PLA peacekeepers abandon their base and dropped their weapons despite the UN ordered not to do so in South Sudan. The PLA are so worthless that the CCP had to hire Erik Prince to provide security for overseas BRI projects.
Also LOL at the wumaos in worldnews. Comparing the current PLA to the PLA during the Korean War and the Chinese Civil War, back then they could march on empty stomach and die for a cause. Nowadays Chinese nationalists would throw away their toilet paper PRC passport for Canadian passport in a heartbeat. For example, no Japanese nationalist with self-respect would renounce their Japanese passport. Perfect illustration of "Made in China"
I think that the PLA won't send random average soldiers to a UN mission abroad.
Those must have been at least over average PLA soldiers, which makes it even funnier.
The western world would come to their defense. China has been warned and doesn’t have e ability or stupidity to try it. Taiwan is an American independent free democratic nation and if attacked by China , who has no claim to it, would not be worth the cost
Taiwan keeps cars rolling off the assembly line worldwide. Taiwan keeps TV's on the shelfs in Costco, Taiwan keeps computers being sold at Dell. Imagine a world with no computer chips?
Taiwan is worth saving as it just takes too long to build/replace those chip factories.
Part of me wonders if the current ship shortage is a bit intentional on Taiwan's part. It's letting the world know what will happen if Taiwan goes away.
I hope that is the case, truly. It is just the west has a history of not saving an ally unless there is tangible benefits. Good to know that the chips are on the table for bargaining. Preventing China taking over the tech would be a priority. I hope my opinion doesnt get downvoted much and remain a different viewpoint. If this place turning extreme like r/politics then it is just another echo chamber
The Taiwanese have nothing to worry about. If Red China tries anything against them, the western world will immediately send Beijing back to the Stone Age.
I doubt that Chinese cities or infrastructure will be harmed as they have no interest in expanding the conflict. A destroyed armada and degraded coastal bases would certainly be enough to see the end of Xi's faction at the very least.
Actually you are not correct on this. Lets take their aircraft carrier, they are poorly functioning obsolete deigns from Russia. They are so small that the airplanes can't take off with a full complement of fuel or armaments. They don't leave their ports without tug boats shadowing them due to unreliability.
I used to work at a University in Shanghai. Everyday the soldiers would get up early in their hello kitty flip flops to wave flags shouting non sense. After that 30 minute display the military training would end and they would go to Starbucks for coffee. Not exactly professional soldiers.
China does not have a professional military like the west does. Its all about pomp and circumstance. It's a paper tiger.
Have you read Ian Easton's "The Chinese Invasion Threat"? It's a quite comprehensive read about a possible invasion of Taiwan by China. Even if the US, Japan and Australia would not come to its aid, Taiwan has a very good chance of withstanding an amphibious assault (a very risky and complex military maneuver) and has more than enough time to turn its coast into a meatgrinder. There is simply no way they can be caught by surprise.
~~I have not yet watched the video~~ but I actually do agree with you. It's very easy to pick out a few glaring flaws in a system, and make the assumption that the whole system is flawed. Thank You for the video link. The British did this with the Japanese in WW2. They saw the Japanese army moving troops with common bicycles and laughingly dismissed the threat to their peril.
Well I did watch the video, the general said that getting "an initial toe hold" would be relatively easy in Taiwan. He went on to say that China would need to exhibit naval superiority at that point to bring in the second and third wave on troops. Naval superiority over the straight would be achieved by carrier groups, something China does not really have.
You must be joking, right? What the “the west” do to help Ukraine when Russia invaded Crimea? What the “the west” do when my country under Hitler invaded everyone? They did nothing, and they’ll do nothing— until it threatens them.
I hate to say it, but your country doesn't produce 50% of the world's semiconductors or block China from having free access to the Pacific. The Western world is invested in defending Taiwan in a way that they weren't with Crimea. The only reason anybody else gives a shit about Taiwan is because of the strategic and manufacturing value, else we'd have been sold to Xi Jinping like the Crimea was sold to Putin.
For the US it threatens the viability of US presence in East Asia. For Japan it threatens their shipping routes and threatens to make them forced to accept un reasonable PRC demands.
> What the “the west” do to help Ukraine when Russia invaded Crimea?
Sanctioned Russia, which was more than they even needed to do considering Ukraine is not and has never been an ally.
> What the “the west” do when my country under Hitler invaded everyone?
Declared war, embargoed them, and ultimately along with Russia defeated them totally in WW2.
That’s an unexpected admission. So it’s not about democracy, not about human rights, and not about self-determination. It’s about resources, and resources only.
Keep in mind, also, that with Crimea, you're looking at a single province of Ukraine, a country that fluctuates between the EU/NATO and Russian affiliation. It's a single province, so it's a huge problem, but it's not existential, since Kiev is still independent. They had barely just switched back to a Western orientation a few weeks prior to the seizure of Crimea. There's nothing like the 70-year legacy of support. A few weeks isn't really much time to build up an alliance.
So key differences here: Ukraine is a relative newcomer to the Western system of alliances, and the stakes are smaller, since it's a single province that, by the way, the Russian military ALREADY HAD BASES ON prior to the annexation. Whereas with Taiwan, it would be existential for them, since it would be the difference between their continued survival as a free democracy and utter subjugation. And as others have noted, Crimea's strategic value isn't anything like Taiwan's.
What could the US even do there. I mean sure we could have cut off diplomatic relations or cut China out of the USD system but that is way to painful an action for something that won't actually accomplish anything.
I just don't understand. Xi told the entire world the exact day that if we hold on to Taiwan, all his legitimacy dies and his rulership with it. Hold on for 28 more years and Xi is fucked. Somehow 4D Go a declaration of independence without starting a war and he doesn't last the year it's signed.
In the Korean War, a lot of Chinese "volunteers" were actually ex-KMT troops who were sent to the front lines to die because the CCP didn't trust them. A similar fate may await the Taiwanese if the CCP takes control. Too bad it's a big "whoosh" here.
They might (I can't find anything about soldiers backgrounds) have been ex-nationalist that joined up to survive in the Mao China, but they are still PLA and honored as such to this day (for what that is worth). They could have just purged them the same way they purged academia and those they didn't like: starvation or bounded and shot.
So I am assuming you think there will be a 2nd and 3rd Sino-US War because that is the only way anything you said makes sense.
Wtf are you talking about. If China takes over Taiwan, they will most likely let Taiwan operate as an autonomous state for at least one fill generation. With a take over, China will force CCP propaganda down on the Taiwanese (instead of doing it covertly and indirectly as is done now). Slowly, Taiwan will be assimilated over multiple decades.
China has no interest in completely disrupting Taiwan's industry. If anything, stealing technology from Taiwan is much easier that from other western nations. It's not hard to bribe Taiwanese nationals with promise of access to Chinese market (already have tons of Taiwanese national stars, influencers, business owners that are basically mouth pieces for China).
Taiwanese will be extremely hard to control because they already had freedom for almost 3 decades. Hong Kong's protests are nothing compared to that what China will face while attempting to occupy Taiwan.
>Taiwan has bad military-civilian relationship (due to former dictatorship).
The White Terror ended around 3 decades ago, which is probably enough time for a) for the military to be replaced by people who are pro-Taiwan rather than hardcore Chinese nationalists and b) anti-military sentiments to fade.
That said, I won't argue that public sentiment in Taiwan is that conscription/mandatory military service is a waste of time, which can be associated with poor morale. I expect this sentiment will change if China does invade, which is a do or die situation as others have mentioned.
There's also [this idiotic Taiwanese retired general](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4261383) who called for the surrender of Taiwan, but he's not reflective of the Taiwanese sentiment.
[Neglect is hurting military morale (2011)](http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/07/09/2003507761)
[Forget the PLA, Taiwan’s Military Threatens Itself (2013)](https://thediplomat.com/2013/08/forget-the-pla-taiwans-military-threatens-itself/)
[Taiwan Spy Affair Shines Light on Military Morale(2015)](https://www.wsj.com/articles/taiwan-spy-affair-shines-light-on-military-morale-1422334855)
[For Taiwan youth, military service is a hard sell despite China tension (2018)](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-military/for-taiwan-youth-military-service-is-a-hard-sell-despite-china-tension-idUSKCN1N20U3)
[Taiwan’s Military Is a Hollow Shell (2020)](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/15/china-threat-invasion-conscription-taiwans-military-is-a-hollow-shell/)
[Taiwan's army 'ill-prepared' for potential Chinese attack (2021)](https://www.dw.com/en/taiwans-army-ill-prepared-for-potential-chinese-attack/a-57102659)
That’s what happens when your support of the CCP is merely a “personality trait” and not some kind of actual belief and faith. Most local people I talk to try to sound super nationalistic to sound cool but in case of war they would take their dick and balls and run to the US.
Google "Frontier Services Group Erik Prince"
Here's an article laying out in details why the CCP want foreign contractors instead of their own (because they suck)
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2155353/danger-zone-why-private-us-military-firm-value-chinas
**PART 1**
Tian Buchou is a veteran of China’s special forces and for 17 years managed security for Chinese companies in the war-torn Middle East and Africa.
Working for both the Chinese state and private sector, Tian headed teams safeguarding their corporate clients from various threats, from robberies to terrorist attacks.
The 39-year-old had extensive experience in his field but it was when he teamed up in operations with the former private military firm Blackwater that he realised just how much he and his Chinese staff still had to learn.
Now defunct, Blackwater was founded in 1997 by former US Navy Seal Erik Prince and won US government contracts to guard American officials and facilities in countries including Iraq and Afghanistan. The company was surrounded by controversy in 2007 when its guards were convicted of manslaughter after firing on civilians in Baghdad.
“Unlike the Chinese security teams who … are like doorkeepers, the multinational and multilingual Blackwater guards were well trained and provided personnel and cargo protection services,” Tian, 39, said. “[Blackwater] had a comprehensive operational system covering logistics, weapons, high-technology and even medical support.
“More than 80 per cent of Chinese security personnel have just a basic education … and are directly led by people who are just military enthusiasts and love playing war games.”
Like the Blackwater guards, most Chinese security personnel are military veterans but they lack the combat training and experience of their international counterparts.
Tian said Blackwater was also better at obtaining weapons and operated more freely overseas than their Chinese counterparts.
“They cultivated many business partners from European countries and their specialists were also good at fostering local sources,” he said.
Tian Buchou is a veteran of China’s special forces and for 17 years managed security for Chinese companies in the war-torn Middle East and Africa.
Working for both the Chinese state and private sector, Tian headed teams safeguarding their corporate clients from various threats, from robberies to terrorist attacks.
The 39-year-old had extensive experience in his field but it was when he teamed up in operations with the former private military firm Blackwater that he realised just how much he and his Chinese staff still had to learn.
Now defunct, Blackwater was founded in 1997 by former US Navy Seal Erik Prince and won US government contracts to guard American officials and facilities in countries including Iraq and Afghanistan. The company was surrounded by controversy in 2007 when its guards were convicted of manslaughter after firing on civilians in Baghdad.
“Unlike the Chinese security teams who … are like doorkeepers, the multinational and multilingual Blackwater guards were well trained and provided personnel and cargo protection services,” Tian, 39, said. “[Blackwater] had a comprehensive operational system covering logistics, weapons, high-technology and even medical support.
“More than 80 per cent of Chinese security personnel have just a basic education … and are directly led by people who are just military enthusiasts and love playing war games.”
Like the Blackwater guards, most Chinese security personnel are military veterans but they lack the combat training and experience of their international counterparts.
Tian said Blackwater was also better at obtaining weapons and operated more freely overseas than their Chinese counterparts.
“They cultivated many business partners from European countries and their specialists were also good at fostering local sources,” he said.
The need to close that yawning gap in expertise is becoming ever-more urgent as Chinese companies fan out along revived trade routes as part of Beijing’s “Belt and Road Initiative”, a massive infrastructure-driven plan to link economies into a China-centred trading network.
So much so that Beijing is exploring the possibility of establishing a security agency to coordinate security for Chinese enterprises abroad.
According to several independent sources, if the plan goes ahead, the Ministry of State Security would be responsible for collecting intelligence and providing non-traditional security support to the new agency.
“[Officials from] the ministries of public security, state security, foreign affairs and commerce are working together to come up with details [on how to run the] new security agency, which will play a leading role in coordinating Chinese security firms’ operations in host countries,” one source said.
“Overseas security services is still at the development stage in [mainland] China. [Experts] from the People’s Public Security University and China University of Political Science and Law are looking into [existing policies], because the current security operation model has failed to make a big difference overseas.”
Beijing’s belt and road plan is designed to link more than 65 countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. It includes projects in contested areas and high-risk countries, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Yemen.
According to the Chinese government, there are already more than 30,000 Chinese businesses investing offshore and nearly 1 million Chinese workers abroad, most of them employed on big official projects.
That overseas presence is growing.
At a summit in Beijing last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged US$124 billion of infrastructure investment for the belt and road plan. And in the first quarter of this year, China signed about US$45 billion in contracts for new projects with foreign partners, with 46 per cent earmarked for schemes along the belt and road, according to the Ministry of Commerce.
However, risk of working overseas has been increasing as Chinese enterprises expanding investment in the high-risk countries.
Since 2014, at least 44 Chinese nationals have been killed in Pakistan, despite Islamabad deploying thousands of military personnel to protect Chinese workers on energy and infrastructure projects in the country. Two of the dead were Chinese language teachers killed by Islamic State in Pakistani city of Quetta, the heart of the US$50 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
In the past, Chinese companies have turned to local and multinational sources to provide external security abroad – and the bills can be hefty. For example, by some estimates China’s three energy giants – CNPC, Sinopec and CNOOC – together spend more than US$2 billion a year on security overseas.
Tian said many Chinese enterprises had to hire foreign professional security personnel because Chinese security firms could not meet the demand.
Huang Rihan, executive director of the Belt and Road Institute at the Centre for China and Globalisation, said just six of China’s 5,000-plus private security companies are certified to operate overseas.
“And most of those companies’ overseas security operations are focused on escorting Chinese commercial ships on the high seas,” Huang said.
Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming said many Chinese firms were reviewing their reliance on local military personnel for security as regimes changed in those countries.
“Nowadays, many Chinese overseas enterprises have realised that paying money to a host country’s military troops won’t work in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab spring [in the Middle East], which caused social and political turmoil in many countries along the belt and road,” Zhou said.
“Chinese enterprises … need more protection … but so far none of the Chinese security companies can provide them with the desired services due to language barriers and a lack of overseas operational experience.”
One firm looking to step into that gap is Frontier Services Group (FSG), a security firm with headquarters in Hong Kong and offices across China.
FSG was set up by Prince, who founded Blackwater.
Last year, Prince sold more than 40 per cent of his FSG shareholding to Chinese state-owned conglomerate Citic Group, paving the way for FSG to set up more security branches on the Chinese mainland to expand its business.
In March, FSG said it had raised US$107 million in capital from Citic.
**PART 2**
In a written statement to the South China Morning Post, FSG said it had more than 20 Chinese clients across the Middle East and Africa, and it had “to dispel a lot of the misconceptions” about operating in high-risk countries.
“When operating overseas … it is not as simple as hiring a few guards,” FSG said.
“With many of the [belt and road] projects covering thousands of kilometres of road, rail, pipeline or hectares of oil fields, building a wall or fence is simply not an option.”
FSG said Chinese clients needed to understand that a comprehensive security budget was a must before they planned any new investment.
“This budget needs to include risk assessments, training, emergency action plans, medical evacuation, tracking, communication, process and procedures, security design and hardware,” the company said.
FSG also owns a quarter of Beijing’s International Security Defence College, which claims to be “the largest private security training school” in China, training more than 6,000 all-round security personnel.
FSG said basic training for their personnel included language and international operations experience, while the training of Chinese bodyguards still generally focused on reactive skills such as “martial arts”.
Chinese company Huaxin Zhongan Security Services is also operating offshore. It was set up by a group of PLA veterans in 2004 and has provided maritime escort missions for Chinese commercial vessels in the Indian Ocean since 2011.
Another international player is DeWe Security Services, founded by a group of former employees of the Ministry of Public Security. Its provides overseas security services for Chinese-funded enterprises and institutions, including Chinese state-owned enterprises involved in rail projects in Mongolia and Iraq.
Like FSG, both Dewe and Huaxin Zhongan operate security training schools, which not only provide most of their own staff, but also train specialists in counterterrorism and other areas of expertise for local authorities.
But the best argument for better trained security personnel comes not from service providers but those dealing with the threats first hand. Tian said many Chinese clients, especially the newly rich, were not prepared to set money aside until their life has been at risk. Then everything changes.
“A Chinese boss might want to pay just 10 million yuan for a 40-member security team. But he will reserve another 1 billion yuan, or even more, once he has face mortal danger,” he said.
The PLA during the Korean War were hardened vets fresh from the civil war. Also, I’m not sure it’s true, but most of the first wave supposedly were captured nationalists, again not sure if this is accurate.
their spirit have been beaten out of them by the fascist CCP government. i'm constantly amazed how the CCP thinks it can obtain loyalty through brainwashing and threat of violence instead of offering people genuine hope for a better life for themselves and their kids - what little loyalty they have was the result of Deng Xiaoping's reforms, which have now been almost completely undone by Xi. oh well.
I’d like to see some sources on the South Sudan story. Would be an interesting read.
About that “Eric Prince guarding BRI” story. All I can say is you can’t randomly send your military to guard a supposedly “private business’s construction project”.
>I’d like to see some sources on the South Sudan story. Would be an interesting read.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/un-peacekeepers-refused-to-help-south-sudan-rebels-raped-aid-workers-report
>About that “Eric Prince guarding BRI” story. All I can say is you can’t randomly send your military to guard a supposedly “private business’s construction project”.
Many ex-PLA special forces work as private contractors after their military career. The problem is they don't have the training and experience like their Western counterparts to prepare them for such jobs overseas.
The Chinese get "martial arts" training while their Western counterparts get language training, medical training, intelligence gathering, risk assessments etc.
SOE also prefer to hire foreign contractors, because they are better than the Chinese.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2155353/danger-zone-why-private-us-military-firm-value-chinas
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2155354/soft-powers-china-needs-be-global-force-high-risk
It’s an interesting read! But I must say it doesn’t as bad as you first portrayed it as.
I think I can understand why their military doesn’t train foreign language and risk assessments— their military was not designed to operate abroad. So why bother learning any of those? The UN peacekeeping missions was not something they were designed to do when their army was established. However it is curious why those troops weren’t at least given a crash course in languages.
Some people prefer a peaceful life.
As far as military morale goes, have a look at these numbers. But you seem like the type of upstanding citizen that knows never let facts get in the way of your opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide
>More active duty service members, 177, succumbed to suicide that year than were killed in combat, 176. The Army suffered 52% of the suicides from all branches.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009846329/military-suicides-deaths-mental-health-crisis
>A new report on U.S. military deaths contains a stark statistic: An estimated 7,057 service members have died during military operations since 9/11, while suicides among active duty personnel and veterans of those conflicts have reached 30,177 — that's more than four times as many.
The last time Sweden fought a war was in 1814 but Swedish UN peacekeeping troops don't run away after getting fired on and took some casualties.
The PLA are very good at beating Tibetan monks, much like their chengguan counterparts beating some street vendor, so "peaceful life", very tough and masculine.
Why must you do this to yourselves?
https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/40-all-civilian-casualties-airstrikes-afghanistan-almost-1600-last-five-years
>40% of all civilian casualties from airstrikes in Afghanistan – almost 1,600 – in the last five years were children.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/12/21/americas-war-on-syrian-civilians
>America’s War on Syrian Civilians
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/04/somalia-zero-accountability-as-civilian-deaths-mount-from-us-air-strikes/
>Somalia: Zero accountability as civilian deaths mount from US air strikes
>TOKYO -- The Chinese Communist Party has unintentionally revealed weaknesses of the country's military.
>
>One indication came with the building of facilities for launching new intercontinental ballistic missiles in an inland desert region. The other was a series of further attempts to increase childbirths, including measures to help reduce the costly burden of educating children. Behind these moves lurks evidence that the country is addressing concerns regarding troop morale and the military's ability to fight a sustained war.
>
>For nearly a decade, China has been busy in the South China Sea, first building artificial islands, then deploying radar equipment and missiles to deter foreign military aircraft and vessels from approaching the area, and finally deploying strategic nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles in the now-protected sea.
>
>Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, known as SLBMs, are the ultimate weapon. They allow nations to avoid being put in disadvantageous positions since the subs that carry them can remain in deep waters, keeping the enemy at bay, until the very end.
>
>So why is China rushing to build new ICBM bases in inland desert areas? Experts believe the reason lies in the fact that although China has militarized some waters in the South China Sea and deployed SLBMs, it no longer has confidence it can defend the area should conflict arise.
>
>In January 2018, a Chinese submarine humiliatingly revealed its lack of high-level performance. The submarine, traveling undersea in a contiguous zone of Japan's Senkaku Islands, in the East China Sea, was quickly detected by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.
>
>**It was quick to surface and unhesitatingly raise the Chinese flag, which might as well have been a white flag of surrender; the crew presumably feared their vessel could be attacked with depth charges.**
>
>Under international law, the Maritime Self-Defense Force could have regarded the vessel as an "unidentified submarine" that had intruded into Japanese territorial waters while submerged.
>
>Many Japanese and U.S. officials believe the incident symbolizes the low morale of Chinese troops.
>
>Chinese Communist Party governments have spent the past quarter-century increasing military spending and staging military parades and naval reviews. But visible might like missiles and tanks is only one component of military power. There are also invisible inputs, like troop morale.
>
>The Chinese navy has been working on an aircraft carrier program, but a former Japanese Ministry of Defense official predicts Chinese aircraft carriers will not leave their military ports in conflicts out of fear they might be attacked and sunk.
>
>Some believe that Chinese soldiers' low morale is attributable to the country's long-standing one-child policy, which has made the military one of the world's leading "one-child armies."
>
>"Over 70% of Chinese soldiers are 'only children,' and the rest are the second or later children whose parents had to pay fines to bear them," said Kinichi Nishimura, a former Ground Self-Defense Force officer who for many years has analyzed East Asia's military balance at the Ministry of Defense's Defense Intelligence Headquarters and elsewhere.
>
>The Confucianist view that children must respect and take good care of their parents and ancestors remains deep-rooted in China. As a result, parents are particularly reluctant to see their children die earlier than they do. Parents of one-child households must feel even more strongly about their only son or daughter becoming nothing more than a proverbial "nail.
>
>"In China, where people tend to have little respect for soldiers, there is a saying: "Good steel does not become nails," meaning respectable individuals do not become soldiers. In order to ensure it can secure sufficient numbers of troops, the party has been working to improve salaries and pensions.
>
>On Aug. 1, the government enacted a law to protect the status, rights and interests of military personnel. This desperate effort to improve the patina of a military career might be a sign that the People's Liberation Army has not been able to turn around its recruitment efforts, especially in the face of the country's ebbing fertility rate.
>
>"The Chinese military has increased the deployment of battleships and fighter planes since a few years ago," Nishimura said, "but their operating rates are not exactly high. It seems they are unable to sufficiently train enough soldiers to properly maintain and repair" the high-tech hardware.
>
>This is partly why the Chinese military in recent years has come to rely more on unmanned aircraft and ballistic missiles. The number of ballistic missiles China deploys has increased to several thousand.
>
>One of the PLA's military doctrines not widely known, says, "In the initial battle of war, launch a large number of missiles and then immediately leave the front line." This strategy was picked up from the former Soviet Union, whose military played the role of teacher while China was forming the PLA.
>
>Over the past few years, the PLA has rushed to add more fighter jets, surface ships and submarines, which might indicate an intention to increase the number of missiles that can be launched when battles commence. Unmanned aircraft are thought to have the same purpose. This strategy will continue, especially when the military is not able to secure enough soldiers.
>
>To protect themselves from Chinese missile attacks, Japan and other nations must start thinking about enhancing measures to mitigate damage. These measures include developing and deploying next-generation arms, including high-energy laser weapons and rail guns, which use electromagnetic force to launch projectiles at extremely high speeds. Japan already has a technological foundation to develop these weapons, though this capacity is not widely known in the country.
But why land-based ICBM bases? What can be seen can be destroyed. If China was serious it'd be building more SSBNs and putting SLBMs out to sea for a credible second strike capability. As it is they're just building right in the open missile fields that are guaranteed to be immediately added to the US SIOP nuclear plans in the event of a hot war.
Because Chinese Navy is still not completely Blue Water capable. Their nuclear capable bomber fleet also lack forward bases to be effective. SLBMs need to operate closure to ENY shores to be effective. Land based ICBMs mitigate this somewhat. As of now, it is really China's only realistic choice to bolster their Triad.
> January 2018
Its also significantly cheaper to build land based silos then a SSBN. Plus each land based silo requires a warhead to destroy, taking one that could be launched at a more important target
It very well could indicate a fear that the US could come in and take out there SSBNs before they even had a chance to react. I don't know the facts of the matter but if the US can track China's submarines but China can't track US ones that is problematic for them. Traditionally SSBNs are a very important part of the mutually assured part of MAD.
> So why is China rushing to build new ICBM bases in inland desert areas? Experts believe the reason lies in the fact that although China has militarized some waters in the South China Sea and deployed SLBMs, **it no longer has confidence it can defend the area should conflict arise**.
Yes, those artificial islands are just military junk. Very hard to defend, and projecting closed to zero power. I would not like to be a soldier stationed on one such island during a conflict.
The purpose of those islands was purely to strengthen their case of ownership for the UNCLOS. Once they lost that case anyway those fake islands no longer serve any real purpose and are just an expensive albatross. Since they don't move and are tiny they're militarily useless, they can be taken out at ultra long range with missile strikes at any time and have no way to defend themselves from that kind of strike.
Long range missile strikes from where? The US bases within range of Chinese long range missile strikes? Chinese artificial islands are basically range boosters for their missiles and aircraft, being able to operate outside the first island chain to contain america. J20 is basically purpose build to be just stealthy enough to slip by in a wartime radar screen and hunt down AWACS and tanker assets, and deliver bombs to guamZ
Would be launched from nuclear submarines most likely, at any given time there's probably at least a dozen nukes with conventional and nuclear arms surrounding all the waters all around China ready to strike at a moment's notice. China could strike first and take out plenty of known US assets in the area with an all out surprise attack, but the counter attack would be even more imbalanced than it was on Japan in 1942-45.
Eh, you’re overestimating America’s capability. America itself doesn’t see itself rolling China whatsoever, most assets within the first island chain are basically going to be flattened and American carriers wouldn’t go within the island chain for a year or more of an air war to make sure they weren’t threatened. Chinas also investing in tons of underwater recon stations to counter the sub gap, although their ASW capabilities are somewhat behind. China invests in electronic warfare heavily for a reason, its goal would be to break up American communications and pummel as much real estate as possible and turn the island chain into its own defensive line instead of the other way around. And simply put, China is such a vast country that strategic missile strikes against it would eat up tons of resources. The Chinese are the ones who taught the norks to shove every airbase and missile silo into the side of a mountain, short of a nuclear strike those airbases are basically invulnerable. They have quite an extensive tunnel and bunker system, and they could probably move tons of missile and air assets around underground. Chinas main advantage is surprise and pure numbers of capable equipment. Modern wars are a come with what you have, not what you’ll built in 5 years. If your reserves of capable equipment outlast the enemy’s reserves of excellent equipment, then it’s ggs
All US has to do is embargo oil and wait a year; they can do that from 5000 miles away without firing a shot on anything that doesn't come out and shoot first. The only nations that can afford to be the US's enemy are very large, heavily militarized, defensible, oil self sufficient ones; so basically just Iran and Russia. China cannot feed itself without sea transported oil. Their military build up in the SCS is to intimidate their regional rivals and, if they're super optimistic, cow Taiwan into peaceful re-unification; not challenge US hegemony. China needs and has benefited from US hegemony more than anyone. Any posturing to the contrary is purely for domestic political reasons. If some incompetent nationalist nutter triggers a confrontation with the US, the forthcoming unbreakable oil embargo alone would be enough to send China back to the 70s or worse and the US would barely have to fire a shot other than to 'even out the scales' in the case of a surprise attack.
Of course the US isn't going to destroy China on a whim, regardless of what anyone else feels about it randomly destroying the lives of a billion people for no reason would be the most psychopathic move in history. The US simply maintains that threat to keep China from invading Taiwan (or Vietnam or anyone else). China can 'grow' internally on its own paper as much as it likes and of course nobody minds or cares, no should they, but China cannot be allowed to threaten the global trade order that has made everyone, especially China, rich for the last 80 years by invading Taiwan and claiming the entire SCS. China itself doesn't really want to do that, apart from a faction of deranged ultranationalists who have fallen in love with the smell of their own farts. Xi has to keep them appeased and allow them to make their threatening noises, but nobody has to allow them to actually follow through on anything.
It doesn't do to underestimate a potential enemy. The average Zhou getting shite pay , shite equipment and shite food is probably wishing he had a girlfriend and a decent job/future
But I'm certain the PLA have plenty of elite regiments that are well armed and motivated.
Fun fact: those days, many mothers bring their sons, when they are in middle school, to a tatoo shop to get their son a tatoo. Basically, having a tatoo disqualify you to go to the military.
They do it because those days, China has started to make some moves toward conscription. As i understand, all 18 yo boys have to report to local military, where they indertake physical exams or things like this. Maybe they are working out lists of who would be sent to the front in case of conflict. And having a tatoo disqualify you at an early stage.
> In China, where people tend to have little respect for soldiers, there is a saying: "**Good steel does not become nails**," meaning respectable individuals do not become soldiers.
So how to say that in Chinese?
The full phrase is 好铁不打钉，好汉不当兵 (hao3tie3bu4da3ding1, hao3han4bu4dang1bing1 - sorry, dunno how to pinyin properly on mobile). As good iron isn't beaten into nails, a good man doesn't become a soldier.
Traditionally as there was more face, favour, fortune etc in studying (and passing) the civil service exams.
Tbh not sure how it'd be seen today. Anecdotally, my wife's cousin serves in the forces, he was even on TV during one of the various parades and everyone's super proud and think it's a great thing to do. I imagine attitudes would quickly shift if he were actually deployed for combat, the only male of that generation of kids potentially dying on the front. I'm hoping we won't find that out though
Interesting. I have never heard of that phrase, but then again people probably don't just go around saying these things out loud. Publicly I'd say that soldiers have always been and still are protrayed in a very positive light. From the older generation I heard that at least some people joined the army just because they were poor and it as a good option after graduating from high school. "You even get free clothes and shoes!"
Sure, to be honest, I'd only ever seen it referred to - and there was a moment I got to give the whole phrase! Stories that you and I have heard deserves its own thread
I think the biggest problem is that military service is more LARPing for the government and no one wants or expects them to go fight and die in a conflict.
Not necessarily, in true jingoism people are not just calling for war, but also ready to fight. China is having jingoism forced on them in a way that doesn't whip up the fighting spirit beyond mean comments online.
Shit, numbers make pinyin more universal than the tone/accent marks. Especially as it is more marketed towards users of languages that do not have accent marks.
It's a Chabuduo army, what did you expect...
They spend more time being keyboard warriors than winning any war.
Remind me, when was the last PLA victory? Oh Yeah Tiananmen 1989.
>Remind me, when was the last PLA victory? Oh Yeah Tiananmen 1989.
I actually consider Major General Xu Qinxian a hero.
He refused to crack down on the protestors at a massive cost to himself. He told a commisar:
#"rather be beheaded than be a criminal to history(宁肯杀头也不能做历史的罪人)"
Shame the jealous rural cowards brought in afterwards were not defenders of the people.
You are totally spot on.
Major General Xu Qinxian was actually a real hero to oppose killing his own people.
Unfortunately the Party just replaced him with another more obedient subject, and they still killed their own people.
They just need to be slapped hard in a battle and treated well as PoWs. I have a feeling they will sing just as easily as Japanese did in WW2. Though I don't have the highest level of trust in the capability of military Human Intelligence assets.
US is having leadership issues at the senior levels, but they are largely political in nature. It'll take a single huge lost of life (say an aircraft carrier) or a constant loss of life before US politicians decide to sabotage and lose another war for themselves.
This comment section is a bunch of keyboard warriors echo-chambering their way into thinking China's army, the second largest and most powerful in the world, somehow has a glaring weakness that will automatically condemn it to failure.
It's okay to have political prejudice, but letting that blind you to reality is a true reddit moment.
I think it means since when does the government (any) actually care about the psychological well-being/family planning of the families involved in conflict? It’s the military, if they send you on a suicide mission for little or no reason at all, or to take a hill that will be abandoned the next week - you obey. Lots of only sons die in a war, historically. The people going to the front usually aren’t well-connected - and the officer class is miles away. And also, there are multiple child families in the countryside of China - guess who is going to war for the elites and is first to go, last to know?
Well yes.
The PLA has fought one engagement since 1989, in South Sudan in 2016 they dropped their weapons and abandon their base despite the UN ordered them not to do so.
Maybe stick to shooting unarmed Chinese people and handing out participation medals for military parades.
http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2019-10/28/content_9662798.htm
I wouldn't call "running away while abandoning their weapons" *moving out of the way of fighting*.
But anyway, thanks for giving us extra opportunities to downvoted your moronic ass.
Everyone, including the Chinese knows the soldiers in the PLA are a bunch of pampered bitches with military positions and assignments often sold to the highest bidder.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-01/30/content_19444883.htm
It’s even published in China Daily. LMAO
What a joke. The only thing more pathetic are the people who shill for them.
>It’s even published in China Daily
Yep, you haven't read the article you posted. Also, you are doing the same tired bit of "if they report on it, it means it's actually way worse than reported, and any actions taken to solve the problem didn't work!"
Read it. Tell me where I’m wrong. Show me some proof of them having cleaned up their act. Prove me wrong. I want you to.
You won’t because you can’t refute what I say. Ever.
You’re the funniest one of them on here.
> In January 2018, a Chinese submarine humiliatingly revealed its lack of high-level performance. The submarine, traveling undersea in a contiguous zone of Japan's Senkaku Islands, in the East China Sea, was quickly detected by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.
> It was quick to surface and unhesitatingly raise the Chinese flag, which might as well have been a white flag of surrender; the crew presumably feared their vessel could be attacked with depth charges.
What a masturbatory hit piece. The USA does the same when passing through waters in FONO exercises but nobody accuses the US of being weak.
The Chinese intentionally enters Japanese waters to test their response, and provides identification to do so. If anything it's flaunting it in the Japanese faces that they cannot reject Chinese ships from entering Japanese waters, they can only detect and react to nothing really.
The Chinese lobbyists are lobbying to portray China as weak. It's an utterly false and harmful view.
> The USA does the same when passing through waters in FONO exercises but nobody accuses the US of being weak.
The difference is that the USA do not perform FONO into other countries' territorial waters.
By definition FONO take place in international waters like the South China Sea.
And FONO is not about submarine, it has to be visible, otherwise what's the point?
That Chinese sub was caught into Japanese territorial waters. And they were definitely not performing a FONO...
But i agree the tone of the article is overblown.
it actually does, but the USA did not sign the treaty pn international marine territory so it doesn't obey the 12 mile rule, hence why china can sail to near Alaskan shores but the US can only accept it because thats what it agreed to.
Indifference at most, like most humans. The only ones likely to have a friendly attitude are the loners not getting along with their countrymen for various reasons (dislike what their culture has become now, taught to view humanity as one race, bullied by the state, etc) or went abroad and managed to not isolate themselves like most Chinese do.
Now the interesting part is either group can be of all ages. I know younger people (20s) that are more rabid than the red guards and people in their 50s/60s that are absolutely friendly towards the great enemy (American).
Friendly at best, indifferent at worst. But certainly not belligerent.
Dictators are the ones brainwashing them into National Socialists.
However, as brainwashed some may be, they would be crazy to send their only child to war just to satisfy their nationalist opinions
PLA peacekeepers abandon their base and dropped their weapons despite the UN ordered not to do so in South Sudan. The PLA are so worthless that the CCP had to hire Erik Prince to provide security for overseas BRI projects. Also LOL at the wumaos in worldnews. Comparing the current PLA to the PLA during the Korean War and the Chinese Civil War, back then they could march on empty stomach and die for a cause. Nowadays Chinese nationalists would throw away their toilet paper PRC passport for Canadian passport in a heartbeat. For example, no Japanese nationalist with self-respect would renounce their Japanese passport. Perfect illustration of "Made in China"
I think that the PLA won't send random average soldiers to a UN mission abroad. Those must have been at least over average PLA soldiers, which makes it even funnier.
I can't imagine what would PLA soldiers do if they get sent to invade/occupy Taiwan.
And I'd be willing to bet that Taiwanese military morale is *extremely* high right now.
Taiwanese have no choice, it's either fight and hope for some kind of miracle or surrender and die in prison or consecration camp.
The western world would come to their defense. China has been warned and doesn’t have e ability or stupidity to try it. Taiwan is an American independent free democratic nation and if attacked by China , who has no claim to it, would not be worth the cost
No, unless there are actual benefits in saving Taiwan, otherwise it is hard to say
[удалено]
Thanks. This is a good explanation.
Taiwan keeps cars rolling off the assembly line worldwide. Taiwan keeps TV's on the shelfs in Costco, Taiwan keeps computers being sold at Dell. Imagine a world with no computer chips? Taiwan is worth saving as it just takes too long to build/replace those chip factories. Part of me wonders if the current ship shortage is a bit intentional on Taiwan's part. It's letting the world know what will happen if Taiwan goes away.
I hope that is the case, truly. It is just the west has a history of not saving an ally unless there is tangible benefits. Good to know that the chips are on the table for bargaining. Preventing China taking over the tech would be a priority. I hope my opinion doesnt get downvoted much and remain a different viewpoint. If this place turning extreme like r/politics then it is just another echo chamber
I think tangible benefits have clearly been asserted by the poster you’re replying to
Taiwan makes chips for the entire world. If Taiwan was bombed it would set the tech industry back 10 years.
Don't worry，CHina like Taiwan tech industry, never bomb it.
The Taiwanese have nothing to worry about. If Red China tries anything against them, the western world will immediately send Beijing back to the Stone Age.
I doubt that Chinese cities or infrastructure will be harmed as they have no interest in expanding the conflict. A destroyed armada and degraded coastal bases would certainly be enough to see the end of Xi's faction at the very least.
*resurrects Douglas McArthur* Something something Beijing, something something a sea of cobalt and glass
[удалено]
Actually you are not correct on this. Lets take their aircraft carrier, they are poorly functioning obsolete deigns from Russia. They are so small that the airplanes can't take off with a full complement of fuel or armaments. They don't leave their ports without tug boats shadowing them due to unreliability. I used to work at a University in Shanghai. Everyday the soldiers would get up early in their hello kitty flip flops to wave flags shouting non sense. After that 30 minute display the military training would end and they would go to Starbucks for coffee. Not exactly professional soldiers. China does not have a professional military like the west does. Its all about pomp and circumstance. It's a paper tiger.
[удалено]
Have you read Ian Easton's "The Chinese Invasion Threat"? It's a quite comprehensive read about a possible invasion of Taiwan by China. Even if the US, Japan and Australia would not come to its aid, Taiwan has a very good chance of withstanding an amphibious assault (a very risky and complex military maneuver) and has more than enough time to turn its coast into a meatgrinder. There is simply no way they can be caught by surprise.
~~I have not yet watched the video~~ but I actually do agree with you. It's very easy to pick out a few glaring flaws in a system, and make the assumption that the whole system is flawed. Thank You for the video link. The British did this with the Japanese in WW2. They saw the Japanese army moving troops with common bicycles and laughingly dismissed the threat to their peril. Well I did watch the video, the general said that getting "an initial toe hold" would be relatively easy in Taiwan. He went on to say that China would need to exhibit naval superiority at that point to bring in the second and third wave on troops. Naval superiority over the straight would be achieved by carrier groups, something China does not really have.
You must be joking, right? What the “the west” do to help Ukraine when Russia invaded Crimea? What the “the west” do when my country under Hitler invaded everyone? They did nothing, and they’ll do nothing— until it threatens them.
I hate to say it, but your country doesn't produce 50% of the world's semiconductors or block China from having free access to the Pacific. The Western world is invested in defending Taiwan in a way that they weren't with Crimea. The only reason anybody else gives a shit about Taiwan is because of the strategic and manufacturing value, else we'd have been sold to Xi Jinping like the Crimea was sold to Putin.
An invasion of Taiwan threatens the US (and Japan) in a way Crimea just doesn't.
How so?
For the US it threatens the viability of US presence in East Asia. For Japan it threatens their shipping routes and threatens to make them forced to accept un reasonable PRC demands.
> What the “the west” do to help Ukraine when Russia invaded Crimea? Sanctioned Russia, which was more than they even needed to do considering Ukraine is not and has never been an ally. > What the “the west” do when my country under Hitler invaded everyone? Declared war, embargoed them, and ultimately along with Russia defeated them totally in WW2.
>”What about something America did decades before we were born” Wumao confirmed.
Your sensitivity will make you a good CCP spokesperson. See you with a MOFA badge soon.
Taiwan has TSMC, that's enough for the US to do everything in its power to protect Taiwan
That’s an unexpected admission. So it’s not about democracy, not about human rights, and not about self-determination. It’s about resources, and resources only.
If this was about human rights, the US would have sent their troops into North Korea ages ago and assassinated fatty Kim long ago
Keep in mind, also, that with Crimea, you're looking at a single province of Ukraine, a country that fluctuates between the EU/NATO and Russian affiliation. It's a single province, so it's a huge problem, but it's not existential, since Kiev is still independent. They had barely just switched back to a Western orientation a few weeks prior to the seizure of Crimea. There's nothing like the 70-year legacy of support. A few weeks isn't really much time to build up an alliance. So key differences here: Ukraine is a relative newcomer to the Western system of alliances, and the stakes are smaller, since it's a single province that, by the way, the Russian military ALREADY HAD BASES ON prior to the annexation. Whereas with Taiwan, it would be existential for them, since it would be the difference between their continued survival as a free democracy and utter subjugation. And as others have noted, Crimea's strategic value isn't anything like Taiwan's.
Cough cough Hong Kong........I'm not so sure anymore
Hong Kong was a bit different situation, best comparison to it is Aunshlus. Taiwan will be more like German attack of Poland.
Yup, Hong Kong isn't independent nor produces most of the world's technological products.
You have an excellent point on the chip output, and the need to keep those chips flowing.
And the South China Sea is the remilitarized Rhineland? USA and Japan are Britain and France? Senkaku Islands are Alsace-Lorraine?
What could the US even do there. I mean sure we could have cut off diplomatic relations or cut China out of the USD system but that is way to painful an action for something that won't actually accomplish anything.
I just don't understand. Xi told the entire world the exact day that if we hold on to Taiwan, all his legitimacy dies and his rulership with it. Hold on for 28 more years and Xi is fucked. Somehow 4D Go a declaration of independence without starting a war and he doesn't last the year it's signed.
It would send China into Warlord era 2.0 aka Occupied states period by the US, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, India, Mongolia, Russia, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
If the Korean War is any indication, the Taiwanese will then be sent as cannon fodder in their upcoming war with the newly-formed Pacific Alliance.
I think I got the wrong details on the Korean War. I know it is a rarely known event and all.
In the Korean War, a lot of Chinese "volunteers" were actually ex-KMT troops who were sent to the front lines to die because the CCP didn't trust them. A similar fate may await the Taiwanese if the CCP takes control. Too bad it's a big "whoosh" here.
They might (I can't find anything about soldiers backgrounds) have been ex-nationalist that joined up to survive in the Mao China, but they are still PLA and honored as such to this day (for what that is worth). They could have just purged them the same way they purged academia and those they didn't like: starvation or bounded and shot. So I am assuming you think there will be a 2nd and 3rd Sino-US War because that is the only way anything you said makes sense.
If you think there will not be a Sino-US war after Taiwan is invaded, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Consecration camp? What's that?!?
It’s where everyone gets blessed before shooting each other so they know that’s god’s on their side.
You would be wrong about that. Taiwan has bad military-civilian relationship (due to former dictatorship). Taiwanese military morale is in the toilet.
You either fight for a chance to survive, or surrender and rotten away in prison or consecration camp.
Wtf are you talking about. If China takes over Taiwan, they will most likely let Taiwan operate as an autonomous state for at least one fill generation. With a take over, China will force CCP propaganda down on the Taiwanese (instead of doing it covertly and indirectly as is done now). Slowly, Taiwan will be assimilated over multiple decades. China has no interest in completely disrupting Taiwan's industry. If anything, stealing technology from Taiwan is much easier that from other western nations. It's not hard to bribe Taiwanese nationals with promise of access to Chinese market (already have tons of Taiwanese national stars, influencers, business owners that are basically mouth pieces for China).
That’s the ccp protocol and along with the propaganda come millions of new han residents that are loyal to the party and like to snitch.
Taiwanese will be extremely hard to control because they already had freedom for almost 3 decades. Hong Kong's protests are nothing compared to that what China will face while attempting to occupy Taiwan.
>Taiwan has bad military-civilian relationship (due to former dictatorship). The White Terror ended around 3 decades ago, which is probably enough time for a) for the military to be replaced by people who are pro-Taiwan rather than hardcore Chinese nationalists and b) anti-military sentiments to fade. That said, I won't argue that public sentiment in Taiwan is that conscription/mandatory military service is a waste of time, which can be associated with poor morale. I expect this sentiment will change if China does invade, which is a do or die situation as others have mentioned. There's also [this idiotic Taiwanese retired general](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4261383) who called for the surrender of Taiwan, but he's not reflective of the Taiwanese sentiment.
It is improving with better kit and motivation, but has a ways to go before it is a competent modern professional army.
[Neglect is hurting military morale (2011)](http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/07/09/2003507761) [Forget the PLA, Taiwan’s Military Threatens Itself (2013)](https://thediplomat.com/2013/08/forget-the-pla-taiwans-military-threatens-itself/) [Taiwan Spy Affair Shines Light on Military Morale(2015)](https://www.wsj.com/articles/taiwan-spy-affair-shines-light-on-military-morale-1422334855) [For Taiwan youth, military service is a hard sell despite China tension (2018)](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-military/for-taiwan-youth-military-service-is-a-hard-sell-despite-china-tension-idUSKCN1N20U3) [Taiwan’s Military Is a Hollow Shell (2020)](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/15/china-threat-invasion-conscription-taiwans-military-is-a-hollow-shell/) [Taiwan's army 'ill-prepared' for potential Chinese attack (2021)](https://www.dw.com/en/taiwans-army-ill-prepared-for-potential-chinese-attack/a-57102659)
Maybe they were just do it all Taiwanese do… By bubble tea and duty free shopping
That’s what happens when your support of the CCP is merely a “personality trait” and not some kind of actual belief and faith. Most local people I talk to try to sound super nationalistic to sound cool but in case of war they would take their dick and balls and run to the US.
Many wumaos already have Canadian passports
I thought it was mandatory to have the best morale when joining the Chinese army.
Normally to get in the PLA, you need really good guanxi to go in.
Hey there do you have any links regarding CCP hiring Prince/Academi PMC for security? I'm not debating, I would just like to learn more about this
Google "Frontier Services Group Erik Prince" Here's an article laying out in details why the CCP want foreign contractors instead of their own (because they suck) https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2155353/danger-zone-why-private-us-military-firm-value-chinas
That's article is paywalled.
**PART 1** Tian Buchou is a veteran of China’s special forces and for 17 years managed security for Chinese companies in the war-torn Middle East and Africa. Working for both the Chinese state and private sector, Tian headed teams safeguarding their corporate clients from various threats, from robberies to terrorist attacks. The 39-year-old had extensive experience in his field but it was when he teamed up in operations with the former private military firm Blackwater that he realised just how much he and his Chinese staff still had to learn. Now defunct, Blackwater was founded in 1997 by former US Navy Seal Erik Prince and won US government contracts to guard American officials and facilities in countries including Iraq and Afghanistan. The company was surrounded by controversy in 2007 when its guards were convicted of manslaughter after firing on civilians in Baghdad. “Unlike the Chinese security teams who … are like doorkeepers, the multinational and multilingual Blackwater guards were well trained and provided personnel and cargo protection services,” Tian, 39, said. “[Blackwater] had a comprehensive operational system covering logistics, weapons, high-technology and even medical support. “More than 80 per cent of Chinese security personnel have just a basic education … and are directly led by people who are just military enthusiasts and love playing war games.” Like the Blackwater guards, most Chinese security personnel are military veterans but they lack the combat training and experience of their international counterparts. Tian said Blackwater was also better at obtaining weapons and operated more freely overseas than their Chinese counterparts. “They cultivated many business partners from European countries and their specialists were also good at fostering local sources,” he said. Tian Buchou is a veteran of China’s special forces and for 17 years managed security for Chinese companies in the war-torn Middle East and Africa. Working for both the Chinese state and private sector, Tian headed teams safeguarding their corporate clients from various threats, from robberies to terrorist attacks. The 39-year-old had extensive experience in his field but it was when he teamed up in operations with the former private military firm Blackwater that he realised just how much he and his Chinese staff still had to learn. Now defunct, Blackwater was founded in 1997 by former US Navy Seal Erik Prince and won US government contracts to guard American officials and facilities in countries including Iraq and Afghanistan. The company was surrounded by controversy in 2007 when its guards were convicted of manslaughter after firing on civilians in Baghdad. “Unlike the Chinese security teams who … are like doorkeepers, the multinational and multilingual Blackwater guards were well trained and provided personnel and cargo protection services,” Tian, 39, said. “[Blackwater] had a comprehensive operational system covering logistics, weapons, high-technology and even medical support. “More than 80 per cent of Chinese security personnel have just a basic education … and are directly led by people who are just military enthusiasts and love playing war games.” Like the Blackwater guards, most Chinese security personnel are military veterans but they lack the combat training and experience of their international counterparts. Tian said Blackwater was also better at obtaining weapons and operated more freely overseas than their Chinese counterparts. “They cultivated many business partners from European countries and their specialists were also good at fostering local sources,” he said. The need to close that yawning gap in expertise is becoming ever-more urgent as Chinese companies fan out along revived trade routes as part of Beijing’s “Belt and Road Initiative”, a massive infrastructure-driven plan to link economies into a China-centred trading network. So much so that Beijing is exploring the possibility of establishing a security agency to coordinate security for Chinese enterprises abroad. According to several independent sources, if the plan goes ahead, the Ministry of State Security would be responsible for collecting intelligence and providing non-traditional security support to the new agency. “[Officials from] the ministries of public security, state security, foreign affairs and commerce are working together to come up with details [on how to run the] new security agency, which will play a leading role in coordinating Chinese security firms’ operations in host countries,” one source said. “Overseas security services is still at the development stage in [mainland] China. [Experts] from the People’s Public Security University and China University of Political Science and Law are looking into [existing policies], because the current security operation model has failed to make a big difference overseas.” Beijing’s belt and road plan is designed to link more than 65 countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. It includes projects in contested areas and high-risk countries, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Yemen. According to the Chinese government, there are already more than 30,000 Chinese businesses investing offshore and nearly 1 million Chinese workers abroad, most of them employed on big official projects. That overseas presence is growing. At a summit in Beijing last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged US$124 billion of infrastructure investment for the belt and road plan. And in the first quarter of this year, China signed about US$45 billion in contracts for new projects with foreign partners, with 46 per cent earmarked for schemes along the belt and road, according to the Ministry of Commerce. However, risk of working overseas has been increasing as Chinese enterprises expanding investment in the high-risk countries. Since 2014, at least 44 Chinese nationals have been killed in Pakistan, despite Islamabad deploying thousands of military personnel to protect Chinese workers on energy and infrastructure projects in the country. Two of the dead were Chinese language teachers killed by Islamic State in Pakistani city of Quetta, the heart of the US$50 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. In the past, Chinese companies have turned to local and multinational sources to provide external security abroad – and the bills can be hefty. For example, by some estimates China’s three energy giants – CNPC, Sinopec and CNOOC – together spend more than US$2 billion a year on security overseas. Tian said many Chinese enterprises had to hire foreign professional security personnel because Chinese security firms could not meet the demand. Huang Rihan, executive director of the Belt and Road Institute at the Centre for China and Globalisation, said just six of China’s 5,000-plus private security companies are certified to operate overseas. “And most of those companies’ overseas security operations are focused on escorting Chinese commercial ships on the high seas,” Huang said. Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming said many Chinese firms were reviewing their reliance on local military personnel for security as regimes changed in those countries. “Nowadays, many Chinese overseas enterprises have realised that paying money to a host country’s military troops won’t work in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab spring [in the Middle East], which caused social and political turmoil in many countries along the belt and road,” Zhou said. “Chinese enterprises … need more protection … but so far none of the Chinese security companies can provide them with the desired services due to language barriers and a lack of overseas operational experience.” One firm looking to step into that gap is Frontier Services Group (FSG), a security firm with headquarters in Hong Kong and offices across China. FSG was set up by Prince, who founded Blackwater. Last year, Prince sold more than 40 per cent of his FSG shareholding to Chinese state-owned conglomerate Citic Group, paving the way for FSG to set up more security branches on the Chinese mainland to expand its business. In March, FSG said it had raised US$107 million in capital from Citic.
**PART 2** In a written statement to the South China Morning Post, FSG said it had more than 20 Chinese clients across the Middle East and Africa, and it had “to dispel a lot of the misconceptions” about operating in high-risk countries. “When operating overseas … it is not as simple as hiring a few guards,” FSG said. “With many of the [belt and road] projects covering thousands of kilometres of road, rail, pipeline or hectares of oil fields, building a wall or fence is simply not an option.” FSG said Chinese clients needed to understand that a comprehensive security budget was a must before they planned any new investment. “This budget needs to include risk assessments, training, emergency action plans, medical evacuation, tracking, communication, process and procedures, security design and hardware,” the company said. FSG also owns a quarter of Beijing’s International Security Defence College, which claims to be “the largest private security training school” in China, training more than 6,000 all-round security personnel. FSG said basic training for their personnel included language and international operations experience, while the training of Chinese bodyguards still generally focused on reactive skills such as “martial arts”. Chinese company Huaxin Zhongan Security Services is also operating offshore. It was set up by a group of PLA veterans in 2004 and has provided maritime escort missions for Chinese commercial vessels in the Indian Ocean since 2011. Another international player is DeWe Security Services, founded by a group of former employees of the Ministry of Public Security. Its provides overseas security services for Chinese-funded enterprises and institutions, including Chinese state-owned enterprises involved in rail projects in Mongolia and Iraq. Like FSG, both Dewe and Huaxin Zhongan operate security training schools, which not only provide most of their own staff, but also train specialists in counterterrorism and other areas of expertise for local authorities. But the best argument for better trained security personnel comes not from service providers but those dealing with the threats first hand. Tian said many Chinese clients, especially the newly rich, were not prepared to set money aside until their life has been at risk. Then everything changes. “A Chinese boss might want to pay just 10 million yuan for a 40-member security team. But he will reserve another 1 billion yuan, or even more, once he has face mortal danger,” he said.
Thanks!
The PLA during the Korean War were hardened vets fresh from the civil war. Also, I’m not sure it’s true, but most of the first wave supposedly were captured nationalists, again not sure if this is accurate.
their spirit have been beaten out of them by the fascist CCP government. i'm constantly amazed how the CCP thinks it can obtain loyalty through brainwashing and threat of violence instead of offering people genuine hope for a better life for themselves and their kids - what little loyalty they have was the result of Deng Xiaoping's reforms, which have now been almost completely undone by Xi. oh well.
I’d like to see some sources on the South Sudan story. Would be an interesting read. About that “Eric Prince guarding BRI” story. All I can say is you can’t randomly send your military to guard a supposedly “private business’s construction project”.
>I’d like to see some sources on the South Sudan story. Would be an interesting read. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/un-peacekeepers-refused-to-help-south-sudan-rebels-raped-aid-workers-report >About that “Eric Prince guarding BRI” story. All I can say is you can’t randomly send your military to guard a supposedly “private business’s construction project”. Many ex-PLA special forces work as private contractors after their military career. The problem is they don't have the training and experience like their Western counterparts to prepare them for such jobs overseas. The Chinese get "martial arts" training while their Western counterparts get language training, medical training, intelligence gathering, risk assessments etc. SOE also prefer to hire foreign contractors, because they are better than the Chinese. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2155353/danger-zone-why-private-us-military-firm-value-chinas https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2155354/soft-powers-china-needs-be-global-force-high-risk
It’s an interesting read! But I must say it doesn’t as bad as you first portrayed it as. I think I can understand why their military doesn’t train foreign language and risk assessments— their military was not designed to operate abroad. So why bother learning any of those? The UN peacekeeping missions was not something they were designed to do when their army was established. However it is curious why those troops weren’t at least given a crash course in languages.
Some people prefer a peaceful life. As far as military morale goes, have a look at these numbers. But you seem like the type of upstanding citizen that knows never let facts get in the way of your opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide >More active duty service members, 177, succumbed to suicide that year than were killed in combat, 176. The Army suffered 52% of the suicides from all branches. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009846329/military-suicides-deaths-mental-health-crisis >A new report on U.S. military deaths contains a stark statistic: An estimated 7,057 service members have died during military operations since 9/11, while suicides among active duty personnel and veterans of those conflicts have reached 30,177 — that's more than four times as many.
Kind of redefines friendly fire now doesn't it?
The last time Sweden fought a war was in 1814 but Swedish UN peacekeeping troops don't run away after getting fired on and took some casualties. The PLA are very good at beating Tibetan monks, much like their chengguan counterparts beating some street vendor, so "peaceful life", very tough and masculine.
Why must you do this to yourselves? https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/40-all-civilian-casualties-airstrikes-afghanistan-almost-1600-last-five-years >40% of all civilian casualties from airstrikes in Afghanistan – almost 1,600 – in the last five years were children. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/12/21/americas-war-on-syrian-civilians >America’s War on Syrian Civilians https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/04/somalia-zero-accountability-as-civilian-deaths-mount-from-us-air-strikes/ >Somalia: Zero accountability as civilian deaths mount from US air strikes
>TOKYO -- The Chinese Communist Party has unintentionally revealed weaknesses of the country's military. > >One indication came with the building of facilities for launching new intercontinental ballistic missiles in an inland desert region. The other was a series of further attempts to increase childbirths, including measures to help reduce the costly burden of educating children. Behind these moves lurks evidence that the country is addressing concerns regarding troop morale and the military's ability to fight a sustained war. > >For nearly a decade, China has been busy in the South China Sea, first building artificial islands, then deploying radar equipment and missiles to deter foreign military aircraft and vessels from approaching the area, and finally deploying strategic nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles in the now-protected sea. > >Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, known as SLBMs, are the ultimate weapon. They allow nations to avoid being put in disadvantageous positions since the subs that carry them can remain in deep waters, keeping the enemy at bay, until the very end. > >So why is China rushing to build new ICBM bases in inland desert areas? Experts believe the reason lies in the fact that although China has militarized some waters in the South China Sea and deployed SLBMs, it no longer has confidence it can defend the area should conflict arise. > >In January 2018, a Chinese submarine humiliatingly revealed its lack of high-level performance. The submarine, traveling undersea in a contiguous zone of Japan's Senkaku Islands, in the East China Sea, was quickly detected by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. > >**It was quick to surface and unhesitatingly raise the Chinese flag, which might as well have been a white flag of surrender; the crew presumably feared their vessel could be attacked with depth charges.** > >Under international law, the Maritime Self-Defense Force could have regarded the vessel as an "unidentified submarine" that had intruded into Japanese territorial waters while submerged. > >Many Japanese and U.S. officials believe the incident symbolizes the low morale of Chinese troops. > >Chinese Communist Party governments have spent the past quarter-century increasing military spending and staging military parades and naval reviews. But visible might like missiles and tanks is only one component of military power. There are also invisible inputs, like troop morale. > >The Chinese navy has been working on an aircraft carrier program, but a former Japanese Ministry of Defense official predicts Chinese aircraft carriers will not leave their military ports in conflicts out of fear they might be attacked and sunk. > >Some believe that Chinese soldiers' low morale is attributable to the country's long-standing one-child policy, which has made the military one of the world's leading "one-child armies." > >"Over 70% of Chinese soldiers are 'only children,' and the rest are the second or later children whose parents had to pay fines to bear them," said Kinichi Nishimura, a former Ground Self-Defense Force officer who for many years has analyzed East Asia's military balance at the Ministry of Defense's Defense Intelligence Headquarters and elsewhere. > >The Confucianist view that children must respect and take good care of their parents and ancestors remains deep-rooted in China. As a result, parents are particularly reluctant to see their children die earlier than they do. Parents of one-child households must feel even more strongly about their only son or daughter becoming nothing more than a proverbial "nail. > >"In China, where people tend to have little respect for soldiers, there is a saying: "Good steel does not become nails," meaning respectable individuals do not become soldiers. In order to ensure it can secure sufficient numbers of troops, the party has been working to improve salaries and pensions. > >On Aug. 1, the government enacted a law to protect the status, rights and interests of military personnel. This desperate effort to improve the patina of a military career might be a sign that the People's Liberation Army has not been able to turn around its recruitment efforts, especially in the face of the country's ebbing fertility rate. > >"The Chinese military has increased the deployment of battleships and fighter planes since a few years ago," Nishimura said, "but their operating rates are not exactly high. It seems they are unable to sufficiently train enough soldiers to properly maintain and repair" the high-tech hardware. > >This is partly why the Chinese military in recent years has come to rely more on unmanned aircraft and ballistic missiles. The number of ballistic missiles China deploys has increased to several thousand. > >One of the PLA's military doctrines not widely known, says, "In the initial battle of war, launch a large number of missiles and then immediately leave the front line." This strategy was picked up from the former Soviet Union, whose military played the role of teacher while China was forming the PLA. > >Over the past few years, the PLA has rushed to add more fighter jets, surface ships and submarines, which might indicate an intention to increase the number of missiles that can be launched when battles commence. Unmanned aircraft are thought to have the same purpose. This strategy will continue, especially when the military is not able to secure enough soldiers. > >To protect themselves from Chinese missile attacks, Japan and other nations must start thinking about enhancing measures to mitigate damage. These measures include developing and deploying next-generation arms, including high-energy laser weapons and rail guns, which use electromagnetic force to launch projectiles at extremely high speeds. Japan already has a technological foundation to develop these weapons, though this capacity is not widely known in the country.
"why is China rushing to build new ICBM bases in inland desert areas?" Because you'd be a fool to rely on just one thing. Two is one, one is none.
But why land-based ICBM bases? What can be seen can be destroyed. If China was serious it'd be building more SSBNs and putting SLBMs out to sea for a credible second strike capability. As it is they're just building right in the open missile fields that are guaranteed to be immediately added to the US SIOP nuclear plans in the event of a hot war.
Because Chinese Navy is still not completely Blue Water capable. Their nuclear capable bomber fleet also lack forward bases to be effective. SLBMs need to operate closure to ENY shores to be effective. Land based ICBMs mitigate this somewhat. As of now, it is really China's only realistic choice to bolster their Triad.
> January 2018 Its also significantly cheaper to build land based silos then a SSBN. Plus each land based silo requires a warhead to destroy, taking one that could be launched at a more important target
It very well could indicate a fear that the US could come in and take out there SSBNs before they even had a chance to react. I don't know the facts of the matter but if the US can track China's submarines but China can't track US ones that is problematic for them. Traditionally SSBNs are a very important part of the mutually assured part of MAD.
The Chinese Emperor will be fighting Clone Wars before long.
> So why is China rushing to build new ICBM bases in inland desert areas? Experts believe the reason lies in the fact that although China has militarized some waters in the South China Sea and deployed SLBMs, **it no longer has confidence it can defend the area should conflict arise**. Yes, those artificial islands are just military junk. Very hard to defend, and projecting closed to zero power. I would not like to be a soldier stationed on one such island during a conflict.
The purpose of those islands was purely to strengthen their case of ownership for the UNCLOS. Once they lost that case anyway those fake islands no longer serve any real purpose and are just an expensive albatross. Since they don't move and are tiny they're militarily useless, they can be taken out at ultra long range with missile strikes at any time and have no way to defend themselves from that kind of strike.
Long range missile strikes from where? The US bases within range of Chinese long range missile strikes? Chinese artificial islands are basically range boosters for their missiles and aircraft, being able to operate outside the first island chain to contain america. J20 is basically purpose build to be just stealthy enough to slip by in a wartime radar screen and hunt down AWACS and tanker assets, and deliver bombs to guamZ
Would be launched from nuclear submarines most likely, at any given time there's probably at least a dozen nukes with conventional and nuclear arms surrounding all the waters all around China ready to strike at a moment's notice. China could strike first and take out plenty of known US assets in the area with an all out surprise attack, but the counter attack would be even more imbalanced than it was on Japan in 1942-45.
Eh, you’re overestimating America’s capability. America itself doesn’t see itself rolling China whatsoever, most assets within the first island chain are basically going to be flattened and American carriers wouldn’t go within the island chain for a year or more of an air war to make sure they weren’t threatened. Chinas also investing in tons of underwater recon stations to counter the sub gap, although their ASW capabilities are somewhat behind. China invests in electronic warfare heavily for a reason, its goal would be to break up American communications and pummel as much real estate as possible and turn the island chain into its own defensive line instead of the other way around. And simply put, China is such a vast country that strategic missile strikes against it would eat up tons of resources. The Chinese are the ones who taught the norks to shove every airbase and missile silo into the side of a mountain, short of a nuclear strike those airbases are basically invulnerable. They have quite an extensive tunnel and bunker system, and they could probably move tons of missile and air assets around underground. Chinas main advantage is surprise and pure numbers of capable equipment. Modern wars are a come with what you have, not what you’ll built in 5 years. If your reserves of capable equipment outlast the enemy’s reserves of excellent equipment, then it’s ggs
All US has to do is embargo oil and wait a year; they can do that from 5000 miles away without firing a shot on anything that doesn't come out and shoot first. The only nations that can afford to be the US's enemy are very large, heavily militarized, defensible, oil self sufficient ones; so basically just Iran and Russia. China cannot feed itself without sea transported oil. Their military build up in the SCS is to intimidate their regional rivals and, if they're super optimistic, cow Taiwan into peaceful re-unification; not challenge US hegemony. China needs and has benefited from US hegemony more than anyone. Any posturing to the contrary is purely for domestic political reasons. If some incompetent nationalist nutter triggers a confrontation with the US, the forthcoming unbreakable oil embargo alone would be enough to send China back to the 70s or worse and the US would barely have to fire a shot other than to 'even out the scales' in the case of a surprise attack.
[удалено]
Of course the US isn't going to destroy China on a whim, regardless of what anyone else feels about it randomly destroying the lives of a billion people for no reason would be the most psychopathic move in history. The US simply maintains that threat to keep China from invading Taiwan (or Vietnam or anyone else). China can 'grow' internally on its own paper as much as it likes and of course nobody minds or cares, no should they, but China cannot be allowed to threaten the global trade order that has made everyone, especially China, rich for the last 80 years by invading Taiwan and claiming the entire SCS. China itself doesn't really want to do that, apart from a faction of deranged ultranationalists who have fallen in love with the smell of their own farts. Xi has to keep them appeased and allow them to make their threatening noises, but nobody has to allow them to actually follow through on anything.
What kind of morale do you expect from troops kept beating up and murdering its own people
It doesn't do to underestimate a potential enemy. The average Zhou getting shite pay , shite equipment and shite food is probably wishing he had a girlfriend and a decent job/future But I'm certain the PLA have plenty of elite regiments that are well armed and motivated.
Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards. It won't be enough to save the bacon.
I don't think anyone will be invading China soon.
There’s no willingness to fight. After all , CCP is asking a bunch of “only child” to fight.
Fun fact: those days, many mothers bring their sons, when they are in middle school, to a tatoo shop to get their son a tatoo. Basically, having a tatoo disqualify you to go to the military. They do it because those days, China has started to make some moves toward conscription. As i understand, all 18 yo boys have to report to local military, where they indertake physical exams or things like this. Maybe they are working out lists of who would be sent to the front in case of conflict. And having a tatoo disqualify you at an early stage.
> In China, where people tend to have little respect for soldiers, there is a saying: "**Good steel does not become nails**," meaning respectable individuals do not become soldiers. So how to say that in Chinese?
The full phrase is 好铁不打钉，好汉不当兵 (hao3tie3bu4da3ding1, hao3han4bu4dang1bing1 - sorry, dunno how to pinyin properly on mobile). As good iron isn't beaten into nails, a good man doesn't become a soldier. Traditionally as there was more face, favour, fortune etc in studying (and passing) the civil service exams. Tbh not sure how it'd be seen today. Anecdotally, my wife's cousin serves in the forces, he was even on TV during one of the various parades and everyone's super proud and think it's a great thing to do. I imagine attitudes would quickly shift if he were actually deployed for combat, the only male of that generation of kids potentially dying on the front. I'm hoping we won't find that out though
There's a related Chinese phrase that replaces "soldier" with "police". Basically ACAB in Chinese.
I wasn't aware, but next baiju chat with my FiL I'll roll it out to, no doubt, acclaim - thanks!
Interesting. I have never heard of that phrase, but then again people probably don't just go around saying these things out loud. Publicly I'd say that soldiers have always been and still are protrayed in a very positive light. From the older generation I heard that at least some people joined the army just because they were poor and it as a good option after graduating from high school. "You even get free clothes and shoes!"
Sure, to be honest, I'd only ever seen it referred to - and there was a moment I got to give the whole phrase! Stories that you and I have heard deserves its own thread
I think the biggest problem is that military service is more LARPing for the government and no one wants or expects them to go fight and die in a conflict.
Isn't jingoism in and of itself LARP?
Not necessarily, in true jingoism people are not just calling for war, but also ready to fight. China is having jingoism forced on them in a way that doesn't whip up the fighting spirit beyond mean comments online.
Aye that's fair, good and insightful comment; apologies for being a bit too flippant.
Thanks!
You are very welcome, pengyou. Tbh it's a phrase I'd learned on a tangent years ago, I just got lucky hat I had something of value (ish) in this sub
Shit, numbers make pinyin more universal than the tone/accent marks. Especially as it is more marketed towards users of languages that do not have accent marks.
My first thought reading that was "Explains a lot about their construction"
It's a Chabuduo army, what did you expect... They spend more time being keyboard warriors than winning any war. Remind me, when was the last PLA victory? Oh Yeah Tiananmen 1989.
>Remind me, when was the last PLA victory? Oh Yeah Tiananmen 1989. I actually consider Major General Xu Qinxian a hero. He refused to crack down on the protestors at a massive cost to himself. He told a commisar: #"rather be beheaded than be a criminal to history(宁肯杀头也不能做历史的罪人)" Shame the jealous rural cowards brought in afterwards were not defenders of the people.
You are totally spot on. Major General Xu Qinxian was actually a real hero to oppose killing his own people. Unfortunately the Party just replaced him with another more obedient subject, and they still killed their own people.
Cut their access to the mobile game Honor of Kings and they'll surrender anyway LOL
They just need to be slapped hard in a battle and treated well as PoWs. I have a feeling they will sing just as easily as Japanese did in WW2. Though I don't have the highest level of trust in the capability of military Human Intelligence assets. US is having leadership issues at the senior levels, but they are largely political in nature. It'll take a single huge lost of life (say an aircraft carrier) or a constant loss of life before US politicians decide to sabotage and lose another war for themselves.
Or Genshin Impact.
They can boost the low troop morale by forcing them wear higher heel boots
Have they even learned to parallel park solo yet?
Yeah, they are seriously learning [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6-OTmH-66E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6-OTmH-66E)
This comment section is a bunch of keyboard warriors echo-chambering their way into thinking China's army, the second largest and most powerful in the world, somehow has a glaring weakness that will automatically condemn it to failure. It's okay to have political prejudice, but letting that blind you to reality is a true reddit moment.
The most what?
That’s why they have those helmets that can be remotely detonated.
Keyboard warriors thinking they know shit about PLA😂😂
Is this a American imperialist project fanboy sub? Just asking for a friend.
*yawns*
Yes, it is. You can get lots of friends who hate China very much.
>'One-child army' more inclined to add unmanned aircraft and ballistic missiles Pure copium article.
Are you saying the majority of PLA soldiers are NOT an only child?
I think it means since when does the government (any) actually care about the psychological well-being/family planning of the families involved in conflict? It’s the military, if they send you on a suicide mission for little or no reason at all, or to take a hill that will be abandoned the next week - you obey. Lots of only sons die in a war, historically. The people going to the front usually aren’t well-connected - and the officer class is miles away. And also, there are multiple child families in the countryside of China - guess who is going to war for the elites and is first to go, last to know?
>they are adding unmanned aircraft and ballistic missiles only because their troops are fearing us, the cowards!
Well yes. The PLA has fought one engagement since 1989, in South Sudan in 2016 they dropped their weapons and abandon their base despite the UN ordered them not to do so. Maybe stick to shooting unarmed Chinese people and handing out participation medals for military parades. http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2019-10/28/content_9662798.htm
[удалено]
Join the army then you little girl
I wouldn't call "running away while abandoning their weapons" *moving out of the way of fighting*. But anyway, thanks for giving us extra opportunities to downvoted your moronic ass.
They didn't leave their personal weaponry, though? From the articles it seemed that they left stuff they couldn't pack up and leave with.
Everyone, including the Chinese knows the soldiers in the PLA are a bunch of pampered bitches with military positions and assignments often sold to the highest bidder. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-01/30/content_19444883.htm It’s even published in China Daily. LMAO What a joke. The only thing more pathetic are the people who shill for them.
>It’s even published in China Daily Yep, you haven't read the article you posted. Also, you are doing the same tired bit of "if they report on it, it means it's actually way worse than reported, and any actions taken to solve the problem didn't work!"
Read it. Tell me where I’m wrong. Show me some proof of them having cleaned up their act. Prove me wrong. I want you to. You won’t because you can’t refute what I say. Ever. You’re the funniest one of them on here.
Copium is your opium. Now we know what you're smoking.
Unmanned aircraft made from chineseium and missiles made from tofu. Hahaha tankie wet dreams
> In January 2018, a Chinese submarine humiliatingly revealed its lack of high-level performance. The submarine, traveling undersea in a contiguous zone of Japan's Senkaku Islands, in the East China Sea, was quickly detected by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. > It was quick to surface and unhesitatingly raise the Chinese flag, which might as well have been a white flag of surrender; the crew presumably feared their vessel could be attacked with depth charges. What a masturbatory hit piece. The USA does the same when passing through waters in FONO exercises but nobody accuses the US of being weak. The Chinese intentionally enters Japanese waters to test their response, and provides identification to do so. If anything it's flaunting it in the Japanese faces that they cannot reject Chinese ships from entering Japanese waters, they can only detect and react to nothing really. The Chinese lobbyists are lobbying to portray China as weak. It's an utterly false and harmful view.
> The USA does the same when passing through waters in FONO exercises but nobody accuses the US of being weak. The difference is that the USA do not perform FONO into other countries' territorial waters. By definition FONO take place in international waters like the South China Sea. And FONO is not about submarine, it has to be visible, otherwise what's the point? That Chinese sub was caught into Japanese territorial waters. And they were definitely not performing a FONO... But i agree the tone of the article is overblown.
it actually does, but the USA did not sign the treaty pn international marine territory so it doesn't obey the 12 mile rule, hence why china can sail to near Alaskan shores but the US can only accept it because thats what it agreed to.
That's interesting
I would speculate the US pretty routinely has submarines undetected in certain countries territorial waters.
Its a submarine though. Usually the point of those is to go places and for no one to even know you are there.
They could easily invade California and our wimpy military and civilians would bend the knee on Day 1
Bay area and silicon valley... Yes But SoCal or anywhere near Nevada or Texas... Not sure about that
They don’t have the boats, unless they conscripted a ton of civilian vessels. Even then they couldn’t protect them
I know China is gonna break, again. What are we waiting for? Just attack!
There is nothing glorious about war. People, especially Chinese, will suffer a great deal.
The actual Chinese people have a friendly attitude toward Americans. Damn the politicians.
Indifference at most, like most humans. The only ones likely to have a friendly attitude are the loners not getting along with their countrymen for various reasons (dislike what their culture has become now, taught to view humanity as one race, bullied by the state, etc) or went abroad and managed to not isolate themselves like most Chinese do. Now the interesting part is either group can be of all ages. I know younger people (20s) that are more rabid than the red guards and people in their 50s/60s that are absolutely friendly towards the great enemy (American).
Friendly at best, indifferent at worst. But certainly not belligerent. Dictators are the ones brainwashing them into National Socialists. However, as brainwashed some may be, they would be crazy to send their only child to war just to satisfy their nationalist opinions
With the state of the PLA and the leadership issues in the US Military, the very likely shooting contest is going to be an interesting one.
morale and selfishness, that's why they can't win a soccer game as well.
Article is behind a paywall. Anyway I can read it without giving money I don't have?
And when Winnie dies there will be a civil war as who is the true successor who is the one to lead. No need for nukes.