China's military not ready 'to fight and win future wars,' new report says

[nuck nit]

Tell what is your experience and what have you seen in relation with americas " international meddling' .

I am still waiting to hear from all the iraqi's and afgahnis you have met that are singing americas praises.

Didn't our Supreme Leader Harper take us into America's liberation of Libya? How is that going?

Are we not lending support to the American war in the Ukraine? Looking really good on that one.

Here is the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO telling us that ISIS is their creation:

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark: "ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies"

[drummer4now]

i don't think i get your point? i'm sure poverty has existed everywhere. i googled this "Charles Dickens" fellow you speak of, and it seems to me the content described in the books he supposedly wrote was inspired by cultural and social revolution (like the industrial revolution). the difference here is that in China poverty existed because of the prolonged feudal-like system that existed there from the top down, keeping the vast, vast, vast majority of its people poor and culturally isolated--the exact opposite of england's political structure

This has to be one of your best burns.. like I am shocked how well thought this rebuttal is..

[Toni Zamboni]

i don't think i get your point? i'm sure poverty has existed everywhere. i googled this "Charles Dickens" fellow you speak of, and it seems to me the content described in the books he supposedly wrote was inspired by cultural and social revolution (like the industrial revolution). the difference here is that in China poverty existed because of the prolonged feudal-like system that existed there from the top down, keeping the vast, vast, vast majority of its people poor and culturally isolated--the exact opposite of england's political structure

[GLASSJAW]

You tried to associate china's lack of empire building to the fact that the majority of them lived in poverty

they obviously had an empire. and as drummer said, china obviously had wealth too. i'm just saying the empire was simply built on maintaining its version of the feudal system. the one that is still being dismantled now. the type of feudal system most western countries abolished hundreds of years ago. all i was saying, albeit from a position of pure speculation, was that if china had done away with its self-domination and self imposed cultural isolation and forced peasantry, it may have had a more dramatic history of raiding or imperialism, like that from the japanese, the english, the mongols, the vikings, the romans, the arabs, etc. the violence and domination was simply turned inward.

if so why did the european powers have empire building ambitions while most of their population lived in squalor and poverty for 1900 out of the last 200 years ?

because most european powers went through feudal-type systems too? the difference is that many of them are many hundreds of years ahead of china in this field. it may not seem like it, but that's because china is literally piggy backing on western greed to catch up. "most of their populations" were not living in squalor for 1900 of the last 2000 years.

If you had actually read his books rather than googled charles dickens then you would know that many of them desrcibed the quality of life of the average briton in the 19th century , and the quality of life was pretty crappy by any standards.

i was being sarcastic, and i actually spent a year as a research assistant at UVIC under a professor in the history department where i helped him research the low, low, low classes of england through the court system from the late 1600s to the late 1800s, where all i did was read law documents and testimony from trials that dealt precisely with class disparity and the resulting crimes. i don't need Dickens for anything.

but just to hammer in the nail, I've read plenty of his books (i did my undergrad in English), and I know that he certainly wasn't dealing with "the average" Briton, he was dealing almost entirely with the lowest of the low class. this is obvious, of course, because of the dramatic shifts in social and economic health throughout Dickens' lifetime. in the Victorian period, one decade had fabulous wealth and employment, while the next could have been famine and poverty for many. which "average" are you even talking about?

[Jester13]

So immediately the US will cut down it's military surplus and spending, right?

Nah, the American Realists will say now is the time to strike.

[Lancaster]

No big deal here.

The US, the world's greatest world power has not won any wars recently despite their propaganda. Are the wars they started in Iraq and Afghanistan really won, considering the constant warfare still occurring within those countries.

Is the war against terrorism won more than a decade after Bush declared it?

Is the war against ISIS going to be won anytime soon? After all, we had Al Queda and they are still around and now ISIS has sort of upstage them. Who else will follow ISIS?

I am sure China is happy to let the US and the West bankrupt themselves in the Middle East fighting terrorism. Note that China has not lift a finger to join the war on terrorism or any other war. Smart move.

Well... there's a big difference between trying to conquer a country and outright destroying it.

Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Vietnam, it's about overthrowing the government and setting up one that's friendlier to you. You have to stay around and do stuff.

If they just wanted to bomb, bomb, bomb and ignore any rebuilding and stuff, the US wouldn't lose any way.

As for China... much like the Soviet Union, they have minimal projection capability. They have a huge land army, thus they are a threat to only their neighbours. India, the Indo-China region and indirectly South Korea could be threatened. Other countries with more of a barrier are less likely to be muscled by the Chinese. Japan can go pretty much head-to-head to China militarily if they really wanted to, the Philippines have some distance and know that the US will back them up. The Republic of China (Taiwan) has been prepping for an invasion for over half a century now.

China's military tech may have improved dramatically in the last couple of decades as it has been widely reported, but less focus has been mentioned about the United States and their allies. China are still trying to build their own domestic aircraft carrier... something the West have done almost a hundred years ago. The South Koreans have their Super aEgis II.... a fully automated sentry gun, I doubt the Chinese can build something comparable anytime soon. The US stealth technology are far more advanced, they actually have (aging) B2 long-range bombers, something China never really developed.

The most important aspect of a potential China vs US conflict..... US has way more friends. China has no oversea bases to launch any operations, but they themselves are surrounded. If they want to attack US conventionally, they gotta go through Japan, Taiwan, South Korea plus an assorted amount of air and naval bases along the Pacific before they can even reach Hawaii.

The only advantage China might have is in missile technology. Supposedly one of their main line of defense would be launching anti-ship missiles to cripple any US fleet.

[Gurn]

"China are still trying to build their own domestic aircraft carrier... something the West have done almost a hundred years ago'

Carriers are a lot different than when the US, Britain and Japan first started building them.

China is the new boy on the block and will only get stronger as the years go by.

India, despite recently announcing $8 billion in additional navy spending, has admitted it can't keep up to Chinese growth.

Japan does have a modern navy, air force, and army but will not be able to keep a numerical superiority. Tech has to be their edge.

The smaller countries will have to form their own mutual defense pacts to curb some Chinese expansion.

[Offensive Threat]

The smaller countries will have to form their own mutual defense pacts to curb some Chinese expansion.

Australia and Japan are both pushing for a defense pact in the region beyond what is already in place to curb Chinas rising influence.

ANZUS already exists as a Australia. New Zealand and USA security pact. The US and the Philippines have a mutual defense pact. Many defense treaties involving the US and Pacific rim countries exist like the Japan/US treaty, The Republic of Korea/US treaty, The Southeast Asia treaty...

P.S. China cant keep up with Chinas growth. They are facing a huge problem as provincial and municipal debt has skyrocketed to a point where municipal level Government bonds are in danger of default. This is separate from the national debt of 5.8 trillion US dollars.

[Buddhas Hand]

they obviously had an empire. and as drummer said, china obviously had wealth too. i'm just saying the empire was simply built on maintaining its version of the feudal system. the one that is still being dismantled now. the type of feudal system most western countries abolished hundreds of years ago. all i was saying, albeit from a position of pure speculation, was that if china had done away with its self-domination and self imposed cultural isolation and forced peasantry, it may have had a more dramatic history of raiding or imperialism, like that from the japanese, the english, the mongols, the vikings, the romans, the arabs, etc. the violence and domination was simply turned inward.

because most european powers went through feudal-type systems too? the difference is that many of them are many hundreds of years ahead of china in this field. it may not seem like it, but that's because china is literally piggy backing on western greed to catch up. "most of their populations" were not living in squalor for 1900 of the last 2000 years.

i was being sarcastic, and i actually spent a year as a research assistant at UVIC under a professor in the history department where i helped him research the low, low, low classes of england through the court system from the late 1600s to the late 1800s, where all i did was read law documents and testimony from trials that dealt precisely with class disparity and the resulting crimes. i don't need Dickens for anything.

but just to hammer in the nail, I've read plenty of his books (i did my undergrad in English), and I know that he certainly wasn't dealing with "the average" Briton, he was dealing almost entirely with the lowest of the low class. this is obvious, of course, because of the dramatic shifts in social and economic health throughout Dickens' lifetime. in the Victorian period, one decade had fabulous wealth and employment, while the next could have been famine and poverty for many. which "average" are you even talking about?

Some great word acrobatics there GJ.

Your original post stated "lol, maybe if china didn't spend 1900 of the last 2000 years more or less in the same position of poverty they'd have more of international 'meddling' under their belt, instead of exploiting solely their own and neighbouring people

Well the majority of british , french and spanish people lived in poverty for 1900 out of the last 200 years yet they managed to invade and conquer other nations ,leaving their continent , building their empires , the chinese did not, apart from a couple of their closest nieghbours.

China does not have a history of fracking with others , certainly not like the british , french or spanish , who came into other cultures and either wiped them out or exploited them, and certyainly not like the US in the second half of the last century and the begiining of this one.

You are incorrect , most of the populations of the european nations were living in poverty for the majority of last 2000 years

to quote from this courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his311/notes/mid-clas.htm

THE RISE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS
The rise of the middle class was a result of the industrial
revolution.  The "middle class" first appeared in Europe in the
late middle ages, with the revival of trade and development of
structures (armies, diplomatic marriages, endowments) that could
convert money into power.  Those who amassed wealth found
themselves began to compete for power during the Renaissance, and
by the 18th century, had successfully created a system that
touched the entire globe.  

The middle class underwent enormous expansion in the 19th century
as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution.  The Industrial
Revolution offered both new forms of production and new scales of
production that provided much more flexible investments than the
land held by the nobility and the Church.

So as you can see the middle class appeared in the late middle ages , 1600- 1700 remaining small until the industrial revolution , so for the majority of 1900 out of the last 2000 years the average european has lived in poverty , just like his chinese counterpart.

I know you were being sarcastic , thats your gig , playing the worldly wise cynical guy that has seen it all.

This is a good description of the average briton i am talking about at the start of the 19th century

1801 Britain is rising as an industrial power. The average life expectancy is around 40. A fictional "better-off" family will be described as drinking water that has a cow taste because it is taken from a brook from which cows drink. Meat is rare. Dental care is poor. The family eats with wooden spoons. Candles are rarely used because they cost too much. The father "visited the city once, but the travel cost him a week's wages... The children sleep two to a bed on straw mattresses on the floor."

www.fsmitha.com/time/ce19-1.htm

And that is a "better off " family. That is what i would describe as living in poverty , and very simmilar to the quality of life experienced by your average joe in china.

You really should learn to use a hammer , hard to drive a nail when you cannot even hit it.

[GLASSJAW]

nothing you just said contradicts anything i said

[nuck nit]

Britain decimated China and India then Britain with America's help destroyed the savings wealth of the world instituting a gold standard.

Silver was the means of wealth of the majority of the world. Through opium enslavement,torture and death,Britain and America wiped out the wealth of the world to enact their fiat enslavement.

The Brits and Yanks destroyed everything in their path for hundreds of years so that their psychopathic owners could rule the world.

China has been a meek church mouse compared to these global tyrants.

[GLASSJAW]

You are incorrect , most of the populations of the european nations were living in poverty for the majority of last 2000 years

LOL, talk about 'word acrobatics' -- what I actually said was this:

"most of their populations" were not living in squalor for 1900 of the last 2000 years.

can you spot the difference? and after you spot the difference, can you see why statements like (the following) don't matter to me?

So as you can see the middle class appeared in the late middle ages , 1600- 1700 remaining small until the industrial revolution , so for the majority of 1900 out of the last 2000 years the average european has lived in poverty , just like his chinese counterpart.

highlighted the word that matters for you. and what you're saying here is just repeating what i've already said: England abolished (or developed) their version of the feudal system hundreds of years ago.

This is a good description of the average briton i am talking about at the start of the 19th century

excuse me. YOU were not talking about the average Briton, you said to reference Dickens for the average Briton. you then quote a website that is VERY EXPLICITLY talking about life in 1801 (11 years BEFORE Dickens was even born), completely ignoring the fact that I already said THERE. IS. NO. 'AVERAGE' -- life changed dramatically throughout the Victorian period, from decade to decade even. Using a description of 1801 to paint the entire, rapidly developing 1800s is bizarre, and TOTALLY outside your comments about Dickens

And that is a "better off " family. That is what i would describe as living in poverty , and very simmilar to the quality of life experienced by your average joe in china.

i don't care. By today's standards, the entire global history is stuck in poverty when you base it on cutlery and dental work. The difference is that life in England, for most, changed dramatically and rapidly through these times. In China, it did not. For many, it STILL hasn't changed. How many Chinese people are still living in the agricultural chains that have shackled their families for god knows how long?

Nobody is saying that china 'fracked' with others. They obviously didn't, because they were too busy 'fracking' themselves. You may consider this some sort of philosophical victory, but I don't. The entire world's history is written in colonial and imperialistic blood.

[Buddhas Hand]

nothing you just said contradicts anything i said

What you said ?

What was the reason for your first post in this thread which was

"lol, maybe if china didn't spend 1900 of the last 2000 years more or less in the same position of poverty they'd have more of international 'meddling' under their belt, instead of exploiting solely their own and neighbouring people"

We both know you were implying that the reason the chinese have not meddled in the affairs of other nations is because they were too poor to do so.

I pointed out that the average joe in those meddling european powers was just as poor as the average joe in unmeddling chinese empire for 1900 hundred of the last 200 years.

Now I will go further , the upperclass in britian expected the lower class to fight and die in battles for king and country as late as the first world war and the lower class to them was anyone who was not in their class.

When Kitchener , CIC of british forces was questioned in the press about the mounting casualties on the western front , he replied that it was the duty of the lower classes to die for their King and country, while millions of men were dying in pointless battles for a few hundred meters of ground he palmed this off as people "duty" .

In regards to the condition of the soldiers that were fighting for king and country I remember the description given of the average british soldier in a four corners ep on gallipoli , he was 5'6 120- 140 lb , malnourished and had the spirit beaten out of him generations in the past.

I remember listening to the words of one british Vet from gallipoli who said the australians seemed like gods , 6' tall 180-200 lb , fit and healthy from living an out-ddoor life.

What i have said and am now saying is what soldiers on both sides have known for centuries , that it is the poor and uneducated that are sent of to fight in their countries wars and in nearly all the nations on the earth the poor and uneducated was the average person for 1900 out of the last 2000 years.

[GLASSJAW]

I pointed out that the average joe in those meddling european powers was just as poor as the average joe in unmeddling chinese empire for 1900 hundred of the last 200 years.

first of all, stop using 'average joe' to discuss people spanning centuries and nations. second of all, you're absolutely incorrect in saying this. thirdly, your sources for backing it up were hilariously off point (one described a single year in England, the other was CHARLES DICKENS), and finally, i really couldn't care less about Galipoli, or the fact that poor people everywhere (including feudal China) have always been the ones to die for the rich

you also don't need to tell me what my implications were in my post, when I flat out tell them to you multiple times over and over. But either way, i really really don't care about any of this. so, you win, congrats. continue on moaning about how terrible America is.

[Buddhas Hand]

LOL, talk about 'word acrobatics' -- what I actually said was this:

can you spot the difference? and after you spot the difference, can you see why statements like (the following) don't matter to me?

highlighted the word that matters for you. and what you're saying here is just repeating what i've already said: England abolished (or developed) their version of the feudal system hundreds of years ago.

excuse me. YOU were not talking about the average Briton, you said to reference Dickens for the average Briton. you then quote a website that is VERY EXPLICITLY talking about life in 1801 (11 years BEFORE Dickens was even born), completely ignoring the fact that I already said THERE. IS. NO. 'AVERAGE' -- life changed dramatically throughout the Victorian period, from decade to decade even. Using a description of 1801 to paint the entire, rapidly developing 1800s is bizarre, and TOTALLY outside your comments about Dickens

i don't care. By today's standards, the entire global history is stuck in poverty when you base it on cutlery and dental work. The difference is that life in England, for most, changed dramatically and rapidly through these times. In China, it did not. For many, it STILL hasn't changed. How many Chinese people are still living in the agricultural chains that have shackled their families for god knows how long?

Nobody is saying that china 'fracked' with others. They obviously didn't, because they were too busy 'fracking' themselves. You may consider this some sort of philosophical victory, but I don't. The entire world's history is written in colonial and imperialistic blood.

So ?

I never stated anything about fuedal systems or why life sucked for the average joe in china or britian/europe , I stated that life sucked for all of them.

I was not aware we were dealing in decade timelines , you made the broad statement of 1900 out of the last 2000 years , now you want to limit that timeline to a decade or 2 ?

Here you go I will make it easy I will say I am wrong about Dickens , even though all i stated was that many of his books described what life was like for the average joe who lived in squalor and poverty , and many of his books did this ,but I am willing to let it go.

And yeah there was an average life for the majority of the english population in during 19th century it was living in poverty , sure by the end of the century life had gotten better for many , but going by the timeline you set for 1900 out of the last 2000 years years the quality of life for the average joe everywhere sucked.

The quality of life of the average Joe had nothing to with china's lack of international meddling or did it with the european powers meddling.

Things changed for england ? Todays standards ?

The UK is the world's sixth largest economy, yet 1 in 5 of the UK population live below our official poverty line, meaning that they experience life as a daily struggle.

Oxfam's vision is for everyone in the UK to have enough to live on, and for all men, women and children to be treated with respect and dignity no matter how much money they have. We believe it is unacceptable that over 13 million people in the UK do not have enough to live on, and most do not have the power to speak out about what this feels like and why it is wrong. We work with others to achieve a fairer and more equal country, in which everyone in the UK can live free from poverty and shame. We do this in three ways:

• We develop projects to improve the lives of people living in poverty
• We work with policy-makers to tackle the causes of poverty
• We raise public awareness of poverty to create pressure for change

Discrimination and prejudice play a large role in the lives of people experiencing poverty. That is why challenging negative attitudes and addressing gender and race inequality are integral parts of our work

policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/poverty-in-the-uk

FRIDAY October 17th was China’s first official “Poverty Alleviation Day”, an annual convocation of “forums and fundraisers”, designed to rally efforts to combat deprivation. Of course, thanks to China’s rapid economic progress, the country already alleviates a lot of poverty each day: last year the number of rural poor fell by 16.5m or over 45,000 people per day. But that still left 82.49m people stuck in rural squalor at the end of 2013, according to official statistics

Some places in China are worse off than they look. Their “lavish city buildings” disguise impoverished populations, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. Other parts of the country are less poor than they let on. They do not want to be removed from the list of “poverty-stricken counties” because of the aid and other benefits they would forfeit.

China’s poverty is, therefore, a matter of some contention and confusion. Indeed, China itself may not be as poor as its own official media seem to think. Xinhua reports incorrectly that China’s official poverty line is lower than the World Bank’s global standard of $1.25 a day. By that international standard, claims another state-backed newspaper, the country still has more than 200m poor people. In citing that depressing statistic, it echoes a speech in June by Li Keqiang, China’s premier, in which he said that “some 200 million Chinese still live below the poverty line by World Bank standards.”*

Take comfort. These reports are misleading as well as depressing. Despite what they say, 200m Chinese are not now living on less than the World Bank’s global poverty line of $1.25 a day. We tried to explain the confusion in a blogpost in 2011 and another in 2013. Perhaps we should make it an annual event.

China’s rural poverty line is 2,300 yuan a year, or 6.3 yuan a day. At today’s exchange rates that is only about $1.03, which would seem much meaner than the World Bank’s line of $1.25. But the Bank’s poverty line is calculated at purchasing-power parity exchange rates, not market exchange rates. To the World Bank, someone is suffering from extreme poverty if they consume less than what $1.25 could buy in America in 2005 (to simplify a bit). To the Chinese government, a rural person is poor if they earn less than what 6.3 yuan could buy in rural China in 2010.

www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/chinas-econom

Even if we go off the maximum figure of 200 million living in poverty that is 1in 6 people living in poverty as apposed to the UK where 1-5 live in poverty.

Agricultural Chains ?

Who do you think grows your food ? peopled in chains ?

I grow flowers , am i stuck in agricultural chains ? you seem to have some contempt for farmers.

Why should i think about victory when i am having a discussion on a message board ?

Seems like you feel you win or lose discusions, to me a victory is pushing my boundaries out that little bit further.

[Buddhas Hand]

first of all, stop using 'average joe' to discuss people spanning centuries and nations. second of all, you're absolutely incorrect in saying this. thirdly, your sources for backing it up were hilariously off point (one described a single year in England, the other was CHARLES DICKENS), and finally, i really couldn't care less about Galipoli, or the fact that poor people everywhere (including feudal China) have always been the ones to die for the rich

you also don't need to tell me what my implications were in my post, when I flat out tell them to you multiple times over and over. But either way, i really really don't care about any of this. so, you win, congrats. continue on moaning about how terrible America is.

Why , through all those centuries and in all those nations there was an average joe and life for him sucked. 5-10 % of the population lived like kings while life for the rest sucked.

If you do not care why keep posting ?

The report the op posted on chinas capacity to wage war was created in the nation that has more than any other waged war on other nations in the last 60 - 70 years and meddled in many other nations politics .

Why should I believe that china , who has no real history of fracking with other nations will start now based on said report.

Again with the winning , were are just having a discussion dude , you really need to chillax.

[Hugor Hill]

99% of the countries are militarily not ready to fight and win future wars. This article, and propagating it, does nothing but pit China as an 'enemy'.

[Sir Lord Baltimore]

Quick! Let's invade them!

[Violator]

Australia and Japan are both pushing for a defense pact in the region beyond what is already in place to curb Chinas rising influence.

ANZUS already exists as a Australia. New Zealand and USA security pact. The US and the Philippines have a mutual defense pact. Many defense treaties involving the US and Pacific rim countries exist like the Japan/US treaty, The Republic of Korea/US treaty, The Southeast Asia treaty...

P.S. China cant keep up with Chinas growth. They are facing a huge problem as provincial and municipal debt has skyrocketed to a point where municipal level Government bonds are in danger of default. This is separate from the national debt of 5.8 trillion US dollars.

People always talk about americas debt but the Chinese are worse off.

[Lancaster]

People always talk about americas debt but the Chinese are worse off.

Yep, the municipal and provincial debt levels in China are through the roof. The difference is that China's books are more secretive and hard to find the exact numbers, whereas the full budget of the United States is opened for all to see (for the most part).

Chances are that China will most likely follow a major deflationary period like Japan during the 90's to even now. The difference is that the standard of living in Japan is equal to or greater than in North America, but for the average Chinese citizen living in China, the conditions are very poor.

China probably want to have a war with someone to prevent millions of angry people demanding drastic changes to the system.