Europeans see China as greatest global threat

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

Just like how many missiles were pointed at the Soviet Union during the 60s. That was one hell of a war right? Whoops.

You're not very smart are you? MAD existed back then. WHere is Taiwan's missiles aimed? Oops, they don't have any, so why should CHina's be aimed at them?

You're still relying upon your slippery slope nonsense to just conclude that an invasion of Taiwan is imminent in the near future. You have no direct evidence of this other than China's usual beligerant posturing against Taiwan. You believe that since Event X has occured event Y must therefore follow. War doesn't just START. Their is a series of steps that must occur for a war as serious as this to occur and plenty of the puzzle pieces are still missing.

Not even close. I'm relying on China's own words on the subject, and their posture. Maybe yo missed that part? doubt it. You probably just have all that sand around your eyes! :p

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You're not very smart are you? MAD existed back then. WHere is Taiwan's missiles aimed? Oops, they don't have any, so why should CHina's be aimed at them?

Whoops! Red herring! Try reading into the argument a little more!

Not even close. I'm relying on China's own words on the subject, and their posture.

Two very reliable things as shown by history! lolamirite?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

Whoops! Red herring! Try reading into the argument a little more!

Why? THis simply invalidates your argument one more time, so there is no need.

Two very reliable things as shown by history! lolamirite?

They have. When a powerful state says they are going to do something, I've yet to see where they don't. Keep wishing for an angle, but in the end, you have none on this one.

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Why? THis simply invalidates your argument one more time, so there is no need.

Yes, you don't even know what a red herring is.

They have. When a powerful state says they are going to do something, I've yet to see where they don't. Keep wishing for an angle, but in the end, you have none on this one.

-S

Yup, no angle for me. I didn't read a single sensationalist article on the net and conclude that the war is right around the corner with the only thing to back it up being my vague statements, such as above.

You still have yet to show why this is more than just usual posturing on China's part. Clearly we need to start digging the bunkers and begining the conscription because China passed a law basically saying they hate Taiwan....again.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

Yes, you don't even know what a red herring is.

Please educate me. I'm sure everyone is waiting with baited breath for the answer.

Yup, no angle for me. I didn't read a single sensationalist article on the net and conclude that the war is right around the corner with the only thing to back it up being my vague statements, such as above.

You still have yet to show why this is more than just usual posturing on China's part. Clearly we need to start digging the bunkers and begining the conscription because China passed a law basically saying they hate Taiwan....again.

I don't need to show anything. What needs to be shown is how China's aggressive posturing 'is not a threat'. THat is what needs to be shown. When someone comes into a shop and threatens to shoot everyone, I usually take them seriously. Seems its normal biz for you - you must have some sort of Superman suit or something! :p

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't think China's going to do anything "imminently", but when 2020 comes round we'll see.

PD

[Skybird]

Okay guys, I started this thread so I am a bit responsible here.

Cool it down everybody please.

This thread is not so much about China, but European's assumptions and opinions as mentioned in the starting posting by me.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This thread is not so much about China, but European's assumptions and opinions as mentioned in the starting posting by me.

Well, it is about China, so the discussion should be why it is causing this untrustworthyness? Here is your report to the US Congress for 2008:

http://www.milnet.com/archives/China..._Report_08.pdf

-S

[bradclark1]

If or when China does anything with Taiwan it will be with such overwhelming force that the US would think twice about interfering and if we have to think twice we won't. They might figure the economics are worth the risk. All they have to say is they'll treat it like they did Hong Kong and 3/4 of the world will say "Oh well that OK then". It will boil down to whoever is the sitting President deciding whether its worth the possible destruction of a carrier group and politically he or she won't survive a loss that size. It will be a case of bluff or balls.
My 2 cents anyway.

[joegrundman]

Unless Taiwan declares full independence from China, and completely ends this strange word game about being an integral part of China (directly challenging a Chinese shibboleth), then there is little risk of an invasion, at least not for a long time.

Missiles not withstanding, China probably cannot successfully invade Taiwan even without direct US assistance anyway.

China is after economic progress in order to become a fully "rounded" power, as Subman would put it. It's economic progress so far has been sustained by trade, largely with the western countries and Japan. China is therefore a major stakeholder in the global system as it is, and would not benefit from reckless military actions. It only stands to lose. There is now a very large and influential business class in China that would be strongly against government actions that threaten their successes.

So what everyone hopes for is that we all continue to play this word game regarding the status of independent Taiwan - and that's moreorless what everyone does.

Ultimately, why shouldn't China modernise it's forces? It's not like the US isn't still modernising despite long since leaving everyone else's capability behind. As far as i know, this was a development provoked by the first Gulf War, which showed how out of date their military concepts had become. China of course is very keen not to exist at the whim of a vaguely hostile (and increasingly bellicose?) US.

Anyway this is just from a wiki thing, but this list of global military spending shows, if correct, what China's really looks like:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Global_a..._$1.2_trillion

United States $528.7-B
United Kingdom $59.2-B
France $53.1-B
China $49.5-B
Japan $43.7-B

which is to actually say less than 1/10th the US spending, not 1/4, scarcely more than Japan's, and less than France's.

[Trex]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

Anyway this is just from a wiki thing, but this list of global military spending shows, if correct, what China's really looks like:

which is to actually say less than 1/10th the US spending, not 1/4, scarcely more than Japan's, and less than France's.

Using raw stats is always dodgy. Assuming for the purpose of this discussion that the figures are correct (and SIPRI is generally reasonably accurate), consider a few things:

First, the relative costs of things in China and the USA. Note that there is no indication that those figures were put into equivalent dollars. The reason that China has such a booming economy is that it is far cheaper to build something there, using imported materials, then ship it to the other side of the world than it is to build the same item at point of sale. Consider the respective pay rates of a typical US soldier and a typical Chinese one. A dollar buys a lot more there than it does in the USA.

Second, Victor Suvarov, a defector from the USSR during the cold war, noted that all of the Soviet Union's military cost... nothing. In a communist system, raw materials, etc can be diverted to the military's use by a central planning commission and the 'costs' simply written off. Same-same in China, I suspect.

Thirdly, one of the biggest economic powers inside China is the PLA, which owns and operates dozens, if not hundreds, of factories. F-22s would cost a lot less if the USAF owned the plant making them.

[peterloo]

Not to mention that USA spent a part of the military expenditure on something that never pays off - the Iraq War

[joegrundman]

You make some good points: it is certainly not the case that all costs are equivalent.

However, i think at the high-tech end of the spectrum (which is where China is developing) the difference in cost is not so great as with the comparative pay of an infantryman.

And also Victor Suvorov's observation about the non-cost of a socialised military is not necessarily correct. Writing off costs is not the same as not having them, although i suppose your point is that it is difficult to know exactly what the real cost of China's military is. But still, Sovremenyy's get bought from Russia, and that costs dollars, which can be counted. And China as some sort of surrogate USSR for US fantasies don't wash either. Chinese workers don't work for nothing anymore, and PLA businesses are in business to make money, rather than to hide costs from the USA.

As an aside, it may interest you to know that in thailand also, the military use their resources of capital and organisation to run a lot of highly profitable private businesses - it seems to be a theme in the Sinified part of the world.

[Trex]

There is no doubt that the PLA factories are trying to make a profit, but it would be silly to suggest that the PLA charges itself for, oh, repairing an aircraft engine in one of its own factories. There may be bookkeeping notes taken to provide stats on efficiency, etc, but why pay yourself for mowing your own lawn?

As to labour costs, depending on who you go to (World Bank, IMF, etc) the per capita GDP in China is about $8,000, that of the USA is about $45,000. That makes a big difference in costs whether you are making rifles or jet fighters.

As to dollar holdings, the BBC stated that the PRC’s foreign exchange holdings had topped one trillion dollars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6106280.stm To be sure, that was two years ago (too lazy to hunt further), but it seems unlikely to have dropped – indeed, it has probably risen. Given this, paying cash for even high-end armaments is no biggie, especially since the money just keeps rolling in.

Yes, there is no doubt that the PLAQ is trying to go high-tech. All the same, much of their strength remains with mass rather than sophistication. (Putting the two together has more than just the EY worried).

As you say, it is not by any means open-and-shut. I suspect as well that considerable EWAGs were included as the PRC is not particularly forthcoming with detailed figures. My main point stands, in my opinion - it is difficult to make straight-line comparisons based on such figures, at least not without a Tarot deck beside you.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't use Wiki!!! Those figures are half of what China even reported! Read the report above - its all in the PDF.

Wikipedia is the mis-information pedia of the web. Shesshhh!!!

-S

PS. Here is the real Chinese estimated numbers: