CHINA DOESN’T HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Rosemont, 2/9/08 [Contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), is distinguished professor emeritus at St. Mary's College of Maryland and a visiting scholar in the Religious Studies department at Brown University, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=14304]
Finally, China has 100-400 nuclear weapons. But only the 18 in the silos mentioned above are capable of striking the western continental United States and these cannot be launched quickly. Unless fired as a first-strike weapon, they could easily be destroyed. The United States, on the other hand, has almost 10,000 nuclear warheads and sufficient delivery capabilities to obliterate every Chinese city with a population of a half-million or more, and still have more than enough of a stockpile to hold the rest of the world at bay.11
Ground forces are less well equipped, lack air support and are focused on protecting Chinese borders
Rosemont, 2/9/08 [Contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), is distinguished professor emeritus at St. Mary's College of Maryland and a visiting scholar in the Religious Studies department at Brown University, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=14304]
In terms of ground forces, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has an active duty component of 2.3 million personnel. That’s a lot of soldiers, but the United States has 1.4 million, with less than one-fourth of the population. True, the Chinese have reserve forces of another million plus. But they are responsible, among other things, for patrolling more than 8,000 miles of borders with India and Russia – not always the friendliest of neighbors in the past – functions the U.S. military does not perform at the Canadian and Mexican borders. Moreover, despite the supply breakdown scandal in Iraq, the 1.4 million U.S. troops are much better equipped overall than their Chinese counterparts, few of whom have state-of-the-art support materiel or personal safety equipment.3
Defense spending is over hyped – not in areas vital to fighting the US and still smaller than our spending in Iraq per year
Rosemont, 2/9/08 [Contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), is distinguished professor emeritus at St. Mary's College of Maryland and a visiting scholar in the Religious Studies department at Brown University, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=14304]
On the military question, the answer is much clearer. China is not a military threat to the United States. Only those who believe that Fu Manchu is alive and well in the Middle Kingdom and fulfilling his dreams of world domination through a large and aggressive army, air force, and navy still subscribe to a notion that China poses a global military threat. Several recent books on the Chinese military perpetuate this myth. Their titles reveal everything: Imagined Enemies: China Prepares for Uncertain War, for instance, or Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States. These and numerous similar narratives share an alarmist tone combined with a dearth of relevant facts in support of their claims. These books suffer from such flaws for good reason. The facts belie the claims, especially when placed in comparative perspective. When it comes to the putative Chinese military threat, the numbers simply don’t add up. Much has been made of the double-digit increase in Chinese defense spending over the last three years. China has indeed increased its spending. But much of the additional expenditures have been devoted to upgrading information, weapons, and communications systems. At the same, China has cut troop strength to almost half of what it was in 1990.1 Moreover, the estimate of military expenditures for 2006 is $35 billion. That is about 7% of the U.S. defense budget, once the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are factored in. Even before including these latter expenditures the U.S. military budget is now larger than the defense budgets of all other nations combined. Almost surely China’s actual military expenditures are larger than the 2006 estimate. But even if the military budget is twice as large, $70 billion is still less than 15% of the U.S. total and less than what was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan last year alone.2
The PLA is not a threat – the U.S. military dominates.
Howard 10/13/04 - Head of Department of Social Sciences, Director of the Combating Terrorism Center [Col. Russ, “The China Threat,” MIT Security Studies Program Seminar, 10/13/04, http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_04fall/howard.htm]
1 The conclusion of his presentation (and the original monograph) was that the PLA does not represent much of a threat to the United States. The PLA has neither the inclination nor the ability to threaten the United States. Those who speak of a China threat in the short-term are exaggerating and inflating the China threat. Although China has developed capable missiles and aircraft, the PLA's arms are still short and its legs are still slow. After recent efforts at PLA modernization, it may be in a moderately better position compared to other regional militaries, but has not closed the gap with the U.S. military. The gap between the U.S. military and the PLA, especially in terms of technologically-advanced weaponry and ability to efficiently use these weapons, may have grown larger in recent years. In recent years, there have been four important developments related to PLA modernization. First, PLA strategists have focused on developing asymmetric capabilities and focused on tactics that the weaker power could use to defeat the stronger power. Second, the PLA has expanded its arsenal of missiles and advanced aircraft. Third, in 2003 China became the third country to successfully launch a manned spacecraft, which may have important future implications for space warfare. Fourth, with Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's re-election in 2004 and calls for revising the constitution, cross-strait relations are very tense. If China tries to become a hegemon, from a capabilities standpoint, this is more likely to be something to worry about in 2050 than in 2015. The PLA is still weak in many fundamental areas including systems integration, propulsion, and computer technology. China is dependent on Russia for most of its advanced weapons. The PLA has shown no signs of being able to indigenously produce advanced weapons. The PLA lacks power projection capability. The lack of in-flight refueling prevents the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) from projecting power. The lack of aerial escort and weak anti-air warfare (AAW) capability of surface ships prevents the PLA Navy (PLAN) from being able to project power on the sea. PLA infantry is very heavy, and when coupled with weak lift assets, severely limits the PLA's ability to transport forces to other places. The PLA has also shown very little ability to deal with a U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group.
Share with your friends: |