China's military might

[marcinmoka]

The Long March To Be A Superpower

Aug 2nd 2007 | BEIJING AND TIANJIN

From The Economist print edition

The People's Liberation Army is investing heavily to give China the military muscle to match its economic power. But can it begin to rival America?

This is (or at least should be) the most important issue in defense and security circles in upcoming decades. And while China's rise is advantageous from an economic perspective, the flipside is that it will permit them to acquire military capability (slowly) permitting them to challenge the present order. And while a few whackjobs exist and "welcome" and even "take comfort" in this rising power as a counterbalance to American led Occidental dominance, the Chinese sense of morality and respect for human rights does little to instill confidence in their role as a holders of so much power and influence.

The odd thing is that there lies a very fine line in professing your military capacity. While some elements prefer to gloat and publicize their strength as a means of deterrence and intimidation, it is important to balance that off with a certain level of secrecy so to surprise the opponent and ideally make them underestimate you.

Edited August 3, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Bonam]

I don't see a big problem with China's rise to power. It's morality and sense of human rights might leave a bit to be desired, but it is a relatively sane nation. Full scale war would never break out, for the same reasons it never happened between the US and the USSR, and a state of economic competition between two superpowers would hasten progress and advancement, which has been painfully stagnant of late.

[marcinmoka]

It's morality and sense of human rights might leave a bit to be desired, but it is a relatively sane nation

A little bit? I would argue "sanity" is best judged by actions, and this morality and sense of human rights show a level of ruthlessness one should not expect from a civilized nation. Granted, the people may show sanity, but the Party and it's organs are what dictates policy, not the people. It is this amoral Party which spooks me.

I guess the big variable is the fate of Internal Chinese politics. Will there be mass social instability prompting a revolution? Will it be a gradual, progressed reform?

Full scale war would never break out

Of course. But the explicit force is what "grants" them authority to partake in the shadowy proxy war without fear of serious reprisals. And if we learned anything over the past half century, these smaller conflicts are just as dirty, it is just that the victims tend to be third parties and thus not as relevant to our daily lives.

state of economic competition between two superpowers would hasten progress and advancement

Would it? A perfect sense of competition would be assuming both parties are at a similar starting point. This is not the case since it is a game of catch up. While in theory, one could argue this competition could spur advancements, it is just as plausible that theft and sabotage become the new norms, thereby reducing efficiency and incentive to innovate, as one nation tries to hamper the other so that they gain as much an advantage over their opponent as possible. Besides, when you are a super power, you musn't fear being put under the microscope by the department of justice for allegations of un-competitve behavior.

I believe that economic threats will supplant ideology and military capability as the prime methods of political "assertion". But of course those nuclear threats will still loom in the background as "guarantors" that certain lines not be crossed.

which has been painfully stagnant of late.

Could you please expand on this?

Edited August 3, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Bonam]

Would it? A perfect sense of competition would be assuming both parties are at a similar starting point. This is not the case since it is a game of catch up.

Catch up and overtake perhaps. China does have 3-4 times as many people you know, so by the time they start getting to a decent first world level of development, the total size of the economy will be larger than the US. Anyway, whether it happens sooner or later, whether in China or some other nation, and whether as a result of their rapid progress or of US stagnation, sooner or later some other power will begin to rival the US. It's statistically inescapable.

While in theory, one could argue this competition could spur advancements, it is just as plausible that theft and sabotage become the new norms

Of course there's theft and sabotage, but progress goes faster anyway. Again, take a look at the Cold War. Humanity advanced technologically from 1945 to 1991 in a huge huge way, and much of the technology that was developed was a direct result of military research. Spaceflight, computers, the internet, robotics, etc.

I believe that economic threats will supplant ideology and military capability as the prime methods of political "assertion".

Yup... which is a good thing. I'd much rather have economic competition than military conflict.

But of course those nuclear threats will still loom in the background as "guarantors" that certain lines not be crossed.

Yup, again, a good thing, you don't want those lines being crossed.

Could you please expand on this?

Sure... in the 60s we went to the Moon. Today, we can barely send something to orbit without the systems for it falling apart. Just one example.

And if we learned anything over the past half century, these smaller conflicts are just as dirty, it is just that the victims tend to be third parties and thus not as relevant to our daily lives.

True, but unfortunately, those proxy wars happen anyway. Just take a look at the middle-east, for example. The countries there (i.e. Iran) don't need to be a match for the US to support the enemies of the US and Israel (it's ally and arguably proxy in the region). Besides proxy wars, however, there are also wars that happen when there is only one superpower as well (for example Iraq). Small wars of that nature have not really declined since the world became militarily unipolar. I think the presence of two superpowers and a balance of power and mutually assured destruction scenario prevents more physical military warfare than it creates.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Bonam

[marcinmoka]

China does have 3-4 times as many people you know, so by the time they start getting to a decent first world level of development, the total size of the economy will be larger than the US.

I agree with you, but would change "will" to "will most likely be". While this is the most plausible outcome, nothing is ever certain. There are 1/4 of a billion people in that nation alone who are living in rather abject poverty, and the one downside will be securing the resources for this economic growth, not to mention social tensions. Remember, the Soviet Union fell apart yet no one, not even the Soviets themselves, expected it.

It is this point about which I am concerned. While China will most certainly rival the United States in both the economic and eventually the military realms as you pointed out, it is the road to power that they will follow which fascinates me.

They are already trying to build a sphere of influence in Africa on their quest for resources, but what will happen when they try and secure larger resources? They are no doubt eying Russia, and Russia, being a nation of eternally skeptic self reliant slavs is trying to reassert themselves without scaring of their purchaser of arms. Will a bonding alliance form between them? I doubt it, but that again, I just base this on the Russian mentality, which despite its skepticism, still views itself as a Western nation.

What about the Middle East? Will the Chinese and Arab/Persian nations form an alliance, or will China just replace America as Enemy # 1 amongst terrorists and hostile governments wishing avert any and all foreign influence?

I'd much rather have economic competition than military conflict.

I agree and I hope this to be right. Sadly, economic warefare was responsible for one of the biggest, and oft-ignored genocides of the 20th century, the Holodomor. And while the chances of such an event being re engineered are slim, it shows that economics can be a deadly tool.

But back to the principal question, how do you think the global dynamics will change as China gains more and more prominence?

Edited August 3, 2007 by marcinmoka

[sharkman]

To explore the orginal question, That China is investing heavily in her military when she has little in the way of threats is telling. As China grows stronger, the temptation to begin swallowing up small countries under the guise of rejoining her people or some such thing, will prove unresistable. The takeover of Taiwan, Tibet and others will threaten to make a cold war hot.

The UN will draft sanctions.

The earlier expressed fondness for the time when 2 superpowers caused economic competition forgets that the world hated that particular state of affairs. People lived in a state of nuclear fear, and this fear drowned out many good things in our societies. And since China has shown a complete willingness to rip off and steal whenever it proved beneficial, ( ignoring patents, pirating music and movies, reverse engineering technology) as well as a manufacturing sector that cuts corners to make unsafe products and foods, I think it is possible to expect when China replaces Russia as a superpower it will not be an improvement.

[ScottSA]

The earlier expressed fondness for the time when 2 superpowers caused economic competition forgets that the world hated that particular state of affairs. People lived in a state of nuclear fear, and this fear drowned out many good things in our societies.

How true. How short memories are...I remember reading a survey in the early 80s polling us "young people," and finding that around 80% of us fully expected nuclear annihilation within 10 years. I was one of them. We don't know what the effect on our society of such a belief was or is, but I'd hazard a guess that it had something to do with the "live for today," "me generation," along with a good many other things.

[Higgly]

Well we've had a brief period during which we had only one military superpower and look how that turned out. But then, I'm sure peace is going to break out all over any minute now.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Higgly

[kuzadd]

Well we've had a brief period during which we had only one military superpower and look how that turned out. But then, I'm sure peace is going to break out all over any minute now.

Higgly!

Best sentences I have read today, refreshing!

[Higgly]

Thank ya. Thank ya verry mutch...

I think we do need to get rid of MADD though. MADD only takes one madman to become INSANE. We've come too damned close too many times.

What we really need is to come up with some sort of agreement that nuclear weapons will only be used in the event of an external threat to the Earth. When that happens, it will be clear and evident.

And we really need to take nuclear weapons out of the hands of individual states. That is mad.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Higgly

[Riverwind]

And we really need to take nuclear weapons out of the hands of individual states. That is mad.

I strongly disagree. God knows who GWB would have tried to invade if there was not a nuclear deterrent. Also, nukes also ensure that China keeps its hands off Taiwan. Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[Higgly]

I strongly disagree. God knows who GWB would have tried to invade if there was not a nuclear deterrent. Also, nukes also ensure that China keeps its hands off Taiwan.

No, economic realities and US aircraft carriers keep China's hands off Taiwan. Nobody in this day and age believes a sane, intelligent person would use nuclear weapons. It is the insane and the stupid we need to be worried about. Guess who falls under that category?

[Riverwind]

No, economic realities and US aircraft carriers keep China's hands off Taiwan. Nobody in this day and age believes a sane, intelligent person would use nuclear weapons. It is the insane and the stupid we need to be worried about. Guess who falls under that category?

A completely irrational person could never take command of a large economy today since they depend on the willing co-operation of underlings. These underlings would remove any leader that got too far out of control. Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

A completely irrational person could never take command of a large economy today since they depend on the willing co-operation of underlings. These underlings would remove any leader that got too far out of control.

Rational according to what measure of rationality? Pol Pot was entirely rational according to his rationale; so was Hitler, Stalin and anyone else in control of a "large economy." I daresay someone waiting for the return of the 12th Imam and risking war with superpowers is hardly rational according to any western standard, but entirely rational according to his own.

[Sulaco]

Rational according to what measure of rationality? Pol Pot was entirely rational according to his rationale; so was Hitler, Stalin and anyone else in control of a "large economy." I daresay someone waiting for the return of the 12th Imam and risking war with superpowers is hardly rational according to any western standard, but entirely rational according to his own.

It is strange that in some circles all morality is subjective, but rationality seems to arrive at absolutes. What a strnage flip of reality. You'd think thousands of years of history would at least undermine the second clause of that outlook, if not the first. Instead - weirdness.

I am not a basher of rational thinking, I just propose we think rationally about rationality.

[Riverwind]

Rational according to what measure of rationality? Pol Pot was entirely rational according to his rationale; so was Hitler, Stalin and anyone else in control of a "large economy." I daresay someone waiting for the return of the 12th Imam and risking war with superpowers is hardly rational according to any western standard, but entirely rational according to his own.

Cambodia is a tiny country. Hilter operated before the advent of nuclear weapons. Stalin was a brute to his own people but was extremely rational and would never have started a nuclear war.

[ScottSA]

Cambodia is a tiny country. Hilter operated before the advent of nuclear weapons. Stalin was a brute to his own people but was extremely rational and would never have started a nuclear war.

What tripe. You simply make stuff up, tell the other side that they don't know what they are talking about, and ignore the arguments you don't understand. I doubt you even know to whom I was refering in the last post.

[kuzadd]

Thank ya. Thank ya verry mutch...

I think we do need to get rid of MADD though. MADD only takes one madman to become INSANE. We've come too damned close too many times.

What we really need is to come up with some sort of agreement that nuclear weapons will only be used in the event of an external threat to the Earth. When that happens, it will be clear and evident.

And we really need to take nuclear weapons out of the hands of individual states. That is mad.

aah higgly, while it would be wondeful, to get rid of MADD, and your right it will only take on madman, which freaks me out at this point in time and it ain't Iran I worry about, since they have no nukes anyway.

Unfortunately, power is so intoxicating.

The only way, I see this being remotely possible is if, the masses demand that and then maintain vigilance in insuring it stays that way.

[kuzadd]

It is the insane and the stupid we need to be worried about. Guess who falls under that category?

Is it the alleged 'dry drunk' cocaine sniffer, and his 'pained heart', 'shoot your friends' in the face consort????

;^)

Edited August 7, 2007 by kuzadd

[sharkman]

Meanwhile, there was another recall, this time concerning lead content in paint. Mattel had the offending toys manufactured in, you guessed it, China.