|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: Chinese Military modernization. |
 |
|
Some of you might find this an interesting read:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2006/2006-prc-military-power.htm
It's the Sec Def's annual report to congress on the China's military situation.
I haven't finished it yet but so far it's been interesting; particularly the success China's been having at modernizing their military over the past few years.
A word to those who aren't familiar with Chinese military policy though, when you read "downsize", don't assume that China is demilitarizing. For several years now they have been steadily restructuring their military and deactivating large units which cost a lot to maintain but are largely obsolete. This frees up finances with which to buy/maintain smaller but more modern units. For example they might cut a division of 1960's era tanks, which lets them sell the tanks or use them for spare parts, and also save on the maitenance requirements as well as the cost of feeding/housing/?paying? all those soldiers.
So yes the Chinese military is getting a bit smaller, but they are getting stronger by doing so.
Seems odd no? But this is the way things are.
Anyhow, enjoy.
Oh, and if you read and enjoy the report, go ahead and bump this thread back up for others. I imagine it will fall through the cracks here rather quickly, and it would be nice to have it up a few days to catch anyone who might be interested.
Or don't.
Whatever.
JJ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| good post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
China eyes stronger military against threats Wed Jul 26, 12:43 AM ET
China needs stronger military forces as it faces growing instability and threats to national security, the ruling Communist Party's ideological mouthpiece said according to reports in the state media on Wednesday.
An essay in the latest issue of Qiushi, or Seek Truth, says China must strengthen its military to guard a peaceful international setting for economic growth, the official China News Service reported.
"Destabilizing and uncertain factors are increasing and having a major impact on China's security environment," the essay said.
"History demonstrates that one cannot rely on others granting peace, and only building a strong military and firm national defense can provide a reliable security barrier," it added.
Qiushi magazine is the Communist Party's ideological mouthpiece and often carries essays by senior officials and theorists. The latest essay appears to reflect unease about China's military preparedness, even with rapidly rising defense spending over the past decade.
The essay did not specify the threats calling for stronger defense, but it said that Western foes did not want to see a strong China.
"Hostile Western forces do not want to see a strong socialist China emerge in the east, and they are constantly cooking up vain attempts to hold in check and contain China's development."
Supporters of independence for Taiwan -- the self-governed island that China has claimed as its own since their split in 1949 amid civil war -- are also a "major peril," it added.
China has experienced deepening friction with Japan over Tokyo's treatment of its World War Two invasion and its increasingly assertive foreign policy.
Beijing's relations with Washington are strained by mutual mistrust, even as the two countries seek to cooperate over curtailing North Korea's nuclear weapons program and defusing other regional disputes.
"At present, the political and military environment on China's periphery is quite complex, and unpredictable factors are clearly rising," the essay said.
China's 2.3-million-strong People's Liberation Army is the world's largest standing force and Beijing has said its defense budget will rise 14.7 percent to 283.8 billion yuan ($35.5 billion) in 2006.
That is much smaller than United States' $419.3 billion defense budget for 2006, but many in Washington say China's real defense spending is higher than its official figure.
Copyright � 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright � 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Chinese Military modernization. |
|
|
Yes, interesting post.
| jinglejangle wrote: |
Seems odd no? But this is the way things are.
|
No, not really odd.
China's military strength used lie in its numbers, the 'human wave' attacks of the Korean War for example.
Not surprising at all to learn that the Chinese are aware that such tactics- and complimentary strength in numbers- are no longer the assets they used to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, this is true.
The more I learn about China, the more I think that the west is foolish if we underestimate them over the long run.
I tend to think that China's current meteoric rise in terms of economic and military capability will prove to be not so very temporary, and that China will eventually be sucessful in making itself, at least for a time, one of the truly major players on the global scene.
Tangenitally, I believe that now in the post-post colonial era, we are going to see the balance of power, militarily, economically and culturally, shifting east and south as many nations which were once held back by their former masters begin to stabilize and grow towards the median point.
I'm not saying this will everywhere happen so rapidly, or to the same extant as it seems to be in China, but I do think that over our lifetimes we will see a balancing take place globally.
The only real draw back I see to this is that it will generate economic difficulties in the current powerhouses, as they lose their relative edge, and in the most backward countries, as they are left further and further behind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
China's 2.3-million-strong People's Liberation Army is the world's largest standing force and Beijing has said its defense budget will rise 14.7 percent to 283.8 billion yuan ($35.5 billion) in 2006.
That is much smaller than United States' $419.3 billion defense budget for 2006, but many in Washington say China's real defense spending is higher than its official figure.
|
Yes, due to hidden spending and also to two other vastly important factors:
1. China's extensive non-defense improvments that have clear dual-use potential or other potential war time benefit, such as on the one hand technology such as aerospace and computer tech, and on the other hand the mass infrastructure improvments the've been making across the board such as commo networks, highways and factories.
2. Let's face it. A dollar goes a lot further in China, no matter what you want to buy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The more I learn about China, the more I think that the west is foolish if we underestimate them over the long run.
|
Join the club.
I did a paper on Chinese expansion in the South China sea.
It amazed me how much the installations have changed since 1993.
I remember reading in a times magazine how they were only bamboo shacks for fisherman in 1994 and why was it an issue.
Looked at the photos in 1998 and they were concrete buildings with anti aircraft guns and missiles.
Closer to the Philippines than China but China claims them because 400 yrs ago someone from China visted them.
You know if I used that basis of argument, Scotland, England, France, Spain, India, and Norway is mine and my country has every right to make a claim on them. Sorry folks, but you have to leave as you are currently trespassing on my land.
China is like the US, England, Spain, France, Netherlands, Zulu, Rome, Greece, Maya, Inca, etc. when they were at the beginning of their regional expansion.
Why can't we learn from history and stop regional expansion at its roots? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Quote: |
The more I learn about China, the more I think that the west is foolish if we underestimate them over the long run.
|
Join the club.
I did a paper on Chinese expansion in the South China sea.
It amazed me how much the installations have changed since 1993.
I remember reading in a times magazine how they were only bamboo shacks for fisherman in 1994 and why was it an issue.
Looked at the photos in 1998 and they were concrete buildings with anti aircraft guns and missiles.
Closer to the Philippines than China but China claims them because 400 yrs ago someone from China visted them.
You know if I used that basis of argument, Scotland, England, France, Spain, India, and Norway is mine and my country has every right to make a claim on them. Sorry folks, but you have to leave as you are currently trespassing on my land.
China is like the US, England, Spain, France, Netherlands, Zulu, Rome, Greece, Maya, Inca, etc. when they were at the beginning of their regional expansion.
Why can't we learn from history and stop regional expansion at its roots? |
Some of those expansionist countries don't belong with the others.
Rome brought horrible suffering through taxes to most of Europe and beyond. It also brought education, roads, state of the art farming methods and equipment, etc etc. Same with Britian. Again, tons of atrocities, but they virtually wiped out piracy on the ocean and gave other benefits to the world (including law and order). Same with America. I guess what I am saying sounds like China should be allowed to expand, but it isn't. Of all the countries in the world, the last I would like to see starting to take over the world is China (through expansion or any other way). Actually, to be honest, I have no real point here, just pointing something out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I guess what I am saying sounds like China should be allowed to expand, but it isn't. Of all the countries in the world, the last I would like to see starting to take over the world is China (through expansion or any other way). Actually, to be honest, I have no real point here, just pointing something out.
|
Its good to read your points. You made a couple of good aguments and while I have not quoted them they were well made and not imflamatory. I appreciate that.
I will respond by saying that I am not sure that a lack of historical written statements does truly express what it must feel for the individual experiencing the growth of a nation, therefore some States that you feel may have benefited the World may not have been thought of as doing so by thier victims.
I only know that I live today and I have to deal with what today gives me and like you, based on how China has treated its own citizens since 1997, I would be hesistant about allowing them control/ influence over my own nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
Closer to the Philippines than China but China claims them because 400 yrs ago someone from China visted them.
You know if I used that basis of argument, Scotland, England, France, Spain, India, and Norway is mine and my country has every right to make a claim on them. Sorry folks, but you have to leave as you are currently trespassing on my land. |
Of course, but you do not have "concrete buildings with anti aircraft guns and missiles" deployed in Norway. I hope. 
| Summer Wine wrote: |
China is like the US, England, Spain, France, Netherlands, Zulu, Rome, Greece, Maya, Inca, etc. when they were at the beginning of their regional expansion.
Why can't we learn from history and stop regional expansion at its roots? |
I would have to say I agree with the sentiment here, but not precisely the exact terms. China did go through a period of some expansion, to include annexing tibet and sinkiang, and has a decided proclivity for trying to create puppet states, a la vietnam, mongolia, laos, bhutan, nepal, every other weaker nation on their borders.
I would however tend to disagree with seeing the solidification of the Chinese position in the Spratlys et al as an expansionist move. I see that more as a consolidation of a preexisting position. That, like Taiwan and some other areas, is a long exsiting area of dispute that China only now sees itself as having the clout to pursue.
Back during the cold war a power play in the spratlys would have brought them into conflict with the Phillipines big brother, namely the US, and would have been a little too risky. Now they know that we are unlikely to back the Phillipines without offering them major face-saving (and probably quite tangible) concessions.
Aside from all of that, this is really more akin to the Dokdo issue than to say, the conquest of California or the annexation of the Sudatenland. The major difference that I see is that the spratleys are vastly more important, economically and strategically, and no one is afraid of the Koreans. I really don't see that the Chinese are gearing up for conquest at this time. I think they are much more interested in internal development and the consolidation of their major claims (to include Taiwan). Of course, in the future, such development will put them in a vastly stronger starting position should they choose the path of conquest, but that is not something I can see as a justifiable reason to hinder them.
Culturally though I wonder how much the Chinese would care for a global empire. I suspect they will rather try to work (and regionally are beginning to establish) a more modern hegemony of economically and militarily dominated satellite states.
***edit***
| Quote: |
| I only know that I live today and I have to deal with what today gives me and like you, based on how China has treated its own citizens since 1997, I would be hesistant about allowing them control/ influence over my own nation. |
And yes. Definately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
China's economy needs to cool it
The Gazette
Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006
You didn't have to look far to find the culprit in Norsk Hydro's decision this week either to sell or shut down the world's largest magnesium plant, in Becancour.
Daniel Roy, Norsk Hydro Canada's president, offered the astounding statistic that China's magnesium capacity is equal to 150 per cent of world demand.
Other factors haven't helped the plant, where 380 jobs are on the line. But China's over-capacity has left little prospect for improvement.
Production of magnesium, a metal used in the automobile, electronics and aerospace industries, is just one small example of the impact of runaway investment in China's sizzling economy.
The Chinese government is becoming alarmed that this economy, the fourth-largest in the world, is overheating with potentially disastrous domestic and international consequences. It's a danger that should concern policy-makers around the world.
The country's economy grew by a blistering 11.3 per cent in the second quarter, the fastest rate in more than a decade, despite a series of measures aimed at slowing investment down to a more sustainable level.
China's growth is dramatically improving the lives of many millions of people in what was long the world's worst economic backwater. The challenge now is to make sure the boom does not end in a downturn on a similar scale. The urgency of the situation was underlined this week when President Hu Jintao said the government "must control the scale of investment." Investment in fixed assets like factory equipment surged 31 per cent in the first half of the year.
Hu's comment came as the government introduced its latest effort to cool things off: restrictions on foreign investment in real estate.
The government is also clearly worried about social upheaval from the unequal distribution of wealth between the prosperous coastal cities and the rural interior.
Chinese leadership must walk a fine line between restraining investment to control inflation and overcapacity and, on the other hand, ensuring the medicine doesn't kill the patient.
Maintaining a strong growth rate is crucial for soaking up the tens of millions of peasants streaming into the cities in search of employment in what amounts to one of the greatest human mass movements in history.
If the government gets it wrong, social unrest could threaten the very survival of the regime. It's imperative for the Communist leadership to bring the economy's growth under control, before the Chinese miracle turns into a nightmare not only for China but for the world.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=51ce65be-a845-4e8e-b50e-2714b7728e60 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| China's economy needs to cool it |
You think? I've heard (sorry, no link) they have over 600 billion dollars in non-performing loans. NPLs are loans given to stave off bankruptcy, or otherwise attempt to salvage a flagging business.
But calls to cool off the economy come to no purpose. Beijing Central desperately wants to do it, but their control over the provinces is slipping, not that historically it was extremely strong (...the mountains are high and the emperor is far away and all that...).
I wonder what military investment will look like after the crash? I bet larger, with more emphasis on the internal security apparatus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Are you claiming to be prescient with regard to China or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Are you claiming to be prescient with regard to China or something? |
What? Am I not allowed to make some bold predictions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
