Do you think China's military build up is more offensive than defensive than it seems?
95504
One more thing: in my view, a communist government is superior to a capitalist system in war time. A communist country has a lot of parallels with the military: its organisation, mindset, allocation of resources etc...yet at the same time, a lack of violent protests when bodybags start coming home (just look at the casualties in the wave attacks they used to employ - see the film Enemy at the Gates?)...\n\nWith regard to ground troops, a lot of the numnbers you see are part of their paramilitary public security force (basically your police), and are relatively untrained in modern combat. Most of this force is defensive - however, this will probably change as China is seeking to project its presence around the region in the coming years. \n\nAs of this moment, the PLA's offensive capability is rather limited. The main stay of its air force is still based on the aging soviet warplanes, while the majority of its navy (with the exception of the Sovremenny Class destroyers carrying the sunburn missles) is ancient. The PLA is trying to build its own light carrier but this is estimated to take at least another 10 to 15 years. However, be mindful that superior technology is not everything: The US has not won any war in Asia since WWII....\n\nBTW, one of the people who answered your question stated that the PLA is undefeated other than the First Sino-Japanese war. This is incorrect on 2 fronts: (1) The PLA was formed only after 1949, before that, it was the communist party and Chiang Kai Shiek's Guomindang army. Both of these fought against the japanese but it was mainly the Guomingdang that faced the Japanese due to georgraphy; and (2) the PLA has fought a number of border wars with Vietnam in which they came out No. 2. \n\nMore importantly, look at it this way: China has been stepped on by the Western powers for the past 200 years (imagine your country losing a war and then having to give a lease of your land to other nations - Hong Kong, or have one of your cities split up among other countries - see Shanghai in the early 1900s). \n\nI believe that the country is basically not your aggressive war mongering nation from its historical actions (they prefer to bribe and make money rather than conquer by force). However, it has learnt the hard way that a country with a weak military force can and will be bullied by others. \n\nIn this modern day and age, a purely defensive force is insufficient for a country with ambitions to be respected internationally. \n\nMy view is that China is not only building up its defensive capabilities but also upgrading its offensive capability to counter potential threats like Taiwan (Taiwan has stated that it will flatten Chinese cities if it is invaded), Japan (historical reasons), the US (if they come into the picture on the Taiwan front) and maybe even North Korea (a belligerent & strong North Korea is not necessarily in China's best interest). \n\nAny large country with the ability to do so will do the same (see the Indian Army - ex russian aircraft carrier, Mig 29s as mainstays etc)
44142
China IS the super power, lying dormant. More people of that race exist than any other, and they have the technology, or could develop it, to win a world war against anyone. More likely, however, rather than start a war, they will defeat any enemy (or "lord it over" a "friend") economically: they loan money to the U.S. now.
278354
It is known that when China introduced 'one child families' 400 million birth have been avoided. So i think that they are a passive culture at the moment. But like any govenment, it changes and who knows, a maniac ruler may come along and dicide to do what Hitler tried sixty years ago. Every dog has it's day i belive.
248685
To the U.S.A of course they think that China is a threat because Americans dun wanna get robbed of their leading position in military, economics and technology in terms of world standard.\nIn my opinion it will be worse than USA in the sense that it will be less involved in world's politics. For instance poking into other countries business. Then we wouldn't have a WORLD LEADER to lead the world in the so called(right way).You may think that its not good to poke into other people's business but the fact that is that someone must lead the world just like how the father decides in a family otherwise the world will be even more disorganised. Again then China will then be a threat to not only the USA , but also to the WORLD.
366405
The Sino-American War will happen in the next 20 years. It will involve nuclear weapons. Invading China isn't feasible.  That's also a bad battle plan, because the longer we wait, the stronger China gets.
1083582
This guy's actually got a point. I'm not so sure on the specifics of any yahoo involvement, but I do know for certain that the Chinese government is very oppressive to anyone who questions its motives or policies. Instances may have tailed off over recent years, but beatings and torture are still a regular part of protocol there. America simply chooses to ignore it because we're more concerned with preserving our good economic relations with China, even though a lot of the cheap labor we outsource there is indeed done by slaves. We really should wake up and start seeing the truth.
403822
Nothing can prohibit aggressive acts by other nations outside of self interest. Our modern era has shown that nations are reluctant to act aggressively unless they believe, correctly or not that these actions are in their own self interest. \n\nThe U.N., for example is the primary governing body for the global "league of nations" if you will. Each of the member nations are sovereign in their own right, and, while one would hope for benevolence and good will among all history has proven that the interest of the sovereign will supercede that of the greater good.\n\nThe idea that liberal democracies do not wage war against one another is not new - however is this argument based upon political systems and societal infrastructure, or the inherent fact that most liberal democracies have mature economies that depend upon external trade for their very existence? \n\nTo position this argument China is certainly not a liberal democracy, and their constant sabre rattling over Taiwan might eventually lead to very real slings and arrows being tossed over the Taiwan Strait. \n\nIf China were to invade or attack Taiwan, is it OK to fight because they are not a liberal democracy? Or, do we sit back because eliminating trade with China would cripple our economy?\n\nIf you were the Chinese leadership, in the contrary position, what decision would you make? Would you really launch an aggressive war against Taiwan, alienating your growing economy from the global market and starving your nation of it's desperately needed energy supply?\n\nI don't ever see China invading Taiwan unless they truly believe, correctly or incorrectly that it is their best strategic option.\n\nThus, this is a really long way of saying international law doesn't mean jack - Nations act based upon what their leaders want, because they think it will get them what they need. "Laws" aren't going to stand in their way. \n\nIf you're looking for more evidence, Google Germany, 1939-45.
1098022
Large standing armies,in the case of Kim ill.He would probably fold if we launched on him though.Until we can get our missile defense up a little better it is just too much of a risk to take.Besides as long as we can buy him cheaper than we can fight him we are better off.\nIn the case of China I think we are probably using the best possible strategy.Turn their economy toward capitalism and away from communism and we might wind up with one of the strongest allies we have ever had.\nThe sad part is none of this stuff works in the Mid-East.They have a different kind of mentality,like kamikazes.They value power and clever deceit,and if you have no will to use force they will never respect you.That's why they call us the paper tiger.
405851
Nope. None at all. It's the Chinese Communists that should be feared. They're the ones torturing them because any group with more people than the Party could become stronger than the Party.
918422
I do not think that the Chinese government is going to be very tolerant of their habit of beheading and terrorizing people.  They are not hindered by the likes of the ACLU and Cindy Sheehan when it comes to defending themselves.
406042
In China, we are more likely to observe a transitional process through a broad spectrum of social arrangements. This will likely move slowly enough to prevent the kind of strife we have observed elsewhere. Expect China to remain mostly socialized for a very long time.
1152302
That's a scary thought. I don't fear china, but it would be prudent to treat them with as much respect as possible. I believe it would be very costly in lives.
1144258
The families and relatives of the terrorists would have been slaughtered in horrible raids, and many innocents would have been killed as collateral damage. No one would have questioned China's motives or tactics because, after all, freedom of speech is not a right of the people there. And Chinese leaders do not tolerate criticism too well. \n\nChina may have also seized the opportunity to topple Saddam and seized the oil fields. Their economy is starving for energy. Here is Saddam, there is the oil ... all we need is a bit of an excuse and there he goes and here we go. Michael Moore and others project this motive on the US for going into Iraq. If we really went in there to seize the oil, why can't we get any? Oil prices have surged in the last couple of years, primarily due to China's growing appetite for energy.\n\nI'm not sure China could have taken out Saddam on their own. So maybe that is the only reason they opposed the US for doing it. They wanted the oil for themselves.
394389
I think our relationship with China is on even keel....but bordering on adversarial unfortunately.\n\nTheir military build up is on going and for what?  Who are they getting ready to fight?  Probably no one....but we are in debt to the Chinese in the billions of dollars.  Eventually we will have to concede that they are on our tier of dominance.\n\nI agree with a previous poster's analysis in that they will be the superpower on one....it may not be real soon, but it will be one day.\n\nThis is the thing.  Small thing.  All they have do is....drumroll please.........convert to some form of democracy.  That's all.  Nothing major.  They can do that in a few weeks.  \n\nSeriously.....Communism does not work.  And look at what America is trying to do.  Bush was over there wanting China is ease up on religious tolerance....along with a few other things.  But see....we don't really want them to have a democratic system....we want them to have widespread, capitalistic tendency.....democracy-styled freedoms.  There is a massive difference.\n\nWe don't want a mega copy of us.....we are Miller, or Budweiser.  We want them to be Zima.
390561
You may want to read the following:\n\nPBS Growing Economic Power of China http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june05/china_4-06.html\nChina Could One Day Pass U.S. As Major Economic Power http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/chinecon.htm\nWe ignore China's growing military and economic power at our peril http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=110006021\nEconomic growth and soft power: China's Africa strategy http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2438.html \nChina as a Global Economic Power http://www.cato.org/events/china/session2.html
62529
I corrected this as much as I could, everything that I corrected or suggested changing is in caps)  Also, it looks more like 3 paragraphs to me.\n\nIf we are there for oil,(WHERE IS THERE?) THEN think of it as a Monoploly game only the real estate is oil. China is a country that has a history of cheating and not doing honest business. What makes anyone think they will be honest allies in the future? They will BE as long as it benifits them. AN EXAMPLE IS, when they buy our debt so we can buy their stuff.\n\n Cnooc tried to buy Unical this year. They are trying to take over and BUY ALL OF the oil they can as is everyone. The only thing, however, is they are growing so strong that they DO actually pose a threat. I think the occupation in Iraq is defense. (IS THAT RELEVANT ABOUT IRAQ?) China, as we saw with CNOOC last year, is ALSO trying to buy everything. \n\nWe are just making sure our energy is secure, if it isn't, then we could be over taken and over thrown buy China, Russia, Iran, etc. That is the terror. We took care of our self interest and took a serious jerk out of power. What is wrong with that? Our military wants to be there or ANYWHERE else we send them to protect us.
368462
We have the technological edge over China, at least so far.\nThey have numbers. Lots of numbers. Multiples of numbers.\n\nBut there's another side to this other than the military side. Where does most of our stuff come from these days? China. Got to war with them, and we lose a significant portion of our goods.\n\nWho has hundreds of billions of dollars hoarded up? China. Go to war with them, and they can wreck our economy, perhaps irrevocably.\n\nCould we win? Maybe... but it wouldn't be much of a win even if we did...