I think you are trying to make a virtue out of a vice here. The reason their military is in the shape it’s in has nothing to do with China wanting to be ‘a long term influencer’. Even if that were true (and it’s not…China has been pretty aggressive towards its neighbors and expansion in places like the East and the South China Sea regions), nor is it because, really, China has no plans to invade or actually fight anyone. It has to do with the deep corruption and systemic flaws of the CCP and the way the military has been handled in the past. For instance, there is no joint command in China (supposedly they are building one at some point, but I wouldn’t hold my breath)…and no clear chain of command or communications between the various branches. WRT training, China spends a lot more time in communist indoctrination than in actual military training…even more than the old Soviet Union spent on this aspect (a lot more…over 40% of a Chinese soldiers training is in communist indoctrination). Officers are picked for their party loyalty than because they actually know anything about the military, and the higher the rank the more this is a factor.
The current President, Xi, is trying to change some of this. But, honestly, he’s trying to change it more because the military was mainly controlled by a hostile faction to his own than to fix the systemic issues. He’s basically trying to assert his own factions control over the military as he’s trying to do with the propaganda arm and the internal security services.
And that’s the thing with China. The way the military ‘works’ is a good picture of how much of the government works in China…and even how the government interacts with the Chinese private business. Corruption is systemic, and the anti-corruption campaign by Xi is, basically, just a cover for what he and his faction are really trying to do. It’s not really about stemming the rampant corruption of the CCP or trying to make the system better, it’s about exerting control of Xi’s faction and gaining more power, especially after this 19th congress in the fall when they will be looking for the next president.
With this level of dysfunction, it’s hard to see China becoming the ‘primary world power’. And it’s hard to see how they could get from where they are, with the CCP death grip on power, to something functional that COULD step up to become all they could be. People, especially on this board, either soak up the propaganda or handwave these issues away when talking about China, but they will have to be addressed (along with all the others, such as dwindling water resources and rampant pollution).
I don’t think there is much question that the Chinese people are good at capitalism and will significantly increase the wealth in their society if their government continues to allow them. The United States is considered a superpower because of two main reasons:
The government is very successful at plundering the very wealthy society. The US government is a highly sophisticated tax collecting organization. The ability of the government to gain consent through promotion of ideology, founding myths, martyrdom myths, and salvation myths as well as through servicing of a dizzying array of special interests with government spending is one of the marvels of the modern world.
Many of the people in the US have a bizarre ideology that drives them to seek control, through the use of the state, anyone they can get their claws on. If the yin and yang Puritanism of the US conservatives and progressives wasn’t so pervasive, there wouldn’t be such a drive to shove Americanism down the world’s throats.
China has a primitive tax collecting system in comparison. This could change, though if those in the government are cunning. China also doesn’t seem to want to shove its way of life down everyone’s throat. China will be a wonderful source of wealth that will benefit everyone if it’s government allows it to. If not, it will be a tragic story.
I’m really, really hoping that China learns from the bad example of England, France, the US etc. and decides not to try and build an imperial “Pax Sinitica”.
Or maybe America will run into the wall. That’s the way it works. You only run face-first into a wall because you didn’t see it there in front of you.
Back in 2006, the United States was conducting a show of force by sailing an American carrier group through the Taiwan Strait. During this passage, a Chinese submarine unexpectedly surfaced in the middle of the carrier group. The Chinese said the submarine surfaced so there wouldn’t be any unfortunate misunderstandings or accidents.
But the message had been sent. The sub had surfaced well inside of the defensive ring that was supposed to detect and turn away any submarines. It had been in a position where it could have sunk the American carrier if it had wished to do so.
China was telling the United States “You have aircraft carriers and we don’t. But don’t think that means you can push us around and we can’t do anything about it. If we can sink your carriers then you can’t threaten us with them.”
We’re confident that we are protected by our overwhelming military and economic superiority. Other countries aren’t going to be able to catch up with our superiority. But they might be able to make it irrelevant.
:dubious: America passed its wall in 1865. American might decline now, but we already crossed the wall to become the foremost hyperpower on the planet. China has a host of walls it has to surmount still before it can become the next.
Out of curiosity, what wall do you think the US is facing? I could reel off a half dozen or more China has to overcome off the top of my head, but not sure what you think the US has to overcome to become the ‘primary world power’ at this stage…unless you mean the next ‘primary world power, even bester than our own selves’.
The Soviets did similar stunts as well. I’m unsure what you think this means except that the Chinese, during peacetime, were able to pull off a stunt similar to what the Soviets were able to do decades before. During wartime, such a stunt would have probably resulted in a dead Chinese sub, though it’s possible the sub wouldn’t have even gotten that far with a US attack sub tailing it. Do you honestly think that the Chinese PLAN is a match for the US Navy at this stage??
It’s ironic since it’s been China pushing the US and not the other way around. You are right, that’s the message they are trying to send, though. They want the US to back off and basically let them get on with their rightful duty to annex the entire SCS and ECS areas and dominate their neighbors without us interfering.
They might try. None of what you are saying here is new nor does it address the systemic problems of the Chinese military…nor the even worse problems of the rest of the government run by the CCP.
Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor. I was thinking a wall could be something that knocked a country out of its top spot as well as something that kept it from achieving its top spot. For example, I was thinking the Suez Crisis was a wall that Britain hit.
That’s my point. The Chinese are showing they don’t have to match our navy in order to beat it.
We’re locked into the idea that “God is always on the side of the big battalions” so we figure we’re sure to win because we have the biggest battalions. And that can be a dangerous over-confidence because history is full of examples of the side with the big battalions losing the war.
Some time ago, a poster mentioned that a Canadian sub had “sunk” an US carrier during an exercise. I read since that a French sub did the same, “sinking” the carrier and most of her escort for good measure. And there might have been other similar instances.
It seems that relying on carriers might not be anymore the most prudent course of action.
Yeah, we are definitely looking at it differently. I think the Great Britain was in decline and Suez was just another event of that decline…their wall, in my view was far in the past before they really became the British Empire. It’s something they had to overcome or never achieve the preeminence they did to become what they became. China has a lot of those walls, but the key one is just the death grip by the CCP on power…that’s the core of most of their issues at this point, and it’s what is and will continue to hold them back. I know most on this board don’t see it that way and think it’s the CCP that’s helping China to move forward.
They don’t have to match our navy to pull off a stunt. Beating the navy is different than pulling off something like this. I get what you are saying about asymmetrical warfare, and that has some validity, but you will notice that China is trying to build its own carriers and build up to it’s fleet. Think about that in the context of what you are saying…if they REALLY thought they could beat or even seriously hurt the US Navy with what they have and their capabilities, why build what they are building? It’s not because they don’t consider the US Navy their primary threat because it’s clear they do just by their actions.
We don’t have the biggest battalions, of course. We have an overwhelming technological advantage and a military system that both works and has been in place for over half a century. The US has never relied on simple mass of troops.
I don’t think we are in much danger of overconfidence…quite the opposite in fact. I think we tend to overestimate the threat of other countries based simply on the numbers without looking at what those numbers actually mean and how effective they are. IOW, we (and by ‘we’ I mean folks on message boards like this) tend to look at JUST the numbers and not at the actual capabilities. Take your sub example. That was a Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine…a sub dating from the 1990’s and based on an earlier Soviet design. If it can do that sort of thing (i.e. attack a US carrier group), then why haven’t all the subs been built on that class? Why didn’t the Soviets just build those to attack our carrier groups, rendering them moot? Answer…because if you weren’t doing a stunt it would be very hard to actually pull that off during wartime because you had to basically be in just the right place at the right time (and without active searches being done or US attack subs sinking you long before you got there).
Yeah, you COULD do it and maybe hit or even sink a carrier. But it’s a pretty low probability event and not one to base an actual strategy around.
Look, if there’s an actual shooting war, it turns out that both sides on a conflict will experience some horrifying surprises. The side with overwhelming numerical superiority gets crushed. The side with the better logistics and organization gets kneecapped. The side with better command and control can’t deal with a decentralized resistance. The side that thought they were winning hearts and minds finds out the exact opposite. The side that has brand new toys finds out that the new technology doesn’t work as advertised. The side that sticks with the tried and true finds that some new technology has made their conventional approach useless.
Most likely, however, the side with poor training, poor leadership, bad doctrine, no experience, and no unified command structure is going to be at kind of a disadvantage, wouldn’t you say?
Sure, but often you can’t tell what you’ve actually got until you’re actually fighting.
Anyway, the point is kind of silly. If China sinks one of our aircraft carriers we’re talking World War III, and the current mundane economic, social and political problems China is facing today will become quaint historical curiosities of the Before Times.
It is kind of silly. I don’t expect an actual shooting war between the US and China. It would hurt everyone, regardless of the outcome. What good would it do for the US to win such a conflict if the economic impact would be so dire…or vice versa?
My own point is that folks seem to think the China is this unstoppable juggernaut that either has or is going to shortly overtake the US. This ignores where China actually is, what its actual capabilities are and it’s real and systemic issues that it needs to overcome to become something like the primary world power.
Agreed. It’s very easy as Americans to see our own divisions and problems, and then everyone’s all “It’s 476 and Odoacer is knocking on the door!”. China’s problems are even worse and more intractable because of the autocratic and arbitrary and unaccountable government. We only see the superficial.
Exactly. And it’s easy for us to project and assume wrt China. They are the number two economy in the world after all, so that must mean they are on the cusp of overtaking the US.
There is a lot that’s good about China. A lot that’s actually astonishing actually. I really admire a lot about China. But there is a lot that is horrifying, much that’s broken and broken in such a way that it’s hard to see how they could fix it with the current political environment. Some things they HAVE To fix just to stay as a stable nation, let alone as the ‘primary world power’…and it’s hard to see how they can or will do even that. Time will tell, but if folks are hoping or fearing that China is going to take over from the US sometime soon I’m hoping they aren’t holding their breath.
Not if it stays the same as it is now–barring other powers shooting themselves in the foot. A lot of the ethical things America did were because they actually make more money in the long run. China is still very short-term focused.
I mean, why would the dominant power on Earth also try to get rid of corruption, have civil rights, fight against pollution, etc? Because it makes long term economic sense for the country as a whole. Sure, it may take some impetus to get past the initial cost, but, once it happens, the country is better off for it.
That said, it’s possible China will also discover these truths, too. We did, after all. Maybe not all the way, but we’re clearly heading that direction.
My speculation is that China wants to have enough of a naval presence to be able to project its power overseas. They know they can’t build a navy that can intimidate the United States. But they can build a navy that can intimidate Vietnam or India or Saudi Arabia.
I’m not saying bigger in the sense of sheer numbers. I’m talking bigger in the sense of more firepower. And the United States military does tend to think in that direction. But Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have shown that having an overwhelming superiority in firepower doesn’t solve all problems
China doesn’t have to actually sink one of our aircraft carriers. They just have to let us know that they can sink our aircraft carriers. Because then we’ll hesitate to send our aircraft carriers against them.
In my experience, I take the Middle Kingdom to mean to Chinese that they seek to have the benefits of power flow back to them, as opposed to seeking to be a hegemony that determines the international order.
Contrast this to post-WW2 US foreign policy, in which the US has generally sought a world order that included features like Europe being prosperous both for the sake of Europeans and the secondary effects of being very good for the US as well.
To put it another way, the US has been happy to see a rising tide lifting all boats to the extent that the US has influence on the tides. China on the other hand seems to want to be at the center of a bunch of one-way streets, where they just don’t care very much what happens elsewhere as long as it is good for them. That, IMHO, has nothing to do with wanting to “rule the world” as you put it.
Vietnam is the definition of un-intimidatable. As you pointed out yourself, we learned that the hard way. And China – failing to learn from our experience – discovered it for themselves a few years later.
Like most nations, Vietnam has interests it considers vital to its country - and other interests which it considers negotiable. Our mistake in Vietnam was failing to recognize that Hanoi regarded the unification of the country as a vital interest rather than a negotiable one.
But - and I’ll admit this is my opinion and I may be wrong - I think Vietnam regards the South China Sea as a negotiable interest. They’d like to assert ownership but if the price is too high, they’ll let it go. And China having a large navy drives up the price Vietnam, and other countries in the region, would have to pay to hang on to their claims.