China ChiCom News Thread

[The Whispering Monk]

That is rapidly changing however, so to remain stuck on that is rather the opposite; they’re currently outbuilding us 3-1 in large surface combatants and the U.S. Navy expects them to equal or surpass us by 2040.

They might have the hulls, but I almost wish they'd try to sustain that rate of build. They'd completely gut what's left of their economy doing it. The expense of maintaining the fleet is gonna be too much for them very shortly.

 

[Sailor.X]

The CCP can build as many ships as they want. But if you can't fuel them or for that matter dock them (China has more ships than ship berths which is a major problem) Then you will have a bunch of targets sitting in your coastal waters.

 

[History Learner]

...Are you being deliberately obtuse? Every military objective set in those was met. The problem was that the politicians didn't have a win condition, and weren't willing to let loose the military to run down and destroy the people and organizations supporting the terrorists and insurgents constantly coming back into areas that they'd been driven out of.

America absolutely lost both of those conflicts, but it was absolutely due to political failings, not military ones.

You're deluded if you actually believe that. The U.S. Army itself even specifically says it lost the Iraq War:

The study, commissioned by former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno in 2013 and continued under current chief Gen. Mark Milley, was delayed for release since 2016, when it was completed. Some said it was due to concerns over airing “dirty laundry” about decisions made by some leaders during the conflict.​

​

The 1,300-page, two volume history, complete with more than 1,000 declassified documents, spans the 2003 invasion through the U.S. withdrawal, the rise of ISIS, and the influence of Syria and Iran.​

​

“At the time of this project’s completion in 2018, an emboldened and expansionist Iran appears to be the only victor,” authors wrote in the concluding chapter.​

It's even more clear cut in the case of Afghanistan. The U.S. spent two years, literally trillions of dollars and sacrificed over 1,000 troops and it was all for nothing because the Taliban outlasted us and then went on to defeat us. The Taliban-with many of the same people we ousted in 2001 even-swept back into power, destroying the puppet government we had established and still have ties to Al Qaeda. Even better, they've established strong ties with Russia, China and Iran, meaning the U.S. lost all influence it had.

I've seen you bring up the withdraw as being handled "badly", but what that ignores is that the U.S. was having to withdraw in the first place because we had lost.

Every other major navy in the world except Russia is allied with the US, and given the CCP has demonstrated itself every time to be acting in bad faith, it's extremely unlikely that will change any time soon.

The Chinese in one year are building more destroyers than the Royal Navy has in total. That's what happens when you have superior industry.

Put another way, even if the Chinese can still maintain their build rate, and the US build rate does not increase in response, they still would not have effective naval parity twenty years from now.

The U.S. is laying the keels down for six destroyers every year, the Chinese are doing 18. Basic math dictates where that ends up for the U.S. Navy in 20 years, whether you like it or not. There's also not much the U.S. Navy can do about it either:

Last December, the Navy issued its 2016 Force Structure Assessment, which called for a future ship strength of 355 ships—an increase from the 2012 assessment which called for a 308-ship fleet. To reach 355, according to the report, the Navy would be required to double its current annual budget, which is essentially unrealistic in both current and expected future fiscal environments.”​

​

Which means it’s never going to happen, no matter what anyone says or promises to do.​

​

The Congressional Budget Office released a report titled ‘Costs of Building a 355-Ship Navy’ on April 24 that addressed the reality of what it would take to reach this target number. The report states:​

“The earliest the Navy could achieve its goal of a 355-ship objective would be in 2035, or in about 18 years, provided that it received sufficient funding….CBO estimates that, over the next 30 years, meeting the 355-ship objective would cost the Navy an average of about $26.6 billion annually for ship construction, which is more than 60 percent above the average amount the Congress has appropriated for that purpose over the past 30 years and 40 percent more than the amount appropriated for 2016….To establish a 355-ship fleet, the Navy would need to purchase around 329 new ships over 30 years.”​

The CBO report also gets into the costs above and beyond the price of the ships themselves. Don’t forget, more ships mean more helicopters and aircraft to fly from them, more unmanned systems to support them and more weapons to arm them. And more personnel to train and pay, more sailors and civilians to train the larger force requirement, more fuel and supplies to operate the additional ships not to mention the increased maintenance budgets needed to keep the ships combat ready. It is not a cheap proposition.​

​

The CBO estimates that the annual cost of operating a 355-ship fleet would be $94 billion. Today, the 245-ship fleet costs $56 billion. Where will an extra $38 billion come from?​

​

And it’s not just the lack of money that is a problem; it is the lack of an adequate industrial base to build the new influx of ship orders. After years of making less than 10 ships per year it cannot be expected to see a rapid increase in the number of ships under construction at one time.​

​

No magic wand or bucket of cash will change this overnight. Building aircraft carriers and submarines requires a skilled labor force and while the shipyards today are designed to handle the current level it will take years to acquire and train the additional shipbuilders. And that process can’t even begin to start until there are more ship orders.​

​

Another potential issue is the granting of security clearances to workers who will build the growing fleet. Reuters reported that many union members are unable to obtain the required clearances, especially as far as submarine construction is concerned. In fact, General Dynamics Electric Boat begun developing its own grass roots campaign to secure future workers. Partnering with local schools in Connecticut and Rhode Island, Electric Boat is hoping to train its future submarine workers before they even are hired.​

​

As the Navy struggles with putting ships to sea, three critical areas exist. They are the future of the submarine fleet, the Navy’s aging cruisers and what to replace them with, and the need for a true small surface combatant.​

On top of that, given the Chinese economy is already starting to implode (Evergrande default, rolling blackouts throughout most of the nation), it is extremely unlikely they will be able to maintain that rate of military expansion. It's unlikely they'll still be building ships at this rate in five years, much less twenty.

Evergrande as a whole is 2% of China's GDP, if you think that means an implosion and doom for them, would it interest you to know the U.S. lost 5% of its GDP when Lehman Brothers went under in 2008?

On top of that, the People's Liberation Army has basically no meaningful military tradition or history of competence. They've only ever won one real war, the civil war against the nationalists where they basically won by letting the nationalists exhaust themselves fighting the Japanese, then had heavy soviet support to finish them off. They had a nominal victory in a two-month war against India sixty years ago, and they needed to commit four times the forces the Indians had to get even that much. With how populations have gone since then, they can't enjoy that sort of numerical disparity again.

They maybe-sort-of won a war in the taking of Tibet in 1950, but the population of Tibet was about 1 million at the time, and the Chinese military commitment outnumbered the Tibetan military by about 5:1. The conflict only lasted two weeks, so I'm not sure if it could really be considered a war, so much as reabsorption of a separatist province. Whatever you call it though, they did win it, even if that isn't at all impressive.

They had at best a draw on their involvement in the Korean war; they absolutely pushed the US forces out of China and then North Korea, but sustained horrendous losses in the process, in their final attempted offensive suffering worse than 5:1 casualties even though they outnumbered the defending forces.

The repeatedly got kicked out of Vietnam when they picked a fight there after NV absorbed SV...

...An they literally haven't had any wars since. It's been thirty years since the Chinese military has seen action any larger than fistfights with Indian soldiers on the border, which they tend to lose, and they're notorious for focusing on indoctrination into loyalty to the CCP over actually learning how to be a competent warfighting force.

So, basically everything applicable to the United States?

The modern PLAN is, for all intents and purposes, only a single step short of completely untested and untried, all of their equipment is either 2nd and 3rd string Russian hardware or locally-built designs that have literally never seen combat, and last I checked, they're still planning on using human-wave tactics if they get into another war, like they did in Korea.

I have serious doubts that the Chinese would be able to effectively conquer Taiwan, if the Taiwanese fully commit to the fight, and have no support from other nations. If the Vietnamese and Philipinos alone throw in on their side, I don't think China could win. If Japan or India join in, Chinese victory becomes just about impossible, and if you have both join in, China probably loses Tibet to India, and North Korea is probably done for by the time the Japanese are finished.

Even if the Chinese maintain their current ship building rate, that's unlikely to change any of these factors in the next five to ten years, and trying to predict geopolitics out past that when things are so volatile is a fool's business.

You're extremely deluded if you feel the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan, which all have no combat experience more recent than the Chinese can defeat China which has an industrial output in the region of 30 times the combined output of the aforementioned.

Especially since we're selling anti-ship missiles to the Taiwanese faster than the Chinese are building new ships, and the Chinese have not demonstrated any ability to effectively defeat such missiles when used.

Because they don't have to because they have missiles and aircraft of their own. You say they have no measure of defeating missiles, sureeee, but just like we have no way of preventing their Dong Fengs from trashing our carriers. What happens when the PLA uses said missiles to insure we can't reinforce Taiwan? What happens when they use their missiles, their aircraft and submarines to begin destroying Taiwan missiles, defenses, ports and ships carrying vital supplies to the island? China has an industrial output and population that insures even it is loosing 10-1 in men, which it won't be at all, it will still grind Taiwan down to nothing and their own missiles make sure we can't reinforce the island.

You've made the mistake of assuming your enemy is an idiot and will play exactly to your playbook, when they have no reason or indication of doing so. They will use their superior military and economic might to suppress Taiwanese defenses and then their superior naval will set sail and land their invasion force. That's how they've always done and that's how every competent military power always has done it too. You'll recall the Anglo-Americans in WWII waited until they sufficient damaged the Luftwaffe before attempting to invade France, and I see no reason China won't do the same here.

TL;DR, If the CCP is still even in power 20 years from now, they still won't have the naval power to take the US's place as world hegemon. That's what happens when you have no allies, and your military has no experience.

Okay, then why do you talk about China at all or have concern about them at all? If you're so sure they're done for, how about you put your political energies elsewhere like solving the multitude of crises we are enduring here? Focusing on an issue you here state is a non-issue makes absolutely no sense, as does your knee jerk Cold War logic with China in the first place. That you don't do this tells me your beliefs are either ingenuine or you're acting schizophrenic on them; China can't be a big threat worthy of all the focus and attention you indicate, while also being a failed power that is collapsing as we speak as you assert.

If it's the former, act like it which you really need to be doing. If it's the latter, then why are you even arguing with me? While you're at it, you might find it useful to consider why you should be so concerned and invested in China or Russia or whatever in the first place.

 

[History Learner]

They might have the hulls, but I almost wish they'd try to sustain that rate of build. They'd completely gut what's left of their economy doing it. The expense of maintaining the fleet is gonna be too much for them very shortly.

In 2019, the U.S. spent 3.2% of GDP on defense spending while China was spending 1.7% that same year. If they're gutting their economy to achieve that, then the U.S. is a borderline failed state doing the same. In reality, they have no real risk of gutting their economy to do this.

 

[LordsFire]

In 2019, the U.S. spent 3.2% of GDP on defense spending while China was spending 1.7% that same year. If they're gutting their economy to achieve that, then the U.S. is a borderline failed state doing the same. In reality, they have no real risk of gutting their economy to do this.

Their pending problem isn't military spending gutting their economy, it's that far too much of their economy is built on lies and fraud. Combine that with the fact that cheap labor is no longer balancing out that appeal, and companies are pulling out of China more and more, rather than moving factories over there as they were twenty years ago. This is not a sustainable situation for the Chinese economy, and Evergrande is just one of many companies that are in danger of total implosion.

Are you familiar with how high China's debt is compared to its GDP?

Snip.

You completely missed my point about Afghanistan and Iraq. Pretty much every time that the military actually engaged the enemy, they won a crushing victory. The problem is that the objectives set by politicians could not be won by military means (build a stable democracy in a tribalistic islamic culture), and the military was not allowed to push into the enemy's bases past the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. If the politicians literally forbid the military from doing what is needed to destroy the enemy, and the overall objective is not under the military's control, then victory literally cannot be won by the military.


Your response to my post about shipbuilding and the like isn't even coherent.

You quote an article from 2017 about limitations on US Navy budget, completely ignoring the massive budget increases put into the military during the Trump administration, and treating the budget constraints in 2016 after 8 years of Obama neglect towards the military as irreversible. And that's about as good as your arguments get.

You show no comprehension of the current capabilities of the US military in essential things like missile interception, and bluntly put, it's not worth my time to try to rebut you when you so obviously neither know what you're talking about, nor have a history of caring about facts that don't fit your narrative.

 

[King Arts]

Everyone is making mountains out of molehills. First off while the Chinese are building a large navy we don’t know how good the ships are tech wise, and beyond that the Chinese were a historic land power not naval like Britain or Ancient Greece or Carthage. But there is a bigger issue China won’t be a threat unless we screw up. In the absolute worst case scenario as long as we get our house in order things will fall in place at worst China will become our equal like the old USSR. We would only fall if like the Soviets we destroy ourselves through stupidity.

 

[History Learner]

Their pending problem isn't military spending gutting their economy, it's that far too much of their economy is built on lies and fraud. Combine that with the fact that cheap labor is no longer balancing out that appeal, and companies are pulling out of China more and more, rather than moving factories over there as they were twenty years ago. This is not a sustainable situation for the Chinese economy, and Evergrande is just one of many companies that are in danger of total implosion.

Are you familiar with how high China's debt is compared to its GDP?

None of which entails a collapse coming for China anymore than the exact same issues you cite did for the United States in the immediate term in 2008. Manufacturing leaving, large financial institutions collapsing? Switch at the names and wind the clock back to 2008 and it's exactly what happened to us except Evergrande is less than half of what Lehman entailed. I'd also urge you to stop and really look to what debt to GDP entails, particularly in the context of 1) how much is foreign held vs domestic held AND 2) compare Chinese foreign debt holdings to how much of their own debt is foreign held.

Beyond that, you also really need to research about the GDP growth rate. The IMF looked at it and found that, once you account for the issues you bring up, their growth rate is still around 5%. Compare that to an anemic 2.2% for the United States in 2019, and you start to realize this isn't all that big of an issue as you make it out to be.

You completely missed my point about Afghanistan and Iraq. Pretty much every time that the military actually engaged the enemy, they won a crushing victory. The problem is that the objectives set by politicians could not be won by military means (build a stable democracy in a tribalistic islamic culture), and the military was not allowed to push into the enemy's bases past the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. If the politicians literally forbid the military from doing what is needed to destroy the enemy, and the overall objective is not under the military's control, then victory literally cannot be won by the military.

This is what I mean by being schizophrenic in argumentation, but here you also go borderline into sadism.

If the objectives for your conflict cannot be met by military means, then citing the ability of the ISAF/Coalition to win battles becomes meaningless in terms of claiming victory because you're not winning by your own definition. To then further double down and claim the politicians kept you from "pushing into the enemy's bases past the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq" is to contradict what you said earlier about the war being unable to be won by military means; either it can be or it can't, you don't get to have it both ways. Let's also take a second to consider you basically just suggested the U.S. should've invaded Iran, Syria and presumably Pakistan too, which is a nuclear power.

For someone who talks about China being untrustworthy and aggressive, it's remarkable how bloodthirsty you are concerning American actions. Regardless, to quote Clausewitz:

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.​

You don't go to war to stack body counts-and if you do, you're a war criminal-you go to war to achieve political objectives. Certainly this is the standard the U.S. Army established in their own retrospective on Iraq, and by their own metrics, according to military theory, and basic reasoning, we lost both wars. If the best you can do is "we killed a lot of people though!" then congrats, you've become a bloodthirsty defeated nation. No one claims Nazi Germany won because they killed 30 million Soviets.

Your response to my post about shipbuilding and the like isn't even coherent.

You quote an article from 2017 about limitations on US Navy budget, completely ignoring the massive budget increases put into the military during the Trump administration, and treating the budget constraints in 2016 after 8 years of Obama neglect towards the military as irreversible. And that's about as good as your arguments get.

Okay, then this should be easy to prove so let's see your evidence. While you're at it, you might want to review what the Pentagon earlier this year said about the status of the shipbuilding industry:

Sole Source Suppliers​

​

The number of domestic suppliers at the lower tiers of the supply chain continues to decline. Due to macroeconomic forces, the Navy expects this trend to continue. The limited availability of suppliers requires the U.S. Navy to consider the workload and financial health of the supply chain when making procurement decisions. Low demand volumes in certain market spaces result in the selection of single or sole sources of supply for critical products, either out of necessity, or sometimes to promote resiliency during low production periods.​

​

Fragile Markets​

​

There are currently four prime contractors producing nearly all of the U.S. Navy’s ships, and two that comprise the vast majority of shipbuilding sales. A limited number of yards, and the size and complexity of operations, makes it difficult for new businesses to enter the market. Only one shipbuilder is currently producing aircraft carriers, and only two are producing submarines, after a decision by the Navy to divide new work between Electric Boat and Newport News.​

​

Unstable Demand​

​

Fluctuation in planned modernization and procurement is also a long-term challenge, as changes in ship procurement plans impact the shipyards and lower-tier suppliers’ workload. Battle Force 2045, discussed below, is an example of the Navy’s changing requirements. This instability is necessary for the Navy to respond to emerging threats, but it results in financial risk to the industrial base as companies struggle to align their business decisions. The timing of ship procurements is also critical to achieve the stable workload required to support the viability of the shipbuilding industrial base and to sustaining a skilled workforce. Advanced procurement for long lead time material and economic order quantities, as well as multi-program material purchases, continue to be used to ensure stability in the industrial base.​

​

Gaps in U.S.-based Human Capital​

​

In addition to the challenges found in other manufacturing sectors throughout the U.S., shipbuilding has unique challenges, such as too few replacements for retiring workers, insufficient labor mobility, the perception of unattractive physical working conditions, and the cyclical nature of shipbuilding. Shipbuilders and suppliers are stepping up recruiting efforts in response to these market realities. They are supported in many different ways by a multitude of entities including the OSD, the U.S. Navy, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and local and regional economic development initiatives. U.S. government support efforts typically include funding for capital investments to improve working conditions, training grants, and tax relief in exchange for meeting employment targets.​

Further:

China has the largest navy in the world with a battle force of approximately 350 vessels, including major surface combatants, submarines, oceangoing amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, aircraft carriers, and fleet auxiliaries. China’s 2019 defense white paper described the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) as speeding up the transition of its tasks from “defense on the near seas” to “protection missions on the far seas.” The PLAN is an increasingly modern and flexible force that has focused on replacing its previous generations of platforms in favor of larger, modern multi-role combatants. This modernization aligns with China’s growing emphasis on the maritime domain and increasing demands for the PLAN to operate at greater distances from mainland China.48​

​

The shipbuilding sector of the DIB is perhaps unique in that the U.S. is not a major contributor to the global commercial market. The U.S. accounts for less than one percent of commercial shipbuilding by tonnage. China is the world’s leader with South Korea and Japan rounding out the top three shipbuilding countries. Major changes to the current relative production levels of today’s major shipbuilding countries is unlikely. ​

​

The largest contributing factor of declining U.S. competitiveness in global shipbuilding has been state intervention from competitor countries. China’s shipbuilding industry benefits from a robust domestic industrial economy that provides raw material and components to shipbuilders. It is China’s long-term goal to have an entirely self-reliant defense industrial sector, and they have established market leading positions in many heavy industries that support shipbuilding. As an example, China is the world’s largest steel producer and user by a large margin. Given current macroeconomic conditions, China is expected to continue to out-build the United States in terms of ship quantities. The U.S. Navy will continue to use its technological advantages to maintain superiority in the maritime domain.​

You show no comprehension of the current capabilities of the US military in essential things like missile interception, and bluntly put, it's not worth my time to try to rebut you when you so obviously neither know what you're talking about, nor have a history of caring about facts that don't fit your narrative.

If it's "not worth your time", you wouldn't have replied in the first place so let's not even pretend with that, shall we? You're basically making a lot of claims that you can't actually back up, so now you're resorting to invective to hide this fact when called upon it; I'm not fooled. It also doesn't escape my notice you didn't address what I pointed out about your thinking; either China is about to collapse and thus there is no reason to focus on it, or it's not in which case you really need to take it serious instead of hiding behind this chest beating on them.

 

[LordsFire]

Snip.

We're completely talking past each other. Whether that's due to miscommunication, or bad faith on your part, I'm not going to spend hours working up responses to your posts anymore.

 

[Zachowon]

We're completely talking past each other. Whether that's due to miscommunication, or bad faith on your part, I'm not going to spend hours working up responses to your posts anymore.

I will gladly take the hit, it has to be in bad faith, because he is a Chicom, or at least is in bed woth one.

 

[Husky_Khan]

No need to worry. Peng Shuai is apparently just fine! She even recanted her statement in a video phone call with the IOC and under the protective supervision of friendly party officials to make sure she remains safe.

😌

For some reason the Women's Tennis Association is still freaking out over this, but it must be that time of the month or something.

Olympics: Don’t Promote Chinese State Propaganda

The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) collaboration with Chinese authorities on tennis star Peng Shuai’s reappearance undermines its expressed commitment to human rights, including the rights and safety of athletes, Human Rights Watch said today.

www.hrw.org

Even better news, Peng Shuai made comments to a Singaporean news outlet whilst still in Shanghai and stated that the Weibo post she made allegeding sexual misconduct was a misunderstanding of a personal nature and she hasn't been under supervision and merely just living at her home for the past few weeks whilst incommunicado. 🤷‍♀️

Chinese tennis star Peng denies she made accusation of sexual assault

Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai said on Sunday that she had never accused anyone of sexually assaulting her, and that a social media post she had made early last month had been misunderstood.

www.reuters.com

 

[Sailor.X]

Even better news, Peng Shuai made comments to a Singaporean news outlet whilst still in Shanghai and stated that the Weibo post she made allegeding sexual misconduct was a misunderstanding of a personal nature and she hasn't been under supervision and merely just living at her home for the past few weeks whilst incommunicado. 🤷‍♀️

Chinese tennis star Peng denies she made accusation of sexual assault

Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai said on Sunday that she had never accused anyone of sexually assaulting her, and that a social media post she had made early last month had been misunderstood.

www.reuters.com

A statement made after a few weeks of torture to both her and her immediate family. Standard CCP tactics at play.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Woop woop.

 

[bintananth]

Woop woop.

Damn.

The largest Chinese banknote is worth about $15.70. If Chinese people have to worry about those being fake duplicates of the real thing they're in trouble.

In the US it's pretty damn easy to spot a counterfeit banknote because the Federal Reserve and Secret Service do not fuck around. If you know what to look for you can determine where and and about when the one dollar bill you just got as small change was printed.

 

[Cherico]

Damn.

The largest Chinese banknote is worth about $15.70. If Chinese people have to worry about those being fake duplicates of the real thing they're in trouble.

In the US it's pretty damn easy to spot a counterfeit banknote because the Federal Reserve and Secret Service do not fuck around. If you know what to look for you can determine where and and about when the one dollar bill you just got as small change was printed.

The British empire printed counterfit notes and flooded them into the country during the revolutionary war and then did so after the war as well, and encoraged counterfiters it got so bad that the young republic basically did away with bank notes. Hence why were so hard core about it.

 

[bintananth]

The British empire printed counterfit notes and flooded them into the country during the revolutionary war and then did so after the war as well, and encoraged counterfiters it got so bad that the young republic basically did away with bank notes. Hence why were so hard core about it.

We're still hard core about it. The Secret Service was orginally created to catch counterfieters and only got tasked with Presidential protection after McKinley was assassinated.

 

[VicSage]

Not much point anymore when you print so much money it inflates on its own.

 

[bintananth]

Not much point anymore when you print so much money it inflates on its own.

The homeless guy I'm aquainted with recently asked me if a $50 he'd been given was real because it did not look like the other $50s in his gasoline reserve. I told him "It's real and was printed in 1996".

That $50 was older than my HS diploma.

 

[Cherico]

Congo is turning against china.

Also thank god for india medias total lack of fucks.

 

[Sailor.X]

Oh for the love of Mike can we just destroy their military assets now an make them a Protectorate already. If the worlds Navies and Air Forces all attacked we could Zerg rush them.

 

[Arch Dornan]

CCP wants their share.