Cold War against China?

11101 said:
It's not the spending, its the activities. China has arbitrarily expanded its borders to encompass the entire South China Sea and put every country in that region at risk. The US is doing the right thing standing up to them because none of the countries in the region are capable of it.



It's not. I'm not sure where that idea came from. The F22 is still the USAF's most capable air superiority fighter by some margin. Cost and the assumption that it wouldn't be needed killed it, not capability,
Click to expand...

Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Yes I'm sure they won't accept China but 40% of Australia's exports are to China. Australia and the UK seem intent on p!ssing off their main trade partners.
Click to expand...

Considering the involvement the US had pre-Trump in the TPP I think the UK have been secretly hoping that the US will rejoin into the CPTPP with Biden. Nothing I've see suggests that will be the case so far, but China wanting in will probably force a decision one way or the other.
 
Foxbatt said:
It would be highly ridiculous for the US to assert any claims on South China Sea. After all it is called South "China" Sea.
Click to expand...

The US isn't trying to assert any territorial claims in the South China Sea. It is attempting to maintain the freedom of navigation that China is attempting to subvert by building new "islands" and then asserting exclusive maritime control over it (despite artificial islands not qualifying to establish control) along with territory that belongs to other nations.

Smores said:
Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
Click to expand...

In the case of maritime freedom of navigation, the US is acting out of concern for themselves in addition to every country other than China. Maintaining freedom of navigation, rather than allowing China to continue its pseudo-revanchism, is about ensuring the status quo that allows ships to travel through international waters without impediments or harassment. It's why the US, UK, Australia, Japan, France, Germany, and others have been adamant about ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and denying China's illegitimate claims.

If China starts restricting maritime traffic in the South China Sea with its military or swarms of fishing boats, which they use to harass other nations throughout the Pacific, it's a threat to international trade and international law. It sets precedent for Turkey to break its obligations relating to the Bosphorous, Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, Malaysia or Indonesia to restrict the Strait of Malacca, Spain to close the Strait of Gibraltar, France or the UK closing the Strait of Dover, and so on.
 
Last edited:
11101 said:
The US is doing the right thing standing up to them because none of the countries in the region are capable of it.
Click to expand...
Do you mean militarily? I personally can't imagine the US ever standing up to China militarily.
 
Smores said:
Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam etc. Its not unremarkable to any of the countries who all of a sudden have China claiming the waters off their coast.

China is the aggressor to a bunch of countries that do not have the power to stand up to them, so the US is doing it for them. It might serve a dual purpose of preserving their global presence but does that matter?

Sultan said:
Do you mean militarily? I personally can't imagine the US ever standing up to China militarily.
Click to expand...

Neither of them want to fight but China know there is a local force more than capable of sending them back inside their own borders if needs be. That's all it takes.
 
The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
From what I've seen, the Chinese narrative is that a unipolar world isn't healthy and that power needs to be balanced out more. Hard to disagree with any of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's good to have a healthy opposition party :rolleyes:...:lol:
 
hungrywing said:
If you mean move on as in militarily (which I’m sure you didn’t), then other countries would express concern to say the least.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was meaning 'move on' as building up their influence, e.g. maybe being the first to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate Government in Afghanistan. However the Chinese seem to do nothing without a reason, sometimes a long term reason (50 year cycle planning etc.) it seemed to me that their treatment of the Islamic Uighurs, would be at odds in terms of getting close up and personal with an Islamic state, next door.

There is also the argument for the Chinese to use Afghanistan as a 'buffer' state a bit like the Russians did with the Baltic states pre the break up of the USSR, this would mean supplying them with arms and other 'necessarys', including training and ensuring a power structure in Afghanistan which would/could operate under long range Chinese control. Given the recent AUKUS nuclear agreement this might also weigh-in on what the Chinese have in mind for their new Islamic self-governing neighbour.

Zlatattack said:
What do you mean by move? Invade? If the Chinese ever invaded, they'd face the same fate that the Americans and Soviets faced.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I doubt the Chinese would make the same mistake any 'invasion' would not be forced, or even have any 'boots on the ground', the excuse for foreigners invading Afghanistan was because there already was a conflict, civil war if you like going on, and/or other anti-west forces were using the country as a base to launch terrorist attacks. All that should cease now? The Chinese if they do 'invade' would be a friendly invader, invited by the Taliban to help them secure power and to ward off any western attempts to start interfering again.


Zlatattack said:
Islamic solidarity is not a concept that exists in political terms anymore.
Click to expand...

Has it ever existed in such terms, not for centuries I suspect, but it has perhaps been a flag of convenience ?
 
Foxbatt said:
It would be highly ridiculous for the US to assert any claims on South China Sea. After all it is called South "China" Sea.
Click to expand...
And the Persian Gulf is called the Persian Gulf but that doesn't mean Iran gets to claim it.
 
Smores said:
Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
Click to expand...
Well if there's one constant in politics, its good old fashioned anti Americans wanting to side with authoritarian, repressive one party states.
 
Balljy said:
Yes, but for China to join the CPTPP they'd need all 11 members to vote for it and that's virtually impossible. If the Philippines join as is expected it's totally impossible as they're in constant land disputes.

Agreed that the UK has little to gain in comparison to the EU membership
Click to expand...
There’s no way Japan allows China into the CPTPP, any suggestion otherwise is laughable.

We will likely see the first Japanese woman PM with Sanae Takaichi getting the full support of Abe in the election and she’s even more anti-China than your average anti-China Japanese politician.
 
Sultan said:
The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
Click to expand...
That’s all very well if the world is a nicer place without dictators like Xi.
 
stevoc said:
No doubt cost was a big factor and to be fair I said it is in the process of being made obsolete by the F-35, not that the F-22 is currently obsolete.
Click to expand...
F-35 and F-22 serve different purposes. F-22 is superior in dogfights and is getting retired because of costs.
 
Sultan said:
Do you mean militarily? I personally can't imagine the US ever standing up to China militarily.
Click to expand...
It’ll happen sooner or later, the US has reiterated many times the Senkaku Islands are cover by the Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan.

If they don’t act when China invades, it’s bye bye all allies around the world and their status as a superpower.
 
nickm said:
Well if there's one constant in politics, its good old fashioned anti Americans wanting to side with authoritarian, repressive one party states.
Click to expand...
I don't think many would ever choose China over the US in matters of politics. Any anti-US sentiment is with the mess they've created through their ill-conceived adventures over the years. Just hope they are not readying another issue in that part of the world.
 
nickm said:
Well if there's one constant in politics, its good old fashioned anti Americans wanting to side with authoritarian, repressive one party states.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is.
 
Sultan said:
The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
Click to expand...

The world isn't one it's a collective of individual countries all vying for resources. Unless everyone wants to see a collective government, then it'll continue as such until something forces a massive change. Or we simply remove ourselves and solve the issues.
 
Red_toad said:
The world isn't one it's a collective of individual countries all vying for resources. Unless everyone wants to see a collective government, then it'll continue as such until something forces a massive change. Or we simply remove ourselves and solve the issues.
Click to expand...
Come on man, you know what I mean. I shouldn't have to write down names of nearly 200 countries.
 
Sultan said:
Come on man, you know what I mean. I shouldn't have to write down names of nearly 200 countries.
Click to expand...
US, Russia, China, North Korea, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel and France, so a bit short of 200. But regardless there’s no common goal, simply a dog eat dog world. Zero long term vision. I think we’ll see thing turn bad and then it’ll be too late to react without some massive and sudden technological breakthroughs.
 
nickm said:
And the Persian Gulf is called the Persian Gulf but that doesn't mean Iran gets to claim it.
Click to expand...

No but if the Americans or the Mexicans try to claim it would be ridiculous. Part of the Persian Gulf belongs to Iran. As for the claims of China in the South China Sea, The Vietnamese, The Philippines and Malaysia all claim to it. In fact during the period of Marcos, he occupied some islands and the Arbitration the Philippines won made this whole claim of Philippines moot. Philippines also claim Sabah in Malaysia. Vietnam has more islands or reefs occupied than China. The Chinese constructed huge military bases there unlike the other two who do not have the capability to do so.

Sir Matt said:
The US isn't trying to assert any territorial claims in the South China Sea. It is attempting to maintain the freedom of navigation that China is attempting to subvert by building new "islands" and then asserting exclusive maritime control over it (despite artificial islands not qualifying to establish control) along with territory that belongs to other nations.
Click to expand...

And all without ratifying the UNCLOS undermining the whole so called International Rules. If they have ratified the UNCLOS they may have some legal say in it. By the way most countries in the region accept the view that Freedom of Navigation consists only for civil purposes and all military vessels must inform before transiting the EEZ.
 
Revan said:
F-35 and F-22 serve different purposes. F-22 is superior in dogfights and is getting retired because of costs.
Click to expand...

And that's part of why it is being phased out and will become obsolete. Dogfights aren't really a thing in warfare anymore, not for the USAF anyway. I think I remember reading that no US fighter Jet has even been involved in a dogfight for decades.The F-35 is designed to destroy other fighters from miles away.
 
stevoc said:
And that's part of why it is being phased out and will become obsolete. Dogfights aren't really a thing in warfare anymore, not for the USAF anyway. I think I remember reading that no US fighter Jet has even been involved in a dogfight for decades.The F-35 is designed to destroy other fighters from miles away.
Click to expand...

Both are classed as 5th Generation because of their stealth capabilities (low radar cross section) and advanced sensors.
The F22 is primarily an air to air fighter, while the F35 was intended more for air to ground.
Most modern fighter jets carry BVR (beyond visual range) air to air missiles.

The Chinese F20 is also classified as 5th Generation, as are a few Russian jets.

And a number of 6th Generation jets are under development by the US, Europe (two types).

And even though not strictly a 5th Generation, the Eurofighter Typhoon also carries BVR missiles.
 
stevoc said:
And that's part of why it is being phased out and will become obsolete. Dogfights aren't really a thing in warfare anymore, not for the USAF anyway. I think I remember reading that no US fighter Jet has even been involved in a dogfight for decades.The F-35 is designed to destroy other fighters from miles away.
Click to expand...
One in 20 years... usaf shot down one plane in Syria

A superhornet shot down a su22

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/18/us-navy-fa18e-shoots-down-su22-over-syria.html

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ter-bomber-she-wont-go-away-quietly-54462?amp

Given the disparity between the aircraft I cant imagine it was much of a fight

Prior to that I think an f16 shot down a mig 29 in Kosovo in 1999

I think the last uk dogfight was 1982 in the Falklands

So as you say not really a thing anymore (though thankfully we have not had two well armed nations with modern planes go to war for a long time either)
 
The my-jet-fighter-can-beat-up-your-jet-fighter-oh-yeah? crowd might enjoy this:



Sultan said:
The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
Click to expand...

For anyone morbidly curious, it's estimated that about fifty going off even locally within a somewhat contained region would be enough to cause nuclear winter.
 
China Has Won AI Battle With U.S., Pentagon's Ex-Software Chief Says

LONDON (Reuters) -China has won the artificial intelligence battle with the United States and is heading towards global dominance because of its technological advances, the Pentagon's former software chief told the Financial Times.
China, the world’s second largest economy, is likely to dominate many of the key emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, synthetic biology and genetics within a decade or so, according to Western intelligence assessments.
Nicolas Chaillan, the Pentagon's first chief software officer who resigned in protest against the slow pace of technological transformation in the U.S. military, said the failure to respond was putting the United States at risk.

"We have no competing fighting chance against China in 15 to 20 years. Right now, it’s already a done deal; it is already over in my opinion," he told the newspaper. "Whether it takes a war or not is kind of anecdotal."
China was set to dominate the future of the world, controlling everything from media narratives to geopolitics, he said.

Chaillan blamed sluggish innovation, the reluctance of U.S. companies such as Google to work with the state on AI and extensive ethical debates over the technology.
Google was not immediately available for comment outside business hours.

Chinese companies, Chaillan said, were obliged to work with their government and were making "massive investment" in AI without regard to ethics.
Click to expand...
https://money.usnews.com/investing/...tle-to-china-pentagons-ex-software-chief-says
 
VorZakone said:
China Has Won AI Battle With U.S., Pentagon's Ex-Software Chief Says


https://money.usnews.com/investing/...tle-to-china-pentagons-ex-software-chief-says
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous in some ways. There is no way China is going to dominate the media. Even now their PR is so bad that most people laugh at it. Until the majority of people speak Chinese they would not have anything on the media. So he wants Google to openly come out and say that they are working for the US Government?
 
Foxbatt said:
This is ridiculous in some ways. There is no way China is going to dominate the media. Even now their PR is so bad that most people laugh at it. Until the majority of people speak Chinese they would not have anything on the media. So he wants Google to openly come out and say that they are working for the US Government?
Click to expand...
The Chinese PR speaks to its citizens, not other countries. Brainwashed Chinese actually believes those nonsenses, which most people find funny.
 
Foxbatt said:
This is ridiculous in some ways. There is no way China is going to dominate the media. Even now their PR is so bad that most people laugh at it. Until the majority of people speak Chinese they would not have anything on the media. So he wants Google to openly come out and say that they are working for the US Government?
Click to expand...


He seems to be contrasting a very focused, rapid, strategic approach from China, with the US’s which according to him, is not.
 
hungrywing said:
The my-jet-fighter-can-beat-up-your-jet-fighter-oh-yeah? crowd might enjoy this:





For anyone morbidly curious, it's estimated that about fifty going off even locally within a somewhat contained region would be enough to cause nuclear winter.
Click to expand...


That would depend entirely on what they went off on, and the response, I reckon. You don't get a nuclear winter without many cities burning uncontrolled.

It has to be quite significant too, or the bombing in Germany and Japan would have done it.
 
nimic said:
That would depend entirely on what they went off on, and the response, I reckon. You don't get a nuclear winter without many cities burning uncontrolled.

It has to be quite significant too, or the bombing in Germany and Japan would have done it.
Click to expand...

The source that comes to mind - I think - is here. (It might have been in another book.)

Yes, the fifty weapons in question are the "modern" hydrogen bombs that sadly make the ones dropped on Japan (and in the alternate timeline on Germany) look like firecrackers in comparison.

You might like this book (if you haven't read it or one of the other similar ones).
 
hmchan said:
The Chinese PR speaks to its citizens, not other countries. Brainwashed Chinese actually believes those nonsenses, which most people find funny.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed at how many of them have no idea or deny the Tiananmen Square massacre actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.