Possible US / China War

[Josh]

5 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The alternative hypothesis would be that the Chinese intend to push their rare earths monopoly to maximum advantage now, and leverage that against the United States now.  In that case Trump will not be permitted to TACO because the restrictions are not coming off.

It’s certainly possible, but the timing seems odd for that. In that case there will inevitably be more permanent cuts to economic ties between the countries, and IMO, almost certainly a global recession.

[glenn239]

You're assuming that it will be a "global" recession, but Chinese calculations might be more along the lines of a G7 recession while the Global South continues to grow.  If Trump has calculated he can TACO on this one, well, he might have made a miscalculation.  Chinese weapon production now is practically all leading edge designs so this might be considered the perfect moment to cut off the rare earths and put the pedal to the metal.

[Josh]

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

You're assuming that it will be a "global" recession, but Chinese calculations might be more along the lines of a G7 recession while the Global South continues to grow.  If Trump has calculated he can TACO on this one, well, he might have made a miscalculation.  Chinese weapon production now is practically all leading edge designs so this might be considered the perfect moment to cut off the rare earths and put the pedal to the metal.

It is hard to imagine China will avoid a recession if there are 100% US tariffs; it is still one of the largest Chinese export markets. And Europe is probably the single largest market for Chinese products, or at least second place, so a recession there impacts Chinese exports even without EU tariffs. With 20%+ of  GDP (and rising) based exports, China likely does not have the ability to inflict a one sided recession on the G7.

[glenn239]

Chinese exports have increased during the period of the trade war with the United States.   Chinese exports are 20% of their GDP, but exports to the US are 15% of that total.   US trade represents 3% of Chinese GDP in 2024, and the Chinese economy grew 5% in 2024.   Trump's tariffs will reduce exports that wind up in the US, but will not eliminate them.

So, getting back to it.  You are assuming that the Chinese will allow Trump to TACO.  You might be right, but the other theory is that Trump will not be allowed to TACO.  The rare earths restrictions will remain on the calculation that this dagger is best wielded now, where it can hinder US production for the next decade, reducing NATO's capacity to produce defense products right at the moment that Sino-Russian production is going into overdrive.

Edited October 13 by glenn239

[Josh]

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Chinese exports have increased during the period of the trade war with the United States.   Chinese exports are 20% of their GDP, but exports to the US are 15% of that total.   US trade represents 3% of Chinese GDP in 2024, and the Chinese economy grew 5% in 2024.   Trump's tariffs will reduce exports that wind up in the US, but will not eliminate them.

So, getting back to it.  You are assuming that the Chinese will allow Trump to TACO.  You might be right, but the other theory is that Trump will not be allowed to TACO.  The rare earths restrictions will remain on the calculation that this dagger is best wielded now, where it can hinder US production for the next decade, reducing NATO's capacity to produce defense products right at the moment that Sino-Russian production is going into overdrive.

I cannot exclude the possibility that China will simply maintain an export ban regardless of consequences. I do however very much doubt it.

[glenn239]

My suppliers still take payment in USD.  If they switch to demand for other payments, that will be interesting.

[Josh]

It appears China is willing to negotiate, though nothing is finalized yet.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-headlines-asean-summit-thailand-cambodia-sign-ceasefire-deal-2025-10-26/

[Josh]

End result : TACO, with economic conditions largely reset to where they were in January. China is postponing its rare earth restrictions.

Edited November 6 by Josh

[glenn239]

US intel detecting large increases in Chinese missile production,

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/world/china-missile-production-expansion-revealed-satellite-images-intl-invs

Satellite images, maps and records reveal huge surge in China’s missile production sites

[urbanoid]

Very nice indeed.

Quote

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's response today in the House of Representatives Budget Committee marks a historic turning point in Japan's security policy. She clearly stated that if Taiwan suffers an armed attack, accompanied by actions such as a naval blockade with warships, the Japanese government might regard this as a "national survival crisis situation," allowing the Self-Defence Forces to exercise collective self-defence rights accordingly. She emphasised that the situation in Taiwan has entered an extremely grave phase, and the government must prepare on the premise of the worst-case scenario. The significance of these remarks lies in the fact that, for the first time, a sitting Japanese Prime Minister has formally acknowledged that if war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the Self-Defence Forces may intervene.

Under Japan's current security legislation, if a country closely related to Japan is attacked, and this is deemed a threat to Japan's survival, then even if Japan itself is not attacked, it may exercise collective self-defence rights. In other words, if China launches military action against Taiwan, the Japanese government might determine this to be "Japan's affair," leading to concrete actions. This stance continues the philosophy articulated by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe after leaving office—that "a Taiwan contingency is a Japanese contingency"—and further endows the policy with substance.

For a long time, Japan has been dubbed a "one-lung nation"—constrained by its pacifist constitution, it could only maintain its international standing through economic and diplomatic means, unable to support its national strategy with military power. However, the Japan of today is gradually shedding this passive state. Takaichi's statement is not merely a declaration on security policy but also symbolises the revival of Japan's national consciousness. Eighty years after its defeat in the Second World War, Japan is preparing to return to the centre of the international political stage as a "normal nation."

For Taiwan, this is unequivocally positive news. If China contemplates military action, it must not only worry about the response from the United States but also guard against potential intervention from Japan. This will significantly raise the cost for Beijing of any armed adventure against Taiwan, thereby reducing the likelihood of such a risk.

Sanae Takaichi's attitude symbolises the emergence of a new Japan. Confronting the unpredictable turbulence in the Taiwan Strait, she is driving a shift in defence policy with a pragmatic sense of crisis. Japan is repositioning its own role—from a passive pacifist to an active defender of freedom and security.

https://x.com/Yaita_Akio/status/1986806642684694741

 

[urbanoid]

Looks like Chynah employs some troglodytes as diplomats.

"China’s Consul General in Osaka: “There’s no choice but to chop off that filthy neck” – Post in response to Prime Minister Takaiichi’s statement on a potential Taiwan crisis"

https://x.com/yamazogaikuzo/status/1987490223249555615

 

[Josh]

Wolf warrior diplomacy, or rather a lack there of. If China paid the slightest lip service to other nations in the region it probably would not be hemmed in by enemies, and I personally think the Philippines could have been completely been brought on side, or at least neutral. With sovereignty guarantees and favorable economic loans and other activity. I continue to find blatant Chinese belligerence to its neighbors baffling.

[glenn239]

Article on deepening Sino-Iranian cooperation via oil trade and military technology transfers,

https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-china-oil-weapons-hq9-dryad-global-report/

Intelligence analyses suggest that Chinese defence planners now see Iran not merely as an arms client but as a forward partner capable of absorbing advanced technologies, testing operational concepts, and providing battlefield feedback relevant to PLA modernization.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

for China to treat its neighbors with respect would require China to not be Chinese.

Regarding the Iranians being a forward partner, is this the same Iran that can't come up with water to bathe in?

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

for China to treat its neighbors with respect would require China to not be Chinese.

Regarding the Iranians being a forward partner, is this the same Iran that can't come up with water to bathe in?

Nor an air defense that could keep the IAF out, never mind the U.S.

[glenn239]

31 minutes ago, Josh said:

Nor an air defense that could keep the IAF out, never mind the U.S.

IAF took down the Iranian AD in June, but it did so using surprise and a whole host of technical and intelligence tricks that it exposed to the Iranians.  Even so, the air campaign was mostly of the standoff variety, and Israel required a truce on account of an inability to deal with Iranian ballistic missiles.   Therefore, there is nothing good for Israel in the evolution of Sino-Iranian relations as described in the article, if these are true.  The Chinese have the doctrine, technical chops, and industrial capacity to make things far more difficult than they were.    The Iranians have now had their noses rubbed in it, and seems universally of the opinion they need deeper cooperation with the Chinese.  (The Russians seem too far in the Israeli camp, and Ukraine, to be of as much use).

Edited November 10 by glenn239

[Josh]

25 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

IAF took down the Iranian AD in June, but it did so using surprise and a whole host of technical and intelligence tricks that it exposed to the Iranians.  Even so, the air campaign was mostly of the standoff variety, and Israel required a truce on account of an inability to deal with Iranian ballistic missiles.   Therefore, there is nothing good for Israel in the evolution of Sino-Iranian relations as described in the article, if these are true.  The Chinese have the doctrine, technical chops, and industrial capacity to make things far more difficult than they were.    The Iranians have now had their noses rubbed in it, and seems universally of the opinion they need deeper cooperation with the Chinese.  (The Russians seem too far in the Israeli camp, and Ukraine, to be of as much use).

We have little evidence exactly what was used or whether it can be duplicated, but we certainly know the Iranians were, and possibly still are, practically helpless.

China is already the primary provider of air defense components and networks, even if it does not sell complete systems. I have no doubt the Chinese are willing to sell; whether Iran has the money to buy or the competence to employ an AD system with any more success is the question. I personally consider it unlikely they can be any more effective than they already are; it is not like AD was not already a high priority. They have like a half dozen locally built medium and long range systems.

[TrustMe]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

We have little evidence exactly what was used or whether it can be duplicated, but we certainly know the Iranians were, and possibly still are, practically helpless.

China is already the primary provider of air defense components and networks, even if it does not sell complete systems. I have no doubt the Chinese are willing to sell; whether Iran has the money to buy or the competence to employ an AD system with any more success is the question. I personally consider it unlikely they can be any more effective than they already are; it is not like AD was not already a high priority. They have like a half dozen locally built medium and long range systems.

 

China bought a small amount of the Russian S400 system probably to reverse engineer it. There not the leaders of SAM systems, at least, not yet.

[Roman Alymov]

17 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

 

China bought a small amount of the Russian S400 system probably to reverse engineer it. There not the leaders of SAM systems, at least, not yet.

 They do not need to be the leaders. Country that could afford creating artificial islands to create defensive barrier in open sea to not need SAMs to have the the same range as some of S400 missiles. Soviet and then Russian AD was so developed because USSR (and then RF) was never in position to compete with US&Co in aviation etc.   -while China is now world's #1 inductrial power (USSR newer was, even in best years).

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

We have little evidence exactly what was used or whether it can be duplicated, but we certainly know the Iranians were, and possibly still are, practically helpless.

We know that the IAF succeeded in dominating the Iranian AD network, but also could not suppress Iranian missile attacks.    

Quote

China is already the primary provider of air defense components and networks, even if it does not sell complete systems. I have no doubt the Chinese are willing to sell; whether Iran has the money to buy or the competence to employ an AD system with any more success is the question.

There seems to be a switch lately between Russia and China WRT the primary foreign supplier for Iran.  

Quote

I personally consider it unlikely they can be any more effective than they already are; it is not like AD was not already a high priority. They have like a half dozen locally built medium and long range systems.

It's not possible to conclude that Iranian AD would not improve with the influx of Chinese material, doctrine, and training.  (The article mentions that Iran might even be being equipped to be integrated into the Chinese AD network).  For that to be the case it would have to be that Iranian capabilities were on par with Chinese prior to June, and that notion is wrong.  At most one could assume that the Iranians will fail to integrate that technology, but this did not happen with Pakistan.

Speaking of which, an Iranian integration with China on the AD front will also integrate Iran with Pakistan. 

Edited November 11 by glenn239

[Josh]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

We know that the IAF succeeded in dominating the Iranian AD network, but also could not suppress Iranian missile attacks.

Irans attacks seemed similarly unable to suppress the IAF, so it seems like a wash.

 

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

There seems to be a switch lately between Russia and China WRT the primary foreign supplier for Iran.

Russia probably has nothing available to sell.

China has been supplying Iran with material for over a decade at least. They just tend to sell things with dual use like missile/radar components or communications and network systems. It does not have the splash of S300 sales, but I suspect Iran’s AD is far more Chinese dependent than Russia at this point, especially at the higher command levels.

 

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

It's not possible to conclude that Iranian AD would not improve with the influx of Chinese material, doctrine, and training.

it is possible to conclude that all of the support China has sold to date was insufficient, and it seems very hard to prove China will provide anything more substantial in the future. To date the only country that has received high end SAMs and fighters is Pakistan. Selling to Iran upsets a lot local apple carts that sell oil and gas to China, and of course the U.S. as well.

 

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

(The article mentions that Iran might even be being equipped to be integrated into the Chinese AD network).

That seems unlikely, and also rather pointless unless China were to start deploying its SAM batteries to Iran.

 

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

For that to be the case it would have to be that Iranian capabilities were on par with Chinese prior to June…

…or it it would have to be the case that Iranians were incapable of improving over whatever their pre June baseline is/was.

 

[glenn239]

Chinese amphibious tactics evovling towards assault robots.  Bad doggie,

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/china-uses-robot-wolves-for-staged-beach-invasion-in-new-war-tactic/ar-AA1Qnw0g?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=69161e3e321540089a40929ca775469c&ei=12

 

The Chinese army has revealed it has carried out staged ground invasions using ‘robot wolves’ amid growing fears that it is preparing for an invasion of Taiwan.

[Josh]

New Glen, a 45,000 kg to LEO rocket, just successfully landed its first stage booster. NG represents almost twice as much lift to LEO as the only existing Chinese heavy lift rocket, the CZ-5. NG is the widest volume rocket in operation at 7m, or about twice the areas/volume of any other system.

Falcon 9 flights are >140 this year, on course for 30+ more than last year, just like 2024, 2023, and 2022.

 

30 F9 launches represent about the entire LEO throw weight of the PRC space industry for any of these years, perhaps with this year being a modest exception (currently at 70 with around half CZ-2/3/4 and most of the rest CZ-6/7/8, and three CZ-5 and a handful of private launches).

 

The Vulcan schedule will see a heavy lift rocket launching basically every month from here out on top of any F9 launches.

And then eventually there is starship.

If the next great power race is going to be won in space (and IMO it will), China is definitely losing that for the foreseeable future.

Edited November 14 by Josh

[glenn239]

Do you have figures for projected lift capacity by nation now and say 5 years from now?

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Do you have figures for projected lift capacity by nation now and say 5 years from now?

Of course not, because it almost certainly depends on how successful Chinese reusability efforts are. But I have figures on how many launches they have put up for the last five years:

2020:

PRC: 39

F9: 24

2021:

PRC: 56

F9: 36

2022 

PRC: 61

F9: 61

2023

PRC: 63

F9: 96

2024:

PRC: 68

F9: 134

 

Currently we are at 71 vs 142 for 2025. Basically China modestly increases while SpaceX goes up by 30+ launches per year. Note that all Chinese launchers are less capable than F9, sometimes drastically so, with the exception of their sole heavy lifter CZ-5. F9 is generally listed as a medium lifter (17,000 kg to LEO when covered), but I would argue it technically is a heavy lifter when fully expended (22,000 kg to LEO).

I added up all PRC launchers capacity to low earth orbit for 2023 and compared it to F9 for the same year awhile back and the ratio of lift was greater than 7:1, and the number of objects orbited for the U.S. vs PRC was 2300+ vs 220 for that year. Obviously almost all of that is Starlink, and not all satellites are of equal size or are sent to the same altitudes/orbits, but it gives a rough sense of total capacity. More over SDA and NRO satellites are now being launched 20+ at a time just like Starlink. NRO launched 178 on nine missions between May 2024 and April 2025, just under a year.

Going forward, F9 cadences continue to spiral upward and New Glenn, Vulcan, and eventually Starship push the disparity further until China manages exponential increases in its launch cadence. SpaceX already has approval for up to 25 launches of Starship per year in Texas and recently got approval to double its launch cadence from vandenberg from 50 to 100.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-approval-for-increased-falcon-launches-from-vandenberg/