China's Peaceful Rise

[Harold Jones]

Surprising how often dumping large amounts of money on crash projects results in corruption.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/us-intelligence-shows-flawed-china-missiles-led-xi-jinping-to-purge-military?srnd=politics-vp

Quote

The corruption inside China’s Rocket Force and throughout the nation’s defense industrial base is so extensive that US officials now believe Xi is less likely to contemplate major military action in the coming years than would otherwise have been the case, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing intelligence. The US assessments cited several examples of the impact of graft, including missiles filled with water instead of fuel and vast fields of missile silos in western China with lids that don’t function in a way that would allow the missiles to launch effectively, one of the people said.
 

 

[Josh]

I wonder if this is truly corruption or if it’s “corruption”: leaders with insufficient Xi thought. The leaked intel assessment implies that western intel believes it is truly the former, but Chinese politics are sufficiently opaque that I wonder.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Josh

[TrustMe]

The cynic in me says that it's disinformation before the Taiwan invasion. 

[Dark_Falcon]

Perun takes on the PLA Rocket Force corruption story:

 

[Strannik]

A thread analyzing and dismissing the scare mongering NYT article about new Chinese nuclear posture

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/04/world/asia/china-nuclear-missiles.html

 

 

[Der Zeitgeist]

@BansheeOneYou're going to love this (also as a screenshot in case he deletes it).

 

[Rick]

17 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

@BansheeOneYou're going to love this (also as a screenshot in case he deletes it).

 

Wouldn't that be a Washington dachshund vs poodle?

[BansheeOne]

Well, who are we to second-guess the journalist of a newspaper owned by the Communist Party of China on his vast knowledge of dog breeds? 🐶😁

[Josh]

On 2/17/2024 at 9:03 AM, Strannik said:

A thread analyzing and dismissing the scare mongering NYT article about new Chinese nuclear posture

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/04/world/asia/china-nuclear-missiles.html

 

 

The concerned scientists are effectively a nuclear disarmament group. The mos glaringly false dichotomy they put in their response is a 5000 : 500 nuclear weapon ratio. They are in fact counting every single disassembled, non deployed weapon in the U.S. number. A large proportion of those weapons could not be returned to service. Only W76/78 warheads realistically have any hope of being re-uploaded to delivery systems, which would roughly double the number of U.S. warheads - but after, that, the U.S. has scant remaining infrastructure to create new warheads.

 

In any case, it is a fact that the PRC is greatly expanding its nuclear force by hundreds of missiles and warheads. That is a huge change is posture regardless of whatever hand waving argument the Concered Scientists want to make.

Edited February 19, 2024 by Josh

[Strannik]

On 2/18/2024 at 8:55 PM, Josh said:

In any case, it is a fact that the PRC is greatly expanding its nuclear force by hundreds of missiles and warheads. That is a huge change is posture regardless of whatever hand waving argument the Concered Scientists want to make.

All they do is ensuring their deterrence posture - no increase of the first strike capabilities.

Obviously misc. spin doctors will disagree

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Strannik said:

All they do is ensuring their deterrence posture - no increase of the first strike capabilities.

Obviously misc. spin doctors will disagree

It is a dramatic expansion that seems pretty clearly aimed at nuclear parity or superiority, even if they only fill the 300+ silos they are building. A 300 missile DF41 force represents a potential 3000 warhead force all by itself; that’s a little past securing deterrence given the ~1600-1700 strategic weapons the U.S. deploys.

[Strannik]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

It is a dramatic expansion that seems pretty clearly aimed at nuclear parity or superiority, even if they only fill the 300+ silos they are building. A 300 missile DF41 force represents a potential 3000 warhead force all by itself; that’s a little past securing deterrence given the ~1600-1700 strategic weapons the U.S. deploys.

Seems to me it's quite moderate and reasonable Chinese response considering US plans for a serious build-up:

https://fas.org/publication/strategic-posture-commission-report-calls-for-broad-nuclear-buildup/

ETA: And of course US could easily upload to the max D5s and bombers that are counted for one weapon each for the benefit of the treaty carry more, so ... 

Edited February 21, 2024 by Strannik

[Josh]

19 hours ago, Strannik said:

Seems to me it's quite moderate and reasonable Chinese response considering US plans for a serious build-up:

https://fas.org/publication/strategic-posture-commission-report-calls-for-broad-nuclear-buildup/

ETA: And of course US could easily upload to the max D5s and bombers that are counted for one weapon each for the benefit of the treaty carry more, so ... 

the US could upload to almost 3000 strategic weapons, but that is pretty much the hard limit without building more submarines or silos. In fact the SSBN force is planned to be smaller and with fewer tubes, from 240-260 tubes to 160-176 tunes. So long term the number of U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs is actually set to tend downward, even taking into account warhead uploads.

[Strannik]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

the US could upload to almost 3000 strategic weapons, but that is pretty much the hard limit without building more submarines or silos. In fact the SSBN force is planned to be smaller and with fewer tubes, from 240-260 tubes to 160-176 tunes. So long term the number of U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs is actually set to tend downward, even taking into account warhead uploads.

Bomber fleet is set to expand (don't have to retire B-2s, could convert addl. B-52s).

Anyway all this doesn't negate my point re: Chinese effort.

[Josh]

6 hours ago, Strannik said:

Bomber fleet is set to expand (don't have to retire B-2s, could convert addl. B-52s).

Anyway all this doesn't negate my point re: Chinese effort.

Well it does not negate my point either: China is on track to increase its nuclear weapons inventory by ten fold in the next decade when there is zero conventional or nuclear threat from the US. It is hard not to interpret that as preparation for an offensive war on China’s part.

Edited February 22, 2024 by Josh

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Josh said:

Well it does not negate my point either: China is on track to increase its nuclear weapons inventory by ten fold in the next decade when there is zero conventional or nuclear threat from the US. It is hard not to interpret that as preparation for an offensive war on China’s part.

In the Cold War both the Soviets and the Americans built huge arsenals with only defensive motives in mind.  

[Strannik]

9 hours ago, Josh said:

when there is zero conventional or nuclear threat from the US.

That's rich with all the pronouncements about Taiwan, containment and five carriers in your hood.

[Strannik]

Speaking of DF-26 production 

 

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

In the Cold War both the Soviets and the Americans built huge arsenals with only defensive motives in mind.  

According to Josh Chinese shores tend to  sneak up on US carriers

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Speaking of DF-26 production 

 

 

Looks like Beijing didn't get Josh's message that they are not capable of building massive numbers of DF-26's - I see in the backing paper up to 250 of this type of launcher so far. 

The Chinese know perfectly well that in order to deter the Americans from the type of insanity that we are discussing elsewhere, they will need hundreds if not thousands of DF-26 missiles and launchers.  Perhaps if the neocons in Washington work hard enough, there will soon not be anywhere in the world that US warships will be able to go without being under a DF-26 umbrella, including in their home ports in the United States.

 

Edited February 22, 2024 by glenn239

[Josh]

11 hours ago, Strannik said:

That's rich with all the pronouncements about Taiwan, containment and five carriers in your hood.

Do you think those carriers would be there if China recognized Taiwan?

[Josh]

8 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 

Looks like Beijing didn't get Josh's message that they are not capable of building massive numbers of DF-26's - I see in the backing paper up to 250 of this type of launcher so far. 

The Chinese know perfectly well that in order to deter the Americans from the type of insanity that we are discussing elsewhere, they will need hundreds if not thousands of DF-26 missiles and launchers.  Perhaps if the neocons in Washington work hard enough, there will soon not be anywhere in the world that US warships will be able to go without being under a DF-26 umbrella, including in their home ports in the United States.

 

I am sure they are capable of building dozens or even hundreds of IRBMs. I just doubt that they can spare any for any location outside China given the number of targets they have to service. How big of a volley does it take to suppress Guam? How many to kill ten CSGs? Or how about your dreams of them reaching Australia - do you think they can suppress Darwin, Tindal, and Guam for months on end?

Edited February 23, 2024 by Josh

[glenn239]

12 hours ago, Josh said:

Do you think those carriers would be there if China recognized Taiwan?

Yes, as then the US would sign defense treaties with Taiwan in which the carriers would be a factor, and it would use China's recognition of it as justification.

[Strannik]

14 hours ago, Josh said:

Do you think those carriers would be there if China recognized Taiwan?

Do you think US should vacate Guantanamo?

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Do you think US should vacate Guantanamo?

Yes, actually. I think everything about US Cuba policy is inane and stupid.

Edited February 23, 2024 by Josh