The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

The Pentagon has recently expressed concern about China's military. You may have missed that in all of the noise about Iraq and Guantanamo. From SecDef's 2006 Annual Report on Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (found here):

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is in the process of long-term transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to a more modern force capable of fighting short duration, high intensity conflicts against high-tech adversaries...

In the near term, China’s military build-up appears focused on preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies, including the possibility of U.S. intervention. However, analysis of China’s military acquisitions suggest it is also generating capabilities that could apply to other regional contingencies, such as conflicts over resources or territory.

Several aspects of China’s military development have surprised U.S. analysts, including the pace and scope of its strategic forces modernization. China’s military expansion is already such as to alter regional military balances. Long-term trends in China’s strategic nuclear forces modernization, land- and sea-based access denial capabilities, and emerging precision-strike weapons have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region.
China’s leaders have yet to adequately explain the purposes or desired end-states of their military expansion. Estimates place Chinese defense expenditure at two to three times officially disclosed figures [officially $35 billion ~Wulf]. The outside world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and decision-making or of key capabilities supporting PLA modernization.

Notes from The Economist:

IF THE Pentagon is right, China's nuclear arsenal is on the verge of a big upgrade. As a deterrent against American nuclear attack, the Chinese have long relied mainly on a handful of intercontinental missiles that are slow to fuel and highly vulnerable. Now China is shifting to new types of missiles that are harder to detect and can be launched much more quickly.

The Pentagon says China has only 20 missiles capable of reaching the American mainland. These are DF-5s (also called CSS-4s), based in silos. They use liquid fuel, which is stored separately for safety and needs to be time-consumingly transferred to a missile before launch. Some analysts believe the warheads are stored separately too. It could take up to two hours to prepare them for use. China has another 20 or so liquid-fuelled DF-4s (also called CSS-3s) and as many as 50 DF-21s (CSS-5s) that can reach targets in Asia and Russia (click to see map)...

This year could see the first deployments of DF-31s (CSS-9s). These would be mounted on trucks or railcars, making them much harder to find. They would also use solid fuel, which would considerably reduce preparation time. A longer-range version, the DF-31A, could be in operation next year. The JL-2, a submarine-launched missile, could be deployed between 2007 and 2010. These would bring all of America within reach.

There are a lot of reasons to believe that these are deterrent moves, not plans to become aggressive. Either way, what should America do about a Chinese military buildup? Engage in another Cold War? Imagine trying to spend the next half century watching the American economy outperform China the way it did the USSR. No, seriously, imagine trying to do that. Heh.

So, how do we handle the new Red Threat? Well, we could try greater military transparency and cooperation. That's not something most people would expect from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld administration, but as Stars and Stripes reports today;

Three aircraft carrier groups — carrying a combined 20,000 personnel, 28 ships and 290 aircraft — took part [in] the largest carrier exercise since the Vietnam conflict...

The exercise’s size, [Rear Adm. Michael Miller] said, is a function of all of the carrier groups being in the vicinity at the right time. He said mustering the massive Valiant Shield forces — and expanding the former JASEX exercise from two to three carriers — is not being done to show U.S. military might in the Pacific.

Rather, he said, the Navy is reaching out to the region through military “transparency.” For instance, China — called a potential threat in a recent Pentagon report — was invited to attend; on Sunday, Chinese representatives came aboard the Ronald Reagan.

“They wanted to come out here because they are interested in the same things we are — the peace and stability of this region,” Miller said.

What? The Chinese want peace and stability in the Pacific? We share the same biology, regardless of ideology? This isn't a crazy idea, but it's not one we often hear expressed so clearly. Work with the Chinese. Hrm.

But this isn't just an opportunity for everybody to say that war is undesireable. This line from the story blew me away (and I've added emphasis to make that really clear):

The Chinese were “interested in the carrier from the bottom up,” said Ronald Reagan commanding officer Capt. Terry B. Kraft.
“We showed them everything,” Kraft said.

Okay, it's time for more imagining.

1) Imagine doing that for some Soviet admirals or shipyard administrators back in 1945, or 1965, or 1985. You know, to demonstrate our commitment to avoiding conflict. My, how times have changed.

2) Imagine doing that in 1995. Remember how upset the American Right was with Clinton over the sale of supercomputers, missile engines, etc? Remember the Cox Report? Dirty Communists! I'm curious to know how upset the American Right would be with "We showed them everything" if it had happened during a Gore or Kerry presidency.

By the way, some great photos of Valiant Shield here and here, found via an article at Bubblehead's The Stupid Shall be Punished blog.

The fact of the matter is that we have fewer secrets than we would like to. For one thing, our military has been much more on display than has China's since the end of the Cold War. Every time we use our military, the world learns what it can do. That is great if we are looking to display power, but it would be ridiculous to assume that other nations don't then emulate our successful weapons systems and Special Operations capabilities. According to the Pentagon;

Following observations of U.S. Special Forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the PLA began to place greater emphasis on expanding China’s own SOF capability, particularly as a force multiplier in a Taiwan Strait scenario. PLA researchers continue to study SOF involved in U.S. and Coalition operations. In 2002, the PLA reportedly set up a dedicated unit to monitor U.S. Special Operations activities, including target acquisition and use of UAVs, in Afghanistan. The PLA also studied the role of special operations forces in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

As transparent as our military has to be, and as transparent as our R&D is, it seems like good policy to see if we really can work with China, and not just pretend to. We can't ignore the fundamental differences we do have with China, and the horrible human rights record (try as we do). But the existance of fundamental differences in governance and respect for human rights does not stop us from cooperating with several other nations out there, and it shouldn't stop us here. All we need have to justify greater cooperation with China is a sense of national security and a common goal... like, say, peace and stability in the Pacific. So bravo to Valiant Shield and the observers from Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and the Russian Federation. Let's hope it does some good.

Side note on North Korea: Bill Gates has a net worth of about the North Korean GDP. Who would win?