China's Military Strategy in the New Era, with M. Taylor Fravel

Speaker: M. Taylor Fravel, Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science and Director of the Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Moderator: Andrew S. Erickson, Professor of Strategy, U.S. Naval War College China Maritime
Studies Institute
M. Taylor Fravel is the Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science and Director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Taylor studies international relations, with a focus on international security, China, and East Asia. His books include, Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China’s Territorial Disputes, (Princeton University Press, 2008) and Active Defense: China’s Military Strategy Since 1949 (Princeton University Press, 2019). His other publications have appeared in International Security, Foreign Affairs, Security Studies, International Studies Review, The China Quarterly, The Washington Quarterly, Journal of Strategic Studies, Armed Forces & Society, Current History, Asian Survey, Asian Security, China Leadership Monitor, and Contemporary Southeast Asia.
Taylor is a graduate of Middlebury College and Stanford University, where he received his PhD. He also has graduate degrees from the London School of Economics and Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. In 2016, he was named an Andrew Carnegie Fellow by the Carnegie Corporation. Taylor is a member of the board of directors of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and serves as the Principal Investigator for the Maritime Awareness Project.
Part of the Critical Issues Confronting China Series at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University

[@bolzdk9032]

8:50 it starts here.

[@levelazn]

we build chinatowns everywhere, military doesn't need to get involved.

[@theccpisaparasite8813]

Thanks, I was going to post the same thing.

[@theccpisaparasite8813]

@@levelazn the adults are talking, you've been dismissed.

[@levelazn]

@@theccpisaparasite8813 I am older than you son

[@theccpisaparasite8813]

@@levelazn then act like it 五毛

[@alaskavaper2490]

Excellent analysis by Professor Fravel.

[@gillianlim8440]

Thank you for a very penetrating and balanced discussion on a very difficult topic.

[@juliusnewman2094]

FF x 1.5

[@thug4lyfe]

lol, it's over!

[@pauljmeyer1]

This is all about the hegemonic response by China to the hegemony exercised by the USA. A chain of island bases would render the USN powerless and in the event of a direct confrontation, the USN would lose its capital ships.

[@pauljmeyer1]

@John Grigg It doesn't matter what I am, capital ships in the China Sea are not likely to be afloat for long if there is a serious confrontation, things are simply not the same as they were.

[@pauljmeyer1]

@John Grigg Thank you for your reply, There are many layers to this situation as I see it. There is the alliance with Dictators Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and the possibility of a simultaneous annexation of Ukraine and Taiwan, one can speculate about the outcome. As for the nature of war, limited wars have created mass migrations from destroyed nations and an all-out war between the principal nations could be terminal.

[@qingzhou9983]

Overall a very good talk. I just want to point out one Fact. PLA has a long history of beating superior opponents. They are not afraid of seeming certain defeat, like large-scale landing attack.

[@secondsandcents2479]

Genuinely curious, which opponents? They've also been defeated by "inferior" forces such as Vietnam.

[@qingzhou9983]

@@secondsandcents2479 1) PLA beat KMT as a peasant guerilla force. 2) PLA without air force beat US Army in Korean War, driven them from Chinese Border to 38th Parallel. 3) PLA beat Soviet in their border dispute during Soviet's peak days. 4) Even the Vietnam army PLA beat in few weeks (taking the last Mountain area before the Vietnamese Capital), it was just after they drove the US Army off from Vietnam.