The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to ‘win the war,’

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself ‘How likely is this thing to occur.’ Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don’t abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Link to site here | Link to paper here

SUMMARY:

– People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) understanding of the military balance is fundamentally based on systems warfare concepts – modern warfare as a confrontation between opposing operational systems

– Systems concepts drive China’s…identification of enduring or emerging weaknesses

– …in key areas essential to conducting systems confrontation and systems destruction warfare, there remain significant gaps

– During Xi’s tenure, the PLA has been forced to confront a range of problems that go well beyond technological modernization, force structure, and organizational relationships

– Current PLA self-assessments focus on four broad themes, two of which hardly, if ever, have been addressed in U.S. net assessments: political reliability and mobilization. Two others are somewhat more familiar: fighting and winning wars and leadership and command

– …through different evaluation processes, (both the United States and the PRC) have concluded that war with the other has the potential to be extremely risky from an escalation standpoint, protracted and costly, and fatally harmful to long-term credibility and/or strategic goals

– Necessary improvements have not materialized quickly and will likely take time because of the PLA’s organizational culture and the improvements’ systemic complexity

– These self-assessments drive the PRC to very different views of risk in regard to potential great power conflict, namely over the status of Taiwan.

– The PLA sees itself as the weaker side in the overall military balance, largely because it has made only limited progress in those key areas that will define future warfare, most importantly informatization and system-of-systems–based operations

–

By Mark Cozad, Jeffrey Engstrom, Scott W. Harold, Timothy R. Heath, Sale Lilly, Edmund J. Burke, Julia Brackup, Derek Grossman