China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

[quantumlight]

Japan is always ready to sacrifice themselves for their American masters. And Taiwan as well. The US will have no problem finding stupid asian nations to host their missiles against China.

Looking at the bright side; this would give China reason for a new round of purges to root out the traitors in its ranks. Those who claimed that something like this wont happen because everyone loves money and peace peace win win we need no preparation or nuclear parity will now be targets for the MSS. Rightfully so.

True, in a Post Peak Oil world in which its an ever shrinking zerosum pie, its getting a lot more crowded and heated and "win win" is naive when none of the other players believe in such a narrative... the narrative seems to be to see which side can pull the rug from out underneath the other side first, certaintly from US view it appears to be allin and ready to fight to the death for its hegemony at any and all costs... Where are all the Biden apologists now? or the "wait and see" guys? China must not be naive

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

Rumors of TSMC banning Huawei was all talk until the hammer dropped. A complete US ban of Chips/semiconductor supply chain to China was all talk until Cotton published his 80 page recommendations. The fact its being talked about and planned is enough to give China grave concern, and China should not leave things like this to chance or assume it wont happen "because reasons" thats how it got caught with its pants down in the semiconductor realm

China assumed that U.S. establishments political and business were rational actors. It didn't anticipate that the U.S. willingness to burn the house down if it means capping China at the knee in order for the U.S. to win strategically.

Chinese leadership has seen and has been shown regardless of U.S. leadership or difference in parties that they are persistent and is laser focused on bringing China down to it's knees. If the recent actions and historical reference don't move the CPC into taking measures that are not just proportional but one that has actual teeth then any losses incurred by China will fall on their shoulders along with the inevitable backlash.

 

[Appix]

China assumed that U.S. establishments political and business were rational actors. It didn't anticipate that the U.S. willingness to burn the house down if it means capping China at the knee in order for the U.S. to win strategically.

Chinese leadership has seen and has been shown regardless of U.S. leadership or difference in parties that they are persistent and is laser focused on bringing China down to it's knees. If the recent actions and historical reference don't move the CPC into taking measures that are not just proportional but one that has actual teeth then any losses incurred by China will fall on their shoulders along with the inevitable backlash.

We Chinese still underestimate the ruthlessness of the US. People should try to listen to Mearsheimer in order to create some conciousness how far the Americans are willing to go to bury potential competitors.

 

[kentchang]

Rumors of TSMC banning Huawei was all talk until the hammer dropped. A complete US ban of Chips/semiconductor supply chain to China was all talk until Cotton published his 80 page recommendations. The fact its being talked about and planned is enough to give China grave concern, and China should not leave things like this to chance or assume it wont happen "because reasons" thats how it got caught with its pants down in the semiconductor realm

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Talking about Cotton's essay is laughable. It was local-news-worthy for a couple days. Politicians have aides write that stuff to show how great a far-sighted statesman he is and therefore ready for national office. SMIC got approvals recently. Total ban is just all talk and so what if there is a total ban? Life goes on! The sky is not falling. If a U.S. Republican Senator talks about possibly nuking China, you think China should start building a million bomb shelters right away?

You make it sound like TSM unable to sign new commercial contracts with Huawei was all rumors and unexpected? Remember ZTE? That worked wonderfully for the U.S. so U.S. tried again.

Of course as a prudent policy maker, you take in all the data points and plot a course. Fools overreact and makes something out of nothing.

Basing missiles in a foreign country is completely different than tariffs, economic sanctions, and de-coupling. For all countries without alliance treaties, it is constitutionally illegal as it infringes upon sovereignty.

U.S. has bases in Japan and Korea already (Australia and Guam too far away). Adding a new missile does not add any more than what in-region platforms can deliver today. Coastal shore-to-ship missiles are a dime a dozen these days.

So the question is really a political one. These missiles are meant to be controlled by the U.S. alone and if U.S. does manage to convince a few countries, it is simply a message to all that I have more friends than you do. Which Asian countries are willing to publicly declare itself to be a mortal enemy of China. Even Vietnam just re-elected a pro-China leader. All these countries want to stay out of the fight. None has anything to gain and everything to lose.

Nikkei reports on a marketing pitch by a regional U.S. Command for more money from the Congress. Nothing more. Well, maybe except for people that take a populist local politician's Tarzan blurb seriously.

If China's rise can be stopped by a total semiconductor ban or by 10,000 missiles, then China does not deserve to succeed. Otherwise, solutions will be found in due time. Why didn't China worry about total sufficiency in semiconductors 10 years ago? Because there was no need and money can be much better invested in downstream industries. China is in a position to fend off the U.S. today precisely because it spent, earned, saved, and re-invested wisely for a rainy day like today. Wait until the threat is real. Most are just talk because talk is cheap and missiles/political will cost a whole lot.

This reminds of the recent U.K. suggestion of turning the G7 into D10. What happened? Nothing.

 

[HybridHypothesis]

Instead of wasting students time on learning English, they should be teaching them about Allen Dulles, the Jakarta method, and America's other cold war shenanigans.

That way a realistic worldview is cultivated.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

True, in a Post Peak Oil world in which its an ever shrinking zerosum pie, its getting a lot more crowded and heated and "win win" is naive when none of the other players believe in such a narrative... the narrative seems to be to see which side can pull the rug from out underneath the other side first, certaintly from US view it appears to be allin and ready to fight to the death for its hegemony at any and all costs... Where are all the Biden apologists now? or the "wait and see" guys? China must not be naive

I also have a difficult time understanding their foreign policy statements that are expressed in such meekly way, at least that's how it comes across to me sometimes. Take for example the Australian issue, when China started imposing it's trade embargo against such country, the foreign Affairs office and spoke people were beating around the bush on why the Chinese government has banned numerous export Australian products. Rather than acknowledging the reality and responding in a direct way against the country that they

We Chinese still underestimate the ruthlessness of the US. People should try to listen to Mearsheimer in order to create some conciousness how far the Americans are willing to go to bury potential competitors.

With respect, I don't need to listen to some professor to know that U.S. intention(s) are not about maintaining it's overall strategic advantages militarily and economically. I have also read and watched John Mearsheimers views and him being called or known as one of the preeminent "realist" in geopolitics is due or owed to his background in the military. After all the man is a Westport graduate and served in the military for a short stint before becoming changing professional occupation.

Having said all that, the U.S. wants the world to be reshaped via it's image or shit culture vis a vis Democracy and freedom propaganda. It wants a pliant China where it can tap and use to whatever geopolitical desire it wants. Only morons and self serving Chinese will fail to see this truth or the kind of Chinese that views western values and culture as superior to the Chinese.

The talk of diversity of opinion and diversity in outlook in the west are just all for dog and pony show. As I see and interpret their actions, diversity for them means having different ethnic groups swallowing and thinking or looking at things solely from the western or U.S. Liberal/conservative point of views. Otherwise non-orthodoxical thinking will be viewed as heresy.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

I also have a difficult time understanding their foreign policy statements that are expressed in such meekly way, at least that's how it comes across to me sometimes. Take for example the Australian issue, when China started imposing it's trade embargo against such country, the foreign Affairs office and spoke people were beating around the bush on why the Chinese government has banned numerous export Australian products. Rather than acknowledging the reality and responding in a direct way against the country that they

With respect, I don't need to listen to some professor to know that U.S. intention(s) are not about maintaining it's overall strategic advantages militarily and economically. I have also read and watched John Mearsheimers views and him being called or known as one of the preeminent "realist" in geopolitics is due or owed to his background in the military. After all the man is a Westport graduate and served in the military for a short stint before becoming changing professional occupation.

Having said all that, the U.S. wants the world to be reshaped via it's image or shit culture vis a vis Democracy and freedom propaganda. It wants a pliant China where it can tap and use to whatever geopolitical desire it wants. Only morons and self serving Chinese will fail to see this truth or the kind of Chinese that views western values and culture as superior to the Chinese.

The talk of diversity of opinion and diversity in outlook in the west are just all for dog and pony show. As I see and interpret their actions, diversity for them means having different ethnic groups swallowing and thinking or looking at things solely from the western or U.S. Liberal/conservative point of views. Otherwise non-orthodoxical thinking will be viewed as heresy.

My response was posted rather prematurely and couldn't edit it since I passed the edit time limit. My apologies.

 

[kentchang]

China assumed that U.S. establishments political and business were rational actors. It didn't anticipate that the U.S. willingness to burn the house down if it means capping China at the knee in order for the U.S. to win strategically.

Chinese leadership has seen and has been shown regardless of U.S. leadership or difference in parties that they are persistent and is laser focused on bringing China down to it's knees. If the recent actions and historical reference don't move the CPC into taking measures that are not just proportional but one that has actual teeth then any losses incurred by China will fall on their shoulders along with the inevitable backlash.

The U.S. is behaving very rationally. Given the same situation, I wouldn't have acted otherwise either. That is why it is foolish to think any U.S. administration would act differently. This is the final stand for the U.S. Too late but they have to try. The U.S. is not playing to win. It is playing to survive thus anything goes. It is the duty of every leader to put the country's self-interest first and foremost.

Bismarck's achievement is in fostering a united Germany's emergence peacefully until it is too late for the rest of Europe. China has done the same. There was a PBS Special on U.S./China Trade on YouTube where you hear senior U.S. strategists tell when they first got awakened by the China threat. It was unanimous. 2008 Beijing Olympics. Had U.S. acted forcibly then, situation today would have been very different but U.S. was distracted by the Middle East. Obama's pivot was already too late. The watershed event was the successful creation of AIIB. After that, it has to be Total Economic War.

When Japan's economy went above 70% of the U.S., U.S. crushed Japan. China reached 70% last year. What U.S. is doing now should not be a surprise to anyone. Not the first time. Remember all the talk about Currency Manipulation? The U.S. used the same playbook.

The U.S. military is in a bad situation. Cuts are coming and most of the budget are locked up by huge future programs already committed like the Columbia and the B-21. If the services don't talk up a good game, the services will get less to spend so they all come up with fantastical sales pitches. The U.S. military is more concerned about slowing down the budget cuts than about China. An arms race is not something China needs to worry about. U.S. would like nothing more to distract China to mis-allocate its resources.

The most effective weapon the U.S. has left against China is not military but financial because China's biggest vulnerability is its dependence on trade. A week ago China publicly expressed concern about the very loose monetary policies in the U.S. and Europe. That is just China saying to the Fed, I am watching for an orchestrated financial crisis that disrupts global trade. Boosting domestic consumption is China's best defense. The sign of a winner is the ability to make appropriate decisions at the right time given the cards dealt. Soviet Union and Japan failed against the U.S. China is doing alright.

 

[quantumlight]

There was a PBS Special on U.S./China Trade on YouTube where you hear senior U.S. strategists tell when they first got awakened by the China threat. It was unanimous. 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Do you have link for that? id like to watch

 

[Skye_ZTZ_113]

Yup, where are the "China only needs 300 nukes" cheerleaders now? or the "dont worry by 2050 China GDP will be 4x USA and everything will take care of itself" pie in the sky folks now?

Thought so.

Okay let's put this old ghost to rest again at the risk of falling afoul of the forum rules.
1. China only has a suspected 300 number of nukes, could be be more, could be less. Even if it was only 300, easily half the US is gone with or without whatever fancy anti-missile systems they put into place. 20 ICBMs slip through, 20 largest cities gone. No problem.
2. Even if they added dozens of missile bases across the first Island chain (somehow), it would not stop the PLA. They are really a liability and a target to mainland missile systems which will be able to deliver a continuous payload round the clock and replace their munitions effortlessly.
3. Having such a base in your country puts a massive bullseye on your back and legitimises being fired upon should war break out. No such thing as neutrality when missiles are being exchanged from our own turf, even if the US classifies it as 'their turf'.
4. Will only serve to unify the domestic Chinese population even more that the US is going all out to surround them.
5. Even 1.5 x GDP would break the back of any military force trying to impose its will upon the PRC. The Americans didn't dare strike the Soviets even when they had nuclear superiority in the early Cold War and very soon the conventional side-of-things will be looking at advantages across the board.

Assuming the US doesn't go bankrupt of course.