China raises defense budget by 7.2% to $232 billion

[Stevicus]

It begs the question.

Do people really want Communist China as a dominant superpower?

All it takes is a historical look at the USSR at the height of its power and how close to war things had gotton in the days of the Kennedy administration.

I don't know that very many people actually "want" Communist China as a dominant superpower. However, assuming that the Chinese want that - and assuming that they're as grave a threat as some people might suggest - the question then becomes, are we prepared to meet that threat? Can we stop China from becoming a dominant superpower? Are we capable of doing that?

Some people seem to be questioning others' loyalty, suggesting they may be siding with the Chinese or some other adversary of the West. But it's also fair to question whether our own national leaders' judgment is sound. 30 or so years ago, our leaders were all jumping on the China bandwagon, blinded by greed and big dollar signs, pushing this much vaunted "global economy" of theirs. They didn't seem to think China was a problem then, so what are they crying wolf about now?

Or even 50 years ago, when we threw Taiwan under the bus because Nixon thought better relations with Red China would weaken the Soviet Bloc (which did turn out to be correct), but even that was mainly due to the fortunate (from the West's perspective) happenstance of the Sino-Soviet split.

I realize it's 20/20 hindsight at this point, but a large part of the problem we're facing in this world has to be attributed to a continuous and consistent pattern of mistakes and misjudgments on the part of our national leaders going back to just after the end of WW2, when the U.S. was at the height of its power. Technically speaking, we were allies with both Stalin and Mao at that point. War and politics make strange bedfellows.

So, my point here is that, regardless of whatever anyone might want, if we don't want Communist China as a dominant superpower, it's a fair question to ask whether our present leadership has the capability of doing that. Do they know how to do it? Can they exercise sound, rational judgment which would lead to a successful outcome, if and when it might come to some sort of confrontation?

I mean, if people are really thinking along these lines, that China may be a threat, then these are the questions we should be asking our government. Even if we all agree that they're an "Evil Empire" out to conquer the world, what do we, the supporters of the Republic, have to counter them with? What are we doing to prepare - not just militarily, but also in terms of national mobilization, putting us on a war footing, gearing our industries for increased war production, printing up ration books - that sort of thing?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I don't think China has a clue about the logistics required to invade and hold Taiwan. Transporting and sustaining troops in Taiwan would require control of the sea lanes between those nations. Most of their navy has a range of less than 1000 miles.

China imports the majority of its energy from the Middle East via tankers. Turning the Sea of China into a war zone would drive the insurance costs for those vessel sky high. Not helpful when the margins for these tankers is thin to begin with. The tankers would not risk the passage. Even if this did not materialize, it would not be difficult to blockade the Straits of Malaka to deny those tankers from passage to China.

Another issue is the Xi has no one in his government willing to tell him the truth. Those who did have been 'disappeared.' He would be operating blind, giving orders without accurate information.

I don't think China will invade Taiwan. They would like us to think so because Xi thinks is gives him leverage. Time to call his bluff.

 

[Audie]

I don't think China has a clue about the logistics required to invade and hold Taiwan. Transporting and sustaining troops in Taiwan would require control of the sea lanes between those nations. Most of their navy has a range of less than 1000 miles.

China imports the majority of its energy from the Middle East via tankers. Turning the Sea of China into a war zone would drive the insurance costs for those vessel sky high. Not helpful when the margins for these tankers is thin to begin with. The tankers would not risk the passage. Even if this did not materialize, it would not be difficult to blockade the Straits of Malaka to deny those tankers from passage to China.

Another issue is the Xi has no one in his government willing to tell him the truth. Those who did have been 'disappeared.' He would be operating blind, giving orders without accurate information.

I don't think China will invade Taiwan. They would like us to think so because Xi thinks is gives him leverage. Time to call his bluff.

Yes, chinese too stupid to even hear of logistic

We only know make cheap junk for smart amelican.

Fill our bankes fill your dumps.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, chinese too stupid to even hear of logistic

We only know make cheap junk for smart amelican.

Fill our bankes fill your dumps.

I didn't say Chinese. I said China and pointed at Xi. China has not had experience in naval combat and naval logistics in modern history. That is a fact. When the military is forced to do the bidding of dictator Xi, who has no real clue about any of that, they will suffer for his ignorance. When has the Chinese military ever done amphibious exercises? The vast majority of the navy is NOT a deep water navy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think China will invade Taiwan. They would like us to think so because Xi thinks is gives him leverage.

Leverage to use how & for what?

Time to call his bluff.

Sounds risky.
What do you have in mind?

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say Chinese. I said China and pointed at Xi. China has not had experience in naval combat and naval logistics in modern history. That is a fact. When the military is forced to do the bidding of dictator Xi, who has no real clue about any of that, they will suffer for his ignorance. When has the Chinese military ever done amphibious exercises? The vast majority of the navy is NOT a deep water navy.

You think in terms of chess.
Limited number of precious pieces.
China plays go.
Unlimited number of pieces, all ready for sacrifice.

 

[Shaul]

An act of desperation. China is trying to use military spending as a stimulus for its ailing economy. There is massive corruption and wasteful spending in the Chinese military. This band aid won't work.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Leverage to use how & for what?

Sounds risky.
What do you have in mind?

Leverage to reduce/eliminate US support for Taiwan.

I have in mind ignoring Xi and continuing to conduct Freedom of Navigation exercises in international waters between China and Taiwan and especially in the Straits of Malacca.

 

[Wandering Monk]

You think in terms of chess.
Limited number of precious pieces.
China plays go.
Unlimited number of pieces, all ready for sacrifice.

They don't have an unlimited number of military vessels. Most of them cannot operate beyond 1000 miles.

 

[Revoltingest]

Leverage to reduce/eliminate US support for Taiwan.

If China has no plans to invade Taiwan,
it wouldn't need leverage to inspire
USA to end support for Taiwan.

I have in mind ignoring Xi and continuing to conduct Freedom of Navigation exercises in international waters between China and Taiwan and especially in the Straits of Malacca.

China's record is to provoke escalation.
Risky stuff.

 

[Revoltingest]

They don't have an unlimited number of military vessels. Most of them cannot operate beyond 1000 miles.

They have a large standing army.
And they're increasing materiel.
They can play go while USA plays chess.
Soldiers & major assets are dear to USA,
which is a weakness China can exploit.

 

[Wandering Monk]

They have a large standing army.
And they're increasing materiel.
They can play go while USA plays chess.
Soldiers & major assets are dear to USA,
which is a weakness China can exploit.

To take Taiwan they need to move those soldiers across the sea. You can try to fly them in, but you can't move the heavy equipment (in large quantities at least) by air. Airborne troops can't conduct sustained campaigns without the regular infantry and armor to support them.

 

[Revoltingest]

To take Taiwan they need to move those soldiers across the sea. You can try to fly them in, but you can't move the heavy equipment (in large quantities at least) by air. Airborne troops can't conduct sustained campaigns without the regular infantry and armor to support them.

They're continually building their capability.
The risk of invasion is there when China
becomes capable.

 

[Wandering Monk]

They're continually building their capability.
The risk of invasion is there when China
becomes capable.

They have no experience in naval logistics or warfare. Their ships and other military equipment require fuel which they have to import. Blockading China's petroleum imports would be easy, possibly unnecessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

They have no experience in naval logistics or warfare. Their ships and other military equipment require fuel which they have to import. Blockading China's petroleum imports would be easy, possibly unnecessary.

Strategy can be studied.
Logistics can be planned.
War can be made.
They'll just be less efficient
than if they did it regularly.

 

[esmith]

So, are you saying that every country which develops a blue water navy has aggressive intentions?

No, what I'm saying is that if a country has a blue water navy they want to be able to project their defense/ipower beyond their own boarders.
It used to be, may still be in certain areas of the world, that when a carrier battle group shows up off your shores it is intimidating.

 

[esmith]

I don't think China has a clue about the logistics required to invade and hold Taiwan. Transporting and sustaining troops in Taiwan would require control of the sea lanes between those nations. Most of their navy has a range of less than 1000 miles.

China imports the majority of its energy from the Middle East via tankers. Turning the Sea of China into a war zone would drive the insurance costs for those vessel sky high. Not helpful when the margins for these tankers is thin to begin with. The tankers would not risk the passage. Even if this did not materialize, it would not be difficult to blockade the Straits of Malaka to deny those tankers from passage to China.

Another issue is the Xi has no one in his government willing to tell him the truth. Those who did have been 'disappeared.' He would be operating blind, giving orders without accurate information.

I don't think China will invade Taiwan. They would like us to think so because Xi thinks is gives him leverage. Time to call his bluff.

I think you might be living in the past. China now has the second most powerful l Navy in the world.

The 10 Most Powerful Navies in the World [2024]

The top 10 most powerful navies in the world in 2024 include the US Navy, People's Liberation Army Navy, Russian Navy and Indonesian Navy.

fairbd.net

Suggest you look at the tacts as those presented below as to China's plans.

China’s Navy Will Be the World’s Largest in 2035

It is difficult to appreciate just how fast China has been able to create a blue-water navy. One way is to compare it to the other great navies.

www.usni.org

 

[anna.]

I mean, if people are really thinking along these lines, that China may be a threat, then these are the questions we should be asking our government. Even if we all agree that they're an "Evil Empire" out to conquer the world, what do we, the supporters of the Republic, have to counter them with? What are we doing to prepare - not just militarily, but also in terms of national mobilization, putting us on a war footing, gearing our industries for increased war production, printing up ration books - that sort of thing?

In the news recently (again) are the ways China is probing and placing Trojan horses in our infrastructure software and facilities. It's being blocked where it's been discovered, but who knows if they find them all, or even enough of them? One theory is they time takedowns of major facilities in the U.S. simultaneous to an invasion of Taiwan. Our reliance on computer networks - and satellites - is our Achilles heel.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/chinese-hackers-are-targeting-us-infrastructure-fbi-chief-testify-2024-01-31/

 

[Stevicus]

No, what I'm saying is that if a country has a blue water navy they want to be able to project their defense/ipower beyond their own boarders.
It used to be, may still be in certain areas of the world, that when a carrier battle group shows up off your shores it is intimidating.

Well, yes, it would certainly get someone's attention. But what reasons would a country have for wanting to do that? Why would they feel the need to project their power beyond their own borders? There has to be a reason, and if we can discover what that reason is, that may be useful information.

I don't think it's because they want sit off our shores and tap beer bottles with their fingers and call out "Americans, come out to play! Americans, come out to pla-ay!" I admit that would be kind of intimidating, but I don't see the logic behind such a scenario.

 

[Stevicus]

In the news recently (again) are the ways China is probing and placing Trojan horses in our infrastructure software and facilities. It's being blocked where it's been discovered, but who knows if they find them all, or even enough of them? One theory is they time takedowns of major facilities in the U.S. simultaneous to an invasion of Taiwan. Our reliance on computer networks - and satellites - is our Achilles heel.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/chinese-hackers-are-targeting-us-infrastructure-fbi-chief-testify-2024-01-31/

Yes, this is definitely a sobering thought. That, and those Chinese surveillance balloons and secret Chinese police stations operating covertly in the U.S., we could be in quite a bind. In the final analysis, if we can't find a diplomatic solution and resolve our differences peacefully and amicably, then we may have to make some very hard and serious decisions about our national security and our current posture. We may have to go back to a more Cold War way of thinking.