From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)
Subject: Re: China and Expansionism
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:14:55 GMT


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)

In article <BuF3CD.8ML@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, DEICHMAN@cisco.nosc.mil (shane) writes...

>	Red China is a threat to nobody (except defenseless
>	Third World nations like Tibet, who lack both the
>	ability and the wherewithall to maintain a robust
>	resistance movement).  Exclamation point. Ibidum.

Hmm.  Neither was Iraq (though it is open for debate if they really ever 
were).  This does not mean that we should not observe and be concerned 
about the potential ability.  We should also keep a close watch on it.

>  In 1969, during the peak of the Sino-Soviet split, Red 
>Chinese troops marched into Russia to take back some dirt they 
>felt was rightfully theirs.  The Soviets waited for a few days 
>while they considered their options, then succinctly drove the 
>Chinese back into China, destroying every standing structure 
>within a mile of the border.  The Chinese smarted from that 
>defeat for some ten years, until they thought they'd play some 
>hardball with the Vietnamese in 1979.

The first example was well before the Chinese had access to modern 
technology and they were up against one of the best land forces in the 
world.  Now, due to the "wisdom" of G. Bush, they have most favored nation 
trading status and probably a lot more technology (both civilian and 
military).

>  During the course of that ill-fated campaign, the Chinese 
>suffered over 60,000 casualties in the FIRST THREE DAYS.  

Wow.  I never heard of the figures being that high.  I don't
disbelieve you, but could you tell me the source (mainly for 
future reference)?

>  But wait!  China is a NUCLEAR power!  What about that?  
>Well, the Chinese do indeed have nuclear know-how; they also 
>have an ICBM force of less missiles that you have fingers.  

I was under the impression that they had more.  They have 16 in one of 
their operational boomers alone.  Complete with underwater launch 
capability.

>Their missile force is archaic, with 1950s-esque targeting 
>systems and single warhead technology, not to mention unstable
>liquid propellants that have to be fueled on the pad.  

While they probably present no threat to the continental USA, they could 
hit Australia or the surrounding area.  True that they don't have the 
worlds most accurate targeting and guidance systems, but I would hate to 
see the results of a few nuclear "near-misses" around Sidney.

>Their medium range missile force would probably do more damage to 
>China than to any adversary....

Hmmm.  Their Silkworm, desipte a lot of its criticism, can be quite capable 
(this is an example of their missles not specifically medium range SSM).  I 
don't think they are quite as bad off as you try to make them.  They do a 
half decent military export trade.

>  The truth of the matter is that China, despite it's 1.2 
>billion people, is a remarkably poor nation.  

So was the old USSR (compared to our standards).

>, their 
>military lacks the most essential component of any force 
>enduring the growing pains of expansionism -- MOBILITY.  Most 
>of the Chinese regulars have to march wherever they attack, 

True.  At this stage.  All indications seem to say that they have relized 
this and are taking steps to improve this.  I have never seen a liturature 
saying that the Chinese walk or march to wherever they attack (could you
again supply a reference).  I haven't seen this ever reffered to a problem.

>so 
>any conquest of Indonesia or Australia would require them to 
>get their feet wet... :-)  Remember, amateurs talk tactics -- 
>professionals talk logistics!

Uh, right.  I think I know what your trying to say, it just sounds a bit
demeaning.  Some of our "greatest " military leaders have really botched
logistics.  But, this is the main reason not to let ourselves slip.  
Logistics was a big problem in the Persian Gulf and that was against a 
little third world country.  We have very limited sea-lift ability at 
present and if a conflict broke out, we might have a very difficult time
with our logistics (USNI Proceedings has an excellent article on this).
They don't have far to go, we do.

>  While China IS purchasing the VARYAG from Russia/Ukraine 
>(allowing them the finance the continued operation of the 
>disputed Black Sea Fleet until they formally split it in 
>1994), I doubt they will use it as the U.S. Navy uses their 
>carriers (i.e., power projection).

Only time will tell.  They have a lot of catching up to do first.

>  The Chinese have 
>historically been one of the world's most isolationistic 
>nations.  I don't think the fact that George Herbert Walker 
>sold the Taiwanese (whom the Chinese consider subordinate, as 
>the Federal Government would look upon a single state) a few 
>wings of F-16s is going to change this philosophy....


I can't really agree that they have been all that isolationalistic either.  
I do think they value peace quite hightly, but they do have an open 
animosity with the Taiwanese.  

I personally don't feel the Chinese are a threat at present.  But, I 
definately would not ignore any of their military advances or any changes 
in policy.  While I think that they are a people of mainly peaceful ways, I 
do question the stability of their government.

SJRD

Newsgroups: sci.military