"China's army is showing off its new tanks, stealth..." Topic

… fighters, and missiles.

"As part of the People's Liberation Army's 90th anniversary celebration—it was founded on August 1, 1927— President Xi Jinping (in military fatigues) hosted a giant parade at the Zhurihe Training Center. Here, PLA's most elite forces demonstrated how far China has come in modern warfare. CCTV broadcast the session, which means a domestic and global audience of millions saw the army's showcase of tanks, stealth fighters, artillery, and ICBMs…"
See here
link

Amicalement
Armand

It just seems like each day the PRC expands and improves its military capabilities, but people around here still choose to underestimate the threat.

As happened with a different power* some 70-80 years ago, soon there will come a time when they'll feel bold enough to take on everyone. It will need to have a local testing ground of its own first, however, and I fear that the poor people of the ROC (Taiwan) are going to be that fist stepping stone.

By then all of the South China Sea will have come under the control of the PRC. As some may have read this week, Vietnam has just given up its claims on some of those areas. The Philippines and the others will be pressured to do the same with their claims, and that's when the international waters in the middle of the SCS will cease to be international.

Massive drilling projects are already planned for that area.

Dan
* With a different face/helmet and a different background flag, this old poster could see a return:
link

You know, I don't see what the big deal is with China. Yes, they are getting lots of fancy new stuff at a rate previously only the USA has been capable of. Yes, they are becoming politically more assertive.

On the other hand, it's a country that has been very circumspect about sending its forces to fight. Unlike the USA, they haven't made a point of intervening anywhere and everywhere they can. What this means is, A) Chinese forces are involved at only a very few potential flashpoints for a major war (currently their shared border with India, the Taiwan strait, and the South China Sea), and B) the People's Liberation Army forces have almost a complete lack of modern experience… and they know it.

China isn't going to pick a fight with the West, or even with India--not any time soon. We may see them begin to send expeditionary forces into foreign brushfire wars (or start brushfire wars of their own), mimicking the strategy of the West as they attempt to increase the institutional combat experience of their forces.

Or perhaps not. China can also plainly see from the western example that an interventionist agenda merely drains the national coffers without materially increasing national security. To me, the rising strength of China seems to be due not to a willingness or ability to fight, but to their capacity to find ways to expand their influence *without* fighting.

KS: "China isn't going to pick a fight with the West, or even with India--not any time soon. "

I certainly hope you are right. I really do.

KS: "Unlike the USA, they haven't made a point of intervening anywhere and everywhere they can."

All the Western powers (including the Russian Empire) have tried to do that very thing. Then Japan felt encouraged to do the same, and we know how that turned out.

KS: "To me, the rising strength of China seems to be due not to a willingness or ability to fight, but to their capacity to find ways to expand their influence *without* fighting."

It hasn't needed to yet. They've been trading beads for Manhattans all along the coast of the Indian Ocean, creating their maritime "New Silk Road".

But it has also demonstrated interest in expanding its military sphere of influence, such as with its new UN peacekeeping role (in South Sudan and other areas), the troops sent to Iraq and Syria, the hostage rescue in Yemen and with the establishment of numerous Navy bases in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and around Africa, including Namibia.

Like I said, I hope you are absolutely right.

Dan

CC: I'm not saying that China is morally blameless; I think your beads-for-Manhattans analogy is pretty spot on.

What I AM saying is that China isn't the main threat to world peace--that distinction belongs to the USA, which hypocritically insists on maintaining the so-called status quo… while they cowboy around overthrowing governments and attacking countless sovereign nations with cruise missiles and drones.

In reality there is no "status quo"; the state of boundaries and spheres of influence has ALWAYS been in flux. I would happily settle for the USA acting as "World Police", IF they could demonstrate any sort of wisdom, restraint, sense of proportion and fairness. It's been an entire generation now that they've failed to do so. They won't even ratify the international maritime treaties they're so hysterically trying to " uphold" in the South China Sea.

Do I want to be a subject of the Chinese Communist Party? Hell no. But what I want is for people to stop confusing maintenance of the American world order with maintaining world peace. They're demonstrably not the same thing.

And BTW, I'm not Russian (or pro-Russian, for that matter). I'm a Canadian citizen. My family is Filipino, so I'm decidedly ANTI-China on the SCS front. At the moment I live in Colombia, which is the most pro-USA country in Latin America.

I certainly don't want us (the US) to act like a World Police or continue its wasteful "nation-building" efforts after we defeat an enemy, which I call the Duchy of Grand Fenwick policy. That has certainly not paid off at all.

But we've had good experiences too, like with the bases we have in countries that have actually proven to be our allies, both in good times and bad.

Dan
PS. I didn't make that reference to Russia based on your handle. If I gave that impression I apologize.

KS: "To me, the rising strength of China seems to be due not to a willingness or ability to fight, but to their capacity to find ways to expand their influence *without* fighting."…

Agree with that!.

What we must observe is … when there became some armed conflict in their area of influence … when the Chinese inevitably begin to suffer casualties in their armed forces … we will see how they react to that … if they will persist in their exquisite diplomacy … or began to used their huge war machine to crush their opponents …

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting article here that observes that given despite its large land mass, China's geography and infrastructure make it essentially an island nation since 98% of goods and materials are moved by sea.

The war the United States should base its strategy upon is another conflict in which it fought an island nation that had successfully executed an "A2AD" strategy by physically occupying much of the Asian landmass from Manchuria to Burma — to Wake Island and the Solomons.
The example we are looking for, and should be planning to, is the Pacific War from 1941 to 1945.

An analysis of the flow of goods and materials into and out of China reveals that with 98 percent of all freight moving by sea, China is practically, if not geographically, an island nation.

As such, it is vulnerable to interdiction of trade routes and energy supplies to a far greater degree than a land power, and this is a national vulnerability that air power is well-positioned to exploit — if applied properly.

link

SBminisguy,

Looks like ventures like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (Kashgar-Gwadar link) are in the process of changing that figure or, at the very least, helping create a back up to their maritime "Silk Road" plan.

I suspect this might be the real reason behind recent tensions between India and China these last few weeks.

So that might also explain why there have been hints that garrisons will protect the Kashmir section of the routes, though the excuse given is to protect travelers from potential attacks by "insurgents".

Dan

I'm waiting for the Chinese to get bent out of shape about the Pakistani Tribals raiding their trade along the Gwadar-Kashgar road.

That will produce some "interesting" results.

Probably the utter extinction of the tribes involved, the Chinese take very poorly to banditry.