China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread
- Thread starter swimmerXC
- Start date
- Status
Correct me if I'm wrong but ICBMs going from China to US fly over the north pole and not across the pacific?
Unless these ABM are intended to intecept medium range ballistic missile, in which case the question is what's stopping PLAGF from ordering a new flavour of DF-26, tipped with the DF-ZF HGV warhead?
Unless these ABM are intended to intecept medium range ballistic missile, in which case the question is what's stopping PLAGF from ordering a new flavour of DF-26, tipped with the DF-ZF HGV warhead?
Sorry. Too many clips on the Trade War by now. I followed a link. I thought Steve Bannon made perfect sense from his POV.
Long ago, there was another clip which finally convinced me why China's State-Directed model works better than the U.S. model. The gist:
1. We all agree competition and flexibility are good.
2. China model is more competitive and flexible.
The common concept of a Communist state is that orders come from the top trickling down while a Western Democracy affords creative and nimble approach (the so-called entrepreneurial spirit).
It is true that strategic policies emanate from Beijing. The key difference is at the state/provincial and municipal levels. In the U.S., state may ignore the directive which means failure or follows through with explicitly specified guidelines such as implementation matches the rules and regulations. In China, a directive is broad and it is up to the provincial or municipal level officials to come up with solutions tailored to local conditions. In the U.S., these officials are elected. In China, they are appointed so their jobs are on the line as they are judged by their performance and they compete with other provinces and cities in order to get promoted. In the U.S., incentives are totally absent as they only aim to please the average voters. In China, since all officials are ultimately working for Beijing, the national objectives are more easily achieved over local conflict of interests. The China model only works if the national government is fair.
China's poverty reduction program was used as example. Each area used very localized approaches and that was the key to success.
We shall see how well this applies to semiconductor self-sufficiency.
It was this one?
USSR central planning didnt work because they didnt have access to supercomputers and Huawei Ascend 910 AI processors or Atlas clusters.
In the age of AI, 5G, IoT, etc centralized command structure is the best goverance hands down
This is why race to AI dominance is 10x more important than space race
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
For what? China's nukes? Child-like minds behind this stupid tweet. China's nukes won't be flying over the island chains of the first, second, third, forth, fifth, etc... on their way to the US. They'll be flying outside the first island chain meaning those interceptors don't have a chance. The only way inceptors can intercept is if they're in between the flight path of the nuke and its target and that's even questionable since US ABM like those in Alaska, which is in position to intercept ICBM's from Asia, have been cancelled meaning it doesn't live up to the hype. Sorry but the technology doesn't match up to the fantasies. If that were the case, why would just one course correction foil at present US anti-missile systems hence why they say it's hard for the US to intercept an ASBM because it makes multiple course corrections to get at its target? People think an anti-missile missile is going to chase around its target like in the movies. No, It's got one shot. If it misses the first time, it's over. It's not going to turn around and chase the missile until it hits its target. That's why also setting up ABM at the first island chain is pointless to go after Chinese nukes headed to the US. They'll be flying at a perpendicular trajectory since the flight path of China's nukes will be most likely be going over Russia. Translation... no chance. Hence why these are amateurs or children taunting this. Maybe they'll be for intercepting China's ASBM so US carriers will be safe...? That's why they want them at the first island chain because the best chance for interception would be right after it's launched and to be close as possible is best. China's recent demonstration showed the two ASBM launches, one coming from far inland of China demonstrating to the US how China can launch one far away from the first island chain so intercepting during the first stage will be impossible. There was a US Admiral recently who bragged that the US has the ability to adapt hence why China is at a disadvantage. Like I've pointed out many times, the US Naval War College has conducted wargame simulations of a US Navy attack on China for over 30 years and the US lost every single one of them due to how China can produce cheap anti-ship missiles that will be flying in multiple waves and in swarms at the US Navy. Adapt as to include their ABM at the first island chain in their so-called superior adaption capabilities in any of those these wargame scenarios...? They haven't won once. They have enough anti-missile missiles to intercept all those missiles coming wave after wave...? If the US had the money it takes to counter, they wouldn't be complaining about trade deficits with China which they base all their anger towards China.
Three more theories on why USSR imploded while China succeeded:
1. Russian culture was serf-based. Self-initiative not part of the DNA.
2. By 1979, China still have a huge population that remembered life before communism so easier to adapt. After 80 years of communism, USSR did not.
3. CCP morph'ed into an Imperial/Examination system very familiar to all Chinese.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The flaw there is the AAM is moving too slow hence why it's chasing the aircraft around. Just imagine launching an ABM from the first island chain at a Chinese ICBM launched from Inner Mongolia headed to the US. The ABM will be chasing the ICBM from a thousand miles away. How many times more faster will the ABM have to be to intercept an ICBM from that distance? What these children forget is their ABM won't have the speed or enough fuel to intercept. Interceptors have to be fast hence why they have only one shot at intercepting.
US/West had decades to help develop Africa but the true reason why they never bothered wasn't because they didn't get around to it (they always managed to get around to wars just fine) but rather it was by design. By keeping Africa poor they were saving Africa up as a cheap resource that they can mine and strip for materials later on... by opening up with China the intent was to become America's cheap labor pool... so low cost resources from Africa, coupled with cheap labor from China, meant US companies made off like a bandit and then sold these products to the rest of the world at high profit margins whilst turning around and doing quantitative easing on the petrodollar to double dip by taxing everyone once more post-transaction for the privelege of using the US dollar... this arrangement was going to last forever and it was "the end of history", as it were...
Until it didn't, and then it wasn't...
They didn't count on China no longer being content on just middle income, and China wanting to ascend the tech ladder and jump up in the value chain... They didn't count on China doing BRI and connecting the Eurasia landmass and helping Africa develop and raise their living standards thereby spoiling US plans to preserve Africa as their cheap resource pool... so now they were about to lose both their cheap resource pool and their cheap labor and to make things worse China was going to directly compete with the US on the world stage and eat into what had traditionally been strictly US dominance and US hegemony...
As a thought experiment, I tried to play out what America's Plan Z would be, the ultimately play, so to speak. I still think it will be a complete blanket ban of all chips and all semiconductor equipment and their supply chains to all of China, basically a 100% embargo across the board... This will have many ramifications, for one it will mean instantly it will disrupt and bring to a standstill almost the entire Chinese manufacturing and supply chain overnight especially as it relates to exports to West. You cannot make any product these days without a computer chip and almost all products these days have a chip inside them or more.... By this one action alone, if it can be strictly enforced, America will be able to grind the Chinese economy to a halt... a lot more so than say kicking China out of SWIFT. There are workarounds to the US dollar, money is just a social construct, but there are no workarounds to lack of computer chips in the 21st century, you either can fab chips or you cannot. There is no middle ground. China simply won't be able to make anything, certaintly not anything the West needs. For example Apple will be forced to shutdown, Telsa shutdown, Dell shutdown, Lenovo shutdown, almost all companies in China would grind to a halt... This one action effectively forces not only US but indeed much of the entire world to forcibly do a full decoupling with China....
This will cause severe disruption to the entire global economy no doubt. This is not a question. But, I believe when it comes to survival of US hegemony, this is the price America is willing to inflict to ensure that China goes down for good and never comes back up again...
As for enforcement, it is quite easy... Intel, AMD, Nvidia, QualComm, etc these are all bona fide US companies. America has full control over them and one EO is all it takes for full compliance, these companies don't have a choice. Tiawan would be onboard, so would Dutch/netherlands and ASML etc and Cymer is US company so ASML is just an intgreater like Lenovo is a systems integrator so ASLM don't havae a choice even if they wanted to help out China which they dont
Samsung is majority US owned, plus US has military bases in Korea, Japan, and is building a missile defence system on the first island China to surrounded China...
The point is, in the past the US used its military might to hold the worlds oil hostage ("protection" of OPEC) in order to sustain the petrodollar arrangement, well semiconductors/chips are the new digital OPEC in this 21st century and in the 4th industrial revolution being without chips is as bad as being without oil... and America controls the sanctions power and the critical chokeholds to this technology. Frankly, the US will leverage its military might to invade/ attack/overthrow any nation that doesn't play along... it doesn't have to go around every 150+ countries in the world to force them to stop all trade with China, all it has to do is completely cut China off from high end semiconductors/chips and without this the world will have no choice but to look beyond China and to other alternatives... just like TSMC cutting Huawei off meant people have no choice but to buy Apple and Samsung phones now... likewise, by US cutting China off chips it will as a natural consequence have the same effect as if US forced all countries to stop all trade with China.. the only difference is this is more surgical and asymettric, there are only a handful of countries and companies that have semiconductor fabrication abilities, so the US only has to focus on enforcenment of these countries and these companies, which makes the job much easier and much more doable...
This is America's best chance to end China, of all the scenarios this seems most strategic and most asymettric and the strategy that seems most able to succeed. Which is why I believe the US will do this within the next year or two at the most.
- Status