Chinas military expansion: why are we complaining?

#1
#2
Of course, but it is similar to Iran wanting Nuclear power (and possibly weapons). The US has tons of nuclear weapons (I might add the only country to use them when it didnt need to) and quite a number of power stations, but if anyone else wants similar things it doesn't like it.
 
#4
China has reconfigured the PLA away from the old Maoist 'defence in depth, every village a fortress’ doctrine into one which a force of 250,000 is trained and equipped to be capable of ‘expeditionary warfare’. The Navy is being configured to ‘blue water status’ in support of this and to be capable of securing China from any hostile Carrier battle groups that may threaten China’s interests i.e. African /Venezuelan Oil.

The Nuclear Deterrent is just that, like everybody else’s it just has to be upgraded to remain a Deterrent.

We all understand that its mainly US ‘Lawmakers’ who are owned by the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ who generate these headlines and I am sure they play well in the States to those of a nervous disposition. However China has its own ‘Military Industrial Complex’ which makes sure these US outbursts are very well circulated spurring on domestic opinion here for major rearmament. Which includes something that used to be seen in GB back in the very early 1900’s; popular campaigns to buy Warships by Public subscription.
 
#5
sandy_boots said:
When was that Cabana?
When was what? I am assuming that your query relates to the US using nuclear weapons when it didn't need too.
In 1945. Japan had made several attempts to discuss surrender way before the a-bombs were dropped (I believe first attempt was in May) on Japan which would have saved many lives of allied soldiers, which many claim the dropping of the bombs did.
 
#6
Cabana said:
In 1945. Japan had made several attempts to discuss surrender way before the a-bombs were dropped (I believe first attempt was in May) on Japan which would have saved many lives of allied soldiers, which many claim the dropping of the bombs did.
Utter appeasing shite

Japan had NOT offered unconditional surrender, which was why the bombs were dropped (far too few in my view). If the Allies had accepted a conditional surrender a la Germany in 1918, Christ knows what grief the world would have gone through with a unreconstructed, resurgent, quasi fascist Japan.
 
#7
armchair_jihad said:
Cabana said:
In 1945. Japan had made several attempts to discuss surrender way before the a-bombs were dropped (I believe first attempt was in May) on Japan which would have saved many lives of allied soldiers, which many claim the dropping of the bombs did.
Utter appeasing shite

Japan had NOT offered unconditional surrender, which was why the bombs were dropped (far too few in my view). If the Allies had accepted a conditional surrender a la Germany in 1918, Christ knows what grief the world would have gone through with a unreconstructed, resurgent, quasi fascist Japan.
They may not have offered unconditional surrender, but the fact is they made attempts to discuss surrender which were rejected. Would it not be better to discuss a surrender that may prove fruitful and save thousands of Allied soldiers lives or to wait months whilst thousands of Allied troops die for Japan to surrender?

It also seems to me that in the final Japanese surrender there were some conditions in favour of the Japs..i.e. they kept their emperor
 
#8
Cabana said:
They may not have offered unconditional surrender, but the fact is they made attempts to discuss surrender which were rejected. Would it not be better to discuss a surrender that may prove fruitful and save thousands of Allied soldiers lives or to wait months whilst thousands of Allied troops die for Japan to surrender?

It also seems to me that in the final Japanese surrender there were some conditions in favour of the Japs..i.e. they kept their emperor
You evidently have no understanding of Asian cultures; to 'discuss' surrender means nothing, accepting surrender means everything.

The Emperor was kept on to provide a focal point to the reconstruction of Japanese society and to prevent the Communists from gaining a significant foothold.
 
#9
armchair_jihad said:
You evidently have no understanding of Asian cultures; to 'discuss' surrender means nothing, accepting surrender means everything.

The Emperor was kept on to provide a focal point to the reconstruction of Japanese society and to prevent the Communists from gaining a significant foothold.
I never said I did, however, it was clear to many in Japan that the war was lost and that the needless slaughter of many was pointless. Hence their eventual surrender 'unconditionally'. Which makes you first statement a tad weak.

I have todisagree with your reasoning for keeping the emperor. The US occupied Japan and the Communists were busy in Manchuria. The Japanese also favoured surrendering to the US rather then Russia.
 
#11
armchair_jihad wrote:


You evidently have no understanding of Asian cultures; to 'discuss' surrender means nothing, accepting surrender means everything.

The Emperor was kept on to provide a focal point to the reconstruction of Japanese society and to prevent the Communists from gaining a significant foothold.

I never said I did, however, it was clear to many in Japan that the war was lost and that the needless slaughter of many was pointless. Hence their eventual surrender 'unconditionally'. Which makes you first statement a tad weak.

I have todisagree with your reasoning for keeping the emperor. The US occupied Japan and the Communists were busy in Manchuria. The Japanese also favoured surrendering to the US rather then Russia.
The thing that seems often forgotten in this debate is that it took TWO devices to be dropped before the Japanese surrendered. I think that puts the reality of the Japanese mindset in sharp focus.
 
#12
Cabana said:
armchair_jihad said:
You evidently have no understanding of Asian cultures; to 'discuss' surrender means nothing, accepting surrender means everything.

The Emperor was kept on to provide a focal point to the reconstruction of Japanese society and to prevent the Communists from gaining a significant foothold.
I never said I did, however, it was clear to many in Japan that the war was lost and that the needless slaughter of many was pointless. Hence their eventual surrender 'unconditionally'. Which makes you first statement a tad weak.

I have todisagree with your reasoning for keeping the emperor. The US occupied Japan and the Communists were busy in Manchuria. The Japanese also favoured surrendering to the US rather then Russia.
Not to 15th Army IJA it wasn't. They were still fighting after the bombs were dropped and had to be destroyed in place right up to the point that the surrender was communicated to them. I found GM Fraser's (no great fan of the Japanese race) remark in Quartered Safe Out Here moving: "They did their country proud". The heavy resistance on Okinawa proved they didn't think losing was an acceptable option, either.

The USSR only declared war on Japan in opportunistic fashion days before they surrendered. To pose a threat to the Japanese Kwangtung Army, they would have had to launch a full-scale invasion of Manchkuo and been secure that the Chinese wouldn't attack them. It's doubtful that even the PLA would have held back. The Nationalists would certainly have countered a foreign Communist invasion and caused a world of hurt.

The Japanese favoured surrendering to the Western Allies for much the same reason as Germans favoured surrendering to them, rather than the Russians or Poles: they new damn well what to expect once the shoe was on the other foot.

In response to the original question: PRC are the new kid on the block and while their resources are undoubtedly great, they're still playing catch up to the established players. For all Washington's concerns over PRC military spending, even the upper estimates are still a fraction of overt US defence spending, for a far larger force.

The manner in which they're restructuring their military suggests they are moving to protect a global trading position: coincidentally, this also expands their ability to threaten Taiwan, but as the old urban myth has it "Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, aren't you." The perception of threat can be useful to distract ones opponents, even if never realised.
 
#13
smartascarrots said:
In response to the original question: PRC are the new kid on the block and while their resources are undoubtedly great, they're still playing catch up to the established players. For all Washington's concerns over PRC military spending, even the upper estimates are still a fraction of overt US defence spending, for a far larger force.
Also the PLA freely admit that their training & doctrine for all the new toys
(especially Carriers) will take decades to get anywhere vaguely near Western standards
 
#14
I wouldnt be too worried about China.Topographics dictate due to most of the country is below sea level and prone to vast flooding and with recent damming projects a few well placed paveways in the right locations and the largest Airforce in the world shall find it hard taking off in a swimming pool leaving the Navy to become piecemeal to the US pacific fleet and Japan.the Army can then start walking towards us should take about 3 years via Russia
 
#15
armchair_jihad said:
smartascarrots said:
In response to the original question: PRC are the new kid on the block and while their resources are undoubtedly great, they're still playing catch up to the established players. For all Washington's concerns over PRC military spending, even the upper estimates are still a fraction of overt US defence spending, for a far larger force.
Also the PLA freely admit that their training & doctrine for all the new toys
(especially Carriers) will take decades to get anywhere vaguely near Western standards
The Wonderful Jade Dream's family live in a township close to HQ Lanzhou Military District (a pretty powerful formation, by all accounts, two Type A Group Armies plus garrison forces, source). There's a weird mix of old and new-looking kit floating around and I was pleasantly surprised to note I don't get any hassle for looking at it or chatting to their blokes, even if there is always a minder on the scene PDQ. Playing the "Brotherhood of Soldiers" card usually breaks the ice, but sometimes there's a bit of attitude. Bit like Aldershot before the Paras moved out, really.

They seem to be still organised for border defence against Ivan and internal security duties in support of the Peoples' Armed Police, rather than true force projection in the Western tradition.
 
#16
TURRETMUPPET said:
I wouldnt be too worried about China.Topographics dictate due to most of the country is below sea level and prone to vast flooding and with recent damming projects a few well placed paveways in the right locations and the largest Airforce in the world shall find it hard taking off in a swimming pool leaving the Navy to become piecemeal to the US pacific fleet and Japan.the Army can then start walking towards us should take about 3 years via Russia
Bwah? The Three Rivers Deltas, yes, but the vast bulk of the country isn't (see here). The green areas are the only ones remotely threatened, and not all of those, in your scenario. The current centres of industrial production are no more vulnerable to flooding than Silicon Valley or the City of London. If the Three Gorges Dam were to break, the Yangtze would push down its original course and take out any new build on the reclaimed land. That hasn't begun to be a major industrial location, so maybe in the future but not yet.

PLAAF is well spread around the country and there are plenty of unthreatened and/or man-made sites for them to launch from: if there's one thing China is good at it's massive feats of engineering. I don't know the current capability of Paveway, but I do know it hasn't yet been used against anything the size of the Three Gorges Dam because nothing like it exists anywhere else.

PLAN isn't exactly first rank yet, but it ain't the Iraqi Navy either. I doubt it would be quite the walkover you seem to expect.

Long story short, US might still be the biggest kid on the block, but that don't mean nobody else is putting on a growth spurt. A bit of genuine competition might be a good thing in the long run. They are, after all, the home of Market Forces. :D
 
#17
BlotBangRub said:
armchair_jihad wrote:


You evidently have no understanding of Asian cultures; to 'discuss' surrender means nothing, accepting surrender means everything.

The Emperor was kept on to provide a focal point to the reconstruction of Japanese society and to prevent the Communists from gaining a significant foothold.

I never said I did, however, it was clear to many in Japan that the war was lost and that the needless slaughter of many was pointless. Hence their eventual surrender 'unconditionally'. Which makes you first statement a tad weak.

I have todisagree with your reasoning for keeping the emperor. The US occupied Japan and the Communists were busy in Manchuria. The Japanese also favoured surrendering to the US rather then Russia.
The thing that seems often forgotten in this debate is that it took TWO devices to be dropped before the Japanese surrendered. I think that puts the reality of the Japanese mindset in sharp focus.

You may be right. However one forgets that Japans communication infrastructure was not in a great state at that point and news of the events in Hiroshima did not reach those in power immediatly (I saw this on a recent program, but I will try to find something about it on the internet). I really think it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria and the impressive gains they made that prompted the surrender.
 
#18
smartascarrots said:
Not to 15th Army IJA it wasn't. They were still fighting after the bombs were dropped and had to be destroyed in place right up to the point that the surrender was communicated to them. I found GM Fraser's (no great fan of the Japanese race) remark in Quartered Safe Out Here moving: "They did their country proud". The heavy resistance on Okinawa proved they didn't think losing was an acceptable option, either.
What utter nonsense. Are you telling me that the Japanese soldier in the trenches will be negotiating peace on behalf of his nation. That the President of the US will negotiate peace terms with Cpl Tojo? As with just about every war, fighting goes on when peace negotiations are in progress.

The USSR only declared war on Japan in opportunistic fashion days before they surrendered. To pose a threat to the Japanese Kwangtung Army, they would have had to launch a full-scale invasion of Manchkuo and been secure that the Chinese wouldn't attack them. It's doubtful that even the PLA would have held back. The Nationalists would certainly have countered a foreign Communist invasion and caused a world of hurt.
I do not disagree with you in the aspect of the USSR declaring war due to oppertunistic reasons. The Russians made impressive gains

The Japanese favoured surrendering to the Western Allies for much the same reason as Germans favoured surrendering to them, rather than the Russians or Poles: they new damn well what to expect once the shoe was on the other foot.
Agreed, and due to the speed of the Russian advance the Japanese saw fit to surrender on the 15th of August 1945 rather then try to continue the fight. It must have occured to the Japanese that the US did not have many bombs to drop on Japan as it was experimental technology and there wern't any more coming.

Anyway, maybe all this is for another thread as it is diverting way off the original subject.
 
#19
I am not too sure why China needs to go expeditionary apart from securing strategic objectives like Taiwan if Taipei starts acting up, and hopefully Washington has already read the Taiwan government its tea-leaves. The other thing that is sticking out like a bull's proverbials is the way Bejing can exert global economic influence. The Developed World's collective economies are already heavily dependent on China's manufacturing base and its investment in our economies/property. So we have got to play nice otherwise China can really mess our lives around, without pulling a trigger. I suppose the 'Clash of Civilizations', where China is painted as a big time protagonist, is really a tussle that moves from a bit of strategic 'bitch slapping' to serious bruising as we wake up and realise we 'running dogs' are being seriously outstripped by a pack of mutant Pekinese. Our only hope is the Chin choke, drown and/or virus each other before they come for our economies, but the global harm done in the process will have probably done for us anyway. We had better start teaching our kids Mandarin.
 
#20
You may be right. However one forgets that Japans communication infrastructure was not in a great state at that point and news of the events in Hiroshima did not reach those in power immediatly (I saw this on a recent program, but I will try to find something about it on the internet). I really think it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria and the impressive gains they made that prompted the surrender.
And not the fact the US would have continued to wipe then off the face o the earth?

They were well aware of the attack, we told them.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top