US amplifies non-existent Chinese military threat

chewie_nz

Banned
~from my local papers opinion pages, your thoughts welcome



Self-serving US amplifies non-existent Chinese military threat

“IMPROVED CHINESE capabilities threaten US forces in the [western Pacific] region,” warned Peter Goss, new director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, in testimony to Congress two weeks ago.
“China continues to develop more robust . . . nuclear-armed missiles, as well as conventional capabilities for use in regional conflicts.” Just like the US does, in fact.
“Given America’s monopoly or huge technological lead in key areas like stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, long-range sensors, satellite surveillance and even infantry body armour, Mr Goss’s warning is misleading and self-serving. China cannot project a serious military force even 200km from home, while American forces utterly dominate China’s ocean frontiers, many thousands of kilometres from the US. But the drumbeat of warnings about China’s “military build-up” continues.
Just the other week, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was worrying again about the expansion of the Chinese navy, which is finally building some amphibious landing ships half a century after Beijing’s confrontation with the non-Communist regime on the island of Taiwan began.
And Senator Richard Lugar, head of the senate foreign relations committee, warned that if the European Union ends its embargo on arms sales to China, the US would stop military technology sales to Europe. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that the major US defence review planned for this year will concentrate on the rising “threat” from China, or that this year for the first time the joint US-Japanese defence policy statement named China as a “security concern”, or that the Taiwan government urged the “military encirclement” of China to prevent any “foreign adventures” by Beijing. It comes as no surprise, but it still makes no sense.
China’s defence budget this year is 247.7 billion yuan, around $US30 billion at the official exchange rate. There are those in Washington who will say that it’s more like $US60 billion in purchasing power, but then there used to be “experts” who annually produced hugely inflated and frightening estimates of the Soviet defence budget. Such people will always exist: to justify a big US defence budget, you need a big threat.
It’s true that 247.7 billion yuan buys an awful lot of warm bodies in military uniform in the low-wage Chinese economy, but it doesn’t actually buy much more in the way of high-tech military systems.
It’s also true that the Chinese defence budget has grown by doubledigit increases for the past 14 years: this year it’s up by 12.6%. But that is not significantly faster than the Chinese economy as a whole is growing, and it’s about what you have to spend in order to convert what used to be a glorified peasant militia into a modern military force.
It would be astonishing if China chose not to modernise its armed forces as the rest of the economy modernises, and the end result is not going to be a military machine that towers above all others. If you project the current growth rates of military spending in China and the US into the future, China’s defence budget catches up with the US about the same time that its Gross Domestic Product does, in the late 2030s or the early 2040s.
It’s unlikely that either country’s military spending will continue to rise at the present rate for so long, and there is certainly no cause for panic. To the extent that the anxiety in Washington, Tokyo and Taipei is genuine and not merely a budgetary tactic, it reflects the dismay these governments feel as Chinese modernisation erodes their old absolute military superiority. The US Seventh Fleet can no longer sail right into the Strait of Taiwan with contemptuous confidence that China can do nothing about it, but in the long run that is probably not a bad thing for US-Chinese relations.
As to China’s strategic intentions, the record of the past is reassuring in several respects. China has almost never been militarily expansionist beyond the traditional boundaries of the Middle Kingdom (which do include Tibet in the view of most Chinese), and its border clashes with India, the Soviet Union and Vietnam in the first decades of Communist rule generally ended with a voluntary Chinese withdrawal from the disputed territories.
The same moderation has usually applied in nuclear matters. The CIA frets that China could have 100 nuclear missiles targeted on the US by 2015, but that is actually evidence of China’s great restraint. The first Chinese nuclear weapons test was 40 years ago, and by now China could have thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US if it wanted. (The US does have thousands of nuclear warheads that can strike Chinese targets.)
The recent spate of threats and counter-threats over Taiwan is linked to the political game being played in Taipei, where President Chen Sui-bian’s government regularly threatens to declare “independence” and drop the pretence that there is only one China, but neither side will let it end in war. Mr Chen is just playing a familiar game of chicken in order to bolster his domestic political support, and always veers off at the last moment.
The Beijing regime is obsessed with economic stability, because it fears that a severe downturn would trigger social and political upheaval. The last thing it wants is a military confrontation with its biggest trading partner, the US. It will go on playing the nationalist card over Taiwan to curry domestic political favour, but there is no massive military build-up and no plausible threat of impending war in East Asia. Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist.
 
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ". Chinese people know that China's military power is far superior than what it was even a couple years back, it is modernizing rather quickly. Compounded with the continous public statements that China makes about using militray force to invade Taiwan (also the imminent passing of the anti-session law), I just cannot agree with this writer's notion of non-existent Chinese military threat...
 
Zyca said:
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".

Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."
 
Whispering Death said:
Zyca said:
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".

Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."


every country...in one way or another...is self serving though. but i agree, it is a short sighted and biased article. i believe that the development of chinas military can be a good thing (less people in uniform = more people do other things for the country) but i wouldn't like to see them get to the stage of; "wow, look at all the shiny new toys we have...bet we could have a crack at taiwan now"
 
I wouldn't call the threat non exsistent. I feel the threat is very real. But then I was trained to believe that communist is the same as enemy. So anything that a communist nation does is suspect in my eyes.
 
lets cut to what i believe to be the two most important parts of this article;

"It’s also true that the Chinese defence budget has grown by doubledigit increases for the past 14 years: this year it’s up by 12.6%. But that is not significantly faster than the Chinese economy as a whole is growing, and it’s about what you have to spend in order to convert what used to be a glorified peasant militia into a modern military force.
It would be astonishing if China chose not to modernise its armed forces as the rest of the economy modernises, and the end result is not going to be a military machine that towers above all others. If you project the current growth rates of military spending in China and the US into the future, China’s defence budget catches up with the US about the same time that its Gross Domestic Product does, in the late 2030s or the early 2040s. "

~and~

"moderation has usually applied in nuclear matters. The CIA frets that China could have 100 nuclear missiles targeted on the US by 2015, but that is actually evidence of China’s great restraint. The first Chinese nuclear weapons test was 40 years ago, and by now China could have thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US if it wanted. (The US does have thousands of nuclear warheads that can strike Chinese targets.) "
 
China is a threat but not as much as some would lead you to believe. They aren't even in the same league with the US and it takes more then shiny toys to make a world class military. Dont get me wrong, a war with China would be terrible but I have no doubt of the outcome.
 
What makes China a threat is its nuclear and ICBM capabilities.

The relative size of China's nuclear arsenal is not due to a pacifist restraint as this article would have you believe, rather it is due to budgetary concerns.
 
ROfls

a big country with a huge population, especially one developing, needs a big army, with the most bordering countries.

cmon, even my cousin whos 3 years old knows that big have many and small have little
 
Mech said:
ROfls

a big country with a huge population, especially one developing, needs a big army, with the most bordering countries.

cmon, even my cousin whos 3 years old knows that big have many and small have little

please just refer to the article without anyother comment....i don't want this locked!
 
The fact remains that the Chinese is ingaging in a military buildup and modernization. Advanced Russian military hardware such as Sukhoi-27 Flanker fighters are being purchased at a rapid pace by the PLA. Additionally, the PRC is working on new model SSNs and SSBNs to upgrade their submarine fleet.
 
Whispering Death said:
Zyca said:
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".

Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."

Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please. :roll:

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.
 
gladius said:
Whispering Death said:
Zyca said:
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".

Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."

Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please. :roll:

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.


it written by a writer in london....it's at the bottom, maybe you didn't get that far.

of course china is spending up large on Mil tech. their army is outdated, esp in light of the US steamrollering of iraq. just as the US sees china as a threat...i'm sure vise versa is true. so what are they supposed to do? sit on their hands.

p.s just because someone doesn't toe the us line, doesn't make them "bagdahd bob"
 
gladius said:
Whispering Death said:
Zyca said:
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".

Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."

Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please. :roll:

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.

sounds like you heard too many propagandas from the US media.

firstly, as the allies of US, EU want to lift the ban to "help" china to get more high tech weapon? not a chance. but, political recognizition of human right improvement is the key, which, the americans failed to objectively do so year after year. the ban was 15 years old and will be replaced by other limitation agreements. in fact, an US official said this " we don't understand why EU want to lift the ban when the human right is still an issue in china, look, if they need sale some tech to china, they certainly can deal it as special cases by case, and why lifting the ban?" china will not buy banch EU weapon system, how can they be fited in our history long russian systems in short time?

this kind of idea also make my laugh when we still have blackhawks to in china, and some high tech radar tech as well as from US, which were brought right before the 89 event and held by US right after. Look, the EU thing is basicly, the disagreement between US and EU, one want to make a sale and the other want to keep playing the human rights issue. who is more objective? as a chinese living in beijing when the event happened, and militery trucks passing my windows by, and compare to the situations in china now, i think EU is right and that's the only right thing to do!

secondly, defining the "china as a threat" in US's term, you can see it always states that "china are threating the US's interests around the world", so what is this " US's interests" ? if the american government just a little bit more "kindness" to the world, would there be so many "enemies" was made by the US? if the americans afriad the Taiwan could make them suffer in another war, why don't US step in and holding talks to help both sides unite, or, at least get some sort of understanding? this way who would keep building up militery and anger against the americans? in fact, chinese might just start to love this nation and made them the true friend! too bad, it's not "US's interstes"!

thirdly, americans and chinese don't have major problem that can not be soloved through political term, just like the americans with europeans. hardly, and objectivly calling china as an threat.
 
k19 said:
gladius said:
Whispering Death said:
Zyca said:
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".

Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."

Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please. :roll:

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.

sounds like you heard too many propagandas from the US media.

firstly, as the allies of US, EU want to lift the ban to "help" china to get more high tech weapon? not a chance. but, political recognizition of human right improvement is the key, which, the americans failed to objectively do so year after year. the ban was 15 years old and will be replaced by other limitation agreements. in fact, an US official said this " we don't understand why EU want to lift the ban when the human right is still an issue in china, look, if they need sale some tech to china, they certainly can deal it as special cases by case, and why lifting the ban?" china will not buy banch EU weapon system, how can they be fited in our history long russian systems in short time?

this kind of idea also make my laugh when we still have blackhawks to in china, and some high tech radar tech as well as from US, which were brought right before the 89 event and held by US right after. Look, the EU thing is basicly, the disagreement between US and EU, one want to make a sale and the other want to keep playing the human rights issue. who is more objective? as a chinese living in beijing when the event happened, and militery trucks passing my windows by, and compare to the situations in china now, i think EU is right and that's the only right thing to do!

secondly, defining the "china as a threat" in US's term, you can see it always states that "china are threating the US's interests around the world", so what is this " US's interests" ? if the american government just a little bit more "kindness" to the world, would there be so many "enemies" was made by the US? if the americans afriad the Taiwan could make them suffer in another war, why don't US step in and holding talks to help both sides unite, or, at least get some sort of understanding? this way who would keep building up militery and anger against the americans? in fact, chinese might just start to love this nation and made them the true friend! too bad, it's not "US's interstes"!

thirdly, americans and chinese don't have major problem that can not be soloved through political term, just like the americans with europeans. hardly, and objectivly calling china as a threat.
 
chewie_nz said:
gladius said:
Whispering Death said:
Zyca said:
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".

Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."

Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please. :roll:

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.


it written by a writer in london....it's at the bottom, maybe you didn't get that far.

of course china is spending up large on Mil tech. their army is outdated, esp in light of the US steamrollering of iraq. just as the US sees china as a threat...i'm sure vise versa is true. so what are they supposed to do? sit on their hands.

p.s just because someone doesn't toe the us line, doesn't make them "bagdahd bob"

I read the whole thing, yes even the part about the writer from london.

The "Bagdad Bob" comment was because it was so ludcrously one sided to far left, that its to the point of well ... being ludicrous.

Just because they don't tow the US line doesn't mean they can't report objectively.

That piece of reporting was NOT objective.

If you want to report, report the facts, don't report it in such a way to influence the readers to your particular political point of view.

If keep believing stuff like that you will no longer see the facts enough to make sound judgements, and you only see what you want to see.

k19 said:
sounds like you heard too many propagandas from the US media.

And the Chinese media doesn't report propaganda? Please... :roll:

Anyone making that statement who's living in China isn't exactly in a position to say another country's news is propaganda.

Our media isn't the one totaly controlled by the government. I suppose the Chinese media tells the absoulute truth every time, you should hire Bagdad Bob.

I think you need to read a little bit more you could have spared yourself writting that long answer.

The topic was NOT that China was a threat, but the topic was that it was a "non-existent threat". Its not a big threat, but "non-existent threat" it is not.
 
And the Chinese media doesn't report propaganda? Please...

you added that, i didn't.
Anyone making that statement who's living in China isn't exactly in a position to say another country's news is propaganda.
speaking for china doesn't means i have to be living in china or be a chinese, you have just prove the point. in fact, i am living in Toronto Canada.
Our media isn't the one totaly controlled by the government. I suppose the Chinese media tells the absoulute truth every time, you should hire Bagdad Bob.
i didn't say that neither, you made that up. that's exact my point, when topic related to china, your media is out of controled. controled is bad, out of controled is equally bad.
I think you need to read a little bit more you could have spared yourself writting that long answer.
which one the author said is not true? throwing out a word to dismiss others opinion in the article is right thing to do?
The topic was NOT that China was a threat, but the topic was that it was a "non-existent threat". Its not a big threat, but "non-existent threat" it is not.

sum up my fact:

i am in toronto, canada, i watch BBC CBC, not CCTV news.
i didn't say china don't do propaganda, in fact, i am pointing out that not only china does propaganda. if all pro-china view is considered propaganda, i hardly think they were not been brain washed as well.
i listen CNN and CBC news everyday, to be fair, CNN's "fact report" was misleading comparing to the BBC abd CBC, what american main stream media is missing is articles like this. They can put huge man hours to educate public the hate, but not even allow some friendly realtions to build up, sadly.

speaking on the topic? i certainly think china is not threating US, but, instead, US is threating china! i have explained in my last part of the reply. US is persuiting interests in an very dangours place, it's not important for their survival, but, seeking benifits, putting itself in danger, you can't blame the other said as threat to you when not limiting your own action. US and china are competetors, i do agree, but a threat? no!

i have said it clear, there is nothing that we can't talk to solve, we certainly not looking for trouble, we don't go into wars if not life-threatened, we would not start wars with US, there is no reason for us to do so, but it doesn't means US won't self-willingly get in one, will that means we were threating US? or the other way around?
 
Back
Top