Summit Treestands
Chinese saber rattling
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Thunderflight 04-Jan-19
'Ike' (Phone) 04-Jan-19
KSflatlander 04-Jan-19
kentuckbowhnter 04-Jan-19
IdyllwildArcher 04-Jan-19
IdyllwildArcher 04-Jan-19
Spike Bull 05-Jan-19
HedgeHunter 05-Jan-19
HedgeHunter 05-Jan-19
HedgeHunter 05-Jan-19
DL 05-Jan-19
Owl 05-Jan-19
KSflatlander 05-Jan-19
Spike Bull 05-Jan-19
IdyllwildArcher 05-Jan-19
Spike Bull 05-Jan-19
TD 05-Jan-19
Thunderflight 05-Jan-19
slade 05-Jan-19
IdyllwildArcher 06-Jan-19
04-Jan-19
On December 20, Chinese Rear Admiral Lou Yuan, while speaking at a military trade conference, announced that what the United States feared most was casualties and that the easiest way to defeat China’s main rival was to sink two American supercarriers, killing over 10,000 sailors in the process. When that has happened, Admiral Lou announced, then “We’ll see how frightened America is.”

Regardless of Chinas military might, our response would be fierce and ultimately would not end well for them. Would it be easy? Absolutely not, but this admiral is either blowing smoke up his audiences ass or he is totally ignorant of Americas history in dealing with attacks against our country.

04-Jan-19
The Chinese feel pretty confident in their abilities now days and they’re right! A majority of today’s Americans would rollover at that amount of casualties and not want to fight...

From: KSflatlander
04-Jan-19
I guess he didn’t read his history to find out what happened after Pearl Harbor.

04-Jan-19
yeah, we dont need a missle to kill china just ban them from our economy and they die quickly. we will be just fine.

04-Jan-19
"I guess he didn’t read his history to find out what happened after Pearl Harbor."

Or any other US war. Even Vietnam, for all the blowback the government dealt with, saw the loss of over 50,000 US troops for a shithole patch of jungle for which we were defending an idea and not our own territory or skin. An open war for continued existence would unleash the sleeping bear that is American resolve. China would lose in a jiffy. They've got a lot of people, but not the country to support and create will to preserve. China has been losing with better numbers for 1000 years.

04-Jan-19
Don't forget, we won in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time on the backs of a volunteer force of Gen Xers and Millenials. China's conventional army would be devastated in under a year and our planes would own the Chinese skies, even if they sunk a couple of carriers, which we'd replace in short order.

05-Jan-19
His hubrus comes from the fact that he lives in a nation of 1.4 billion people and they respect life even less than we do.

He seriously underestimates our drive, we would win.

From: HedgeHunter
05-Jan-19
Guess they really don't care how we pushed the Japs of their backs in WW2. Gen Merrill and his boyz either. Look what we did after 3000 folks in NYC were killed. What do you think with would happen with 10,000 men on the sea floor? It would not be conventional that's for sure.

WWTA: The WWTA assesses that China “would justify attacks against US and allied satellites as necessary to offset any perceived US military advantage derived from military, civil, or commercial space systems.” China “continue[s] to pursue a full range of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons as a means to reduce US and allied military effectiveness” and “aim[s] to have nondestructive and destructive counterspace weapons available for use during a potential future conflict.” In addition, “[m]ilitary reforms…in the past few years indicate an increased focus on establishing operational forces designed to integrate attacks against space systems and services with military operations in other domains.” China’s “destructive ASAT weapons probably will reach initial operating capability in the next few years,” and China is “advancing directed-energy weapons technologies for the purpose of fielding ASAT weapons that could blind or damage sensitive space-based optical sensors, such as those used for remote sensing or missile defense.” THF

HH~

From: HedgeHunter
05-Jan-19

From: HedgeHunter
05-Jan-19
Sea Power. As the world’s foremost trading state, China depends on the seas for its economic well-being. China’s factories are increasingly powered by imported oil, and Chinese diets include a growing percentage of imported food. China relies on the seas to move its products to markets. At the same time, because its economic center of gravity is now in the coastal region, China has to emphasize maritime power to defend key assets and areas. Consequently, China has steadily expanded its maritime power, including its merchant marine and maritime law enforcement capabilities, but especially the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

From: DL
05-Jan-19
He wouldn’t be so cocky if he could see all the nuclear subs off China’s coast and the ones shadowing his fleets.

From: Owl
05-Jan-19
How many Chinamen does it take to defeat a nuclear blast? The atom bomb revolutionized the concept of military advantage. I don't fear nation states. Our biggest threats are terror groups, national debt and Washington DC.

From: KSflatlander
05-Jan-19
Good point Owl.

05-Jan-19

Spike Bull 's Link
"Many Chinese Think Americans Lack Resolve to Prevail in Battle, Expert Says

In this Monday, Oct. 2, 2017, file photo, the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier arrives in Hong Kong. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)

2 Jan 2019

Stars and Stripes | By Seth Robson

Too many in China think the United States will cut and run if war breaks out in the Far East, a U.S. defense expert warned Wednesday in response to threats by a Chinese war hawk.

"A far larger number of Chinese believe it than I think is healthy," said Brad Glosserman, a China expert and visiting professor at Tokyo's Tama University.

The G.I. Bill Isn’t EnoughFind the Right Scholarship for You at Fastweb

Glosserman was responding to comments by Chinese Rear Adm. Lou Yuan, who told an audience in Shenzhen last month that sinking a pair of U.S. aircraft carriers would settle issues of sovereignty in the South China Sea, according to the News Corp Australia network.

China has strengthened its grip on the disputed territory in recent years, moving military equipment onto artificial islands and harassing aircraft and ships passing through the area.

New anti-ship missiles could take out America's largest warships, Yuan -- deputy head of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences -- said in his speech Dec. 20 at the Military Industry List summit.

"What the United States fears the most is taking casualties," he said, noting that 5,000 servicemembers would die on each sunken U.S. carrier.

"We'll see how frightened America is," he said, according to the Australian report.

The comments reflect a widespread belief that America lacks resolve to prevail on the battlefield, Glosserman said.

Too many Chinese think "Americans have gone soft … [they] no longer have an appetite for sacrifice and at the first sign of genuine trouble they will cut and run," he said.

The issues at play in the South China Sea are a core national interest for China; the U.S. sees them as abstractly important, Glosserman said.

Lack of democracy in China means the nation's tolerance for combat losses is likely higher than in the U.S., he added.

Yuan, who holds only an academic military rank and hasn't commanded Chinese forces, advocated exploiting America's military, financial system, workforce, electoral system and fear of adversaries, News Corp reported.

"Attack wherever the enemy is afraid of being hit," he said, "wherever the enemy is weak."

Yuan said last month that China should invade Taiwan if the U.S. Navy stopped there, according to comments published by the state-run Global Times newspaper.

"Achieving China's complete unity is a necessary requirement," he said. "The achievement of the past 40 years of reform and opening-up has given us the capability and confidence to safeguard our sovereignty.

"Those who are trying to stir up trouble in the South China Sea and Taiwan should be careful about their future," he added."

05-Jan-19
He's just a nationalist warmonger. Nothing more, nothing less. China has trillions invested in our country. They stand nothing to gain from a war with us, which they would lose. Large standing armies are only good for holding territory. One fully loaded combat helicopter squadron can kill thousands of ground troops in a single mission and that's only one of the many tools we have.

Another point is that 10,000 men would not die. Since when has the sinking of any of our ships resulted in 100% mortality?

Lastly, the first-use of nuclear bombs on China would be a mistake - ala MAD. They've got them too. We can beat them in a conventional war without the use of nuclear bombs.

Additionally, nuclear bombs cost a lot from an environmental standpoint. We eat out of the same ocean and the prevailing winds blow from China directly to the US. Dropping nukes on China is pissing in the wind.

We could flatten their cities with our bombers using cruise missiles and conventional bombs. We'd lose planes and men, but they'd lose a Hell of a lot more. Only takes one bomb to destroy a billion dollar sky scraper.

The only way the US would ever be in trouble would be if we had to fight Russia and China at the same time AND also lost the support of the Israelis, British, NATO, etc etc. There's no way that's going to happen.

05-Jan-19

Spike Bull 's Link
"A Forest of Bare Branches

by Mark Steyn Steyn on the World January 5, 2019

Share51

In 2006 I wrote an international bestseller about demography. Which is harder to do than you might think. But it was leavened with Dean Martin gags and whatnot. Nevertheless, it made some big-picture points:

Will China be the hyperpower of the 21st century? Answer: No. Its population will get old before it's got rich.

That's a cute line. I've been using it since the dawn of the millennium and I've been interested to watch it catch on. A few years back, I had the pleasure of hearing Henry Kissinger use it: It sounds so much more geopolitically persuasive in his gravelly voice. And the point is a serious one: Japan's demographic crisis began afterthey'd got rich, which is the better way to arrange things. In China, alas, the statistics are catching up with Steynian doom-mongering:

China's population shrank last year for the first time in 70 years, experts said, warning of a "demographic crisis" that puts pressure on the country's slowing economy...

The number of live births nationwide in 2018 fell by 2.5 million year-on-year, contrary to a predicted increase of 790,000 births, according to analysis by U.S.-based academic Yi Fuxian.

Yi is at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and he's been tracking just how old China's getting:

China's median age was 22 in 1980. By 2018, it was 40. That will rise to 46 in 2030 and 56 in 2050. In the US, the median age was 30 in 1980 and 38 in 2018. In 2030, it will be 40, and 44 in 2050. India, by comparison, had a median age of 20 in 1980 and 28 in 2018.

What happened between 1980 and 2018 to make a country age that fast? Well, for two generations Chinese mothers gave birth to boys and aborted all the girls. From page thirty of yours truly's America Alone:

The People's Republic's most distinctive structural flaw [is] the most gender-distorted demographic cohort in global history, the so-called guang gun – 'bare branches': Since China introduced its 'one child' policy in 1978, the imbalance between the sexes has increased to the point where in today's generation there are 119 boys for every 100 girls. The pioneer generation of that male surplus are now adults. Unless China's planning on becoming the first gay superpower since Sparta, what's going to happen to those young men? As a general rule, large numbers of excitable lads who can't get any action are useful for manning the nuttier outposts of the jihad but not for much else.

The catastrophe of that policy was obvious when I wrote that passage, but it took the geniuses of the Politburo another decade to catch up to it. Not until three years ago did they issue the magisterial pronouncement that "couples will now be allowed to have two children".

Unfortunately, as Tucker Carlson noted in the American context the other night, it's easier for the state to demolish the family than to rebuild it. China wound up with an unintended Cultural Revolution: The cultural norm of having households with multiple children faded away so totally that, even when it's no longer illegal to have two kids, very few Chinese want to; they've gotten out of the habit. In Germany, by comparison, there are many, many childless couples, but you'll also run across the occasional parents who have two, three, or maybe even four kids, and thus keep the idea of family alive. When the state is powerful enough to insist that every couple has no more than one child, the notion of a big family doesn't even survive as a minority pastime. If no one's seen a two-child household for two generations, the rhythms of life shift - and are hard to shift back. Yi Fuxian again:

China, meanwhile, has been hit by two further blows: the one-child policy has changed Chinese childbearing attitudes and distorted moral values about life; and, the economy, social environment, education and almost everything else relates back to the one-child policy. Having just one child or no children has become the social norm in China.

Northeast China – Heilongjiang, Liaoning and Jilin provinces – has a population of about 109 million, and its socio-educational level is several years ahead of the country average. The fertility rate in northeast China was only 0.9 in 2000 and 0.56 in 2015. This means that the next-generation population in this region is only a quarter the size of the last generation.

It was young China that closed the gap with middle-aged America. Against a still middle-aged America, can an old China retain its edge? Very unlikely. As I warned in America Alone:

The central fact of a new Dark Ages is this: it would be not a world in which the American superpower is succeeded by other powers but a world with no dominant powers at all. Today, lots of experts crank out analyses positing China as the unstoppable hegemon of the 21st century. Yet the real threat is not the strengths of your enemies but their weaknesses. China is a weak power: its demographic and other structural defects are already hobbling its long-term ambitions.

Weak powers behave more irrationally than strong ones. And a still developing nation with death-spiral demographics isn't going to be fun for its neighbors or the world.

Towards the end of America Alone, I speculate on which nation will be the first to take a flyer on the transhuman future. You can see its seeds already in Japan, with its robot nurses at the old folks' home and talking dolls for adults to serve as the children and grandchildren they never bothered having themselves. Those periodic wacky stories about lonely Tokyo millennials marrying their favorite manga character foreshadow a world where the middle-aged businessman, starting to slow down a bit and with intimations of his own mortality, starts to develop feelings for his robot housekeeper... A comparatively small number of comparatively wealthy Japanese will turn to robots and clones and whatever it takes.

But a comparatively large number of comparatively poor Chinese will face cruder, tougher choices. As we see in trade negotiations, China today is an aggressive and demanding power - and for very good reasons: It has to use its moment, because the moment is already passing."

From: TD
05-Jan-19
I forgot about the aborting girl babies for years and years...... must be a tough nasty place when the rut kicks in......

They place no value on individual human life. They feel that would give them their advantage. They haven't a clue what just one free minded, committed individual can accomplish. It's a concept they cannot grasp.

05-Jan-19
Interesting that they think Americans lack resolve and will run from a fight. They must have had their head in the sand for the last 20 years.

From: slade
05-Jan-19
They are confusing bowing Obama as the average American....

06-Jan-19
“They must have had their head in the sand for the last 20 years.“

Or the last 100

  • Sitka Gear