Is China capable of launching a large-scaleinternational war like America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why or why not ?
中國有能力發起像阿富汗、伊拉克戰爭一樣的大型跨國戰爭嗎？為什麼？
評論翻譯:
The reason I'm wondering is that I've been readingseveral answers to another Quora question alluding to the fact that China isnot capable of launching a large war right now. My immediate thoughtwas: Why not?
China's military simply doesn't have the ability toproject military strength and war-making capabilities against nations notbordering its lands.
中國軍隊在面對非鄰近邊境的國家時，顯然沒有能力發動戰爭和保護她的軍隊。
The PLA is a defensive force, established to repelinvasion and engage in high intensity warfare for shortened periods of time inorder to move aggressors to the negotiating table.
解放軍是一支防禦性軍隊，基於抵抗侵略和參加短期高烈度戰爭以迫使侵略者走上談判桌的目的而建立。
The Chinese have limited access to foreign basesand lack a Blue Water to transport personnel and hardware.
中國軍隊缺乏境外軍事基地和藍海海軍用於投送人員和裝備。
While China could fight a large scale war againstRussia or India, it could not engage the United States or Europe (unless in adefensive posture).
Historyalso dictates that China doesn't fight beyond its own borders, unless underextreme duress.
歷史也揭示中國不會遠離其邊境線進行作戰，除非其受到極端的威脅。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
54 第一條回答，獲得54票
回答者：JonMixon
I have studied themajority of world conflicts from the Punic Wars until modern times
我曾研究過自布匿戰爭至今的所有主要國際戰爭。（O__O」……tree new bee）
No, China couldn't launchand win a major international war.
不能，中國無法發起一場重大的國際戰爭並獲得勝利。
For myriad reasons, including:
眾多的原因包括：
1. China has never, in its history, won a war thattook place farther than areas relatively close its borders.
中國歷史上，中國從未在一場發生在遠離其邊境線以外的戰爭中獲得勝利。
2. China has only "won" a single majorconflict in the last 50 years - That was against an incompetently led andill-prepared India in 1962.That was also a brief conflict and no air assetswere used.
3. China has very few large cargo aircraft - It haslimited in-flight refueling capabilities and there's no evidence that Chinaroutinely drills on deploying its troops overseas by air to hostileterritories.
4. Chin has minimal amphibious forces - China has notperformed a successful amphibious assault since the 18th century and there's noevidence that it possesses the ability to do so.
5. China has minimal military maritime transportabilities - It also has never transported a large force by sea since , again,the 18th century. There's no reason to believe that they could.
6. There are few countries where China could launch anattack against and not come into conflict with either a member of NATO, countrywith a defense treaty with the US or the US itself. Any of these would expandthe conflict into a war that China would almost certainly lose.
7. There is little proof that the upper levels of theChinese military are, in fact, competent. Most Chinese generals are morebusinessmen than warriors and it is unlikely that they would bring muchleadership to conflict situation.
8. The Chinese military is geared and trained moretoward suppressing internal dissent than it is for offensive military actions.It is difficult to believe that they could switch their training over to anoffensive role in a relatively short order.
True China cannot launch alarge scale attack at the same level of USA since the lack of resources (as youpointed out).
由於缺乏足夠資源（如你原文指出），中國當然不能像美國一樣發動一場大規模的攻擊行動。
ButI don't think it is impossible, if they make the effort. Right now they have apretty powerful military which continuously modernizing.
但是這不是不可能的，只要他們傾盡全力。現在中國擁有相當規模而且在不斷現代化的軍事力量。
Also another point tomention is development resources they dedicate - take a look at the roads theybuilt up the Himalayan range.
另外值得指出的是他們致力發展的資源，看看他們在喜馬拉雅山脈所建造的道路。
Also adding to your list,is the major internal conflicts China has inside and on its borders.
另外補充一點，中國的主要內部衝突在中國邊境地區和邊境線。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013
Jon Mixon: Nothingis impossible. However, many things are so unlikely that they have to besingled out. A nation which hasn't engaged in an overseas conflict in
centurieswould have an exceptionally difficult time doing as such.
China could go to war withNorth Korea without any international opposition. It's most likely thatthey'd do so after a collapse or coup or something, not as a direct war.
NorthKorea borders China. China's military history favors "home games."
北韓緊靠著中國。歷史上中國軍隊最喜歡在家裡玩躲貓貓。
Belbsir Mouad
let's not forget chineserole in the korean war
不要忘記中國人在朝鮮戰爭中的角色。
Share • Report • 9Sep, 2013
Jon Mixon
Who "forgot" it? China,at best forced a draw in a war where:
誰「忘記」了？中國，最多是在以下的情況下被迫議和：
1) The US never attacked their bases in China.
美國從未攻擊位於中國境內的基地。
2) Where the US intentionally limited its aims tokeeping South Korea non-communists.
美國有意將其目標限制於保持南棒子不被赤化。
3) The US declined to use nuclear weapons when iteasily could have.
美國在可隨時動用核武器的情況下拒絕使用核武器。
4) Where they were 25 miles north of the finalceasefire at the time the war ended.
戰爭結束時，他們在停戰最終停火地點以北25公里處。
Frankly,China was fortunate the Harry Truman had difficulties at home. Had the UStaken more aggressive posture, it is likely that there wouldn't have beena communist government in China.
Most of the cost anddifficulty of going to war outside the homeland is the problem of supplying andmaintaining the fighting forces. Transportation and logistics are as vitalas combat capability. Unlike the US, China's merchant marine and airtransport capabilities don't have the surplus capacity to serve the domesticeconomy AND the military forces at war.
Force projection is aproblem as well. China has sent naval vessels on long missions, to theMiddle East and around the Indian Ocean basin, but never in a large fleet ortask force. Chinese ground forces, while they DO have experiencedeploying across their own very large country, haven't got any modernexperience of deploying and operating thousands of miles away from their homeand logistics bases. Control of oceanic and air logistics routes andlines of communication would take forces away from the main mission effort.
Cheng Xuntao:Indeed. Allies can make logistics and projections much easier.
確實，盟友可以令補給和後勤更容易。
Alex Yactine
Could you please tell mewhere I can read more on this? I'm really interested about it!
能告訴我哪裡有更多相關的資料么？我對此非常感興趣。
Share • Report • 23Aug, 2013Cheng Xuntao: Maybeyou are interested in how China withdraw its citizens from war zones such asthe Libya case. This can give you a clue about China's capability intransportation.
Their army just isn'tdesigned for it right now and so they don't have the infrastructure in place tobe able to deploy men and material on a large scale in a foreign nation.
· China's military has 208 transport planes, andthey're mostly short-range transports. For comparison, theUnited States has 278 C-130s and 217 C-17s, and that's just the two most commontransport planes that are in service.[1] China's air-transport capabilities areseverely lacking, meaning that they would have a hard time flying in theessentials like troops, tanks, or basic supplies.
· China's naval transport capabilities aren't allthat capable of far-reaching deployments. They have nearly 100amphibious transport ships, but they're all relatively small; their largestship is still smaller than the United States' smallest amphibious assault ship.The mission the PLAN has been asked to do has essentially been to defendcoastal waters and be able to invade Taiwan, and so they've developed theirweapons systems accordingly. That means a lot of faster, but short-ranged,troop transports and corresponding support ships.
· China lacks the global infrastructure to supportforeign deployment. The United States has about 700 basesthroughout the world. This global network of American bases allows ships andplanes to operate without regard for range, it makes it easier to deploy assetsbecause of ready-made infrastructure (i.e. runways, utilities, communications,etc.), and it allows for a more rapid response in case something goes wrong. Totop it off, the United States operates the largest aircraft carrier fleet,meaning that they essentially have 10 mobile bases that they can get almostanywhere in the world. China doesn't have any of that, and while they have afunctional aircraft carrier, it's powered by conventional methods (oil) meaningthat refueling becomes an issue.
· As costly as large-scale wars are for the UnitedStates, it's likely that it would be much more expensive for China. Alot of China's military strength is still wrapped up in the fact that the justhave a lot of people/tanks/airplanes. The United States can do more with fewerpeople because they have better arms; while China has spent a great deal ofmoney and expended a large effort to modernize their armed forces, a good dealof that effort has gone to developing technology that isn't necessarily useablein such a conflict.[2] It would very likely take China more troops toaccomplish things.[3]
Look, the reality is that, as powerful as China's military is, the PLA isn'treally designed to project power that far beyond its own boarders; and sincemany of their neighbors' armed forces aren't exactly withering at the vine (orallied with the United States), that's not exactly that most preferable choice.And while it's a problem that they've been trying to rectify, it's one thattakes a pretty long time to develop a solution for.
[1] There are about another73 C-5s, 89 C-130Js, and hundreds of tankers.
另外大約還有73架C-5，89架C-130J和數以百計的空中加油機。
[2] Some of their biggestareas of improvement have been in modernizing their ballistic missiles, ordeveloping systems that are designed to work as countermeasures against moretechnologically advanced weapons systems (the anti-ship ballistic missile,boxes that trick radar homing missiles, etc).