Author Topic: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread  (Read 1183670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3425 on: August 17, 2018, 16:32:10 »
PLAAF joining a PLA nuke triad:

Quote
China, close to establishing its own ‘nuclear triad,’ has practiced targeting US

The Pentagon, for the first time, has publicly reported what commanders in the Pacific have known about, and kept a wary eye on, for some time: China is practicing long-range bombing runs against U.S. targets.

While the Defense Department annually reports on the rapid growth in capabilities of China’s air, land and sea forces, the 2018 report is the first to acknowledge the direct threat to U.S. territory.

Recent developments on China’s H-6K variant of its Badger bomber give the bomber “the capability to carry six land-attack cruise missiles, giving the PLA a long-range standoff precision strike capability that can range Guam,” the report said. It also acknowledged frequent bombing practice runs that U.S. commanders at the newly renamed U.S. INDOPACOM in Hawaii have watched expand in numbers and distance.

During a trip to the command last October, defense officials described to Military Times the frequent incursions to test Guam’s air-defense zone as one of the many changes in China’s behavior in the Pacific that create worry. Compared to North Korea, which officials said they still view as “a fight we can win,” with China they “worry about the way things are going."

The $716 billion defense budget for FY2019 is largely focused on getting U.S. forces ready again for a great power fight, with investments in new fighters, bombers and ships to keep the U.S. at pace with — and ahead of — the Chinese investments.

“The PLA has been developing strike capabilities to engage targets as far away from China as possible. Over the last three years, the PLA has rapidly expanded its overwater bomber operating areas, gaining experience in critical maritime regions and likely training for strikes against U.S. and allied targets,” the 2018 report found.

More worrisome, the report found, “the PLA Air Force has been re-assigned a nuclear mission. The deployment and integration of nuclear-capable bombers would, for the first time, provide China with a nuclear “triad” of delivery systems dispersed across land, sea and air.”

The unclassified version of the annual report to Congress on China’s military and security developments was released Thursday; a separate classified version was also prepared for the Hill.

The Pentagon emphasized that even as it is monitoring and re-calibrating its own defense strategies and investment priorities to be prepared for a potential great power fight in the future with China, “the Department of Defense’s objective is to set the military relationship between our two countries on a path of transparency and non-aggression," the report said...
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/08/17/pentagon-china-close-to-nuclear-triad-has-practiced-targeting-us/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3426 on: August 31, 2018, 14:04:29 »
Profiling with Chicom characteristics--at Defense One's "D-Brief" (further links at original):

Quote
...
Careful on LinkedIn, intel pros — China is trying to recruit you. That’s one message from William Evanina, the U.S. counter-intelligence chief, who spoke to Reuters on Thursday [Aug. 30] about the matter.

Writes Reuters: “It is highly unusual for a senior U.S. intelligence official to single out an American-owned company by name and publicly recommend it take action. LinkedIn boasts 562 million users in more than 200 countries and territories, including 149 million U.S. members.”

No secret: Defense One long ago chronicled how LinkedIn is an easy phone book for spotting intelligence professionals (special operators, spies, codebreakers, you name it…). In 2013, we pieced together the super-secretive National Security Agency’s org chart (much of it, anyway) using, in part, LinkedIn profiles. It’s a “It’s a marvelous intelligence goldmine,” tweets Marc Ambinder, former Defense One contributor who broke that scoop, Friday morning...

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3427 on: September 07, 2018, 15:49:55 »
Could be getting pretty close to RCAF's NORAD area:

Quote
How a potential Chinese-built airport in Greenland could be risky for a vital US Air Force base

With less than 60,000 people spread across more than 830,000 square miles, Greenland relies heavily on air transport to move supplies and people up and down its coast.

So when the local government issued a solicitation to build three new airports, the move made sense from a business perspective. The project would be expensive, but would improve commerce and make life on the island easier for its residents.

Then a Chinese company — owned by the government in Beijing, and once blacklisted by the World Bank — put forth a bid, and a simple request for proposals transformed into a project with international diplomatic ramifications.

Denmark, which has final say on national security issues involving Greenland, objected. The government in Greenland then insisted China Communications Construction Company (CCCC), which has succesfully worked on large infrastructure projects around the world, would remain one of its finalists for the projects, setting up intense negotiations between two governments [our gov't blocked CCCC from taking over big construction firm Aecon https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-china-is-not-a-threat-to-canada-and-doesnt-deserve-unfair-treatment/ ].

All this comes as officials across Europe are raising alarm over whether Chinese economic influence on the continent is becoming a national security problem — with Danish officials specifically worried that the partly-government owned company’s interest in Greenland could have a lasting impact on a key American military base located there...



In recent years, Chinese firms have invested in several Greenland-based projects, including a mine for rare earth elements and uranium in southern Greenland and an iron mine near the capital, Nuuk. That kind of economic investment has been welcomed as a boost to the local economy.

But in 2016, a Chinese company attempted to buy a former U.S. military base, and the government in Denmark stepped in, vetoing the deal. At the time, Danish officials were quoted anonymously in the press, saying they had resisted the deal as a favor to its longtime American ally.

The CCCC bid for the airport contract would represent another major investment. The airport has an estimated cost of 3.6 billion Danish krone (U.S. $560 million). Such a massive infrastructure project for whatever company wins could potentially set Beijing up as a major economic driver for Greenland.

Like elsewhere in Europe, “the big fear is that even a small Chinese investment will amount to a large part of Greenland’s GDP, giving China an outsized influence that can be used for other purposes,” said Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College’s Institute for Strategy...



The U.S. Air Force’s Thule Air Base, located on the western side of Greenland, is home to several strategic assets vital to America’s homeland defense. The Air Force’s 21st Space Wing operates systems related to missile warning, space surveillance and space control from the base; forces also operate the Upgraded Early Warning Radar, used to track incoming ballistic missiles [emphasis added].

In addition, the base is home to a 10,000-foot runway and what the Pentagon claims is “the northernmost deep water port in the world,” which would become incredibly important for any military operation that runs through the Arctic.

“A Chinese presence in Greenland would complicate the U.S. position on the island — ultimately it is not impossible to imagine that China could pressure the Greenlandic government to ask the Americans to leave or demand permission to get a Chinese military or dual-use presence there,” Rahbek-Clemmensen noted...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/09/07/how-a-potential-chinese-built-airport-in-greenland-could-be-risky-for-a-vital-us-air-force-base/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,656
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3428 on: September 07, 2018, 18:03:03 »
Since the World’s geo-political-military-economic framework appears to be moving towards economic influence, particularly in distributed bi-lateral agreements (sound familiar?), this should come as no surprise to many/most onlookers.  China’s brick and road initiative isn’t just for Southeast Asia...

Interesting times ahead, and Greenland is likely only the first major close-to-home development likely to be pursued by Beijing.

Regards
G2G

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3429 on: September 19, 2018, 13:55:48 »
How tough with China are Justin Trudeau and LPC compradors willing to get (note Japan and India near end)?

Quote
Ottawa launches probe of cyber security

Canada is conducting a national security analysis to minimize cyberthreats to the country from equipment made by foreign telecommunications companies, including China’s Huawei – a study that has gained importance since the United States and Australia banned the telecom giant from participating in new wireless cellular networks.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, who recently had discussions in Australia about possible threats from Huawei during a meeting of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, said on Tuesday the security analysis is government-wide, but would provide no further details.

Mr. Goodale visited Australia in late August, shortly after Canberra barred Huawei and rival Chinese telecom equipment maker ZTE from supplying parts there for the development of the mobile network known as 5G, citing national security.

“We had the opportunity to hear from Australia in terms of its decision and the decision-making process that is under way in a great many countries," Mr. Goodale told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday after a cabinet meeting. "That was useful information from Canada’s point of view, and we are making sure we have the analysis and ultimately the set of decisions that will keep Canadians safe.”

Huawei did not have an immediate response to Ottawa’s national security analysis.

5G is the next stage in cellular technology, and will require massive infrastructure to deliver the promised faster downloads. Under Chinese law, companies must “support, co-operate with and collaborate in national intelligence work” as requested by Beijing, and security experts in the United States and Canada warn that equipment produced by firms such as Huawei could be compromised on behalf of China’s ruling party.

When asked whether Ottawa is considering following the United States and Australia, Mr. Goodale said he did not want to talk about specific companies, but added that “nothing is left out” of the security analysis...

Mr. Goodale did not say when the security analysis began, but the Trump administration, Congress and U.S. security agencies have been cranking up pressure on Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand – three of its partners in the Five Eyes – to ban Huawei from 5G networks [emphasis added].

An official in Mr. Goodale’s office later told The Globe the analysis began well before Australia announced its 5G ban on Huawei and ZTE [emphasis added].

Japan is also studying whether additional regulations are needed to reduce “security risks from using network equipment from Chinese companies," according to the Wall Street Journal, which spoke to officials responsible for cybersecurity in the Japanese government’s cabinet office. The Japanese business newspaper Sankei Shimbun also reported that the security restrictions being contemplated would effectively ban Huawei and ZTE from Japan.

Huawei’s future in India has also come into question. The Economic Times of India cited the country’s telecom secretary in a recent report saying the Chinese firm was being excluded from the government’s list of partner companies for 5G trials. “We have written to Cisco, Samsung, Ericsson and Nokia, and telecom service providers to partner with us to start 5G technology-based trials, and have got positive response from them,” telecom secretary Aruna Sundararajan told ETT. “We have excluded Huawei from these trials.”

Huawei has denied it is being excluded from 5G trials in India, pointing to comments from the telecom secretary that she might be open to including the firm.

In early September, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the spy agency tasked with protecting Canadians from cyberattacks, acknowledged to The Globe that it has been conducting security tests since 2013 on telecommunications equipment sold in Canada by Huawei. Britain has a similar testing system, but a report in July found that the results give only limited assurances that Huawei’s operations pose no threat...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-launches-probe-of-cyber-security/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,362

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,362
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3431 on: October 08, 2018, 11:18:26 »
Mr Meng the President of Interpol was arrested in China of suspicion of corruption. 


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/world/asia/china-interpol-men-hongwei.html


Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3432 on: October 09, 2018, 14:56:57 »
China using its "One Belt, One Road" to grasp Weltmacht in Africa--start of good piece by Globe's Geoffrey York:

Quote
China flexes its political muscles in Africa with media censorship, academic controls

When he announced another US$60-billion in financing for Africa last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping promised that the money had “no political strings attached.”

But a series of recent incidents, including cases of media censorship and heavy-handed academic controls, have cast doubt on that promise. China’s financial muscle is rapidly translating into political muscle across the continent.

At a major South African newspaper chain where Chinese investors now hold an equity stake, a columnist lost his job after he questioned China’s treatment of its Muslim minority.

In Zambia, heavily dependent on Chinese loans, a prominent Kenyan scholar was prevented from entering the country to deliver a speech critical of China. In Namibia, a Chinese diplomat publicly advised the Namibian President to use pro-China wording in a coming speech. And a scholar at a South African university was told that he would not receive a visa to enter China until his classroom lectures contain more praise for Beijing.

Mr. Xi’s promise to African leaders in early September was the latest reiteration of a frequent Chinese boast: a non-interference pledge that often wins applause from a continent with a history of Western colonialism and conditional World Bank loans. China routinely touts its financial engagement with Africa as a “win-win” situation for both sides, in contrast to exploitative Western policies.

For years, Africa has embraced China’s offers of investment, loans and trade. Chinese money has become the biggest new source of financing and investment in many African countries. But there are growing concerns that this assistance might not be as benign as they had once believed.

African governments and businesses, eager for Chinese funds, are increasingly willing to suppress or censor viewpoints that Beijing does not like. Backed by dramatically rising investment and loans, Chinese influence is sharply increasing in African media, academia, politics and diplomacy...

Another sign of Beijing’s political power is the huge number of African leaders who flock to the summit of China’s main African organization: the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). More than 50 African leaders attended the latest FOCAC summit in China last month, where Mr. Xi announced his US$60-billion pledge. In fact, many more African leaders attended the Beijing summit than the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where less than 30 African leaders were in attendance this year...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-china-flexes-its-political-muscles-in-africa-with-media-censorship/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Freespeecher
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3433 on: October 11, 2018, 01:01:14 »
The full article is behind the WSJ paywall, but even this excerpt is worth the read. The United States rolls out it's new China policy:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/309845

Quote
OCTOBER 9, 2018
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Did Cold War II break out last week while no one was watching?

The Trump administration’s China policy swam into view, and it’s a humdinger. Vice President Mike Pence gave a guide to the approach in a speech last week at the Hudson Institute (where I am a fellow). Denouncing what he called China’s “whole of government” approach to its rivalry with the U.S., Mr. Pence vowed the Trump administration will respond in kind. He denounced China’s suppression of the Tibetans and Uighurs, its “Made in China 2025” plan for tech dominance, and its “debt diplomacy” through the Belt and Road initiative. The speech sounded like something Ronald Reagan could have delivered against the Soviet Union: Mr. Xi, tear down this wall! Mr. Pence also detailed an integrated, cross-government strategy to counter what the administration considers Chinese military, economic, political and ideological aggression.

In the same week as the vice president’s speech, Navy plans for greatly intensified patrols in and around Chinese-claimed waters in the South China Sea were leaked to the press. Moreover, the recently-entered trilateral U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement was revealed to have a clause discouraging trade agreements between member countries and China. The administration indicated it would seek similar clauses in other trade agreements. Also last week, Congress approved the Build Act, a $60 billion development-financing program designed to counter China’s Belt and Road strategy in Africa and Asia. Finally, the White House issued a report highlighting the danger that foreign-based supply chains pose to U.S. military capabilities in the event they are cut off during a conflict.

Any one of these steps would have rated banner headlines in normal times; in the Age of Trump, all of them together barely registered. But this is a major shift in American foreign policy.

WSJ link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-pence-announces-cold-war-ii-1539039480
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 740
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3434 on: October 11, 2018, 05:56:04 »
Seems like the US is playing catch-up to a much more ambitious & globally focused China.  While the US is focused on global military operations (some quite necessary) - China is building trade agreements & providing condition free loans to several countries. 

The US wants to discourage trade agreements with China, which is silly as China is very quickly becoming the world's largest economy - telling countries not to develop trade agreements with China is basically asking those countries to shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of US friendship.  (A friendship Trump hasn't been eager to honour in many cases.)


And ofcourse there is a huge security risk of having Chinese based supply chains supporting US military capabilities.  That's the one case where "Made in America" should probably be mandatory.  Not just in the case of the supplies being disrupted during a conflict, but the sheer vulnerability created by using Chinese circuitry in US military hardware. 

It wasn't that long ago (Like AT ALL) that China executed 18 CIA officers (No, I'm not kidding) -- precisely because the tech they were using was...guess what?  Made in China.  In that case, quite intentionally so.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 525,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,730
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3435 on: October 11, 2018, 08:21:04 »
.....China executed 18 CIA officers ...
It may seem like a pedantic point, but for accuracy, the PRC executed an unconfirmed number of CIA sources -- no actual American CIA officers were killed.

And while compromised comms were very much a factor, the Chinese were aided by Jerry Chun Shing Lee, a former CIA officer who they had recruited;  he's since been arrested and is awaiting trial in the States. 
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 297

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3437 on: October 11, 2018, 15:08:55 »
More Chinese spying--unusual to arrest and charge serving Ministry of State Security officer, and note extradition from Belgium:

Quote
Chinese Officer Is Extradited to U.S. to Face Charges of Economic Espionage

A Chinese intelligence official was arrested in Belgium and extradited to the United States to face espionage charges, Justice Department officials said on Wednesday, a major escalation of the Trump administration’s effort to crack down on Chinese spying.

The extradition on Tuesday of the officer, Yanjun Xu, a deputy division director in China’s main spy agency, the Ministry of State Security, is the first time that a Chinese intelligence official has been brought to the United States to be prosecuted and tried in open court. Law enforcement officials said that Mr. Xu tried to steal trade secrets from companies including GE Aviation outside Cincinnati, in Evendale, Ohio, one of the world’s top jet engine suppliers for commercial and military aircraft.

A 16-page indictment details what appears to be a dramatic international sting operation to lure Mr. Xu to what he believed was a meeting in Belgium to obtain proprietary information about jet fan blade designs from a GE Aviation employee, only to be met by Belgian authorities and put on a plane to the United States.

China has for years used spycraft and cyberattacks to steal American corporate, academic and military information to bolster its growing economic power and political influence. But apprehending an accused Chinese spy — all others charged by the United States government are still at large — is an extraordinary development and a sign of the Trump administration’s continued crackdown on the Chinese theft of trade secrets.

The administration also outlined on Wednesday [Oct. 10] new restrictions on foreign investment aimed at keeping China from gaining access to American companies.

The arrest of Mr. Xu “shows that federal law enforcement authorities can not only detect and disrupt such espionage, but can also catch its perpetrators,” Benjamin C. Glassman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, said in a statement.

The coming trial, in federal court in Cincinnati, could further expose China’s methods for stealing trade secrets and embarrass officials in Beijing — part of what current and former administration officials said was a long-term strategy to make stealing secrets costly and shameful for China...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/china-spy-espionage-arrest.html

DoJ news release:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-intelligence-officer-charged-economic-espionage-involving-theft-trade-secrets-leading

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3438 on: October 17, 2018, 14:58:52 »
Terry Glavin slashes and burns his way through our comprador class:

Quote
Glavin: China, not the United States, is the greater threat to Canada's trade sovereignty
...
Just to quickly set the preposterously muddied record straight, Article 32 [of USMCA] is an American innovation that merely stipulates that Canada may not enter into a “free trade” agreement with a non-market economy – by which the Americans have since helpfully conceded they meant a command-and-control police state like China – without so much as a by-your-leave from the other parties to the newly christened U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement. For that matter, neither may the United States or Mexico.

If any of the three parties choose to enter into talks with a non-market economy (from here on we’ll just say “China”), the other parties are to be given three months prior notice. During the talks, the other parties are to be kept abreast of what’s on the table and what’s not. If the other parties don’t like the resulting deal, they can put China’s partner outside the USMCA and carry on by themselves in a bilateral trade arrangement.

That this should have incited such hoarse-throated imbecilities about Canadian “sovereignty” to emanate from Canada’s international-trade policy establishment and the Canada-China business lobby (same thing, as often as not) and a section of the business press should tell you something about just how far the rot has spread since former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s first Team Canada brigade was so warmly welcomed in Beijing back in 1994.

With nearly a quarter of a century of lucrative post-politics sinecures, Canada-China “friendship” sleaze-baggery and shameless pro-Beijing think-tankery having taken its moral and intellectual toll, it is no wonder that the very idea that China is some kind of normal trading country has been normalized.

...Wenran Jiang, the exuberantly Beijing-friendly think-tanker with the Institute of Asian Research at the University of British Columbia, whose name seems to be an indelible must-consult entry in each and every digital CBC news and public-affairs show rolodex – was beside himself about Article 32. “Anything now we do must be subject to American approval, and this is a severe concession and a sacrifice and a giveaway of our sovereignty, period,” he told CBC News.

While Wenran Jiang’s rubbish is barely distinguishable from the shouting coming from the Chinese Embassy, and Duncan Cameron, “publisher emeritus” of the chronically unserious pseudo-left webzine Rabble is making pretty well the same stupid noises about Canadian sovereignty as Ontario economic development minister Jim Wilson, you have to laugh. But it is no laughing matter that among the G7 countries, Canada’s political class remains uniquely persistent in its refusal to recognize China for what it is: a vicious, expansionist police state ruled by a violent, corrupt oligarchy that is quite explicit about its intent to overthrow the American-led world order that has guaranteed Canada’s peace and prosperity over the past 70 years.

Only this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau again rebuffed American entreaties to exclude Huawei Technologies from Canada’s fifth-generation cellular systems. Trudeau said he would not allow “politics” to intrude on such decisions, and would rely instead on the advice of experts – by which he meant the assurances of bureaucrats at the Communications Security Establishment that they’re up to the job of ensuring that Huawei, a behemoth based in Shenzhen, China, won’t be allowed to get away with spying.

In so doing, Trudeau is ignoring three former heads of Canada’s spy services, including former Canadian Security Intelligence Services director Ward Elcock, who has stated bluntly that Huawei “is essentially under the control of the Chinese government.” Trudeau is also choosing to ignore the counsel of six U.S. intelligence agencies and the Australian security and intelligence establishment. These are not “experts”? This is not about “politics”? Of course it is...

Despite Article 32, Trudeau has insisted that Canada will continue to pursue ever-closer trade ties with China. As for a free trade deal, it was never possible anyway. You can’t strike a genuinely “free” trade deal with a wholly unfree country such as China. Besides that, if an anodyne clause like Article 32 has turned Canada into a “vassal state” of the U.S., what would you expect would become of Canadian sovereignty under a full-bore comprehensive trade agreement with the princeling oligarchs of Beijing, overseers of the largest and most sophisticated slave state in human history?
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-china-not-the-united-states-is-the-greater-threat-to-canadas-trade-sovereignty

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Freespeecher
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3439 on: October 17, 2018, 22:05:24 »
Long article in the Christian Science Monitor about how and why the United States is recasting its relationships with China. Most interesting is the former policy of overlooking human rights and other factors in an effort to keep China economically engaged seems to be over. Excerpt from Instapundit, full article here:


https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2018/1016/Signs-mount-of-a-fundamental-shift-in-US-China-ties

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/310568
Quote
CHANGE: Signs mount of a fundamental shift in US-China ties.

With efforts to resolve the tit-for-tat tariff battle in limbo, Vice President Pence this month served public notice that the US sees trade as just one grievance among many against China’s economic, military, geopolitical, and human rights policies. And he explicitly questioned a core assumption of US policy over the past two decades: that support for modernization in China and its integration into the world economy would temper Chinese leaders politically and provide the basis for a relationship of cooperation. Mr. Pence said, in effect, that ship had now sailed.

A new cold war, if that’s what it becomes, will likely look far different from the first. The Soviet Union was an underdeveloped country with an outsized military and a fearsome nuclear arsenal. China is also a nuclear power, and has been gradually building up its military reach in recent years. Yet with China, the root source of competition and of steadily growing friction has been an economic one. More specifically, it’s about how China has been using its growing economic might.

It’s interesting that Ned Temko should bring up the Soviet Union’s lack of economic might, when for decades we had been assured (always by the Left) that the Soviets were on the brink of overtaking us — if they already hadn’t. Given China’s debt explosion and coming demographic implosion, you have to wonder if they’re as economically mighty as so many people think they are.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3440 on: October 19, 2018, 15:42:20 »
Growing CCP China threat--excerpts from piece at Macdonald-Laurier Institute:

Quote
Disruptive innovation in China’s military modernization: Preston Lim for Inside Policy

At the end of August, China’s second aircraft carrier sailed from its shipyard in Dalian, in northeastern China, to commence final sea trials. The 65,000-tonne vessel is China’s first domestically-built carrier and could be fully operational as early as October 2019.  Some have identified technological issues with the ship, but most analysts agree that the PLA Navy (PLAN) is entering a new era: one characterized by force projection rather than mere regional defence.

Many of those writers, while essentially correct, have missed an important point: the aircraft carrier is far from the most important tool in China’s growing armoury. This article applies the theory of disruptive innovation to examine some of the ways in which the Chinese are transforming naval warfare – most notably, through investment in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities.

China’s military build-up – symbolized most boldly by the carrier construction program – is part and parcel of President Xi Jinping’s articulation of a new “Chinese Dream.” At the 19th Communist Party Congress, held in October 2017, Xi promised to achieve the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” with plans to boast a “world-class army by 2050.” To understand President Xi’s focus on the military, it is important to revisit China’s modern history.

President Xi and other Chinese leaders have tended to see China’s recent record as one of national humiliation. The 19th and 20th centuries were defined by foreign colonial intervention in Chinese domestic affairs, with calamity following calamity: the Opium Wars, the failed Boxer Rebellion, and the Sino-Japanese War, which became part of the Second World War. As late as 1996, the Chinese government was left helpless when American aircraft carriers sailed through the Taiwan Strait with impunity during a spat between China and Taiwan.

Now, the long “century of humiliation” is over. And despite slowing economic growth, caused only in part by the ongoing trade war with America, President Xi remains intent on building a Chinese dream undergirded at least in part by military muscle.

China’s military rejuvenation has, on one hand, come in the form of increased spending, with Beijing boasting a defence budget of $227 billion. Indeed, the sheer number of new naval platforms, with 18 ships commissioned in 2016 alone, is nothing short of incredible. Though naval analysts continue to debate whether or not the PLAN is a “blue-water navy” – i.e., capable of exercising “sea control at long ranges” – China’s force projection capabilities will only improve in coming years.

Yet perhaps a more important criterion of China’s growing military clout is investment in technological development. In other words, to focus on traditional terms of comparison, such as total defence outlays or number of aircraft carriers, would be to obscure a critical aspect of China’s military ascendance. While China has proven capable of domestically producing traditional weapons systems – the J-20 “Chengdu” fifth-generation stealth aircraft, for example, or the Type 001A aircraft carrier currently undergoing sea trials – its real genius lies in its embrace of disruptive innovation...

China has in recent years developed an array of anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, which would render American operations in the South China Sea difficult in the event of hostilities. Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the DF-21D or the DF-26, are capable of at least disabling (if not destroying) a super-carrier or its escorts. The recently-commissioned DF-26 has a range of 3000-4000 kilometers and can even reach as far away as US facilities on Guam, making it an ideal weapon to forestall American naval entry into the Western Pacific.

The Chinese have creatively deployed shorter-range anti-ship missiles that would reduce America’s ability to operate freely in the littoral zone...

Anti-ship missiles and a growing submarine fleet are but the most conspicuous items on a long list of A2/AD competencies. The Chinese are developing lasers to disrupt enemy aerial operations, unmanned vehicles, and a range of other complementary capabilities. Such technologies will allow the Chinese military to at least partially offset American military dominance...

Responding to the Chinese missile threat means meeting innovation with innovation. The American military has already pioneered a repertoire of counter-A2/AD systems, including “long-range strike vehicles, hyper-sonic weapons…and submarine launched cruise missiles.”..

...Western analysts will need to pay attention to the right metrics. While China’s capital ships are certainly important, China’s embrace of disruptive innovation will prove far more consequential in the long term. To ensure continued relevance, the United States and its alliance partners will likewise need to prioritize continual and disruptive innovation.

Preston Lim is a graduate of the Schwarzman Scholars program and received his Master’s in Global Affairs from Tsinghua University.
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/disruptive-innovation-chinas-military-modernization-preston-lim-inside-policy/

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3441 on: October 22, 2018, 14:06:27 »
Excerpts from very cogent piece:

Quote
Is China Waiting Us Out?
While the U.S. bombs, Xi Jinping is building—one power play at a time.



The one constant in recent U.S. foreign policy—regardless of which party occupies the White House or controls Congress—is that it prioritizes military intervention, both covert and overt, to advance its interests overseas.

...With a continued troop presence in Afghanistan and Syria, a looming conflict with Iran, and even talk of an intervention in Venezuela, Trump is keeping the U.S. on its perpetual wartime footing.

This is good news for Beijing, whose own foreign policy could not be more different. Rather than embracing a reactive and short-sighted approach that all too often ignores second- and third-order consequences, the Chinese strategy appears cautious and long-ranging. Its policymakers and technocrats think and plan in terms of decades, not months. And those plans, for now, are focused more on building than bombing.

This is not to say that China’s foreign policy is altruistic—it is certainly not. It is designed to cement China’s role as a great power by ensnaring as many countries as possible in its economic web. China is playing the long game while Washington expends resources and global political capital on wars it cannot win...

While the Chinese have been in a hurry to rebuild and modernize their country, they seem content to wait out foreign policy problems even if it takes a generation or two. One can see how this approach worked with Hong Kong and may in time ensure an upper hand with Taiwan. Sometimes doing nothing equates to doing more. In America it’s the opposite: both Republican and Democratic administrations have let present domestic problems fester while pursuing expensive, reactionary military policies abroad.

In contrast to Washington’s military-first approach, China’s signature foreign policy project today is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a critical component of its decades-long effort to restore its global power status. The BRI, which is well underway, is an attempt to spread China’s influence through investment projects in upwards of 68 counties along the old Silk Road connecting Europe to Asia by land and by sea via the “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” component...

Right now the biggest threat to that [China's] success is internal. Endemic corruption, insufficient rule of law, environmental destruction, a looming demographic shift, and ever-increasing economic inequality are all serious issues. In a country of 1.4 billion people, any one of those problems, much less all of them combined, could scuttle China’s rise. Its leadership, most especially Xi, appears to comprehend the gravity of these issues...

Even if the U.S. lurches to the left in the coming election cycles, the Chinese have little to fear. Interventionism is likely to remain the default response of U.S. policymakers, regardless of which party occupies the White House. And, it may just be its Achilles heel...

Michael Horton is a foreign policy analyst who has written for numerous publications, including Intelligence Review, West Point CTC Sentinel, The Economist, The National Interest, and The Christian Science Monitor.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-china-waiting-us-out/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 525,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,730
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3442 on: October 22, 2018, 22:31:02 »
Excerpts from very cogent piece:

Quote
Is China Waiting Us Out?
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-china-waiting-us-out/
The entire article is very much worth reading   :nod:

Thank you.
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3443 on: November 10, 2018, 16:43:13 »
Wake up, Canadians:
Quote
Learning from Australia about China’s Influence Activities: New MLI Commentary

For over a decade, Australia has been in the Chinese Communist Party’s crosshairs in the form of political influence activities. The Australian public is becoming more aware of this reality in large part due to the work of Clive Hamilton – author of the best-selling book Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia.

However, Canadians remain largely ignorant to the fact that Beijing is increasingly attempting to infiltrate and influence our political, social, and economic systems. What should we be doing to prevent and protect against these sorts of operations?

To shed light on this issue, MLI has released a new commentary titled "China’s Influence Activities: What Canada can learn from Australia" ( https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/201801026_Commentary_Hamilton_FWeb.pdf ). Based on remarks by Clive Hamilton at an MLI panel event, this commentary examines the strategy, tactics, and reasons behind China’s influence operations. It offers a compelling and sobering analysis of the Australian experience and provides lessons for Canada as we begin to face similar challenges.

“Canada’s place in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) strategic map of the world is as important as Australia’s in its own way,” writes Hamilton. “It too has been subject to a ‘full court press’ of influence operations.”

The main threat identified in the commentary is that Beijing has been working to sway elite opinion, attempting to get decision-makers in Western countries to conform with the Communist Party’s agenda.

“The CCP has built a complex network of agencies tasked with exerting influence abroad. The agencies deploy sophisticated techniques to influence, persuade, and coerce others to act in ways approved by Beijing. The techniques have been refined over decades and are far more extensive, intrusive, and secretive than those used by other nations.”

Through front groups, business associations, cultural and religious groups, and much more, Beijing works to influence the Chinese diaspora community and the target country’s opinion leaders. The CCP’s influence campaign has yielded dividends for Beijing, although Australia is pushing back.

Hamilton identifies new laws against foreign interference as a useful first step. Other measures, such as tighter rules on foreign investment into critical infrastructure like 5G telecommunications technology, are needed to counter future threats.

However, Hamilton argues that Australia and indeed much of the West are still far away from an institutionalized mindset of “China-vigilance,” which is necessary to rebuff the CCP’s sustained attempts to influence, interfere, and subdue.

“There is much work [to do] before we can be confident that our sovereignty and democratic processes are no longer subject to unwelcome foreign influence.”

To learn more about Chinese influence operations in Australia and what Canada can learn from Australia’s experience, read Clive Hamilton’s full commentary here.

***
Clive Hamilton is an Australian author and public intellectual. Since 2008, he has been Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra.
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/learning-australia-chinas-influence-activities-mli-commentary/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3444 on: November 12, 2018, 16:51:14 »
More:

Quote
China threatens the democratic world order—and Canada can’t be a weak link
Opinion: Despite our allies’ warnings, Ottawa isn’t taking the threat of authoritarian China seriously. That could be disastrous.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/china-poses-a-challenge-to-the-democratic-world-order-and-canada-cant-be-a-weak-link/

Quote
China’s silent invasion of Western universities: Christian Leuprecht in the Toronto Star
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/china-silent-invasion-universities-leuprecht-star/

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3445 on: November 18, 2018, 11:37:20 »
Quite a few people are now saying China has already effectively won control of South China Sea:

Quote
China Has Built ‘Great Wall of SAMs’ In Pacific: US Adm. Davidson
From militarized atolls in the South China Sea to a growing Chinese navy looking increasingly aggressive, the head of the Indo-Pacom command lays out his needs and concerns.

HALIFAX: By turning reefs and atolls in the disputed South China Sea into fortified artificial islands, complete with anti-aircraft Surface-to-Air Missiles, China has transformed “what was a great wall of sand just three years ago [into] a great wall of SAMs,” the US commander in the Pacific said here today.

The militarization of the vital waterway for commercial shipping has been a major concern of Washington and its Asian neighbors for the past several years. But China’s increasingly aggressive challenges of American naval vessels operating in what the US and its allies consider international waters — including a near collision of two ships in September — raises the specter of a deadly accident that might escalate into war. And if a war breaks out, the island bases become a strategic southward extension of China’s land-based defense against US ships and planes, known in the trade as Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD).

As China builds more warships for its navy and continues to militarize its coast guard, Beijing has already dwarfed the fleet the United States can commit to the region, at least if you’re counting the number of hulls in the water. (Many of the Chinese ships are smaller, shorter-range coastal vessels, however). So, after the chief of Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), Adm. Philip Davidson, spoke to the annual Halifax Security Conference here, I asked him how he plans to keep up.

“We need a bigger Navy,” he said, noting how Navy leaders have repeatedly called for growing the fleet from 286 ships today to a 355-ship fleet. As the Chinese fleet continues to grow, he told me, “the capacity concern is going to become a greater concern in years to come.”..
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/11/china-has-built-great-wall-of-sams-in-pacific-us-adm-davidson/

Good luck with the funding.

Plus:

Quote
The End of U.S. Naval Dominance in [East] Asia
...
The rapid rise of the Chinese Navy has challenged U.S. maritime dominance throughout East Asian waters. The United States, though, has not been able to fund a robust shipbuilding plan that could maintain the regional security order and compete effectively with China’s naval build-up. The resulting transformation of the balance of power has led to fundamental changes in U.S. acquisitions and defense strategy. Nonetheless, the United States has yet to come to terms with its diminished influence in East Asia.

The New Balance of Power in East Asia

In early 2017, the Chinese Navy had 328 ships. It now possesses nearly 350 ships and is already larger than the U.S. Navy. China is the largest ship-producing country in the world and at current production rates could soon operate 400 ships. It commissions nearly three submarines each year, and in two years will have more than 70 in its fleet. The Chinese Navy also operates growing numbers of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and corvettes, all equipped with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles. Between 2013 and 2016, China commissioned more than 30 modern corvettes. At current rates, China could have 430 surface ships and 100 submarines within the next 15 years.

According to the RAND Corporation, China’s fleet is also now more modern, based on contemporary standards of ship production. In 2010, less than 50 percent of Chinese ships were “modern;” in 2017, over 70 percent were modern. China’s diesel submarines are increasingly quiet and challenge U.S. anti-submarine capabilities. China’s ship-launched and air-launched anti-ship cruise missiles possess significant range and stealth and are guided by increasingly sophisticated targeting technologies. China’s Navy now poses a significant challenge to the U.S. surface fleet. Moreover, its DF21C and DF26 conventional intermediate-range ballistic missiles also pose a challenge to U.S. assets in the region, and can target U.S. maritime facilities in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and Guam.

Despite the growth of the Chinese Navy, the United States retains maritime superiority throughout East Asia. But the trend is what matters and the trend is less rosy. In early 2018, the size of the active U.S. fleet was 280 ships. Going forward, according to the Congressional Budget Office, if the Navy’s budget is the average of its budget over the prior 30 years in real dollars and it maintains its aircraft carrier and ballistic submarine construction schedules, in 12 years the active naval fleet will decline to 237 ships. In six years, the U.S. submarine fleet will decline to 48 ships, and in eleven years the number of U.S. attack submarines will decline to 41 ships.

Both the Navy and the White House have pushed to grow the U.S. fleet, but budgets have not kept pace with their plans...

The combination of China’s rising naval capabilities, the PLA’s ability to target U.S. naval access to regional maritime facilities, and declining alliance cooperation has compelled the United States to adjust its security policy to contend with emerging Chinese war-fighting capabilities within East Asian seas—the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea.

The U.S. Navy is relying on technology to compensate for declining ship numbers. It is developing longer-range anti-ship cruise missiles to contend with China’s anti-ship cruise missiles, and longer-range torpedoes to contend with China’s submarine fleet. It is developing “dispersed lethality” capabilities to contend with the quantity of Chinese ships and their ability to “swarm” against U.S. ships. It is also developing directed energy and long-range hypersonic railgun technologies. Most significant, the Navy is focused on developing large quantities of drones as its long-term solution to declining ship numbers. It is developing and testing undersea anti-submarine and anti-mine drones, miniature reconnaissance drones that can operate in large numbers to allow simultaneous targeting of multiple Chinese platforms, carrier-based attack drones and refueling drones, air-launched electronic warfare drones, and unmanned surface vessels for minesweeping operations and anti-submarine warfare.

The United States now faces a future without assured access to the South China Sea and U.S. naval facilities in the region...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/end-us-naval-dominance-asia

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: November 18, 2018, 12:04:42 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3446 on: November 18, 2018, 12:43:04 »
From 2016, USN's Boeing MQ-25 Stingray aerial tanker drone--not/not strike UCAC--is supposed to alleviate range problem (when it gets into service https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/08/30/us-navy-selects-builder-for-new-mq-25-stingray-aerial-refueling-drone/)

Quote
War Between the Dragon and the Eagle: USN Carriers up to It?

Further to this post (note “Comments”),

    RAND on War Between the Dragon and the Eagle https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/mark-collins-rand-on-war-between-the-dragon-and-the-eagle/


the carriers’ future capabilities are questioned (both the people quoted are retired naval officers):

    'The US Navy Is Now Facing Its Greatest Fear: Obsolete Aircraft Carriers?

    If the United States Navy is either unwilling or unable to conceptualize a carrier air wing that can fight on the first day of a high-end conflict, then the question becomes: Why should the American taxpayer shell out $13 billion for a Ford-class carrier?

    That’s the potent question being raised by naval analysts in Washington—noting that there are many options that the Navy could pursue including a stealthy new long-range, carrier-based unmanned combat aircraft or a much heavier investment in submarines [emphasis added]. However, the current short-range Boeing F/A-18 Hornet-based air wing is not likely to be sufficient in the 2030s even with the addition of the longer ranged Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter.

    “If these carriers can’t do that first day lethal strike mission inside an A2/AD bubble, why are we paying $13 billion dollars for them?” asks Jerry Hendrix [see here], director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security [see here], during an interview with The National Interest. “There are people making that statement: ‘it’s not our job on day one’—they can say there are all these other missions—presence and show-the-flag—but if that’s where they fit, their price ought to be scaled to that.”

    To justify the expense of the carrier, and to keep them relevant, the U.S. Navy needs to revamp the composition of the carrier air wing so that it can participate in countering anti-access/area denial bubbles on the first day of combat, Hendrix said. The Navy must develop a new, long-range, unmanned strike aircraft that can counter those emerging threats, “Otherwise, what’s the point?” Hendrix asked. “If you’re not willing to make the shift in investment to have an asset that can do long-range strike from the carrier, perhaps we need to look at investing elsewhere [see “New US Navy Drones: UCLASS to be Tankers Not Recon/Strike?“].”

    Bryan McGrath [see here], managing director of the naval consultancy FerryBridge Group, agreed with Hendrix. “The case for the carrier will suffer if the Navy drags its feet on what comes next in the air wing,” he told The National Interest—also advocating for the development of a new carrier-based long-range unmanned strike aircraft. “Always remember—the carrier doesn’t care what it launches and recovers. It is just a floating airport. The air wing is the key. Get the air wing wrong—or continue to—and yes, the CVN investment makes less sense.”

    While many within senior Navy leadership know and understand the problem—the protracted and expensive development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 has left the Navy gun-shy. “The plain truth is that the F-35 acquisition has negatively reinforced learned behavior in naval aviation acquisition. There is real fear in what you hear acquisition officials saying in why they want to slow-roll UCLASS into a tanker/ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] platform rather than a rangy, semi-stealthy, striker,” McGrath said. “Of course the tanking and the ISR are important… But they are additive to what is already in the Joint architecture. What the Joint architecture lacks is mobile, semi-stealthy, long-range strike. Utterly lacks it. But the technical challenges are judged to be more difficult than those associated with an ISR/Tanker bird, and there is no appetite or stomach—or any other appropriate noun—within the acquisition community to take on tough technical challenges.”..'
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/mark-collins-war-between-the-dragon-and-the-eagle-usn-carriers-up-to-it/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Half Full

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 48
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3447 on: November 21, 2018, 13:59:05 »
Here's an article on Chinese near monopoly on rare earth metals.  It would appear they are using their economic chessman-ship to screw the US militarily.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/11/china-beating-us-rare-earths-game/152674/?oref=d-dontmiss
I would rather be in a boat with a drink on the rocks than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,195
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3448 on: November 23, 2018, 13:58:54 »
RAND on PLA aerospace vs US:

Quote
Defeat, Not Merely Compete
China's View of Its Military Aerospace Goals and Requirements in Relation to the United States

Over the past two decades, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) has made rapid advances in building up new capabilities and operational concepts. Aerospace power has been a core feature of the PLA's rapid modernization. In particular, since 2004, the PLA Air Force has pursued a service strategy aimed at developing the capacity to "simultaneously prosecute offensive and defensive integrated air and space operations." This report explores the extent to which the desire to "compete" with the U.S. Air Force (or other advanced air forces) shapes PLA thinking about the development of military aerospace power. It examines how China selects between the options of "copying" foreign powers and "innovating" its own solutions to various operational military problems, as well as which areas China chooses to not compete in at all.

Key Findings

PLA's goal is to defeat, not merely compete

    The main driver for Chinese military aerospace power development is the PLA's view that it needs to be prepared to deter and, if necessary, defeat the United States in a high-end clash.

    The PLA appears to copy foreign militaries when it can find low-cost hardware, organizational, or operational concepts that it can adapt from abroad to solve the operational challenges it confronts. In contrast, when foreign capabilities or organizational practices are irrelevant to Chinese military aerospace problem sets, the PLA either innovates its own solution or declines to replicate the foreign capability (although it does continue to track and study these).

    The PLA appears not to compete in certain areas because it does not need certain capabilities to accomplish its directed mission, or it has other means to address the military problem at hand.

Recommendations

    The USAF should understand the advances that China is making in specific domains related to ISR, strategic and tactical lift, and strike platforms and assets as well as power projection in and through space and against space-based satellite architectures.

    In addition, the USAF should monitor a range of other PLA investments and changes, including in the realms of doctrine, organization, training, manpower, logistics, procurement, and facilities.

Table of Contents
...
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2588.html

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 740
Re: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
« Reply #3449 on: November 23, 2018, 19:38:53 »
China doesn't need to compete head-to-head in all avenues of military projection, because they aren't the ones sailing to the other side of the world looking for a fight. 

They don't need to put the same emphasis on tanker support, long range airborne ISR, blue-water power projection, etc etc to the SAME EXTENT as the USA, because they are fighting from home.  Fighting from their own shores, or close to them.  Launching ships and aircraft from, at most, perhaps a few hundred miles away.


And in a military confrontation with China...who really wins, militarily? 

Let's say the US surges submarines, aircraft carriers, and high-end surface assets that quickly gain dominance in their area.  They take out Chinese fighter aircraft & ISR assets, sink enough of their subs that they gain undersea dominance, and sink enough PLAN surface vessels that the USN can operately relatively freely. 

They take out the artificial islands - which won't be hard at all, as a few well placed missile strikes against the airfields & offensive missile sites essentially make those islands fairly useless. 


Now what?  The USN is supposed to patrol there forever, to cement their global empire?  Prevent China from building new ships, and new aircraft, to replace their losses? 

And what happens when China (the world's most populous country) rebuilds some aircraft fleets & naval fleets...which, with their industrial base, doesn't take long.  Now what?  The whole thing kicks off again, because China still wants to control what amounts to their own Caribbean sea?  The South China Sea even has China in it's bloody name for crying out loud.


The PLAN doesn't need to compete in every avenue with the USN.  Or the USAF.  It has no need to, as it isn't trying to surge it's forces into the Gulf of Mexico.  It just needs to focus on long range weapon systems that keep the USN as far away as possible, and create enough of a brutal deterrent 'bubble' that any USN asset cursed enough to be ordered into the arena is promptly destroyed.

The PLAN and PLAAF know this.  The USN probably knows this too.  US politicians (in which I don't know of hardly any that are in favour/support of economic or military warfare against China) seem to be the ones who haven't figured out it's a losing war, even if you win a few opening battles.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?