309
US Intelligence Shows Flawed China Missiles Led Xi to Purge Army
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
309 points (97.0% liked)
World News
38861 readers
2180 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean...the US Navy is roughly 40 times more capable than the Chinese navy just looking at aircraft carriers compared, nevermind the carrier group components or the planes. A US super carrier is so much more capable than the 2 Chinese carriers combined.
China's ship building capacity is greater than the US. They may be able to overwhelm the US Navy in an extended conflict.
That said, China is looking at a demographic cliff from the One Child Policy. Too many old people and not enough young ones to take care of them. If they're going to start a war, it has to be in the next few years or not at all. It's possible the window is already closed.
Imagine what their demographics would look like if they also started a war and killed their young people though.
Not saying they won't do it, and they do currently have an excess of young men specifically, but a country with a population problem isn't in a great place to start a war imo.
They can’t. China is a green-water navy with but-water dreams, but a complete lack of ability to produce the right type of ships for the task. Their missile boats are concerns in littoral areas, but effectively worthless anywhere else, and that’s all they can produce at any appreciable speed. Their carriers aren’t even sea worthy.
Butt-water Dreams. Band name.
That's like saying if we produce enough preschoolers fast enough we might be able to overwhelm that SWAT team.
The US Navy could likely sink their entire fleet without losing anything of significance outside of ammunition and fuel, it doesn't matter how fast they can build such inferior ships.
When it comes to engaging with developed nations the US doesn't do extended conflicts, that's a luxury of third world occupations. We'd take out their Navy and then invade or force a surrender based on extended range weapons.
A war can also solve another problem China has: too many men and too few women. War deaths will not only reduce the man to female ratio, but as in past Chinese wars soldiers will bring home war "brides".
China would need to build ships faster then the US can build antiship missiles. The US has thousands of stealthy Long Range Anti Ship Missiles. The only thing that quantity of ships would do is make a bunch of reefs.
And there's what, 7 to 10 of em?
Of which? Last I looked at Wiki the US has 11 aircraft carriers in service.
China with two ramped smaller ones. Apparently one was formerly a casino and the other is a clone.
Tonnage is another decent metric. US has 4.6 million tons to Chinas 2.
The capability of the tonnage is a whole other twist. Force multipliers like mid air refueling, AWACs, stealth etc
Aircraft carriers, so 11. Aren't they working on 1 or 2 more as well?
The plan is to phase in Ford-class carriers to replace the Nimitz-class. There is supposed to be 10 total in the end.
That said, the US DoD is doing its usual sandbagging thing where it says China could totally overwhelm the US Navy in an extended conflict and that means we need to make an even bigger navy. Commenters elsewhere in the thread comparing preschoolers to SWAT teams are off base; China's ships and planes aren't on the same level as the US, but quantity in a conflict near China's borders would still be a problem. Still, pretending the US military is behind is a budget tactic that worked all throughout the Cold War, and it's working again. It's why the military-industrial complex is such a problem.
So are they going to try and get funding to keep the old ones running or are they legit going to be decommissioned and just make more Fords?
I don't think they'll try to keep the Nimitz class going. Part of the reason for a whole new class is that the Nimitzes didn't have enough power for some of the upgrades the Navy wants. If there are even more total carrier groups to be made, it'll probably be all new ones.
Who knows, though. The non-nuclear Kitty Hawk lasted into the 21st century.
Yep. It's a big navy.
Much as I love to toot Murica's horn US's fleet figures become less daunting when you consider the areas of interest and responsibility they cover. China has one long coast line and offshore interests, (and yes some rather optimistic claims and attempts to create islands to expand their influence) compared to US fleet having 2 major coastlines, Alaska and Hawaii, to say nothing of areas of interest and defense commitments to allies.
Under ideal circumstances US can only ever afford to have a third of it's fleet in any single theatre, where China can theoretically put almost all of their fleet into a single theatre, granted that theatre basically needs to be the Pacific Ocean.
US still has the clear advantage the moment you step away from coastal waters but its not nearly as big as first glance.