Posted on 11/21/2004 11:45:29 AM PST by TapTheSource
China Rapidly Modernizes for War With U.S.
Alexandr Nemets Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004
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.
1. I would want the plausible lie of "it is an internal affair" to be the focus of our effort.
2. To that end, I would place operatives throughout Taiwan and have a coordinated attack on their infrastructure including crippling their power grid and communications.
3. The first strike force would attack in an unconventional manner, focusing on hindering troop deployments by blowing up bridges and roads.
4. Secondarily, I would attack the symbols of Taiwanese independence, their government buildings, their financial center, their police departments, and try to throw the populous into a panic.
All this could be done with patient planning and infiltrators. Most of the "invasion" could be done later as a stabilizing force, under the auspices of "getting Taiwan back on it's feet" and "restoring order." Europe and the UN would probably encourage the "peacekeeping."
Depends on the parameters of the guidance I had from the Politburo. If the Politburo said "Do not risk starting a war with the United States," I would not attack American warships.
Any coordinated attack requires some communication between those ordering the attack and those executing . The larger the attack and the larger the target set, the more communications required--one formula used by the US military for planning such attacks indicates that attacking a target set of N nodes (where N is greater than 1), using point-effect weapons (i.e., no nukes) would require N(N-1) coordination messages between the attacker's national command authority and the forces that would execute the attack. For even a modest-sized target like Taiwan, the number of target nodes is several hundred, which generates a requirement for many tens of thousands of messages. Facilitating this level of communication while preserving the covertness of the attack force is a nontrivial challenge.
bump
1) Reactors SINK. In 20 minutes your precious reactor with it's heat will be on the bottom at the ocean floor. Sure it will leak a LITTLE but after 15 minutes, nothing.
2) Ever seen a volcanic vent ? NO STEAM.
3) There are thermal gradients in the ocean water that prevent what you are talking about. The irridated water would ride up several hundred feet aznd by the top it got to the top it would be at the surrounding seawater temperature again.
Of course in shallows (less than 500m), then there could be some issue, but the fact remains that the reactor core will be well shielded even in shallows.
Of course, there is something else to consider. How exactly are you going to make water radioactive ? Oxygen isotopes ?
Actually the US is going to build the 8 D/E subs. Personally I would save years and just give Taiwan some Los Angeles class submarines and the training to use them. As for China choosing a time when the US is "preoccupied" well the Navy has nothing to do and it would primarily be a Navy and Air fight. Just a few months back all SEVEN of the US carrier groups were parked near Taiwan to show the ChiComs that the US was not as preoccupied as they thought. And I really wish the US would give them the d**m Aegis warships. Japan has them, South Korea has them. With 96 SM2s each, just 4 of them and the patriots would render the PRC ballistic missile arsenals obsolete. Back when a Taiwanese delegation visited Pearl Harbor in last April, the US hinted at selling them. Infact the Taiwanese delegation toured more of the Arliegh Burke class than anything else before going to Texas to look at the P3 Orions.
They got nukes and possibly ICBMS.
1) Reactors SINK. In 20 minutes your precious reactor with it's heat will be on the bottom at the ocean floor. Sure it will leak a LITTLE but after 15 minutes, nothing. ***Baloney. A reactor in thermal runaway would take at least several hours to cool down even under the best of conditions, at a minimum contaminating several million gallons of seawater.
2) Ever seen a volcanic vent ? NO STEAM. ***I've seen it on TV. There is steam, but it quickly reintegrates with the surrounding water because of a couple of factors. The open question is at what depth does the steam no longer vent to the open air, which is probably on the order of several hundred feet.
3) There are thermal gradients in the ocean water that prevent what you are talking about. The irridated water would ride up several hundred feet aznd by the top it got to the top it would be at the surrounding seawater temperature again. ***This is exactly the problem. The factor of rising hot water being replaced by inrushing cool water is an open configuration heat pump. As you stated, the "irridated water would ride up several hundred feet". This configuration just keeps pumping radiation into the sea.
Of course in shallows (less than 500m), then there could be some issue, but the fact remains that the reactor core will be well shielded even in shallows. ***The danger in the shallows would be that the steam could rise to the open air, creating a radioactive cloud.
Of course, there is something else to consider. How exactly are you going to make water radioactive ? Oxygen isotopes ? ***Here are 4 of the 16,500 hits on Google for the term "radioactive water": Las Vegas SUN: Study attacks DOE monitoring of radioactive water Las Vegas SUN. January 18, 2002. Study attacks DOE monitoring of radioactive water. By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN. ... www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/ stories/text/2002/jan/18/512909846.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages Fortum.com - Slightly radioactive water leaked in the interior of ... Slightly radioactive water leaked in the interior of the Loviisa Power Plant. 18.8.2000. On Thursday, 17 August 2000, radioactive ... www.fortum.com/news_section_ item.asp?path=14022;25730;551;3508 - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Acidic, radioactive water spills into bay - Independent Media TV ... Environment. Acidic, radioactive water spills into bay. September 06, 2004. By: Janet Zink. ... www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_ id=8893&fcategory_desc=Environment - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Japan Today - News - Radioactive water leaked from nuclear reactor ... Radioactive water leaked from nuclear reactor in Ishikawa Pref. ... nothing like some radioactive water to quench your thirst. Contract employees - man your mops! ... www.japantoday.com/gidx/news262543.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Yes, but "realistic" was an operative word.
It would seem, from our experience, that simply telling those involved the date and time, and giving them the means of achieving their objective, is a pretty effective plan.
Ya' see, we tend to over-think this stuff. Over-thinking is good for many things, but many an army has been laid low by inferior, but motivated forces using unconventional tactics. In this day and age maybe we don't have to defeat the enemy, just mess with them enough to lower their morale, or create an insurgency. You might not be able to blow up all of their bridges, but plan on doing so. If half of your operatives get caught, you still have seriously crippled your opponent. You try to take down all major communications towers, but even if you are only partly successful, they are still hindered. Heck, they might not even realize it is an attack...
The PRC has many things going for them. There is a fair percentage of the people in Taiwan who are sympathetic to the PRC. There is no physical difference between the Mainland Chinese and the Taiwanese Chinese. There is a flow of traffic on and off the island that is not that closely watched. There are large amounts of cargo being brought in and and shipped out constantly. All of these situations are ripe for the PRC to use for nefarious purposes.
I still say that I would, at the least, use unconventional methods to soften up, or even out right defeat, Taiwan before trying the strictly military option. The US, under the current administration, is almost certain to get involved militarily. You can be certain that if a US Carrier is attacked, Bush will not hesitate to respond with every means at his disposal.
Hmmmm.
If we wanted to defend Taiwan against China it would be a NAVY/AF fight. We have enough Naval power to take them on any day.
In a ground war we'd have issues (Example: Korea if the Chinese were to get involved). But a naval/Air fight? I think we'd take their lunch money from them even with Iraq, Iran, Libya, Philippines....... Our Navy and AF is far from tapped out.
Red6
1 mile = 5,280 feet
1 foot = 12 inches
1 mile = 63,360 inches
1 square mile = 4,014,489,600 square inches
1 cubic mile = 254,358,061,056,000 cubic inches
1 gallon = 231 cubic inches
1 cubic mile = 1,101,117,147,429 gallons = 1,101 billion gallons
17 X 10^8 cu mi = 187,189,915,062,930,000,000 = 187,189,915,062 BILLION Gallons of water or about 187 x 10 to the 18th power gallons of water.
I think it can diffuse a few billion gallons of radioactive water.
Interesting post.
When you say, "The US, under the current administration, is almost certain to get involved militarily", how do you reconcile that with the latest announcements from Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage?
Would U.S. sacrifice Taiwan? Official says America not required to defend island
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1306400/posts
Against FOUR targets. Power distribution and communications networks, by their nature, are extremely robust targets requiring direct action against SEVERAL HUNDRED nodes simultaneously.
It would seem, from our experience, that simply telling those involved the date and time, and giving them the means of achieving their objective, is a pretty effective plan.
Uh-oh, the plan just changed--there's been a delay imposed by changed circumstances. Better hope your teams got the change to their orders. What's that? They didn't? Hey, guess what? About all you accomplished was to alert the Taiwanese.
Ya' see, we tend to over-think this stuff.
No, the problem is that you underthought this stuff by a wide margin.
In this day and age maybe we don't have to defeat the enemy, just mess with them enough to lower their morale, or create an insurgency.
Which explains why we're now all radical Wahabbist Muslims under the benevolent leadership of Osama bin Laden, the New Salah-al-Din.
You might not be able to blow up all of their bridges, but plan on doing so. If half of your operatives get caught, you still have seriously crippled your opponent.
Blowing up a bridge is a nontrivial enterprise. Blowing up dozens of bridges is best done by a force of B-2 and F-117 aircraft. If you're using people on the ground, it takes a LOT of people to take down ONE important bridge.
You try to take down all major communications towers, but even if you are only partly successful, they are still hindered. Heck, they might not even realize it is an attack...
When your attack plan hinges on your opponent being as moronic as you want and need them to be, that's a sign that you need to go back to the drawing board.
There is no physical difference between the Mainland Chinese and the Taiwanese Chinese.
There are significant cultural differences that would be strikingly obvious.
I still say that I would, at the least, use unconventional methods to soften up, or even out right defeat, Taiwan before trying the strictly military option.
That's nice. If it works, then it works. However, it has a very high chance of spectacular failure. There is no mitigating that risk. Governments are, by their nature, extremely risk-averse.
I doubt it. Otherwise we would have been dumping our radioactive waste into the ocean for many years. There would be no need for Yucca Mountain.
Checked out your Post #323 again, didn't see anything from the NRC that confirmed your statement:
From what I can see in the NRC’s 2004 Fact Sheet on the TMI Accident, they now acknowledge that even under NORMAL operating conditions, there are 12 deaths attributable to radiation release at nuclear plants.
You have a direct link to the NRC that says that?
***Your original post was comparing a wartime sunken carrier to the peacetime sunken Russian nuclear subs which have managed to moderate the nuclear reaction and maintain some semblance of containment.
Yeah, well your original post said mushroom cloud.
The Russians have been. I haven't heard of giant plumes of radioactive ocean water.
There would be no need for Yucca Mountain.
Big difference between 1 carrier reactor and waste from all the civilian reactors from the last 50 years.
From this website:
http://www.tmia.com/accident/whatswrong.html
The admission came in a correction to its 1996 relicensing regulation, which was published in the Federal Register on July 30 1996. According to the Federal Register notice, each relicensing is expected to be responsible for the release of 14,800 person-rem of radiation during its 20-year life extension. The figure includes releases from the nuclear fuel chain that supports reactor operation, as well as from the reactors themselves. The NRC calculates that this level of radiation release spread over the population will cause 12 cancer deaths per reactor.
AMEN!
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.