The CHN/ China thread

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

Och, they just want to play... They are partners...! Partners dont play foul.

[mapuc]

This short video clip had two purpose
Propaganda-showing Taiwan they have the means to invade them.
Threat-showing Taiwan better beware ´cause we are comming.

Unofficial- They did this to train on and off loading

Markus

[August]

An artificial reef packed with Chinese tanks would be a really cool scuba dive. Just sayin...

[Jimbuna]

Britain warns China against dangerous military 'posturing' around Taiwan
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/ea...-around-taiwan

Britain should mind her own business. We are hardly in a position to interfere.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Britain should mind her own business. We are hardly in a position to interfere.

It's not about interference. It's about refusing to let the CHICOMs spread like a plague.

I have *zero* concerns if regional militaries were to use China's artificial islands in international waters or CHICOM-occupied disputed islands for bombing and shore bombardment practice.

*ALL* of the world democracies have allowed and encouraged Chinese thievery, espionage, and power grabs. The notion that making them more economically powerful would somehow make their communism go away was a terrible idea from the get-go.

Instead of welcoming them to western universities where they steal intellectual property or allowing them to buy real estate and sell their cheap garbage products, we should have been countering them at every turn, forcefully restricting their access to western market economies, and ruthlessly executing or jailing them and any western collaborators or enablers when caught in acts of espionage and IP theft.

[Skybird]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/26/p...ame/index.html

If China were to seize one of Taiwan's outlying islands, the US would have few good options to respond without risking a major escalation and a war between the superpowers, according to the conclusions from a recent war game conducted by foreign policy and defense experts.The scenario, outlined in a report from the Center for a New American Security, began with China using military force to take control of Dongsha, a tiny atoll in the South China Sea between Taiwan and Hong Kong, where approximately 500 Taiwanese troops are stationed.
This type of limited aggression could be a precursor to the seizure of other islands near Taiwan or an outright invasion of the democratically governed island as Beijing seeks to test and prod Washington's resolve to defend Taiwan.But once China has established its own military footprint on Dongsha and removed the Taiwanese troops, the US had no credible way to compel China to return the island to the control of Taipei, the report states.

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/f...441&focal=none

the way the United States responds to smaller-scale territorial Chinese aggression
may affect Chinese future decision-making; if the United States allows Chinese coercion or aggression to
go unopposed, China may extend its aggressive behavior elsewhere and may even posit that the United
States wouldn’t defend Taiwan from invasion. Such actions, or lack thereof, could undermine deterrence
by calling into question U.S. willingness to uphold its security commitments.

With Chinese assertiveness rising, U.S. and Taiwanese policymakers need to think through the challenges
of responding to a crisis strongly enough to defend their security interests without turning crisis into conflict.
By gaming out these challenges, the United States and Taiwan can fully grasp the urgency of building an
effective deterrence strategy now to help prevent a future Chinese fait accompli.

[Jimbuna]

China urges families to store basic supplies in case of emergency
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-59133027

[Skybird]

Yes, China Has the World’s Largest Navy. That Matters Less Than You Might Think.

https://thediplomat.com/2021/04/yes-...u-might-think/

Okay-okay, but (and its a big "but"):

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...-who-has-them/


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...issiles-195367

[mapuc]

First thing that came into my mind when I read about these 'Carrier-Killer' Missiles was-defence.

What kind of defence can "kill" these 'Carrier-Killer' Missiles ?

Another thought what would the reply be if China sink 1 or 2 American Carrier in a war ?

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

First thing that came into my mind when I read about these 'Carrier-Killer' Missiles was-defence.

What kind of defence can "kill" these 'Carrier-Killer' Missiles ?

Another thought what would the reply be if China sink 1 or 2 American Carrier in a war ?

Markus

We would sink their ships back, what else?

[Reece]

You forgot to add "with a passion" Dave!!

[August]

Originally Posted by Reece

You forgot to add "with a passion" Dave!!

That goes without saying!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

First thing that came into my mind when I read about these 'Carrier-Killer' Missiles was-defence.

What kind of defence can "kill" these 'Carrier-Killer' Missiles ?

Another thought what would the reply be if China sink 1 or 2 American Carrier in a war ?

Markus

Anti-m,issile system work unreliably at beast, and it is easier to overflood a missile defence system than to successfully knockout all vampyres in a swarm.


Against hypsersonic missiles there is currently no defence worth to be claled that.



For the Chinese its all about either knocking the carrier battle groups out, or to keep them so far away that their air threat is no threat anymore. We are talking about a naval war in the vicinit yof the Chinese coat and its air and landabses and harbours. Access to this battleground is what the Chinese want to deny (="access denial"). Their chances are good in achieving that.



IMO carriers are greta in wars aginst inferior enemies of the present. Against an enemy of same technical eye level, they are an outdated stratgey, imo. The military is ver yprone to assume the thignbs that let it win the last war will be the same things that makes it win the next war. But carrier beat battleships. Submarines beat carriers. I likely scenairo to me would be that the US carrier groups are being kept away or are beign knocked out quickly, and the decision at sea then is made amongst both sides submarines. The Australian decision may relfect that.


But many variables in calculating the likely scenairo for that war. It might also go very differently. Almost certain, imho, only is that it will happen. And nthat it will include space and cyberspace warfare. I wonder what combat valkue the American militrary structure has if its most favourite toy - intel satellites and superior communications - gets taken out? Many things, especially in global military logistics, then would collapse. And as Napoleon and many others said over all times of history: its the logistics that decide wars. The US is world champion in doing global military logistics, bu the system is frgaile and vulnerable, sicne it is so widespread and scattered. The chinese fight in the vicinity of their homeland and its protective bases. Big advantage.



The future speaks "autonomous AI", both in the air and under the sea.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

We would sink their ships back, what else?

Didn't you forget something Dave

The homefront.

How will the politician react ? The citizens ?

A war is fought at the battle scene and at home.

Skybird. Thank you, your explanation made me wonder if Carrier will be obsolete after next huge war.

Markus