Replies

[This goes with what I was reading before. It’s amazing that people don’t see it.]

I read this essay probably a decade ago. There are no references to needing to get rid of tens of millions of single Chinese men. There is a claim that China will run out of resources, which is a crock, given that China produces more oil than all of the EU combined - 4 million barrels a day. China also has a lower population density than the EU. To pay for imports, it ran a massive trade surplus even back then that produced enough foreign currency reserves to cover the cost without deflating the yuan. China is the world’s biggest producer of gold, and is top 5 in many minerals. China’s poverty is completely man-made rather than the product of sparse natural resources.

There are a couple of other problems with the essay, anachronisms almost. It keeps referring to Comrade Xiaoping. That’s like saying President Donald. Another problem is the repeated references to foreign personalities that the average Chinese military man probably has no idea about. It’s got the feel of Tom Clancy’s Chinese characters in The Bear and The Dragon - an under-researched caricature of the real thing.

A third problem with the essay has to do with the historical fact that a lunge for the Americas would be a complete flip of China’s tendency to go for territory close to home. The reasons are completely practical. Faraway territories are hard to conquer and hard to keep within the empire once conquered, given that commanders have every incentive to strike out on their own. Vietnam was once part of a Chinese empire. Then the local Chinese govenor decided he preferred to be king in his own domain than a governor in somebody else’s empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Tuo

The casual talk about nuclear war is antithetical to Chinese strategists. Their principal concern is preservation of kith and kin, followed by their place in history. No general who gets 500m Chinese killed is going to look good in the history books. Leaders go to war to enhance, not blacken their reputations.

"The casual talk about nuclear war is antithetical to Chinese strategists. Their principal concern is preservation of kith and kin, followed by their place in history. No general who gets 500m Chinese killed is going to look good in the history books. Leaders go to war to enhance, not blacken their reputations."

"The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian" agrees with that, explaining that nuclear war would not serve the purpose of the CCP. According to the document, the General preferred bioweapons.

I posted some excerpts including the General's advice in favor of bioweapons here. The explanation against using nukes is in the copy of the lecture behind the link (where "genetic weapons" are also mentioned favorably).

"There are a couple of other problems with the essay, anachronisms almost. It keeps referring to Comrade Xiaoping. That’s like saying President Donald. Another problem is the repeated references to foreign personalities that the average Chinese military man probably has no idea about. It’s got the feel of Tom Clancy’s Chinese characters in The Bear and The Dragon - an under-researched caricature of the real thing."

Well, I'm guessing that you know about The Epoch Times and what it is. Quite a few Chinese immigrants' kids are like that in a number of ways. ;)

True about expansionism traditionally involving nearby countries first. But then the PLA admires our ability to project military operations and probably wouldn't mind topping it in some way. I'm not saying that such an event is imminent, but it is a possibility. To me, pride and assumptions are probably the most glaring errors in the history of military strategy.

And western defense propaganda, with its multicultural nature, does sometimes include false details and omissions, but comprehensively, there is much truth in it. Propaganda from the World War 2 Axis, for example, contrasted, in that it presented a big picture to its people that was overly positive. It led to defeat for the Axis in the end.