China have to be Hated to be Strong? The rising of next Superpower

[shuttler]

Please show me timeline that we "taking" your territories?

For example, in the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos, we have controlled them from the 15th century without any clash with the Chinese there. Meanwhile, the official maps of China until 1930s which were not mentioned the two archipelagos of the Vietnamese.

How do you think we did get them from the Chinese?

there are numerous threads on that. help yourself!

 

[HongWu]

You cannot make friend (Or enemy) by not engaging, the more you engage, the more friend you will earn, hence the more foreign relation policy, on the other hand, you make enemy along the way, My wife seems to think this is the only way fo China to actual become a superpower, do what american do, flex muscle throughtout the world.

Your wife is wise. You are not. There has never been any powerful country in the history of the world that has become strong by giving away territory to exchange for peace. The birth of a superpower is by killing other nation's people. China will be no different. First Japan, then Vietnam, then Philippines, then India

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Your wife is wise. You are not. There has never been any powerful country in the history of the world that has become strong by giving away territory to exchange for peace. The birth of a superpower is by killing other nation's people. China will be no different. First Japan, then Vietnam, then Philippines, then India

You need some professional help

 

[Viet]

First and foremost is Japan, Nanjing can never be forgotten. Vietnam, Philippines and then India respectively. Although I would love to see Indians suffering

I think you should see a doc.

Your wife is wise. You are not. There has never been any powerful country in the history of the world that has become strong by giving away territory to exchange for peace. The birth of a superpower is by killing other nation's people. China will be no different. First Japan, then Vietnam, then Philippines, then India

You too. Contact your psychology doc!

 

[ChinaToday]

Maybe China thinks it is big and powerful enough to be alone. In contrast we are much smaller, we need others to balance your powers. Everyone does it, we are not alone to do such things.

Realistic Casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war

This is a topic that is often discussed with many misleading numbers quoted. One common notion is that Vietnamese forces dealt out a disporportionately high casualty rate to the PLA. What is know is that the PLA of 1979 was in a very poor shape(compared to the Korea, Tibet, and Indian Campaigns) and suffered from an extreme lack of training and very bad logistics. It is also known that the Vietnamese forces of 1979 were battle-hardened veterans of the US-Vietname war with access of more advanced Soviet weaponery. The question to be asked is just how poorly did the PLA actually perform in the Sino-Vietnam when compared to past conflicts? I'm going to attempt an objective comparison of the casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war. I will tally the figures from both sides actual troop counts to come to as clear a picture as possible. PLA Invasion force and casualties: Vietnamese sources suggest an invasion force of 600,000 PLA soldiers entering the country, this is unfortunately impossible due to logistics. After 25 years of rapid infrastructural development, in 2003, the PLA managed to deploy 300,000 RRF troops to Xinjiang in 3 weeks. There was simply no way the PLA could've moved 600,000 soldiers with backup troops to the Vietnamese border in 5 weeks in 1979. A much more realistic PLA Invasion force into Vietnam numbered 80,000 with another 150,000 remaining on the Chinese side of the border. This is a number quoted from both internal de-classified PLA sources and quoted as an estimate from American/Soviet sources via satillite imagery. Now as for total casualties. Western Sources estimate a total PLA casualty count of 20,000. PLA indicates 6,900 killed, 15,000 wounded which implies 22,000 total casualties. Vietnam claims 26,000 PLA troops KIA, 37,000 WIA through the entirety of the war. The KIA is clearly an exaggeration due to the fact that if this was the case, ~80% of the entire PLA invasion force would've been casualties. The WIA could be more realistic however due the border war lasting for 10 years. Realistic PLA KIA: ~6900 Total ~6300(1979 invasion) ~200 in Operation LanJianI(1982) ~70 in Operation Laoshan(1984) ~300(1985-1988). Vietnamese Defending Force: Vietnam had 100,000 regular army forces along the border during the 1979 invasion. This point is agreed upon by PLA, Western, and Vietnamese forces. What is also agreed upon by all parties is that Vietnam suffered 12,000 regular forces KIA in 1979 and another 8,000 regular forces KIA for the remainder of the border war until 1988. The PLA asserts that there were an additional 100,000 Vietnamese militia forces during the 1979 campaign, and that 20,000 of these militiamen were KIA. Western sources appear contradictory on the topic with some agreeing and some disagreeing upon that number. Vietnamese sources claims that there were no guerilla militia forces and that the PLA killed 10,000 vietnamese civilians. But then the Vietnamese army also has sources honoring these same civilians for fighting against the PLA during the 1979 invasion. Specifically they have a memorial for the 10,000 people. So at this point it can be asserted that at least 10,000 non uniformed Vietnamese were killed, whether they were civilians or militia or both is up for question. It can be assumed that the PLA claim of 20,000 militia KIA is an exaggeration. Due to the ambiguity of the sources, I'll simply take the average from the Chinese and Vietnamese claims => 15,000 Vietnamese militia/civilians killed in 1979 Total Vietamese Casualties: ~35,000 ~27,000 (12,000 Regular + 17,000 militia/civilian in 1979) ~1000 regulars in 1982 ~4000 regulars in 1984 ~3000 regulars from 1985-1988 That is an average kill ratio of 1:5 in favor of the PLA. While the PLA did better in the Indian and Tibetan campaigns, this ratio compares very favorably to the PLA's performance in Korea against U.N forces which was 2:1. So while the war with Vietnam exposed many shortcomings of the PLA immediatly after the cultural revolution. In the acheivement of it's overall objectives(took Vietnamese Land,forced even tual vietnamese withdraw from Cambodia+Laos) with such a casualty ratio, one can argue that the PLA didn't do at all too badly with what they had on hand. However, one can also argue that a war which took almost 10 full years to win is a poor reflection upon the PLA. But I think the Sino-Vietnamese border war was one in which the Vietnamese put up a very determined and resourceful resistence like they always had, and the PLA simply won in the end not due to technology or strategic brilliance but due to the stubborness of the CMC to keep fighting the war and the stomach of the ordinary PLA infantry to keep hammering away until the enemy simply couldn't take any more punishment

Realistic Casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war

 

[Viet]

Realistic Casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war

Realistic Casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war

We can agree that the number is disputed. You may open a new thread. This one is about China.

 

[Zero_wing]

This not china troll bashing its to help china check itself. I strongly believe if china just not claim all of the West Philippine Sea and other peoples EZZs and territories we would have no problem with china. If china only behaves and act like a grown up we would have no problem of her being a super power i would be better for an asian super power for once even just a regional power would be better but china being a super power now with this mind set is just world war 3 waiting to happen.

 

[Audio]

No, it is different in tone. The guy Sino dumb talks of nuke, in contrast HongWu dumb talks a bit more...but both are one thing in common: arrogant and dumb.

The rhythm in their posts is however the same, even if one does come off a bit more knowledgeable lunatic then the other. Same short sentences, same mandatory mention of India somewhere, same lack of insight, same mongering etc...i think its funny
and im Sinochallenged's biggest fan anyway, so i welcome HongWu as his well made substitute!

 

[gagaga]

its very unappropriated that a country its people average monthly salary worth couples of hundreds USD aiming to become "super power"... i don't know what the top leadership of cpc care the most, but i do hope them don't spend more than 5 minutes a day on foreign policy making, its unproductive.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Your wife is wise. You are not. There has never been any powerful country in the history of the world that has become strong by giving away territory to exchange for peace. The birth of a superpower is by killing other nation's people. China will be no different. First Japan, then Vietnam, then Philippines, then India

Unfortunately, the first step is too difficult for you, [out of reach], so how do you do the next step?

Japan-USA alliance really is a huge challenge for any country in the world

In my opinion, you should give-up the first step then focus into the next steps....

 

[fly2012]

I think one thing needs to be clearly defined is "who is the everybody?" It is often seen in Western media of the statement "Russia and China are against the world" and by "world" it really meant US led NATO countries. If by this definition it is inevitable that China will be hated by "everybody" as long as it wants to grow and develop. Same goes to any large enough developing country (India, for instance) that wants to grow. For any new power to come up, no matter how "nice" it can be, it will challenge the existing world order. Historically this could be on military and nowadays it maybe on economic side, or both. I think it is very important for both the emerging power and current powers who defines the rules to learn to live with each other instead of having one to wash dishes for the rest of the week.

Currently US is still the dominant world leader and I believe the leader should share more responsibilities on shaping up the future of the world.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Realistic Casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war

This is a topic that is often discussed with many misleading numbers quoted. One common notion is that Vietnamese forces dealt out a disporportionately high casualty rate to the PLA. What is know is that the PLA of 1979 was in a very poor shape(compared to the Korea, Tibet, and Indian Campaigns) and suffered from an extreme lack of training and very bad logistics. It is also known that the Vietnamese forces of 1979 were battle-hardened veterans of the US-Vietname war with access of more advanced Soviet weaponery. The question to be asked is just how poorly did the PLA actually perform in the Sino-Vietnam when compared to past conflicts? I'm going to attempt an objective comparison of the casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war. I will tally the figures from both sides actual troop counts to come to as clear a picture as possible. PLA Invasion force and casualties: Vietnamese sources suggest an invasion force of 600,000 PLA soldiers entering the country, this is unfortunately impossible due to logistics. After 25 years of rapid infrastructural development, in 2003, the PLA managed to deploy 300,000 RRF troops to Xinjiang in 3 weeks. There was simply no way the PLA could've moved 600,000 soldiers with backup troops to the Vietnamese border in 5 weeks in 1979. A much more realistic PLA Invasion force into Vietnam numbered 80,000 with another 150,000 remaining on the Chinese side of the border. This is a number quoted from both internal de-classified PLA sources and quoted as an estimate from American/Soviet sources via satillite imagery. Now as for total casualties. Western Sources estimate a total PLA casualty count of 20,000. PLA indicates 6,900 killed, 15,000 wounded which implies 22,000 total casualties. Vietnam claims 26,000 PLA troops KIA, 37,000 WIA through the entirety of the war. The KIA is clearly an exaggeration due to the fact that if this was the case, ~80% of the entire PLA invasion force would've been casualties. The WIA could be more realistic however due the border war lasting for 10 years. Realistic PLA KIA: ~6900 Total ~6300(1979 invasion) ~200 in Operation LanJianI(1982) ~70 in Operation Laoshan(1984) ~300(1985-1988). Vietnamese Defending Force: Vietnam had 100,000 regular army forces along the border during the 1979 invasion. This point is agreed upon by PLA, Western, and Vietnamese forces. What is also agreed upon by all parties is that Vietnam suffered 12,000 regular forces KIA in 1979 and another 8,000 regular forces KIA for the remainder of the border war until 1988. The PLA asserts that there were an additional 100,000 Vietnamese militia forces during the 1979 campaign, and that 20,000 of these militiamen were KIA. Western sources appear contradictory on the topic with some agreeing and some disagreeing upon that number. Vietnamese sources claims that there were no guerilla militia forces and that the PLA killed 10,000 vietnamese civilians. But then the Vietnamese army also has sources honoring these same civilians for fighting against the PLA during the 1979 invasion. Specifically they have a memorial for the 10,000 people. So at this point it can be asserted that at least 10,000 non uniformed Vietnamese were killed, whether they were civilians or militia or both is up for question. It can be assumed that the PLA claim of 20,000 militia KIA is an exaggeration. Due to the ambiguity of the sources, I'll simply take the average from the Chinese and Vietnamese claims => 15,000 Vietnamese militia/civilians killed in 1979 Total Vietamese Casualties: ~35,000 ~27,000 (12,000 Regular + 17,000 militia/civilian in 1979) ~1000 regulars in 1982 ~4000 regulars in 1984 ~3000 regulars from 1985-1988 That is an average kill ratio of 1:5 in favor of the PLA. While the PLA did better in the Indian and Tibetan campaigns, this ratio compares very favorably to the PLA's performance in Korea against U.N forces which was 2:1. So while the war with Vietnam exposed many shortcomings of the PLA immediatly after the cultural revolution. In the acheivement of it's overall objectives(took Vietnamese Land,forced even tual vietnamese withdraw from Cambodia+Laos) with such a casualty ratio, one can argue that the PLA didn't do at all too badly with what they had on hand. However, one can also argue that a war which took almost 10 full years to win is a poor reflection upon the PLA. But I think the Sino-Vietnamese border war was one in which the Vietnamese put up a very determined and resourceful resistence like they always had, and the PLA simply won in the end not due to technology or strategic brilliance but due to the stubborness of the CMC to keep fighting the war and the stomach of the ordinary PLA infantry to keep hammering away until the enemy simply couldn't take any more punishment

Realistic Casualty counts of the Sino-Vietnamese war

Delusion of AhQ

 

[jhungary]

Your wife is wise. You are not. There has never been any powerful country in the history of the world that has become strong by giving away territory to exchange for peace. The birth of a superpower is by killing other nation's people. China will be no different. First Japan, then Vietnam, then Philippines, then India

Killing everyone will not be the answer, if there only 1 people in this world, what good will that be if he or she is the "King of the World"

Beside, i very much doubt that you can kill all the Japanese, Philippino, Vietnamese and whoever crossed path with you.

The rhythm in their posts is however the same, even if one does come off a bit more knowledgeable lunatic then the other. Same short sentences, same mandatory mention of India somewhere, same lack of insight, same mongering etc...i think its funny
and im Sinochallenged's biggest fan anyway, so i welcome HongWu as his well made substitute!

I don't think he had thought it through

its very unappropriated that a country its people average monthly salary worth couples of hundreds USD aiming to become "super power"... i don't know what the top leadership of cpc care the most, but i do hope them don't spend more than 5 minutes a day on foreign policy making, its unproductive.

Some Chinese that make sense. The problem with Chinese government now is the Gap between City and Village is TOOOOO Big, you can get a guy living in big city earning about 6 to 10 time what the same person who live in rural area

But say for the sake of the agrument, this is taken out, what would chinese do to make them the superpower they always wanted??

I think one thing needs to be clearly defined is "who is the everybody?" It is often seen in Western media of the statement "Russia and China are against the world" and by "world" it really meant US led NATO countries. If by this definition it is inevitable that China will be hated by "everybody" as long as it wants to grow and develop. Same goes to any large enough developing country (India, for instance) that wants to grow. For any new power to come up, no matter how "nice" it can be, it will challenge the existing world order. Historically this could be on military and nowadays it maybe on economic side, or both. I think it is very important for both the emerging power and current powers who defines the rules to learn to live with each other instead of having one to wash dishes for the rest of the week.

Currently US is still the dominant world leader and I believe the leader should share more responsibilities on shaping up the future of the world.

That's a good question "Who" is everybody.

The term everybody should mean of whom they are not in your sphere of influence. Having living in Sweden for quite some time taught me one thing, There are no middle position, there are no neutral, when you come down to World Affair. As you are a part of the world, no matter where you are, you will be involved.

So in the sense, in any country, there are only Friends and Enemy, there are no neutral when you plan you world policy.

And judging from your word, i would classify you as a unionist.

 

[ChinaToday]

Delusion of AhQ

Post reported

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Post reported

Why? Reasons?

Let me explain more about AhQ for those who do not know about it:

AhQ, a character in the works of a well-known Chinese writer Lu Xun. AhQ character is so famous, even he went to the dictionary for a term. But this does not mean to offend. It's just an implication.

This literary work is also quite well known in Vietnam.

In modern Chinese language, the term the "spirit of Ah Q" or "Ah Q mentality" (阿Q精神, A Q jingshen) is used commonly as a term of mockery to describe someone who chooses not to face up to reality and deceives himself into believing he is successful, or has unjustified beliefs of superiority over others. It describes a narcissistic individual who rationalizes every single actual failure he faces as a psychological triumph ("spiritual victory").

The True Story of Ah Q - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia