China Military Budget Tops $100 Billion

Not from scratch no, that's my point is they retain a small capability at/near the cutting edge so they have the doctrine and cadre 'and' a large force already trained in the common basics - albeit on older platforms its still foundational for rapid training.

Do you even read what I posted? Your 'counter' is irrelevant. Low tech only comes in handy in higher stakes combat, which is what I was talking about with satellites falling from the sky etc.

Yea well defaulting to thinking your position is superior because your strategy fits your force structure best makes the big assumption your strategy is the best one, but feel free to repeat it. Let's assume the US does not initiate a conflict with China (a fair assumption!?), then it's strategy is less relevant. A realistic analysis of a conflict would be that China would initiate (or create circumstances to force US intervention) and in that scenario they would only do so according to their own strategy which would be counter-US strategy. So parroting how China cannot match US force structure or strategy is again, irrelevant.

 

I don't feel like parsing all this, but it doesn't matter how much stuff they have or how high tech the Red Chinese are, their domestic engineering and production capabilities, particularly machine tools and the like, are all foreign made and maintained, as are the real management of most of that production capacity; most of the Chinese involvement in these industries as 'partners' are merely the families and relatives of Party members, and not chosen for their expertise or management skills. The modern Chinese 'middle class' is the same 'middle class' they had under Mao, with a few, maybe 10% or so, who have important skills they can't do without; if they start some wide war on even Japan or Korea, their supply and logistics becomes instant crap, and they have no mid-level operational talent worth anything, the latter being key to any military success. You can have the brightest and best generals in world history for your high command, and all the neatest current toys you want, but if you don't have the mid-level people capable of implementing your strategies competently, most of the rest is worthless. Going 'low tech' actually exacerbates the problems, not enhances them; 'going 'low tech' makes a higher degree of competence even more critical.

 

It all goes back to training.

You can't have a "cadre" unless you have experienced individuals.

You can't have experience unless you actually conduct the exercises.

When it comes to the PLAN, it spends the majority of it's time tied up to the wharf. Not at sea, not in training, not in conducting fleet operations, not in spending months at a time out at sea where UNREP and fleet operations matter.

You can't have any "experience" sending out a ship or two for a 1 month excursion, and call that "experience". You can't sail a Heavy Aircraft Carrying Guided Missile Cruiser around in circles, and say you have an "Aircraft Carrier".

They actually retain very little capacity, and are nowhere near the "cutting edge". Oh yes, they claim they are - just like they have been claiming they have built the best in everything for the last 20 years.

But claims and actuality are very far apart. And I really could not give a fig on claims and pipe-dreams. Show me reality.

You appear to accept everything they say on face value. Myself, consider me from Missouri, and you have to show me first.

The moment China starts to actually show these capabilities, then I will start to pay attention. But as of this time, they have not done so, do not appear to be doing so in any time in the future, and do not even seem to be capable of doing so.

 

We saw China "Go low-tech" in this little engagement called the Korean Police Action.

Where the "People's Volunteer Army" had over 950,000 casualties, including over 400,000 killed.

Numbers do not mean everything. Especially for example when one military is experienced, and the other is not.

In the middle part of Korea (when China got involved), the US had called up and shipped over large numbers of Reserves and National Guard, many of which were WWII Veterans. And while the Chinese forced the UN to withdraw from most of North Korea, it really was a Pyrrhic Victory. The North Korean and Chinese military was so badly mauled that they were forced to accept the cease-fire least they be overwhelmed.

Most of those trying to debate in here are arguing solely from political bias, not taking at all into consideration strategic or logistical issues at all. It is almost comical to read actually, since I am sure that they have not a clue of half of what some of us are saying, they are simply disagreeing from some kind of knee-jerk reaction.

 

Yes, pretty much. I have extreme political biases myself, being a 'paleo-liberal' populist nationalist, and having as much contempt for left wing neo-liberals as I do for right wing loons, none of which keeps me from being objective about how stuff works or should work and who should be doing what. I don't care if my car mechanic believes in space fairies or giant beanstalks, I'm just interested in how good he is at fixing my car. I really really don't like it when people screw around with our national defense, whether they be pork barrel rolling Congressmen or PC Nazis who think we just have to have the 'right number of women wearing gold stars on their shoulders cuz of fairness n diversity n stuff', and just never mind about competence and skill sets and the like, or whatever other idiotic meme they picked up somewhere the other day wandering around in the Fever Swamps.

 

Exactly what they are starting to do, hence the increasing budget and present discussion

 

Simply throwing money at an issue does not fix it. Look at all the increased money thrown at the VA, and it has not gotten any better.

Money solves little to nothing, let's see them actually doing more actual deployments and increasing their training tempo, as well as diversifying their fleet construction.

Until then, I simply see more of the same.

 

So where am I up to... Ttey are now actualizing a strategy of massive low tech force with a hi level cadre capacity supported by a huge civilian but state owned manufacturing base.... and how its the epitome of 'depth', not shallow. A perfect strategy and much better then the US's one, and that I'm not talking about comparison of force's in the present, but strategies going into the future. Calling their present capability shallow is partially accurate, but ignores the numerical advantage. Given the topic was military spending, I was saying they seem to be spending it more effectively then the US, and that they're strategy is coming of age and better for China then the US's will be for the US going into the future. So I think the US has no options but to continue on spending huge amounts, or withdraw from the international stage and focus on homeland defense. If China does not have a financial crash soon and manages to continue growing then it's only a matter of time before they have more and of equal or better equipment then the US.

 

Sorry, that is so not going to happen. Not when they are completely unable to even build their own jetliner, or manufacture jet engines for their own aircraft.

You are arguing from a fantasy, and refuse to accept that fact. They will never have equal or better equipment if they can't even make what they are using now. And myself, I only debate facts. And there is absolutely no evidence that China will be able to build even a fraction of what they claim they are working on.

They can't even build a Main Battle Tank that their Army will accept, so they continue to slap band aids on their current one, which is over 40 years old.

 

Just don't forget to mention these are US estimates. According to Chinese data that was 60 000 KIA.

Oh, was it? Don't forget to take into account that Chinese population back in those days were 500 000 000 people. Even if they would lose a million dead that would be hardly noticable to society.

 

Of course, China also estimated that it killed an estimated 390,000 Americans, and over 660,000 South Koreans.

So guess how seriously I take the claims of their claimed "Volunteer Army".

But we are not talking about China 60 years ago, we are talking about China today.

Do you think the 21st Century China would accept losses like that? Because I do not.

 

So, it is only your word vs their word. Why should anybody pick a side?

Yes, I do. But i still can't see why would they have to take 1 million casualties or something along those lines. WW2 type of warfare is long gone, there is far less military equipment nowadays, enourmous casualties are unlikely, of course if hitting infrastracture or nuclear war are avoided.

 

You keep saying that in reply to me like its relevant to what I said, its not. I said they have lo-tech depth which has advantage in major conflict if/when technology goes offline.

My point was that that is a type of depth to contrast the claims China was a shallow military. I also pointed out it fits their strategy of having a huge pool of lo-skill to siphon off a cadre capacity of high skill to enable them to operate a huge potential capacity for warfighting in the near future if needed - as contrasted with the US strategy of forward readiness and rolling technological superiority, which costs a friggin fortune in R&D. If the US wants to roll around like its on a near-war footing that is great for international security generally speaking, but its not the best fiscal strategy for the US going forward.

 

$100 billion goes a lot farther in China than it does in the US. Just ask our outsourcers.

 

And you do not get anything that I say at all, and spin things that have no meaning.

Let me know when you want to talk about the real world, and not fantasyland.

 

First thing you said that was on topic, well done. Childish jab though as my point was long term and a projection out into the future does not have to be called fantasyland - but I guess you wanted to feel like you'd won an internet argument.... goodjobluzr.

 

No, a "childish jab" is what you do, simply say you are right and ignore anything else said.

I bring forth facts and history, like the Korean Conflict, where the Chinese with their low tech military was utterly crushed, even though it vastly outnumbered that of the UN, was closer to their supply lines, and attacked with surprise.

Those my friend are indisputable facts. All you do is blather, and it is of no real interest.

And accuse me of making childish jabs, as you call me a looser, very mature. Now I know exactly where to file your opinions in the future. Have a good day.

 

LOL, as I said, again for like the 4th time or something, the reference to lo-tech fighting applied to both sides if the satellites all fell and EMP's and high altitude nukes were used to fry anything electric. In those circumstance it is nothing like the Korean War, and all of a sudden the Chinese strategy has unmatched merit. If that is the only counter you have to my opinion then again, I say its irrelevant to what I was saying.
Where you file my opinions is irrelevant because I dont think you get past the comprehension stage anyway.

 

In the Korean War, both sides did have roughly equal technology. In fact, many would argue that the Chinese actually had some technology that was superior to that of the US. Both sides were using the top of the line equipment, first generation fighters (and most still place the MiG-15 as superior to the F-86 Sabre).

Neither side yet had developed any kind of "superior technology", they were using largely the exact same equipment that was used in World War II. Everything was roughly on par with each other technologically. From rifles and hand grenades to artillery, jets, even tanks.

And some things they employed were probably better. The MiG-15 was better then the F-86, the T-34 was better then the M4 Sherman, they even had the Katyusha, a fearsome weapon that the US had no equivalent for until it developed the MLRS decades later.

No, you are failing because this was the last non-technological war. There was no "technology advantage" to the winning side, they had an advantage through superior training and doctrine. So in your "non-technology post-EMP future war", the Chinese would still loose if they used those tactics, just as they did in Korea. Just as it failed the Japanese in WWII.

And trust me, I comprehend just fine. Of course, I have probably been studying and doing this since before you were born, so have a lot more experience, both practical first hand, and through study then you can even grasp. As is obvious by how easily I turn each and every one of your own arguments against you, over and over again. You do not even seem to realize that the North Koreans - Chinese had superior weapons to the UN forces, yet they still lost. So what does this say would likely happen if they did not even have this superiority?

Hmmmm?

 

LOL, mate. The difference is China and the US militaries are vastly different NOW, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. You bought up the Korean War like it was somehow relevant because the Chinese fought lo-tech "We saw China "Go low-tech" in this little engagement called the Korean Police Action.". In your example, both armies were fighting the way they'd trained, so its irrelevant to my point... as I've explained like 5 times now. It was only one part of my post... a simple point, quite obvious - I didn't think it would cause such a fuss, but I must say nothing you've said has had anything to do with it LOL. Please let it go unless you've something relevant to add, ya know like the US also trains for these scenario's, or we've got more nukes and we'll ensure we strike first, or something, anything at all relevant!!! Your killing me with your desperate flapping and now trying to talk yourself up.... someone throw him a life ring. I hope I was born before you, if I was any older I'd be annoyed at being too old.... I'm already an old fart but your so sure of yourself you must be right

 

Well, let's just say I am entering my second half-century of life, am still in the military, and I first put on the uniform during the first Reagan Administration.

Give you any idea how old I am, and how long I have been doing this for a living? What you are taking as some kind of silly game, is actually my profession, once I have been studying for well over 30 years now (I first put on a Cadet Uniform when Carter was still President). You play word games, and are more interested in that then anything else.

So I leave you to your petty little word games, they mean nothing and impress me not at all. It is kind of amusing though, maybe on the level of some Fantasy Football fan trying to impress John Madden with their skills.

 

What people need to see on here is that china could win in a war our entire economy is ran off of them. All they basically have to do is cut exports to the west and out entire economy collapses.

 

Not quite.

In fact, we could destroy their entire economy one of two ways.

One, stop sending them raw materials. Their industry is dependent upon imported raw materials. Stop that flow, and they can't manufacture.

The other, simply stop buying their goods. China is not making anything unique or special. They are simply cheaper then the other countries we used to import from. Stop buying their goods, and their economy collapses. Factories shut down, unemployment is rampant.

In a supply side economy, the one that supplies the goods is generally more dependent then the user of the goods is. And China makes absolutely nothing that either can not be done without, or can not be supplied form other places.

Now if you want to see what an actual trade war and collapse is like, think about the US cutting off it's exports of food.

That is real power, not cheap COSCO furniture and iPads. Oh, and BTW, imports from China only make up around 20% of all US imports (and even 60-75% of that are products made for US companies). And roughly 2/3 of all US commerce is internal to the country, so it only makes up around 5-7% of US trade (import and domestic). China is nowhere near as important as you seem to think it is.

 

Then you should be ashamed or embarrassed your argument is so weak!!!! Explains why your concepts are out of date though on the CAS A10 retirement thread....

 

And if this is all you are capable of doing, then you should be proud to be the newest member of a very exclusive group.

Good day. Let me know if you are ever able to discuss things as anything other then a child, insulting and thrashing around.