|
Has anyone read the books by Peter Zeihan? He says that China has difficult times ahead because the United States is losing interest in keeping the world's oceans free to all trade. He says that since WW2, the US has enforced the Bretton Woods system which allows anyone to trade with anyone they like, and China has benefitted from that immensely because it can send ships around the world to trade with Africa, South America, South Asia, etc. The day America decides it no longer cares about this global order, China will have to make other arrangements to secure its trade, and the Chinese navy is nowhere near up to the task. For instance, India could attack any Chinese ships that try to cross the Indian Ocean, and Japan could ally with Taiwan and the Philippines to block China's access to the Pacific. This won't happen so long as America is there telling everybody to play nice, and once that's over, the Chinese economy is hosed. Keep in mind that the Chinese economy only took off after Nixon went to China and opened it up to the world. I think China might make a bid to conquer Taiwan sooner than we think. If China controls Taiwan, it can build naval bases there and it will have a secure corridor to the Pacific.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
That Zeihan guy did a lot of paid speech in corporate events. You can just look him up on YouTube. He is a nice compliment to Gordon Chang who belong in the same "Team Dragon Slayers". He make a huge deal out of China incoming "population collapse". I have yet to see convincing evidence of birth rate is all that important to industrial countries. Yes China has declining birth rate and surely will be surpassed by India in a couple years (if it wasn't for Covid doing such a good job in India). BUT, China doesn't compete with India in *any* market. China directly competes with all east Asian countries in almost every markets and also competed with US in the high tech markets. So, does it matter that the US have a higher birth rate than China? The US will take a loooonnng time to get to even 2/3 of the population of the China. There are other crack ping ideas from him but this is just one of his consistent recurring arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
China's TFR is higher than at least half of the US-aligned democratic-capitalist first world including Japan and drastically higher than SK and Taiwan. The smoothness of the data seems fairly suspicious, but if it's accurate, it's really not that bad at all. Also worth noting that the ONLY developed country with sustainably high fertility, France, is also notable for being a nationalist, dirigiste state-capitalist economy with an autocratic executive based in the northern capital, so that to me is a sign that China might have better success at raising TFR than the economically liberal Euro-Atlantic countries https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?end=2019&locations=CN-FR-DE-JP-IT&start=1980   
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:That Zeihan guy did a lot of paid speech in corporate events. You can just look him up on YouTube. He is a nice compliment to Gordon Chang who belong in the same "Team Dragon Slayers". He make a huge deal out of China incoming "population collapse". Anyway, you're going off-topic. What do you think China will do to Taiwan in the next two decades. I think that region of the world is going to get pretty hot. Zeihan thinks Japan will re-militarize in order to assert itself once America pulls out of the region.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
There is no way in hell America is pulling out of East Asia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:There is no way in hell America is pulling out of East Asia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:China's TFR is higher than at least half of the US-aligned democratic-capitalist first world including Japan and drastically higher than SK and Taiwan. The smoothness of the data seems fairly suspicious, but if it's accurate, it's really not that bad at all. Also worth noting that the ONLY developed country with sustainably high fertility, France, is also notable for being a nationalist, dirigiste state-capitalist economy with an autocratic executive based in the northern capital, so that to me is a sign that China might have better success at raising TFR than the economically liberal Euro-Atlantic countries im the y axis
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Zeihan says it's already happening. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has become increasingly disinterested in policing the current global order. The shale oil revolution means that America no longer cares about Middle East oil. But China still depends on Middle East oil. I'm curious about what "increasingly disinterested in policing the global order" means here. The US has like 800 overseas military bases, ever growing DoD spending and budgets, the navy is everywhere, and that period after the fall of the Soviet Union includes all the middle east wars, which still aren't done. What do we call that if not interest in policing the global order? Or is it that the US hasn't been doing as many interventions in the name of anticommunism as in the 70s/ 80s like central/south America Vietnam, Indonesia, etc?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:From what I understand, the issue is working-age people vs retirees. China will soon have too many elderly people to care for, not enough working people to provide tax revenue. Peter Zeihan is hardly the only guy raising the alarm about this. That's the thing, even if China's population decline like SK is doing now, which is worst case scenario. It only make future generation Chinese work more every day, has more jobs demanding "996" schedule, play less spend less, etc. It doesn't suddenly make China less competitive in various industries. China still has or will have significant bigger middle class market than the US for many many decades, bigger pools of engineers, bigger influence in setting future tech standards, bigger say in where the future internet is going etc etc. A declining population doesn't suddenly change that. Because nations are like giant giant ships, it takes a long time to change course and direction. Zeihan is hands down the going to guy who beat the drum on the population issue. I watch and listen to every Chinese "specialists". There are not a lot of them. quote:Anyway, you're going off-topic. What do you think China will do to Taiwan in the next two decades. I think that region of the world is going to get pretty hot. Zeihan thinks Japan will re-militarize in order to assert itself once America pulls out of the region. Honestly? I think Xi will invade Taiwan in the last 5 year of his reign. So when will it happen basically depends on his health. I also think Japan will take the US side when that happens, the reason is Japan has to do it. Otherwise US wouldn't help Japan in the Diaoyu Island dispute. Not that it will make that much of a difference IMO, because Taiwan is too close to mainland physically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Honestly? I think Xi will invade Taiwan in the last 5 year of his reign. So when will it happen basically depends on his health. Is this bs politics goons? Scary if not so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
There have been some articles out about China having to raise the retirement age soon, i.e. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3127524/china-population-plan-lift-retirement-age-stokes-workers How likely is this, how upset is it going to make people and what will CCP do to please them? More spending or more nationalism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Has anyone read the books by Peter Zeihan? He says that China has difficult times ahead because the United States is losing interest in keeping the world's oceans free to all trade. He says that since WW2, the US has enforced the Bretton Woods system which allows anyone to trade with anyone they like, and China has benefitted from that immensely because it can send ships around the world to trade with Africa, South America, South Asia, etc. The day America decides it no longer cares about this global order, China will have to make other arrangements to secure its trade, and the Chinese navy is nowhere near up to the task. For instance, India could attack any Chinese ships that try to cross the Indian Ocean, and Japan could ally with Taiwan and the Philippines to block China's access to the Pacific. This won't happen so long as America is there telling everybody to play nice, and once that's over, the Chinese economy is hosed. I thought the big issue if anything was that the PRC was developing a giant blue-water navy. If anything it recently surpassed the US in number of ships, I don't who could really threaten their trade lanes besides the US itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I thought the big issue if anything was that the PRC was developing a giant blue-water navy. If anything it recently surpassed the US in number of ships, I don't who could really threaten their trade lanes besides the US itself. Surpassed in terms of number of ships sure, but from what I recall a ton of those are crappy little coastal patrol ships and they're still a fair bit off in terms of destroyers/frigates/submarines/tonnage in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
Developing an actual global blue water navy is really hard in large part because it's a logistical nightmare. The US and British Navies got where they were after literal centuries of development and the Japanese developing a competitive fleet even in its own backyard still took decades even with its excellent geographical position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Developing an actual global blue water navy is really hard in large part because it's a logistical nightmare. The US and British Navies got where they were after literal centuries of development and the Japanese developing a competitive fleet even in its own backyard still took decades even with its excellent geographical position. And direct assistance from one of the major blue water navy powers (Great Britain, and to a lesser extent France and the Dutch). China never got that kind of assistance whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
As someone interested in East Asian history this kind of thing honestly has been really worrying me lately. The way the Chinese view East Asian history and the way their neighbors tend to view it are pretty diametrically opposed, but there are just so many angry Chinese netizens that even on the western internet the Chinese voice tends to be overwhelmingly stronger. It's all over Wikipedia now. East Asian history (especially where it intersects between modern nations) has always been a messy subject, but so much more so just these past few years.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Developing an actual global blue water navy is really hard in large part because it's a logistical nightmare. The US and British Navies got where they were after literal centuries of development and the Japanese developing a competitive fleet even in its own backyard still took decades even with its excellent geographical position. True, but don't forget that China are not starting to build up right now, they've already had decades at it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 13:06
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:True, but don't forget that China are not starting to build up right now, they've already had decades at it. I mean technically correct as I think they've basically been starting it gradually since the 80's, but they had a ways to go for their shipbuilding to get to that point and in the early days involves a lot of buying rando countries budget aircraft carriers and such for study and buying off of other nations shipyards to train the crews. I think it swings into earnest the moment they start buying up real estate in pakistan and elsewhere to build naval bases and the military budget started increasing by double digits each year under Hu Jintao.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:True, but don't forget that China are not starting to build up right now, they've already had decades at it. China also has a poor geographical position to project naval power from and also faces an increasingly hostile global diplomatic environment. Building lots of fancy ships is only part of having a proper blue water navy and arguably one of the less important ones, it's just the sexiest. The logistical and diplomatic portions are critical.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
Japan got lucky in being able to acquire some islands off of Germany fairly effortlessly but it's not like they could or desired to project power outside of their own backyard. China has been spending the past 20 some off years gradually building the logistical and geographical bases (quite literally in some cases) to be able to protect their shipping lanes in addition to building an overland backup. Next Call of Duty is probably landships facing each other in Central Asia.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Japan got lucky in being able to acquire some islands off of Germany fairly effortlessly but it's not like they could or desired to project power outside of their own backyard. China has been spending the past 20 some off years gradually building the logistical and geographical bases (quite literally in some cases) to be able to protect their shipping lanes in addition to building an overland backup. That's a relative term though. They've had to spend that kind of time building up the logistical and geographical basis for power projection JUST so that they can effectively project power into their own littorals, which is a mean feat in itself given that they are boxed in by unfriendly powers. People have a tendency to think "blue water navy" and "power projection" means "like the USA" but that's a massively unfair comparison. Even being able to control something like the South China Sea is hard, because navies are hard and logistics are boring.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I mean technically correct as I think they've basically been starting it gradually since the 80's, but they had a ways to go for their shipbuilding to get to that point and in the early days involves a lot of buying rando countries budget aircraft carriers and such for study and buying off of other nations shipyards to train the crews. Reminder though that the Liaoning / Varyag was bought 23 years ago, and they've already built one more carrier. I don't think China are yet near rivalling the US Navy, but it's easy to forget how much progress has quietly been made in the past 30 years.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Reminder though that the Liaoning / Varyag was bought 23 years ago, and they've already built one more carrier. I don't think China are yet near rivalling the US Navy, but it's easy to forget how much progress has quietly been made in the past 30 years. Yeah, the Varyag was in terrible condition too, Egypt wouldn't let it go through the Suez, but even then I don't think they're far from rivaling the US at this point. It seems obvious that it's mostly a prestige point at this point rather than a necessity, like most countries that have them but don't have overseas possessions like India and Thailand. Right now China is probably about on par with India from what's publicly available.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Yeah, the Varyag was in terrible condition too, Egypt wouldn't let it go through the Suez, but even then I don't think they're far from rivaling the US at this point. It seems obvious that it's mostly a prestige point at this point rather than a necessity, like most countries that have them but don't have overseas possessions like India and Thailand. Right now China is probably about on par with India from what's publicly available. Eh, from China's POV a blue water navy is a clear necessity. Even ignoring the USN, a blue water navy lets them park a full CVBG off someone's coast if someone gets a little too interesting in their shipping. There's also the issue that having a purely coast defence navy wouldn't really be good in the case of Taiwan related troubles, any suite of capabilities you can think of that are effective to keep Taiwan blockaded or the USN or Japan away looks more and more like a blue water navy than a brown water navy. Ultimately a brown water navy are like tank destroyers; maybe they're good in a very specific fixed point pitched battle; but in terms of versatility it isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Even ignoring the USN, a blue water navy lets them park a full CVBG off someone's coast if someone gets a little too interesting in their shipping. No it doesn't. Even after achieving a coveted "blue water navy" designation it's still the realm of fiction that China would be able to adequately project anything beyond their immediate littorals, let alone park full carrier battle groups anywhere they want. Again, all of their many decades of naval development has ultimately led to them being able to reasonably contest the South China Sea and that's pretty much it. Their ability to even control the Taiwan Strait for enough time to successfully invade Taiwan is still in doubt simply because of how hostile their immediate surroundings are both politically and geographically. They have reached a strong enough level of naval capability to be able to do gunboat diplomacy against places like the Philippines and Vietnam (and both of them are moving closer to the USA as a result.) That's a far cry from being able to do gunboat diplomacy against any other great power (and frankly, most middle-powers as well such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No it doesn't. Even after achieving a coveted "blue water navy" designation it's still the realm of fiction that China would be able to adequately project anything beyond their immediate littorals, let alone park full carrier battle groups anywhere they want. You're missing the "says increasing nervous man as he tugs on his collar". Like 10 years ago contesting the South China Sea would have been difficult; now its well within their wheel house. Sending a fleet around the world isn't that hard; Japan was able to strike Pearl Harbor after all with 1940's technology; China has done port calls all over the place, has considerable overseas logistics experience and if it really wants to is probably within 10 years of being able to supply underway a active CVBG anywhere it wants when the Type-003 and 004 are launched along with various under construction support craft and other escorts are done. Especially so considering the bases in Dijbouti and Pakistan are completed/expanded to give them additional logistical reach.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You're missing the "says increasing nervous man as he tugs on his collar". Like 10 years ago contesting the South China Sea would have been difficult; now its well within their wheel house. Having a fleet that can actually project power on the scale of a carrier group is so hard that the Soviet Union never really managed to do it replicably their entire existence, and the only country to do it since WW2 that isn't America is basically the UK for retaking the Falklands, something they were barely able to do despite basically being the world's second largest and most experienced navy. China literally can't project enough power to retake Taiwan without it looking like Dieppe, they're so far from being able to successfully send a combined arms fleet to like Nigeria or whatever it's not even funny. China 100% depends on US international naval policing to protect their energy routes, everyone knows it except apparently this thread. It's the reason they are so hot nuts for Belt and Road.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:China literally can't project enough power to retake Taiwan without it looking like Dieppe, they're so far from being able to successfully send a combined arms fleet to like Nigeria or whatever it's not even funny. Is this a 2008 post?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Is this a 2008 post? Amphibious invasions are extremely, insanely hard and to successfully invade Taiwan China would need to perform the equivalent of Operation Downfall except with no amphibious experience and no air or naval supremacy, against an alliance of countries that are stronger than them. Yes the PLAN isn't a complete joke anymore but it doesn't have to be a complete joke for the idea of them parking carrier strike groups anywhere they want on the planet to be some Tom Clancy fantasy bullshit
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Having a fleet that can actually project power on the scale of a carrier group is so hard that the Soviet Union never really managed to do it replicably their entire existence, and the only country to do it since WW2 that isn't America is basically the UK for retaking the Falklands, something they were barely able to do despite basically being the world's second largest and most experienced navy. First, you're not responding to anything I actually said. Second, projecting power to take Taiwan is vastly different from sending a fleet to intimidate a developing country that China has investments in. I have no idea where you coming from here or how it relates to what I claimed. Third, literally an hour ago there's an article about China's underway replenishment capabilities, which is hilarious timing. Fourth, Belt and Road includes naval bases in Dijibouti and Pakistan, which would be critical for them to be able to sustainably project force to protect their sea routes. The fact that China can't currently with its capabilities secure its trade routes (with or without US help) is precisely why they're doing this. And within the next decade can probably secure their routes up into the Indian ocean. Fifth, the USSR is not China. The Soviet Navy, while a powerful institution, was not tasked for blue water capability beyond show the flag prestige projects and port calls and SIGINT. China is actively aiming for a blue water navy. What I actually said, which you did not respond to, "China is developing a blue water navy, it isn't quite there yet but fairly soon, especially when it completes the next round of ships under construction, will have a degree of blue water capability (assembling a task force and sending it somewhere)" nothing about Taiwan; although it will theoretically have a much greater capability to deter the 7th fleet and push their operation envelop further out beyond the first island chain. Fojar38 posted:Amphibious invasions are extremely, insanely hard and to successfully invade Taiwan China would need to perform the equivalent of Operation Downfall except with no amphibious experience and no air or naval supremacy, against an alliance of countries that are stronger than them. China probably has an even shot at naval supremacy in the Taiwan straights, no US or ROC assets would survive long there and aside from specific strikes to disrupt/ablate/disperse PLAN attempts to assemble an invasion force for an imminent invasion is likely ceded to China in event of hostilities. Air supremacy China is probably 2 decades out from as China is both catching up in engine reliability technology and needs additional aircraft carrying surface combatants to contest the USN and extend their combat envelop over the straights for sustained lengths of time. But this is a completely separate argument from whether China can park a task force where they want because they require completely different capabilities. China doesn't need the same things it needs to park off the coast of Somalia, that it would need to contest the Straights against SEATO. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 02:30 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
I don't really get why were jerking off about a naval invasion of Taiwan and a naval blockade would suffice
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I don't really get why were jerking off about a naval invasion of Taiwan and a naval blockade would suffice Because the blockade would be broken by the US/Japan and China itself would probably end up blockaded as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Because the blockade would be broken by the US/Japan and China itself would probably end up blockaded as a result. Invading Taiwan doesn't make a blockade easier.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Anyway..my point was that since 2008 (when it started) PLAN has sent more than 120 destroyers/frigates to the Gulf of Aden alone in escort and patrol missions. They have escorted more than 6000 ships (the majority non Chinese), and rescued over 70 ships in danger. By the end of next year, we are expecting to see Liaoning or Shandong on a similar mission. The logistics and relevant capabilities are already in place. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
Sending ships around in peacetime on anti-piracy operations is a poor metric by which the ability to project power far away in a contested environment should be measured. Navally irrelevant countries also participate in escorts and patrols in the area.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
Yeah I mean the -checks notes- ..Nigerian Navy in this hypothetical example might give them a good thrashing and all...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I don't really get why were jerking off about a naval invasion of Taiwan and a naval blockade would suffice Just blow up the only 2 natural gas ship of Taiwan would have suffice to remove 40% of energy source. China doesn't even need to declare war, just find an excuse to hit the Taiwanese ships with a civilian collision, with hybrid war tactic. When you actually look into Taiwanese military capability and how much it has deteriorated in the last couple decades due to shorten conscription and bad military hardware purchases, the only explanation is CCP already had deep undercover in the high command of Taiwanese military and have been consistently making bonehead moves for a long while.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Sending ships around in peacetime on anti-piracy operations is a poor metric by which the ability to project power far away in a contested environment should be measured. You're not paying close attention to what's being discussed. I very specifically mentioned Somalia as my example, and made sure to repeat "developing country"; that's not a meaningfully contested environment. It's apples and oranges comparisons all the way down here. You even said it yourself that defining "blue water navy" as being "The capabilities of the United States" isn't an appropriate comparison; a blue water navy isn't necessarily any specific thing; broadly it is the capability to have a fleet or task force operate outside of your littorals without land based air cover. Symbols of having a blue water navy includes the ability to sustain a long range operation far from your home ports using underway replenishment. If we're comparing to 1940's Japan, Japan had a blue water navy because it could strike at the British off of India and at the US at Pearl Harbour thousands of miles away; it didn't do this regularly but it could do so when the strategic situation allowed it. China can send a fleet thousands of miles away and engage hostiles, so to a certain degree they have a blue water navy already; but holistically they need about three proper aircraft carriers so they can have one carrier out at sea at any one time that can form the core of a CVBG. They have two proper flat decks being constructed and currently two Varyags; them and the currently under construction cruisers/destroyers and other escorts probably vaguely brings China's capabilities to above the UK and France but well below the US; that's enough to punish a random developing country that isn't under the US umbrella. China could probably by then pull of Falklands 2.0 at that point. As they are also making a bunch of LHD's and other important marine sea lift boats to deploy troops abroad as part of a rapid reaction force. But note, very clearly, that having a "blue water navy" doesn't mean automatically they can take Taiwan; but it does make contesting a blockade much easier for them; and very expensive for the US and "SEATO". China doesn't have to be able to defeat the US navy in a straight up conflict, it merely needs to pose a credible deterrence that US intervention is no longer automatic but a political question with significant economic and military cost. stephenthinkpad posted:Just blow up the only 2 natural gas ship of Taiwan would have suffice to remove 40% of energy source. China doesn't even need to declare war, just find an excuse to hit the Taiwanese ships with a civilian collision, with hybrid war tactic. Did they also take over Canada? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
Is the point of this to say that China can either have their navy be taken seriously or taken littorally
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Kavros posted:Is the point of this to say that China can either have their navy be taken seriously or taken littorally Someone please make this the thread title.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 05:23
|
|