- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by abramicus at 2013-4-19 13:36|
WHY NUMBERS ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN FIREPOWER
China should not believe for one microsecond that numbers are less important than "quality" or technological superiority of each fighting unit. This is a fallacy that turns China's overwhelming advantage into an overwhelming disadvantage. And the logic is quite simple and plain.
Each fighting unit can be characterized by its firepower (p), its rate of firing (r), and its range of fire (d). Each army can be summated by multiplying the above factors by the number of such units.
But, the vulnerability (lifespan) of each such unit is dependent on the number of the opponent's number of fighting units as well.
If Country A has N units and Country B has M units, the effectiveness of A's forces divided by the number of opposing units attacking it is its true value.
Thus, N x Pa x Ra x Da/M is the true combat value of A's forces.
Likewise, M x Pb x Rb x Db/N is the true combat value of B's forces.
Therefore, the ratio of the combat value of A with respect to B equals
N x Pa x Ra x Da/M divided by M x Pb x Rb x Db/N =
N^2/M^2 x (PRDa/PRDb), where PRD is the product of all the factors that make for the fighting quality of the unit.
Therefore, to overcome a PRDa/PRDb disadvantage of 1/4, Country A needs only to increase its number of units to twice that of B, i.e., N/M = 2, as N^2/M^2 would then equal to 4, and 4 x (1/4) = 1 or parity.
With China's population easily four times that of other countries, the technological advantage its opponents would need to achieve would have to be 16:1 just to achieve parity, but in order to take full advantage of its large population, it must have a force that is 4 times the size of others, which is doable.
To imagine that numbers can neutralize technology, one needs look no farther than the history of China's emergence from the First Sino-Japanese War as essentially having achieved parity with the Imperial Japanese Army even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, through its guerrilla warfare on the Mainland. The same logic explains the ability of the poorly armed Vietnamese to survive one of the longest wars in modern history. We are talking about achieving parity, not total victory, which is all that defense entails. China should not embark on aggressive or offensive wars using this formula, because like the example of the Gambler's Ruin, those who live by the sword will eventually die by the sword, and China has no need to risk its future for any moment of vainglory that is never worth the effort. All aggressive empires have eventually been destroyed by its enemies and conquered peoples because wars of conquest are by nature risky no matter how strong one may be.