Beijing's military buildup races ahead

[McKenzie]

Now why would they be so hell bent on developing real military muscle?

<snip1>

Where many American and Asian analysts said before that China would be able to mount a credible threat between 2010 and 2015, now they are saying it will come earlier, perhaps by 2006 and certainly by 2012.

<snip>

<snip2>

China is modernizing its military forces faster than anyone expected only a few years ago, escalating the potential danger to the island of Taiwan, to American forces and bases in Asia, and to the overall balance of power in the region.

<snip>

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20050207a2.htm

[David__77]

1. There is no "danger" to US forces unless US launches aggression.

China has not a single foreign military base and occupies not one inch of foreign land. Who is a danger to whom?

[On the Road]

2. Not Likely They'll Invade Taiwan

assuming, at least, that Taiwan doesn't declare independence.

Chinese territory has been repeatedly violated in the last 200 years. Yet China is about the same size and shape it was 500 years ago. They've never been an expansionist power in recent centuries.

But the military buildup in the US is a legitimate concern. Especially with thousands of American soliders in Korea, Japan, and the Pacific Islands.

[Igel]

6. They haven't been able to be an expansionist power in

recent centuries.

Some of it is undoubtedly due to paranoia: all China's problems are external or aberrations. But I don't think anybody's interested in invading China.

There's been a fair amount of rhetoric from the nationalist side of things: regain glory, respect, power. What's the use of power if you can't project it? They've also had more territory in the past than they have now. For now they're consolidating their conquests. The Han aren't a majority everywhere. "Nationalist + large army = good for neighbors" isn't an equation I believe holds.

As for Taiwan, that's at the top of their list. Macau. Hong Kong. Now the upstart province that's seldom been part of China in recent times (and in which the indigenous population is finally getting some respect). Peaceful absorption would be best, no doubt, but I think Taiwan's looked at the unkept promises in Hong Kong and decided no to, with the current regime.

As for Taiwan, why shouldn't they be independent?

[On the Road]

8. You Are Right That They Were Not in a Position to be Aggressive

Any country that's been invaded and occupied as much as China is going to take pains to defend itself.

But as for their intentions, when is the last time China conquered foreign territory or even attempted an invasion? Russia and the US have been much more interested in expansion.

What are the indications that China is looking to expand their boundaries? Basically none. There's as much of a chance China will invade Taiwan as there was that the Soviets would launch a mass assault against Western Europe.

Both sides agree that Taiwan is part of historical China. Despite that, The idea of "one China" goes back 2,000 years and is a deeply held belief. Taking any other position is like taking a stand against freedom of speech in the US.

If the intention is to avoid conflict and react appropriately, you have to understand how the Chinese government and people view the world.

[Igel]

16. You're right, China's stayed within its borders.

As they defined them. "Foreign" is the key word.

Big armies with nationalist populations, territorial claims based on history that ignore the people currently living there, and talks of projection of power all make me nervous. Sort of a "tools find uses and uses find tools" view applied to the military. And having large missile batteries pointed at Taiwan seems unnecessary for self-defense: Taiwan is unlikely to annex the mainland.

Tibet was invaded based on historical claims not so very long ago. In the Ussuri River incidents both sides were perfectly innocent, to be sure, in spite of a new pact on the location of the border just a few years before. And wasn't there some skirmishes between India and China back in 1962? Surely India attacked China. No aggression there.

In any event, asserting Taiwanese non-PRCness is not like "taking a stand against freedom of speech in the US". I've known Taiwanese that preferred to call themselves Taiwanese, but ethnically Chinese, and more that felt no great affinity to the mainland. I suspect the few non-Chinese Taiwanese that are left feel even less affinity. How the Taiwanese national consciousness will go in the next 20 years I can't know. Mentioning it in the PRC is like "taking a stand against freedom of speech in the US," for sure, and sort of proves my point. They have lots of similarities, but they're distinct. I view them like I view Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia: they were fine as one country, they're fine as multiple countries. But I'd look askance at Serbs laying claim to Croatia, or the Czechs to Slovakia.

There are two things I don't understand. The first is why self-determination is good for some people, but not others, esp. if they're not currently governed by the government that claims as subjects.

The second is why historical claims to inhabited territory bear any weight whatsoever, apart from the wishes of the people living there.

[DistantWind88]

9. what build-up?

[On the Road]

10. What Buildup?

The American one. Try this article from the Australian Financial Reveiew:

"Now, although the US no longer faces a mighty opposing empire, its military outlays have been rebuilt to a level 10 per cent higher than the average during the Cold War, and only 16 per cent lower than the absolute peak of its Cold War spending in 1985, according to Steven Kosiak at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington."

---snip

In terms of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, here are the Bush years:

2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4
2003 3.7

[DistantWind88]

11. And that increased spending

has meant a build-up of what systems, manpower, and capabilities? We're spending more, on less.

[On the Road]

12. A 23% Increase is Not a Buildup?

Of course they're mechanizing. It requires fewer ground soldiers.

As far as China goes, I expect it is concerned about increased funding for Star Wars, which has the potential of making their nuclear deterrent obsolete. And about the new generation of mini-nukes. And about Rumsfeld's vision of a rapid intercontinental strike force.

The point is that the ways in which the US military is expanding pose a legitimate concern to China, and an increase in China's military budget may be seen as a response to that concern.

[DistantWind88]

13. Not necessarily

We have fewer ships, fewer airplanes, fewer armored vehicles. More money spent on less stuff. We're spending more, but I don't think one can call it a buildup.

[On the Road]

14. OK, I Concede That "Buildup"

is normally used to mean an increase in troops, aircraft, ships, and armored vehicles.

Perhaps it would be better to say that the Chinese are concerned about increases in US military spending and where that extra money is being spent.

[DistantWind88]

15. I agree.

[neweurope]

3. Ah well, why... The US has already caused a new arms race. One more

reason for hate. You'll blow the whple damn world up before you're through.

:scared:

----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Wcross]

4. Thank you Walmart shoppers! n/t

[LeaderlessResistance]

5. China

I fear that while a multicultural U.S. fights amongst ourselves. That a homogeneous China will end up surpassing us.

[NewJeffCT]

7. they're not as homogeneous as you think

China has problems in their western provinces as well as huge amounts of poor. Not to mention problems in their banking industry, their infrastructure, their environment, AIDS, and more.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi LeaderlessResistance!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: