"China is America’s Military Equal Now And In Any Future Fight, Marine General Warns."

J

Jack Grealish

Verified User
The War Zone published an article yesterday titled "China is America’s Military Equal Now And In Any Future Fight, Marine General Warns." This type of news is not particularly new—every so often, some U.S. military general makes similar remarks on some occasion, most of which can be interpreted as an attempt to secure more budget funding. What I find more interesting is the comment section, as it offers a glimpse into how ordinary Americans view issues related to the possibility of war with China.

Over the past ten years or so (with the starting point of the current state of U.S.-China relations roughly around the end of 2016), after reading through a considerable number of comment sections on similar topics, I think it is entirely reasonable to draw the following conclusion:

——“The One-China principle once served as the cornerstone for the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States. Yet today, this foundation has completely dissolved in the perception of the American people.”

In all discussions of such issues, whenever any American (or Chinese) brings up what should be a clear and unambiguous U.S. official position, someone immediately steps forward to oppose it. People oppose this view so strongly and with such firm resolve that it has almost become like a rat crossing the street—something everyone disapproves of.

For American professional diplomats—or researchers who advise the government—with a strong background in the relevant knowledge, all the details of the Taiwan issue should not have been a difficult matter on which to reach a conclusion. It is simply not that complicated. Yet there is a certain disconnect here: while in the world of professionals, people understand the essence of the Taiwan issue, in the world directed at the American public—and in order to generate sufficient public support (support aimed at pressuring China on the Taiwan issue)—the narrative on Taiwan has been completely tilted toward portraying it as "a sovereign and independent country." This situation has persisted for a long time and has created a popular inclination that is now almost irreversible.

This fragile structure will eventually break down one day. The framework—crafted with some ingenuity at the outset to serve the dual purpose of establishing formal diplomatic relations with China while generating enough public support for the U.S. government to apply pressure on China over the Taiwan issue, pressure that has no moral basis to exist in the first place—this ambiguous strategy on Taiwan will ultimately be unable to maintain its ambiguity due to the overwhelmingly one-sided direction of American public opinion.

When that time comes, people will witness a reckless U.S. president—under pressure to divert attention from personal scandals, acting on lobbying from a foreign government (here, of course, referring to Japan), and operating under a miscalculation of the likely outcome of a war (as a considerable number of Americans still view the Chinese military as a paper tiger)—making a very rash decision, thinking to themselves, "This won't be a problem. Let's do it."

Compared to such recklessness, President Trump—who is so often criticized today—could almost be regarded as a cautious, calm, and deeply thoughtful saint.

President Trump is reportedly set to visit Beijing this month, and for that he deserves some applause. I don't want to repeat the line about "being at a crossroads in history," but at least so far, no disaster has occurred. If Trump succeeds in visiting China, that would be a very good thing—after all, it has been ten years since a U.S. president last visited China.
 
China hasn't fought a war since Korea in the early 50's. While I think its manpower is a bit better than Russian conscripts, an army with no experience in the field often is one that doesn't do well in war.

That observation aside, I doubt China and the US will fight some sort of world war. Neither has much to benefit from an all-out war.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
China hasn't fought a war since Korea in the early 50's. While I think its manpower is a bit better than Russian conscripts, an army with no experience in the field often is one that doesn't do well in war.

That observation aside, I doubt China and the US will fight some sort of world war. Neither has much to benefit from an all-out war.
Click to expand...
American equipment is bad enough, Chinese equipment is ass.
China cannot make what Taiwan can, at all. They got the good stuff in Taiwan, China can't reverse engineer or replicate it.
China wants to take it, but it will be a loss if they do. It will be very bad. :(
 
T. A. Gardner said:
China hasn't fought a war since Korea in the early 50's. While I think its manpower is a bit better than Russian conscripts, an army with no experience in the field often is one that doesn't do well in war.

That observation aside, I doubt China and the US will fight some sort of world war. Neither has much to benefit from an all-out war.
Click to expand...
Only 1/3 of the Russian Army is concripts, and they are not allowed to serve in combat zones. The last war was with Vietnam in 1979.
 
Matt Dillon said:
American equipment is bad enough, Chinese equipment is ass.
China cannot make what Taiwan can, at all. They got the good stuff in Taiwan, China can't reverse engineer or replicate it.
China wants to take it, but it will be a loss if they do. It will be very bad. :(
Click to expand...
You tend to be wrong about everything......I keep finding you spewing Demonic Empire BullShit.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
You tend to be wrong about everything......I keep finding you spewing Demonic Empire BullShit.
Click to expand...
STFU, I'm American. I doubt you'd ever step your coward ass to me. And if you ever did? You would definitely regret it.
Illustrate the last thing I was wrong about, or go fuck yourself with a cactus, k? TIA!
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Only 1/3 of the Russian Army is concripts, and they are not allowed to serve in combat zones. The last war was with Vietnam in 1979.
Click to expand...
More like 4/5ths.

www.themoscowtimes.com

So You’ve Been Drafted Into the Russian Army. What Does That Mean? - The Moscow Times

Russia has launched the spring conscription of 160,000 servicemen, marking an increase from previous drafts amid its war on Ukraine and ongoing peace talks with Washington.
www.themoscowtimes.com www.themoscowtimes.com

nypost.com

Putin orders 135,000 men to join the military in largest fall draft in nine years

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered 135,000 men to be conscripted into the army, the largest autumn draft the Kremlin has ordered in nine years.
nypost.com nypost.com

en.defence-ua.com

Almost Three Years Into Full-Scale War, russian Young Conscripts Still Die in Ukraine | Defense Express

Overwhelmed by the mountain of the Kremlin's other war crimes, it seems as though the use of conscripted soldiers has faded into the background but russian mothers still need to search for their lost children and prove they had died in combat
en.defence-ua.com en.defence-ua.com

understandingwar.org

Explainer on Russian Conscription, Reserve, and Mobilization

The Russian military is a hybrid format combining a traditional cadre-and-reserve conscript system and a contract-professional system. While the Russian Army has made efforts to professionalize its ranks, particularly in the last 15 years, it remains reliant on conscripts, both for its...
understandingwar.org understandingwar.org
 
T. A. Gardner said:
China hasn't fought a war since Korea in the early 50's. While I think its manpower is a bit better than Russian conscripts, an army with no experience in the field often is one that doesn't do well in war.

That observation aside, I doubt China and the US will fight some sort of world war. Neither has much to benefit from an all-out war.
Click to expand...
Assessments of China's military capability do not depend on what a Chinese person like me says on some American forum. They depend on the ability of the Americans making those assessments—whether they can tell which information is real and which is false. I think, frankly, that the American people should be capable of recognizing that there is a force, or a group of people, that wants to mislead them into believing that China's military is very weak, that war with China would be easy, and that no serious consequences would follow. This is obvious enough.

Take the Iran war, for example. Every Chinese person knows that Iran has no Chinese weapons at all. The last time China sold weapons to Iran was nearly twenty years ago. The broader diplomatic environment makes it impossible for China to sell weapons to Iran. Almost all Chinese people—especially those who follow military affairs—know this. Yet on this forum, you can see how confidently people believe that Iran has Chinese-made weapons and that those weapons performed poorly in the war. Why is that? Clearly, there is a systematic effort to mislead the American people. Some people are doing this deliberately.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
China hasn't fought a war since Korea in the early 50's. While I think its manpower is a bit better than Russian conscripts, an army with no experience in the field often is one that doesn't do well in war.

That observation aside, I doubt China and the US will fight some sort of world war. Neither has much to benefit from an all-out war.
Click to expand...
IMO when we square of against china your going to see robot troops not humans
 
Jack Grealish said:
Assessments of China's military capability do not depend on what a Chinese person like me says on some American forum. They depend on the ability of the Americans making those assessments—whether they can tell which information is real and which is false. I think, frankly, that the American people should be capable of recognizing that there is a force, or a group of people, that wants to mislead them into believing that China's military is very weak, that war with China would be easy, and that no serious consequences would follow. This is obvious enough.

Take the Iran war, for example. Every Chinese person knows that Iran has no Chinese weapons at all. The last time China sold weapons to Iran was nearly twenty years ago. The broader diplomatic environment makes it impossible for China to sell weapons to Iran. Almost all Chinese people—especially those who follow military affairs—know this. Yet on this forum, you can see how confidently people believe that Iran has Chinese-made weapons and that those weapons performed poorly in the war. Why is that? Clearly, there is a systematic effort to mislead the American people. Some people are doing this deliberately.
Click to expand...
Well, I look at things from history. China doesn't have a history of doing well in warfare. Quite frankly I really put little stock in who sells weapons to whom. I look more at the history of that nation, region, people, and how they've done in warfare.

For example, China really hasn't had a navy since the Ming Treasure Fleet. That was impressive, but it was in like 1400 to 1450. They really didn't fight any serious naval battles and were more a fleet of trade and exploration. Today, China is building a navy. I'll give the engineers and such credit. They aren't building totally fucked ships like the Russians did in the late Soviet era, or even the last of the Czars era. The Russians turned out some incredibly crappy ships. What I'm saying is, building a fleet and taking it to sea effectively are two very different things.

China's doing better on that. But ships do not a navy make. Navies, like armies, run in good part on tradition.

It's not like America is some paragon of virtue either. Qian Xuesen is a great example of that. A brilliant Chinese mathematician living in the US during the 20's to 50's. During WW 2, he contributed significantly to US rocketry and missile programs. In the 50's with the Red scare, the US deported him back to China where he established China's ballistic missile program and became a national hero. America gave China just the man they needed when they needed him, and all due to racism.

Iran has some Chinese made weapons, or weapons designs like say, the HY-1 to 3 "Silkworm" missiles. Yes, Iran produces these and even has made modifications, but the originals are from China who copied them in whole or part from Russia. Iran has leftover US and British military technology they've improved on to some extent from the days of the Shah.

I get it. This is how the world works. It is normal in human history, and there's like 10,000 years of proof, that rivalries will exist and they will be bipolar or tripolar most of the time. What helps is when those rivalries aren't pushed to a point where the shooting starts but instead remain tense but cordial...? I think that's a good fit.

Weapons only work as good as the people wielding them. Iran doesn't exactly have a brain trust in that department and there's history (see, that keeps cropping up) to demonstrate that.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, I look at things from history. China doesn't have a history of doing well in warfare. Quite frankly I really put little stock in who sells weapons to whom. I look more at the history of that nation, region, people, and how they've done in warfare.

For example, China really hasn't had a navy since the Ming Treasure Fleet. That was impressive, but it was in like 1400 to 1450. They really didn't fight any serious naval battles and were more a fleet of trade and exploration. Today, China is building a navy. I'll give the engineers and such credit. They aren't building totally fucked ships like the Russians did in the late Soviet era, or even the last of the Czars era. The Russians turned out some incredibly crappy ships. What I'm saying is, building a fleet and taking it to sea effectively are two very different things.

China's doing better on that. But ships do not a navy make. Navies, like armies, run in good part on tradition.

It's not like America is some paragon of virtue either. Qian Xuesen is a great example of that. A brilliant Chinese mathematician living in the US during the 20's to 50's. During WW 2, he contributed significantly to US rocketry and missile programs. In the 50's with the Red scare, the US deported him back to China where he established China's ballistic missile program and became a national hero. America gave China just the man they needed when they needed him, and all due to racism.

Iran has some Chinese made weapons, or weapons designs like say, the HY-1 to 3 "Silkworm" missiles. Yes, Iran produces these and even has made modifications, but the originals are from China who copied them in whole or part from Russia. Iran has leftover US and British military technology they've improved on to some extent from the days of the Shah.

I get it. This is how the world works. It is normal in human history, and there's like 10,000 years of proof, that rivalries will exist and they will be bipolar or tripolar most of the time. What helps is when those rivalries aren't pushed to a point where the shooting starts but instead remain tense but cordial...? I think that's a good fit.

Weapons only work as good as the people wielding them. Iran doesn't exactly have a brain trust in that department and there's history (see, that keeps cropping up) to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...
From a historical perspective, I think Americans may have some misunderstandings. Certain questions—such as why China experienced a decline starting from the Ming and Qing dynasties, what was passed down during that decline, and what exactly is the spiritual core behind its subsequent rise—cannot be answered simply by looking at what is written in history books. There is something at the level of spirit or culture that gives the almost abrupt trajectory of Chinese history—from 1921 or even earlier, all the way to today in 2026—an internal logic and coherence.

One key factor is how to understand the Chinese revolution in the 20th century, and how to view Mao as well as the entire leadership of that period. This is the area where American information has been most heavily contaminated.

I think that even from a historical perspective, people may easily conclude on paper that "the Chinese are terrible at warfare." But the problem is that the Chinese military you are likely to face is one you probably do not recognize. It clearly has certain commendable traditions, but those traditions—along with their creators—have been deliberately distorted and demonized by Western historians. I am not very confident that people can understand everything about China today from a historical perspective.

But at the very least, if you are willing to think from a historical perspective, that already puts you at a deeper level of understanding than most ordinary Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top