Posted on 08/11/2004 9:11:47 AM PDT by JOAT
During the last several months, there have been numerous hints in the Chinese and Taiwanese media indicating that war is more likely than believed here in the West.
Some strategists suggest that the 2008 Olympics scheduled for Beijing constitute a key benchmark, after which a war may be possible.
However, it is clear that both nations are preparing for a conflict in the near term, and that 2008 may not be as pivotal as some experts believe.
In fact, China’s media have been repeating the mantra in their news reports that the People’s Liberation Army is preparing to gain a victory in this “internal military conflict in a high-tech environment.”
Chinese war planners have studied carefully the recent U.S.-Iraq War, a war that demonstrated to PLA strategists that U.S. military might is derived from its technological superiority.
China’s military experts conducted similar studies after America’s first Gulf War. One military study written by two Chinese colonels entitled “Unrestricted Warfare” suggested that China could not compete with America’s technological prowess.
Instead, China had to develop “asymmetrical” warfare to defeat the U.S. in any conflict. Interestingly, “Unrestricted Warfare” became an instant best seller in China after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In the 1998 book, the Chinese colonels suggested that a successful bombing by Osama bin Laden of the World Trade Center would be an example of this new “unrestricted warfare” concept.
Apparently, China feels much better positioned after the recent Iraq War and wants to challenge the U.S. on a technological level.
Almost instantly after the Iraq War, in May 2003, China’s President and Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao declared at the party’s Politburo meeting the necessity of “active support of national defense and modernization of the army.”
Hu emphasized the need for further integrating information technology (IT) into the PLA and mobilizing China’s entire scientific and technological potential for PLA’s needs.
As a result, the PLA’s modernization in these areas has accelerated significantly.
Since the second half of 2003, the PLA has been engaged in the latest stage of its RMA – Revolution in Military Affairs – program, which was officially announced by the chairman of China Central Military Commission, Jiang Zemin, in his speech on Sept. 1, 2003.
He emphasized that that PLA should transform itself into a “smaller and much smarter science- and technology-based army.”
Jiang defined the major tasks of new PLA reform as follows:
· Reducing PLA’s ranks, primarily ground forces, by 200,000.
· Maximizing IT and other advanced technologies – including nanotechnologies, space technologies, electromagnetic weapons, etc.
· Improving the educational and qualitative training of PLA servicemen.
· Transforming the PLA into an “army of one” that is comparatively smaller and of very high quality, similar to the U.S. Army.
· Acquiring the most advanced weaponry.
The Russia Connection
During 2003 and 2004, Russia – jointly with Belarus and Ukraine – has been a major source of advanced weapons for the PLA.
According to official figures from Russia’s weapons export state monopoly, Rosoboronexport, Russia’s total weapons export in 2003 approached $5.7 billion, making Russia the second largest arms exporter after the U.S. (Please note that China is arguably the leading arms exporter in quantity of arms transported, as its weaponry is considerably less expensive than that of the U.S.)
China has purchased 38 percent of Russian arms exports, or around $2.2 billion.
If one takes into account the weapons deliveries from Belarus and Ukraine to China, along with “double use” nuclear and space technologies supplied by Russia to China, then Chinese real arms imports from greater Russia would, in my estimation, be $4 billion.
Clearly, Russia and her allies have been a huge factor supporting the PLA in its rapid modernization and planned confrontation with the U.S.
3-Pronged Strategy
The PLA has been following its “three-way policy” of advanced weapons acquisition.
This three-pronged strategy calls for China to gain technologically advanced weaponry through (1) imports, (2) joint (Chinese-foreign) weapons R&D, and (3) independent weapons R&D within China.
The details of this mechanism were given in the article “China’s military affairs in 2003,” published by the Taiwanese journal Zhonggong yanjiu (China Communism Research) in February 2004.
According to Taiwanese experts, though weapons import and joint R&D still play the major role in PLA modernization, the role of “independent R&D” has been increasing gradually.
Appointed in March 2003, new Chinese Defense Minister (former chief of Defense Ministry’s Armament Division) Col.-Gen. Cao Gangchuan was personally in charge of this work.
He has tried to decrease China’s dependence on Russian arms and increase the share of advanced weapons imports from Germany, France and Israel.
China also is engaged in joint weapons R&D projects with EU and NATO countries, including R&D of mid-range air-to-air missiles and highly precise satellite positioning (Galileo project).
The Air Force
China believes that in a conflict with Taiwan, air dominance will be key to a quick victory.
The PLA has been beefing up its PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and aircraft troops of the PLA Navy (PLAN).
Reportedly, by the end of February 2004, the PLAAF purchased from Russia 76 SU-30 MKK fighters belonging to the advanced “4 plus” generation.
PLAN air troops obtained 24 even more advanced SU-30 MKK fighters.
There is no data regarding future deliveries of the “finished” SU-30 from Russia to China; however, the Chinese aircraft industry is more or less capable now of producing the SU-30 as well as other fighters belonging to the fourth generation, or close to this level.
Dramatic modernization of China’s First Aviation Industry Corp., or AVIC-1, from 2001 to 2004, is of principal importance here (the data in this account are given in the above-mentioned article in the Zhonggong yanjiu journal).
Four major companies are developing China’s jet-manufacturing capability. Interestingly, each of these companies recently underwent radical modernization and upgrading, including advanced equipment obtained from Europe’s Airbus, claiming the help is for “cooperation in passenger aircraft production.”
Shenyang Aircraft Corp. continued, in the past year, to produce SU-27 SK (J-11) heavy fighters from Russian kits at a rate of at least 25 units annually, and the share of Chinese-made components surpassed 70 percent.
The same company now prepares SU-30 MKK (J-11A) fighters for manufacturing.
In the frame of “independent R&D” within China, the Chengdu Aircraft Corp. has mastered the serial production of medium J-10 fighters and FC-1 light fighters. These planes reportedly can match the U.S. F-16 fighter.
Here are some other developments in China’s air wing:
· Guizhou Aircraft Corp. developed the advanced Shanying fighter-trainer, while Xian Aircraft Corp. mostly finished developing the new generation of FBC-1 (JH-7) long-range fighter-bomber, which became known as JH-7A.
· Other enterprises, belonging to AVIC-1, mastered production of KAB-500 guided bombs and several kinds of air-to-air and air-to ground missiles.
· By the end of 2003, the new generation of Flying Leopard, i.e., JH-7A, was being tested. This fighter-bomber’s weapons include new air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles of beyond-vision range, guided bombs, etc. This aircraft is adapted for anti-radar reconnaissance, effective low-altitude strikes against large naval vessels, and general strikes of ground-based and naval targets.
· By the end of 2004, as a result of supply from Russia and increased fighter production at AVIC-1 subsidiaries, the number of advanced fighters of various kinds in PLAN air troops and the PLAAF – including SU-27 (J-11), SU-30 (J-11A), J-10, FC-1, Shanying, FBC-1 (JH-7) and JH-7A – could surpass an estimated 400 units.
The Sea Component
China also sees its navy as critical in any successful assault on Taiwan.
The PLA Navy (PLAN) has numerous Chinese-Russian projects under way this year and next, including:
· Purchase of two Russian Sovremenny destroyers, equipped with improved ship-to-ship supersonic cruise missiles (SSM) Sunburn 3M80MBE of 240 km range.
Initially, Sunburn had a range of 160 km. However, in 2001-2003, Raduga Design Bureau in Dubna (about 150 km north of Moscow) designed, under PLAN’s orders, a much more lethal version of SSM.
Very probably, serial production of new SSM would be mastered in China, so it would be installed on two Sovremenny destroyers, purchased by PLAN in 1999-2000, on Chinese-built Luhu- and Luhai-class destroyers as well as Jiangwei-class frigates. According to media reports in the Hong Kong and Taiwan media, two new Sovremenny destroyers could be transferred to PLAN before the end of 2005.
· Purchase of eight Kilo submarines, equipped by “super-advanced” 3M54E (CLUB-S) submarine-launched anti-ship missiles.
In 2003, China already obtained 50 missiles of this kind, which would greatly improve PLAN’s striking capacity. China intends to organize production of these missiles. They probably also could be used on Chinese-built conventional submarines of the Song class.
New Kilo submarines could enter PLAN service in 2005 or the first half of 2006. (Information regarding destroyers and conventional submarines was repeated in several articles in Zhonggong yanjiu in January 2003 through February 2004 and in multiple media reports from Hong Kong during the same period.)
· Construction of “093 project” nuclear attack submarines and the “094 project” strategic nuclear submarine, using Russian plans and technology, at Huludao (a port city in northeast Liaoning province) military shipbuilding plant. By the end of 2005, PLAN would have in its service at least two “093 project” and at least one “094 project” nuclear submarines.
Reportedly, Russia had to make significant improvements in design and weapons of these submarines, in accordance with Chinese customers’ requirements.
Along with Russian contracts is the construction of a new generation of destroyers, frigates and conventional submarines at modernized shipbuilding plants in Dalian, Shanghai, Qingdao and Wuhan cities. An upgraded PLA could be capable pf establishing sea control around Taiwan in 2008.
Aso important is the fact that both the PLAAF and PLAN would be equipped, by 2008, with perfect military information technology systems, more precisely by C4ISR (command, control, computers, communication, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) systems, which would make the use of the listed weapon systems much more effective.
I think they are serious. The current wargaming in the Asia Pacific is all about preparation and deterrance.
I really do not see Russia and China joing forces or working together. Russia may right now be giving this and that to the Chinese, but in the long run China is bad news for Russia. Why? Because just north of China is Siberia - literally millions of square miles of nearly unpopulated land teeming with natural resources, especially oil. What does China need? Space and oil. In the long run, Russia's interests lay with the only country that can help it and that has an interest in helping it, and that country is the United States. As long as Russia doesn't slip into a new dictatorship (which it may), Russia and the US will eventually drift towards cooperation and perhaps even a formal alliance because of the US's need for oil from somewhere other than the middle east and because of Russia's need for protection.
'tis a basic truth we must not forget. Unfortunately, we have forgotten.
Recently, I went to China and it was very clear that China is preparing to attack Taiwan. I talked to a number of the business class (my wife translated) and they said that 80% to 90% of the people were in favor of taking Taiwan by force. It is viewed by the people that any leader that would allow part of China's land to be taken over or controlled by another nation to not be worthy of rule. This is why China would attack if Taiwan declares independence.
All the focus of China's international dealings was clearly related to the Tiawan issue: giving France a 2 billion deal related to the aerospace industry; colaborating with Brazil on space technology; allowing American companies into China but requiring technology exchanges; etc. etc.
I talked with a lot of Chinese on the Taiwan issue. Specifically with one group of young professionals, I asked if they would be willing to risk the financial loss if they did attack Taiwan. "What about the Olympics" I asked. They assured me that they would be willing to take the hardship - financial or otherwise- to see Taiwan re-united with the mainland.
The most surprising exchange was with one professional. I asked about the potential conflict between the US and China, "Some Americans believe that China has a trick up their sleave against the United States."
I was expecting to hear about some military technology. Maybe something to destroy our satellites, electromagnetic weapons, or missiles designed to destroy our aircraft carriers. But the guy responded back, "Al Qaida."
The greatest fear of China is their own people. The communist system is filled with corruption. All the people I talked with complained about the corruption. You have to bribe the officials -- whether you are a small businessman or a major coorporation. Several businessmen expressed the desire to go to America where you could do business without such corruption. They listened to Voice of America to hear what is really going on. I saw several jamming stations because the government fears revolt from the mass of "have nots." In fact, some (including my wife) claim that the focus on Taiwan is to prevent a revolt of the people -- focus the attention away from the real problems of China.
I think there is a possiblity for US foreign policy to capitalize on the divisions in China. Many of the people (the poor have nots) are ready to revolt. Perhaps if President Bush would give a "Bring Down the Wall" speech, the China problem could be resolved without any war on our part.
If a dem is in power, they will start slowly to demonize Taiwan so that eventually they will convince the sheeple that Taiwan isn't worth it.
Russia is probably nervous about to many linkages with China..as she is well aware of Chinas intrigues and decpetions when tech and fabrication are concerned.
ie..some years ago..China pretended to be inept in fabricating the fuselage of the SU-27.
Later..Sukhoi learned that their techs were being plied with Booze,Girlies and coin.
all manner of *off the table goodies were schemed by China..especially in the computer suite dept of SU-27.
China is still liscensed to build SU-27's....yet Russia is aware that China has the details on the superior Sukhoi engines withheld..allong with modifications to the SU-27's computer suite....which had limitations according to the foreign sales contract.
ie..changing the computers targeting ability..increasing it from 4 tracks to 8.
Wonder if some Sukhoi techs ended up in a Gulag : )
>>We should not betray the trust that the Taiwanese have in us.
>>Agree? Disagree?
I agree, but at the same time the Taiwanese are betraying our trust to a certain extent. We have offered them advanced weapons, including our newest PAC-3 anti-ballistic missiles, and they have so far not purchased them. Their parliament is more interested in spending money on "social programs".
There comes a point where the US must say, "If you want us to defend you, then put your money where your mouth is."
If Taiwan won't spend their own money for their own defense, I am not sure why we should spend our lives and money defending them.
Mr. Nemets throw out numbers that certainly sound impressive (or more accurately, threatening). But, if a reader objectively sat down and compared the number of China's modern military equipment to those of developed nations, they would realize that China's recent military build up is not up to par when compared to a developed nation of equivalent GDP (such as France or the UK).
If the reader were to use population as a comparative gage, China has considerbly less. Consider their population of 1.3 billion people (which is more people than the European Union and North America combined). China has nowhere near the armaments as the combined forces of NATO and the US.
If this society valued human life to the extent you think it does then there would be no such thing as right to choose nor would there be over 1 MILLION dead in Sudan.
Get real
"The most surprising exchange was with one professional. I asked about the potential conflict between the US and China, "Some Americans believe that China has a trick up their sleave against the United States."
The real trick is Chinese ownership of US Treasury paper, not Al Qaeda.
Goto http://www.etaiwannews.com/Business/2004/08/09/1092016098.htm
Interesting!
You have a very good point. A well known Christian worker who helped push for more open trade with China as a means to further the cause of human rights in China also pushed Congress to intervene in Sudan. When it came to Sudan, he said it fell on deaf ears. One wonders why such a big concern about human rights in China when people are being mutilated in Sudan and it barely makes the news.
I am very real. Some of us still hold old fashioned America ideals, and we want our children to have the same values.
Why sell out the country because the idea that human life has no value to some people exists? Why not promote the American ideals so that some day these same people might come to an understanding of life that they can adopt these values? It can only help the world, IMO, not hurt it.
I don't think there is harmony between Russia and the US. If Russian wants the same status as the american, they will conflict with the US even if they are democratic. They are just too big.
Even if they buy this time, ultimately, they can not afford the weapons which they need to compete with mainland China. There might be reasons that some Taiwanese are daydreaming that the americans will protect them for free, however, I would rather believe that they can not afford this time. I heard that the Taiwan government has to liquidate some government-owned properties to seal the shortage of the money.
With OUR money thanks to OUR corporations.
We can lay the blame as far back as Bush who "opened the door" to these monsters, as well as to Bush I who carried on business as susual with them, to Clitnon for providing them with technological expertise (probably in return for campaign dollars or jewels for Hitlery).
Hu emphasized the need for further integrating information technology (IT) into the PLA and mobilizing China’s entire scientific and technological potential for PLA’s needs.
The center of their IT universe is getting free Linux from here in the U.S., they take a free copy of "Red Hat" and rename it "Red Flag", which they recently used to crack the top 10 in supercompters for the first time. Can you imagine that happening under Reagan?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.