Posted on Oct 9, 2014
Are we prepared for WW III? China Says They Must Prepare....
3.9K
43
34
3
3
0
By Han Xudong (Global Times) 07:02, September 16, 2014
As the Ukrainian crisis deepens, international observers have become more and more concerned about a direct military clash between the US and Russia. Once an armed rivalry erupts, it is likely to extend to the globe. And it is not impossible that a world war could break out.
The world war is a form of war that the whole world should face up to. During human evolution, the world war has entered its third development phase.
The first phase took place between nomadic societies and farming groups. The second phase was featured by colonial wars, with WWI and WWII as its special representatives.
Currently, the world has entered an era of new forms of global war.
Outer space, the Internet and the sea have become the battlefields of rivalry. Technology is the key, and the number of countries involved is unprecedented.
The rivalry on the outer space and the Internet takes place with the rivalry on the sea as the center stage. During WWII, some major powers attached significant importance to the sea.
Alfred Thayer Mahan, a US military strategist who died in 1914, coined the notion of sea power. He advocated valuing the naval forces, commercial fleet and overseas military base, which served for wars on the land.
But nowadays, we stress the importance of power in the sea. Judging from the contention of the global sea space, the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean have seen the fiercest rivalry. It's likely that there will be a third world war to fight for sea rights.
In an era when a third world war may take place, an important topic for the Chinese military is how to develop its power to maintain its national interests.
This should become the basis for its development, because since the founding of the PRC, the development of its military forces has been centered around maintaining its rights on the land. As the rivalry on the sea grows intense, China's military development should shift from maintaining the country's rights on the land to maintaining its rights on the sea.
Meanwhile, China is standing at the focal point of rivalries. This requires China to develop its military power based on a global war. China is in the heartland of the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
The development of China's sea power touches the nerves of many countries. China needs to develop its military power to avoid being squeezed to a passive position.
China's overseas interests have spread all over the world. As the US has been shifting its attention to the Asia-Pacific region, especially aiming at China, China's overseas interests have been increasingly threatened by the US.
Without large-scale military power, securing China's overseas interests seems like an empty slogan.
The long-range or overseas combat capabilities of China's sea and air forces are quite limited yet. If we don't view the development of sea and air forces with a farsighted view, we will face various restraints when building up the combat capabilities of sea and air forces or maintaining overseas interests. This will lead to the backwardness of China's sea and air forces.
China should not be pushed into a passive position where it is vulnerable to attacks. We must bear a third world war in mind when developing military forces, especially the sea and air forces.
The author is a professor at the PLA National Defense University.
As the Ukrainian crisis deepens, international observers have become more and more concerned about a direct military clash between the US and Russia. Once an armed rivalry erupts, it is likely to extend to the globe. And it is not impossible that a world war could break out.
The world war is a form of war that the whole world should face up to. During human evolution, the world war has entered its third development phase.
The first phase took place between nomadic societies and farming groups. The second phase was featured by colonial wars, with WWI and WWII as its special representatives.
Currently, the world has entered an era of new forms of global war.
Outer space, the Internet and the sea have become the battlefields of rivalry. Technology is the key, and the number of countries involved is unprecedented.
The rivalry on the outer space and the Internet takes place with the rivalry on the sea as the center stage. During WWII, some major powers attached significant importance to the sea.
Alfred Thayer Mahan, a US military strategist who died in 1914, coined the notion of sea power. He advocated valuing the naval forces, commercial fleet and overseas military base, which served for wars on the land.
But nowadays, we stress the importance of power in the sea. Judging from the contention of the global sea space, the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean have seen the fiercest rivalry. It's likely that there will be a third world war to fight for sea rights.
In an era when a third world war may take place, an important topic for the Chinese military is how to develop its power to maintain its national interests.
This should become the basis for its development, because since the founding of the PRC, the development of its military forces has been centered around maintaining its rights on the land. As the rivalry on the sea grows intense, China's military development should shift from maintaining the country's rights on the land to maintaining its rights on the sea.
Meanwhile, China is standing at the focal point of rivalries. This requires China to develop its military power based on a global war. China is in the heartland of the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
The development of China's sea power touches the nerves of many countries. China needs to develop its military power to avoid being squeezed to a passive position.
China's overseas interests have spread all over the world. As the US has been shifting its attention to the Asia-Pacific region, especially aiming at China, China's overseas interests have been increasingly threatened by the US.
Without large-scale military power, securing China's overseas interests seems like an empty slogan.
The long-range or overseas combat capabilities of China's sea and air forces are quite limited yet. If we don't view the development of sea and air forces with a farsighted view, we will face various restraints when building up the combat capabilities of sea and air forces or maintaining overseas interests. This will lead to the backwardness of China's sea and air forces.
China should not be pushed into a passive position where it is vulnerable to attacks. We must bear a third world war in mind when developing military forces, especially the sea and air forces.
The author is a professor at the PLA National Defense University.
China
Warfare
Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
We (the US) aren't prepared for any war with the possible exception of nuclear war (and I doubt that we have the will or insanity to fight that). The strategic advantage that the US once enjoyed was its economic and industrial base, and that has been destroyed by the micro-management through regulation and interference by big government.
Sure, we have the largest collection of super carriers in the world but can't afford to deploy them. We have the most advanced strategic technology and can't afford to produce it.
As our military assets sit idle, the people needed to operate them go without training that is needed to learn and perfect their skills. Even the infantry is suffering from lack of training. We can barely afford platoon and company level drills beyond marksmanship, let alone battalion, brigade, division, and corps exercises needed to prepare for war.
At least at the outset of WWII, England and France enjoyed a numerical superiority in every category of military asset. Sadly, they only lacked the will to use them. Even so, they were able to slow down the Nazi onslaught until the US could mobilize for war. Look at them today. They don't have the resources to slow down an unruly mob.
Lastly, I am not overly concerned with China. As others have observed, they don't need to attack us. They can simply buy us. Meanwhile, they have bigger concerns in their own backyard with India.
Sure, we have the largest collection of super carriers in the world but can't afford to deploy them. We have the most advanced strategic technology and can't afford to produce it.
As our military assets sit idle, the people needed to operate them go without training that is needed to learn and perfect their skills. Even the infantry is suffering from lack of training. We can barely afford platoon and company level drills beyond marksmanship, let alone battalion, brigade, division, and corps exercises needed to prepare for war.
At least at the outset of WWII, England and France enjoyed a numerical superiority in every category of military asset. Sadly, they only lacked the will to use them. Even so, they were able to slow down the Nazi onslaught until the US could mobilize for war. Look at them today. They don't have the resources to slow down an unruly mob.
Lastly, I am not overly concerned with China. As others have observed, they don't need to attack us. They can simply buy us. Meanwhile, they have bigger concerns in their own backyard with India.
(7)
(0)
4
4
0
I'd venture to say we are out of practice. DoD has been fighting regional conflicts for so long and has restructured to fit this role. IMHO, I don't think we've given credence to a global ground conflict for some time. In recent years, the role of field artillery has been shifted to close air support. The tactics have shifted from fight it out on the ground to let air assets pave the way and let the ground forces roll in. We appear to take it as a given that we have air superiority. If we got into it, it would be very messy to say the least.
(4)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
I agree as well, I would also wager a sizable wager that our country wouldn't be very supportive of it for very long either...we live in a different time now, patriotism is not high on most people's minds.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I agree SPC(P) Jay Heenan, the media cycle has caused our populace's already short attention span to get even shorter. If we can't wrap up a land war in China (which is, of course, the most famous classic blunder - bonus points if you get the reference) in 30 minutes to an hour, they don't want any part of it - unless we can make it a 4 part mini-series.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
China will never attack the United States because they own at least 5 of our states by now. If we miss some payments it might get ugly. This is why they are bullying nations around them.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGM (Join to see) (1) I don't know if the claim that it's backed by the full faith of the nation really means anything, how many Americans really have a net worth of more than a few months salary? Quantitative easing has got to take its toll eventually, if the dollar survives that rollercoaster ride I'll be surprised. (2) My impression was that China was reasonably successful securing access to natural resources it needed to import. They lag a bit in the ability to project power; however I don't believe it will take them that long to catch up. They only need to project enough power to defend against rebels and bandits; there is no immediate need to have a military capable of standing against other first world nations. I look at what fairly low tech Cuba was able to accomplish in Namibia and Angola, and I’m surprised China remains so cautious.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG Colwell, agree. However, many hundreds of thousands of mil retirees have a high net worth due to retired pay. Many hundreds of thousands of civs and some soldiers have a high net worth due to Thrift Savings. The "Full Faith of the US Gov't" does mean much, for if the gov truly went bust, the entire world will likely have been in far more trouble first and be in similar circumstances. Cuba was largely unopposed in a very small territory; China does indeed seem to be growing with their expanding power projections--but have you also kept track of counter measures in Jane's such as Taiwan's new carrier buster? The point here is we cannot believe everything we think we know from media/web sources, nor even intelligence. We must have a standard, and be forever vigilant to maintain and exceed that standard against all foes, foreign and domestic...
(0)
(0)
CW2 Ernest Krutzsch
The funny part is everyone is concerned about our debt to China, we only owe them about 2 Trillion, the rest we basically owe to OURSELVES! China cannot survive without the US buying their stuff, I am not too concerned
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No one should be ready for WWIII. Really? If you are prepared for it then it won't happen because you will be able to defeat your foe before it starts.
The scary thing about WW's is that you don't know what will cause it. A random duke gets shot in a city and the war to end all wars starts. The second was started by two desperate countries wanting to grow and annex its neighbor's.
WWIII might end with the destruction of the civilized world as we know it. It would likely destroy the economic structure that we have built in the last 70 years since the last one. China, Russia or the US can't afford that price.
Who or what will cause it something we can't really predict or guess at easily.
The scary thing about WW's is that you don't know what will cause it. A random duke gets shot in a city and the war to end all wars starts. The second was started by two desperate countries wanting to grow and annex its neighbor's.
WWIII might end with the destruction of the civilized world as we know it. It would likely destroy the economic structure that we have built in the last 70 years since the last one. China, Russia or the US can't afford that price.
Who or what will cause it something we can't really predict or guess at easily.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No, unfortunately, I don't think we are prepared as a nation for WW3. I think our service-members can handle it, but the civilians are not. Our enemies know this. They know our weakest link is the resolve of the American people. Many people don't like the idea of Defense spending, and want to cut back, not realizing the threats that are in the world. Many teachers and professors do their damnedest to taint past reasons for us going to war. And then there is thought of overall loss of life due to combat on such a stage, Americans don't like the thought casualties and combat deaths. Not to mention, the way N Korea, N Vietnam, Terrorists, etc... play the propaganda violin, people in service know the tune for what it is, civilians buy off on it hook line and sinker.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm afraid we're not. At least not currently. I don't know, nor am I cleared to know, what the war plan is vis-a-vis the Peoples' "Republic" of China is. But I'll say this. They've been ascendant, quietly, over the last couple of decades. Their confidence and infrastructure is growing at a significant rate. They've got an aircraft carrier now, perhaps more, and also what they claim are carrier busters (Dengyong 22?) Not sure what their sub-surface capability is, but a lot of this has been relegated to the theoreticians and professors of late.
Why? Because Southwest Asia and the Near East (what they used to call Asia Minor) have taken center stage for the last decade-and-a-half. And just this year, eastern Europe has come into, or re-entered, the fray. A lot of the state and non-state actors there now consider the U.S. as a less-empowered threat to their hegemony, not least which because of the amateurish, rudderless nature of foreign policy in the administration. (It'd be interesting to suspect all of these things of being a well-coordinated, elaborate sideshow to what seems to be the growing Red Menace of Beijing's power politics, but that's a little too conspiratorial, don't you think?)
Whether Beijing is intent on world domination or whether they're hip on a strategic partnership (read: detente) with Russia is debatable. However, either possibility should be ringing the general alarm all over D.C. and NATO. It would seem we're beginning a new Cold War with the United States rather weakened. Perhaps our august planners in the Pentagon and our equally adroit politicians in the Beltway need to factor all of that into their long-term calculus.
Why? Because Southwest Asia and the Near East (what they used to call Asia Minor) have taken center stage for the last decade-and-a-half. And just this year, eastern Europe has come into, or re-entered, the fray. A lot of the state and non-state actors there now consider the U.S. as a less-empowered threat to their hegemony, not least which because of the amateurish, rudderless nature of foreign policy in the administration. (It'd be interesting to suspect all of these things of being a well-coordinated, elaborate sideshow to what seems to be the growing Red Menace of Beijing's power politics, but that's a little too conspiratorial, don't you think?)
Whether Beijing is intent on world domination or whether they're hip on a strategic partnership (read: detente) with Russia is debatable. However, either possibility should be ringing the general alarm all over D.C. and NATO. It would seem we're beginning a new Cold War with the United States rather weakened. Perhaps our august planners in the Pentagon and our equally adroit politicians in the Beltway need to factor all of that into their long-term calculus.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
They have some of biggest from Russia and Ukraine and who else has surplus to sell when it comes to subs. They have building up limited capabilities of Deep Water Navy in a similar goal that Japan had in the Before and During World War II. To be able to become more self sufficient and not have to depend on anyone else. It is why they have been a support of the Afghan Government.
(0)
(0)
SSG Tim Everett
Their carrier isn't even really functional. It reminds me of the trailer park dude that buys a used BMW just to say he has one.
(1)
(0)
CPO Greg Frazho
It may not be functional now, but it could be a prototype or even a decoy for something else. The fact that they're playing with the idea should send a very clear message up and down the corridors of the Pentagon and, by extension, NATO.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
f k no we aren't prepared shit we aren't ready to mess with isis let alone china and north korea
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google