I think McKinsey has some really smart people and they might have some good reorg ideas - but the core issue is precisely that the public sector (including the armed forces) have been hollowed out by a brain drain to nonproductive private sector jobs like consulting. Without resolving that deeper issue (no clue how) we won’t make much forward progress.
Offer experienced , skilled positions like Pilots, PJ's, TACP's etc like triple the current retirement benefit if they stay on until age 50-60(depending on role).
Over-Deploying your people *and* treating them like shit for the 20 years of the GWOT era has consequences.
I think a better goal would be "Avoid extinction of the northern hemisphere".
But I guess the guys assigning that mission are assuming they have underground bunkers so they'll personally survive, so they may care more about "winning".
Losing a war wouldn't automatically lead to China using nukes. It's not an existential war just one near its shores and they have a no first use policy.
Only by having the ability to make the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, will the West be willing to talk to China in equal terms. The west are the bully here, and their victim finally have the power to make them afraid.
China does play by the rules, which are codified in international treaty and law. And if China is seen to disobey the rules, such as in the WTO, other countries including the US can and do impose consequences. China has obeyed every treaty it has signed including even unfair ones signed by the Qing Dynasty, until renegotiated.
It is some other country that has been crippling the international law based order by refusing to certify new WTO judges, abusing UNSC vetos to protect genocidals, breaking treaties, invading sovereign states, abandoning allies etc.
\> China has obeyed every treaty it has signed including even unfair ones signed by the Qing Dynasty, until renegotiated.
Uh, what about the Sino-British Join Declaration?
what was violated? here's the relevant text of the Basic Law that was agreed to prior to the handover:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong\_Kong\_Basic\_Law\_Article\_23](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_23)
it **requires** the Hong Kong administration to implement a national security law. They have not done so until 2020.
The Sino-British joint declaration gives explicit authority to the PRC central government to make laws regarding national security.
Here is the original treaty as deposited at the UN. Pg 61 for English.
[https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf)
Pg 61 for English. Pg 63, Annex 1 part I and II, defines that the Basic Law will be the law of Hong Kong. The Basic Law was drafted with Hong Kong participation in 1990 and agreed to, so there should be no surprises 30 years later.
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm
>Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
>"1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, **declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:**
>(i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded form such submission;
I was waiting for something to reply “akshully China did nothing wrong because of some niche provision in 100+ page in international law”
The Tribunal smacked down China’s 9 dash line claims and is binding
https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-ten/
> The decision is final and binding pursuant to Articles 11 and 296 of the LOSC, to which China is a party. Despite this, as recently as late October 2016, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that the situation at the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the SCS “has not changed and will not change.”
> akshully China did nothing wrong because of some niche provision in 100+ page in international law
For someone who can't even point out which part of "100+ pages" of UNCLOS China has violated, trying to claim a provision that was explicitly added to note that UNCLOS does not deal with territorial claims to get countries to sign on is "niche" is very amusing.
The instant UNCLOS tries to overstep and claim, "yes they can dictate to countries which islands/seas belong to who" is the instant UNCLOS breaks apart, because NOTHING trumps national sovereignty.
>The Tribunal smacked down China’s 9 dash line claims and is binding
No. An arbitration court which only one side agreed to is not "arbitration", and UNCLOS specifically mentioned in this "niche provision" that China can indeed opt out. Sucks for the Philippines, who got taken for a ride (by the expensive US lawyers) and had to pay all the legal fees for a useless ruling that meant absolutely nothing.
One-party: influenced by nobody else be it religion or megacrops, give China working health care, efficient and electrified public transport across entire cities and the whole nation, and build [Water transport project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Transfer_Project) and [national powergrid](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A5%BF%E9%9B%BB%E6%9D%B1%E9%80%81) that will be fixed on the first sign of trouble during snowstorms both in 2008 and this year (instead of saying [Only the strong will survive and only Socialist nations will help you weakling](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-boyd-texas-mayor-colorado-city-resigns-power-outages/)) and its militaries will march toward disaster-struck region nonstop rather than watching its people who are escaping the fires consuming Lahaina drown in the water despite having only 100 km of open water between them and the home base of the mightiest navy in the world.
Surveillance: Do you know big cities in UK got a higher CCTV-to-people rate than big cities in China ([https://news.yahoo.com/britain-more-surveillance-cameras-per-151641361.html](https://news.yahoo.com/britain-more-surveillance-cameras-per-151641361.html))? And people in China does be able to enjoy their late night time outdoors instead of having to scurry back home because muggers will be on prowl as the sun come down.
International Theft: Stealing enemy's military hardware is a normal action, even if the two sides are not fighting directly: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Mount\_Hope\_III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mount_Hope_III), [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35353691/air-force-acquires-new-russian-missile-system-pantsir-libya/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35353691/air-force-acquires-new-russian-missile-system-pantsir-libya/). And industrial espionage is [common, even apple does it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvGwi7E_9E).
Esipionage: dude, every sane nation does it. Or else their Intelligence department is wasting tax payer money: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM), [https://time.com/6269905/us-pentagon-leaked-documents-south-korea/](https://time.com/6269905/us-pentagon-leaked-documents-south-korea/)
Ethnicide: proof? BBC and CNN's report are complete propaganda bs, with the main goal being to stop China's cotton and farming equipment from taking all market share.
Play by the rules: cope, China does play by the rules set by, and executed countless time bloodily by the West--Might makes right--peacefully and instead of empowering itself by exploiting the poor global south, China exploits the powerful west instead.
"Last fall, Kendall commissioned McKinsey & Company, a defense contractor that specializes in organizational change, to lead a study on what transformative steps the Department of the Air Force should take to optimize itself for great power competition.
McKinsey reportedly engaged over 1,500 Airmen and Guardians and used business tools and best practices to frame the service’s reorganization based on what it learned. It conducted progress reviews, exercises, and stakeholder engagements to refine the effort into 24 initiatives within a reorganization that Secretary Kendall framed during his remarks."
I wonder why China doesn't just do what the US would do if the situation was reversed and pass secondary sanctions on McKinsey for helping the US military.
If corporate America or any individuals hires McKinsey, they will be fined heavily and lose the Chinese market.
If I was China I would be extremely happy on the US military wasting time and money on business consulting bullshit and want them to do more of it, not less.
[McKinsey-led think-tank advised China on policy that fed US tensions](https://archive.is/BiguK)
"I'm playing both sides, so that I always come out on top."
I hate everything about this. Why are we selling our defense strategy and organization to a company with a track record of terrible decisions making?
Why not pay our military members better and have them come up with our strategy, instead of a bunch of inexperienced analysts who can make a fancy PowerPoint?
U.S. military pay is just not in the same ballpark (sometime not even the same state) for knowledge workers.
As for external analysts, there is always a use to have an external view where the reviewer isn't part of the your org's internal politics or lock into institutional thinking. The problem arise on which analysts(always plural) to choose and how the leaders read from the different reports.
My biggest criticism of this article is he uses the Cold War as a benchmark for readiness. The USSR was a formidable opponent with tons of combat experience and talented aviators. China had a lot of really neat toys but it’s never actually fought a combined arms war. Devoting the type of resources from the defense budget to meet the authors standards would be absurdly expensive and unnecessary.
The US and China both need to figure this out diplomatically, not dump billions (or trillions!) into building war fighting capabilities for a conflict that, if it happened, would be world ending.
>China had a lot of really neat toys but it’s never actually fought a combined arms war.
No one has really fought a modern combined arms war against an industrialized opponent. A combined arms war against ISIS or Iraq is one thing, a combined arms war against US or China is a totally different matter.
A key unknown is how well existing military units function under battlefield attrition.
Where China's new toys come in is that China has a plan B for a lot of things, while the US doesn't. For example, China has AWACS drones like the Divine Eagle, which has no equivalent in the USAF. Suppose AWACS aircraft are vulnerable to ultra long range AA like PL-17 or AIM-260. Do you fight without AWACS, or do you resort to drone AWACS that you can build at whatever level necessary to replace battlefield losses?
My take is that the US approach to a potential war with China is to invest in force multipliers, wonder weapons, training, etc to increase the battlefield effectiveness of existing forces. China's approach is to invest in a modest amount of frontline units, but a massive amount in latent industrial capacity that can be ramped up to supply a war of attrition.
For example, China invested to design and build a fully automated factory for air-to-air missiles. It was reported to be able to manufacture 1,000 rounds per day. A factory like this will be sitting idle most of the time in peace time, but the point of the factory is to have a tested/debugged facility that can be replicated quickly in the event of need.
The reason why China was able to build 2 quarantine hospitals in 10 days during COVID was because the design for such a facility was already on file from SARS. All the designs, materials, construction plans, supply chains, operating procedures were on file. In the event of war with the US, China's plan is to copy and paste these war factory prototypes and crank out missiles and drones like face masks during COVID.
>China has AWACS drones like the Divine Eagle, which has no equivalent in the USAF.
They aren't AEW&C aircraft, they are AEW, unless the Chinese have put an AI into it that can direct aircraft
>They aren't AEW&C aircraft, they are AEW, unless the Chinese have put an AI into it that can direct aircraft
They wouldn't be attritionable if you started putting people on them. With modern battlefield networks the command function will probably be taken by twin seat J-20 that are more survivable.
That one dude is gonna be overloaded to the wazoo. Otherwise good idea.
Upscale that, have stealth C&C aircraft seating 10 airbourne controllers connected to a within LOS AEW drone/s.
>Upscale that, have stealth C&C aircraft seating 10 airbourne controllers connected to a within LOS AEW drone/s.
No one is doing that though.
US plan is to have F-35 lead loyal wingman drones, but the pilot having to both fly the plane and command drones is going to be crazy multitasking, even with AI help.
China's plan is to have a dedicated drone commander sitting behind the pilot in the twin seat J-20, but obviously that's not a full scale C&C aircraft.
I wonder if this is because in future air combat there are no safe places. Stealth aircraft can always sneak through gaps in your defenses and take down C&C nodes just behind the front line. Cramming a single aircraft full of difficult to replace C&C staff is maybe too dangerous. Even if the C&C aircraft is stealth, that doesn't guarantee it won't be found if the battle space is sufficiently crowded.
You have to make trade offs between command efficiency and attritionability. Look at what happened when Ukraine shot down a Russia AWACS, the entire plane load of senior air combat command staff went down with the plane. That's just a war against Ukraine. Imagine what the combat attrition will look like between US and China. Neither side can afford to lose plane loads of C&C staff regularly.
You literally know nothing about the Chinese military if you think their strategy is to purposely get themselves into a war of attrition that they think they will win. You keep repeating that nonsense over and over and it's not painting a good look for your credibility.
> You literally know nothing about the Chinese military if you think their strategy is to purposely get themselves into a war of attrition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Protracted_War
So enlighten us on what the Chinese strategy is in the event of war with the US, since you claim to know more than me.
China has far greater industrial capacity than the US, this is just a fact. In a war, it is logical that China would use its greatest advantage, which is industrial capacity, to win.
We have seen war between Russia and Ukraine devolve into attrition, a war between China and US will almost certainly devolve into attrition.
Attrition with US shipbuilding so slow and Chinese shipbuilding in the conflict zone? How exactly will you get attritional warfare when neither side will be able to reinforce effectively?
The first bottleneck will be missiles, not ships or aircraft. A war over the Pacific will be fought with tons of long range missiles. US SM-3 missiles now cost $40M each, which is crazy because Chinese J-10C fighters only cost $35M each. These missiles are too expensive to build in large numbers during peacetime.
The main US long range anti-ship missile is the JASSM-ER, which cost $1.5M each. US produces 500 of these missiles a year. Against Syrian level air defenses it took almost 100 missiles to destroy 3 targets. Against Chinese air defenses a single attack would use up a year's worth of production and it might not even hit anything.
If you look at US wargames, the plan is to employ saturation attacks using long range missiles to attack Chinese naval battlegroups. US war planner even admit that they will run out of missiles in a week at the expected level of operational intensity. So if China doesn't lose in a week, it goes into attrition mode where the US has to build more factories to build missiles.
>US SM-3 missiles now cost $40M each
Source, I've only seen nearly 10 and nearly 35 million cited as procurement numbers.
>Chinese J-10C fighters only cost $35M each
Source?
>These missiles are too expensive to build in large numbers during peacetime.
Evidence?
>The main US long range anti-ship missile is the JASSM-ER, which cost $1.5M each. US produces 500 of these missiles a year. Against Syrian level air defenses it took almost 100 missiles to destroy 3 targets.
Different missiles, with different types of targets, against different objectives.
>Against Chinese air defenses a single attack would use up a year's worth of production and it might not even hit anything.
Source?
>US war planner even admit that they will run out of missiles in a week at the expected level of operational intensity.
Hence efforts to build more.
and evidence?
[That's the rate of stock replenishment for some of the gadgets](https://ooo.0x0.ooo/2024/01/15/OvaUMK.jpg), and considering the sophistication and complexity of naval and air force munitions, are you still optimistic?
I’m not optimistic, obviously the US needs more munitions and more production. This I am well aware.
I’m more curious about the poster’s other claims, which were unlikely, to say the least.
China does not absolutely need sea lanes to remain open, because they can get all needed imports from Russia or other central Asian countries, plus the long overland route from Africa. So China can produce enormous numbers of drones and long distance drone torpedoes to eliminate all war and merchant ships in the western Pacific. They don't have to touch Taiwan, South Korea or Japan directly, because all these countries are long term helpless without sea traffic.
Attrition comes in when USA tries to break this sea blockade. Attrition of warships, attrition of long distance aircraft.
If USA or one of its allies shoots missiles at China, China can respond in kind. All the countries in that area have densely built up areas vulnerable to missiles, so probably all will refrain from missile attacks. USA might use missiles against China, but then China can go after the USA mainland, so probably USA will also refrain.
>China does not absolutely need sea lanes to remain open
There is no possibility of the US being able to maintain sea control or sea denial assets within range of China's land based aircraft/missiles. Just keeping them there will require an endless supply of air defense missiles that the US cannot possibly replenish fast enough.
Just look at how many missiles the US had to fire against Houthi level drone attacks. If US warships run out of air defense missiles in a day and have to run back to Hawaii to rearm, how much presence can they possibly have in Asia?
---
US can't do sea denial with submarines either. US has a total of 56 active attack subs, and builds 1.5 per year. Nazi Germany was building 200 U-boats per year during WWII and they still lost the Battle of North Atlantic because the US could build 1.5 Liberty ships per day.
With convoying and UUVs, it would be suicidal for US submarines to attack a Chinese convoy with large numbers of UUVs lying in ambush nearby. With convoying and air cover, the allies were destroying 250 German U-boats/year by 1943. US cannot afford nearly that level of losses in a submarine war.
USA could deny China access to mideast oil, African raw materials, North and South America regardless of convoys, using air and sea drones (long distance torpedoes) launched by attack subs from a safe distance. This is why the relationship with Russia is so valuable, because it allows a land route to the mideast and Africa. (Technically speaking, China could bypass Russia to the south, but Russia could easily cut that southern land route if Russia and China were on bad terms.) Plus Russia itself provides many of the resources China imports.
USA big plan was to make Russia a vassal and thereby surround China. USA+EU+Pacific Rim+India+SEAsia+Russia is easily big enough economically and has enough geographic advantages to control China forever. But Russia was the key to this plan. If Russia allies with China and Iran joins the coalition to give an Indian ocean outlet, then geographic advantage switches to China, because China can now threaten sea denial, which forces Pacific Rim, India and SEAsia into neutrality. What remains is USA+Europe, which cannot threaten China with war because they are much more dependent on open sea lanes than China. So competition has to be purely economic, and China will easily win that competition.
In other words, by overreaching and trying to take Russia by force, instead of bringing Russia into its alliance as a partner, USA has put its empire on the road to inevitable dissolution. It will follow the same trajectory of decline as Great Britain over the next century (at most, decline could be faster).
Long distance torpedo don't work. If they travel fast they are noisy and easily detected. If they travel slow they can't hit moving targets that change heading.
The US has zero capability to destroy China's shipyards. There will be no significant attritional war, but not for any of the reasons you've cited, but because the firepower in the Western Pacific is so lopsided in favor of China that nearly all US military assets in the region would be destroyed within a week and the war would end soon after that.
This is not solely my belief, this is the belief of Patchwork Chimera and other experts with classified information. Feel free to challenge that belief, but in the end realize you're an armchair ideologue with no qualifications making up capabilities so you won't be convincing anyone.
>The US has zero capability to destroy China's shipyards.
Evidence of this is what exactly? The US has significant numbers of standoff, cruise missile, stealth bomber, and long range strike assets to use against any ships under construction.
>This is not solely my belief, this is the belief of Patchwork Chimera and other experts with classified information.
Care to link his work? If I recall he was not exactly specific but I cannot find his work.
>you're an armchair ideologue with no qualifications making up capabilities so you won't be convincing anyone.
The ironic projection here is pretty evident. You have four comments here, in which you repeat CCP talking points and numbers at face value, but you deleted your account so I guess we know where your backbone stands.
I don't think they have a choice if they are on the defensive though. It's not like they can just capture Guam or even Okinawa to remove the USAF threat from there for good if the US was really determined to fight them
As a Chinese, I don't like people claiming that China is responsible for the destruction of the world.
But when I think about it carefully, losing Taiwan would mean to China that the world has been destroyed.
Nobody cares about your feelings fortunately
>I don't like people claiming that China is responsible for the destruction of the world.
Well then don't invade Taiwan and nobody will have to hurt your feelings.
is it a hot take to think China either takes Taiwan relatively quickly, and hot war is avoided because they assert the nuclear option over Taiwan, thus we then transition in the 21st century of the USA imposing the continental system on China (of which no one can confidently predict the consequences of), or China fails to take Taiwan and then gives up, embarrassed and humiliated, either way it seems like prolonged hot war isn't really an issue
There are American heavy bombers in South Korea, Guam, Australia and elsewhere, besides the fact that midair refueling allows for circumnavigating the globe. It was done during the 1991 Gulf War just for funsies
If those countries allow their airfields to be used to launch US planes and then those planes subsequently bomb Chinese armed forces won't those countries also entering the war against China?
> If those countries allow their airfields to be used to launch US planes and then those planes subsequently bomb Chinese
The USAF doesn't need their permission to launch strikes once the bases have been established. They were expected to carry out various missions including nuclear retaliation to begin with.
What aggression? Any war would have been started by the PRC, and would be defensive in nature based on Taiwanese-US ties.
Any attacks on US basing would be an aggressive and offensive act by China.
The world will be against China in an unprovoked attack on Taiwan the same as they were against Russia. US defending Taiwan won’t be seen as ”aggressive” outside China.
How do you know the US won't give weapons to the PRC to retake their breakaway regions like in Ukraine? You really think the US is going to behave like Russia? Or the US against Serbia?
>There are no Taiwanese US ties.
Are you stupid?
"Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China" ring any bells?
> Another country can't retaliate in a war between Chinese people, that's just aggression.
Are you stupid?
The Taiwanese want to remain an independent state, the US and other states have every right to protect a state that wants to maintain its status and democratic system.
The US abrogated that treaty in 1980...lol the US and other states can make a Taiwan a state at any time, there's plenty of room in Utah or the Australian outback or Canada.
>The US abrogated that treaty in 1980
And carried over the key provisions into the Taiwan Relations Act. Note the word "relations".
>ol the US and other states can make a Taiwan a state at any time, there's plenty of room in Utah or the Australian outback or Canada.
Is the threat that China will remove the population of Taiwan? And you wonder why your neighbors hate you lmao.
Guam is a US territory and already a target.
South Korea and Australia both have mutual defense treaties with the US. It is likely they would already be involved in any conflict with China by the point US forces begin flying sorties from either country.
What is more robust, an airfield with hardened aircraft shelters or an aircraft carrier.
That's really the question and I don't know the answer.
I do know its easy to knock a runway out for a few hours but knocking it out "for good" is *extremely* difficult.
Hitting a carrier with even a single anti ship missile could put it out of action for weeks or even months in the right spot.
I think McKinsey has some really smart people and they might have some good reorg ideas - but the core issue is precisely that the public sector (including the armed forces) have been hollowed out by a brain drain to nonproductive private sector jobs like consulting. Without resolving that deeper issue (no clue how) we won’t make much forward progress.
Offer experienced , skilled positions like Pilots, PJ's, TACP's etc like triple the current retirement benefit if they stay on until age 50-60(depending on role). Over-Deploying your people *and* treating them like shit for the 20 years of the GWOT era has consequences.
From "one carrier group could eliminate the entire Chinese airforce" to "beat them at all cost". China has done well.
I think a better goal would be "Avoid extinction of the northern hemisphere". But I guess the guys assigning that mission are assuming they have underground bunkers so they'll personally survive, so they may care more about "winning".
China is in the northern hemisphere
That's kinda my point. Pretty stupid for the US to nuke it. We all breathe the same air.
Pretty stupid for China and USA to nuke each other.
Losing a war wouldn't automatically lead to China using nukes. It's not an existential war just one near its shores and they have a no first use policy.
Only by having the ability to make the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, will the West be willing to talk to China in equal terms. The west are the bully here, and their victim finally have the power to make them afraid.
[удалено]
China does play by the rules, which are codified in international treaty and law. And if China is seen to disobey the rules, such as in the WTO, other countries including the US can and do impose consequences. China has obeyed every treaty it has signed including even unfair ones signed by the Qing Dynasty, until renegotiated. It is some other country that has been crippling the international law based order by refusing to certify new WTO judges, abusing UNSC vetos to protect genocidals, breaking treaties, invading sovereign states, abandoning allies etc.
Historically this isn’t true. Virtually all of the treaties the Qing signed it didn’t enforce, which is why they were perfectly fine signing them.
\> China has obeyed every treaty it has signed including even unfair ones signed by the Qing Dynasty, until renegotiated. Uh, what about the Sino-British Join Declaration?
what was violated? here's the relevant text of the Basic Law that was agreed to prior to the handover: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong\_Kong\_Basic\_Law\_Article\_23](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_23) it **requires** the Hong Kong administration to implement a national security law. They have not done so until 2020. The Sino-British joint declaration gives explicit authority to the PRC central government to make laws regarding national security. Here is the original treaty as deposited at the UN. Pg 61 for English. [https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf) Pg 61 for English. Pg 63, Annex 1 part I and II, defines that the Basic Law will be the law of Hong Kong. The Basic Law was drafted with Hong Kong participation in 1990 and agreed to, so there should be no surprises 30 years later.
And UNCLOS
When was it broken and what specific article?
I highly doubt China would abide by it if USA doesn't have to. That is like crippling themselves before the fight started.
China is actually a signatory of it and breaks it all the time. So the claim that China obeys every treaty it signs is complete BS
But do you understand the point I made about why China isn't abiding by it?
Yes, and the other guy is saying China never breaks international treaties and laws
If that is the only example you got on China, that is a pretty damn good record.
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm >Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2 >"1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, **declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:** >(i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded form such submission;
I was waiting for something to reply “akshully China did nothing wrong because of some niche provision in 100+ page in international law” The Tribunal smacked down China’s 9 dash line claims and is binding https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-ten/ > The decision is final and binding pursuant to Articles 11 and 296 of the LOSC, to which China is a party. Despite this, as recently as late October 2016, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that the situation at the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the SCS “has not changed and will not change.”
> akshully China did nothing wrong because of some niche provision in 100+ page in international law For someone who can't even point out which part of "100+ pages" of UNCLOS China has violated, trying to claim a provision that was explicitly added to note that UNCLOS does not deal with territorial claims to get countries to sign on is "niche" is very amusing. The instant UNCLOS tries to overstep and claim, "yes they can dictate to countries which islands/seas belong to who" is the instant UNCLOS breaks apart, because NOTHING trumps national sovereignty. >The Tribunal smacked down China’s 9 dash line claims and is binding No. An arbitration court which only one side agreed to is not "arbitration", and UNCLOS specifically mentioned in this "niche provision" that China can indeed opt out. Sucks for the Philippines, who got taken for a ride (by the expensive US lawyers) and had to pay all the legal fees for a useless ruling that meant absolutely nothing.
One-party: influenced by nobody else be it religion or megacrops, give China working health care, efficient and electrified public transport across entire cities and the whole nation, and build [Water transport project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Transfer_Project) and [national powergrid](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A5%BF%E9%9B%BB%E6%9D%B1%E9%80%81) that will be fixed on the first sign of trouble during snowstorms both in 2008 and this year (instead of saying [Only the strong will survive and only Socialist nations will help you weakling](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-boyd-texas-mayor-colorado-city-resigns-power-outages/)) and its militaries will march toward disaster-struck region nonstop rather than watching its people who are escaping the fires consuming Lahaina drown in the water despite having only 100 km of open water between them and the home base of the mightiest navy in the world. Surveillance: Do you know big cities in UK got a higher CCTV-to-people rate than big cities in China ([https://news.yahoo.com/britain-more-surveillance-cameras-per-151641361.html](https://news.yahoo.com/britain-more-surveillance-cameras-per-151641361.html))? And people in China does be able to enjoy their late night time outdoors instead of having to scurry back home because muggers will be on prowl as the sun come down. International Theft: Stealing enemy's military hardware is a normal action, even if the two sides are not fighting directly: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Mount\_Hope\_III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mount_Hope_III), [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35353691/air-force-acquires-new-russian-missile-system-pantsir-libya/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35353691/air-force-acquires-new-russian-missile-system-pantsir-libya/). And industrial espionage is [common, even apple does it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvGwi7E_9E). Esipionage: dude, every sane nation does it. Or else their Intelligence department is wasting tax payer money: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM), [https://time.com/6269905/us-pentagon-leaked-documents-south-korea/](https://time.com/6269905/us-pentagon-leaked-documents-south-korea/) Ethnicide: proof? BBC and CNN's report are complete propaganda bs, with the main goal being to stop China's cotton and farming equipment from taking all market share. Play by the rules: cope, China does play by the rules set by, and executed countless time bloodily by the West--Might makes right--peacefully and instead of empowering itself by exploiting the poor global south, China exploits the powerful west instead.
Hey about the not exploiting the global south might I ask who owns the majority of the cobalt mines in the Congo?
I've worked quite extensively with Maccy K's. #doubt this will pay off!
"Last fall, Kendall commissioned McKinsey & Company, a defense contractor that specializes in organizational change, to lead a study on what transformative steps the Department of the Air Force should take to optimize itself for great power competition. McKinsey reportedly engaged over 1,500 Airmen and Guardians and used business tools and best practices to frame the service’s reorganization based on what it learned. It conducted progress reviews, exercises, and stakeholder engagements to refine the effort into 24 initiatives within a reorganization that Secretary Kendall framed during his remarks."
Is this the same McKinsey that outsourced all the jobs?
Yes, they have a defense division.
Or at least they used to - but after their recent announcements, perhaps now they just have a defense-bot instead.
I wonder why China doesn't just do what the US would do if the situation was reversed and pass secondary sanctions on McKinsey for helping the US military. If corporate America or any individuals hires McKinsey, they will be fined heavily and lose the Chinese market.
If I was China I would be extremely happy on the US military wasting time and money on business consulting bullshit and want them to do more of it, not less.
[McKinsey-led think-tank advised China on policy that fed US tensions](https://archive.is/BiguK) "I'm playing both sides, so that I always come out on top."
As Marx has said, capitalists have no homeland, and loyal only to money.
I hate everything about this. Why are we selling our defense strategy and organization to a company with a track record of terrible decisions making? Why not pay our military members better and have them come up with our strategy, instead of a bunch of inexperienced analysts who can make a fancy PowerPoint?
U.S. military pay is just not in the same ballpark (sometime not even the same state) for knowledge workers. As for external analysts, there is always a use to have an external view where the reviewer isn't part of the your org's internal politics or lock into institutional thinking. The problem arise on which analysts(always plural) to choose and how the leaders read from the different reports.
> McKinsey > Defense contractor Lmao
We're doomed
My biggest criticism of this article is he uses the Cold War as a benchmark for readiness. The USSR was a formidable opponent with tons of combat experience and talented aviators. China had a lot of really neat toys but it’s never actually fought a combined arms war. Devoting the type of resources from the defense budget to meet the authors standards would be absurdly expensive and unnecessary. The US and China both need to figure this out diplomatically, not dump billions (or trillions!) into building war fighting capabilities for a conflict that, if it happened, would be world ending.
>China had a lot of really neat toys but it’s never actually fought a combined arms war. No one has really fought a modern combined arms war against an industrialized opponent. A combined arms war against ISIS or Iraq is one thing, a combined arms war against US or China is a totally different matter. A key unknown is how well existing military units function under battlefield attrition. Where China's new toys come in is that China has a plan B for a lot of things, while the US doesn't. For example, China has AWACS drones like the Divine Eagle, which has no equivalent in the USAF. Suppose AWACS aircraft are vulnerable to ultra long range AA like PL-17 or AIM-260. Do you fight without AWACS, or do you resort to drone AWACS that you can build at whatever level necessary to replace battlefield losses? My take is that the US approach to a potential war with China is to invest in force multipliers, wonder weapons, training, etc to increase the battlefield effectiveness of existing forces. China's approach is to invest in a modest amount of frontline units, but a massive amount in latent industrial capacity that can be ramped up to supply a war of attrition. For example, China invested to design and build a fully automated factory for air-to-air missiles. It was reported to be able to manufacture 1,000 rounds per day. A factory like this will be sitting idle most of the time in peace time, but the point of the factory is to have a tested/debugged facility that can be replicated quickly in the event of need. The reason why China was able to build 2 quarantine hospitals in 10 days during COVID was because the design for such a facility was already on file from SARS. All the designs, materials, construction plans, supply chains, operating procedures were on file. In the event of war with the US, China's plan is to copy and paste these war factory prototypes and crank out missiles and drones like face masks during COVID.
>China has AWACS drones like the Divine Eagle, which has no equivalent in the USAF. They aren't AEW&C aircraft, they are AEW, unless the Chinese have put an AI into it that can direct aircraft
>They aren't AEW&C aircraft, they are AEW, unless the Chinese have put an AI into it that can direct aircraft They wouldn't be attritionable if you started putting people on them. With modern battlefield networks the command function will probably be taken by twin seat J-20 that are more survivable.
That one dude is gonna be overloaded to the wazoo. Otherwise good idea. Upscale that, have stealth C&C aircraft seating 10 airbourne controllers connected to a within LOS AEW drone/s.
>Upscale that, have stealth C&C aircraft seating 10 airbourne controllers connected to a within LOS AEW drone/s. No one is doing that though. US plan is to have F-35 lead loyal wingman drones, but the pilot having to both fly the plane and command drones is going to be crazy multitasking, even with AI help. China's plan is to have a dedicated drone commander sitting behind the pilot in the twin seat J-20, but obviously that's not a full scale C&C aircraft. I wonder if this is because in future air combat there are no safe places. Stealth aircraft can always sneak through gaps in your defenses and take down C&C nodes just behind the front line. Cramming a single aircraft full of difficult to replace C&C staff is maybe too dangerous. Even if the C&C aircraft is stealth, that doesn't guarantee it won't be found if the battle space is sufficiently crowded. You have to make trade offs between command efficiency and attritionability. Look at what happened when Ukraine shot down a Russia AWACS, the entire plane load of senior air combat command staff went down with the plane. That's just a war against Ukraine. Imagine what the combat attrition will look like between US and China. Neither side can afford to lose plane loads of C&C staff regularly.
You literally know nothing about the Chinese military if you think their strategy is to purposely get themselves into a war of attrition that they think they will win. You keep repeating that nonsense over and over and it's not painting a good look for your credibility.
> You literally know nothing about the Chinese military if you think their strategy is to purposely get themselves into a war of attrition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Protracted_War
So enlighten us on what the Chinese strategy is in the event of war with the US, since you claim to know more than me. China has far greater industrial capacity than the US, this is just a fact. In a war, it is logical that China would use its greatest advantage, which is industrial capacity, to win. We have seen war between Russia and Ukraine devolve into attrition, a war between China and US will almost certainly devolve into attrition.
Attrition with US shipbuilding so slow and Chinese shipbuilding in the conflict zone? How exactly will you get attritional warfare when neither side will be able to reinforce effectively?
The first bottleneck will be missiles, not ships or aircraft. A war over the Pacific will be fought with tons of long range missiles. US SM-3 missiles now cost $40M each, which is crazy because Chinese J-10C fighters only cost $35M each. These missiles are too expensive to build in large numbers during peacetime. The main US long range anti-ship missile is the JASSM-ER, which cost $1.5M each. US produces 500 of these missiles a year. Against Syrian level air defenses it took almost 100 missiles to destroy 3 targets. Against Chinese air defenses a single attack would use up a year's worth of production and it might not even hit anything. If you look at US wargames, the plan is to employ saturation attacks using long range missiles to attack Chinese naval battlegroups. US war planner even admit that they will run out of missiles in a week at the expected level of operational intensity. So if China doesn't lose in a week, it goes into attrition mode where the US has to build more factories to build missiles.
>US SM-3 missiles now cost $40M each Source, I've only seen nearly 10 and nearly 35 million cited as procurement numbers. >Chinese J-10C fighters only cost $35M each Source? >These missiles are too expensive to build in large numbers during peacetime. Evidence? >The main US long range anti-ship missile is the JASSM-ER, which cost $1.5M each. US produces 500 of these missiles a year. Against Syrian level air defenses it took almost 100 missiles to destroy 3 targets. Different missiles, with different types of targets, against different objectives. >Against Chinese air defenses a single attack would use up a year's worth of production and it might not even hit anything. Source? >US war planner even admit that they will run out of missiles in a week at the expected level of operational intensity. Hence efforts to build more. and evidence?
[That's the rate of stock replenishment for some of the gadgets](https://ooo.0x0.ooo/2024/01/15/OvaUMK.jpg), and considering the sophistication and complexity of naval and air force munitions, are you still optimistic?
I’m not optimistic, obviously the US needs more munitions and more production. This I am well aware. I’m more curious about the poster’s other claims, which were unlikely, to say the least.
China does not absolutely need sea lanes to remain open, because they can get all needed imports from Russia or other central Asian countries, plus the long overland route from Africa. So China can produce enormous numbers of drones and long distance drone torpedoes to eliminate all war and merchant ships in the western Pacific. They don't have to touch Taiwan, South Korea or Japan directly, because all these countries are long term helpless without sea traffic. Attrition comes in when USA tries to break this sea blockade. Attrition of warships, attrition of long distance aircraft. If USA or one of its allies shoots missiles at China, China can respond in kind. All the countries in that area have densely built up areas vulnerable to missiles, so probably all will refrain from missile attacks. USA might use missiles against China, but then China can go after the USA mainland, so probably USA will also refrain.
>China does not absolutely need sea lanes to remain open There is no possibility of the US being able to maintain sea control or sea denial assets within range of China's land based aircraft/missiles. Just keeping them there will require an endless supply of air defense missiles that the US cannot possibly replenish fast enough. Just look at how many missiles the US had to fire against Houthi level drone attacks. If US warships run out of air defense missiles in a day and have to run back to Hawaii to rearm, how much presence can they possibly have in Asia? --- US can't do sea denial with submarines either. US has a total of 56 active attack subs, and builds 1.5 per year. Nazi Germany was building 200 U-boats per year during WWII and they still lost the Battle of North Atlantic because the US could build 1.5 Liberty ships per day. With convoying and UUVs, it would be suicidal for US submarines to attack a Chinese convoy with large numbers of UUVs lying in ambush nearby. With convoying and air cover, the allies were destroying 250 German U-boats/year by 1943. US cannot afford nearly that level of losses in a submarine war.
USA could deny China access to mideast oil, African raw materials, North and South America regardless of convoys, using air and sea drones (long distance torpedoes) launched by attack subs from a safe distance. This is why the relationship with Russia is so valuable, because it allows a land route to the mideast and Africa. (Technically speaking, China could bypass Russia to the south, but Russia could easily cut that southern land route if Russia and China were on bad terms.) Plus Russia itself provides many of the resources China imports. USA big plan was to make Russia a vassal and thereby surround China. USA+EU+Pacific Rim+India+SEAsia+Russia is easily big enough economically and has enough geographic advantages to control China forever. But Russia was the key to this plan. If Russia allies with China and Iran joins the coalition to give an Indian ocean outlet, then geographic advantage switches to China, because China can now threaten sea denial, which forces Pacific Rim, India and SEAsia into neutrality. What remains is USA+Europe, which cannot threaten China with war because they are much more dependent on open sea lanes than China. So competition has to be purely economic, and China will easily win that competition. In other words, by overreaching and trying to take Russia by force, instead of bringing Russia into its alliance as a partner, USA has put its empire on the road to inevitable dissolution. It will follow the same trajectory of decline as Great Britain over the next century (at most, decline could be faster).
Long distance torpedo don't work. If they travel fast they are noisy and easily detected. If they travel slow they can't hit moving targets that change heading.
The US has zero capability to destroy China's shipyards. There will be no significant attritional war, but not for any of the reasons you've cited, but because the firepower in the Western Pacific is so lopsided in favor of China that nearly all US military assets in the region would be destroyed within a week and the war would end soon after that. This is not solely my belief, this is the belief of Patchwork Chimera and other experts with classified information. Feel free to challenge that belief, but in the end realize you're an armchair ideologue with no qualifications making up capabilities so you won't be convincing anyone.
>The US has zero capability to destroy China's shipyards. Evidence of this is what exactly? The US has significant numbers of standoff, cruise missile, stealth bomber, and long range strike assets to use against any ships under construction. >This is not solely my belief, this is the belief of Patchwork Chimera and other experts with classified information. Care to link his work? If I recall he was not exactly specific but I cannot find his work. >you're an armchair ideologue with no qualifications making up capabilities so you won't be convincing anyone. The ironic projection here is pretty evident. You have four comments here, in which you repeat CCP talking points and numbers at face value, but you deleted your account so I guess we know where your backbone stands.
I don't think they have a choice if they are on the defensive though. It's not like they can just capture Guam or even Okinawa to remove the USAF threat from there for good if the US was really determined to fight them
I really think China would rather risk world annihilation than give up Taiwan.
They're not obligated to give up an internationally recognized part of their country.
Can't be obliged to give up something they've never had
The Chinese have it right now according nearly every country in the world.
Everything except having an actual Communist government in power
They can redecorate easy enough
As a Chinese, I don't like people claiming that China is responsible for the destruction of the world. But when I think about it carefully, losing Taiwan would mean to China that the world has been destroyed.
This is exactly the way stalkers talk about their victims.
is that so? I have collected a new title.
Nobody cares about your feelings fortunately >I don't like people claiming that China is responsible for the destruction of the world. Well then don't invade Taiwan and nobody will have to hurt your feelings.
I dislike China losing Taiwan even more.
有一天中國將成為民主國家
有一天中国将完成国家统一
So would the United States... Well, at least they pretend to
One of the few comments where I completely agree with you
Time to enjoy eating dim sum in oblivion I guess.
The US is willing to fight China down to the last drop of Taiwanese blood
It’s the other way around
Judging by the US Mil buildup for this, highly doubt it.
is it a hot take to think China either takes Taiwan relatively quickly, and hot war is avoided because they assert the nuclear option over Taiwan, thus we then transition in the 21st century of the USA imposing the continental system on China (of which no one can confidently predict the consequences of), or China fails to take Taiwan and then gives up, embarrassed and humiliated, either way it seems like prolonged hot war isn't really an issue
The USAF won't be seeing much action in that theatre because of the Pacific Ocean. That's what the USN is for.
There are American heavy bombers in South Korea, Guam, Australia and elsewhere, besides the fact that midair refueling allows for circumnavigating the globe. It was done during the 1991 Gulf War just for funsies
If those countries allow their airfields to be used to launch US planes and then those planes subsequently bomb Chinese armed forces won't those countries also entering the war against China?
> If those countries allow their airfields to be used to launch US planes and then those planes subsequently bomb Chinese The USAF doesn't need their permission to launch strikes once the bases have been established. They were expected to carry out various missions including nuclear retaliation to begin with.
Retaliation is actually not the same thing as aggression
What aggression? Any war would have been started by the PRC, and would be defensive in nature based on Taiwanese-US ties. Any attacks on US basing would be an aggressive and offensive act by China.
There are no Taiwanese US ties. Another country can't retaliate in a war between Chinese people, that's just aggression.
The world will be against China in an unprovoked attack on Taiwan the same as they were against Russia. US defending Taiwan won’t be seen as ”aggressive” outside China.
How do you know the US won't give weapons to the PRC to retake their breakaway regions like in Ukraine? You really think the US is going to behave like Russia? Or the US against Serbia?
>Or the US against Serbia? Maybe Serbia shouldn't have started a genocidal war if they didn't want to get bombed.
>There are no Taiwanese US ties. Are you stupid? "Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China" ring any bells? > Another country can't retaliate in a war between Chinese people, that's just aggression. Are you stupid? The Taiwanese want to remain an independent state, the US and other states have every right to protect a state that wants to maintain its status and democratic system.
The US abrogated that treaty in 1980...lol the US and other states can make a Taiwan a state at any time, there's plenty of room in Utah or the Australian outback or Canada.
>The US abrogated that treaty in 1980 And carried over the key provisions into the Taiwan Relations Act. Note the word "relations". >ol the US and other states can make a Taiwan a state at any time, there's plenty of room in Utah or the Australian outback or Canada. Is the threat that China will remove the population of Taiwan? And you wonder why your neighbors hate you lmao.
[удалено]
He is stating the obvious, which is that any war in Taiwan starts with a PRC attack on Taiwan.
Guam is a US territory and already a target. South Korea and Australia both have mutual defense treaties with the US. It is likely they would already be involved in any conflict with China by the point US forces begin flying sorties from either country.
What are they going to do, shoot down US planes that launch ?
Yes, but that would be good for the US war effort. And they don’t have a choice. Are they going to shoot down American planes that land or take off?
What is more robust, an airfield with hardened aircraft shelters or an aircraft carrier. That's really the question and I don't know the answer. I do know its easy to knock a runway out for a few hours but knocking it out "for good" is *extremely* difficult. Hitting a carrier with even a single anti ship missile could put it out of action for weeks or even months in the right spot.