Ross Terrill's most valuable point here is that there are two Chinas - as he puts it, there is the Communist Party seeking a raison d'etre and the hundreds of millions released as individuals seeking a better life. I lived in Indonesia in the late 1990s and I saw first hand how a system that was lionised by many as virtually indestructable imploded by its own internal contradictions within months due to the seemingly innocuous act of the devaluation of a neighbouring country's currency (on July 2, 1997). The Chinese people, as classic proponents of democracy and human rights will point out, has no means of peacefully changing its government and for that reason we can have no confidence in its peaceful transition over coming years.

Yes Ross' article is well-balanced.

It rightly points out that there are other contries (such as Japan, India and Russia) in the power competition before it can be seen as the main threat to US economic or military supremacy.

US Governments have traditionally been hypersenitive to China's military position and have frequently exagerated it - perhaps a side effect of the Korean War. China's military commitments to internal security and defence against Russia have often been underestimated while its ability to invade Taiwan have been overestimated.

The US' overwelming ability to deploy two carrier battle groups in defence of Taiwan (at fairly short notice) has often been met with an exaggerated description of China's own naval assets (ie. numerous old style cruisers, submarines and destroyers).

In addition to the US's higher technology and firepower it is usually forgotten that China has not been involved in major naval battle since 1894 (which it lost). So there is not much corporate knowledge in China's navy and that also includes its airforce.

So its likely to be many more years until China can project long range military power.

Be wary saying that the US can project the power of the 2 carrier fleets. Not widely publicised (for obvious reasons) is that a reasonably good conventional submarine have regularly “sank” carriers in exercise. And has become clearer in these exercises the US ASW capability is not as crash hot as one would expect from the worlds only superpower. And thus China does not have to project its might that far to have an impact. Because the US may not be able to project its power as far as it wants.

Big Fish

Yes I agree that conflicts between "unequal" forces often don't go according to size.

A further example to the one you rightly state was a RAAF officer who told me that in an exercise against a US carrier a lone F111 flying very low (under the radar) "took out" the carrier (presumably with Harpoons). Such was the US Navy's embarassment that they curtailed the exercise then and there.

My point about the Chinese Navy is based largely on its lack of experience. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think a Chinese submarine has ever "fired" a torpedo in anger. All not really equivalent to the last major submarine-"capital ship" engagement of Conqueror (with the UKs long wartime submarine experience) sinking the Belgrano.

Actually I think most of the Chinese effort (for the Taiwan Strait) seems to be centred on land based anti ship missiles which when nuclear tipped would do terrible damage.

Just another flashpoint (along with North Korea, Iran and India-Pakistan) towards Armaggedon.

I think the Chinese do what they do by having basically slave labour, and of course that forementioned rational dictatorship.
The soldiers always look great marching round the square, and the other military achievement that is often overlooked and certainly would take some effort to match concerns a certain prime minister at Torquay in Victoria some years ago.
Australia does itself no favours chasing the quick bucks, the natural gas deal comes to mind.
All the best and thanks for coming!

Just to add something to the naval discussion...
I believe china is in the process of finishing its own air craft carrier (bought incomplete from the russians if I remember correctly).

Their inexperience may indeed be a problem, but their hardware is actually almost on par's with the US in terms of technology (But not necessarily in numbers).

I agree with Ross that China is going to go through a very nasty phase internally if the status quo continues...Although a major conflict may help China to keep itself stable. (Expansion and limited attrition can do that)