. In fact that was one of the reasons for a conscription army in Italy, to stock the military with ordinary people and not just gung-ho militarists, therefore preventing too much military interference in political affairs (which was a real threat in 1960s and 1970s Italy).
Another often used pearl of wisdom that does not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny by history.
Looking back to since democracies become mainstream, and you will see that it is democratic nations that have launched far more wars of choice than autocratic ones. Even Hitler's Germany was a democracy that voted him into power, and he was so wildly popular when he started WWII that he would have won any election hands down as fairly as you can demand.
History is far too complex and variable to draw such neat and clear lessons as 'democracy good, everything else bad'. One can make a far more convincing case based on history that Religion and Democracy are the two leading causes of war and strife in the modern age. But of course such observations would not find traction in mainstream western thinking because democracy and religion are the two key pillars underpinning so many western nations.
This is a good demonstration of how people looking at the same facts can draw very different conclusions because ultimately, we view the world through the prism of our own values, experiences, beliefs, hopes and so much more. To understand a nation or people, you need to be able to understand how they think and view the world. And so far, you have not demonstrated that you know China very well at all.
I see comparisons to South Korea and Switzerland. Neither of those countries has seen the kind of rapid modernization and rise in international prestige China has. Switzerland identity is tied up in neutrality so it is beaten into them from the moment they are born. Plus there are no practical venues for a skirmish. Who is their military going to on the war path against? Conscription in the military in Switzerland as well as others like Singapore has more to do with fostering a single national identity than preparing for war. South Korea is a better comparison, and I suspect some in the ROK military would like to see a low-risk skirmish to hit back at NK for the Cheonan sinking and shelling of Yeonpyeong island, and to try their new toys out (the F-15K among others). The public line is always "We hope we never have to use the skills we practice every day" but human psychology suggests otherwise.
Well your example actually goes against your view and supports mine despite your attempt to shoehorn it to support your view.
As you acknowledges, SK is a far better example in comparison to China, and NK can be a rough estimate to the kind of military challenge China might face in a fight against Taiwan. In addition, SK believes in reunification with NK, just like China does with Taiwan.
Yet, what did SK do when NK presented them with a gift wrapped opportunity to launch the kind of war you are suggesting China's generals would be desperate to pick with Taiwan by first sinking an SK warship and then shelling SK civilians?
Sk did not jump on the 'lets go blow sh!t up cos we can, YEHA!' bandwagon as you seem to think China would with Taiwan, why not?
And your answer had better not be 'cos they be democracy, duh!'.
Back to China. Here are the circumstances of China's military:
- rapid rise in the budget
- rapid modernization with increasing amounts of indigenous hardware
- rapid rise in China's international stature
- rapid rise in national self-confidence
- unfinished business with Taiwan, the Daioyu Islands, and Spratly Islands
What does that actually show?
The CCP is sophisticated enough to see the economic and political problems with war so I agree with other posters that they will push hard for a diplomatic solution first. Evidence from previous actions like settling border disputes reinforces that. M. Taylor Fravel's "Strong Nation, Strong Borders" book about China's territorial disputes shows that China has used diplomacy to resolve disputes far more often than war. In the last two years China has also peacefully demarcated the border with Vietnam and Tajikistan.
Very good points, so why are you totally ignoring them when forming your conclusions?
But my argument has always been that the military will have a slightly different agenda from the civilian leadership, one that emerges from their organization culture and China's circumstances. If you imagine a meeting of the Poliburo, I suspect the generals will push a harder line than the civilians. They will push a harder line both in the meeting and behind the scenes.
And this is based on?
Regarding your first statement, the idealist in me wants to believe you but the realist with a knowledge of history knows it is probably not true. High-ranking officers sitting in their war rooms are detached from the ugly reality of war that the foot soldier faces. But even the foot soldier is gung-ho going into war because they were trained that way.
I am sorry, but that just looks like your stereotypical war mongering soviet military leader character from cheap fiction. And your description of soldiers really makes me wonder how much contact you have had with military types in real life. You may be surprised at their sophistication, professionalism and thoughtfulness.
Regarding your second statement, only the top edge of generals and colonels have any combat experience. No one younger than 32 was even born the last time the PLA saw action. If you're less that 48 you almost certainly didn't see action, either.
Once again, you are making conclusions that have no basis in history. What does having seen action or not have to do with eagerness for war?
Looking at history, how many US military personnel going into Desert Storm had previously seen action? Precious few I dare say. And how keen was the US about military adventurism before the first Gulf War? The Americans had such a distaste for war they even had a name for it, Vietnam Syndrome.
That list you reel off earlier characterizing the PLA of today could apply just as well to the US military before the first Gulf War. But were they more or less keen for war compared to the US military that went into Afghanistan and then Iraq again?
Having seen action or not have zero correlation with eagerness for war. If there is any connection at all, it is deeply dependent on how that last war went. If you breezed through it and achieved undreamed of success, then that can breed a desire for more combat. But you can definitely not claim that not having seen combat makes military leaders more keen to pick fights, especially not tough fights, and Taiwan will most certainly be a tough fight.
China is going to have an army all dressed up and no where to go. The army will push to find a place to go. Hopefully it will be somewhere benign like a peacekeeping mission, but I doubt that will keep them happy. They're going to want a real conflict, something where they can drop bombs, shoot missiles, and storm beaches. It's up to China's civilian leadership to keep them in check.
That hardly equates to a desire to attack Taiwan for no good reason other than for the hell of it as you seem to suggest.
It is probably true that there are such feelings and desires amongst some of the rank and file, as it is only nature. But it is a massive stretch to go on and suggest that that is the prevailing view within the PLA to the point where the civilian leadership could barely keep their mad attack dog generals from throwing the leash and attacking others for the sake of it.
If a situation arrises where China could quite reasonably and legitimately need to use military force, the generals will present a military option and may well push for it. But only if it is an easy win with little risk and cost.
If China was truly threatened or attacked, there would be no question that the PLA will fight their hardest no matter the cost or odds. But you do not go starting wars of choice for fun, and even if you do, you would not go picking the hardest fight you can conceivable be in.
What you are suggesting is in effect that the PLA generals will push to attack Taiwan out of boredness. That is just not going to happen.
If China attack Taiwan, it will need to have a damn good reason and would have thought very long and hard about it first.
