Being able to march pretty is not a pre-requisite to being successfull on the battlefield. Discipline alone will not win battles.

Having operational sense and flexibility are far more useful. Something the Chinese lack. Is a Chinese junior NCO or private encouraged to carry on the mission if they are the only ones left? Could they carry on the mission with only the commanders intent in mind? Would they even know what commanders intent was? They still employ human wave battalions where they send unarmed soldiers forward to soak up our bullets. That may have worked in Korea, but it would be incredibly stupid in todays modern battlefield.

This doesn't even include the fact they have absolutely no projection capability whatsoever. They could be blockaded into oblivion. Their Air Force would be destroyed in a matter of days. And half of their own population, at the least, resents their presence...

Regardless, they have a helluva long way to go before their supposed "world domination"

Originally Posted by asma18

This is where I must disagree, parades promote discipline and discipline wins wars.e.g. In 1980 the SGT/MAJOR of the U.S. Western Division after seeing my old unit wished that his front line troops could do both.We did both parades and field craft equally well and we were the Regimental Parade Unit of the Australian Army. He also liked the idea of the Australian Sergeants Messes & wished his army had the same.

We had discipline, we just didn't practice pretty parade stuff.
And `Chink` is not an appropriate word.

China faces a primarily military problem. China depends on the high seas to survive. The configuration of the South China Sea and the East China Sea render China relatively easy to blockade. The East China Sea is enclosed on a line from Korea to Japan to Taiwan, with a string of islands between Japan and Taiwan. The South China Sea is even more enclosed on a line from Taiwan to the Philippines, and from Indonesia to Singapore. Beijing's single greatest strategic concern is that the United States would impose a blockade on China, not by positioning its 7th Fleet inside the two island barriers but outside them. From there, the United States could compel China to send its naval forces far away from the mainland to force an opening, and encounter U.S. warships, and still be able to close off China's exits.

That China does not have a navy capable of challenging the United States compounds the problem. China is still in the process of completing its first aircraft carrier; indeed, its navy is insufficient in size and quality to challenge the United States. But naval hardware is not China's greatest challenge. The United States commissioned its first aircraft carrier in 1922 and has been refining both carrier aviation and battle group tactics ever since. Developing admirals and staffs capable of commanding carrier battle groups takes generations. Since the Chinese have never had a carrier battle group in the first place, they have never had an admiral commanding a carrier battle group.

China understands this problem and has chosen a different strategy to deter a U.S. naval blockade: anti-ship missiles capable of engaging and perhaps penetrating U.S. carrier defensive systems, along with a substantial submarine presence. The United States has no desire to engage the Chinese at all, but were this to change, the Chinese response would be fraught with difficulty.

While China has a robust land-based missile system, a land-based missile system is inherently vulnerable to strikes by cruise missiles, aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles currently in development and other types of attack. China's ability to fight a sustained battle is limited. Moreover, a missile strategy works only with an effective reconnaissance capability. You cannot destroy a ship if you do not know where it is. This in turn necessitates space-based systems able to identify U.S. ships and a tightly integrated fire-control system. That raises the question of whether the United States has an anti-satellite capability. We would assume that it does, and if the United States used it, it would leave China blind.

It is important to bear in mind that since the Communists took power, China has undertaken offensive military operations infrequently, and to undesirable results. Its invasion of Tibet was successful, but it was met with minimal effective resistance. Its intervention in Korea did achieve a stalemate but at horrendous cost to the Chinese, who endured the losses but became very cautious in the future. In 1979, China attacked Vietnam but suffered a significant defeat. China has managed to project an image of itself as a competent military force, but in reality it has had little experience in force projection, and that experience has not been pleasant.

You aren't seeing the full picture. If China is blockaded, the economy of the entire world will be destroyed. China knows this. It has prevented the blockade of its country without the need of warships. This is classic Sun Tsu Art of War.

Screw that USA millitary is the best the world has ever seen bar none.

Originally Posted by A Can of Man

You aren't seeing the full picture. If China is blockaded, the economy of the entire world will be destroyed. China knows this. It has prevented the blockade of its country without the need of warships. This is classic Sun Tsu Art of War.

If China is blockaded then new factories will arise in other countries. The only loser will be China. In fact more and more companies are already looking to leave China or stay only for domestic sales.

although the chinese may have a HUGE army, what about there air force. any nation that dosn`t have a decent air force will never stand a chance in modern conflict. even with its nukes some of its closest neighbours have nukes to, (India, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan) so while on paper they are good, they arn`t, what army isnt good on paper??