Cold War against China?

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
22,506
It's not the spending, its the activities. China has arbitrarily expanded its borders to encompass the entire South China Sea and put every country in that region at risk. The US is doing the right thing standing up to them because none of the countries in the region are capable of it.



It's not. I'm not sure where that idea came from. The F22 is still the USAF's most capable air superiority fighter by some margin. Cost and the assumption that it wouldn't be needed killed it, not capability,
Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
 

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
1,918
Yes I'm sure they won't accept China but 40% of Australia's exports are to China. Australia and the UK seem intent on p!ssing off their main trade partners.
Considering the involvement the US had pre-Trump in the TPP I think the UK have been secretly hoping that the US will rejoin into the CPTPP with Biden. Nothing I've see suggests that will be the case so far, but China wanting in will probably force a decision one way or the other.
 

Sir Matt

Blue Devil
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
17,032
Location
LUHG
It would be highly ridiculous for the US to assert any claims on South China Sea. After all it is called South "China" Sea.
The US isn't trying to assert any territorial claims in the South China Sea. It is attempting to maintain the freedom of navigation that China is attempting to subvert by building new "islands" and then asserting exclusive maritime control over it (despite artificial islands not qualifying to establish control) along with territory that belongs to other nations.

Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
In the case of maritime freedom of navigation, the US is acting out of concern for themselves in addition to every country other than China. Maintaining freedom of navigation, rather than allowing China to continue its pseudo-revanchism, is about ensuring the status quo that allows ships to travel through international waters without impediments or harassment. It's why the US, UK, Australia, Japan, France, Germany, and others have been adamant about ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and denying China's illegitimate claims.

If China starts restricting maritime traffic in the South China Sea with its military or swarms of fishing boats, which they use to harass other nations throughout the Pacific, it's a threat to international trade and international law. It sets precedent for Turkey to break its obligations relating to the Bosphorous, Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, Malaysia or Indonesia to restrict the Strait of Malacca, Spain to close the Strait of Gibraltar, France or the UK closing the Strait of Dover, and so on.
 
Last edited:

Sultan

Forum Bot
Staff
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
46,769
Location
Redcafe
The US is doing the right thing standing up to them because none of the countries in the region are capable of it.
Do you mean militarily? I personally can't imagine the US ever standing up to China militarily.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
16,373
Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
Tell that to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam etc. Its not unremarkable to any of the countries who all of a sudden have China claiming the waters off their coast.

China is the aggressor to a bunch of countries that do not have the power to stand up to them, so the US is doing it for them. It might serve a dual purpose of preserving their global presence but does that matter?

Do you mean militarily? I personally can't imagine the US ever standing up to China militarily.
Neither of them want to fight but China know there is a local force more than capable of sending them back inside their own borders if needs be. That's all it takes.
 

Sultan

Forum Bot
Staff
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
46,769
Location
Redcafe
The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
 
Last edited:

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
7,816
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.
Yeah, it's good to have a healthy opposition party :rolleyes:...:lol:
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,667
If you mean move on as in militarily (which I’m sure you didn’t), then other countries would express concern to say the least.
Yes, I was meaning 'move on' as building up their influence, e.g. maybe being the first to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate Government in Afghanistan. However the Chinese seem to do nothing without a reason, sometimes a long term reason (50 year cycle planning etc.) it seemed to me that their treatment of the Islamic Uighurs, would be at odds in terms of getting close up and personal with an Islamic state, next door.

There is also the argument for the Chinese to use Afghanistan as a 'buffer' state a bit like the Russians did with the Baltic states pre the break up of the USSR, this would mean supplying them with arms and other 'necessarys', including training and ensuring a power structure in Afghanistan which would/could operate under long range Chinese control. Given the recent AUKUS nuclear agreement this might also weigh-in on what the Chinese have in mind for their new Islamic self-governing neighbour.

What do you mean by move? Invade? If the Chinese ever invaded, they'd face the same fate that the Americans and Soviets faced.
Exactly, I doubt the Chinese would make the same mistake any 'invasion' would not be forced, or even have any 'boots on the ground', the excuse for foreigners invading Afghanistan was because there already was a conflict, civil war if you like going on, and/or other anti-west forces were using the country as a base to launch terrorist attacks. All that should cease now? The Chinese if they do 'invade' would be a friendly invader, invited by the Taliban to help them secure power and to ward off any western attempts to start interfering again.


Islamic solidarity is not a concept that exists in political terms anymore.
Has it ever existed in such terms, not for centuries I suspect, but it has perhaps been a flag of convenience ?
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
8,195
It would be highly ridiculous for the US to assert any claims on South China Sea. After all it is called South "China" Sea.
And the Persian Gulf is called the Persian Gulf but that doesn't mean Iran gets to claim it.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
8,195
Oh come on now, you actually believe the US are acting out of any concern for other nations? Against the big bad China.

The US cares only to maintain its global strategic presence which is nothing more than parking your military at someone else's door. You can't then accuse the other nation of creating a cold war when there's fairly unremarkable land disputes.

Considering recent US history it takes a warped view to think they're not the aggressors across the globe. If anything we could do with a Chinese presence to counteract the regular US invasions.
Well if there's one constant in politics, its good old fashioned anti Americans wanting to side with authoritarian, repressive one party states.
 

Cal?

CR7 fan
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
34,350
Yes, but for China to join the CPTPP they'd need all 11 members to vote for it and that's virtually impossible. If the Philippines join as is expected it's totally impossible as they're in constant land disputes.

Agreed that the UK has little to gain in comparison to the EU membership
There’s no way Japan allows China into the CPTPP, any suggestion otherwise is laughable.

We will likely see the first Japanese woman PM with Sanae Takaichi getting the full support of Abe in the election and she’s even more anti-China than your average anti-China Japanese politician.
 

Cal?

CR7 fan
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
34,350
The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
That’s all very well if the world is a nicer place without dictators like Xi.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
44,853
Location
Munich
No doubt cost was a big factor and to be fair I said it is in the process of being made obsolete by the F-35, not that the F-22 is currently obsolete.
F-35 and F-22 serve different purposes. F-22 is superior in dogfights and is getting retired because of costs.
 

Cal?

CR7 fan
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
34,350
Do you mean militarily? I personally can't imagine the US ever standing up to China militarily.
It’ll happen sooner or later, the US has reiterated many times the Senkaku Islands are cover by the Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan.


If they don’t act when China invades, it’s bye bye all allies around the world and their status as a superpower.
 

Sultan

Forum Bot
Staff
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
46,769
Location
Redcafe
Well if there's one constant in politics, its good old fashioned anti Americans wanting to side with authoritarian, repressive one party states.
I don't think many would ever choose China over the US in matters of politics. Any anti-US sentiment is with the mess they've created through their ill-conceived adventures over the years. Just hope they are not readying another issue in that part of the world.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
5,613
Well if there's one constant in politics, its good old fashioned anti Americans wanting to side with authoritarian, repressive one party states.
It most certainly is.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
9,437
Location
DownUnder
The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
The world isn't one it's a collective of individual countries all vying for resources. Unless everyone wants to see a collective government, then it'll continue as such until something forces a massive change. Or we simply remove ourselves and solve the issues.
 

Sultan

Forum Bot
Staff
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
46,769
Location
Redcafe
The world isn't one it's a collective of individual countries all vying for resources. Unless everyone wants to see a collective government, then it'll continue as such until something forces a massive change. Or we simply remove ourselves and solve the issues.
Come on man, you know what I mean. I shouldn't have to write down names of nearly 200 countries.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
9,437
Location
DownUnder
Come on man, you know what I mean. I shouldn't have to write down names of nearly 200 countries.
US, Russia, China, North Korea, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel and France, so a bit short of 200. But regardless there’s no common goal, simply a dog eat dog world. Zero long term vision. I think we’ll see thing turn bad and then it’ll be too late to react without some massive and sudden technological breakthroughs.
 

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
11,006
And the Persian Gulf is called the Persian Gulf but that doesn't mean Iran gets to claim it.
No but if the Americans or the Mexicans try to claim it would be ridiculous. Part of the Persian Gulf belongs to Iran. As for the claims of China in the South China Sea, The Vietnamese, The Philippines and Malaysia all claim to it. In fact during the period of Marcos, he occupied some islands and the Arbitration the Philippines won made this whole claim of Philippines moot. Philippines also claim Sabah in Malaysia. Vietnam has more islands or reefs occupied than China. The Chinese constructed huge military bases there unlike the other two who do not have the capability to do so.

The US isn't trying to assert any territorial claims in the South China Sea. It is attempting to maintain the freedom of navigation that China is attempting to subvert by building new "islands" and then asserting exclusive maritime control over it (despite artificial islands not qualifying to establish control) along with territory that belongs to other nations.
And all without ratifying the UNCLOS undermining the whole so called International Rules. If they have ratified the UNCLOS they may have some legal say in it. By the way most countries in the region accept the view that Freedom of Navigation consists only for civil purposes and all military vessels must inform before transiting the EEZ.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
13,866
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
F-35 and F-22 serve different purposes. F-22 is superior in dogfights and is getting retired because of costs.
And that's part of why it is being phased out and will become obsolete. Dogfights aren't really a thing in warfare anymore, not for the USAF anyway. I think I remember reading that no US fighter Jet has even been involved in a dogfight for decades.The F-35 is designed to destroy other fighters from miles away.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
7,513
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
And that's part of why it is being phased out and will become obsolete. Dogfights aren't really a thing in warfare anymore, not for the USAF anyway. I think I remember reading that no US fighter Jet has even been involved in a dogfight for decades.The F-35 is designed to destroy other fighters from miles away.
Both are classed as 5th Generation because of their stealth capabilities (low radar cross section) and advanced sensors.
The F22 is primarily an air to air fighter, while the F35 was intended more for air to ground.
Most modern fighter jets carry BVR (beyond visual range) air to air missiles.

The Chinese F20 is also classified as 5th Generation, as are a few Russian jets.

And a number of 6th Generation jets are under development by the US, Europe (two types).

And even though not strictly a 5th Generation, the Eurofighter Typhoon also carries BVR missiles.
 

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
17,398
Location
Still waiting for the Youthquake
And that's part of why it is being phased out and will become obsolete. Dogfights aren't really a thing in warfare anymore, not for the USAF anyway. I think I remember reading that no US fighter Jet has even been involved in a dogfight for decades.The F-35 is designed to destroy other fighters from miles away.
One in 20 years... usaf shot down one plane in Syria

A superhornet shot down a su22

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/18/us-navy-fa18e-shoots-down-su22-over-syria.html

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ter-bomber-she-wont-go-away-quietly-54462?amp

Given the disparity between the aircraft I cant imagine it was much of a fight

Prior to that I think an f16 shot down a mig 29 in Kosovo in 1999

I think the last uk dogfight was 1982 in the Falklands

So as you say not really a thing anymore (though thankfully we have not had two well armed nations with modern planes go to war for a long time either)
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,674
Location
Your Left Ventricle
The my-jet-fighter-can-beat-up-your-jet-fighter-oh-yeah? crowd might enjoy this:


The world should be spending every resource it has at its disposal on environmental issues, health, poverty, education and here we are spending billions on nuclear weapons which if ever used would only cause collective destruction. The sad part is we already have enough N weapons to destroy the world many times over.

What is wrong with people defending such waste and programmes?
For anyone morbidly curious, it's estimated that about fifty going off even locally within a somewhat contained region would be enough to cause nuclear winter.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
22,992
China Has Won AI Battle With U.S., Pentagon's Ex-Software Chief Says

LONDON (Reuters) -China has won the artificial intelligence battle with the United States and is heading towards global dominance because of its technological advances, the Pentagon's former software chief told the Financial Times.
China, the world’s second largest economy, is likely to dominate many of the key emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, synthetic biology and genetics within a decade or so, according to Western intelligence assessments.
Nicolas Chaillan, the Pentagon's first chief software officer who resigned in protest against the slow pace of technological transformation in the U.S. military, said the failure to respond was putting the United States at risk.

"We have no competing fighting chance against China in 15 to 20 years. Right now, it’s already a done deal; it is already over in my opinion," he told the newspaper. "Whether it takes a war or not is kind of anecdotal."
China was set to dominate the future of the world, controlling everything from media narratives to geopolitics, he said.

Chaillan blamed sluggish innovation, the reluctance of U.S. companies such as Google to work with the state on AI and extensive ethical debates over the technology.
Google was not immediately available for comment outside business hours.

Chinese companies, Chaillan said, were obliged to work with their government and were making "massive investment" in AI without regard to ethics.
https://money.usnews.com/investing/...tle-to-china-pentagons-ex-software-chief-says
 

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
11,006
China Has Won AI Battle With U.S., Pentagon's Ex-Software Chief Says


https://money.usnews.com/investing/...tle-to-china-pentagons-ex-software-chief-says
This is ridiculous in some ways. There is no way China is going to dominate the media. Even now their PR is so bad that most people laugh at it. Until the majority of people speak Chinese they would not have anything on the media. So he wants Google to openly come out and say that they are working for the US Government?
 

hmchan

Full Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
1,230
Location
Hong Kong
This is ridiculous in some ways. There is no way China is going to dominate the media. Even now their PR is so bad that most people laugh at it. Until the majority of people speak Chinese they would not have anything on the media. So he wants Google to openly come out and say that they are working for the US Government?
The Chinese PR speaks to its citizens, not other countries. Brainwashed Chinese actually believes those nonsenses, which most people find funny.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
8,195
This is ridiculous in some ways. There is no way China is going to dominate the media. Even now their PR is so bad that most people laugh at it. Until the majority of people speak Chinese they would not have anything on the media. So he wants Google to openly come out and say that they are working for the US Government?

He seems to be contrasting a very focused, rapid, strategic approach from China, with the US’s which according to him, is not.
 

nimic

have you watched hornblower yet?
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
22,603
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
The my-jet-fighter-can-beat-up-your-jet-fighter-oh-yeah? crowd might enjoy this:




For anyone morbidly curious, it's estimated that about fifty going off even locally within a somewhat contained region would be enough to cause nuclear winter.
That would depend entirely on what they went off on, and the response, I reckon. You don't get a nuclear winter without many cities burning uncontrolled.

It has to be quite significant too, or the bombing in Germany and Japan would have done it.
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,674
Location
Your Left Ventricle
That would depend entirely on what they went off on, and the response, I reckon. You don't get a nuclear winter without many cities burning uncontrolled.

It has to be quite significant too, or the bombing in Germany and Japan would have done it.
The source that comes to mind - I think - is here. (It might have been in another book.)

Yes, the fifty weapons in question are the "modern" hydrogen bombs that sadly make the ones dropped on Japan (and in the alternate timeline on Germany) look like firecrackers in comparison.

You might like this book (if you haven't read it or one of the other similar ones).
 

nimic

have you watched hornblower yet?
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
22,603
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Ah, Krauss. I have his something from nothing book. He's a good writer and physicist, though he's been a bit sketchy on a personal level.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
9,437
Location
DownUnder
The Chinese PR speaks to its citizens, not other countries. Brainwashed Chinese actually believes those nonsenses, which most people find funny.
I'm amazed at how many of them have no idea or deny the Tiananmen Square massacre actually happened.