Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[Journeyman]

That is not the manner in which trusted trade partners converse with one another. 

:rofl:  Yes, I had to re-check the thread title;  I thought you were referring to …. someone else.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile on the Indian front--more imagery at original:

This bomber, a mainstay of the Chinese air force, is now being deployed against India

After the 2017 Doklam stand-off, the Chinese army has turned the gaze of the H-6K bomber aircraft towards India by deploying it at Wugong.

New Delhi: China is believed to be deploying its frontline Xian H-6K bomber against India in the aftermath of the face-off between the two militaries in Doklam in 2017.

The Xian H-6K is the backbone of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

A licensed version of the Russian Tu-16 ‘Badger’, the H-6K is a medium-range bomber, which first flew on 5 January 2007, and was commissioned into service on 1 October 2009.

The H-6Ks — manufactured by Xi’an Aircraft Company (XAC) — produced until now have been deployed towards the American territory of Guam, Taiwan and the South China Sea. But in the aftermath of the 2017 Doklam stand-off, the PLAAF has turned the H-6Ks’ gaze towards India.

The fourth batch of H-6Ks is supposedly being deployed against India at Wugong for the PLAAF 36th Division under division commander Hao Jianke and regiment commander Wang Guosong in the Central Theatre Command.

Details of the aircraft

According to Chinese internet, the XAC’s internal reports have claimed that the H-6K was designed in early 2000 and started prototype production in 2003.

The new H-6K version with a solid nose cone instead of a glass one is powered by Aviadvigatel D-30KP-2 turbofan engines, with thrust of 12,000kg, similar to the Russian Il-76MD transporters.

The H-6K has a nose cone-mounted ground-scanning radar, and chin-mounted electro-optical (EO) turret.

The electronic countermeasure (ECM) antennae are observed on the nose cone and on the vertical tail-fin. Missile approach warning system (MAWS) sensors are seen on the nose cone as well as the tail.

The satellite communication antenna is mounted on the top of the rear fuselage, and a datalink turret is below the rear fuselage.

Armaments it carries

The H-6K carries six pylons, three on each wing. One of the pylons on each wing is placed between the engine and landing gear. Thus it can carry six KD-20As, the air-launched version of the DF-10 land attack cruise missiles [read on]...
https://theprint.in/security/this-bomber-a-mainstay-of-the-chinese-air-force-is-now-being-deployed-against-india/175511/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Whilst Taiwan:

U.S. Increasingly Concerned About a Chinese Attack on Taiwan
The Pentagon says reunification is the primary driver of China’s military modernization.

The U.S. Defense Department is increasingly concerned that China’s growing military might could embolden it to launch a full-out attack on Taiwan.

A new assessment of China’s military power published by the department’s Defense Intelligence Agency hints that Beijing is building up its military capabilities so that it will have a range of options to attack Taiwan if it decides to—and potentially the United States if it intervenes militarily.

The news comes amid Washington’s renewed focus on Beijing’s mounting economic and military clout. The two countries are locked in a trade war that has roiled global markets and dampened economic outlooks. Meanwhile, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, in his first day on the job earlier this month, told his staff to focus on “China, China, China.”

As the assessment began to emerge in the U.S. news media, a senior Chinese military official warned the U.S. Navy’s top officer on Tuesday in Beijing against any “interference” in support of Taiwan’s independence. In a meeting with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, General Li Zuocheng, a member of the Central Military Commission, said Beijing would defend its claim to Taiwan “at any cost.”

Beijing has signaled for years that it wants Taiwan to be reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary. The two split after China’s 1949 civil war won by Mao Zedong’s communists. It has opposed any attempt by the island nation to declare independence. This goal “has served as the primary driver for China’s military modernization,” according to the report.

The Pentagon is also concerned about China’s growing military presence far from its borders, including in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, where it has built a permanent base, a senior defense official told reporters Jan. 16.

“We now have to be able to look for a Chinese military that is active everywhere,” the official said. “I’m not saying that they are a threat or about to take military action everywhere, but they are present in a lot of places, and we will have to interact with them, engage with them, deal with them, monitor them more broadly than we’ve ever had to before.”

The Defense Department is particularly worried that this increase in capability makes a regional conflict more likely, the official said, with the most likely target being Taiwan. Leaders of the People’s Liberation Army might inform Chinese President Xi Jinping sometime soon that they are confident in their capability to take on both Taiwan and the U.S. Navy, the official stressed.

“As a lot of these technologies mature, as [China’s] reorganization of their military comes into effect, as they become more proficient with these capabilities, our concern is they will reach a point where internally, within their decision-making, they will decide that using military force for a regional conflict is something that is more eminent,” the official said.

In recent months, U.S. Navy ships have repeatedly traversed through the Taiwan strait, which separates mainland China from the island nation [emphasis added].

Elbridge Colby, the director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, said the change in the Pentagon’s assessment of the risk to Taiwan is “very significant”—particularly because for China, taking on Taiwan means taking on the U.S. Navy.

“A change in the assessment on Taiwan would be very significant, particularly if they believe the Chinese think they might be able to use force and achieve their objectives and either seize or suborn the island,” said Colby, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development from 2017 to 2018.

In that capacity, Colby was the lead official in the development of the department’s National Defense Strategy, which lays out a shift in focus from the counterterrorism fight in the Middle East to a potential clash with a near-peer competitor such as Russia or China.

In the coming years, the Chinese military is expected to acquire advanced fighter aircraft, modern naval vessels, sophisticated missile systems, and space and cyberspace assets, said Dan Taylor, a senior defense intelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

China is also investing in hypersonic glide vehicles, medium-range ballistic missiles that could reach Guam from the Chinese mainland, and a capability to shoot down targets in space—such as U.S. satellites, the senior defense official said. Meanwhile, the deployment of China’s first strategic bomber would provide Beijing with its first credible nuclear triad, according to the report [emphasis added].

While China may be catching up with the United States in terms of technology, the official said the Chinese military is a long way from achieving parity with the U.S. military on an operational level. Beijing has not fought a war in 40 years, the official said, while the United States has been engaged in operations in the Middle East for decades.

But Beijing is working quickly to reorganize and boost its training.

“There will be significant growing pains, but they seem to have chosen a blueprint for how they want to move forward to be what they consider an advanced military,” the official said. “But it will take some time.”

Update, Jan. 17, 2018: This article was updated to include remarks by Chinese Gen. Li Zuocheng to U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/u-s-increasingly-concerned-about-a-chinese-attack-on-taiwan/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

China is also investing in hypersonic glide vehicles, medium-range ballistic missiles that could reach Guam from the Chinese mainland, and a capability to shoot down targets in space—such as U.S. satellites, the senior defense official said. Meanwhile, the deployment of China’s first strategic bomber would provide Beijing with its first credible nuclear triad, according to the report [emphasis added].

While China may be catching up with the United States in terms of technology, the official said the Chinese military is a long way from achieving parity with the U.S. military on an operational level. Beijing has not fought a war in 40 years, the official said, while the United States has been engaged in operations in the Middle East for decades.




While true, I think they are comparing apples to oranges here.

Yes, the US military has been engaged in continuous warfare for decades, especially COIN & counter-terror operations throughout the Middle East.

However, any war fought in the South China Sea will be predominantly naval & air oriented in nature.  And in this realm, neither the US Navy nor the PLA-N have been in any large scale recent conflicts, and neither have experience operating in an area where there could be DOZENS of ships from both sides operating in 'relatively' close proximity to each other - on a combat footing, looking to engage each other aggressively. 


The USN has been busy perfectly escort duties in the Persian Gulf, assisting with anti-piracy operations off the coast of Africa, and lending sea-based firepower (launching guided missiles) to land targets.  But they don't have the recent experience of a force-on-force scenario of this magnitude in which literally we could have 50 ships from each side hunting each other down.  Add submarines, cruise missiles, man-made islands, and the Chinese "fisherman's fleet" - and neither side has recent experience in this type of warfare.


And while yes China has developed the ability to strike targets in space, I think all parties agree that striking even one target in space is a bad idea for everybody.  Economic fluidity would drop near instantly once a satellite has turned into a floating cloud of space debris, taking out other satellites as it orbits, creating an even bigger cloud of satellite-killing death.  Unless the target is very specifically targeted and the aftermath studied extensively, taking out a space target with a land-based missile will hurt both sides equally.  (Both the USA and Russia seem to have satellite killing satellites, which I'm guessing will be the way that goes if it happens.)




At the end of the day, it'll be interesting to see how the China vs. Taiwan conflict pans out.  It truly will be.

-  Will the rest of the world abandon business with China, after the MASSIVE civilian losses on the Taiwanese side? 

-  Will countries look to alter their trade relationships, and perhaps provide initiatives and funding to build up new trading partners, if China by all accounts murders tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a couple of hours?  (Only foreseeable outcome I can see with hundreds of missiles being launched into a highly urbanized island...)

-  Will the USN and PLA-N clash on the seas?  If so, what will the outcome be?  Truly... both highly sophisticated organizations with advanced weapons, in a fairly tight operating area, with numbers & land-based assets overwhelmingly on the Chinese side? 

-  Will Russia play a role in distracting western assets by causing a bit of instability and trouble in northern/eastern Europe, if for no other reason than to force the US & NATO to limit the number of assets they can deploy to the SCS? 


It will be interesting to watch it all unfold, if it does...

 

[MarkOttawa]

CBH99: Indeed--as far as I know there has not been a serious multi-ship surface engagement, at whatever distance, between any serious navies since WW II.  That's now some 73 and a half years ago, an awfully long time for no combat experience by military (OK, naval) forces.  Gulf of Tonkin 1964 does not count:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

I was reading strategypage about North Korea. In the article it stated that complained about Chinese fighters harassing maritime surveillance aircraft operated by Canada,Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/korea/articles/20190111.aspx


December 19, 2018: The international air patrol off the west coast of North Korea has seen many of its aircraft harassed by Chinese jet fighters. The patrol, in international waters, uses large, slow, maritime patrol aircraft and aircraft from Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have complained, and documented, the harassment efforts by the Chinese. The patrol seeks out ships smuggling goods for North Korea. This includes ships (some of them known by name and type) that are used to transfer smuggled goods (including oil) at sea to North Korea ships.

 

[CBH99]

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2182752/us-china-battle-dominance-extends-across-pacific-above-and


More and more, I find myself just shaking my head.  The US really has become a "lazy superpower" - in which despite spending almost A TRILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY on defense & intelligence organizations, can't seem to find a few million here & there to take care of it's own citizens when the time comes.


Not having electrical power or the ability to filter clean drinking water MONTHS after a tropical storm is just embarrassing.

A team of engineers/mechanics/whoever, and a bit of money to take care of the trip/expenses - billed directly to whoever pays the bills - is all that would be needed for Guam, Puerto Rico, etc - to have a functioning power system, clean water generation, etc etc.  The leadership is just never there, nor is the money it seems.

If you can't be bothered to hire people to fix the issue, at least provide the local government with some funds so they can hire the people to get things moving again.  But not doing either is just pathetic.


Also, in regards to education - China enrolls approx. 15,000 students from the US territories in Chinese universities each year.  Amongst their studies, they learn to speak Mandarin. 

Why is the US not enrolling these people in American universities, in the Mainland US, to help bridge the educational gap between people who grow up in these territories, and their CONUS counterparts?  Is it because these people enroll in the US military at 3x the national average, and therefore have more educational opportunities that way? 


At the end of the day...China seems to have some pretty clear goals, a solid blueprint for achieving those goals, and solid leadership in place to work towards accomplishing them.  The US does not.  In many of these cases, China is simply filling the void that exists because of a lack of US leadership in a given geographic, political, or scientific area.

 

[a_majoor]

Shifting focus to economics again, the Chinese economy is moving towards consumer spending. While this is good for China (perhaps) a lot of the West has become dependent on Chinese savings....

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-04/tectonic-shift-chinas-economy-has-largely-gone-unnoticed-investors

"A Tectonic Shift In China's Economy Has Largely Gone Unnoticed By Investors"

Back in August 2 we reported of a historic event for China's economy: for the first time in its modern history, China's current account balance for the first half of the year had turned into a deficit. And while the full year amount was likely set to revert back to a modest surplus, it was only a matter of time before one of the most unique features of China's economy - its chronic current account surplus - was gone for good.

Then back in November, UBS wrote that the upcoming loss of China's current account cushion, softening domestic activity, and upcoming tariffs mean that "for the first time in 25 years, China would have to make a choice between external stability and growth."
Now it is the Wall Street's Journal's turn to bring attention to this topic, calling it a "tectonic shift" in China's economy, which has largely gone unnoticed by investors, and which is "quietly beginning to upend the global financial system."

A key driver behind China's declining current account is that after having long been the world’s heavyweight saver and a huge buyer of foreign assets like Treasurys, the world's most populous nation is now a big spender, and in early 2018, China got more of its growth from consumption than the U.S., the global king of consumer spending where some 70% of economic growth is due to consumer spending. And as China's increasingly wealthy population spends more at home and abroad, its total trade surplus with the rest of the world has shriveled to a fraction of its former size.

In other words, China is rapidly becoming the next US.

read the rest at the link

 

[larry Strong]

Might be in the wrong spot.....



McCallum has resigned.......good riddance......


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-ambassador-to-china-john-mccallum-resigns-at-trudeau-s-request-1.4270477


Cheers
Larry

 

[MarkOttawa]

Larry Strong:

McCallum has resigned.......good riddance......

Embarrassing doofus and hapless comprador. Friend of mine tweets:
https://twitter.com/FredLitwin/status/1089253808071270400

@FredLitwin

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ambassador-mccallum-out-after-trudeau-asks-for-his-resignation-1.4270477

What next for John McCallum? Perhaps years of highly-paid work representing his people, the Chinese Communists. Or maybe just a Senate seat.

Mark
Collins

 

[MarkOttawa]

Seeing as Justin Trudeau has accepted John McCallum's resignation, will the erstwhile ambassador still have diplomatic immunity if he goes back to China to get his things? Just wondering.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SeaKingTacco]

McCallum was a disasterous choice as ambassador to China. His track record of bizarre behaviour has existed at least since his days as MND. Whomever recommended him should also lose their job.

I am surprised to see the Liberals cave to pressure on this one. I guess when the criticism is nearly universal and from every direction, what choice do you have?

 

[YZT580]

McCallum was a disasterous choice as ambassador to China. His track record of bizarre behaviour has existed at least since his days as MND. Whomever recommended him should also lose their job.

I am surprised to see the Liberals cave to pressure on this one. I guess when the criticism is nearly universal and from every direction, what choice do you have?

Trudeau should have condemned his comments as soon as they were made and also made it clear that he was not representing the government of Canada when he misspoke.  His failure to do that indicates that he was simply hoping that things would blow over and that he wouldn't have to actually make a decision. 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Interesting to see how the resignation plays in China.

 

[MarkOttawa]

McCallum may well be called a "courageous defender of improving China-Canada relations" .

Mark
Ottawa

 

[RangerRay]

Might be in the wrong spot.....



McCallum has resigned.......good riddance......


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-ambassador-to-china-john-mccallum-resigns-at-trudeau-s-request-1.4270477


Cheers
Larry

I always thought he was a fart-catcher for the Chinese. I seem to remember when the Liberals and the corporate lobby were bent out of shape over PM Harper ‘disrespecting ‘ the Chinese, McCallum was so angry he was vibrating.  Never seen the guy so animated before.

 

[CBH99]

I'm not a McCallum fan by ANY means at all.  Useless as a twig in the ocean, in my opinion...



However, perhaps there was a grander goal behind his comments?

With Canada/China relations at an all-time low, and China openly committing to hostage diplomacy by arresting Canadian citizens in response to us arresting one of theirs - perhaps his ploy to diplomatically distance Canada from the issue came from a good place? 

Perhaps his intent was to say "Hey, she might have some pretty good legal arguments here..." - in an attempt to portray Canada was more neutral in the matter than we currently appear.  By arresting her in Vancouver as per our legal obligations, we are adhering to the legal processes of Canada and the United States.  But by ALSO saying she may have some good legal arguments to obtain her freedom, perhaps he was trying to paint Canada was unbiased either way?


Either way, this incident never should have happened, in my humble opinion.  This was political right from the beginning, and it's pretty hard for us to point the finger for China arbitrarily arresting our citizens when we did it first, and of-course we had to do it with someone who is basically ROYALTY within the CPC.

If the Americans wanted her, they could have diverted the flight once it was in US airspace and made their arrest on their own turf - since she was scheduled to fly through US airspace anyway - instead of dragging us into their trade war tit-for-tat with China.    :2c:

 

[Journeyman]

Whomever recommended him should also lose their job.

Perhaps no one specifically, but 'inner circle nepotism';  he was  McGill's Dean of Arts when Trudeau and Gerald Butts were students.  :dunno:

Concur with the comment on his MND time.  :not-again:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I'm not a McCallum fan by ANY means at all.  Useless as a twig in the ocean, in my opinion...



However, perhaps there was a grander goal behind his comments?

With Canada/China relations at an all-time low, and China openly committing to hostage diplomacy by arresting Canadian citizens in response to us arresting one of theirs - perhaps his ploy to diplomatically distance Canada from the issue came from a good place? 

Perhaps his intent was to say "Hey, she might have some pretty good legal arguments here..." - in an attempt to portray Canada was more neutral in the matter than we currently appear.  By arresting her in Vancouver as per our legal obligations, we are adhering to the legal processes of Canada and the United States.  But by ALSO saying she may have some good legal arguments to obtain her freedom, perhaps he was trying to paint Canada was unbiased either way?


Either way, this incident never should have happened, in my humble opinion.  This was political right from the beginning, and it's pretty hard for us to point the finger for China arbitrarily arresting our citizens when we did it first, and of-course we had to do it with someone who is basically ROYALTY within the CPC.

If the Americans wanted her, they could have diverted the flight once it was in US airspace and made their arrest on their own turf - since she was scheduled to fly through US airspace anyway - instead of dragging us into their trade war tit-for-tat with China.    :2c:

I doubt all of this. It was stupidity and incompetence, pure and simple.

 

[tomahawk6]

He wasn't on the same page as the government so he had to go.