Miscellaneous News

NorthKimBestKim

New Member
Registered Member
@NorthKimBestKim how old are you, like 15?
Probably older than you, as I have experienced war when I was younger - not as a soldier - but true war brutality, and have seen by myself what happens when you don't have strong defense. "Your" women and children gets killed and molested. That is what happens to a number of countries and civilians who cannot deter aggression from others.

I back my points with links, so the situation in the world, require others to have strong defense in order to deter the U.S. agression.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
There is truly no point for me to discuss further with you as you apply whatever suits you in regards to aggressive style of "discussion".

The fact is that CCP has declared that the armed forces must be truly "world-class" by 2049. "By" means "at the latest, which is from today 23 years from now.

Do you need a news link from me that confirms regarding what CCP and Xi said: It's a firm goal to have PLA as a world-class military by 2049. I don't care that you ignore these facts, but the highest level - which is - "world class", is the firm goal.

Given the situation in this world, all I am arguing for is to speed up this process sooner than "by 2049". This is a firm goal, declared by CCP and Xi. So I don't care if you feel that is allegedly "not correct".

No, I didn't "make up" any numbers. See, the way you discuss, is highly aggressive, almost to the point of being way too "emotional". You need to calm down.

The facts are that PRC has just above 600 nuclear warheads, (mid-2024) which is the double (100% more) compared to just a few years ago. By now, probably between 650 and 700.

A 4-digit number means having at least 1.000 nuclear warheads by 2030.

My apologies that you need a clarification regarding what a "4-digit" number means, but it starts from the number 1.000.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is highly likely that PRC will expand the number of nuclear warheads from 1.000 in 2030, by adding additional 500 warheads by 2035, for a total number of 1.500 nuclear warheads in 2035.

As you can see, PRC has finally started to follow what I argued for a long time now, which is to increase it's nuclear arsenal into 4-digit numbers. Once again, I assume that you know by now that a 4-digit number starts from the number called 1.000.

Before you start arguing that I am "so bad for wanting PRC to spend so much on defense", the USSR had 40.000 nuclear warheads in 1986, which was exactly 40 years ago.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

PRC has at this point much stronger economy than USSR had back then, and it is time to protect the economy both by expanding the number of nuclear warheads and also everything related to conventional weapons systems.

Nobody is asking PRC to have 40.000 nuclear warheads, but the arsenal should have a 4-digit number, and that number starts from the number 1.000, which is the number of warheads PRC will have by 2030, and to continue expanding towards 1.500 by 2035.

Regarding conventional weapons systems, you mind is thinking way too much on "defense". Mine is different, which is in line with "world class" military by 2049, and that means being able to bring troops further and further away from the coast of PRC, and bringing the battle to the enemy territory.

Because, if you want to "defend" PRC as Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran and others are doing, by accepting Chinese cities being bombed into sh!t, then those individuals should retire as soon as possible.

Never let the enemy come close to the coast of PRC ever again. And a true "world class" military will always have capacity to wage war on the enemy territory. The further from coast of PRC, the better it is.
My mistake!!! I will come out to say it right now, I misread your 4 digits as 4 zeros. So yes, China will definitely have over 1,000 nukes, but not 10,000. My mistake and I apologize.

The rest of it, just follow that Xi and the CCP say. If they say 2049, it's not because he's not as aggressive as you and doesn't want to move it forward; it's because that looks reasonable based on the speed at which technologies are coming into place. There's no reason for you to adjust this based on what you think when you don't know anything that he knows.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
As long as PRC doesn't have anything near 25+ Virginia SSNs, 75+ Arleigh Burke destroyers, at least 10 super carriers, several LHA / LHD of the Type 076 (just 1 so far), several hundred tankers and strategic transports along with 1.000+ (planning 2.400) stealth fighters, then PRC is not spending enough.

Zero stealth bombers from PRC so far as well. H-20 no where to be seen.

So, whatever needs to be spent to reach the level of what U.S. has in its arsenal, needs to be spent, whether or not that is "just 2,5 or 3%, or 4%.

If you look at the build rate for major Air Force and Navy platforms, China is already or will be outbuilding the USA significantly.

This reflects decisions made 5 years ago, for technology which had just been developed.

At this point, I don't see a huge advantage in increasing military spending for most categories. You might only shave off 1-2 years from a 10-year procurement programme.

The big exceptions are nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, but the reason why they are lagging is because:
1. Mature, world-class designs aren't yet available for mass production
2. These are really capabilities for power projection beyond the 2IC. But China should focus on the 1IC and 2IC as a higher priority
 

supercat

Colonel

Kalum Pupeter

Junior Member
Registered Member

China's Sinochem warns Italy it may appeal to court against curbs on Pirelli​

  • Italy cut Sinochem board members in Pirelli to 3 from 8
  • Decision hampers Italy's investment climate, Sinochem says
  • Rome pushing for Sinochem to reduce its stake in Pirelli
ROME, April 13 (Reuters) - Chinese state-owned company Sinochem
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
said on Monday it may ‌lodge a legal appeal against curbs set by Italy's government last week to limit its influence over Pirelli
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, escalating a long-running governance spat affecting the Italian tyre maker. Among the terms set under
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
designed to preserve national interests in corporate matters, Italy cut the number of representatives Sinochem can name to Pirelli's next board to three from eight, in an effort to avoid U.S. ⁠restrictions on the Italian group.

"The company expresses its deep regret regarding this decision and reserves the right to pursue all necessary legal remedies to safeguard its legitimate shareholder rights and interests," Sinochem said in a statement issued by its unit, Marco Polo International Italy.

PIRELLI PLANNING U.S. EXPANSION​

Sinochem, which produces and trades chemicals and fertilisers, is Pirelli's largest shareholder with a 34% stake. Camfin, the vehicle of Italian businessman Marco Tronchetti Provera, holds around 26%, with plans to increase it to up to 29.9%.
Both Pirelli and Camfin have called for restrictions on Sinochem, saying that its ownership position complicates Pirelli's expansion plans in the U.S., as ‌Washington ⁠tightens restrictions on Chinese technology in the automotive sector.
The U.S. is a key market for Pirelli's premium tyre business.

Italy barred Sinochem representatives from holding top corporate roles such as chairman or chief executive, while also requiring Pirelli to withhold sensitive information from its Chinese investor. "Such measures are discriminatory and will inevitably have a negative impact on Italy's investment ⁠climate," Sinochem said. The curbs will remain in force as long as Sinochem retains a stake in Pirelli above 9.99%, a sign that Rome wants Sinochem to cut its shareholding. Reuters reported last year that Sinochem was ready to assess offers ⁠with a market premium from potential bidders for all or part of its Pirelli stake. One of the new prescriptions requires Sinochem to notify the government of any share transfer, which must not be made ⁠in favour of entities affiliated with or controlled by the Chinese government.

Italy has progressively adopted over the last few years a harder line on Chinese forays into its companies due to security reasons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Kalum Pupeter

Junior Member
Registered Member
I posted this before, and I will copy and paste it here.

The CPC has become accustomed to running the country like a commercial retail market, a legacy rooted in the era of Dengist ideology (1978 – …). There is significant institutional inertia against changing this direction. I have observed a trend of inaction in response to foreign aggression since 2018. So it’s not surprising that we expect the worst: nothing. Based on the trends since 2018, our fear has been repeatedly justified.
I find China’s defense of its companies painfully lacklustre. They have been slow to respond, and the likelihood of any real retaliation seems small. This isn’t the first time, in the Pirelli case there was no penalty, and so far we’ve heard nothing from Beijing except the statements of a low-ranking spokesman (parrot). I pay scant attention to that parroting noise with zero weight. I wouldn’t be surprised if they do nothing. At a minimum they should seize some Dutch assets to make it clear that thievery in clear daylight have consequences.
I have lost count: ByteDance’s U.S. TikTok arm; the Wingtech–Nexperia unit; Wingtech’s Newport wafer fab; Sinochem and its stake in Pirelli; and now the two port concessions at the Panama Canal held by Hutchison. There has been zero cost imposed from Beijing’s side. It’s a disaster. Every time, it’s just a verbal rebuke from a low-ranking civil servant, Guo Jiankun. Tell Guo to shut up and let someone with real authority actually do something. We don’t need words from a parrot. They have exactly zero meaning.
 

Puss in Boots

Junior Member
Registered Member
I posted this before, and I will copy and paste it here.
China has reached its current level in just eighty years; don't easily question the CPC's decisions.

Many of the events you mentioned involve unseen deals. China doesn't want to project an aggressive image; portraying itself as a complete victim makes sense.

Western countries' fear of China stems from the fact that while China is powerful enough to rival the US, it never proactively displays an aggressive stance. They've even invented "wolf warrior diplomacy" to try and shape China's diplomatic image.
 
Last edited:
Top