Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

You are basing Chinese doctrine on how Maoist era China did things? Ignoring the Systematic Professionalization of their Military and economy since 1980. That's like a Russian strategist or Chinese strategist basing the US military doctrine on the WW2/Korean War/Vietnam War-era US military ignoring the fact that we've had a professional military since Reagan. The Maoist-Era PLA had a 4 million plus ground army and a human wave doctrine, but since then they have switched to lowering their ground force size down to 2 million while honing in their precision capabilities, especially after observing the gulf war and Iraq war.

Regarding Chinese nuclear doctrine the Chinese never had a US/Soviet style Mass retaliation nuclear doctrine, they've used a minimum deterrence doctrine instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterforce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-empti ... ear_strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike

In my eyes, the crucial weakness of the United States Armed Forces right now is manpower. We have around 1.35 million active-duty forces right now, less than half the number of personnel we had in uniform during the 1960s. If you look at the numbers per-capita, we have barely a quarter of the numbers we did then. Less than half per-capita than we did even thirty years ago when the Cold War was ending. And our responsibilities have only grown since.

We can blow any small force to bits very quickly, like our clash in Syria with Russian mercenaries. The problem is that not only have our forces shrunk, in both absolute and relative terms, they're stretched all across the world. We have around 50,000 deployed in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea, not enough to hold off a determined Chinese attack.

It took us months to mobilize a force to invade Iraq, where we already had a significant troop presence, against an enemy that had no capability to hinder it. China will make it much more difficult for us.

And our biggest vulnerability is cyberattack. We've known about this for a long time, but we've done very little to counteract it. The Huawei scandal gives an inkling as to the scale of the number of electronics they've implemented back doors in. And I doubt they're the only company to do so.

We can't ignore a more human factor, either: complacency. The reason for so many Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories is that people have a hard time believing our military could really have been that complacent and incompetent. Yet we're making the same mistake again. I don't think we'll lose in the end, but we underestimate China at our peril. And right now, China considers us to be weak and spineless.

John wrote: I favor option (4): Trump said that to baffle and mislead the idiots
in the media, and to reduce the sentiment for a military attack on
North Korea.

If North Korea has missiles that reach the US and the president knows that fact, then the ONLY honorable answer the president can make in that case is to say "yes they do" and outline the countermeasures against that. If the president says they have no long-range nukes when they do, then the president would by lying as well as taking responsiblity for any casualties resulting if even a single one of those missiles was used against a US target.

** 5-Mar-2019 China's 'Human Wave' war doctrine

CH86 wrote: > You are basing Chinese doctrine on how Maoist era China did
> things? Ignoring the Systematic Professionalization of their
> Military and economy since 1980. That's like a Russian strategist
> or Chinese strategist basing the US military doctrine on the
> WW2/Korean War/Vietnam War-era US military ignoring the fact that
> we've had a professional military since Reagan. The Maoist-Era PLA
> had a 4 million plus ground army and a human wave doctrine, but
> since then they have switched to lowering their ground force size
> down to 2 million while honing in their precision capabilities,
> especially after observing the gulf war and Iraq war.

> Regarding Chinese nuclear doctrine the Chinese never had a
> US/Soviet style Mass retaliation nuclear doctrine, they've used a
> minimum deterrence doctrine instead.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterforce
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-empti ... ear_strike
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike

First off, the human wave tactic is not particularly rare. America
used it on the beaches of Normandy, the Vietnamese used it at Dien
Bien Phu, Vietnam used it in the Tet offensive, and China used in its
invasion of Vietnam. So this is deeply rooted in Asian culture.

Second, the fact that the CCP has declared a new military doctrine
doesn't mean that a CCP decision can reverse something that's deeply
rooted in the culture.

Everything I've seen about China is that they consider an individual
person no more important than an individual soybean or an individual
bullet. During a war, millions of young males -- for whom no brides
are available anyway -- are going to want to join the army just to
have a steady job. What will the military do with these millions of
young males? Human wave attacks.

Where would these millions of young men be deployed? The only way million of CCP troops would be deployed in ww1-style trenches is if any Chinese initial offensive had failed an a meat grinder pushback from Korea and Vietnam occured. But that assumes that China had lost the naval war. This is also incompatible with the south China Sea trade lane being the center of military operations. A war fought over who controls the east Asia sea lane would not be fought like korea, the Korean War was a ground war, trade routes were irrelevant in that war because the korean war was not fought over trade routes unlike a westpac war would be. Fighting would much more resemble the campaigns of 1942-45 than it would the korean war. Also the human wave tactic is incompatible with blitzkrieg/deep operations which requires far More tactical and strategic skill.

On a separate note, the globalist conceptions will ALWAYS be opposed by xers and millies. Take ww2 generals, the young will always tend to admire Patton over MacArthur, take the latter's decision not to move the supplies to Bataan and later his decision to maintain the advance on the Chinese border for example. Xers and millies may consider MacArthur an otherwise good general due to other decisions he made during his career but they would NEVER consider those two specific decision's to be good or competent decisions inherent in themselves. For the Same reason is also why the treaty of Versailles in 1919 would NEVER be regarded by xer/millies historians as a "good treaty".

CH86 wrote: > Where would these millions of young men be deployed?

They might be brought up as reserves in a land war against
Vietnam, India, Kazakhstan, Mongolia or Russia.

There's another angle to the human wave tactic. As I've mentioned
previously, China has a fleet of thousands of fishing boats, all of
which have been militarized to use as spy ships and possibly combat
ships. One possibility is that a "human fishing boat wave" could be
used to attack vulnerable foreign warships.

Another possibility is that they could be used transport troops for a
Normandy beach style invasion somewhere.

This many not seem possible today, but it might be possible after
several months of war have destroyed defenses.

Since China has 1.4 billion people, it can use "human wave" tactics in
other ways as well.

There are Chinese enclaves in many cities in many countries. These
might be students in colleges, placed through Confucius Institutes, or
workers in government and engineering positions. Xi Jinping calls
these "Magic Weapons," because they are under the control of China's
United Front Work Department (UFWD), controlled by China's military.

China is also using the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to create
Chinese enclaves in many countries. As I've documented many times,
the way this works is that China loans the target country billions of
dollars that it can never repay, and demands that the target company
sign a contract specifying that Chinese workers will build the
infrastructure project, and must be paid out of the loaned money. The
result is that China owns the infrastructure, and has a Chinese
enclave in the country, also to be used as "Magic Weapons."

As I've said, China considers an individual person as worthless as an
individual bullet, and China has 1.4 billion of these bullets to use
in any way it wants, with many different kinds of Human Waves.

By a normandy-style invasion, that would most likely be against taiwan or as support for a north Korean invasion of the south. Which brings us back to the point I posted several post ago, if Japan and South Korea develop and deploy their own nuclear missiles such an invasion ceases to be a possiblity, at least with regards to Japan. South Korea is in a more problematic situation but such would make a north Korean attack an unfeasible option even with the NORKS known callousness, China wouldn't provide support for such an attack if it knew that such an attack would immediately lead to a counterstrike that potential devastates large amounts of the Chinese economy with China's great power enemies not even having to participate directly in the war.

Currently a particularly callous chinese strategy could rationalize the damage to china by an US/allied retaliatory campaign because any damage the chinese forces would inflict on the US would weaken the US. However with Japan and south Korea having nukes, a Chinese attack even and especially a limited offensive to "hold seoul hostage" would result in unacceptable loses for the Chinese in return for minimal at best gains. The current US stance on non-proliferation therefore is irrational and the fact that President Trump reversed himself on that issue (compared to what he said during the 2016 campaign) is a sign of his being neutered by globalist/democratizer advisors who are giving him bad advice.

Regarding Navigator's post on an economic collapse: The assertion that by You, John and Navigator; that the common citizenry would be ruined before the banks and investors is highly unlikely. This is because such would go against what hundred if not thousands of years of examples of what normally happens during economic collapses. What normally happens is that those whoever invested in the fraudulent economic units are subsequently hurt far worse than those who did not participate in such behavior or who were part of economic units that stayed away from such behavior: The general rule is that the more assets you had invested in a bubble, the worse you would be hit by that bubble's collapse.

** 05-Mar-2019 After 1929 crash, did wealthy investors jump out of windows?

Cynic Hero 86 wrote: > Regarding Navigator's post on an economic collapse: The assertion
> that by You, John and Navigator; that the common citizenry would
> be ruined before the banks and investors is highly unlikely. This
> is because such would go against what hundred if not thousands of
> years of examples of what normally happens during economic
> collapses. What normally happens is that those whoever invested in
> the fraudulent economic units are subsequently hurt far worse than
> those who did not participate in such behavior or who were part of
> economic units that stayed away from such behavior: The general
> rule is that the more assets you had invested in a bubble, the
> worse you would be hit by that bubble's collapse.

https://www.straightdope.com/columns/re ... f-windows/