Top Chinese diplomat tells US to 'shut up' on arms spending

No, I don't. But I know they are gonna vote in Abe, who doesn't view the invasion of China, Korea and other countries unjust, who doesn't think those 14 as war criminals, whose grandfather was a noctirious figure during war time but managed to get away after the war.

And how conveniently you avoided answering my questions on Japanese destroyers and subs. What you didn't read that part?

 

Deckard, Ottomaton,

By no means want to disagree with you guys here. Just wanted to point out a couple of things about J-7/J-8 and the PLAAF upgrade strategy with them. Should go to explain why I rank them as equivalents to the F-16s.

J-8IIM - has been upgraded with the Russian Zhuk radar and fire control modifications and the AA-10/AA-11 missile suite. Making them superior to F-16s in beyond-visual-range (BVR) intercepts. The presence of AWACs for China as well as Japan/US, pretty much limits all future engagements to BVR while AWACs are in the air. With the US slow to transfer AMRAAMs to Taiwan and limiting their numbers (as well as charging a bundle), This is extremely worrisome.

J-7E - has been equipped with licensed versions of the Israeli Python 3 AAM, giving them close to parity in close-combat situations to F-16s. This becomes extremely worrisome once you realize China has also purchased AWACs-killing ultra-long-range AAMs from Russia. Once Japan/US/Taiwanese AWACs go down (or once the couple hundred AMRAAMs have been exhausted on the first wave), the PLAAF can swarm the skies with J-7s. In the modern age of helmut-sighted all-aspect AAMs, there are no more of this dogfight BS, if you see them, no matter if they are way off boresight, you can still get a lock and kill them. Lethality of missiles once locked and launched is damn near 100%. In fact, until the US/Japan/Taiwan changes over all their sidewinders to the X-model, it is a very real possibility that the J-7s actually have an edge...

I'm not saying J-7 and J-8 are superior in every way. But they are still competitive with F-16s. And given the oh... 800 to 65 edge in numbers... This is definitely an issue of concern.

F-15s and F-16s when fully upgraded are still relatively effective, but one must realize that they TOO are ancient (1960s) technology. And most of the F-16s in Taiwan's arsenal are actually Block A/B... >_<

Here are the sources:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/pl-9.htm
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j7e.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j8b.asp
http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/fighter.htm

 

otto, here's another article that evaluates Japan's military (including navy). The author is a consultant to RAND, and a U.S.-based defense and policy analyst specialized in East Asian region. Obvious to me, the assessment is in quite stark contrast to your attempt to downplay Japan's military strength, and specifically, the capabilities of its naval forces.

"In measuring capabilities, I have chosen to look at aggregate defense spending, not defense as a percentage of GDP as many scholars do when studying Japan. I do this because the percentage indicates a level of effort - the burden of military spending assumed by society - rather than direct output, which is what really matters when analyzing a balance of power. Looking at aggregate defense spending, we see Japan overtaking other US allies in the 1980s. In the post cold war period, we see Japan as the #2 defense spender after the US as measured in market exchange rates. Adjusting to purchasing power parity, Japan falls only one slot down to #3, behind the US and Russia."

"This military spending has purchased strong capabilities. In the '50s and '60s Japan's capabilities were poor, its equipment largely being left-over US equipment. Starting in the late '80s, Japan began purchasing state-of-the-art F- 15s, AWACS, Aegis cruisers, and other modern defense platforms. Its naval tonnage doubled, while the overall age of the fleet dropped significantly. It also acquired a significant fleet air defense capability with the SM-2 MR. An organic air defense capability is necessary for blue water operations, and allows the Japanese navy to sail at a distance from friendly shores, outside the range of coastal air cover. Other great powers have inferior air defense capabilities, and are accordingly limited to operations in their littoral waters. I put the Japanese navy as the world's 3rd or 4th most powerful today. In the same time period the percentage of current generation fighter aircraft in Japan's inventory rose significantly, complemented by a high number of early-warning aircraft, which are critical in utilizing fighters to control airspace. Most importantly, Japan's pilots receive a very high number of flying hours for training. I rank the Japanese air force as perhaps the 4th most powerful in the world."

In particular, the author reasoned "these increases [of Japan's military capabilities] should taper off following the end of the cold war," considering that "in the post cold war period, a favorable balance of power has reemerged."

(link to the article)

No disrespect to your enthusiasm in military subject, I think the author's expert POV weighs significantly more than yours.

 

Good post.

Would like to point out that Japan's increased defense spending is in direct relation to the rapidly increasing threat and sustained animosity it perceives from North Korea and China. Furthermore, if you look at absolute spending (the Janes/RAND estimates, not PRC official figures) and spending growth, in both cases China has far overtaken Japan.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopoli...ContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

Personally, I see a lot more self-consciousness and reflection on the part of Japanese politicans on their military than I do from Chinese politicians. And frankly, would I prefer to see Japan or China as Asia's next hegemon? I only know that Japan doesn't threaten to invade Taiwan every other day and actually has a constitutional clause preventing them from ever starting a war again.

 

Hey, thanks.

It's a question of whodunnit first. My pro-China bias says Japan had started it before China seriously upgraded its military. This assertion is corroborated by the article I just quoted. The Cold War ended at the turn of 1990s, but Japan kept its pace of military strengthening despite the favorable balance of power towards it. China didn't accelerate its military spending until mid- to late-1990s.

It's true North Korea has never been friendly with Japan. But NK's military has mostly, if not exclusively, focused on its close-knit southern neighbour. Their long range missile tests are the development only in recent decade. To this date, nobody really takes NK's navy seriously, correct?

Furthermore, the animosity between Japan and China at the state to state level is a phenomenon in the new millennium. So, while it may be said Japan's military upgrade is related to the overstated threats it perceives from NK, China, and to a lesser degree, SK and Russia, there was far less convincing justification for Japan to do that in the late '80s and early '90s.

I can understand your POV basing on where you come from. I disagree PRC is threatening Taiwan every other day. It's going to take a long thread to discuss this issue, to put it shortly, I believe Taiwan and PRC are a divided China problem. BTW, it's my stance that hegemony, regional or global, by any country is a bad idea.

Sure on paper Japan's consititutional clause prevents it from starting a war, but there have been serious talks from the ultra-nationalist right wingers to challenge or overwrite it. Something like preventive war is being tossed around here and there recently in Japan. So excuse my suspicion in Japan's ernestness to keep the commitment to its pacifist consititution.

 

Oh BTW, Lil, on the Diaoyu Island dispute, who do you side with?

 

Are you serious? So China needs to build a super power military for Defensive purposes?

I suppose that's why they need to test 20 megathon nuclear weapson as well...to feel safe?

China faces no outside threat - no nation wishes to ever invade China - that to me is paranoia.

 

Geez, you don't even know one of the basic US defensive doctrines? Strategic deterrance! Power balance. Basic game theory stuff.

Before you expose further of yourself. I strongly suggest you to take off your glasses, or maybe put on - if you can't see cearly.

 

Hey I really appreciate your tone on these last couple of posts! You are pretty cool.

On Diaoyutai? DUDE! OF COURSE IT BELONGS TO TAIWAN!

 

Sure, 1.3 billion Chinese should just rely on your gurantee. If you had given that assurance 70 years earlier, those 30 million lives wouldn't be lost, and we wouldn't have had this thread.

 

Shouldn't you say ROC instead of Taiwan? Just curious.

 

You've got a pretty good point about Japan's buildup in the 80s and early 90s, before China's own arms buildup.

One needs to keep in mind though in the 80s and early 90s, Japan was the workshop of the world. The world's 3rd (2nd post-USSR) biggest superpower. And the widely perceived notion both in diplomatic circles and within Japan was that it was an economic superpower and a military/diplomatic recluse/dwarf. And the international opinion back then was for Japan to take a wider role/responsibility in international affairs, proportionate to its economic power. And despite these calls, they were still only devoting 1% of GDP to their military.

That being said, the same excuse can be given to China today. They need a military proportional to their vast economic power and geopolitical interests. The counter to that argument would be of course that Chinese defense spending is growing much faster than China's economy. Maybe they are playing catch up.

I wouldn't give really give a crap about Japan, except that the Chinese weapons are trained on my own family in Taiwan first, with the peripheral aim of keeping Japan out of any potential fights.

 

Same thing. The ROC only rules Taiwan now.

By that token, I guess we really shouldn't place a claim on DYT... Heck it's just a tiny island the size of my lot in Houston... with nothing but seagulls and guano on it...

Can't the fishermen split the fishing rights or something?

 

My position is that China's military build-up is not for defensive purposes as claimed by you and others on this board.

It's not to defend their homeland....it's to defend their geopolitical interests...with the ability to go on the offensive.

This is quite different from Japan's defense structure which is clearly aimed at only controling it's territorial waters and airspace.

 

My position is that China's military build-up is not for defensive purposes as claimed by you and others on this board.

When did I say that? Please quote me. BTW, I am still waiting for you to back up your claim with my quote, that I threw personal attacks around. Thanks in advance.

It's not to defend their homeland....it's to defend their geopolitical interests...with the ability to go on the offensive.

It's to defend their homeland, but not limited to. China feels the needs to be military strong enough to protect their large land, long sea shore, and geopolitical interests. If it's necessary, China will be on offensive. Hope you approve their request.

This is quite different from Japan's defense structure which is clearly aimed at only controling it's territorial waters and airspace.

How clearly? Like the 2nd most military spender for years? Oh, I almost forgot, they purchased $300 hammers from Us only.

 

Well, you have just admitted that it's not just to defend their homeland - and that China will go on the offensive. So you are validating that the Chinese military build-up is not solely to prevent invasion.

Japan's military is clearly geared for defense. It's destroyers and airforce is more geared to control it's current airforce then attack another country. It does not have long-range ballistic missles, nor long-range bombers. It has no cruise missles, no nukes, and no mega-guns to shell seaports. It doesn't have a massive army or amphibious units to create a beachhead. THis demonstrates a defensive positioning - unlike China's who's military has an offensive minded military.

As for insults and whatever...I really don't care. I'm not going to go back through posts and look for that stuff and debate it...if you won't be a man and own up to it - that's your perrogative. I just ask in future keep it clean and stick to the debate....

 

I perfectly understand your sentiment, I think I might feel the same way if I were in your situation. But I honestly believe it's unwarranted, as far as I can tell, PRC wouldn't bother to touch Taiwan/ROC if the status quo is maintained for the long foreseeable future.

 

Well, you have just admitted that it's not just to defend their homeland - and that China will go on the offensive. So you are validating that the Chinese military build-up is not solely to prevent invasion.

Preventing invasion is the first choice, as always. However, as a country at current status, offensive means and ability is the best way to prevent potential invasion. If China does not have the ability to reach US, US has a much easier choice to make whether to intervene, if (God forbid) China involves in military conflict within the region. Therefore, without that offensive capability, you are facing more threats.

Japan's military is clearly geared for defense. It's destroyers and airforce is more geared to control it's current airforce then attack another country. It does not have long-range ballistic missles, nor long-range bombers. It has no cruise missles, no nukes, and no mega-guns to shell seaports. It doesn't have a massive army or amphibious units to create a beachhead. THis demonstrates a defensive positioning - unlike China's who's military has an offensive minded military.

You probably missed Japanese attempts to modify consitution and agreements with US, and special white paper about how Japan navy should intervene, when there is military conflicts in the region. That IS NOT defensive positioning.

As for insults and whatever...I really don't care. I'm not going to go back through posts and look for that stuff and debate it...if you won't be a man and own up to it - that's your perrogative. I just ask in future keep it clean and stick to the debate....

You accused me of personal attacking. When asked to back it up, you refused and accused me agian of not man enough to own up to it? LOL. You should really follow your own advice: 1. be man enough to own up to it 2. Keep it clean and stick to the debate.

 

Your position has already exposed by the US deterrance doctrine.

 

Ok, I think we've all established that China intends to use it's military power for more then defending the homeland, and real-egal has concurred.

As for Japan, I think we've established that it's forces are right now deployed defensively, but that it has unsuccessfuly tried to change it's constitution to have a more active role in the region. Therefore it's still taken a defensive stance.

I think that's the end to this debate.