• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How large a threat do you view China?

:ROFLMAO:

You were the one who derailed this thread into a pathetic game of psychic palm readings. Not me. You.

Now would you like to put away the tarot cards and get back to the discussion? ;)

You are the one who threw a tantrum because I pointed out the fact that there was no genocide of African Americans. You not liking the facts doesn’t change them
 
Some fair points and some outdated ones.

China's biggest strength is also it's largest weakness, it's integration with the global economy. Essentially it boils down to boycotting business that manufacture in China while encouraging your local elected officials to press government into reducing trade with that nation.

The problem is, most folk in the west think of China as "just another country" and are utterly ignorant to Chinese mindset and philosophy.

From a military perspective China is catching up quickly. There is no problem that numbers and money wont solve. China has both of these.

It is even more simple than that.

Stop buying Chinese goods.

I find it hilarious to be honest, when I hear people saying things like this, and they think that such actions can only be done at a Government level. Like they have absolutely no control over their own buying habits.

Long before actual Governments got involved in the boycotts of South Africa, individuals and businesses were already doing it. Starting in 1965, you already had businesses starting to disinvest and move their operations out of the nation, and stopping all imports and exports with them. And Universities globally stopped accepting joint research programs with segregated institutions there. And this was long before a single government officially entered a boycott.

I think my biggest problem with "The West" is that so many seem to think this is a problem that only the Government can address. This last year there was some minor rumbles over boycotts over what was happening in Hong Kong, but that was quickly forgotten. If people really want a change, they can start by organizing and making their opinions known. For example, stop buying iPhones, and let Apple know that as long as their products are made there, they will no longer buy them.

But no, they are not "catching up militarily" because just buying equipment is not enough. You also have to have the strategies, tactics, logistics, and doctrine along with them in order to make effective use of that equipment. And that is where China is falling on its ass. They are equating more toys with being "more powerful", not realizing that they only have a small piece of the puzzle.

Why do you think I keep bringing up the exact same things over and over again? UNREP, Fleet Operations, airlift capacity (a crucial factor in logistical support), these are all the very issues that will always keep the Chinese military nothing but a local land based threat.

Let's see if this makes sense. When the US started the Civil War, it was actually still using tactics largely from over a century earlier. Some slight modifications on the old "Volley Fire" tactics that were by then called "Napoleonic" because of some minor updates. Still getting into large formations, marching out in open fields to meet your enemy, then volley fire until one side or the other broke and ran. Yet, the equipment had already changed drastically in the last century. Early paper cartridges, riffled guns and the minie ball. Yet, they were still fighting as their grandfathers had been.

Well, within a few years that was all gone. Open formations and box marching replaced by forming up behind trenches and barricades, obstacles in the path of advance, even early "automatic weapons" and breech loading artillery firing explosive shells. That entire war started with tactics right from 1776, but ended with tactics that would be familiar to those who would fight a generation later during WWI.

Now China, it is doing the exact same thing. It has never felt the need to conduct fleet operations, so has never done so. The same with UNREP, or anything other than a token airlift capacity. It is still largely the same military that they have had when they took over 70 years ago, just with newer toys. And the problem is, you and many others are looking at the toys. I am looking at how they are trying to use those toys. And no, you can not develop things like a "Fleet Doctrine" and UNREP, and try and put them into place during a war. By then, it is too late.

They can literally have the best ships, planes, artillery, tanks, and rifles in the world. But if they are using completely outdated tactics and logistics to keep them in operation, how well would they do against an opponent that has lesser equipment, but a better doctrine? And think carefully, that is literally the entire situation at the start of WWII. Both the US, UK, France, and Soviet Union were using outdated equipment, and the 2 most powerful Axis nations (Germany and Japan) had the best in the world. But both had much more simplistic doctrines and tactics, and within a few years were both completely overwhelmed.
 
Part II

Yes, the Germans did indeed have the Blitzkrieg. Good for them, but the US and USSR took it yet a step farther, and developed even more powerful Combined Arms doctrines which have dominated land combat since then. It literally took the US ambushing the Japanese in mid-1942 to get even close to the equality of ships of Japan, but by then it was all over. When that war started, all sides were using essentially the same carriers that the US and UK were playing with at the end of WWI.

But the US and UK were both already playing with the concept of the "Angled Flight Deck", and by 1945 both had plans to use it in future ships.

1586264823399.jpg


The Essex class USS Antietam (CV-36) was built for WWII, and was steaming out for her first mission (support of Operation Downfall) when Japan threw in the towel. And she was used off and on after that, going in and out of mothballs a few times. Then in September 1952 she was sailed into the shipyard, many suspected for decommissioning again. But instead, she sailed out in December, with an entirely new design and designation.

USS Antietam, CVA-36. The A designating "Attack".

USS-Antietam-1024x725.jpeg


And starting the next year, all 14 remaining Essex hulls were retrofitted with angled flight decks. But do not make a mistake that these were "new ships", the UK had already started tests with the concept during WWII with conventional decks. This was more than anything else a doctrinal change, which forever changed naval aviation. Primarily because it speed up the introduction of CATOBAR, which allowed even heavier aircraft. And with this new design, carriers no longer had the risks of Nagumo, largely being restricted to launching aircraft, or recovering them. Now a carrier could do both at once.

China got some new toys, great. However, in all other ways they are still operating, training, acting, and behaving like the ROC had just broken away, and it is still 1950. And there have been absolutely no indications that they would use their military in any other way, because none of the things required for "True Modernization" have been done. And that is actual exercises, using your new force in a new way. The US was already playing with things like armed helicopters and transporting forces by helicopter long before they actually started to put them into use in Vietnam. And hell, we made no secret of the evolvement of our capabilities in the 1980's, our annual operations (especially in Desert environments) were common knowledge. Yet, the laymen had no idea what that meant, until 1992 when the Gulf War was ended within days.

And our fleets continue to evolve, as do the aircraft used and tactics used. China however, is doing none of that. And if they were foolish enough to think themselves ready to take on even a single Carrier Strike Group, I think they are going to be in for a huge shock. And even giving them the benefit of pouncing a single Carrier and it's support with both of their carriers and a super-sized escort, I think that within 90 days most of the People's Liberation Army Navy would be coral reefs. Not because of equipment, but because they lack even the doctrine of the Japanese Navy in the time of WWII and would be thoroughly mangled by trying to fight a nation that has evolved theirs literally over more than a century.

Just like in nature, the military is a brutally "Darwinian Existence". And the nations that refuse to adapt, die.
 
That is simple.

But are any going to do it? I doubt it.

Myself, I will admit that I blitz through 90% of the messages in here. They are nothing but boring and idiotic political arrows tossed back and forth, and have absolutely nothing to do with the real world at all. Myself, I stick purely to what is "real". Or what peoples and nations can actually do.

And if you have an interest, feel free to look back at similar topics that came up well over a decade ago saying the exact same things. However, at least a decade ago the debates here in the military forum were actually worth participating in, and we had some great discussions. Today, it seems like the worst of the worst of political trolls all come down here now, who know and input nothing of value into the discussions. They just throw around a ton of garbage, and have zero comprehension of the actual issues and what is really being discussed.

And like before, I will continue to hold my nose for a bit, then depart because I get sick of that kind of nonsense. I find such partisan and political injection to be completely pointless, but also poisonous.
 
But are any going to do it? I doubt it.

Myself, I will admit that I blitz through 90% of the messages in here. They are nothing but boring and idiotic political arrows tossed back and forth, and have absolutely nothing to do with the real world at all. Myself, I stick purely to what is "real". Or what peoples and nations can actually do.

And if you have an interest, feel free to look back at similar topics that came up well over a decade ago saying the exact same things. However, at least a decade ago the debates here in the military forum were actually worth participating in, and we had some great discussions. Today, it seems like the worst of the worst of political trolls all come down here now, who know and input nothing of value into the discussions. They just throw around a ton of garbage, and have zero comprehension of the actual issues and what is really being discussed.

And like before, I will continue to hold my nose for a bit, then depart because I get sick of that kind of nonsense. I find such partisan and political injection to be completely pointless, but also poisonous.
Rephrase: "Stop buying Chinese goods" is simplistic.
 
Just like in nature, the military is a brutally "Darwinian Existence". And the nations that refuse to adapt, die.
It seems that you misunderstand Nature, evolution, and possibly/probably the military.
 
Dunkin Donuts and police everywhere in the USA know there are three rules of choosing a place, ie, location location location.

Location is everything.

As I'd said, DD is the safest place in any town cause it's full of cops -- unless you're an unarmed black male of any age and with your back turned to the police.


264d53ab795dfdd81a3b19b030022756.jpg



Not a coincidence of course.
 
Donut shops have dozens, if not hundreds, of donuts.

And if they tell you a fact about said donuts—like gee, the fact that they have holes in the center—then you know it’s reality.
 
And if they tell you a fact about said donuts—like gee, the fact that they have holes in the center—then you know it’s reality.
What are you trying to say?
 
No matter how the Russians and the Chinese try to slice it, it's still baloney borscht and bat fried rice.
 
That, again, his point about nations which can’t adapt to changing military technology dying is entirely accurate
Was that his point? I remember him saying stuff about evolution that's a popular misconception.

And what about your point? Nations which can't adapt to changing military technology die?
 
Was that his point? I remember him saying stuff about evolution that's a popular misconception.

And what about your point? Nations which can't adapt to changing military technology die?

Uh...yes. He was pretty clear about that.

And again, yes.
 
Uh...yes. He was pretty clear about that.

And again, yes.
Forget his alleged point. What about your point? How do nations which can't adapt to changing military technology die? Give some examples from the past 50 years of nations dying due to this.
 
Forget his alleged point. What about your point? How do nations which can't adapt to changing military technology die? Give some examples from the past 50 years of nations dying due to this.

The United Arab Republic. Unable to adapt to Israeli military advantages, and therefore defeat on the battlefield. led to the collapse of pan Arabism.
Yugoslavia, where advanced military technology, coupled with increased ethnic division, meant that the JNA was unable to successfully repress the various uprisings and hold the country together.
Biafra, which was unable to cope with the Nigerian Federal Government’s superior weaponry.

To name just three examples.
 
it is a fact that D/E subs are quieter then Nuc subs the big problem with them is they have to surface and run their engines to recharge their Batteries and that makes them more detectable then nuc's.
But with China being a leader in perfecting the new Glass Lithium battery they could put these batteries in their subs and seeing they can run a LOT longer then the old type batteries ( the ones they already have and are putting in cars can run over 1200 miles on one charge and only take minuets to recharge not hours like the old ones )
If they could put them in subs they would be very large and this would let their subs run for days under water with out having to recharge , this means running very quiet and for many miles with out being detected
This type of sub will not replace a Nuc. sub but could supplement them and being as quiet as they and with China being a a large player in advancing this tech. they better be watched carefully
SO yes I think China could be very dangerous
Have a nice night
 
Rephrase: "Stop buying Chinese goods" is simplistic.

Do you remember when the push was out to "Stop Buying South African Goods"?

I do, it was a movement by consumers long before any governments started doing it.

Yeah, I guess it is too simplistic to expect people to be responsible for their own buying habits, and to do anything without the government doing it for them.
 
it is a fact that D/E subs are quieter then Nuc subs the big problem with them is they have to surface and run their engines to recharge their Batteries and that makes them more detectable then nuc's.
But with China being a leader in perfecting the new Glass Lithium battery they could put these batteries in their subs and seeing they can run a LOT longer then the old type batteries ( the ones they already have and are putting in cars can run over 1200 miles on one charge and only take minuets to recharge not hours like the old ones )
If they could put them in subs they would be very large and this would let their subs run for days under water with out having to recharge , this means running very quiet and for many miles with out being detected
This type of sub will not replace a Nuc. sub but could supplement them and being as quiet as they and with China being a a large player in advancing this tech. they better be watched carefully
SO yes I think China could be very dangerous
Have a nice night

And that is true, but with that comes the other issues, like range and speed.

Oh, and that "5 minute charge" is the same as it has been for decades, largely theoretical. There are many ways they are trying to do it, but none really exist yet.

Oh, Elron Musk has been trying for a decade, still not gotten there. One of the closest is StoreDot, and they do have a battery. However, what they are still working on is a practical charging station, the one they have now required an almost inane flow of current that it really does not exist. Only in theory, on paper.

You see, you can not "cheat" the laws of thermodynamics of physics. It does not matter of it is the flow of electrons from the wall to your toaster, or from the wall to the battery, the limit is how fast you can pump those electrons into the battery for storage. And there is no way to "cheat" and get more power out than you can pump into it. There is nothing super about any of those batteries, the issue is in the charging system. Because when you charge batteries faster, not only do you need a higher voltage source to do it, you have other issues like heating (which also decreases battery performance), and the reduced lifespan of the electrolytes and components inside that charge the battery itself.

So to do this theoretical "fast charge" of 5 minutes, you literally need a power source that will output all of the energy that would be used during the charge of the battery, and have it push it all out within 5 minutes. On a submarine, that would mean banks of really huge engines. All running at almost maximum power to output enough electricity in that time to fully charge them. And guess what that is going to sound like?

Kind of like the Plutonium Rock Band "Disaster Area" holding a concert.



And there is a reason why countries with DE subs stick with them to coastal waters. They are normally under friendly air cover (the largest threat to a sub), and can spend a lot of time on the surface charging, largely safe from adversaries. And the sound of their charging becomes confused and muffled with the background echoes from the land and other surface vessels. Russia has long liked them for creeping in and snooping on other countries.

But Russia/Soviets also almost never put them "out to sea". They are well aware of how good the US SOSUS system is, and that we can detect such subs from thousands of miles away when charging. By sticking to coastal waters, this is not an issue. But hearing the engines of a sub suddenly start up 1,000 nautical miles from land would be a huge red flag to the Navy that there is a DE sub lurking in the area.
 
And that is true, but with that comes the other issues, like range and speed.

Oh, and that "5 minute charge" is the same as it has been for decades, largely theoretical. There are many ways they are trying to do it, but none really exist yet.

Oh, Elron Musk has been trying for a decade, still not gotten there. One of the closest is StoreDot, and they do have a battery. However, what they are still working on is a practical charging station, the one they have now required an almost inane flow of current that it really does not exist. Only in theory, on paper.

You see, you can not "cheat" the laws of thermodynamics of physics. It does not matter of it is the flow of electrons from the wall to your toaster, or from the wall to the battery, the limit is how fast you can pump those electrons into the battery for storage. And there is no way to "cheat" and get more power out than you can pump into it. There is nothing super about any of those batteries, the issue is in the charging system. Because when you charge batteries faster, not only do you need a higher voltage source to do it, you have other issues like heating (which also decreases battery performance), and the reduced lifespan of the electrolytes and components inside that charge the battery itself.

So to do this theoretical "fast charge" of 5 minutes, you literally need a power source that will output all of the energy that would be used during the charge of the battery, and have it push it all out within 5 minutes. On a submarine, that would mean banks of really huge engines. All running at almost maximum power to output enough electricity in that time to fully charge them. And guess what that is going to sound like?

Kind of like the Plutonium Rock Band "Disaster Area" holding a concert.



And there is a reason why countries with DE subs stick with them to coastal waters. They are normally under friendly air cover (the largest threat to a sub), and can spend a lot of time on the surface charging, largely safe from adversaries. And the sound of their charging becomes confused and muffled with the background echoes from the land and other surface vessels. Russia has long liked them for creeping in and snooping on other countries.

But Russia/Soviets also almost never put them "out to sea". They are well aware of how good the US SOSUS system is, and that we can detect such subs from thousands of miles away when charging. By sticking to coastal waters, this is not an issue. But hearing the engines of a sub suddenly start up 1,000 nautical miles from land would be a huge red flag to the Navy that there is a DE sub lurking in the area.

Well IF they do get those Glass Lithium batteries perfected then they will be very dangerous. and China is a major player in that field
Yes SOSUS " was very good
I was an ST" O" when I first went in the navy then we became OT's we ran the SOSUS stations
( you sound like you may have been one too.)
and I can say it can be fun when you have 5 or 6 Foxtrots transiting by all at the same time,
watched them go to Cuba in 72/73
Have a nice night
 
Do you remember when the push was out to "Stop Buying South African Goods"?

I do, it was a movement by consumers long before any governments started doing it.

Yeah, I guess it is too simplistic to expect people to be responsible for their own buying habits, and to do anything without the government doing it for them.
It's simplistic because there's boatloads more to products made in China than whether or not Americans buy them.
 
Back
Top Bottom