Cold War against China?

[AfonsoAlves]

It's kind of weird that you also believe that if Taiwan falls then the West Coast of America will fall then.

Look at what China are doing, don't look at what China are saying.

Mass producing the largest Navy in the World, building 6 destroyers a year, building Nuclear capable Aircraft Carriers is...for what? Protecting the global interests that they have? (oh wait, their interests are already protected by the status quo).

 

[Suedesi]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...fter-three-year-hiatus?embedded-checkout=true

Literally the bloomberg article you linked states it's the first time since 2021 they've done this. Pre-covid this was very common.

I was asking for a source on your assertion that 'The bidding is all being done by domestic chinese bidders...which is a sign of something else. What that something else is, I'm not sure.'

Can you provide a source confirming that the 20x subscription was entirely driven by domestic Chinese bidders?

 

[neverdie]

There was a conversation earlier around rationality, and honestly China's internal politics and "diplomacy" is often not rational but emotional based.

I cannot take it serious that the vast apparatus of China - fecking enormous, dwarfing every nation on the planet - is run by "emotionally based" calculus. I'm not saying there is no emotion, because people are people, but bureaucracy tends to rid people - for the ill imo - of their innate emotional instincts which is to treat human beings as human beings.

 

[Raven]

Look at what China are doing, don't look at what China are saying.

Mass producing the largest Navy in the World, building 6 destroyers a year, building Nuclear capable Aircraft Carriers is...for what? Protecting the global interests that they have? (oh wait, their interests are already protected by the status quo).

Have China done anything that would suggest an assault on the West Coast of USA in the next 20 years?

 

[VorZakone]

Look at what China are doing, don't look at what China are saying.

Mass producing the largest Navy in the World, building 6 destroyers a year, building Nuclear capable Aircraft Carriers is...for what? Protecting the global interests that they have? (oh wait, their interests are already protected by the status quo).

What do you suppose it suggests?

But they're the country with the 2nd defence budget in the world. Obviously they will invest in their military and they'd be foolish to bet on anyone's protection till eternity.

 

[neverdie]

Look at what China are doing, don't look at what China are saying.

Mass producing the largest Navy in the World, building 6 destroyers a year, building Nuclear capable Aircraft Carriers is...for what? Protecting the global interests that they have? (oh wait, their interests are already protected by the status quo).

Some military strategist suggested that China wants what America has re the Monroe doctrine insofar as China can have it. I don't think he's wrong.

The Americans mass produced the largest navy in the world (as did the Germans [well, they tried to contra the British limitations upon their navy because the British at that time had mass produced the largest navy in the world] and the Japanese over a long period of time). Why would China not do it? When you advise your NATO chiefs, do you tell them that less capacity is better than more? That's what you would have said to the Chinese.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I cannot take it serious that the vast apparatus of China - fecking enormous, dwarfing every nation on the planet - is run by "emotionally based" calculus. I'm not saying there is no emotion, because people are people, but bureaucracy tends to rid people - for the ill imo - of their innate emotional instincts which is to treat human beings as human beings.

Look at how Local Governments generate GDP growth:

1) Borrow huge lumps of cash through LGFVs, which technically Local governments can't borrow money by themselves.

2) Huge spending on often pointless infrastructure projects. For example, Chongqing recently had a huge project whereby they wanted to refurbish the river banks flood protection walls. It amounted to, 460,000RMB per Sq^m of River Bank. Obviously Corruption is the key part, but it also adds a huge chunk of "GDP Growth" so they can report to their leaders in the central politiburo of their success.

3) The spending doesn't actually generate real value (other than boost the coffers of primary contractors). The Local government is in shit tonnes of debt that they cannot pay.

You misunderstand China's civil service. It's inherently very political in nature, unlike the Wests. The richest class of people in China outside of your entrepreneur state sponsored enterprise billionaires are the civil servants. Every kid's dream is to be a civil servant. From top to bottom it's about how to get onto the gravy train of extracting public finances into their own pockets. It's gotten "Better" since 2020's but it's still awful.

https://www.zew.de/en/press/latest-press-releases/corruption-multiplies-chinese-officials-salary

 

[AfonsoAlves]

What do you suppose it suggests?

But they're the country with the 2nd defence budget in the world. Obviously they will invest in their military and they'd be foolish to bet on anyone's protection till eternity.

Some military strategist suggested that China wants what America has re the Monroe doctrine insofar as China can have it. I don't think he's wrong.

The Americans mass produced the largest navy in the world (as did the Germans [well, they tried to contra the British limitations upon their navy because the British at that time had mass produced the largest navy in the world] and the Japanese over a long period of time). Why would China not do it? When you advise your NATO chiefs, do you tell them that less capacity is better than more? That's what you would have said to the Chinese.

The issue is not building a navy. The issue lies in the force composition.

USA built a massive navy by the mid 1940's because of it's global interests that were constantly under threat in the previous 150 years. From U-boat campaigns, to tiffs with Barbary Pirates, to forced Impressment by the British, to the growing threat of the Imperial Japanese Navy (whom had proven themselves to be imperialists).

China does not have the same requirements. From its interests perspective, it has all the economic trading covered by the USA + Allies. All the major trade routes are covered by that.

If their interest was solely Taiwan, their force composition would be lots of littoral vessels, survivability at littoral depth, and magazine depth for localized purposes. You would see a huge uptake on LPD's and LHAs, not the 8 + 8 they have planned right now.

Instead their focus has been Escort Destroyers with huge magazine depth but high in-dock maintainence, Aircraft Carriers, Long Range Strategic Bombers, Naval Air Wings, Distance austere submarines outside of the standard SSBN's.

This suggests that their force composition is built for huge power projection.

You don't need Nuclear capable Aircraft Carriers to invade Taiwan, it's literally within continental China range. You do not need fleets of Escort destroyers for Taiwan as it falls under standard PLAAF Air Umbrellas. Etc etc.

 

[neverdie]

Every kid's dream is to be a civil servant. From top to bottom it's about how to get onto the gravy train of extracting public finances into their own pockets. It's gotten "Better" since 2020's but it's still awful.

Are we talking about China or the Western socio-politico-economic system because I can see no difference. There is one, of course, and we say "state" but that's present within every state across the world: people, who ought be nowhere near politics, taking office for personal enrichment.

 

[Suedesi]

It's kind of weird that you also believe that if Taiwan falls then the West Coast of America will fall then.

It aligns perfectly with the Cold War mentality that still pervades the hallowed halls of NATO, where every problem to a military mind looks like a nail waiting to be hammered

 

[neverdie]

(whom had proven themselves to be imperialists).

You know, in 1893 there was a World's Fair. It was eugenics in action. Held in Chicago, the Americans built a "white city" and placed the national buildings of all the world's nations which were to attend either inside or outside that city. What they liked about the Japanese - as did the British - was precisely that they were imperial in their designs for the future: the Americans said "this is a little British Empire".

The point I'm making is the US has been imperialist since its outset. When has it not been? This could/should go in a different thread but it was imperialist when it slaughtered the indigenous of that land and maintained one of the most brutal slavery systems in history, too. Was imperialist in the 19th century when it went about the Monroe Doctrine. Is imperialist to this day, just not the kind of imperialism that the British "used". Less about direct colonial oversight with official colonial overseers and more indirect and economic hegemony backed up by gunboat diplomacy.

Just an aside.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Are we talking about China or the Western socio-politico-economic system because I can see no difference. There is one, of course, and we say "state" but that's present within every state across the world: people, who ought be nowhere near politics, taking office for personal enrichment.

No, you're misunderstanding.

There is a huge separation between Politicians and Civil Servants in the USA.

Someone at the US state department isn't taking funds earmarked for diplomatic purposes into his own pocket. Someone at the Pentagon isn't taking funds meant for weapons procurement into his own pocket.

A politician in the US who is an elected official kinda does in a round-a-bout way, but the actual bureacratic system is relatively free of corruption.

The guys combing the fine details of a contract with a garbage collector in Liaoning Province is on the take in China.

 

[neverdie]

This suggests that their force composition is built for huge power projection.

Where? It is hemmed in by nuclear states. The island chains? Because anyone thinking beyond that is insane imo.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

You know, in 1893 there was a World's Fair. It was eugenics in action. Held in Chicago, the Americans built a "white city" and placed the national buildings of all the world's nations which were to attend either inside or outside that city. What they liked about the Japanese - as did the British - was precisely that they were imperial in their designs for the future: the Americans said "this is a little British Empire".

The point I'm making is the US has been imperialist since its outset. When has it not been? This could/should go in a different thread but it was imperialist when it slaughtered the indigenous of that land and maintained one of the most brutal slavery systems in history, too. Was imperialist in the 19th century when it went about the Monroe Doctrine. Is imperialist to this day, just not the kind of imperialism that the British "used". Less about direct colonial oversight with official colonial overseers and more indirect and economic hegemony backed up by gunboat diplomacy.

Just an aside.

By the time the US naval buildup happened the US policy, on paper at the very least, was staunchly anti-colonialism/imperialism. The reality was a bit different, and it was kind of Imperialism by proxy, but the policy outline was very clear.

 

[neverdie]

There is a huge separation between Politicians and Civil Servants in the USA.

I know this. But it's also more nuanced than that. I.e.,, George Bush senior says hello.

 

[neverdie]

By the time the US naval buildup happened the US policy, on paper at the very least, was staunchly anti-colonialism/imperialism. The reality was a bit different, and it was kind of Imperialism by proxy, but the policy outline was very clear.

One of the first things they did in Italy was place "coke" vending machines everywhere after they liberated it. I.e., economic hegemony.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Where? It is hemmed in by nuclear states. The island chains? Because anyone thinking beyond that is insane imo.

That's where the analysis lies. To where.

If you want to project power to the Indian Ocean, the force composition is not right. If you want to project to Africa you don't need CSG's, (USA has never sent a CSG on active deployment to deal with Somali pirates for example). Therefore the only logical conclusion is the Pacific and beyond.

Regarding the "insane" part, well....when you've removed every other possibility of places where China can power project...it can only be beyond the island chains. That's the only place where their power projection makes sense.

Either that or PLAN planners are stupid are decided to just copy US force composition without any real need for it.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

One of the first things they did in Italy was place "coke" vending machines everywhere after they liberated it. I.e., economic hegemony.

Yes but we are talking about 1920's and 1930's US policy when the naval buildup happened.

 

[africanspur]

By the time the US naval buildup happened the US policy, on paper at the very least, was staunchly anti-colonialism/imperialism. The reality was a bit different, and it was kind of Imperialism by proxy, but the policy outline was very clear.

I mean….the USA itself is an imperial project. An insatiable drive westwards, gobbling up of more land, more mass slaughter of indigenous people, until they controlled an entire continental landmass.

They didn’t need to go gobbling up land in Africa, they had more than enough of it in continental North America.

 

[neverdie]

That's where the analysis lies. To where.

If you want to project power to the Indian Ocean, the force composition is not right. If you want to project to Africa you don't need CSG's, (USA has never sent a CSG on active deployment to deal with Somali pirates for example). Therefore the only logical conclusion is the Pacific and beyond.

Regarding the "insane" part, well....when you've removed every other possibility of places where China can power project...it can only be beyond the island chains. That's the only place where their power projection makes sense.

Do you mean the US? Because I could see why China would want to have the option of vast naval fleets in the pacific but it doesn't really amount to anything more than force-equalization.

 

[africanspur]

USA and Cuba was for ideological reasons, that turned into geopolitical. But Cuba was a mistake.

The right move always has been that if a country is geopolitically important, align them closely to you via soft power, not military domineerence.

Take for example Soloman Islands, China have a security pact with them is a huge problem for the West's geopolitical position, and yet you don't see US Marines invading the country or threatening to.

I agree with the second paragraph.

People have already made points about the Solomon Islands. Needless to say, that it is clearly meant as a veiled threat to the Solomon Islands that the USA will use its levers, whether hard or soft, to pressure the Solomon Islands. Of course, whether it can be bothered to do so in real life is a different matter.

I’m not even really getting into the nitty gritty of the geopolitical argument here. I’m just massively disagreeing with your initial framing of a landmass 100 miles off the coast of another potential superpower rival as the ‘gate’ to your own security, literally thousands of miles away.

In the same way i would if anyone was trying to claim that Cuba or Mexico are a gate to another country’s security, or trying to claim that the USA would let that happen.

 

[Suedesi]

Look at what China are doing, don't look at what China are saying.

Mass producing the largest Navy in the World, building 6 destroyers a year, building Nuclear capable Aircraft Carriers is...for what? Protecting the global interests that they have? (oh wait, their interests are already protected by the status quo).

Protected by whom? The U.S.? Why would they outsource that to the West? Ukraine did something similar—giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees—and look how that turned out for them. China isn't stupid.

 

[Suedesi]

Highly recommend this FT video on DJI. Good insights from serious people, with one glaring exception

 

[VorZakone]

The issue is not building a navy. The issue lies in the force composition.

USA built a massive navy by the mid 1940's because of it's global interests that were constantly under threat in the previous 150 years. From U-boat campaigns, to tiffs with Barbary Pirates, to forced Impressment by the British, to the growing threat of the Imperial Japanese Navy (whom had proven themselves to be imperialists).

China does not have the same requirements. From its interests perspective, it has all the economic trading covered by the USA + Allies. All the major trade routes are covered by that.

If their interest was solely Taiwan, their force composition would be lots of littoral vessels, survivability at littoral depth, and magazine depth for localized purposes. You would see a huge uptake on LPD's and LHAs, not the 8 + 8 they have planned right now.

Instead their focus has been Escort Destroyers with huge magazine depth but high in-dock maintainence, Aircraft Carriers, Long Range Strategic Bombers, Naval Air Wings, Distance austere submarines outside of the standard SSBN's.

This suggests that their force composition is built for huge power projection.

You don't need Nuclear capable Aircraft Carriers to invade Taiwan, it's literally within continental China range. You do not need fleets of Escort destroyers for Taiwan as it falls under standard PLAAF Air Umbrellas. Etc etc.

But would China, from their perspective, be wise to always bet on the maritime security provided by the US + partners? Why bet on the protection provided by someone else regarding trade routes?

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[AfonsoAlves]

But would China, from their perspective, be wise to always bet on the maritime security provided by the US + partners? Why bet on the protection provided by someone else regarding trade routes?

Protected by whom? The U.S.? Why would they outsource that to the West? Ukraine did something similar—giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees—and look how that turned out for them. China isn't stupid.

Because in this case the trade routes directly overlap.

Unless USA and The West collectively decide to go for an autarky route, which is highly unlikely to impossible, the same trading chokepoints and key naval routes are being use by both.

China and the USA are both global trading nations, and right now the West is doing the shipping lane escort deployments.

Here's a question, if China built this gigantic force for...protection of its global assets...(Most of which on the 1B1R)....why have there been zero actual shipping lane escort missions bar the Yemen situation where everyone took part?

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Obviously sanctioning Huawei was just paranoia...right right?

 

[VorZakone]

Emerging Details of Chinese Hack Leave U.S. Officials Increasingly Concerned

As a result, officials said, the penetration almost certainly gave China a road map to discover which of China’s spies the United States has identified and which they have missed.

“The sophistication was stunning,’’ said Senator Mark Warner, the Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But the Chinese showed both remarkable ingenuity and patience — and a willingness to spend heavily to pierce American systems.

“I’d have to say the Chinese have matched, or exceeded, what we can do — and we didn’t see this one coming,” said one senior American official with years of experience in the intelligence community, declining to speak on the record about a classified investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/us/politics/chinese-hack-telecom-white-house.html

 

[VorZakone]

 

[AfonsoAlves]

SSN usage is the one thing that takes decades and decades of institutional knowledge to master and use properly. Technology in itself is not the main blocker for their effective use.

Take WWII, Japanese had high tech submarines but the way they used them were an absolute mess and ended up being mostly ineffective (outside of some edge cases).