I guess what I was trying to say was China has shed just as much blood as any other power out there, if not more. The only difference is the areas they've done it are close to home, as opposed to across the ocean.
I think I'll just have to agree to disagree on a fair few of your points.
It's an interesting question because obviously there isn't an objective test, but I think you've got to look at their global economic, political and military reach.I am curious as to your definition of a “superpower”. Because I would argue the USSR was definitely one whilst China is not quite one yet.
I stand corrected on the numbers.I quote:
This is from the report "
Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China
2020", by the Department of Defense.
This is what the report said:I stand corrected on the numbers.
But, as someone stated, it’s the quality of each American ship’s systems that will set them apart. The Chinese still use ‘jump’ carriers, as an example.
I noticed that submarines weren’t discussed in that article. What’s the current Chinese sub situation?
Modernizing the PLAN’s submarine force remains a high priority for the PRC. The
PLAN currently operates four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) with two
additional hulls fitting out, six nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), and 50 diesel-powered
attack submarines (SSs). The PLAN will likely maintain between 65 and 70 submarines through the
2020s, replacing older units with more capable units on a near one-to-one basis.
China continues to increase its inventory of conventional submarines capable of firing advanced anti-
ship cruise missiles (ASCMs). Since the mid-1990s, the PLAN has purchased 12 Russian-built Kilo
class SS units, eight of which are capable of launching ASCMs. During these years, China’s shipyards
have delivered 13 Song class SS units (Type 039) and 17 Yuan class diesel-electric air-independent-
powered attack submarine (SSP) (Type 039A/B). The PRC is expected to produce a total of 25 or
more Yuan class submarines by 2025.
Over the past 15 years, the PLAN has constructed twelve nuclear submarines – two Shang I class
SSNs (Type 093), four Shang II class SSNs (Type 093A), and six Jin class SSBNs (Type 094), two of
which were awaiting entry into service in late 2019. Equipped with the CSS-N-14 (JL-2) submarine-
launched ballistic missile (SLBM), the PLAN’s four operational Jin class SSBNs represent the PRC’s
first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent. Each Jin class SSBN can carry up to 12 JL-2 SLBMs. In
2019, these missiles were displayed at the PRC’s 70th anniversary parade revealing at least a full
complement of 12 JL-2s are complete and operational. China’s next-generation Type 096 SSBN,which
will likely begin construction in the early-2020s, will reportedly carry a new type of SLBM. The PLAN
is expected to operate the Type 094 and Type 096 SSBNs concurrently and could have up to eight
SSBNs by 2030. This would align with Chairman Xi Jinping’s 2018 directive for the SSBN force to
achieve “stronger growth.”
By the mid-2020s, China will likely build the Type 093B guided-missile nuclear attack submarine. This
new Shang class variant will enhance the PLAN’s anti-surface warfare capability and could provide a
clandestine land-attack option if equipped with land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs). The PLAN is
also improving its anti-submarine warfare capabilities through the development of its surface
combatants and special mission aircraft, but it continues to lack a robust deep-water anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) capability.
It seems the Americans will have considerable sub superiority through the next couple of decades.This is what the report said:
Tech-wise, yes. No doubt the Americans have more advanced subs.It seems the Americans will have considerable sub superiority through the next couple of decades.
China views AI as critical to its future military and industrial power. China is
making strategic investments worldwide in AI to reap national security and economic benefits. AI is
a central component in many of China’s publicly released national plans. The Next Generation AI
Plan details China’s AI strategy and outlines China’s goals of using commercial and military entities to
gain parity with the world leaders in AI by 2020, achieving major breakthroughs in AI by 2025, and
establishing China as the global leader in AI by 2030.
The PRC is pursuing a whole-of-society effort
to become a global leader in AI, which includes designating select private AI companies in China as
“AI champions” to emphasize R&D in specific dual-use technologies. Many of these “AI champions,”
including Huawei and Hikvision, are major suppliers of AI surveillance technology worldwide. In 2019,
the private PRC-based company Ziyan UAV exhibited armed swarming drones that it claimed use AI to perform autonomous guidance, target acquisition, and attack execution.
During the past five years,
China has made achievements in AI-enabled unmanned surface vessels, which China plans to use to
patrol and bolster its territorial claims in the South China Sea. China has also tested unmanned tanks
as part of research efforts to integrate AI into ground forces’ equipment.
Good point and one that I'm really interested in. How tight is the CCP's grip on Chinese society? How likely is a coup to succeed?
Interestingly, Xinjiang is China's largest province (administrative division).No need for a coup. If the majority of the Chinese or for that matter a considerable number of Chinese wants to get rid of the current leadership, it is going to be happen. The fact it has not happened so far is because they are satisfied with what they are doing.
Is there freedom like in most other countries? Absolutely not. You cannot criticize the top leadership. You can criticize the local leadership and even at Provincial level but not at Beijing level. Apart from politics they are as much as free to do what they want to do. People do criticize their lives and how the government handles it too.
The situation in Xinjiang is a lot more complicated. They are not Chinese at all and are Turkmen. The clash with the Han Chinese is the issue. They do not feel as part of China and the government has not tried to integrate them peacefully. Instead they are trying to force them and this is obviously not going to work. Furthermore, they want independence and there are foreign actors involved in this. The camps are a terrible idea and is not as bad as some make it out to be and is not as good as what the Chinese make it out to be either. It is not a concentration camp and neither is it a vocational training centre. It is a detention camp. ( A good friend of mine has been there and he speaks fluent Chinese but is not Chinese). This is a major issue in many Asian countries like Kashmir in India/ Pakistan, like Sulu in The Philippines, Sabah in Malaysia and Patani Yala regions on Thailand. It is all based on ethnicity issues.
The issue of the reefs and islands in the South China Sea is more confusing because of multiple countries are claiming to this. Some are claiming it to be in their territorial area while the Philippines completely messed up by filing a claim and then finding it to be outside of their territorial waters but inside their EEZ. This is like the UK refusing to accept the verdict on the Chagos Atoll. The Taiwan issue is not going to go away as both claim both are the rightful owners of both lands. Taiwan may give up their claim to mainland China but China is not going to give up. I cannot see them militarily invading them before trying to do an economic boycott first.
The downside of the Chinese loans are actual corruption in the receiving countries. The infrastructure loans are good and at very low interests. The local politicians then add their commission to it and inflate the loan amount. This is what creates the problem. The Pakistan China corridor is going to be their gateway bypassing the Malacca Straight. They are also again planning to revive the canal in the Kra Isthmus in Thailand and how they go about it to be still decided by the Thai Government. Whether they have to cut across the land or just have a road and train connection from the east to west is being debated now. Obviously Singapore is pushing against the idea as it may be detrimental to Singapore as a seaport.
He's not involving moral judgment in his posts. He simply stated why the US did it (competing with Soviets). He didn't say whether that was right or wrong, I think.
Interestingly, Xinjiang is China's largest province (administrative division).
Does this regional size play a role here? Does China fear losing Xinjiang in the future if the Uyghurs start thinking to separate?
My definition would be a near global reach of both soft and hard power. The USSR did pass these tests at the heights of the Cold War, even if their economy was not quite the equal of the US - and you could argue that is what led to its downfall when still trying to compete in the 80’s.It's an interesting question because obviously there isn't an objective test, but I think you've got to look at their global economic, political and military reach.
The USSR didn't really have any of the three strands, except potentially militarily. Even in that sense it would only be because of their nuclear arsenal as aside from the global threat of nuclear missiles, their sphere of military domination was largely contained to their geographical region. They were a military threat to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Eastern Europe etc, but not a global threat like the USA.
China on the other hand is clearly economically influential over the entire world and is primed to become the most economically influential country on the planet at some point over the next few years. Their political influence extends to Asia, Africa and Europe, and looks set to increase as countries become more dependent on them economically and technologically. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see increased German (and therefore EU) cooperation with China over climate change since the current US administration is racing head long into making the situation worse and China and Germany are the only two countries that I'm aware of that are manufacturing green and solar technology on any serious level.
I think we've lived in a world with one superpower since WW2 (the USA), and I'd agree with you that there's an argument China isn't yet a superpower. However, I think current trajectories make it far more likely that the hegemony of the USA will be threatened by China than it ever was to being threatened by the USSR, for example.
My definition would be a near global reach of both soft and hard power. The USSR did pass these tests at the heights of the Cold War, even if their economy was not quite the equal of the US - and you could argue that is what led to its downfall when still trying to compete in the 80’s.
China fails this test as it does not have global projection of military power, nor does it even have full prerogative over their own regional sphere of influence. We are playing loose with this word, as though it is only natural that the one or two largest economies inherit that title (like guessing India is the next superpower).
If we evolve to the point wars are solely in the digital and economic realm, we’ll have to revisit that word. But as you can see in the discussions in this thread about relative strengths of submarines and rockets, we’re not there yet.
I think its telling that China has actively sought cost effective defensive solutions... eg 3000 mile range on the carrier killer land based missiles and the next gen having much more inflight manouverability - These missiles cost in the region of $25M a time and are designed to take down $12.5BN carriers (plus render their $5BN worth of planes homeless and unable to operate against China)... the F35 the carriers carry have a combat range of about 1000 miles so there is a couple of days travel for the carrier where its in range of the missiles before it can launch F35's against them and given these missiles can be launched from mobile launchers or indeed from aircraft as well now a cruise missile type strike isnt going to take them outIt certainly wasn't global in the case of the USSR.
They had a suppressive and aggressive sphere of influence, but it didn't really extend past Eastern Europe, with the exception of their invasion of Afghanistan, which was a country on their border so definitely not worldwide.
It's important to look at the actual events of the Cold War rather than the official US pieties for US foreign intervention, which were almost always justified as 'stopping communism' or 'countering the threat of the USSR'. This was usually little more than a fabricated cover to justify interventions that advanced US interests, just as USSR used similar excuses to intervene in its geographic region. Both countries acted as powers usually do - by pursuing their own interests wherever they could, and using state pieties to externally justify their actions as being necessary to counter the threat of the other - but the US global sphere of influence was many magnitudes larger than the USSR.
It's interesting that you bring up technological military superiority when discussing China and the USA, because exactly the same was true of the USSR and the USA. The USA always had an enormous technological advantage in military technology and still does to this day - the Cuban missile crisis compared with the US missiles in Turkey and nuclear submarines are a pretty good example of this - and as you said, the act of trying to keep up with US military tech and expansion was a big reason for the economic collapse of the USSR as it just couldn't compete militarily, economically or politically with the USA.
Anyway, that's a bit of a digression - I have no problem with people thinking that the USSR was a superpower and that China isn't yet one - it's perfectly plausible to me. The thing that remains true and I assume we both agree on, is that since WW2 the USA has been unquestionably the global hegemon with economic, productive, military and political superiority that really haven't seen any serious rival.
I think its telling that China has actively sought cost effective defensive solutions... eg 3000 mile range on the carrier killer land based missiles and the next gen having much more inflight manouverability - These missiles cost in the region of $25M a time and are designed to take down $12.5BN carriers (plus render their $5BN worth of planes homeless and unable to operate against China)
Even if the USA can shoot down 9 out of 10 missiles thats still a $250m cost to take out $17.5BN worth of assets... even if they shoot down 99 out of a hundred its still massivley cost effective
Nobody is sending in enough troops to take over a billion plus chinese, they are making it pretty much impossible to operate carriers close enough to them to be effective - the only option is a full on nuclear war which lets hope cold war 1 taught us is not really going to be a great solution
the USA does have an unrivaled ability to project military power around the globe - but China has done a pretty good job of ensuring it cant be deployed against them
It's not something to agree to disagree on though, it's literally whether you accept facts or not.
The CCP's military interventions since it's rise to power have been far more limited than virtually all world powers throughout history and to pretend otherwise is silly.
They're a much more repressive and less free society than the United States internally, but a much more militarily benign and less aggressive actor externally.
I think its telling that China has actively sought cost effective defensive solutions... eg 3000 mile range on the carrier killer land based missiles and the next gen having much more inflight manouverability - These missiles cost in the region of $25M a time and are designed to take down $12.5BN carriers (plus render their $5BN worth of planes homeless and unable to operate against China)... the F35 the carriers carry have a combat range of about 1000 miles so there is a couple of days travel for the carrier where its in range of the missiles before it can launch F35's against them and given these missiles can be launched from mobile launchers or indeed from aircraft as well now a cruise missile type strike isnt going to take them out
Even if the USA can shoot down 9 out of 10 missiles thats still only a $250m cost to take out $17.5BN worth of assets... even if they shoot down 99 out of a hundred its still massivley cost effective
Nobody is sending in enough troops to take over a billion plus chinese, they are making it pretty much impossible to operate carriers close enough to them to be effective - the only option is a full on nuclear war which lets hope cold war 1 taught us is not really going to be a great solution
the USA does have an unrivaled ability to project military power around the globe - but China has done a pretty good job of ensuring it cant be deployed against them
How much of that is down to the presence of the American 7th fleet? I'm not sure, i think China would have been much more overtly aggressive if there wasn't a Navy in the region that could put a swift end to any overseas action they might try to undertake. They have certainly been extremely active surreptitiously.
Indeed - whilst Russia seemed to have the intent to have a military force capable of fighting America in Europe the Chinese model is simply making the cost benefit analysis such that the USA cant invade them.... likewise there is no race to have the biggest nuclear arsenal - but retain just enough of one that the MAD principals applyChina wants to make it as hard as possible but they know there's no sense in getting in to a fight with the US. At some point they might want to pick a fight in the South China Sea or Africa though.
It depends on your perspective really.
I think there's some logic to the argument that the aggressive military posturing of the US has dissuaded China from being more militaristic and expansionist. It's certainly possible. I don't believe that China are inherently any different to any other power and we've seen throughout the ages that countries tend to act militarily in their own interests based on what they can get away with, so I think there's some merit in that.
However I tend to believe that the presence of the United States in that region is more of an impediment to resolving the border disputes than a benefit. I posed a thought experiment earlier about how an impartial observer would view a hypothetical territorial dispute between the USA and Mexico for California and Texas if the roles were reversed and a world dominating Chinese military had bases in Mexico and Canada and were patrolling aircraft carriers in the gulf of Mexico.
Ultimately it comes down to your principles and the role you think countries should play in the affairs of others. I don't think the USA should be involved in territorial disputes in the South China Sea for the same reason I don't think they should be involved in the development models of Latin America or attempts at normalising the relationship between North and South Korea - because it's the right of each of those countries to determine these things for themselves.
It is. The main issue on the korean peninsula is not between the two Koreas. It's between USA and North Korea. There is no way north Korea can attack south and win on its own. There is no way they could launch a nuclear attack either.
It's the same with the Philippines and the South China Sea issues too.
As another OP said communism was not the major issue. It's was hegemony and influence.
Look at the Philippines now. Who is the biggest organization that's attacking the government forces or for that matter killing civilians? The NPA. The military wing of the Communist Party of Philippines. Where is their head? In the Netherlands. Where are they getting their funding from? NED. Who are their spokespeople? A few newspapers like The Inquirer in the Philippines.
No need for a coup. If the majority of the Chinese or for that matter a considerable number of Chinese wants to get rid of the current leadership, it is going to be happen. The fact it has not happened so far is because they are satisfied with what they are doing.
Is there freedom like in most other countries? Absolutely not. You cannot criticize the top leadership. You can criticize the local leadership and even at Provincial level but not at Beijing level. Apart from politics they are as much as free to do what they want to do. People do criticize their lives and how the government handles it too.
The situation in Xinjiang is a lot more complicated. They are not Chinese at all and are Turkmen. The clash with the Han Chinese is the issue. They do not feel as part of China and the government has not tried to integrate them peacefully. Instead they are trying to force them and this is obviously not going to work. Furthermore, they want independence and there are foreign actors involved in this. The camps are a terrible idea and is not as bad as some make it out to be and is not as good as what the Chinese make it out to be either. It is not a concentration camp and neither is it a vocational training centre. It is a detention camp. ( A good friend of mine has been there and he speaks fluent Chinese but is not Chinese). This is a major issue in many Asian countries like Kashmir in India/ Pakistan, like Sulu in The Philippines, Sabah in Malaysia and Patani Yala regions on Thailand. It is all based on ethnicity issues.
The issue of the reefs and islands in the South China Sea is more confusing because of multiple countries are claiming to this. Some are claiming it to be in their territorial area while the Philippines completely messed up by filing a claim and then finding it to be outside of their territorial waters but inside their EEZ. This is like the UK refusing to accept the verdict on the Chagos Atoll. The Taiwan issue is not going to go away as both claim both are the rightful owners of both lands. Taiwan may give up their claim to mainland China but China is not going to give up. I cannot see them militarily invading them before trying to do an economic boycott first.
The downside of the Chinese loans are actual corruption in the receiving countries. The infrastructure loans are good and at very low interests. The local politicians then add their commission to it and inflate the loan amount. This is what creates the problem. The Pakistan China corridor is going to be their gateway bypassing the Malacca Straight. They are also again planning to revive the canal in the Kra Isthmus in Thailand and how they go about it to be still decided by the Thai Government. Whether they have to cut across the land or just have a road and train connection from the east to west is being debated now. Obviously Singapore is pushing against the idea as it may be detrimental to Singapore as a seaport.
You should be completely ashamed of yourself for such post. It is a bloody genocide and ethnic cleansing of a population. It is not complicated. It does not happen in "many asian countries" and yes it is worse than many make it to be. I can't believe I am reading this.
We had a girl at work who escaped by the way. She can never go back to her land. The stories are horrific. You're not allowed to practice your religion (fast) your phone can be randomly checked by police, you have no identity and no rights. You are nothing but a tool for the Chinese in Xinjiang.
I hope a mod deletes this post because this is truly sickening to read -- such an apologetic view of genocide.
I have been to China and to India and to Myanmar and to south of Thailand. It's the same. Have you?
As for the phone or tracing in China, it's not only for the Uighurs but anyone who is politically active is followed. Anyone who thinks it's a democracy is delusional. I have always said it's a capitalistic right wing dictatorship.
How many innocent people are killed in Kashmir? How many innocent people were killed in Sri Lanka? During the war in south of Thailand how many were killed? Plenty. It's not supporting genocide. It's the reality. It's not a concentration camp and neither is it a vocational training center. It's what it is. A detention center.
Are they being discriminated? I am sure they are. Are they being massacred for just being Uighur? I don't think so and I have met diplomats who has been there. Diplomats who spoke Chinese.
It's better to see first hand these things rather than reading from newspapers or people who may have an agenda.
I have been to China and to India and to Myanmar and to south of Thailand. It's the same. Have you?
...It's better to see first hand these things rather than reading from newspapers or people who may have an agenda
The camps are a terrible idea and is not as bad as some make it out to be and is not as good as what the Chinese make it out to be either. It is not a concentration camp and neither is it a vocational training centre. It is a detention camp. ( A good friend of mine has been there and he speaks fluent Chinese but is not Chinese).
There really isn't any room for discussion when it comes to HK, China have forced a draconian national security law designed to oppress the freedom of the people of Hong Kong, going against the Joint Declaration they signed years ago, even the very Basic Law of HK they drafted.Having lived in China I'd say its hard not to look at the massive improvements in the lifes of my wife's family on the mainland... having grown up in hk obviously the general concensus is different but if you spent any significant time there you would probably see the situation as more nuanced than typically shown in Western media
https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...ted-attack-on-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-2021-1Chinese bombers recently simulated an attack on a US Navy aircraft carrier in the South China Sea, the US military said Friday, confirming earlier reporting from the Financial Times.
Can someone help me?
Where did it go so historically wrong for China?
They are a country that has bred Confucianism and Taoism yet as a country they could not represent either any less.
They destroy nature, they destroy the lives of citizens who pose no harm to them, & they are unbelievably cruel to animals.
Growing up there was so much I admired about China, then I began to understand what modern China actually represented and it is the one place I'll never visit.
Have there been any really good books or docs explaining there long history and how the ended up here?
You grew up in China and you're asking us for the best books on China's history?
You grew up in China and you're asking us for the best books on China's history?
No, sorry. 'When I was growing up, there was so much I admired about China'.
Ok. My british side of the family lived in China untill they were thrown out by Mao during the cultural revolution, but I've never actually read a major book on China's history pre WW2, so I wouldn't know what to recommend. Personally I think China can still be great place to live and visit providing you're middle class and you don't critize the CCP in terms of quality of life. I'm obviously not talking about the Tibetans or Uighurs here. I think apart from asking where did it go wrong, you also gotta ask when was it ever right? History is a dark place for almost any country.
Can someone help me?
Where did it go so historically wrong for China?
They are a country that has bred Confucianism and Taoism yet as a country they could not represent either any less.
They destroy nature, they destroy the lives of citizens who pose no harm to them, & they are unbelievably cruel to animals.
Growing up there was so much I admired about China, then I began to understand what modern China actually represented and it is the one place I'll never visit.
Have there been any really good books or docs explaining there long history and how the ended up here?
Hmmm. Hard to agree with that. Admittedly we did worse against them they have ever done to us, but China has inflicted far worse upon itself than the west has ever done.Had a couple of amazing trips to China. They get a lot of shit from the West, as though we didn’t spend a couple of hundreds years committing absolute atrocities way worse than anything they have done.
Hmmm. Hard to agree with that. Admittedly we did worse against them they have ever done to us, but China has inflicted far worse upon itself than the west has ever done.
