
China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military - fortepianissimo
http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/chinas-deceptively-weak-and-dangerous-military/
======
r0h1n
This is the most interesting part, for me:

> The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea,
> Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional
> fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese
> Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of
> the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political officers
> assigned to enforce party control. Likewise, all important decisions in the
> PLA are made by Communist Party committees that are dominated by political
> officers, not by operators. This system ensures that the interests of the
> party’s civilian and military leaders are merged, and for this reason new
> Chinese soldiers entering into the PLA swear their allegiance to the CCP,
> not to the PRC constitution or the people of China.

> For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the
> expense of training for combat. _This means that 30 to 40 percent of an
> officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted
> studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group
> discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory._

~~~
thaumasiotes
I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their
allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?

~~~
gaius
There is a reason for this: so that the Army (or any of the other British
institutions that nominally have the Queen at the top of their org charts)
can't be politicized. That's the theory anyway, tho' New Labour tried their
best to stuff the civil service and the BBC with their cronies. So when the PM
of the day says "go and shoot the leader of the opposition" the soldier or
marine or policeman can say "sorry mate, I actually don't work for you".

~~~
arethuza
As far as I can tell, the status of the armed forces in the UK is rather
complex - they do indeed report to the monarch in her/his capacity as
commander-in-chief but they only legally exists because of Parliament
repeatedly passing Armed Forces Acts every 5 years or so to legalize them
otherwise they would be illegal under the 1689 Bill of Rights:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689)

Also worth noting that we don't have a Royal Army:

 _" Our Army is not called the Royal Army (unlike the Royal Navy and Royal Air
Force) because, after a historic struggle between Parliament and monarchy, the
British Army has always been answerable to Parliament and the British people.
If you live in Britain today, the actions of the British Army have affected
the culture, traditions, government and laws of the society you live in, and,
on a global scale, are continuing to do so today."_

Which I take as a reference to Parliaments _New Model Army_ that won the
English Civil War _against_ the monarch:

[http://www.nam.ac.uk/about-us](http://www.nam.ac.uk/about-us)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army)

Having said that, Army officers that I have known tend (in private at least)
to be somewhat skeptical about politicians of all parties and _very_ clear
that their ultimate allegiance is to the Monarch rather than the PM - given
that PMs we've had in the last 15 years or so I'm rather glad of this.

~~~
gaius
And yet, the Army is comprised of the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Royal
Signals, Royal Armoured Corps, etc etc etc.

~~~
arethuza
British traditions - who says they have to make sense!

------
thrownaway2424
I bet you could say all or nearly all of these bad-sounding things about the
US military or any randomly selected Western military. There is surely some
crank out there patrolling a SAC installation on horseback. The US certainly
has capital ships that don't work and have to go right back to the shipyard.
The US still operates 1950s-era aircraft that have been repurposed from
airlift to bombers to mine layers to signals intelligence to tankers. "Elite"
pilots of the USAF, many of whom are in fact in the ANG, also fly 10 hours per
month, or even less[1].

Overall I'm not sure who this author is arguing with. It reads like pure
strawman stuff.

[1]
[http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftAccidentReports/Documents...](http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftAccidentReports/Documents/2013/122712_F-16C_Fresno_full.pdf)
page 13

~~~
phaus
>"Elite" pilots of the USAF, many of whom are in fact in the ANG, also fly 10
hours per month, or even less[1].

Often ANG pilots are even better than the full-timers because they tend to be
commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is
the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari. These commercial pilots get
thousands of hours per year of flying, which is often much more than a full-
time Airman would get.

That being said, I agree that some of the author's arguments were very weak.
For example, the suggestion that hosting morale boosting activities in the
middle of a training exercise is somehow a sign of mission-failure. With the
possible exception of North Korea, everyone does that. Hell, there was even a
group of terrorists that played soccer daily inside a hostage-filled building
surrounded by teams of special forces and law enforcement that wanted to kill
them.

~~~
Jtsummers
> they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time
> because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari.

It often goes the other way. Becoming a commercial airline pilot requires
_many_ hours in the cockpit. A great way to accomplish that is to become a
USAF pilot. Your flight training is paid for (in fact, you get a salary to
attend). You have a commitment (if you did ROTC it works out to 7-10 years
total, flight training takes up the first part of that). Then you can get out,
join the guard or reserve and work full-time for 6 figures, and part-time to
earn a second retirement (a modest retirement, but gov't service is one of the
few remaining sources for pensions).

EDIT: Also, a huge difference between heavies (commercial aircraft, cargo
aircraft, refuelers, bombers) and fighters. They handle very differently, and
pilots confusing the performance of one for the other can cause serious
problems.

~~~
phaus
It can definitely work out in the opposite way as well. My father was a flight
engineer in the navy, from his experience, the best pilots he ever worked with
were part-timers looking for something exciting fun to do.

The handling characteristics can vary wildly, but I'm sure most pilots know
that up front. My father's crew flew P3's, which is more closer to a civilian
plane than a fighter jet, but there was still probably a pretty big
difference.

------
ENGNR
One of the most important aspects of modern warfare is the asymmetry. It's
best to pursue small efforts that can have stupidly large and devastating
effect on your opponent.

China is investing in sophisticated information attacks to steal military and
industry capabilities, disable infrastructure and remove a communications
advantage from an invader.

Their heavy submarine focus threatens to obliterate trade routes and defend
their own, causing others to hesitate to attack or suffer economic
devastation. And their precision missiles are a described as a pocket of
excellence within the army.

They can use their missiles to destroy military satellites, taking away
advantages like communication and GPS. On the ground, sending missiles
directly into concentrated C&C centres like air craft carriers, command posts,
etc can turn the enemy into a semi-organised mob. With the enemy taken down a
notch or two, suddenly China's moderately trained but extremely numerous
ground forces can start to look fairly intimidating.

They mention horses for surveying as barbaric compared to survey helicopters,
but what a great asset horses would be when both sides have used their
precision missiles to take out all of the supporting infrastructure. No
maintenance or fuel supply line needed, they even double as their own horse
manufacturing line.

Whether these approaches are enough to defend or attack, who knows, but the
strategy is an excellent and efficient one that shouldn't be underestimated.
You can't just look at what forces they have, but what relevant effects they
can achieve with those forces.

~~~
EliRivers
Asymmetric warfare is a way for small numbers of people with little more
equipment than what they can carry to fight a professional, modern armed force
that's occupying their nation or is very close to their borders; a significant
amount of their time is spent scrounging for food and working out where to
sleep. Any nation planning to fight a war asymmetrically is not planning to
project power beyond its borders, and is effectively hoping that if they're
enough of a nuisance (and they don't anger their own population too much doing
it) the other side will get tired and go home.

It is not an excellent or efficient strategy. It's bad. It relies on cells
operating independently, which is massively inefficient, and it relies on
those cells being armed with whatever they can scrounge; a professionally
trained and equipped armed force is far more efficient and far more effective.

------
firstOrder
> The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea,
> Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional
> fighting force. Rather, it is a party army, the armed wing of the Chinese
> Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of
> the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political officers
> assigned to enforce party control...Chinas military is intentionally
> organized to bureaucratically enforce risk-averse behavior, because an army
> that spends too much time training is an army that is not engaging in enough
> political indoctrination. Beijings worst nightmare is that the PLA could one
> day forget that its number one mission is protecting the Communist Partys
> civilian leaders against all its enemies especially when the CCPs enemies
> are domestic student or religious groups campaigning for democratic rights,
> as happened in 1989 and 1999, respectively.

And in 1992, US marines marched into Los Angeles because domestic groups
wanted democratic rights, like not being beaten by police officers once down
on the ground.

As far as political loyalty in the army for communist countries - Stalin
purged his army of generals whose loyalty was suspect prior to World War II.
Hitler did not. Stalin won the war, and Hitler's high command tried to kill
him.

~~~
Zuider
Stalin purged 'his' army of any and all officers (not just generals) showing
the remotest competence for fear that they could become a threat to his power.
It was nothing to do with their 'loyalty'.

He proceeded to wage the war with an incompetence only equaled, and ultimately
exceeded by Hitler. The cost in lives was appalling. Stalin did not win.
Hitler lost.

------
bhrgunatha
> Take a Taiwan invasion scenario, which is the PLA’s top operational planning
> priority. While much hand-wringing has been done in recent years about the
> shifting military balance in the Taiwan Strait, so far no one has been able
> to explain how any invading PLA force would be able to cross over 100
> nautical miles of exceedingly rough water and successfully land on the
> world’s most inhospitable beaches, let alone capture the capital and pacify
> the rest of the rugged island.

I've no idea where the author gets the idea that Taiwan's beaches are the
world's most inhospitable. China has continually increased it's stockade of
short range missiles located along the coast by the Taiwan Strait. Their
strategy most likely would be to decapitate the command and control structure
and probably much of the military hardware along with power generation and
infrastructure in Taiwan first. It would be a relatively relaxed "invasion"
across the Taiwan Strait after that - assuming no retaliation or retribution
from the US or Japan first.

~~~
matthewrudy
I think the last point is valid, though. Taiwan people are very proud of their
independence. I can't imagine how Beijing could approach winning over hearts
and minds.

~~~
BugBrother
There are more than one way to skin that cat.

I've been working in Romania a while. The takeover here by Soviet after WWII
wasn't ... nice. E.g. all grown people with German ancestry were sent to
Siberia for at least years (lots of people in Transylvania). And so on.

tl;dr: One way to win someone's heart is by using a knife.

~~~
democracy
Wikipedia says:

By year 1950 about 253,000 Rumäniendeutsche were expelled and 421,846 remained
in Romania.[citation needed] By year 2011 about 36,000 remained as the result
of mass migration to Germany. [4]

And for people involved in SS crimes - what do you think we should have done
to them - sent them to St Tropez instead?

~~~
BugBrother
I think you are fully aware of that Wikipedia says this about 1944-1945, which
was what I discussed:

" _The Red Army occupation lead to the deportation to Siberia of more than
200,000 ethnic Germans of Romania (around 75,000 Transylvanian Saxons),
Hungary and Yugoslavia. Most of them died in prison camps._ "

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_settlements_in_the_Sovie...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_settlements_in_the_Soviet_Union#Deportations_of_Germans_from_the_occupied_territories_in_1944.E2.80.931945)

The Saxons in particular had lived many hundreds of years in Transylvania. (Or
do you just approve of sending civilians to bad deaths, because of their
ancestry?)

------
beachstartup
ah yes, the good ol' yellow peril two-step.

weak, yet dangerous.

smart, yet uninnovative.

studious, yet aggressive.

ubiquitous, yet surreptitious.

industrious, yet backwards.

cultured, yet barbaric.

coy, yet brave.

did i miss any?

~~~
Zuider
I believe that you missed this (the actual point of the article): capable of
starting a devastating war, but not, ultimately, of winning.

~~~
rdl
Sounds like the US! Or really any power today -- capable of inflicting great
damage on a foreign power, but not capable of occupation and pacification.

------
aryehhoffman
Time does not stand still, and to assume that China will is foolish. With
wealth comes power, and China's military will likely be unrecognizable in 30
years. To underestimate one's enemy is simply stupid.

~~~
thaumasiotes
China has often been wealthy, but has rarely been able to conquer... anywhere.
They're not the first, or twentieth, place I would look if I were worrying
about foreign aggression.

~~~
Zuider
China conquered China, unifying a large area of territory under one
government. Historically, they have not shown much inclination to capture
foreign territory and colonize it (even when they could have done so easily).
Note that their current, de facto control of large areas of the African
continent is a departure from tradition.

If they consider (or can rationalize) a territory to be rightfully part of
China, then they will be inclined to be warlike. Right now, the presence of a
large reserve of gas and oil in their area of influence, combined with
increasing energy requirements in order to industrialize does give them a
motive for war.

~~~
matthewrudy
I think China is trying to build a nation that can thrive for another 1000
years. They're building great infrastructure and securing natural resources
wherever they can. But they're doing it for the Chinese people. Invading
foreign lands doesn't make sense in that view. But being patient on the Taiwan
issue will pay off. Economics not militarism will likely lead to the
reunification.

~~~
democracy
This is exactly it. This is the wisdom of the tiger.

------
bane
Obvious Western propaganda piece is propaganda. And like the best sort of
propaganda has enough kernels of truth to be dangerous.

China's military is optimized for maintaining internal stability and national
unity. A civil war is the worst case scenario for China's leadership. You
don't need a deep water navy, or a massive air force to achieve this goal. You
need a massive tier-2 riot police force with some heavy hardware to augment
when things really get out of control.

Along with almost no practical combat experience beyond internal stability
operations, the PLA is simply not optimized for engagements outside of the
national borders. There's pitifully few deployable logistics units.

However, on the few times China has chosen to mobilize against neighbors, the
PLA has shown an ability to move truly unbelievable number of soldiers
moderate distances away from the border.

There's also some debate if the PLA acquitted themselves better during the
Korean War than during the later Sino-Vietnamese war. I think there's
something to that, the end of the Chinese Civil War wasn't all that long
before that, and it's likely that veterans of that conflict were in field
command positions during the Korean War, but were not in the Sino-Vietnamese
war. The outcome of the Sino-Indian war (1962) also probably falls at the
career end of the same veteran commanders. In fact, China was at it's most
muscular directly following the end of the Civil war (Tibet, Korea, India all
between 1950 and 1962). The Soviet border conflict and the Sino-Vietnamese
war, which were almost a decade later were not great victories for the PLA.

If that trend is true, the modern non-combat honed PLA may be lacking in
critical modern battlefield experience. But it doesn't take a terribly long
time for a military to gain that experience and capture it for a few years.
Any conflict with the PLA, even if it started poorly for the PLA, would likely
turn around not long after.

A friend of mine says that China is historically does not psychologically act
in an outwardly facing expansionist way. It simply looks inward to admire
itself, and sometimes to get a better view of the Middle Kingdom, steps
backwards a few steps into somebody else's territory.

What remains to be seen, is if China's new economic policy creates a golden
period of internal stability, if that gives military planners more time to
regear and reoptimize the PLA for external conflicts rather than internal
peace keeping. Right now, it's too distracted by domestic issues to really do
this whole heartedly. But with a massive industrial capacity, I would predict
that if such a shift were to occur, the world would be blindsided with how
quickly that shift would happen.

------
nl
Hmm. The Sino-Indian war dismissed as a minor border skirmish? It only went
for a month, but it _was_ in the Himalayas. Also, it only took the Chinese a
month to get what they wanted[2].

 _Not to be outdone by the conventional army, China’s powerful strategic
rocket troops, the Second Artillery Force, still uses cavalry units to patrol
its sprawling missile bases deep within China’s vast interior._

Is there any evidence apart from some staged pictures of some event that this
is actually true?

 _the Air Force continues to use a 1950s Soviet designed airframe, the Tupolev
Tu-16, as a bomber (its original intended mission), a battlefield
reconnaissance aircraft, an electronic warfare aircraft, a target spotting
aircraft, and an aerial refueling tanker. Likewise, the PLA uses the Soviet
designed Antonov An-12 military cargo aircraft for ELINT (electronic
intelligence) missions, ASW (anti-submarine warfare) missions, geological
survey missions, and airborne early warning missions. It also has an An-12
variant specially modified for transporting livestock, allowing sheep and
goats access to remote seasonal pastures._

Interestingly, the C-130 is still in use by US forces for most of the uses
listed above. It first flew in 1954[3]. The B-52 remains the primary US
bomber. It first flew in 1952[4].

 _Take the PLA’s lack of combat experience, for example. A few minor border
scraps aside, the PLA hasn’t seen real combat since the Korean War. This
appears to be a major factor leading it to act so brazenly in the East and
South China Seas._

The more aggressive Chinese position in the South China Sea is possibly the
most important strategic development in the last 5 years (and of course it has
pretty much been ignored by most media). Saying it is caused by PLA leadership
while ignoring the _HUGE OIL AND GAS RESERVES_ the area has is a pretty major
oversight (One of the Chinese leadership's biggest concerns is how dependant
it is on overseas sources of energy, and how easily those sources could be cut
off. A source of oil and gas in Chinese controlled waters is something they
see as a major goal, and they may well be willing to fight for it).

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
Indian_War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
Indian_War#Ceasefire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War#Ceasefire)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules)

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress)

~~~
AaronIG
The (C)C-130J, which is what's used today, has little in common with the
C-130A other than appearance. These aren't 50+ year old aircraft.

~~~
nl
Yep, and note the careful wording in the original piece: "1950s Soviet
_designed_ airframe". Those aren't 50 year old planes either.

 _Production was performed by the plant at Xian, with at least 150 built into
the 1990s. China is estimated to currently operate around 120 of the aircraft.
The latest version is the cruise missile-carrying H-6K._ [1]

They aren't exactly the most advanced plane in the world, but they don't need
to be. It is disingenuous of the author to make it sound like the Chinese are
doing anything dramatically different to what other nations do.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6)

------
ww520
I don't get it. If China's military is as weak and as far behind as the author
claims, why is he worrying about China's military threats? It should be a
cakewalk to head off any threats from them with our much more advanced
capabilities. Why is he advocating to increase the military spending for US
and its allies? Aren't our current capabilities so much better and so much
ahead of them that they will have no hope of catching up?

~~~
spc476
It's worrying because they're unpredictable and won't necessarily do the
appropriate counter move.

For instance, I'm a horrible chess player, and I even tell my opponents that,
but yet, they often take a much longer time to play because my moves are so
unpredictable it really throws them off their own game (also---I'm regarded as
a smart fellow, and I wouldn't make obviously stupid moves, so when I do, my
opponent wastes time trying to figure out what they're missing).

------
dublinclontarf
Article aside, the Chinese military (all branches) is rife with nepotism.

Family members, family friends and friends help get preferential placement and
position.

To a large extent it's more about enforcing CCP control of the country and
people than protecting it from invasion or invading.

In a place like China, you need to spend more money protecting yourself from
Chinese people than from outsiders.

------
astkaasa
HN readers discuss some military issue.

Mmmmmmmmm, sounds like Obama shared a story about his programmer life. He had
completed a successful side project -- a health care website, for example. And
he proudly mentioned that his project is written in VB6!!!

~~~
EliRivers
You might be surprised how many HNers have military experience.

------
xiaq
Chinese here. Wow it's actually hilarious to read how some western people see
the PLA exactly the way we see DPRK army.

I have no military experience, but with access to Chinese sources, I feel
justified to point out some obvious errors:

> Not to be outdone by the conventional army, China’s powerful strategic
> rocket troops, the Second Artillery Force, still uses cavalry units to
> patrol its sprawling missile bases deep within China’s vast interior. Why?
> Because it doesn’t have any helicopters.

I believe all calvary troops, except a few symbolic ones, are canceled during
the "Million Disarmament" in the middle 1980s. The linked gallery should be
showing a group of guards of honor or simple soldiers in recreation. They are
even equipped with swords; if it's fair to claim that the Second Artillery
still use horses for patrolling, it's fair to say they use swords for combat
too, which is absurd.

China produces helicopters, for civil or military uses. For instance, this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAIC_Z-10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAIC_Z-10).
They were used extensively during the 2008 Sichuan earthquakes.

> For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the
> expense of training for combat. This means that 30 to 40 percent of an
> officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted
> studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group
> discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory. And when PLA officers do train, it
> is almost always a cautious affair that rarely involves risky (i.e.,
> realistic) training scenarios.

This is exaggerating too much. According to the PLA Political Work Regulation
([http://www.ljxw.gov.cn/news_detail-3993.html](http://www.ljxw.gov.cn/news_detail-3993.html)),
political work are recommended to be organized "weekly and lasting a half-
day", and required to be "no less than twice per month". That is 10% or 5% of
working hours. Well, some army officers may be over-enthusiastic about
political work and organize such activities very frequently, but that
definitely would make him unpopular...

> Yet none of this should be comforting to China’s potential military
> adversaries. It is precisely China’s military weakness that makes it so
> dangerous. Take the PLA’s lack of combat experience, for example. A few
> minor border scraps aside, the PLA hasn’t seen real combat since the Korean
> War.

Some have already mentioned the Sino-Indian war. There has also been Sino-
Vietnamese war ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
Vietnamese_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War)).

The world is relatively peaceful today, and the troops of _most_ big nations
have not fighted big wars for many decades. Except for USA which actively
provokes wars.

> The Chinese military is dangerous in another way as well. Recognizing that
> it will never be able to compete with the U.S. and its allies using
> traditional methods of war fighting, the PLA has turned to unconventional
> “asymmetric” first-strike weapons and capabilities to make up for its lack
> of conventional firepower, professionalism and experience.

From a purely cultural POV, western and Chinese militarists may have vastly
different ideas of "traditional methods of war fighting". Saying that the
(supposed) enemy will not obeys the "traditional rules" sounds like an excuse
of not actually trying to understand them.

~~~
presidentender
>Except for USA which actively provokes wars

In part, perhaps, to avoid accusations that we've forgotten how to fight.

------
astkaasa
The United States Department of Defense should take a look at this article and
stop asking for more military expenditures. They are wasting Americans taxes
actually. Just let Japan release its military power, such as Gundam or
Ultraman, then China will be scared. Just let Indian do a military parade.
Imagine many HAL repaired fighter aircraft flying across the sky and China
will be scared again. China will show its real weakness. This is a perfect
strategy. I thought the United States Department of Defense should give me a
BIG GOLDEN MEDAL as a reward. \^o^/

