The Chinese military is not a hardened or even serious fighting force. They spend most of their time trying to "gain face" (very important to the Chinese). They are not a force of dedicated soldiers, but instead are run by a collection of social-climbers who see the military as a road that leads not to combat but to wealth and power.

Many of the people I know in the Chinese military joined with the specific expectation that they will never seriously be involved in a foreign war. They may like playing Counter Strike, and like watching action movies, but in the end the most important function of the Chinese military is not as the national defense force, but instead is the significant role tha...

The Chinese military is not a hardened or even serious fighting force. They spend most of their time trying to "gain face" (very important to the Chinese). They are not a force of dedicated soldiers, but instead are run by a collection of social-climbers who see the military as a road that leads not to combat but to wealth and power.

Many of the people I know in the Chinese military joined with the specific expectation that they will never seriously be involved in a foreign war. They may like playing Counter Strike, and like watching action movies, but in the end the most important function of the Chinese military is not as the national defense force, but instead is the significant role that it plays in the government.

The Chinese military, thus, is nothing more than another branch of the bureaucracy, and I doubt anyone in it would seriously like to trade their current comfortable life for the ugliness of war.

In a sense, a government this bloated and corrupt couldn't organize itself enough to go to war. Despite its size and its penchant for rhetoric, China has never been a serious military nation. Throughout its history, peaceful bureaucratic deadlock has always prevailed, and I see no reason for that to change in the future.

Many of the people I know in the Chinese military joined with the
specific expectation that they will never seriously be involved in a
foreign war.

No different than the prevailing attitude in most of the prominent powers today. This attitude is especially evident in the criticism of the use of the National Guard and reserve forces in Iraq.

They spend most of their time trying to "gain face" (very important to the Chinese).

You make this argument more forcefully in other threads, but allow me to discuss it here. War is not simply brought on by competition for power. As Thucydides observed, three factors drive war: interest, fear and honor. Honor is not the lea...

Many of the people I know in the Chinese military joined with the
specific expectation that they will never seriously be involved in a
foreign war.

No different than the prevailing attitude in most of the prominent powers today. This attitude is especially evident in the criticism of the use of the National Guard and reserve forces in Iraq.

They spend most of their time trying to "gain face" (very important to the Chinese).

You make this argument more forcefully in other threads, but allow me to discuss it here. War is not simply brought on by competition for power. As Thucydides observed, three factors drive war: interest, fear and honor. Honor is not the least of the three. History demonstrates that passion often overrides prudence when the decision is made to go to war.

The importance of honor in Chinese culture argues as forcefully for the potential of conflict with the United States as you have used in it in the various threads to argue against war.

However, one should consider that the source of honor in China may be fundamentally different from the source of honor in the west.

In the west we gain honor and "face" through independence. A man who works for his own living is accorded more respect than one who depends on others such as his parents. Demonstrations of individualism and independence are directly linked to our notion of honor. This is why the military can often become involved as a country struggles to maintain its independence in the international scene.

In China, however, honor and face are accorded most by wealth and generosity. Lavish displays of extravagant spending give face to the spender, which is the reason for the...

However, one should consider that the source of honor in China may be fundamentally different from the source of honor in the west.

In the west we gain honor and "face" through independence. A man who works for his own living is accorded more respect than one who depends on others such as his parents. Demonstrations of individualism and independence are directly linked to our notion of honor. This is why the military can often become involved as a country struggles to maintain its independence in the international scene.

In China, however, honor and face are accorded most by wealth and generosity. Lavish displays of extravagant spending give face to the spender, which is the reason for the surging popularity of luxury goods in China. Another way to gain face is by spending money on other people, which demonstrates not only your generous heart but also your superior "liquidity."

In the end, when we use the word "honor" we should not confuse the Chinese sense of honor with, for instance, the Japanese one. The Japanese sesnse of honor was rigidly military, and they historically were a well disciplined and militarized nation. China, on the other hand, has an economic sense of honor.

In this sense, Napster is exactly correct, and China wouldn't risk the money just for war. Historical precedent stretching back thousands of years also supports this. Cniq-Cniq and Webjunkie, you would both be exactly right if we were talking about America, or Germany, or Greece, or even Japan. But China is a different context, and cannot be generalized with along with the countries we are more familiar with.

I would be more hesitant before I singled out any one culture. Difference in the details can often mask a similarity in human nature. If I remember my Thucydides, honor would have been applied much differently that it is today.

Regardless, the point that caught my eye in the previous post was in regards to "passion" and "prudence." Although many rational reasons have been presented here as to why a war will not come, it seems that the same has been said prior to the outbreak of most conflicts throughout history. The irrational has a tendency to overcome the rational in war.

My fear is that the major powers have lost their sense of the tragic. Just as the relative peace between the Nap...

I would be more hesitant before I singled out any one culture. Difference in the details can often mask a similarity in human nature. If I remember my Thucydides, honor would have been applied much differently that it is today.

Regardless, the point that caught my eye in the previous post was in regards to "passion" and "prudence." Although many rational reasons have been presented here as to why a war will not come, it seems that the same has been said prior to the outbreak of most conflicts throughout history. The irrational has a tendency to overcome the rational in war.

My fear is that the major powers have lost their sense of the tragic. Just as the relative peace between the Napoleanic Wars and 1914 lulled folk into a false security that nation states had moved beyond war, the relative peace since WWII may have dulled our senses to the possibility of future wars. It seems to me that we all have a tendency to assume today that war is something a rational or civilized nation rejects. We are probably deluding ourselves.

Events have a funny way of overtaking the future. Often, in sudden, unexpected ways.