Author Topic: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, etc)  (Read 398321 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Biden Admin defines its approach to China
« Reply #1200 on: March 02, 2021, 08:42:03 AM »
Obviously this would appear to contradict the Manchurian Joe riff , , , if he is actually the one in charge see e.g. https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/03/01/now-40-days-biden-has-not-held-solo-press-conference/

Daily Memo: The Biden Administration Defines Its Approach to China
The new administration appears set to continue its predecessor's China trade policy.
By: Geopolitical Futures

The trade war is here to stay. A big report released Monday by the U.S. Trade Representative office makes abundantly clear that the Biden administration has no plans to scrap the Trump administration’s hawkishness on trade and other grievances with China. The new administration will face all the same hurdles as the old on actually making meaningful headway on its goals. But it’s worth watching to see if it can gain leverage from mounting international concerns over human rights issues such as forced labor in Xinjiang and threats to supply chains critical to the West.

Rethinking East Asia. The U.S. is rethinking its force structure in the Western Pacific, eyeing deployments “across the battlespace’s breadth and depth,” according to Adm. Philip Davidson, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Davidson argued that the gradual loss of base access for U.S. forces in places like Thailand, Taiwan and the Philippines over the past half-century has left the U.S. ill-positioned to sustain the balance of power with China. U.S. forces in the region are concentrated in places like South Korea, Japan and Guam, half a continent away from the chokepoints around the South China Sea that the U.S. would want to block in a conflict with China. And concentrated forces is itself an increasing problem in an era of precision-guided missiles. (MARC:  Note well this sentence.
 We have commented on this issue here) The big question is: Is anyone else in East Asia keen to host major U.S. deployments?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 08:49:39 AM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
GPF: Australia's role in America's War with China
« Reply #1202 on: March 03, 2021, 06:10:55 AM »
Australia’s Role in America’s War With China
By: Jacek Bartosiak
March 3rd, 2021
Australia’s Role in America’s War With ChinaJacek BartosiakMarch 3rd, 2021Analysis
In U.S. plans for a war with China, Australia serves as a base for peripheral operations in the Indian Ocean and in the Indonesian Straits.

Of course, there are voices in the Antipodes against America’s use of Australia in a war, but for now the Australian government stands firmly with Washington. It is therefore quite possible for Canberra to participate in a war with China, should it ever come to that.

Strengths and Weaknesses

A sea state whose navy is weaker than that of the enemy may try indirect methods – peripheral raids or military campaigns far from the conflict’s center of gravity and the enemy. The ability of a maritime state to “wait” in conflict and disperse the continental state’s power through the horizontal expansion of the theater of operations is a significant advantage for the U.S. and Australia over China – one that will fade as the Chinese achieve the status and capabilities of a maritime power.

Perhaps this should be the overall strategy of both countries in a potential war with China: an attack on distant communication lines. The Chinese economy is very sensitive to the smooth, free and timely flow of goods and merchandise by sea, the lion’s share of which flow from Africa and the Middle East across the Indian Ocean.

A division of tasks is also possible. The U.S. Navy would operate in the Western Pacific, and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), somewhat in the rear, would carry out diversions on the periphery of the Indian Ocean, taking advantage of the convenient geographic location of its west coast. The RAN would have to strike against China’s naval forces in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden, operating from Gwadar in Pakistan, in order to eliminate the enemy’s naval forces at the beginning of the conflict. The Indian Ocean is, from the point of view of military geography, larger than the Western Pacific, and has no advanced counter-combat structures like the South China Sea or the Western Pacific. In the future, however, the northern part of the ocean will become more frequented by enemy forces and infiltrated by its reconnaissance, making RAN operations difficult.

At the same time, analysts in Australia realize that in the event of a war with China, Australia will not be able to count on quick and adequate military aid and supplies. The planning leaves no doubt: The conflict will last many months, if not years, and will involve a great effort by the U.S. to replenish its own weapons and ammunition, especially precision ammunition, so the allies’ needs will be served on stretched communication lines threatened by intersection from China.

The greatest challenge to any operation in the Indian Ocean is its sheer size. There are 1,864 nautical miles between the Australian ports of Perth and Darwin. Another 3,266 nautical miles lie between Perth and the U.S. base at Diego Garcia. The conventional Australian submarine fleet will find it difficult to maintain more than one or two ships in the war area on longer patrols in the Indonesian archipelago, much less far out in the Indian Ocean.


(click to enlarge)

Nuclear submarines are much more operational in the Indian Ocean. Australia does not have them, so in the Indian Ocean, it will have to rely on the air force, including long-range unmanned patrol systems. Fleet Base West (HMAS Stirling), in Perth, is conveniently located for the operation of U.S. Navy nuclear submarines and would be the third in the Indian Ocean theater of war alongside Guam and Diego Garcia. (It is also possible to build a small spare port for submarines in the Cocos Islands near Indonesia, after the lagoon is partially drained, which would also improve the logistics of the allies during the conflict.)

An Indispensable Ally

Essentially a continent-sized island, Australia lies on the fringes of the Asia-Pacific routes and is the southern anchor of the entire Indo-Pacific operational area, which is fundamental to the United States. In recent years, U.S. and global attention has shifted east toward Asia, and Australia – a distant continent during the defining conflicts of the 20th century – has found itself near the center of the strategic contest between the world’s two largest powers. For the U.S., Australia and their alliance became a priority. It could become America’s most closely allied relationship in the 21st century.

At the same time, for Australia itself, China is a major trading partner. China buys huge amounts of natural resources from Australia, in particular iron ore and natural gas, but also agricultural produce. As a result, the previously poorer Western Australia is growing rapidly. In 2013, China accounted for 35 percent of the country’s exports, double the share from just five years earlier. Australia is more economically dependent on China than it ever was on the United Kingdom, not to mention the United States.

For two decades, the Australian economy has grown every year, despite the 2008-09 financial crisis. It is the only developed country to achieve such a result. According to analysts, only South Korea is more dependent on fluctuations in Chinese markets. Mandarin is Australia’s second most important language, and Chinese tourists spent more money there than tourists from any other country before the pandemic.

From the point of view of military geography, Australia is located at the junction of the Pacific and Indian oceans and has an ideal location that allows control over the sea and air communication routes connecting both waters. Due to its location and its modern infrastructure and strategic depth, determined by the vastness of the territory, Australia is an indispensable ally for the United States.

The United States, wishing to dominate the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean militarily, will have to use Australian bases, ports and airports, provide logistics, train and rotate units, and maintain military stocks and equipment repair centers. Australia is an excellent base for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, by both sea and air. Its proximity to the Indonesian and South Asian “bottlenecks,” the main arteries of world trade, enables it to exercise operational control over the Sunda and Lombok straits. Australia is also a great base for all operations in the Indian Ocean and for the control of Asian countries’ sea routes from resource bases in Africa and the Persian Gulf.


(click to enlarge)

Until recently, U.S. domination in the waters surrounding Australia was stabilizing and comfortable. Australia could trade with whomever it wished in Asia, benefiting from the military and political protection of American power. When, after Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit in 2005, the head of the Australian Foreign Ministry described the alliance treaty with the U.S. as merely “symbolic,” it led to genuine panic in Washington. The Chinese believed that Australia could play a role similar to that of France in Europe (in the Western camp, but with a distance to the United States). Economic relations with China flourished in the following years, but the Australian government chose to strengthen its political ties with the U.S.

This decision met with criticism from many analytical centers and business circles in Australia, which were of the opinion that a position should not be taken directly on the American side in the impending conflict for domination in this area of the world.

Australia is familiar with the strategic dilemmas related to the rise of an Asian power, particularly when Australia depends for its security on a weakening and departing power. Beginning in 1921 and with the denunciation of the Anglo-Japanese naval treaties, the Australians began to fear Japan and stopped believing that their geographic remoteness kept them safe. After the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, Australia did not openly condemn the aggressors’ actions and avoided confrontation. Australian politicians feared a Japanese invasion and doubted British guarantees, including the ability of the British navy to come from a base in Singapore to aid Australia. They also did not believe that the United States would be able to provide significant assistance in the event of a war with Japan. Regardless of these sentiments, Australia benefited greatly from trade with Japan and recorded a positive trade balance with that country, very similar to the current Chinese case.

The Rivalry Moves Closer

Australia’s military role in a possible war with China is closely related to where a possible conflict would take place. If it erupted far away in Northeast Asia or around Taiwan, Australia would not be able to make a significant contribution, but it could provide key logistical and base facilities as well as reconnaissance and intelligence services for U.S. forces, especially in the event of the destruction of U.S. infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the conflict.

In the event of a conflict in the South China Sea, Australia’s role would be huge, given the proximity to its ports and infrastructure, including military airports. Then, most likely, Australian forces would assist in launching strikes against Chinese forces in order to prevent the capture of strategic locations around the Indonesian islands and straits, and to try to gain control and access to key maritime crossings in the Indonesian archipelago to protect the traffic of ships and allied warships while destroying Chinese communications.

However, it is likely that in the coming years and decades, the strategic U.S.-China rivalry will gradually move to the Indian Ocean. There will be competition if China builds a real ocean fleet and finally gets access to the ports it is building in the Indian Ocean basin (in Gwadar, Djibouti, Ceylon, the Seychelles, Kenya and East Africa). Especially if China tries to control the lines of communication from the Persian Gulf, Africa and Europe, crucial to keeping the Asian economies alive, Chinese bases in the region will be a threat to Australia. In connection with the above, the basic roles for the Australian armed forces in a possible future war can be distinguished: providing strategic depth, operation of the submarine fleet, reconnaissance tasks and force projection into the Indonesian Straits.

An Important Advantage

Australia’s most important advantage is its strategic depth, far as it is from the Asian mainland. As U.S. bases in the Western Pacific become more vulnerable to destruction by Chinese attacks, including missile strikes, Australia will play a larger and more important role as a technically well-developed logistics center and sanctuary free from enemy combat.

China’s growing reliance on missiles would indeed make Australia, which is outside China’s effective combat range, very attractive for allied air operations. And while Chinese submarines may threaten Australia’s communication lines and targets, it is likely that most of the Chinese submarine fleet will be occupied with more important matters within the second island chain. However, Chinese subs could be expected to conduct mining operations and missile attacks on ports and coastal infrastructure, and Chinese special forces may be secretly deployed to sabotage operations at military bases in northern Australia. To defend against these threats, Australia needs to strengthen coastal surveillance and security procedures around bases, ammunition and fuel depots.

China's Perspective
(click to enlarge)

In that sense, Chinese forays in the north would resemble the Japanese sabotage operations in Sydney and Newcastle during World War II – operations that were psychologically effective but ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the conflict.

Moreover, distance and maritime geography mean that Chinese conventional submarines would have a hard time in the shallow waters to the north and east of Australia. They would have to surface frequently, and their noisy nuclear subs would be easily tracked by the well-equipped Australian coastal listening stations. The United States could help with its long-range reconnaissance, nuclear submarines and strike aviation operating from Australia.

Currently, Washington’s bomber aviation and submarine fleet rely heavily on a small number of bases in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. In the Western Pacific, the main base is Guam, located 1,800 nautical miles off the coast of China. Guam may soon be within range of Chinese ballistic missiles and is already within range of submarine-fired maneuvering missiles and aircraft. U.S. aircraft are also stationed in the Indian Ocean, on the British island of Diego Garcia, 3,900 nautical miles away from China. A significant distance means an extension of the time of arrival to the place of conflict, which significantly limits combat capabilities by shortening the time of effective patrolling and reducing the weight of the combat load.

Australia, on the other hand, provides the U.S. with a relatively safe sanctuary for air operations beyond the reach of Chinese forces. The airbases in the sparsely populated Northern Territory, Cape York, Queensland and Western Australia lie approximately 2,700 miles from the Taiwan Strait and “only” 1,700 nautical miles from the South China Sea. In addition, Australia has islands in the Indian Ocean. The runway on the Cocos Islands in the eastern Indian Ocean is even closer – 700 miles to the narrow straits of Sunda and Lombok. From the military port of Stirling, the distance to the South China Sea is comparable to the distance from Guam. The use of the naval port in Stirling by U.S. nuclear submarines significantly diversifies the deployment of U.S. forces in theatre while enhancing operational accessibility both in the Indian Ocean and in the Persian Gulf. Unlike Guam, all of these locations are beyond the reach of conventional Chinese missile forces, including those in development.

Added Benefits

Notably, air bases in northeastern Australia increase the strategic mobility of the United States, especially in terms of reconnaissance and performance of tasks by long-range strike aviation and for tanker aircraft, which will be crucial given the vast expanses of the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Of course, fuel storage facilities would be essential in this regard. Tanker planes will be needed to provide an air bridge for tactical aviation operating over the South China Sea and for bombers operating from Diego Garcia. Australia currently has only one squadron of airplanes stationed in Tindal, in the north of the country. The Darwin base is the only one in the north of the country that can accommodate American heavy tanker aircraft and bombers, and is therefore the center of allied air operations.

In the north of Australia, there are three more bases that are currently empty: Curtin, Learmonth and Scherger. All of them have lanes of little more than 10,000 feet (3,000 meters), which is not enough to accommodate U.S. Air Force tankers and heavy bombers. In addition, more planes mean more parking. Airports in the north have shelters for 10-20 multi-role fighters, but all except Tindal are close to the sea and require shelters to protect from the elements. Finally, investment in rapid refueling facilities for combat operations will be required to be able to operate more aircraft at one time and plan intensive combat operations.

Another island that could prove useful is Christmas Island, located in the Indian Ocean close to the Indonesian Straits. Its role as a detention center for migrants limits its martial effectiveness, and in any case the island’s runway is located at the top of a mountain and ends with a cliff that slopes steeply into the sea, making it impossible to extend it to the minimum required 11,000 feet for the stationing of American tankers and long-range bombers.

Developing the Cocos Islands would require even more infrastructure investments. There are no shelters and hardly any place to park aircraft. The fuel depots are far away and insufficient, and the runway is only 8,000 feet long. Moreover, flight control and guidance systems are outdated. However, if developed correctly, the airport on the Cocos Islands would be ideal for stationing long-range maritime patrol aircraft. Learmonth Airport is closer to the South China Sea than Darwin and has good logistical links to the rest of the country.

Notably, there are oil resources and refineries in southern and western Australia, but there are too few oil pipelines throughout the country. Raw materials such as oil are transported by ships, and ships and tankers would be the first targets of a Chinese attack. From ships, oil and other raw materials are transported by trucks and local pipelines. During rainy seasons, access by heavy trucks to some air bases is difficult in the north. (Officials are considering plans to transport by train in the future.) Therefore, the priority should be the improvement of railway infrastructure and its protection, as well as fuel storage facilities, refineries, storage facilities for weapons and ammunition, rockets and precision weapons. Australia will have to provide for its own protection to eliminate the possibility of attacks by special forces.

The airport network described above enables the U.S. and Australia to have a tactical aviation presence over the most important sea routes in the Western Pacific, the South China Sea and Southeast Asia. It strengthens U.S. strike capabilities in the event of a conflict with China, and it discourages the Chinese from carrying out a preemptive strike. This, in turn, could allow Washington to control the escalation of conflict.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
D1: US-China AI competition
« Reply #1203 on: March 03, 2021, 07:27:06 PM »
second


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: War Game: China will kick our ass
« Reply #1209 on: March 13, 2021, 05:33:52 AM »

https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-held-a-war-game-that-started-with-a-chinese-biological-attack-170003936.html

"China’s growing military confidence is manifesting itself in an increasingly belligerent approach to its neighbors, the growing frequency of the PLA’s violation of the airspace of Taiwan and Japan, and the bullying of other neighbors in the South China Sea,”

Won't they be even more belligerent after successfully taking Taiwan?

Is losing to China and being under their totalitarian rule forever worse than losing to radical Leftists here as they deceitfully tighten their totalitarian grip here, 'if you like your guns, you can keep your guns...'

"By 2017 US Sec Defense Jim Mattis realized... "

And then he went on to resign over Syria and support PLA apologist Joe Biden for POTUS.

I have one question to ask all of us regarding both (related) threats: Did we do everything we could do during our time here to stop them?

The answer is resoundingly no.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2021, 05:40:35 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: China winning tech war
« Reply #1210 on: March 13, 2021, 05:56:29 AM »
second

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17160/china-tech-war?fbclid=IwAR3siFnN7uKKtkBWm48zSzY9wCzRPaxJUpX9XUzyZJqX2ZhmeECOetUDL5g

Biden is responding with a three part comprehensive plan:
Let the amazing power of US free market capitalism respond to the China threat.
Destroy free market based capitalism in the US.
Give or sell all our technology to China.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Stratfor: China, HK, and Biden
« Reply #1214 on: March 17, 2021, 06:25:20 PM »
Not a fan of some of the shading here, but many points of interest:

Biden’s First Hong Kong Sanctions Maintains Trump’s Approach
4 MIN READMar 17, 2021 | 20:46 GMT


Despite China’s ongoing efforts to undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, new U.S. sanctions indicate that Washington will continue to avoid broader measures against the city’s financial sector or access to U.S. dollars for fear of dramatically escalating tensions with China and damaging U.S. economic interests in Hong Kong. Financial institutions in the city, however, will find themselves increasingly at risk of facing secondary sanctions. On March 16, the U.S. State Department updated its sanctions list under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, adding 24 individuals involved in either the drafting or enforcement of the city’s controversial national security law. But even after China’s recent passing of sweeping Hong Kong electoral reforms, the latest U.S. sanctions linked to mainland encroachment on the city remain carefully calibrated to a limited set of individuals.

The U.S. State Department’s list under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which was signed into law in June 2020, previously only included 10 individuals. The 24 new additions include 15 members of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, one Politburo member from Hong Kong, a member of the Central Leading Group on Hong Kong and Macau Affairs and seven individuals from both mainland and Hong Kong national security organs.

The Hong Kong Autonomy Act additions overlap with the individuals that the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) added to its Specially Designated Nationals list in December 2020, which was linked to then-President Donald Trump’s “Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization,” and subjected the added individuals to asset freezes and blocked U.S. transactions. The State Department designation, however, reclassified these individuals as Specially Designated Nationals under both the Hong Kong Autonomy Act and the executive order, expanding the penalties to allow secondary U.S. sanctions on financial institutions.

The Biden administration is signaling it will maintain the Trump-era emphasis on Hong Kong ahead of a key U.S.-China meeting. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan will meet with their Chinese counterparts in Alaska on March 18-19 for what will be the first major bilateral U.S.-China meeting under the Biden administration. The fact that the new sanctions were announced just a day ahead of this meeting indicates that like its predecessor, the Biden administration will continue to emphasize Hong Kong in its relationship with Beijing. Bipartisan support in the United States for a hard-line China policy and Biden’s emphasis on broad, multilateral outreach to Indo-Pacific allies also portend a continuation of U.S.-China tensions under Biden over a range of other issues, including Taiwan, Xinjiang and the South China Sea.

The March 16 sanctions announcement also follows U.S. moves in recent days to support allies such as Japan and Australia in their efforts to counter China’s regional rise. On March 16, the White House’s Indo-Pacific coordinator, Kurt Campbell, said that U.S.-China relations would only improve if China ended its trade pressure on U.S. ally Australia. Also on March 16, the United States and Japan agreed to hold joint military exercises on Okinawa focused on preparing for contingencies in the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands disputed between China and Japan.
China has been undeterred by U.S. or international criticism of its electoral reforms in Hong Kong. On March 17, Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office Deputy Director Zhang Xiaoming concluded three days of consultations with 1,100 prominent Hong Kongers about the new electoral changes. Zhang told reporters that the Chief Executive Election Committee would choose a "larger proportion" of Legislative Council members than those directly elected by geographic constituencies or chosen by functional groups, signaling even tighter control of the legislature.

As the White House targets more individuals tied to Hong Kong’s political crisis, the financial institutions in the city that transact with these individuals will become increasingly at risk of triggering secondary U.S. sanctions. In announcing the new sanctions, Blinken warned foreign financial institutions that they will also be subject to sanctions if they knowingly conduct significant transactions with the added individuals. With these new designations and more likely to follow, financial institutions operating in Hong Kong will need to increase efforts to ensure compliance by examining their existing customers and screening new customers.

Following the State Department listing, the U.S. government will now have 60 days to submit a report to Congress identifying any financial institutions connected to the added individuals.

Since the passage of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act last year, financial institutions in the city have reportedly heavily vetted their customer lists for individuals connected to the contentious political developments in Hong Kong, given the dual risks of both triggering U.S. sanctions and having pro-democracy activist assets be targeted by the national security law.

The U.S. Treasury Department said in December 2020 that it had not identified any banks or financial institutions linked to the 10 individuals designated under the act as part of its mandatory 60-day report.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Stratfor: What to watch for in the upcoming meeting
« Reply #1215 on: March 17, 2021, 06:38:52 PM »
What to Watch for Ahead of the U.S.-China Meeting in Alaska

The first face-to-face meeting between officials from the new U.S. administration and China is unlikely to lead to any breakthroughs; rather it is intended to set the strategic tenor of relations from the U.S. side. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will host Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China Yang Jiechi in Alaska March 18-19 for the first face-to-face talks between the administrations of Joe Biden and Xi Jinping. Expectations are low, at least in regards to any early easing of trade or security frictions. The White House will instead use the meeting to reset Beijing’s expectations while laying out the contours of its evolving policy toward China, which so far appears to be a fairly hard-line stance.

Ahead of the meeting, U.S. officials engaged in a rapid series of diplomatic and military dialogues with partners and allies, highlighting local concerns and priorities to reinforce a common front. The United States has emphasized multilateralism and a focus on strategic competition with China ahead of the meeting. Just a few of the actions from the past week include:

Biden joined a virtual summit of the leaders of the Quad countries (the United States, India, Australia and Japan), agreeing on collaboration in countering COVID-19 and reinvigorating a grouping seen as the core of a counterbalance to China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Blinken and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin visited Japan and South Korea for strategic talks, and Austin will continue on to India while Blinken heads to Alaska. The meetings in Japan and Korea followed the conclusion of negotiations over delayed defense cost-sharing agreements.

In both Japan and South Korea, the visiting U.S. officials addressed particular local concerns, including the Chinese maritime activity in the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and South Korea’s cautious balance of engagement and deterrence with North Korea. This was meant to reinforce the sense of cooperation.

Kurt Campbell, the administration’s Indo-Pacific coordinator, said Washington would not improve relations with China until Beijing ceased its “economic coercion” of Australia, noting similar Chinese behavior toward several other U.S. allies and partners. The message was not merely to Beijing — it was also intended to rebuild trust by allies that the United States would defend them or help offset costs of their actions against China.

Washington approved the sale of key military technologies to Taiwan to assist with domestic submarine development, suggesting a continuation of expanding sales and a willingness to help bolster Taiwan’s defense capabilities.

Biden’s focus on a multilateral approach, which was signaled well before the November election, is a key component of his administration’s foreign policy. Rebuilding trust will take time. Perceptions of U.S. unreliability led to significant changes in Philippine relations with the United States and China, have strained ties with South Korea, and remain a sticking point in U.S. attempts to bring partners in alignment with U.S. priorities. But the initial efforts by the administration show at least a recognition of this challenge, and highlight the importance Washington pays to removing a key tool from China’s diplomatic arsenal — that is, the ability to exploit significant differences among countries within the U.S. alliance and partner structure.

The Biden administration is approaching the meeting by highlighting its renewed multilateral approach, but also showing continuity with its predecessor’s hard-line perceptions of China. Beijing initially saw the meeting as an opportunity to “reset” relations, to find areas of collaboration and to ease tensions between the two powers. But as the meeting draws closer, the Chinese have shifted their own expectations, and are cautiously downplaying the importance of the meeting. Nonetheless, they have signaled that they will call for the removal of U.S. sanctions and a significant shift in relations, likely as a way to highlight their “willingness” and U.S. “intransigence.” The United States has promised to address hot-button issues, including Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan, and the Chinese no longer expect any swift talk of easing trade tensions. China’s strategic interests remain unchanged, and Beijing is unlikely to back down on any of its internal issues (or Taiwan), suggesting this first meeting will be rather contentious.

Coming out of the meeting, we will be watching for any signs of tactical cooperation, areas of further escalation, and signals for future discussions on economic and trade issues. While there are few expectations for a major adjustment to bilateral relations in Alaska, we can monitor for more subtle tactical adjustments.

There may be announcements of future bilateral or multilateral working groups that could provide space for focused dialogue and cooperation, even as strategic relations remain strained. Both Washington and Beijing at times have hinted at potential collaboration on issues of multilateral interest — from managing the COVID-19 pandemic to alternative energy and climate change mitigation. There is also room for further defense talks on setting protocols for military encounters at sea or in the air, for search and rescue coordination, and for countering piracy and illegal fishing.

Further escalation of tensions between the two could be signaled by demands for significant changes in behavior. If Washington sets specific expectations and deadlines on China for political actions in Hong Kong or human rights activities in Xinjiang, for example, we could see a further degradation of space for cooperation. China could also make clear threats regarding what it considers its territorial waters, building off of the recent change in laws regulating its Coast Guard use of force.

While Washington is trying to unify its partners and allies, China may shift its focus to keep the gaps open. China may step up its Code of Conduct negotiations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), for example, to dissuade Southeast Asian nations from signing on to any broader U.S. initiatives, and shift its active maritime pressures from the South China Sea to the East China Sea. The Chinese may also step up diplomacy with South Korea, which remains concerned that the Biden administration may abandon anything that happened in North Korea relations during the Trump administration.

While not a significant part of the Alaska meeting, the next phase of the U.S.-China dialogue is likely to focus on economics and trade. The Alaska talks will give some sense as to how tightly the United States will tie economic, strategic and human rights issues, or whether it will continue the general pattern of the past administration, keeping the three tracks somewhat separate. The former would make any quick progress complicated, but may also drive more strategic dialogue between China and the United States.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
It's hard for dems to defend a country they despise!
« Reply #1216 on: March 19, 2021, 07:14:33 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
GPF: China-Philippines, Taiwan
« Reply #1219 on: March 25, 2021, 06:31:14 PM »
Chinese boats in the Spratlys. Chinese-Philippine tensions have been ratcheting up again over the past week, with a fleet of hundreds of (likely armed) Chinese fishing vessels showing up around a Philippine-claimed reef in the Spratlys and appearing to expand its base on the disputed Subi Reef. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte pledged to defend Philippine territory, citing the country’s 2016 victory in its case against Chinese territorial claims at The Hague. (In the past, Duterte has generally been dismissive of the case’s importance.) The Philippine navy is sending a few vessels to the area.

Taiwan's dry spell. Taiwan is experiencing its worst drought in decades, which is threatening to only deepen the global chip shortage wreaking havoc on advanced manufacturers just about everywhere. On Wednesday, the Taiwanese government announced cuts to water supplies in several parts of the self-ruled island, including areas home to major chipmakers, which need a ton of water to operate. Taiwan’s astounding dominance of global chipmaking is starting to become a problem for both friends and foes.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: GPF: China-Philippines, Taiwan
« Reply #1220 on: March 25, 2021, 07:35:06 PM »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/05/10/china-is-launching-a-massive-weather-control-machine-the-size-of-alaska/?sh=6181501e6315

Worst drought in decades? Huh...

Chinese boats in the Spratlys. Chinese-Philippine tensions have been ratcheting up again over the past week, with a fleet of hundreds of (likely armed) Chinese fishing vessels showing up around a Philippine-claimed reef in the Spratlys and appearing to expand its base on the disputed Subi Reef. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte pledged to defend Philippine territory, citing the country’s 2016 victory in its case against Chinese territorial claims at The Hague. (In the past, Duterte has generally been dismissive of the case’s importance.) The Philippine navy is sending a few vessels to the area.

Taiwan's dry spell. Taiwan is experiencing its worst drought in decades, which is threatening to only deepen the global chip shortage wreaking havoc on advanced manufacturers just about everywhere. On Wednesday, the Taiwanese government announced cuts to water supplies in several parts of the self-ruled island, including areas home to major chipmakers, which need a ton of water to operate. Taiwan’s astounding dominance of global chipmaking is starting to become a problem for both friends and foes.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1221 on: March 26, 2021, 06:55:30 AM »
For the record, that article is more than two years old.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1222 on: March 26, 2021, 11:21:30 AM »
For the record, that article is more than two years old.

So their weather control program doesn't exist now?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1223 on: March 26, 2021, 12:41:10 PM »
Not my point.

a) probably good practice to note the age an article when it is not current;

b) In this case it arguably is suggestive of having time to affect Taiwan.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1224 on: March 26, 2021, 12:52:17 PM »
Not my point.

a) probably good practice to note the age an article when it is not current;

b) In this case it arguably is suggestive of having time to affect Taiwan.

China, not surprisingly has been very aggressive in using weather modification technology. It would not surprise me to find out that China and Russia have been using it to melt the ice in the Arctic while we are told it's Climate Change!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1225 on: March 26, 2021, 04:41:36 PM »
I had not thought of this angle.  Worth contemplating the implications.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1227 on: March 28, 2021, 07:06:43 PM »
Persuasive to me.

Co-Presidents Magoo and Cackling Kommiela as war chiefs.

WE ARE FUCT.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1228 on: March 28, 2021, 07:19:33 PM »
Well, the people of Taiwan are Fuct. To be sure.

I dare not set foot in the PRC or Hong Kong these days. How long before Taiwan and Singapore are also off limits?


Persuasive to me.

Co-Presidents Magoo and Cackling Kommiela as war chiefs.

WE ARE FUCT.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Australia's role in the war with China
« Reply #1230 on: March 29, 2021, 06:02:24 AM »
Australia’s Role in America’s War With China, Part 2
The country would have plenty to do aside from housing U.S. forces.
By: Jacek Bartosiak

Perhaps America’s greatest operational advantage over China – should a war ever start between them – is the superiority of its submarines. Submarines are great for breaking China’s anti-access/area denial strategy. Especially in the early stages of the conflict, nuclear submarines and cruise missile carriers would be Washington’s first option; they would be deep in Chinese-controlled waters, and they could hit inland targets such as ports, communications facilities and air defense systems. Even so, submarines have an inherent operational limitation: ammunition, which obviously can’t be replaced underwater.

Geographic Advantage

Enter Australia, whose importance can’t be confined to just one analysis. Northern Australia would be the ideal location for U.S. bases in theory, but inclement weather, great tides, moving floors and reefs make it too treacherous. The best option, then, would be Western Australia’s Stirling naval base. It’s beyond the range of China’s current conventional missile force, and unlike in Guam, Australia has conventional submarines stationed there. Its access to the Indian Ocean also allows U.S. vessels to eliminate peripheral Chinese raids and to cut through Chinese communications or block military ports in the Indian Ocean. (Not for nothing, Stirling would need some upgrades: a new harbor for nuclear ships, a deepened port at the Cockburn Sound canal, and so on. All of which would require things like ammunition stores and massive construction equipment that would make this a huge undertaking.)

Notably, Australia already has massive ship, warship and aircraft traffic reconnaissance capabilities far north of the Australian coast. For example, the off-horizon observation system, based on the use of radio wave reflection in the JORN (Jindalee Operational Radar Network) ionosphere, monitors sea routes and straits at a distance of 1,000-3,000 kilometers (620-1,900 miles) from the northern coast. The system detects planes, rockets and ships. After a planned upgrade, it will detect ballistic missiles as well as stealth planes and cruise missiles. Its data is interchangeable with Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, HALE-class drones and P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol planes. Australia may soon ask other countries in the region to host the system, which would only strengthen it further.

Indeed, Australia has a huge role to play in terms of space reconnaissance. The geographic location of the country on the edge of the Southern Hemisphere enables precise tracking of the launch and, later, the movement of bodies in orbit. Western Australia’s sparse population reduces radio interference of satellite signals, and the lack of cloud cover over the country’s western deserts is ideal for tracking Chinese satellites.

Responsibilities

In the event of a war with China, Australian forces would have several automatic advantages over Chinese forces in the Indonesian strait area. A blockade of the Malacca Strait would divert Chinese vessel traffic to the Indonesian straits closer to Australia. This would distance Chinese forces from their own coast, complicating logistics and effectively depriving them of air protection or at least seriously reducing it. The current naval and air systems of the Chinese army do not have sufficient range to conduct operations around the straits. Only Chinese cruise missiles can threaten surface ships trying to block the Indonesian straits. Chinese long-range reconnaissance will therefore have a very difficult task. The natural geography of the area favors Australia by channeling the movement of ships, which helps its armed forces to concentrate strike forces over and between narrow passages. Australia’s smaller naval forces have local control of key narrow sea passages closer to their own bases and ports that will be almost entirely beyond Chinese influence.

Strategic Points in the Indo-Pacific
(click to enlarge)

Australians would presumably be assigned the role of permanent control of the movement of ships and warships, and for this they would need sensors, drones and special forces located near the Lombok and Sunda straits. It would not be necessary to maintain a constant air force presence over all Indonesian straits, because Chinese planes have too short a range. Only Chinese H-6 bombers with stand-off missiles can operate in this area. And the Chinese can fight Australian aircraft only with their Luyang I, II and III-class missile destroyers. These ships would naturally be subjected to the first attacks by American (and Australian) forces at the beginning of the war, something best accomplished with a fleet of submarines intercepting Chinese ships on their way south from Hainan Island, or with long-range planes armed with hard-to-detect anti-ship missiles with a range greater than the sensors and radar of Luyang destroyers.

Another role would be to combat Chinese submarines traveling from Hainan Island toward the Indonesian straits to dislodge the blockade. In this case, the conventional submarines of the Australian navy – typically difficult to detect in shallow and acoustically noisy waters around the straits – would be even more important than U.S. nuclear ships. At the operational level, there would be a division of tasks between American and Australian ships, where American nuclear ships would fight the Chinese navy in the deeper waters of the South China Sea, while quiet, conventional Australian ships lying in the shallow waters of the Indonesian archipelago would be waiting for Chinese vessels trying to get out of the American trap.

An important aspect in all this is Indonesia’s response to the conflict. If Indonesia fought with Western powers, it would significantly change the balance of power. In the Sunda and Lombok straits, coastal missiles can be easily used against objects at sea with the help of special units or separate ground troops. The Sunda Strait, in particular, is exceptionally narrow – in some places only 15 nautical miles wide. Special operations forces equipped with rockets and hidden in the jungle at Cape Tua in Sumatra or Puja in Java, moreover, would help to effectively block traffic in the straits.

One last task Australia may have to carry out, and one that may prove to be its primary task with regard to establishing a blockade, would be to escort its own ships and warships. Doing so would require extensive use of warships and combat platforms as the main force. Given the daily number of ships passing through the straits, it will not be easy, and even using all Australian forces may not be sufficient in allied operations, given that the Americans also do not have the number of ships to do the job. To this end, the Australian armed forces should provide for the possibility of calling and replenishing war stocks in ports geographically close to the straits in Malaysia and Singapore, and in the Philippines.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1231 on: March 29, 2021, 07:39:26 AM »
"I dare not set foot in the PRC or Hong Kong these days. How long before Taiwan and Singapore are also off limits?"

   - I'm afraid my participation here with honest observations precludes me from ever visiting a country under their control.  Whether that includes the US or not remains to be seen.  They don't just have our posts; they have our DNA.

Good last point too.  Without the US being the strongest Navy in the world and in the region, the question expands from who protects Taiwan (no one) to who protects Singapore, and others.

Current estimate, Singapore Navy 30 ships, 4 submarines.  Is there any chance China doesn't have a missile or torpedo aimed at each one of them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Navy

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/china/china-world-biggest-navy-intl-hnk-ml-dst/index.html
China has built the world's largest navy. Now what's Beijing going to do with it?
CNN  March 5, 2021


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1233 on: March 30, 2021, 12:16:29 PM »
second

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Biden-s-Asia-policy/Biden-and-Suga-to-note-Taiwan-Strait-in-April-joint-statement

=======================

Also see:

When he gets it right I say so:  GOOD.
Daily Memo: Washington Shows Its Support for Taiwan
The U.S. is making it easier for its diplomats to meet with Taiwanese officials.
By: Geopolitical Futures

U.S. support for Taiwan. The United States is gradually treating Taiwan more and more like an independent country. The Biden administration is reportedly prepping new guidelines that would make it easier for U.S. diplomats to meet with their Taiwanese counterparts, building on a trend that started last year. This comes after the U.S. ambassador to Palau joined the Palauan president on a visit to Taipei over the weekend, becoming the first sitting U.S. ambassador to visit Taiwan in 42 years. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga are reportedly planning on making a joint rhetorical show of support for Taiwan during Suga’s visit to Washington next month.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
GPF: Japan-Indonesia defense deal
« Reply #1234 on: March 31, 2021, 05:45:32 PM »
Luring Indonesia into taking a stand against China is an important piece of keeping the ability to block Chinese ships from ingress and egress with the South China Sea
======================


Japanese-Indonesian defense deal. As expected, Japan and Indonesia inked their landmark pact paving the way for exports of Japanese military equipment and technology to Indonesia. Tokyo has long been looking for ways to become a bigger player in the arms export game but has been hampered by factors both foreign and domestic.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: US-China, Yes they meddled
« Reply #1235 on: April 01, 2021, 08:06:40 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-national-intelligence-officer-argues-china-meddled-in-2020-election-to-damage-trump_3740095.html/amp

Intelligence Officials Believe China Meddled in 2020 Election to Damage Trump:
March 18, 2021

“The National Intelligence Officer for Cyber assesses that China took at least some steps to undermine former President Trump’s reelection chances, primarily through social media and official public statements and media,”
---------------------------------------------

I know how we should respond:  Meddle enough to accomplish their regime change.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: US-China Taiwan, CFR
« Reply #1236 on: April 02, 2021, 05:48:26 AM »
 Council on Foreign Relations Special Report: “Taiwan is the issue with the greatest potential to turn competition into direct confrontation. For the past four decades, diplomatic finesse, backed by military deterrence, has maintained a precarious peace in the Taiwan Strait. The United States has played a critical role in deterring China from using force against Taiwan, as Beijing cannot be sure that the United States would stand aside in the face of Chinese aggression. Similarly, the United States has deterred Taiwan from seeking formal independence, as Taipei cannot be certain that the United States would come to its defense should it provoke a Chinese assault.

Cross-strait stability has allowed Taiwan to thrive and its people to build a democratic, pluralistic, and economically vibrant society. China, for its part, benefited from Taiwanese investment on the mainland and was able to set military modernization aside for a time to focus instead on economic development. The United States, through its One China policy, maintained official diplomatic relations with China but at the same time built a strong unofficial relationship with Taiwan.

It is unclear, however, whether this playbook that has worked so well for forty years can endure. Xi Jinping has broken from his predecessors, who stressed maintaining a low profile internationally and were content with keeping the question of Taiwan unresolved in order to focus on economic growth, recognizing that a Taiwan crisis would seriously harm China’s economy. Xi has opted for a more assertive Chinese foreign policy. On his watch, China has militarized the South China Sea, fought border skirmishes with India, challenged Japanese claims to the Senkaku islands, and used economic leverage to punish countries critical of Chinese practices. Xi has also overseen an effort to intimidate Taiwan and signaled that the Taiwan question cannot be delayed indefinitely.

China now possesses a stronger military that it hopes to rely on to back this bolder foreign policy. China has the second-largest military budget in the world, and most of its focus has gone toward preparing for a Taiwan scenario. In the United States, there has been a push toward retrenchment, while the Donald J. Trump administration called into question the value of America’s alliances and partnerships. As a result, China has greater capabilities to coerce Taiwan, and it could very well be questioning whether the United States would intervene on Taiwan’s behalf despite the fact that the Joe Biden administration has signaled that it well might. The net result is that the chances of a conflict over Taiwan have grown significantly in recent years. (via cfr.org)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1237 on: April 02, 2021, 02:41:18 PM »
By: Geopolitical Futures
Biden and Suga to meet. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga will be the first foreign leader to meet in person with U.S. President Joe Biden in a summit planned for April 16. The pair is expected to ink a deal on secure supplies of microchips. Japan’s chip industry is primarily focused on memory chips, not central processing unit chips or other chips presently in short supply across the globe, so it’s unclear what such a deal would entail. Getting South Korea involved as well would make a lot of sense, though. And that’s apparently on the agenda when U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan holds talks with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts on Friday.

War planning. The United States and Australia are reportedly holding talks on what to do in the event that China attacks Taiwan. The U.S. has been holding similar talks with Japan. There’s no obvious direct role for Australia unless such a conflict were to escalate into a broader regional conflict, giving Australia a chance to leverage its valuable position on the southern end of the first island chain.

Ship sales. The Indonesian-Japanese defense talks this week, during which a deal was signed facilitating Japanese arms sales to Indonesia, were reportedly centered on Japanese frigates. Jakarta is reportedly mulling buying eight of them. This would be a big win for Japan, which is keen to use arms exports to bolster its domestic arms industry, and would mark something of a departure for Indonesia, which has been somewhat reluctant to develop deep military ties with countries most directly involved in the disputes with China. (It has bought fighter jets from South Korea.)

TPP expansion? The Philippines has formally expressed interest in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is probably motivated by Manila’s trade goals, but the timing seems conspicuous with China intensifying pressure on the Philippines in the South China Sea. Meeting the bloc’s requirements might be a tall order for Manila, though.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 02:43:41 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
GPF: Taiwan looking for subs
« Reply #1238 on: April 06, 2021, 07:10:31 AM »
Chinese occupation. Philippine Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana said China’s latest move around disputed reefs in the Spratlys illustrated China’s intent to occupy additional features in the area. We speculated as much last week. China is still insisting the hundreds of armed Chinese fishing vessels in the archipelago (some of which lies in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone) are there only to fish. Aides to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, usually quick to downplay these sorts of things, said China’s actions created the risk of “unwanted hostilities that both countries would rather not pursue.”

Help from Pyongyang? Taiwan says it is not getting help on its fledgling indigenous submarine from North Korea, contrary to reporting in various U.S. outlets over the past couple of years. The self-ruled island’s defense ministry says it is, however, now getting help from certain European powers (in addition to the U.S., which was known). Taiwan has felt increasingly exposed without its own submarine deterrent.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
FONOPs
« Reply #1241 on: April 08, 2021, 09:37:00 AM »
second

By: Geopolitical Futures

U.S. Navy in Indian waters. A U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer on Wednesday conducted a freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) inside India’s exclusive economic zone some 130 nautical miles west of the country’s Lakshadweep Islands. Unusual for FONOPs, the U.S. 7th Fleet announced the operation and explained its rationale, citing India’s requirement of prior consent before foreign militaries conduct military exercises or maneuvers in its economic zone, something inconsistent with international maritime law. This comes days after the 7th Fleet announced it had also conducted a FONOP challenging Japanese territorial claims in the Tsushima Strait, citing disagreement with the Japanese government’s particular methodology for calculating the extent of its claims. Naturally, these sorts of ops targeting friends and allies raise eyebrows about what exactly the U.S. endgame is here. But it’s worth noting that the U.S. routinely, and usually quietly, conducts FONOPs targeting both friends and foes. Its chief aim with FONOPs is consistent interpretation and application of international maritime law – and, with China more aggressively flouting such laws, it has a growing interest in trying to get its core defense partners on the same page.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
GPF: Taiwanese rockets
« Reply #1242 on: April 09, 2021, 01:42:31 PM »
Taiwanese defenses. Taiwan is deploying Kestrel anti-armor rockets to some of its outlying islands in the South China Sea. This comes as Chinese military vessels have been loitering near islands where Taiwan has been conducting missile tests and as the People’s Liberation Army has been intensifying exercises and incursions into Taiwanese air space on each of Taiwan’s flanks. Last week, Taiwan threatened to shoot down Chinese drones it says it spotted circling around its Pratas islands in the South China Sea. China’s initial salvo against Taiwan is likely to take place around one of the outlying islands.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The PRC has a golden opportunity
« Reply #1246 on: April 15, 2021, 07:29:05 AM »
https://2020electioncenter.com/watch?id=60760dee56165f200e388015

Bracken says they are going for it.

You would think China's military and commercial objectives would be in conflict with each other.  You would think that active military expansionism like taking Taiwan by force would cause commercial partners in Asia and around the world to back off and isolate the PRC.  [That theory might not be true.]

The idea that Russia and China will act now while the US has its weakest President in office is completely true.  Slow Joe is not fully in charge, but to the extent he is, he's the one who wanted to arm wrestle a supporter and take Trump out back and beat him up.  In this context, he's not a deteriorating 80 year old who can't walk up a stairway; he (and his team) are commanders in chiefs of the US military that his predecessors built.  Why test Biden now or rock the boat at all when everything is already going China's way?

This is not first term of an inexperienced President.  This is really term 3 of the Obama politburo.  Obama believed in peace through American weakness, but even Obama continued drone strikes on terrorists, authorized the bin Laden raid, and kept the war going in Afghan.  Biden looks weak but his administration, at least domestically, is anything but cautious, moving full speed on all [Leftist] fronts, moving forward on gun control and court packing just this week.  China doesn't have to hurry on account of the short window Joe occupies the Oval Office.  Isn't Kamala even more skeptical of US military strength?  If China really takes the long view, don't they want this chapter of weak US administrations to run as long as possible?  Making Biden look impotent, putting the world in crisis, will come with a backlash, make a switch back to stronger Republican leadership more likely and happen sooner.

The current path favors the regime of China.  Assuming they act in their own best interests, why screw that up?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The PRC has a golden opportunity
« Reply #1247 on: April 15, 2021, 08:31:11 AM »
Xi sees America in terminal decline (Is he wrong?) and wants to do this on his watch.

https://2020electioncenter.com/watch?id=60760dee56165f200e388015

Bracken says they are going for it.

You would think China's military and commercial objectives would be in conflict with each other.  You would think that active military expansionism like taking Taiwan by force would cause commercial partners in Asia and around the world to back off and isolate the PRC.  [That theory might not be true.]

The idea that Russia and China will act now while the US has its weakest President in office is completely true.  Slow Joe is not fully in charge, but to the extent he is, he's the one who wanted to arm wrestle a supporter and take Trump out back and beat him up.  In this context, he's not a deteriorating 80 year old who can't walk up a stairway; he (and his team) are commanders in chiefs of the US military that his predecessors built.  Why test Biden now or rock the boat at all when everything is already going China's way?

This is not first term of an inexperienced President.  This is really term 3 of the Obama politburo.  Obama believed in peace through American weakness, but even Obama continued drone strikes on terrorists, authorized the bin Laden raid, and kept the war going in Afghan.  Biden looks weak but his administration, at least domestically, is anything but cautious, moving full speed on all [Leftist] fronts, moving forward on gun control and court packing just this week.  China doesn't have to hurry on account of the short window Joe occupies the Oval Office.  Isn't Kamala even more skeptical of US military strength?  If China really takes the long view, don't they want this chapter of weak US administrations to run as long as possible?  Making Biden look impotent, putting the world in crisis, will come with a backlash, make a switch back to stronger Republican leadership more likely and happen sooner.

The current path favors the regime of China.  Assuming they act in their own best interests, why screw that up?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The PRC has a golden opportunity
« Reply #1248 on: April 15, 2021, 09:48:50 AM »
"Xi sees America in terminal decline (Is he wrong?)"

   - Right, so it gets easier each year that he waits.

"and wants to do this on his watch."

   - That makes sense.  Xi is 67 years old.  Probably sees himself as having 15, 20 or more years in power.  From his point of view, the war already started, as he is putting more and more Chinese military assets closer and closer to Taiwan, right now.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/china-holds-navy-drills-in-taiwan-waters-south-china-sea/d3c7935f-702e-4e3e-a167-7ce37b412269

The changes Biden is making, like gender equity in the American military, are insidious.  Why not let the rot of the American might and spirit rot further first?

Wars started by Xi Jinping:  All I can see is the India skirmish, which was some kind of a test or practice run, not a war to conquer a country.

Maybe Hong Kong is more the model than an all out military assault.  The handover was in 1997.  Complete control was accomplished in the last year of Trump(?) without a shot fired.  Xi took small steps, but let it go on, let it go on, let it go on, then suddenly it's over, and no one says a word.  It took more than 20 years.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #1249 on: April 15, 2021, 09:55:06 AM »
"- Right, so it gets easier each year that he waits."

Not really. China has serious internal issues and debt problems. Waiting means China's demographic problems get much worse (China getting old before it get's rich).