What's new

4 Reasons China Can Fight a Modern War

sicsheep

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
881
Reaction score
0
Country
China
Location
United States
Do not underestimate the PLA’s fighting capabilities, particularly its fighting resolve.

Perhaps the biggest question about China’s rise is whether it will inevitably lead to a military conflict with other powers, particularly the existing superpower, the United States. It is undoubtedly true that no one wants to see a general war between China and the U.S., though in reality both countries might be dragged into a war that they do not want to fight in areas like the East China Sea. If that happens, many analysts believe that the PLA does not stand a chance against the mighty U.S. military for a series of reasons, ranging from poor training to lack of war experience. Such an estimate might be true, but it might also truly underestimate the fighting power of the PLA, thus contributing to misjudgment and poor policy-making overall. Thus, accurately assessing the power of the PLA is a critical part of any serious military planning by the U.S. and other countries.

As a general rule, the outcome of a possible war involving the PLA and another military depends on many factors such as comprehensive capabilities, strategies, and fighting resolve. Recent analyses (here, here, andhere) that are skeptical about the PLA’s probability of winning tend to focus on its command structure, training, corruption, inexperience, and inadequate equipment as key factors. But, there are four reasons that the PLA can fight a modern war and even win one under certain conditions.

First, equipment is essential. As has been pointed out, the PLA has transformed itself into a powerful militaryafter more than 20 years of continuous investment. Although in terms of hardware, the PLA still cannot compete with the U.S., the mightiest fighting machine in the world, the PLA nonetheless stands a good chance against its main potential rival in Asia, Japan. Although some might claim that Japan now has an edge over China, very soon China’s PLA will surpass Japan’s SDF in terms of hardware given China’s economic size and greater military spending. The PLA’s spending is already at least twice as large as Japan’s and this trend will continue in coming years, thus giving the PLA a big advantage down the road. So, in ten years’ time, the PLA will have superb military hardware that is only second to the United States. This is one necessary condition for the PLA to fight a modern war.

Second, training is also important. Needless to say, hardware alone cannot guarantee that the PLA could fight a modern war as the PLA’s software is just as important. The PLA itself has pointed out various problems of its training in terms of style and standards. Here, corruption is the number one problem. There are 30 senior military officers who are now under official investigation for various corruption charges and there will be more soon. The good news, however, is that President Xi Jinping is determined to eliminate corruption within the PLA. When he is finished, there is good reason to believe that the PLA’s fighting ability will increase significantly. It will take some years though, but at least the PLA is heading in the right direction now.

Third, military experience is overvalued. Many question the PLA’s ability to fight because it has not fought a real war for about 30 years. The U.S. military, in the meantime, has fought at least three major wars since the end of the Cold War. The PLA, thus, has a “peace disease.” But people have overestimated the value of experience. Yes, it is true that the U.S. military has ample experience, but many other militaries do not, including Japan’s. So China’s lack of war experience might hurt its chances of winning against the U.S., but not necessarily against other rivals. Modern militaries can learn and adapt quickly too. The PLA might suffer early setbacks once a war starts, but the final outcome will more likely depend on comprehensive capabilities and strategy.

Fourth, resolve is absolutely critical. This factor has not been given adequate attention by military analysts when estimating the PLA’s ability to fight a war. If the PLA does enter a war, then it most likely will be a defensive war for China in areas near its borders. This is about defending China’s sovereignty and territories and this is fundamentally different from conquering others’ territories. Thus morale will be high. If history is any indication, the Korean War tells us that the weaker Chinese army could repel and defeat a stronger U.S. army. The fact that China then was fighting for its sovereign integrity is a key factor in explaining the defeat of the United States.

In sum, the Chinese PLA can indeed fight a modern war regardless of its potential opponent. Whether the PLA can win a war is a different story as it depends on many different factors. The key point is not to only focus on the PLA’s material capabilities; instead we should examine the PLA’s morale and resolve, two factors that have so far not been seriously studied.

Source
4 Reasons China Can Fight a Modern War | The Diplomat
 
. . . .
Good, I almost stopped reading after I saw "Jhungary"

lol you can despise me all u want, that does not mean what I said is invalid.

I dont know what type of people can work as an assistant professor, but as a military man myself, i can tell you this, his article is shit. Not because of his 4 point, but because of his premises, that China can fight a modern war, but then he completely negated his own article by saying "Whether can China win a war is a different story."

Lol it would be quite alarming if someone declare China cannot fight a modern war, that mean they are physically not able to do, that mean the whole PLA would be worse than crap before you can say PLA cannot fight a modern war.

Given the premises of the article, he can write 4 or 5 points and claim Somalia can fight a modern war, but whether can Somalia can win is another story. lol
 
.
lol you can despise me all u want, that does not mean what I said is invalid.

I dont know what type of people can work as an assistant professor, but as a military man myself, i can tell you this, his article is shit. Not because of his 4 point, but because of his premises, that China can fight a modern war, but then he completely negated his own article by saying "Whether can China win a war is a different story."

Lol it would be quite alarming if someone declare China cannot fight a modern war, that mean they are physically not able to do, that mean the whole PLA would be worse than crap before you can say PLA cannot fight a modern war.

Given the premises of the article, he can write 4 or 5 points and claim Somalia can fight a modern war, but whether can Somalia can win is another story. lol

thats the point, China didnt win in Korea completely, but neither did US and its allies,

The point of this article is not to misjudge China's willingness to fight, just like what happened in Korea.
 
.
thats the point, China didnt win in Korea completely, but neither did US and its allies,

The point of this article is not to misjudge China's willingness to fight, just like what happened in Korea.

the problem is, nobody is doubting that China can fight a modern war, lol, you can go back and fight in 2nd generation warfare or even 1st generation with Warships, tanks and Machinegun, but those are the key that modern warfare lies.

And you cannot completely negate all other aspect simply becuase your force is not good at it.

Each force, even the US armed force have its own good and bad, and the important quality to fight a war is not to say you cant discount us because we are good at this, even Sun Tsu said, learn ones own weakness is far more important than knowing your enemy weakness. The moment any commander say they will win the war because they are good at something and something, he had already lost, becuase a good commander need not only to exploit your enemy weakness, but knowing the limit for themselves.and knowing what you can or cannot do is far more important...
 
. . . .
lol you can despise me all u want, that does not mean what I said is invalid.

I dont know what type of people can work as an assistant professor, but as a military man myself, i can tell you this, his article is shit. Not because of his 4 point, but because of his premises, that China can fight a modern war, but then he completely negated his own article by saying "Whether can China win a war is a different story."

Lol it would be quite alarming if someone declare China cannot fight a modern war, that mean they are physically not able to do, that mean the whole PLA would be worse than crap before you can say PLA cannot fight a modern war.

Given the premises of the article, he can write 4 or 5 points and claim Somalia can fight a modern war, but whether can Somalia can win is another story. lol

Well, third point did say that experience would not necessarily count against other regional rivals. It concludes by saying that morale and resolve can be critical factors, and something not researched into much (a somewhat dumb conclusion).

The Diplomat usually isn't that reliable.

On another note, China had been giving tenders to private corporations for a range of projects in the military industry. Not small-scale projects as they had been doing, but increasingly going into the same direction as the American arms industry.

Author is on weeds :P

He's an assistant professor.

Dingding Chen is an assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau and Non-Resident Fellow at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Berlin, Germany. His research interests include: Chinese foreign policy, Asian security, Chinese politics, and human rights. He can be found on Twitter at @ChenDingding.
 
.
Well, third point did say that experience would not necessarily count against other regional rivals. It concludes by saying that morale and resolve can be critical factors, and something not researched into much (which is somewhat of a clumsy one).

The Diplomat usually isn't that reliable.

On another note, China had been giving tenders to private corporations for a range of projects in the military industry. Not small-scale projects as they had been doing, but increasingly going into the same direction as the American arms industry.



He's an assistant professor.

Dingding Chen is an assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau and Non-Resident Fellow at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Berlin, Germany. His research interests include: Chinese foreign policy, Asian security, Chinese politics, and human rights. He can be found on Twitter at @ChenDingding.

Hanjian
 
.
Well, third point did say that experience would not necessarily count against other regional rivals. It concludes by saying that morale and resolve can be critical factors, and something not researched into much (a somewhat dumb conclusion).

The Diplomat usually isn't that reliable.

On another note, China had been giving tenders to private corporations for a range of projects in the military industry. Not small-scale projects as they had been doing, but increasingly going into the same direction as the American arms industry.



He's an assistant professor.

Dingding Chen is an assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau and Non-Resident Fellow at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Berlin, Germany. His research interests include: Chinese foreign policy, Asian security, Chinese politics, and human rights. He can be found on Twitter at @ChenDingding.

lol iwas not saying China does not have ability to fight in modern warfare, i am rather critical to his point and the way he think.

As i said, in OCS, the instructor said, if you only count the what good with your troop, then you had already lost, this is what this article is doing exactly.

yeah, you have morale, training or whatever, that does not actually and necessarily win you war, a fact even the author admits in the end, so what is the article saying then? By pointing point 1, point 2, point 3 and point 4 so that we are not to be underestimate or write us off, just that all our quality aside, winning a modern war is, well, another story?
 
.
military experience is overvalued.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

reminds me about the Battle of Yalu River,in fact about both Sino-Japanese Wars.May I remind you,same kind of approach was taken in the past,say 125 years ago from now,and in both occasion,Japan handed over China a sweet defeat.

From my point of view,Experience is most important part of a War,even more than equipments.reminds me about Winter war and Continuation war,hopelessly inferior Finland fought a battle that stunned SU,their brute force failed to win that small nation,mainly because of Stalin's purge left most of the lower level soldiers of SU inexperienced,while Fins showed excellent knowledge of local geography and tactical superiority and experience,mounted staggering casualties on SU.

@jhungary ,please educate them with some more examples..

by the way,your rant about "I don't need your advice" kind of comment doesn't required.I simply expressed my view.
 
.
Well, third point did say that experience would not necessarily count against other regional rivals. It concludes by saying that morale and resolve can be critical factors, and something not researched into much (a somewhat dumb conclusion).

The Diplomat usually isn't that reliable.

On another note, China had been giving tenders to private corporations for a range of projects in the military industry. Not small-scale projects as they had been doing, but increasingly going into the same direction as the American arms industry.



He's an assistant professor.

Dingding Chen is an assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau and Non-Resident Fellow at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Berlin, Germany. His research interests include: Chinese foreign policy, Asian security, Chinese politics, and human rights. He can be found on Twitter at @ChenDingding.

"Third, military experience is overvalued." -> This statement undervalued him :)
 
.
Back
Top Bottom