#1
Post rating: +
this is a military theory text published by the chinese PLA in 1999. it's pretty fascinating stuff. also the chapter titles are good.



basically it's a critique/assessment of "high tech/information war" and related concepts, and what a state like china can do in the face of the US
#2
Post rating: ~
oh i thought you said "unrestricted welfare" for a second i was about to cheer really loudly. whew.
#3
penitent
Post rating: ~
lol the first chapter cites spengler and heidegger
#4
Post rating: +
and calls them both scrubs
#5
Post rating: ~
hes too optimistic about the capabilities of helicopters though
#6
Post rating: ~
whose hosting is that anyway?
#7
penitent
Post rating: ~

On the battlefields of the future, the digitized forces may very possibly be like a great cook who is good at cooking lobsters sprinkled with butter, when faced with guerrillas who resolutely gnaw corncobs, they can only sigh in despair.



i thought this was about unrestricted warfare not tpaine's social worker visits

#8
penitent
Post rating: +
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
- 乔良 & 王湘穗
#9
Post rating: ~
i always knew gundam wing was too compelling not to become reality
#10
Post rating: ~
I would have stayed in rotc if this was the type of shit we got into.
#11
Post rating: +
This also seems like a war nerd article waiting to be written.
#12
Post rating: ~
this looks rad, gonna read it as soon as i can get enough away from work that my brain will no longer be chowder
#13
Post rating: +++++
lol

#14
bb bourgeoisie
Post rating: +
i, too, shall pop an adderal and dive in
#15
[account deactivated]
#16
[account deactivated]
#17
Occupied Aztlan
Post rating: ~
reading now, thanks
#18
Post rating: ~
The text in the OP is a really engaging read and not boring at all. HTH.
#19
Post rating: +
Almost 4,000 Saudi forces fled their border bases in anticipation of Riyadh’s order for launching a ground assault on Yemen, European diplomatic sources said on Sunday.

“The intel gathered by the western intelligence agencies showed that the Saudi military forces have fled their bases, military centers and bordering checkpoints near Yemen in groups,” diplomatic sources were quoted as saying by Iraq’s Arabic-language Nahrain Net news website.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/thousands-of-saudi-forces-flee-bases-refuse-to-participate-in-ground-assault-on-yemen-report/5445389
#20
[account deactivated]
#21
Post rating: ~
they're just exercising unrestricted warfare, where instead of fighting people you bomb them every so often, hack them, and starve them with economic sanctions.
#22
Post rating: ~
n/m

Edited by orchestra_hit ()

#23
Post rating: ~

orchestra_hit posted:

n/m



Well, I, for one, thought that speech was interesting...

#24
Post rating: +
"One belt, one road" is by far the best strategy China can put forward. It is a hedge strategy against the eastward move of the US. Some people will question this, believing hedging should be in the same direction—how can you hedge by going in the opposite direction? Right, "one belt, one road" is China's hedge strategy of turning its back to the US eastward shift: You push in one direction; I go in the opposite direction. Didn’t you pressure me to it? I go west, neither to avoid you nor because I am afraid, but to very cleverly defuse the pressure you gave me on the east.


“One belt, one road" is not a strategy of two parallel lines, but there should be primary and secondary focuses. Given that China's sea power is still weak, the first choice of “one belt, one road" should be to compete on land, which means "the way (sea lanes)" should be a secondary attack direction and "the belt" should be the main direction. If "the belt" has become the main direction, it means that we must re-recognize the role of the Army. Some people say that the Chinese Field Army is invincible. If they mean it within the scope of Chinese territory, yes, the Chinese Army is invincible. Who would want to set foot on Chinese territory to fight large-scale battles? The problem is, does the Chinese army have expeditionary capabilities?

Last year I talked about this issue at the Global Times forum. I said that in choosing China as its rival, America chose the wrong opponent and the wrong direction. Because in the future, the real challenge to the United States is not China; it is the United States itself, and the United States will bury itself.

---General Qiao Liang

http://www.sisci.com/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=13891
-
#25
Post rating: ~
I really hope he's right.
#26
mt.real
Post rating: ~

orchestra_hit posted:

a recent speech by the same author (Qiao Liang): http://www.sisci.com/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=13891


this is really interesting and covers a ton of disparate very true things

#27
Post rating: +
I didn't like the page that the speech is on, so I uploaded a pdf that is more readable.

http://www.docdroid.net/WIVXDh4/asadsad-1.pdf.html

Edited by Themselves ()