Cold War against China?

[VorZakone]

I wanted to reply in the last thread on this but it gave me "don't bump old threads" notification, so hereby a new thread.

I've been doing a lot of reading on China lately. Fascinating stuff honestly. They're probably a bigger adversary than the Soviet Union for the West.

China seems to be surpassing Russia in 5th gen fighter jet development with its J20 jet.

According to some military report I've found, the Chinese have also achieved parity and/or exceeded the US in a couple of areas (shipbuilding for example).

Despite their progress they still have military weaknesses which China hopes to have addressed by 2050 approximately.

But all in all, China seems to become more aggressive in their pursuit to becoming a superpower.

Thoughts?

 

[foolsgold]

China is absolutely a hostile power towards the west, under XJP it seeks to leverage money to create political control.

The recent examples where Australia questioned Chinese policy and found it's exports stuck at the docks. The sooner we wean ourselves off money and goods from the China the bette.

 

[calodo2003]

I wanted to reply in the last thread on this but it gave me "don't bump old threads" notification, so hereby a new thread.

I've been doing a lot of reading on China lately. Fascinating stuff honestly. They're probably a bigger adversary than the Soviet Union for the West.

China seems to be surpassing Russia in 5th gen fighter jet development with its J20 jet.

According to some military report I've found, the Chinese have also achieved parity and/or exceeded the US in a couple of areas (shipbuilding for example).

Despite their progress they still have military weaknesses which China hopes to have addressed by 2050 approximately.

But all in all, China seems to become more aggressive in their pursuit to becoming a superpower.

Thoughts?

How has China gained parity with the US in shipbuilding? They can’t force project with their navy outside of local waters & I doubt that there is any parity in submarine numbers & capabilities.

 

[Foxbatt]

Is Australia west?

 

[VorZakone]

How has China gained parity with the US in shipbuilding? They can’t force project with their navy outside of local waters & I doubt that there is any parity in submarine numbers & capabilities.

I quote:

China has already achieved parity with—or even exceeded—the United States in several military
modernization areas, including:

– Shipbuilding: The PRC has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of
approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants. In
comparison, the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020. China
is the top ship-producing nation in the world by tonnage and is increasing its shipbuilding
capacity and capability for all naval classes.

– Land-based conventional ballistic and cruise missiles: The PRC has developed its
conventional missile forces unrestrained by any international agreements. The PRC has more
than 1,250 ground-launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles
(GLCMs) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The United States currently fields
one type of conventional GLBM with a range of 70 to 300 kilometers and no GLCMs.

– Integrated air defense systems: The PRC has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced
long-range surface-to-air systems—including Russian-built S-400s, S-300s, and domestically
produced systems—that constitute part of its robust and redundant integrated air defense
system (IADS) architecture.

This is from the report "
Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China
2020", by the Department of Defense.

 

[Simbo]

I wanted to reply in the last thread on this but it gave me "don't bump old threads" notification, so hereby a new thread.

I've been doing a lot of reading on China lately. Fascinating stuff honestly. They're probably a bigger adversary than the Soviet Union for the West.

China seems to be surpassing Russia in 5th gen fighter jet development with its J20 jet.

According to some military report I've found, the Chinese have also achieved parity and/or exceeded the US in a couple of areas (shipbuilding for example).

Despite their progress they still have military weaknesses which China hopes to have addressed by 2050 approximately.

But all in all, China seems to become more aggressive in their pursuit to becoming a superpower.

Thoughts?

You probably need to do more reading on Russia. Not to take anything away from China, there is a discussion to be had there for sure. However Russia is still headed by a cold war KGB agent who never stopped fighting it and he is winning. Figher jets hardly matter when you can just get the western world to turn on itself.

 

[foolsgold]

Is Australia west?

cultural, politically and economically, yes.

 

[The Boy]

I think it's a very tricky subject. China is projecting power now militarily and economically around the globe. But where as 6 years ago under Cameron and Osborne for example this was not only tolerated but completely accepted with a "golden era in Sino UK relations" heralded by the government, now everything has changed.

Obviously the Trump administration changed the view of China in US politics and it was noticable during this election cycle how both Trump and Biden felt the need to appear tough on China, also obviously the pandemic has changed everything as well, with lots of people in the west calling for reparations and even "punishing" China once this is all over. Even NATO has come out and told "like minded countries" to stand up to China's bullying.

The mood music around China has changed, what can the west actually do? economic sanctions could damage the west as much as China, though in a way this is already happening on both sides with Trumps trade war and for example much more recently, China's extra tariffs on Aussie goods after the govt. there demanded an international investigation into the cause of covid -19.

Obviously the west isn't going to openly attack China militarily as that would be madness and international pressure to change governments or governing systems, is historically proven to just rile up populations rather than help them.

This is basically a long post to say I don't know what the answer is to this, but relations are going south fast and I don't see how they turn around any time soon.

 

[Foxbatt]

I think it's a very tricky subject. China is projecting power now militarily and economically around the globe. But where as 6 years ago under Cameron and Osborne for example this was not only tolerated but completely accepted with a "golden era in Sino UK relations" heralded by the government, now everything has changed.

Obviously the Trump administration changed the view of China in US politics and it was noticable during this election cycle how both Trump and Biden felt the need to appear tough on China, also obviously the pandemic has changed everything as well, with lots of people in the west calling for reparations and even "punishing" China once this is all over. Even NATO has come out and told "like minded countries" to stand up to China's bullying.

The mood music around China has changed, what can the west actually do? economic sanctions could damage the west as much as China, though in a way this is already happening on both sides with Trumps trade war and for example much more recently, China's extra tariffs on Aussie goods after the govt. there demanded an international investigation into the cause of covid -19.

Obviously the west isn't going to openly attack China militarily as that would be madness and international pressure to change governments or governing systems, is historically proven to just rile up populations rather than help them.

This is basically a long post to say I don't know what the answer is to this, but relations are going south fast and I don't see how they turn around any time soon.

Easy. Get adults in the room to talk instead of idiots like Pompeo etc. China is not on an invasion project no matter what anyone says. It is all political posturing between USA and China. Taiwan is a by product of this. So is Korea. Not even the South Koreans believe it. The Taiwanese should stop claiming for the whole of china and claim `Taiwan only That could be the basis to start something.

 

[11101]

I quote:

This is from the report "
Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China
2020", by the Department of Defense.

They can definitely build the ships but where the US is still miles ahead of China and anybody else is the systems within those ships. Radar, electronic warfare, missile defence etc. is all far superior. Same goes for aircraft and land based military. The Chinese military rely on numbers currently because they don't yet have the technology. As for anti aircraft systems they use mostly Russian built air defence systems and developments from those, which are extremely capable, but most American air power over the last few decades has been built to defeat those technologies. Hopefully we will never have to find out who did a better job.

The piece about the GLBMs is a bit of a red herring (or maybe a misprint) too. The US doesn't have any of those because it doesn't need them, they have no nearby threats and they have ground based ICBMs, long range bombers, and submarines placed all over the world instead.

The rest of the OP i agree with though, it is absolutely their aim to dominate East Asia. Whether they want to go beyond that, or whether that brings them into conflict with the US, is yet to be seen. Having lived there a few years i suspect eventually the answer will be yes.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

What's to stop China from invading Australia, New Zealand and Japan within the next 50 years?

 

[The Firestarter]

What's to stop China from invading Australia, New Zealand and Japan within the next 50 years?

Sanity?

 

[nimic]

What's to stop China from invading Australia, New Zealand and Japan within the next 50 years?

What would they have to gain from doing that?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

What would they have to gain from doing that?

Natural resource wealth, expansionalism, empire building. Those types of things.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

What's to stop China from invading Australia, New Zealand and Japan within the next 50 years?

Have you seen the size of the spiders in Australia? Well, then there you go.

 

[Hectic]

What's to stop China from invading Australia, New Zealand and Japan within the next 50 years?

Dennis Rodman?

 

[Ish]

Isn’t it a good thing having more superpowers in the world, as opposed to a handful of the established order who decide on everything?

that’s a throwaway thought btw, as I’m not too clued up about politics, especially Chinese politics and agendas (good vs evil etc).

 

[JPRouve]

Isn’t it a good thing having more superpowers in the world, as opposed to a handful of the established order who decide on everything?

that’s a throwaway thought btw, as I’m not too clued up about politics, especially Chinese politics and agendas (good vs evil etc).

It's not a good thing when you are caught between those superpowers in their "war" for influence, in a way a global hegemony make things a little easier to forecast.

 

[Ramshock]

China is absolutely a hostile power towards the west, under XJP it seeks to leverage money to create political control.

The recent examples where Australia questioned Chinese policy and found it's exports stuck at the docks. The sooner we wean ourselves off money and goods from the China the bette.

A lot of issues could be solved if Western countries started manufacturing more of their own products but in a responsible way i.e environmentally sound and with decent workers wages.

 

[Balljy]

China is absolutely a hostile power towards the west, under XJP it seeks to leverage money to create political control.

The recent examples where Australia questioned Chinese policy and found it's exports stuck at the docks. The sooner we wean ourselves off money and goods from the China the bette.

I'm not comparing the democracies or lack of but why is that different to the numerous trading disputes the likes of America have had with "smaller" countries just to get their own way and leverage their current power in the world?

 

[nimic]

Natural resource wealth, expansionalism, empire building. Those types of things.

Expansionism isn't a reason to invade countries, it is the act of invading countries. Same with empire building, really. Natural resource wealth might be a reason, but then why would they invade Japan?

 

[Balljy]

Expansionism isn't a reason to invade countries, it is the act of invading countries. Same with empire building, really. Natural resource wealth might be a reason, but then why would they invade Japan?

Yeah, and the ongoing dispute over the Spratly Islands is actually going through the proper methods despite the Chinese pressure being applied and bases built in the 80's in their territory. There's been no invasion despite where it is in relation to shipping lanes and natural resources and that's been going on for decades.

 

[Raoul]

Expansionism isn't a reason to invade countries, it is the act of invading countries. Same with empire building, really. Natural resource wealth might be a reason, but then why would they invade Japan?

Expansionism is also a reason to invade, as proven very recently during the Crimea invasion and annexation.

 

[Ish]

It's not a good thing when you are caught between those superpowers in their "war" for influence, in a way a global hegemony make things a little easier to forecast.

Hey JP. How you doing mate? Yeah agreed, the amount of casualties/collateral damage is a big problem. Pawns. I guess, without being too clued up on politics, i was just trying to get a view on why, in the narrative, China is always seen as evil and the West as the good guys. I'm all for disruptors - but that's not from a political pov, that's just from a commerical mindset as i'm not nearly qualified or clued up enough to have a strong opinion on this.

 

[11101]

Hey JP. How you doing mate? Yeah agreed, the amount of casualties/collateral damage is a big problem. Pawns. I guess, without being too clued up on politics, i was just trying to get a view on why, in the narrative, China is always seen as evil and the West as the good guys. I'm all for disruptors - but that's not from a political pov, that's just from a commerical mindset as i'm not nearly qualified or clued up enough to have a strong opinion on this.

Because you're sat reading it in the West. Read a newspaper in China and it's the other way around.

I don't think two superpowers have ever happily co-existed have they? It always results in a war of some kind.

 

[nimic]

Expansionism is also a reason to invade, as proven very recently during the Crimea invasion and annexation.

No, the act of invading and annexing Crimea was an example of expansionism, there were other clearer reasons.

 

[Raoul]

No, the act of invading and annexing Crimea was an example of expansionism, there were other clearer reasons.

Expansionism was the primary reason. He wanted to appeal to nationalism and also to assert greater control of the Black Sea via not just Sevastopol, but now other ports as well.

 

[JPRouve]

Because you're sat reading it in the West. Read a newspaper in China and it's the other way around.

I don't think two superpowers have ever happily co-existed have they? It always results in a war of some kind.

It depends on how loose one is at defining the term war but the cold war wasn't really a war. Now it's rare that two countries with similar strength don't engage in a diplomatic struggle and try to gain more influence than the other, it doesn't really has to be superpowers.

 

[nimic]

Expansionism was the primary reason. He wanted to appeal to nationalism and also to assert greater control of the Black Sea via not just Sevastopol, but now other ports as well.

Nationalism and asserting control of the Black Sea (and punishing Ukraine for choosing the West, and creating a conflict to shore up support at home, and so on) were the reasons. Expansionism was the method. Expansionism in itself isn't a cause, it's the result.

 

[JPRouve]

Expansionism was the primary reason. He wanted to appeal to nationalism and also to assert greater control of the Black Sea via not just Sevastopol, but now other ports as well.

No, the primary reason was geopolitic and diplomatic, it was a way to tell Ukrainian leaders that they need to behave.

 

[Raoul]

I wanted to reply in the last thread on this but it gave me "don't bump old threads" notification, so hereby a new thread.

I've been doing a lot of reading on China lately. Fascinating stuff honestly. They're probably a bigger adversary than the Soviet Union for the West.

China seems to be surpassing Russia in 5th gen fighter jet development with its J20 jet.

According to some military report I've found, the Chinese have also achieved parity and/or exceeded the US in a couple of areas (shipbuilding for example).

Despite their progress they still have military weaknesses which China hopes to have addressed by 2050 approximately.

But all in all, China seems to become more aggressive in their pursuit to becoming a superpower.

Thoughts?

From the US perspective, the biggest threat from China is its control of data. Since future wars will be innately data driven, other nations who can control and manipulate large amounts of data are going to be be viewed as the greatest threats. The economic piece isn't really controllable since all nations grow their economies and the US and China are generally quite economically interdependent on one another.

 

[FahadiHossein]

Expansionism is also a reason to invade, as proven very recently during the Crimea invasion and annexation.

There is very little reason to invade and annex territories in the world today. Crimea was just the exception and you won't see any of that again. The backlash diplomatically was way too much.
What China wants to do is to spread her military all over the world like the US does, thereby increasing their influence in the world. US has bases in Okinawa, Taiwan, South Korea and Southeast Asia and China is facing enemies around her lands. China has more enemies than friends. However, as long as China finds a way to win some friends and build bases in other parts of the world to secure shipping lanes or natural resources, and find a way to place soldiers in Venezuela and Cuba as a direct threat to US mainland like how US is threatening Chinese mainland, it would be akin to annexing territories.

 

[Ish]

Because you're sat reading it in the West. Read a newspaper in China and it's the other way around.

I don't think two superpowers have ever happily co-existed have they? It always results in a war of some kind.

yeah, that was the obvious answer. Yeah, i was just trying to gauge more info on the politics etc. as i said, i am not too clued up about it. Aren't there currently more than 1 superpower, as defined, anyway? Just that they're all allies to/of the West?

 

[Raoul]

Nationalism and asserting control of the Black Sea (and punishing Ukraine for choosing the West, and creating a conflict to shore up support at home, and so on) were the reasons. Expansionism was the method. Expansionism in itself isn't a cause, it's the result.

Its both. Since Russia has now acquired a new territory as part of its land mass and given local residents Russian citizenship. It has therefore expanded.

 

[Raoul]

There is very little reason to invade and annex territories in the world today. Crimea was just the exception and you won't see any of that again. The backlash diplomatically was way too much.
What China wants to do is to spread her military all over the world like the US does, thereby increasing their influence in the world. US has bases in Okinawa, Taiwan, South Korea and Southeast Asia and China is facing enemies around her lands. China has more enemies than friends. However, as long as China finds a way to win some friends and build bases in other parts of the world to secure shipping lanes or natural resources, and find a way to place soldiers in Venezuela and Cuba as a direct threat to US mainland like how US is threatening Chinese mainland, it would be akin to annexing territories.

As long as nationalism remains in play, countries that have had historical ties to land will always look at ways to reclaim it. Its slightly different in the Chinese context since they seem to be more interested in economic expansion and power.

 

[nimic]

Its both. Since Russia has now acquired a new territory as part of its land mass, and given local residents Russian citizenship. It has therefore expanded.

I feel like we're going around in one massive circle here. I never said the invasion of Crimea wasn't an example of expansionism. Actually, my entire point is that it is expansionism. I'm saying they didn't do it because "expansionism", they did it because of reasons such as those you and I already covered.

 

[Raoul]

I feel like we're going around in one massive circle here. I never said the invasion of Crimea wasn't an example of expansionism. Actually, my entire point is that it is expansionism. I'm saying they didn't do it because "expansionism", they did it because of reasons such as those you and I already covered.

Oh, good.

 

[nimic]

feck's sake.

 

[Raoul]

Because you're sat reading it in the West. Read a newspaper in China and it's the other way around.

I don't think two superpowers have ever happily co-existed have they? It always results in a war of some kind.

From what I've seen, the Chinese narrative is that a unipolar world isn't healthy and that power needs to be balanced out more. Hard to disagree with any of that.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Expansionism isn't a reason to invade countries, it is the act of invading countries. Same with empire building, really. Natural resource wealth might be a reason, but then why would they invade Japan?

Japan might be a bit tricky admittedly.