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.
Do you have any link that's a little more facts and a little less hearsay?
Like a direct link to the NRC with the same 12 death claim?
There is NO need for Yucca Mountain, ever heard of the Marianas Trench? 7 miles of water radiation shielding for ANYTHING dumped into it.
Tastes like alligator.
None of these rabbit trails address the issue that once Americans see their aircraft carriers on the downside of sinking/burning/radiating or whatever, they will lose stomach for the fight.
That's what the Vietnamese perceived was the American weakness and they exploited it. The Chinese are likely to choose the same type of strategy. And when they see a weakness or a downside for America, they will augment whatever disaster scenario it is. They don't have to have a top notch military strategy, just one that would bring thousands of casualties, even if it means millions of casualties for their side.
Maybe the sea can absorb the radiation damage, maybe it can't. Maybe the Marianas are a better place to put our nuclear garbage than Yucca Mountain. It doesn't matter in the context of this discussion. What matters is what Americans will THINK when they see horrible scenes of death/destruction/defeat on CNN and then whether they'll find the resolve to spill more blood for Taiwanese independence. My sense is that Americans won't, and I believe the Chinese are tuned to that as well. It does not bode well for Taiwanese democracy & independence.
"Do you have any link that's a little more facts and a little less hearsay? "
***Not yet. I'll try to check around. Do you have anything that refutes it?
Just common sense. If I see any NRC release that states # of deaths, I'll post it.
They'll think the same thing they thought on 9/11, let's roll!!!
Lots of interesting reading over at NRC. Knock yourself out.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v1/part04.html
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
(NUREG-1437 Vol. 1)
Within the radiation bioeffects community, one school of thought holds that any radiation exposure is accompanied by a risk of cancer. The other perspective is that below a certain dose and dose rate, no cancer risk is involved. The lowest statistically significant dose associated with excess cancer fatalities among the atomic bomb survivors is considered by ICRP 60 (1991) to be 20 rad. The collective dose to the U.S. population from natural background radiation is approximately 75 million person-rem/year; while not declaring itself on one side or the other on the risk issue, the 1990 BEIR-V report states that there may be no risk from this natural background radiation. If there is no risk from natural background radiation, the annual 32,000 person-rem dose may be of little concern. At the other extreme, if it is assumed that individual doses of less than 20 rem may be included in the collective dose without causing an exaggerated result, the full 32,000 person-rem dose to all workers at nuclear power plants for the typical case may be multiplied by the best stimate risk coefficient for workers (4 x 10-4); this risk coefficient leads to an annual total of 13 deaths. Of these, 12 would be expected because of normal present-day operation and 1 would be expected to result from aging- and refurbishment-related changes in operation.
More:
GOVERNMENT ADMITS EACH NUCLEAR REACTOR RELICENSING EXPECTED TO KILL 12 PEOPLE
http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/nrcrelicenser73101-mmpg.htm
NRC: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437 Vol. 2)
sr1437v2.html, Search in: Entire Site
File size: 1259K, Create Date: Jun-23-2003 19:48
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v2/sr1437v2.html
G.1 Residuals from regression of the log of early fatality (average deaths per reactor year) on the log of 16-km (10-mile) exposure index of persons at risk.
Maybe you're a "don't-ask-don't-tell" liberal pansy. But you are a minority.
From your first link:
This analysis of typically expected conditions provides a range of 0 to 13 deaths induced per year as a result of license renewal, with one of these fatalities resulting from added dose due to aging; very little difference is estimated under the conservative scenario. Thus, radiation doses attributable to plant aging accumulated during the license renewal term might result in a 5 percent increase in the calculated cancer incidence to plant workers, but there may be no increase. The significance of the possible increase depends altogether on the degree of credibility assigned to the risk coefficient derived at high dose and dose rate and applied for low dose and dose rate. In any case, the risk associated with occupational radiation exposures after license renewal is not expected to be significantly different from that during the initial license term.
0 to 13, might be a 5% increase, might be no increase. Doesn't sound very solid.
From your second link:
The purpose of the Federal Register correction notice was to except the effects of high-level waste from the previously published but little-noticed 14,800 person-rem figure.
Back to my "rabbit trail" comment in post #326, "How many people die from coal mining accidents? How much radiation is released by burning coal?"
More than 13, more than 14,800 person-rem? Maybe.
You must have been in cryogenic suspension for the last few years. 9/11 should be your barometer for how ready we are to fight.
What the vietnamese "percieved" as our weakness, was the unimpeded media on a steamroll of propaganda. Steady drumbeat. They always managed to sound like they were talking for the majority. Well, the majority is finally realizing they need to speak up, and are. (Hint, the media isn't unimpeded anymore.)
There would be no doubt as to how pissed off Americans can become were the chicoms to try anything so stupid.
"You must have been in cryogenic suspension for the last few years. 9/11 should be your barometer for how ready we are to fight."
Sure, we're ready to fight those who targeted our innocent civilians. But if you want to see how far that goes, look no further than the latest polls that show declining support for the war in Iraq, then look at what happened in Beirut in the 1980s (we bailed when we lost a few hundred soldiers in a suicide bomb attack) and then look at our loss of support for the Vietnam war. The record shows there's a limit to how far we are willing to go for allies who have a messed up country.
Taiwan is messed up?
at this moment, you would be right, but do you think we could stop them if they tried anyway?
The further question, given how much we import from them, is would we want to?
You're not an American, are you?
***That's almost as bad an insult as calling someone a democrat. I'm starting to feel like Billy Mitchell. They questioned his patriotism/citizenship/perspective also, when he pointed out the vulnerabilities of the biggest ships on the sea at the time. And they even courtmartialed him, but he was proven correct. Now there are airfields named after him, and the brass who were lined up against him have all been forgotten.
What the vietnamese "percieved" as our weakness, was the unimpeded media on a steamroll of propaganda. Steady drumbeat.
***Exactly. The Chinese probably have the same perception.
There would be no doubt as to how pissed off Americans can become were the chicoms to try anything so stupid.
***The chicoms wouldn't engage with the U.S. unless we started fighting for Taiwan. They consider this to be an internal dispute, and they'll be fierce if we go up against them. Think how we would approach it if the Russians decided to assist Alaska in their bid for independence.
But not enough ICBMs to destroy the country. Whats more, their ICBMs are the older liquid-fueled kind that need 30 minutes to fuel and arm them before launch. Trident D4s will have hit long before the ChiComs were even remotely ready to fire. If they did, they would have to get past the alread-active missile defense system and a barrage of SM2s, which are protecting Japan and Taiwan from North Korea's ICBMs.
Several nuclear weapons were detonated in the Pacific during the 1950s and 1960s. From shot Baker 11 months after the defeat of Japan to various live testings of nuclear-armed torpedoes and depth charges.
Make sure to fill your stockings with the sweat and blood of our enemy China's child slaves and jailed intellectuals. You could also just send a sizable donation to thema and they will put your name on one of the parts of a missle targeting a major U.S. city. Happy Holidays.
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.