How China's Military Views the United States

First rule of communist societies: rely on propaganda to fool the masses. (If propaganda doesn't work, a gun comes in handy.)

Of course we have a lengthy target list for Chinese assets in the event of war. I'm sure we have a lengthy target list for Russia, too. We would be foolish not to have one. Both are potential, if not likely, adversaries. And why would we target only things that would not hurt China? Do you not understand the concept of warfare? I doubt we would destroy cities unless they attacked our cities first. There are plenty of military targets available, especially with over 2 million soldiers, and hundreds of military ships and aircraft.

We do use a certain amount of "gunboat diplomacy" to serve as the world's policeman. If power is used wisely and with respect for other nations, there is nothing wrong with that. China is on the wrong side of the law with their "Nine Dashes" line claiming the South China Sea, and they are using false claims of U.S. expansionism to justify their actions. China makes their own rules for international relations, and it is up to other countries to stand their ground or be swept away. Unfortunately, the U.S. is the only country capable of standing up to them. Obviously, we have not claimed anything of value in the Pacific since the Korean War, we have built no reef islands to make claims on the ocean based on ownership from hundreds of years ago. And we have been humoring China over issues like Taiwan's independence (Taiwan, in reality, has been politically and geographically independent of China since 1947). Again, try not to fall for Chinese propaganda. When you read "Nanjing Army Command Academy" documents, it is a clear indicator that you are reading Chinese government propaganda.

Why don't you tell us about a recent claim by the U.S. on a massive section of the earth that no one else recognizes is ours? That would detail U.S. expansionism and prove that China is not pushing propaganda on us.

 

No one wants the U.S. to launch an all-out assault on China. However, it may be necessary to sink a few Chinese ships or shoot down a few aircraft if they persist in exceeding their authority in the South China Sea. China's military enjoys no significant advantage over the U.S. Their air force was humiliated by Thailand (!) not that long ago in a demonstration exercise--they may (or may not) have decent aircraft, but their pilots are poorly trained and do not know what they are doing. They are also overly reliant on missiles (something the U.S. did during the initial years of the Vietnam War, when we flew "Lead Sleds" against highly maneuverable Soviet aircraft). Their most dangerous avenue of attack is through the computer--they could probably shut down electric companies and utilities from coast to coast in a matter of hours.

 

I think it is very telling that Jinping feels a need to have "Magic Weapons", and that one of his weapons is "armed struggle". Peaceful victory does not seem to be an option. Victory through honest competition is not an option. The three magic weapons do not include the people's intelligence, diligence, persistence, or hard work, and they do not include diplomacy or transparency, or developing friendship with their neighbors. They need violence to be successful.

 

Russia is just as capable as China in killing millions of Americans with nuclear weapons. Neither wants to see what our nuclear weapons can do in return. With conventional weapons, I don't see either of them succeeding, even if they both attacked at the same time. We would survive the economic disruption--it would be temporary, just like coronavirus. Just think about how minor the economic disruption would be to France in 1938 (compared to what they experienced in 1940-1944) if they pushed Germany back to their agreed-upon military borders. With an aggressive opponent, it is better to let them know early that you are willing to fight if they go too far. The French did a lot of posturing during the Phony War, and that only emboldened Hitler.

The Chinese are intentionally taking small steps, both to avoid war, and to slowly condition us to accepting the idea that China taking things that don't belong to them is the way things are, and they way they will always be. Eventually, they will start taking entire countries much the way the Soviets did with eastern European countries. They will wait until they are weak, or they will slowly weaken them through economic means (stopping water flow down the Mekong River to Vietnam would be an example). Then they send in their tanks to "rescue" the government from the starving protesters, and set up a puppet government. It's part of the communist DNA--whatever you have, you need more; you just have to find the most clever way to take what you want.

 

Neither of those places has the population or military to do anything about China's expansionism. Singapore is not being threatened by China, is it? They are the most economically successful country in the South Pacific--I would say things in general are working out pretty well for them. You may have meant Taiwan or Tibet. The only reason that China has not invaded Taiwan is that Taiwan could probably hold off China (and its weak Navy) long enough to get help from the U.S. The U.S. prevented China from invading Taiwan in the early 1950's, with a stern warning from Truman to China at the outbreak of the Korean War (China had already planted spies at the highest levels of the Taiwanese military, and were ready to invade). Tibet, sadly, is too geographically isolated for any country to help them directly.

 

Technology without knowledge and experience is always a disaster. Look no further than Brazil in the early 1900's. They bought a couple of top-of-the-line dreadnought-type battleships from England around 1909. They had no idea how to operate them, how to train the crew, or even how to maintain discipline on the ships. A naval revolt after some sailors were whipped led to a mutiny on one of the ships, and caused the most powerful ship in Brazil to hold the entire country hostage for a time. Within two years, the ships had deteriorated so badly, with rusting turrets and boilers, that the ship's British manufacturer recommended they spend 700,000 pounds (over 10% of the purchase price) to clean them up. They didn't, and the ships were essentially incapable of operating in any combat situation, and they were scrapped a couple decades later. I don't think the knowledge and experience levels in China's military is as bad as Brazil's, but compared to ours, it is. And they have no recent experience with combat.

South American dreadnought race - Wikipedia

I have no idea what your last sentence meant. I'm sure it indicates that you don't like Trump, but other than that, the "gas station on an iceberg" analogy doesn't make sense.

 

Singapore is not slipping under anyone's thumb any time soon. Their goods may have a longer travel time to get to the U.S. if we cede control of the South China Sea to China, but they will survive it. Singapore is one of the best run and most intelligent countries on earth--they would say something if they were slipping under someone's thumb.

 

Hawaii became a U.S. territory in 1898, 122 years ago. It's original value was as a mid-point (with a deep-water port) between the U.S. and Japan / China; coal would be dropped off there and cargo ships would refill their coal stores at the mid-point of their journey. I would not call 1898 recent. More recent than Hawaii was Guam, but we had to take that during WWII to bomb Japan, and we kept it as a secure base ever since. Even that was almost 80 years ago--not very recent.