Just a practice fight here.Reuters/Stringer
Business Insider: A retiring Chinese general revealed that China's greatest military weakness is a US strength
* A hawkish Chinese general said before retiring that he regretted not fighting in a war, which reveals the greatest weakness of China's military.
* China badly wants to displace the US as the world's top military power, but it hasn't fought in a real war.
* All of China's fancy new jets and ships have never been tested, and its ground army relies on conscripts while the US has an all-volunteer force and tested platforms.
* No matter how big China's military gets, it will be ridden with doubt until they get into a real fight.
China's People's Liberation Army Gen. He Lei, one of the more hawkish voices asserting Beijing's absolute rights to the South China Sea, made a telling observation at a defense conference in Singapore that reveals his military's biggest weakness.
China has undertaken massive strides to build a world-class navy. After what the nationalists in China call a century of humiliation, going back to Japan's occupation of China, Beijing has emerged as a military power that could soon surpass the US.
But even with the world's largest military, cheap labor, massive spy services, and suspected cyber theft of US military secrets, the Chinese can't match the US where it counts.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I agree with this retiring General. Experience and knowing how to fight a war is just as important as having the manpower and equipment to fight it.
13 comments:
China is not going to replace anything. Americans sleep with guns in their bed. An American grandma from Chicago with her shotgun would take out a Chinese battalion
How much is the "experience" actually worth? The American military has been worn down to the breaking point and beyond in some areas due to a series of never ending and fruitless involvements around the world that not only do not advance American interests but actually undermine them. Furthermore this has adversely affected training and morale is precariously low among the US armed forces.
Who has the edge? An experienced fighting force that has been worn down to the breaking point and beyond in some ways, suffers from poor training, has political hacks as leaders, suffers from poor morale, and has worn out equipment or the military that lacks certain experience, from all indications has excellent leadership, is well trained, well rested, has ultra modern equipment, and has supreme moral confidence in their position.
The only way to "know" would be to have an actual fight which we should hope does not materialize. With this said, if I am aware of this, the Chinese certainly are too. I suspect POTUS is as well. This likely largely explains the intense diplomacy with North Korea. He and his closest advisors understand that America MUST have peace. There really isn't a viable option.
Since the Chinese likely are aware of these things, they probably expect an easy victory over the US should hot conflict ensue. As such, the only real edge America appears to have is the nuclear arsenal assuming it works. I could be wrong of course. Our country has been counted out many, many times before. It'd be unwise to write us off. I suspect that ultimately what does China and other adversaries of America in will be their extreme arrogance.
Anon,
You may not be American. As such, I will briefly explain to you how the so called "gun culture" in America really works.
While most American families do own at least one gun, only about 10% of families actually keep bullets for the gun in the house. Of this percentage, in only about 5% of households does even one member actually know how to actually use the gun, how to load it quickly, or on a moments notice actually know where the ammo is. In other words, most people would be more likely to blow off their big toe than to shoot a home invader.
Now that you have been properly educated on this subject perhaps you will refrain from making such ridiculous statements in the future. With that said it does somewhat keep home invasions in check. The would be home invader knows that one in twenty homes he might invade actually has a gun and has occupants who are capable of using the gun and will kill him. Furthermore he does not know in advance which one in the twenty this is going to be.
To use an analogy, if you had twenty grapes, you were hungry, you knew one of the twenty grapes was poisonous and would kill you if you ate it, furthermore you did not know which grape was the one, you would find something else to eat!! As such, the so called "gun culture" does help keep home invasions somewhat in check but it would be completely useless against a Chinese battalion. Now that you have been properly educated you may refrain from making such ridiculous statements in the future.
My second post was on the wrong thread I apologize.
You do understand the concept of jokes,right? :)
Anon,
If you are the one that made the grandma remark, I do understand the concept of jokes. I wasn't sure if you were joking or not. As the joke was ridiculously not amusing and even in very bad taste, I assumed you were not joking. As such, I assumed you simply needed to be properly educated. Since apparently you were joking, your sense of humor needs serious work.
It's actually the post about "experience" that is on the wrong thread. As such, things like this sometimes happen. I apologize. My eyesight is poor and this is only one of many things I am currently doing.
Fusion... bposter is a pro Russia/anti US bull shit poster. ..hence his nickname. It's just a troll who writes paragraph after paragraph..I just skip whatever he writes. I recommend you to do the same to save your time. But judge yourself, of course :)
Combat experience is the most effective form of training. Always has been and always will be. 1 TESTED MAN IS WORTH 10 UNTESTED. The crucible creates better men. Combat experience dictates the meathods in which we fight. Conscripts have never been a match for professionals. Societal / civilizational differences also play a role. The individualistic nature of Western Society fares better in combat throughout history. The subservience of the individual to the collective in eastern societies, does not.
The West will destroy itself. The rest of the world will fill in the void.
Fusion,
"How do you know any of this?" I was careful to point out in my post that the only way to actually "know" is to actually have the conflict. As I think I pointed out, I hope and pray we don't have to "know" the answer.
The question is which military is worth more the one that has been worn down almost to powder in certain areas and often suffers from poor leadership or the one that has been well rested, appears to be well trained, and appears to have good leaders. The editor has pointed out with evidence provided how much advancement China has made in recent years.
The problems with the US military are well documented. Of course we may find out the Chinese are not that tough either. Again, I do not "know" as I thought I made clear. Thank you for the reply and I apologize for any confusion.
Since we cannot "know" in advance, we hypothesize about the outcomes based upon the available evidence and admittedly sometimes our own biases can get in the way. My conclusions are the US might well "win" in a war with China and the case could be made would probably "win" because of the nuclear deterrent. Even if we "win" what do we actually "win?" In a conventional war, "victory" is far from certain.
You do mention the last 100 years. This is interesting. In the business world a principle of "what have you done for me lately" applies, for better or worse. By going back "100 years" may be a sign you acknowledging your current position is a weak one. relatively speaking the US military isn't on the level that it was even fifteen years ago much less what it would have been 30 years ago. The American superpower myth is just that a myth and a very destructive one at that. Are you American, Canadian, or where are you from? I'm an American and we must remember our heads are on the chopping block if our government gets these things wrong. Again, thank you for the reply. Constructive dialogue on these issues is always very much appreciated.:-)
Anon,
You call me names. I've found this is a sure sign you can't win the debate based upon the merits of the position you are taking or you have nothing constructive to offer. At all times, I have tried to be pro-American based upon what I and many Americans truly believe is the best course of action for the United States of America, the country we were born in, live in, and love along with our love for the American people. Many simply do not believe that policies appear to needlessly provoke a major nuclear armed power that has a first rate military for what appears to be no good reason is a particularly good idea.
I personally try to read all the posts even those I do not agree with. By doing so we can learn. If you read my posts as opposed to skipping them, you might actually learn something but by the tone of your post I don't think you are interested in learning. If you have something constructive to add here, please do so. If not, stop wasting time!!
let's keep this simple
In WWII, American troops had not been tested in combat...that was in Dec., 1941...Somehow, those untested troops managed, with of course help from allies, to win a very big war,both in the Asian side of the world and in the European side of the world
manstien,
You raise an interesting point. "Experience" is better assuming it is the right kind of experience and it doesn't destroy the person in the process. While I typically hate game analogies when describing a war situation, I will express this another way. Think of American football. Specifically think of the running back position. This is a VERY demanding position. Who is going to be better, the running back who has run the ball 20 to 30 times or more a game week in and week out without the proper rest or the rookie running back who is well rested, is well coached, and is highly motivated. The true answer is likely it depends upon a number of factors. The point is the US military, if not already, is dangerously close to the running back who has been asked to carry the ball 20 to 30 times a game for many, many years without the proper rest or the proper coaching. As such, it is questionable how effective they are actually going to be against a "peer" military of which China is.
To further expound upon the analogy, high school and college coaches who are blessed to have a running back that has NFL potential are often careful not to use this running back to much so as not to wear him out to soon and often must resist the temptations and pressure to overuse this running back.
In the case of the US, we have worn our military out on a series of fruitless missions around the world that did not even advance our interests and in many cases actually undermined them. In this environment, do we need to fight China? Do we even need to engage in policies that might risk this? Maybe we do. Of one thing we can be certain, a fight with them will be VERY difficult with victory far from certain. We need to be very circumspect about these things. After "100 years" of warfare and a military that is worn out, an infrastructure that is in many ways crumbling, and a massive national debt, we NEED peace. I think POTUS understands this. As such, we are seeing a massive effort on the part of his administration to achieve peace between NK and SK which would lift a huge burden off of our over burdened military.
Same man never read his crap-just don't bother. B.P and Smith need a hut together
Post a Comment