5 replies to this topic

[Dexter]

DF-25 was revealed last month. 5 new missiles in a row, isn't that a bit too much? Deployment is actually more rapid than it was in Soviet Union. And target types vary greatly - enemy artillery, military bases, aircraft carriers, cities. And what is more scary - not only they field more, but also develop em faster than other major military powers during the cold war. We may be deluded, blinded by the fact that their missiles use same technologies as Russian ones did use decades ago, but what we forget is that China does not copy anything, it simply has no access to such tech, it follows our steps independently, and with such a rate, sooner or later they will have better missiles than anyone else. Surely they do prepare, if not for an all out war, then for the continental domination in case of the large chaos.

[Pendaelose]

You make an interesting point about thier build up rate, and even though thier missiles may be decades out of date a cold war era missile is just as lethal to most targets as a modern missile. The biggest differences are in acuracy. A bullet 400 years ago was just as lethal as a bullet today.

Though, what they may be preparing for is questionable. There are limits to what you can do with even a huge army while the technology lags behind, but they don't need to be capable of defeating Russia or the US... they only need enough strength to discourage intervention. An example being the Anti-Carrier missiles you suggested. The US is very nearly the only country using a large fleet of carriers. Such missiles are of no use offesnsivly, but they are a excelent deterent to pursuade the US to keep out of thier buisness. If China's eyes are ever set on South east asia (specificly Tiawan) the forces required to make the conquest are neglegable, but they would have to have the strength to discourage intervention from other major powers. Russia, the US, and the EU would not be willing to commit to a full scale to protect the smaller countries in the area, and China knows it.

So China may not be building up for a full scale war, but rather to have the freedom to act against without the risk of intervention simply because the power to commit to that kind of war is exactly what can prevent one. Very seldom are wars faught between nations that are peers because suddenly the risks are too high. Simply by becoming a military peer creates a great deal of freedom for China.

[AlexArt]

Yeah good points there, Pendaelose, although I personally think that there's nothing to do in southern and south-eastern Asia for the Chinese. Invasion into the Syberia would be far more possible, because of the unexplored spaces of this part of RF.

[Dexter]

Hmm. No, i can't agree to this, Alex. Despite what our alarmists say, this kind of invasion is very unlikely. Due to the whole lot of reasons. I thought that i was able to throw this idea out of your head, when i entered the team and rejected first "fascist-china" scenario, but it seems i was wrong. Remember, we didn't change our storyline for no reason

So China may not be building up for a full scale war, but rather to have the freedom to act against without the risk of intervention simply because the power to commit to that kind of war is exactly what can prevent one.

Agreed. But i wonder if these measures will actually work at keeping nato away from interfering with China's expansion. I don't mean Taiwan, but who knows what could be next.
Though, C&CG itself represents quite an interesting american position on the subject - "we let China conquer the whole asia and cause that is what we want". Quite strange if you ask me.

[Dexter]

Another one:

Revealed last week.
They just pop em out right as we speak.
This one is called P-12, and it's 150-km range conventional missile similar to US ATACMS or Russian Tochka.

[Pendaelose]

So China may not be building up for a full scale war, but rather to have the freedom to act against without the risk of intervention simply because the power to commit to that kind of war is exactly what can prevent one.

Agreed. But i wonder if these measures will actually work at keeping nato away from interfering with China's expansion. I don't mean Taiwan, but who knows what could be next.
Though, C&CG itself represents quite an interesting american position on the subject - "we let China conquer the whole asia and cause that is what we want". Quite strange if you ask me.

That in itself brings up a fascinating topic... Globalized economy (I'll explain the connection). The simple truth is that no-matter how much it makes certain people uncomfortble it is in the economic best intrest of any nation that thier trading partners be in good shape econimicly. In the US there are complaints about jobs being exported, and fears that climbing costs in China and India will cause our own imports (from these countries) to become more expensive, but in the end its a very good thing... painful now, but ultimatly good. as costs of living climb due to industrialization across more of asia it will finaly slow, and possibly stop the export of jobs to these areas as its no longer cheap labor. More expensive imports will also help us balance out our own trade defficite. Also, industrialized nations import more goods, creating aditional consumer markets, and ultimately creating aditional oportunity for exports. Everyone in the trade circle wins.

Also, where co-dependant economies develop I expect to see lasting peace... not because all parties desire peace, or beacuse theres nothing to fight over, but because no one can afford the economic impact. and the stronger thier economy the more they stand to loose, thus the co-dependance. The more money they make togeather the more they depend on each other to keep that money. A truely globalized economy has cash flow in all directsion... Europe, Asia, and the US each becomeing increasingly dependant on each other's prosperity, and each's prosperity ultimatly helping the others. (and again I stress, its not peace because we're peacefull, but because we can't afford the $$$ loss).

So in that line of thinking, it would definatly be in the US's AND Europe's best intrest to simply LET china (and possible help) dominate countries that refuse to get on the industrialization band wagon... they're slowing down progress and thier exclusion from the co-dependant cycle is exactly what makes them dangerous to us. So, let someone like China (who is both booming economicly, and culturaly predisposed to conquest) force industialization and globalization onto countries like North Korea and Vietnam... Maybe even let them range farther, Afganastan and other "troubled" areas of southwest asia. Ofcourse South Korea and Japan would be sheltered from Chinese agression... they part of the market already

another "perk" out of this is China (unlike the US) can get away with much more totaltarian solutions, much the way the USSR did. Honestly, sometimes brute force is the only way to solve some people's problems, and China can do this because the Chinese people would support it. And if NATO doesn't have to get thier hands dirty (while getting what we wanted to begin with) then all the better.


So there might be some truth to the ZH scenario... just let China have it. Its much easier for us, and theres more money in it. Macavelli wouldn't care how south east asia gets industrialized. For that matter, can we be lucky enough to find someone willing to conquer and industrialized Africa?

I'm not calling any of that RIGHT, most especialy from a moral stance, but it has enough potential to be true, depending on the motivations of certain people, and/or groups of people.

Edited by Pendaelose, 13 August 2007 - 07:32 PM.