| Author |
Message |
ShanghaiUnderground
StreetBeater
Joined: July 15, 2004
Posts: 2413
Location: Shanghai
|
 Posted:
Apr 10, 2005 - 09:02 AM |
 
|
| Post subject: Chinese begin to worry U.S. militarily |
| Quote: |
Chinese begin to worry U.S. militarily
By Jim Yardley and Thom Shanker The New York Times
Friday, April 8, 2005
Officials say equation has shifted in event of a Taiwan crisis
ZHANJIANG, China When the flagship of the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet came into view on a recent Monday afternoon, a Chinese naval band onshore quickly began playing as two rows of Chinese sailors snapped into formation and workers hurriedly finished tacking down a red carpet.
The command ship, the Blue Ridge, answered with music from its own band and raised a Chinese flag below Old Glory.
But the most apt symbolism in the stagecraft of the ceremonial visit came when the two navies staged a tug-of-war - evoking their emerging competition in East Asia.
While the American military is consumed with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global terrorism, and the threat of nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, China is presenting a new and strategically different security concern to America in the western Pacific, as well as to Japan and Taiwan, Pentagon and military officials say.
China, these officials say, has smartly analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the American military and focused its growing defense spending on weapons systems that could exploit the perceived weaknesses in case the United States ever needs to respond to fighting in Taiwan.
This rapid military modernization is the major reason President George W. Bush has warned the European Union not to lift its arms embargo against China.
A decade ago, U.S. military planners dismissed the threat of a Chinese attack against Taiwan as a 160-kilometer infantry swim. Now, the Pentagon believes that China has purchased or built enough amphibious assault ships, submarines, fighter jets and short-range missiles to pose an immediate threat to Taiwan and to any American force that might come to Taiwan's aid.
Even the most hawkish officials at the Pentagon do not believe China is preparing for an imminent invasion of Taiwan. Nor do analysts believe China is any match for the United States military.
But as neighboring North Korea is erratically trying to play the nuclear card, China is quietly challenging America's reach in the western Pacific by concentrating strategically on conventional forces.
"They are building their force to deter and delay our ability to intervene in a Taiwan crisis," said Eric McVadon, a former military attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. "What they have done is cleverly develop some capabilities that have the prospect of attacking our niche vulnerabilities."
Japan, America's closest ally in East Asia, and China's rival for regional dominance, is also watching China's buildup. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi echoed Bush by warning Europe against removing the arms embargo. A think tank affiliated with Japan's Defense Ministry criticized China's increased military spending and warned it was rushing to prepare for possible conflict with Taiwan - an assertion China sharply denied.
The growing friction between Japan and China, fueled by rising nationalism in both countries, is just one of the political developments exacerbating tensions in East Asia.
In March, China passed a controversial new "anti-secession" law authorizing a military attack if top leaders believe Taiwan moves too far toward independence - a move that brought hundreds of thousands of people in Taiwan out in prοtest last month.
China's most recent military white paper also alarmed U.S. policymakers because it mentioned the United States by name for the first time since 1998. It stated that the American presence in the region "complicated security factors."
China, meanwhile, blamed the United States and Japan for meddling in a domestic Chinese matter when those two countries recently issued a security statement that listed peace in Taiwan as a "common strategic objective."
"The potential for a miscalculation or an incident here has actually increased, just based on the rhetoric over the past six months to a year," one U.S. intelligence analyst in Washington said.
At the welcoming ceremony for the Blue Ridge here at the hometown of China's South Sea Fleet, the American commanding officer, Captain J. Stephen Maynard, and his Chinese counterpart, Senior Captain Wen Rulang, sidestepped questions about the anti-secession law and military tensions.
Wen, Asked about China's military buildup and how America should view it, praised the U.S. Navy as the most modern in the world.
"As for China," he said, "our desire is to upgrade China's self-defense capabilities."
But in China's view, self-defense involves Taiwan, which it regards as a breakaway province and which the United States has, by treaty, suggested it would help defend. In 1996, when China fired missiles in warning over the Taiwan Strait prior to Taiwanese elections, President Bill Clinton responded by sending a battle group to a position near Taiwan. Then, China could do nothing about it. Now, analysts say, it can.
In fact, U.S. carriers responding to a crisis would now initially have to operate at least 800 kilometers, or 500 miles, from Taiwan, which would reduce the number of jet fighter sorties they could launch and cut their loiter time in international airspace near Taiwan.
This is because China now has a modernizing fleet of submarines, including new Russian-made nuclear subs that can fire antiship missiles from a submerged position. America would first need to subdue these submarines before moving ships close to Taiwan.
China launched 13 attack submarines between 2002 and 2004, a period when it also built 23 ships that can ferry armored vehicles and troops across the 160-kilometer-wide strip of water to Taiwan.
"Their amphibious assault ship building alone equals the entire U.S. navy shipbuilding since 2002," said an intelligence official in Washington. "It definitely represents a significant increase in overall capacity."
In the worse-case scenario for a Taiwan crisis, any delay in U.S. carriers reaching the island would mean that the United States would initially depend on fighter jets and bombers stationed on Guam and Okinawa, while Chinese forces could use their amphibious ships to traverse the narrow Strait. Some U.S. military analysts believe China could now defeat Taiwan before America could arrive at the scene. |
Looks like the case is being made/extended for building up militarily, on all sides.
Time again to re-examine defense industry stocks. |
_________________
"And this also," said Marlow suddenly, "has been one of the dark places of the earth." |
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 10, 2005 - 08:23 PM |
|
|
Sounds alot like what I was talking about in other threads on this subject 
Regards, Matthew |
|
|
|
|
|
good4kicks
LoopKicker
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 955
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 10, 2005 - 08:46 PM |
|
|
That same article was in the International Herald Tribune a few days ago. This paper is published by the New York Times.
What is interesting is that on Friday, the same newspaper published a contradictory story titled, "The so-called Rise of China" in which they say....
"But today, the threat of Chinese[] military domination should worry the West very little. Its nuclear arsenal is rather small: a mere 24 intercontinental nuclear missiles that are able to reach the US; no aircraft carrier battle groups for projecting its power; and very few destroyers......China does not have the makings of an invasion force that could overwhelm Taiwan's defences" |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
Apr 10, 2005 - 09:14 PM |
|
|
Looks like Orwell's 1984 to me: keep the people always worrying for their safety and the war their nation might face.
In the end I think there are absolutely nobody stupid enough to use force in the straits. It's again a penis size contest that as ShUng mentioned serves the purpose of speculators, defense contractors and our friends at the Carlyle group selling "strategic consultancy."
Defense. Now that's an industry to bet your money on. Does anyone know about any defence contractor specific fund?
And heck 24 warheads looks reasonable to me. Having 24 or 12000 is all the same. You know you will never use it, and if you do need to use it, you will be toast anyway, so, why bother?
In the end our little meaningless lives stay exactly the same, with or without Taiwan. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 3909
Location: Colonial Shanghai
|
| Posted:
Apr 10, 2005 - 09:41 PM |
|
|
Although I've left this site, there are a few things I'd like to add to this thread:
1. The Chinese nuclear arsenal may be small, but the quality of both the warheads and the delivery systems has jumped forward rapidly in recent years. Currently, the PLA 2nd Artillery Corps can hit the west coast of the US without any problems at all. They have now deployed the first in a class of ballistic missile submarines, and expect to fit the missiles to them shortly. Together with the new ICBM's nearing, or possibly in, deployment, this will mean they are capable of hitting any target this side of Antarctica. CEP (accuracy) is probably similar to that of the last generation of Soviet ICBM's, which is very good. The numbers are not enough for first strike capability, but far exceed deterent capability. And the numbers are growing year-on-year.
2. China now appears unlikely to acquire aircraft carriers in the near future. The don't need them. They are quite capable of projecting power 200Km offshore, which is sufficient to push USN assets 800Km out to sea from Taiwan. This is enough. The only reason that the PLAN would require an aircraft carrier, would be to dispute ownership of the Spratly Islands. On the other hand, the PLAN would require many submarines in order to consolidate and exploit control of Taiwan... No surprise that attack submarines have been high on the purchase list and no wonder Chinese submarines have been busy mapping the East China Sea in recent years.
3. Destroyers. Sovremenny class destroyers are already in service with the PLAN. The Sovremenny class is a Russian class of destroyers designed to engage hostile ships (and specifically Aegis class air defence systems) by means of missile attack, and to provide warships and transport ships with protection against ship and air attack. They are equipped with supersonic 3M-80E Moskit SS-N-22 SUNBURN missiles, very capable systems. They are possibly the finest destroyers in the world.
4. Amphibious assault transports. In the last year, China spent more on Amphibious assault transports than the USN spent on its entire shipbuilding program. 'nuf said.
And there's a lot more, too. These mofo's are gearing up in the same way that Hitler geared up in the 30's.
But hey, feel free to prattle on about what great people they are and how I'm just just not culturaly sensitive enough... |
_________________
Conlige suspectos semper habitos |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2005 - 12:00 AM |
|
|
Any comparitive numbers against... say the US military spending? The UK? Russian?
Regards, Matthew |
|
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 3909
Location: Colonial Shanghai
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2005 - 06:45 AM |
|
|
Comparitives are hard, because firstly the real numbers are not known here, and secondly, much of the economy has been set up to be part of the military. This doesn't happen to such an extent in the West.
It is known, however, that China has the largest armed forces in the world, and the second largest defence budget in the world. Only the US spends more, and they have global commitments to maintain. In addition, China's defence budget has been growing by double-figure percentages year-on-year for a long time now.
China's armed forces have traditionally been configured towards supressing domestic dissent, but this is changing fast, with a focus on being able to fight and win in Taiwan, and operate in the South China Sea and Sea of Japan following a victory there. Their forces are being carefully configured to exploit weaknesses in the US and Japanese forces. They have also quietly enlarged the Military Commission, in oprder to bring in experts they need to make successful any war in Taiwan.
Finally, they are estimated to achieve parity with opposing forces in the Taiwan theatre in mid-2006. This means they should have a reasonable chance of winning a short war in this theatre against not only the Taiwanese, but also Japanese and US forces that would certainly be involved - no surprise that it is now that nationalism is being ramped up here, and Hu gave a speech to the military telling them to prepare for war. |
_________________
Conlige suspectos semper habitos |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2005 - 08:48 AM |
|
|
I think its hypocritical to criticize China about building up its military capability while the US continues to do outspend every other nation on earth.
Regardless of whether you believe the US has some high and mighty role to play in world affairs, I'm sure that many nations simply feel they are meddling where they shouldn't be... What I find most objectionable is HOW the US meddles. They ignore the killing of millions in Kosavo, and the central african nations. They ignored the supression of the Afghans and outright atrocities committed by the Taliban until the US public demanded payback after 9/11. Then the current administration in their infinite wisdom decided that after they did a half-assed job in Afghanistan they'd beat up the Iraqis who had no part to play whatsoever in the attack. Even worse was that in the administrations rush to be seen as victorious they put little effort into planning the how to run the country after the defeat of Saddam.
Regards, Matthew |
|
|
|
|
|
bravojohnny
Raver
Joined: July 08, 2004
Posts: 497
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2005 - 09:36 AM |
|
| Post subject: sorry to say but... |
Air missles are of no concern to US as they can project and intercept a missle. US missle strikes are state of the art as well climbing in the sky much higher then you could imagine.
In China computers are easly to be hacked so information is gathered quite easly. Accessible info....accessing...accessing permission granted
Technology is older and more simplistic and quantity matters not.
In US planes and cars can drive themselves with no one in...still in development but hey can you imagine who has that kind of technology. Here it is developing but western places are continuing to devolp as well.
I remember I played a game of starcraft with my brother right. Anyways I was already aware of a nuclear strike. What did I do, I thought I could outsmart him and develop in a widespread area and invest mostly air units and keep my unit concentration small per base but heavly invest at the same time. Then I would just send my units and airplanes in to kick serious arse.
Instead things were a catrastrophe. One ENTIRE area vanished and screwed MY ass after the nuclear strike. I made a wrong bet. I could not develop as quickly and he sent his troops to secure another area so my units were at complete loss as I did absolutly no damage to him. He didnt have that many units it didnt take an entire fleet, just technology. Think people think. HIS army was SMALL but still destoyed my entire fleet. How often does this happen to you when you play a game of SC? Sometimes a war is won through allies.
Japan, Taiwan, US, US's allies include canada (largest trading partner) together thats a super power. If China wants North Korea to help then South Korea...what do you think there siding will be?
Looks like WW3 to me and whom will have start this one???????????? This puts all of us and I mean ALL of us in danger Chinese and western apart. And the economy? Think of the drastic results! There is a saying..."History will repeat itself over and over again". Why do we even have history lessons in school in the first place? Its not to be proud folks of your nation about events folks! Its to learn from past mistakes and f()cking forget the shiat.
DISCLAMER: I have not said anything of any extreme related to the Taiwan and China relation nor did I point my fingers at anyone in whom is at fault. Let this be a forwarning to you that I intend NOT to FLAME about this topic nor should you and it will simply be ignored. |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2005 - 11:17 AM |
|
|
If you think the anti-missile technology the US is currently working on actually works I've got a bridge to sell you.
Best Regards, Matthew |
|
|
|
|
|
bravojohnny
Raver
Joined: July 08, 2004
Posts: 497
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2005 - 04:47 PM |
|
|
prove me wrong. I have worked in the mil i know what things they want you to think. You are young and naive |
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 11, 2005 - 05:14 PM |
|
|
Given that you don't know anything about me I don't see how you can make that statement. I've worked on Military projects with US and Canadian contractors, and I've seen personally what goes on behind the scenes.
I'm very very skeptical of the US missile defense system. It is a very difficult problem and the demonstrations that the US have put on so far have been less than convincing!
I'm not the only one that thinks this way either. I guess all these guys are "young and naieve" too:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050407/pl_afp/usmissile sscientists_050407185534
Regards, Matthew |
|
|
|
|
|
ShanghaiUnderground
StreetBeater
Joined: July 15, 2004
Posts: 2413
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2005 - 11:31 AM |
|
|
| Henry_Chinaski wrote: |
... Defense. Now that's an industry to bet your money on. Does anyone know about any defence contractor specific fund?
... |
I'm not sure I've heard of a good defense-specific fund, but if you're interested, then Yahoo's Finance section for "Aerospace & Defense" might be a good place to start: http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/airdef.html
It might be the case that certain defense companies are just one part of a broader portfolio, perhaps a fund made up of "sin" stocks.
Also check out,
http://biz.yahoo.com/funds/
http://www.funds-sp.com
http://www.morningstar.com/
Seems easier to find "socially conscious" funds.
http://news.morningstar.com/doc/article/0,,130973,00.html?fsection=Com m2
If you do a search at Morningstar for "Defense Industry Funds," you'll get an article titled "Fidelity Select Defense & Aerospace. Investors should be wary of this fund's narrow industry focus and top-heavy portfolio."
It would probably be worthwhile to check out BAE Systems (symbol: BAESY.PK)
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/40/40681.html |
_________________
"And this also," said Marlow suddenly, "has been one of the dark places of the earth." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
