China emerging as new force in drone warfare

BEIJING (AP) — Determined to kill or capture a murderous Mekong River drug lord, China's security forces considered a tactic they'd never tried before: calling a drone strike on his remote hideaway deep in the hills of Myanmar. The attack didn't happen — the man was later captured and brought to China for trial — but the fact that authorities were considering such an option cast new light on China's unmanned aerial vehicle program, which has been quietly percolating for years and now appears to be moving into overdrive.

In this Oct. 1, 2009 file photo, trucks loaded with the Chinese made drones, the ASN-207, take part in a military parade marking China's 60th anniversary held near Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Chinese aerospace firms developed dozens of drones, known also as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. Many have appeared at air shows and military parades, including some that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Predator, Global Hawk and Reaper models used with deadly effect by the U.S. Air Force and CIA. Analysts say that although China still trails the U.S. and Israel, the industry leaders, its technology is maturing rapidly and on the cusp of widespread use for surveillance and combat strikes. (AP Photo/Vincent Thian)

Chinese aerospace firms have developed dozens of drones, known also as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. Many have appeared at air shows and military parades, including some that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Predator, Global Hawk and Reaper models used with deadly effect by the U.S. Air Force and CIA. Analysts say that although China still trails the U.S. and Israel, the industry leaders, its technology is maturing rapidly and on the cusp of widespread use for surveillance and combat strikes.

China is an emerging superpower and I'm not surprised that China will follow in the footsteps of the Soviet Union and be influenced by military technology. It's scary thinking how today drones are used in warfare by people setting at computers like you and myself. It changes the perspective of warfare. I cannot imagine if there will be advancements in technological warfare with China and the U.S. competing with the latest gadgets used in war. I doubt any criticism in drones being used in war will halt the U.S. or China using drones.
Source

Here is an interesting article from five moths ago. The article discusses the rise of the drone race between the U.S. and China.

During China’s twice-a-year show, visitors got to see an impressive and, to some, alarming fleet of drones developed by Chinese companies, including many models resembling U.S. drones with their body shape, flight specs, and their missile and surveillance capabilities. It’s evident that China intends to take full advantage of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to achieve its national interests – including their territorial disputes over the Senkaku Islands and South China Sea. The U.S. and the World should, therefore, be concerned with this development given that this may lead to a drone race between the top two producers of drones – the U.S. and China.

A video of China drones from Chinese news.


Source

China isn't just a rising super power that is using military technology, they also use economics. Think about it. Look at how much US debt China buys. The military technology is just a way of saying "What, you think we can't make drones too?" I say that because if China wanted to end the US as we know it, all they would have to do is stop buying our debt and stop dealing with us for a short time. Very good post btw.

reply to post by Sleytek


Thanks, you're the first to reply too. It's great to have a lot of flags. But I love to debate and chit-chat too. Anyway, I do agree, but I need to look more into how China defines itself. The Chinese Communist Party is adapting. While the country transforms into a superpower. I can tell China will become a new superpower soon because of the strengthening of the economy, advancement in technology, etc. I actually think it would be a blessing for the U.S if China can become a superpower. Because the United States as become a miniature Jupiter. Like Jupiter that absorbs meteorites with it's strong gravity. The United States absorbs a lot of the worlds problems and the broken people of the world. There's always the good, the bad, and the ugly. But I think China would be great competition and become a new alternative to U.S. politics where the United States wouldn't have to sacrifice everything for terror groups and broken governments.

reply to post by Phoenix267


You think that it will be a good thing that China becomes a superpower? What evidence do you have to support this. If one looks at countries where China has had great influence; such as Burma, Cambodia and parts of Africa, you will not see a great amount of development. Sure, some people have made money from the wholsale sell-off of the nations' natural resources but in terms of real development, there is little. The roads that are built by the Chinese last only a few years, or just long enough to get the resources out. The Chinese do not do any nation-building, and in my opinion, they lack any moral authority.

reply to post by deessell


So in you world view does any of the previous super powers or even great powers (before WW1) have any moral superiority or have shown a moral that would make them examples to the rest of the world ?

I can only think of on great power that did very little in terms of damage and even exploitation, in comparison with all other nations, even Belgium, it never asserted any type of superiority. That was the Portuguese Empire the first and the longest lasting empire. There are dark episodes but in the context of the times they have no comparison. Slavery was abolished in 1761 (Spain 1866-1873) and one first of the nations to abolish death penalty, abolishing it for political crimes in 1852, for all crimes except the military in 1867, and for all crimes in 1911.

reply to post by Panic2k11


Hi Panic,

Whilst I disagree with much of the US' foreign policy, it is difficult to deny that for over 50 years the US has maintained a certain level of security within the Asia-Pacific region. This period of security has enabled many countries within the region, including China, to achieve an exponential level of modernisation and development; both economically and to a certain extent democratically.

China, on the other hand, have been behaving aggressively within the region, and this has the potential to de-stablise the region. No nation wants that, as a result many nations within the region welcome the US' pivot and continued security prescence within the region.

It's all nonsense

It's a game..

They look like our drones because they are our drones, we are aiding each others goals behind closed doors...

The US is the worlds leading supplier of oil... there is only ONE reason we are cutting a path across the ME, it's to supply CHINA to recreate the silk road/oilroad/land road to europe...

Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan.... look up silk road on a map

WE are deeply in bed with China... those drones aren't similar, they are our technology, wake up folks...

reply to post by deessell


I wasn't thinking that when I wanted China to become a superpower. What I was saying I wanted the United States to have a form of competition that can bring the best out of the United States. Something along the lines with the Soviet Union. I know there is a threat for war and what not. But even today with the wars it's really no different. It feels like the United States has hit a road block in a way that has hinder progress. President Obama speaks of "change". But I haven't seen much of it really. Thanks for bring attention how china works in other countries. To be honest I would have to look up the relation between China and other countries. As well about the roads, resources, etc.

reply to post by deessell

it is difficult to deny that for over 50 years the US has maintained a certain level of security within the Asia-Pacific region

I take that security as a dangerous game of equilibrium, that evolved by a world stage created by the US itself to make be itself the central fulcrum. The US usurped the central stage and the running of the show on WWII (From the UK, something that Churchill was painfully aware, the UK today is reduced to participate in the EU as to maintain any geopolitical relevance.). In this world there is rarely anything that occurs by chance, the situation in Asia-Pacific was to a certain degree planned, with some hiccups and failures in fact had the other major players been better at the game (or at least as good as the US) the world would be very different.

This period of security has enabled many countries within the region, including China, to achieve an exponential level of modernisation and development; both economically and to a certain extent democratically.

I see that you probably are not aware of the history of China, look at China at the beginning of WW1 and then at the end of WW2 to get an idea of the Anglo-American herr influence on its well being, see how and why it devolved into "Communism" (well its view of it, note that the US is not alone in the blames, even the mentality prevalent on the region has been central to how things evolved).

China, on the other hand, have been behaving aggressively within the region, and this has the potential to de-stablise the region. No nation wants that, as a result many nations within the region welcome the US' pivot and continued security prescence within the region.

I disagree, China has come of age in the context if was put in. In a very amazing and extraordinary way and again with the help of the US (nothing of what has been happening in the last decade would have been possible if the US hadn't pushed that China be included in the WTO).

You seem to equate destabilization to reduction of US influence in the region. Look on how Australia economy suffered by the US push to include China in the WTO. In any case China has always had an history of self containment, I doubt that their expansionism would be more than economical oriented and any destabilization will be created from outside, as the US loses the central stage...

Originally posted by Panic2k11

You seem to equate destabilization to reduction of US influence in the region. Look on how Australia economy suffered by the US push to include China in the WTO. In any case China has always had an history of self containment, I doubt that their expansionism would be more than economical oriented and any destabilization will be created from outside, as the US loses the central stage...

I disagree, Panic. IMHO China is looking to project power within the region. If the US loses influence in the region then the balance of power will have to be adjusted. Who will fill that role? China? India? Japan? China lacks the authority to take on that role. China lacks a blue water Navy, its military is corrupt, and as I stated previosly, it lacks the moral authority. The US will remain the main guaranteer of security within the region for some time. I do believe though that its allies, namely Australia will have to step up and contribute more to regional security.

At the end of the day it is about keeping trade moving through the Malacca Straits.

reply to post by deessell

You seem to equate destabilization to reduction of US influence in the region.

You say that you disagree with the above read of your position but you continue to reiterate the same assertion. Remember that the US was not even a nation with any external influence before the end of WW1 and only rose to significance with WW2 and that due to the vacuum and opportunities that the collapse of the previous world order originated. Note that it was not because of lack of trying, the US did mount several failed expeditionary sorties (the war with Spain permitted the US to grab the Philipines and Cuba and cement its presence in the South Americas and we today all know how it started) but until the end of WW2 it had been countered by other interests mainly the UK, Germany and Russia (before WW2, look to the history of China to see the major powers in the region). In comparison to today the roles were reversed in the UK-US relation at best the US had expanded its influence into South America and made some minor claims were it could (gun ship diplomacy, see Japan).

The more one analyzes things and learns how stuff works the more validity is there to the notion that the US planed for Japan to attack. The Japanese army was heavily indoctrinated in UK and US academies (most like we saw latter with the dictatorships of South America or today with the Egypt's army or to a degree all NATO members, shaping ideas, creating technological and political dependency and subverting allegiances). An economic study on the relation between Japan and the US before the Japanese expansionism would make the move predictable and unavoidable.

If the US loses influence in the region then the balance of power will have to be adjusted.

It is not a matter of if, it already is declining, hence the new move towards the Pacific and the global realignment of power that has already started and will terminate with the end of the petro-dollar, in fact the delay is being artificially managed by the Anglo.American interests the dollar (and most of the Western economies) should already have collapsed and the currencies ought to have already shuffled the power structure in the world. There is no avoidance possible to the rise of the BRICS (look for example to the less talked South Africa how it will take a major role on the African region a role that it should have played long ago if not for the Anglo-American interference, the same is mostly valid for the rest. Brazil should have a been a developed nation today and the fulcrum of South America if not for the mess the old powers created in the region...

I really do not see how Asia is much different, in fact there is no indication nor historical clue that China will go on any rampage. It could easy already made much bigger moves, it could have annexed (in various degrees) Vietnam, Butan and Cambodia and many other regions using the same type of tactics the US employs, even Indonesia (with their constant attack of Chinese citizens and interests). The fact is that China learned long ago that it can not overextend and much of its attention must be focused in managing internal affairs or it will easily crumble. Before China can project any strength it must yet make larger changes internally, from living standards to increased homogenization and move beyond its rule of fear to a rule of internal recognized power and respect. What we will see at best is some demands for recognition and its place at the big table.

As for moral superiority I do not see the US having any, not even in comparison with China especially in dealings outside its borders. When (not if) the US collapses so will all the international relevance of the UK be ended. The UK is moving toward a self created a corner. Australia is realizing that it should consider its interests first (finally) like much of the Commonwealth.