Genesis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,599
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
Fine...So you look like US. Any body can don body armor, have a sh1tload of 'tactical' gear, and drive around in Hummer clones.
But the point that you and the rest of the Chinese members here consistently avoid is -- institutional memory.
Institutional memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The PLA have only a 50-60 yrs library of its own unique collection while the US have its own since 1776. When it comes to warfare in all of its entirety, from people to doctrines to technology, China's institutional memory regarding warfare ended at the same time the Americans revolted against the British. China was carved up into colonial pieces by superior military might from other countries and pretty much ruled that way until the end of WW II. The emergence of a new Chinese military effectively did a 'reset' on that history but essentially the PLA have no philosophical foundation for its doctrines. It had to import it from the Soviets. The major conflicts the PLA was involved in: Korea, Viet Nam, and then Viet Nam again, the PLA broke no new grounds in terms of doctrines and technology. New grounds mean something that gave pause to theorists, from civilian to military, as to how a military managed to gain a superior position over its adversary and compelled potential adversaries to reconsider their positions and relationships to this military.
Nazi Germany's blitzkrieg is an example. But the Confederacy's use of the submarine against the Union ships back in the American Civil War is not such an example, despite the fact that it was very much the first use of the submarine in a war. The reason is that the sub's use was limited and did not produce any tactical advantageous positions for the Confederacy in that conflict. Whereas with blitzkrieg, while itself is not a new concept, the Werhmacht's ability to use it effectively to conquer vast stretches of Europe wrote a new chapter in the evolution of high speed and high response 'maneuver warfare' when it comes to blending people, technology, and situations at the operational level, the strata that is most responsible for influencing an outcome of a war.
Go back even further, take a man (intelligence), a horse (mobility), and a bow and arrows (portability), and what would you have for an army? The philosophical question here is this: A dead combatant versus a severely wounded combatant, any different effect to the outcome of a battle (not a war)? Answer: No. The odds of being so disabled by a single arrow is good enough that a combatant's ability to continue the fight, regardless of how the movies may portray the heroes, is so diminished that he might as well be dead from a spear or a sword stab. Combine the man, the horse, and the bow and arrow, force all elements (combatants) into a cohesive and obedient organization and you just effectively hit the 'reset' button on warfare and that chapter remained the leading edge of warfare for centuries.
Since its founding, the PLA have contributed nothing so radical, nothing revolutionary or even evolutionary, to the history of warfare. Nothing in terms of doctrines and technology. And with Desert Storm, it was intellectually forced to abandon everything it knew about warfare.
The old saying goes: Appearances can be deceiving.
But the problem for the PLA here is that in order to deceive, one must have an already established intellectual foundation and capability to do the opposite of what one is portraying to observers, and the PLA have no such intellectual foundation and capability to deceive anyone of otherwise. It can only threaten and only those who are physically inferior can be cowed by such threats.
Do not confuse restraints by US with fear from US. The PLA can look as scary and threatening as it can, but we started the new chapter in the history book of warfare and we are writing into it, from individual soldiers equipment to tank maneuvers to 'stealth' to EW to aircraft carriers organization and many more, faster than the PLA can copy out. Some of the things that we wrote, many countries in the world will never achieve.
Please......We will revisit your own words insulting the entire military establishment...
The fallacy here is that immediate presumption that a good college and a good job goes hand-in-hand, as in being an inevitable pair or an inevitable consequence, and that those who joined the military are essentially -- idiots.
If I am an employer, this is what I see:
- A 20 yr old Chinese man, most likely the only child and therefore a spoiled brat to boot, is mooching off ma and pa for his college education. Most likely the only job he have is part time to pay for his cell phone bill and a few restaurant outings with friends where everyone is meticulous on how much his/her share of the tabs. Other than that, he have no real responsibilities. He probably does not own a car.
- A 20 yr old American man enlisted in the USAF for two years. Out of that two years, eight months spent on basic military and some technical training. The rest he spent as a crew chief on a 40 mil$ F-15E where he went from 'ACC' for assistant crew chief to finally have his named painted as 'CC'. His signature says 'Yea' or 'Nay' on whether the aircraft can fly for the day and essentially, can theoretically send a man to his death. He can remove a higher ranked enlisted person off what he believes to be 'his' jet if he does not have confidence in that person to work on 'his' jet. He most likely will have a car. Or he may have something more daring like a sports motorcycle. Or if he is frugal enough, even both. They will probably will be used, but at least he is independent.
Most likely the American air force guy will take longer to complete his college degree since his military duties will take higher priority, from daily tasks that will force him to miss a few classes to even overseas deployments. But by the time he finally got his college degree, say two years later than the Chinese spoiled brat, he will have six years of high stress, increasing responsibilities, and diverse workplace experience to accompany his college degree. And since the USAF paid for his college, he is also not burdened with education related debts.
From an employer's perspective, who do you think is going to be perceived as the more responsible and intelligent?
If I was a chick, say a Chinese gal seeking a better life with more than just one child in the family, the Yank does look pretty good.
Of course it does...If the fool persists on making baseless assertions and insulting those who do have experience and tried to teach him something.
Sure it does. Whenever a debate is engaged, a considerable intellectual and emotional investments are in play. I would not enter a debate with Stephen Hawkings (physics) or Thomas Sowell (economics) or even the local anonymous civil engineer maintaining the traffic lights. Would you be that foolish, even when there are so much electronic walls between them and you, hiding your face, leaving only the contents of your arguments to see? If you say no, then your electronic face is already valuable to you. You have imbued it with as much of your own character as possible, from personality to intellect to knowledge.
This is a military oriented forum. The discussions involved often have high technical contexts, not to say of things that are unique to military life. The length of your existence in this electronic world is entirely up to you but as long as you exists, whatever persona you created is just as valuable here as your real life is outside the Internet.
You tried to save your face by insulting an entire class of people -- the military -- when you found your arguments in shambles in the absence of relevant experience.
Bullsh1t.
Guerrilla warfare is nothing new, not even what Mao relabeled as "The People's War". Many of the occupied European countries did it back in WW II. But if we should be generous to Mao, the only 'new' thing he may have espoused, not necessarily technically fleshed out, is that unlike discrete independent guerrilla units of old, the Chinese version should be coordinative in their tactics and methodical as to create favorable consequences for other units. We have yet to see it in action and most likely never will.
Yes, you still are. If this is a race, we are 10 laps ahead with only one lap to go. But since this is not a race but the inexorable progress of life, particularly the military life, we are more like 30 yrs ahead of the PLA in terms of everything.
- China was never colonized, I can show sources, true Taiwan, HK and Macau, but those were islands. The Chinese government had absolute say in provincial governorship in all provinces throughout its history.
-China learned from the Americans and NATO as well as Russia and there are military exercises all the time and exchanges with a lot of different countries.
Chinese military has more and more university graduates, and people with masters degrees. Officers who have been trained both domestically and overseas. Men who have studied extensively of each and every conflict be it Western or Eastern.
So tell me, what does it matter you guys started earlier. You can catch up 20 years in a week, but you can't advance 2 weeks in a day.
If you must, China the continuous civilization is 5 thousand years old, way older than you guys, and don't give me the nomads crap, I know all about European history.
- Since you mentioned the Nazis, did you know German empire in WW1 had almost no tanks, while the allies were all about the tanks. Americans also had no tanks and were given their training after they arrived in France.
Nazis fought no opponent before the Polish campaign and yet they were effective.
- You keep mention Vietnam and Korea, but the fact was Vietnam, our latest war was fought with technology so out dated that they may as well have gone in with bow and arrow.
I don't know why Vietnam proved China is weak TODAY, when I clearly showed the difference.
-The US isn't god, the Spanish tercios were once invincible too and the Swedish mercenaries. Just because you guys invented some new things doesn't mean nothing to the past or the future, just means something now.
-And don't confuse Chinese restraint as fear, you guys just haven't done anything to upset China so much as to forget economic interests and go for war.
- As you said PLA's history is not long, with modern weaponry it's even less. It's only about 10 years that PLA has been achieving a effective force. It's only right now, or not even now can we say that we are advanced.
But that doesn't mean we won't in the future, and seeing as how there are no wars, how can you say that we don't have any plans. The Chinese military's modernization program clearly needs a goal and a set of doctrines to govern it. We don't just randomly develop weapons, it must fit a certain purpose.
-China isn't just history, we are the Roman empire that was rebuilt again and again. We have the man power, the education, the economy, and everything required. We are on a raw bases every bit as powerful if not more so than US. Except we are hungary to avenge our years of humiliation. So tell me, would YOU bet against China achieving success?
When over the past decades we have proven everyone wrong.
-Good college and good job don't go hand in hand, but it doesn't hurt. Also not my fault my parents have money to give me, maybe next life that can happen to you too. I also have no debts, never had it, be it house, car, or education.
From an employer's perspective, I am hired and well paid. With benefits and longer vacation time. Though the vacation time has more to do with the nature of my job than me.
- I would argue with anyone online, it's where I try out my arguments and stuff. Why does it matter what it makes me look, when I can just ignore it.
Real life it be different I'll give you that.
-military forum where you keep telling people Chinese military is pretty much illiterate, and somehow some Chinese members are a reflection on the highly educated men and women who serve in Chinese military.
This would be like me saying the Tea party is a reflection of the US military. The creationist believing idiots.
-Mao did his war methods pre-WW2 and his methods were different, Stalin defended Stalingrad, Hitler went for Moscow, America wanted key cities and ports. Mao also wanted them, but only in favorable circumstances.
-China has advanced beyond anyone's expectations, you won't dispute this would you. So why would you doubt China's ability to catch up and surpass the US. Don't be like Gordon Chang.