4 ms·

China is incredibly vulnerable to a seaborn blockade itself. It’s navy is a bad joke next to the US and they are highly dependent on energy and food imports. Ru

by simonh 4y ago

China is incredibly vulnerable to a seaborn blockade itself. It’s navy is a bad joke next to the US and they are highly dependent on energy and food imports. Russia can weather sanctions because although its economy is a mess, it’s quite diversified and they produce their own food and energy. They can drop down to a stable subsistence mode. China is almost entirely dependent on energy imports. On paper they’re also self sufficient in food, but that food production depends on massive fertiliser imports, and inputs of hydrocarbons to make fertilisers. If China was subject to the same sanctions as Russia, they’d be on their knees in a few months due to energy shortages. A year of it would tear China apart as food production would collapse. They have no stable subsistence level they can safely degrade to absent massive imports of survival commodities. The Chinese know this.

ManuelKiessling 4y ago
I mean this without the slightest hint of doubt, really just curious: Source?
- simonh 4y ago
  My wife is a Chinese so I’ve been interested in Chinese news, economics and geopolitics for 20 years now. I also have friends who have lived there for years, including one who’s father in law is, I’ll just say well connected*. I can’t give you one source, I read almost everything about China I come across. * His perspective on the internal politics of zero covid isn’t anything I’ve seen reported anywhere so I can’t corroborate it in any way, but it’s jaw dropping. Basically his position is that the extreme swings in policy implementation by the regions is a deliberate attempt to discredit Hu. Since Hu has deeply identified covid policy with himself personally, and all the regional party factions absolutely hate his guts (which I know is true), they’re deliberately blowing it large style on covid policy. One clue this might be correct is national news now doesn’t mention Hu in relation to covid any more, but regional news often still does.
  - real_jiakai 4y ago
    Who is Hu? Chinese president is Xi instead of Hu.
    - xtian 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - real_jiakai 4y ago
        ? I am curious about Hu. Can you tell me his name? If you mean Hu Xijin, I will say he is a news reporter instead of expert.
        xtian 4y ago
        I think this person is just deeply confused.
    - simonh 4y ago
      I shouldn't post at 4am.
jjcc 4y ago
Your last word is very interesting. The equivalents have been used in many places. It has more meaning than it appears. There's no really good research on decoding the mind of modern human specie' yet and even there was one, there would be little impact because the result will be consumed by human mind so if there were bugs then they won't be fixed because the bugs are in human mind. The conflicts in the world are caused by those bugs, in AI's opinion(in future)
abrookewood 4y ago
I have zero expertise in this area, but I did read an article earlier today suggesting that the bigger naval fleet almost always wins against a technically superior but smaller fleet, and that China already has the world’s largest navy [0] [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/16/asia/china-navy-fleet-size-history-victory-intl-hnk-ml/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/16/asia/china-navy-fleet-siz...
- simonh 4y ago
  The problem the Chinese fleet has is zero operational experience. Their carriers are barely capable of peacetime air operations. You’re making the same mistake everyone made about the Russian army a year ago, big on numbers and big on hardware so big on threat. But all that hardware doesn’t do you much good if the actual soldiers (or seamen) have no idea how to function in an actual war.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  China has the world's 2nd largest navy, by any metric that makes sense. It's only the largest if you count the number of ships, counting every ship equally. Counting a small coastal patrol boat the same as an aircraft carrier is manifestly absurd. China currently has 3 aircraft carriers, only one of which is a "supercarrier" on par with American carriers. The US has 11 supercarriers. One could make similar comparisons with nuclear-powered submarines and many other types of ships. Overall tonnage is a better metric: the Chinese navy weighs about 1.3 tons, while the US navy weighs about 4.5 million tons. Of course, there are many other factors beyond this one-dimensional metric, but this nevertheless gives you an idea of the large gap between the US and Chinese navies. China is catching up with the US quickly, because of China's growing industrial might, but it will still take decades to reach full parity.
fortuna86 4y ago
Somebody listened to Joe Rogan's podcast last week.
Fatnino 4y ago
Russia won't be joining the sanctions against China. Russia and China share a border. China will continue to eat Russian food as they have since trump scared them off reliance on US soy without disruption. Furthermore, the imagined might of the US navy in the age of drones is as obsolete as the fleets of World War One in the age of aircraft carriers.
- simonh 4y ago
  Almost all of those Russian exports go by sea, not land. They’re coming from the wrong end of Russia and the rail links have very limited capacity. China has been trying to get that upgraded as part of belt and a road, but it’s been slow going and far more expensive than they thought and much of the capacity that does exist goes through the stans. A decent capacity gas pipeline only got approved after the Ukraine war and will take a decade or more to get operational. Drones are too slow and too short range to be anything more than a near coastal threat. China’s sea lane supply routes stretch from south China all the way to the Persian gulf, Suez and round Africa. Only a real global navy can secure shipping across that sort of territory, and only the USA has a real global navy on that scale these days. Also where are all the Chinese naval bases to support such operations? The US and its allies have naval bases peppered over that whole area. China has one in Djibouti. It’s their only overseas naval base.
  - xtian 4y ago
    > The US and its allies have naval bases peppered over that whole area. Is this the "Chinese aggression" I’ve been hearing so much about?
    - simonh 4y ago
      The primary mission of the US navy globally is to guarantee freedom of navigation for everyone in international waters. That includes for shipping to and from China. The Chinese know this very well. The truth is Chinese and US commercial and strategic interests align almost completely in practice because their economies complement each other much more than they compete and their strategic dependencies are mostly shared (Gulf oil being a biggie), the problems are political. They're major political problems for sure and they lead to strong economic rivalry for geopolitical reasons, but take away the political dimension and they'd be natural allies, IMHO. It's the same way that Japan and the USA went from being direct competitors to natural allies after WW2. Before WW2 that would have been unimaginable, after WW2 it became obvious. I think it's the same with China. Also Russia actually, it's why the Ukraine invasion caught the USA completely by surprise. They just don't see what Russia could possibly gain from it because they view the world in commercial terms. If Russia was a liberal democracy them and the USA would be best friends ever, but authoritarian regimes must have enemies in order to justify their repression.
dirtyid 4y ago
And the US is incredibly vulnerable to having its 130 refineries destroyed by PRC conventional global strike - ultimately no better able to defend her energy and calorie inputs as PRC. The Malacca dilemma / PRC blockade was viable in an era where the US could unilaterally enforce with impunity. That game theory doesn't exist anymore, PRC can simply run blockade and threaten to take down comparable levels of US energy production that will reverberate down the chain into fertilizer and agriculture. Fortress America doesn't hold when an adversary like PRC can hit strategic targets on CONUS, hence US energy "security" is relegated to energy autonomy, the resources exist, but their processing cannot be secured in war. Think Saudi. Functionally, the CONUS is now as existentially vulnerable as the PRC in the event of war. The US knows this. In terms of sanctions, which energy producer is going to sanction PRC? We already see with RU war that bulk cargo will just get transshipped through various middle men. Or that PRC can always double down on coal conversion to make fertilizer - was previously curtailed to reduce emissions, but coal is making way back on the menu in the last few years. Projection of the PRC blockade scenario has PRC stretching out reserves and rationing for multiple years. Which TBH is longer than modern war will last, and by that time, in terms of attrition, US homefront would be as dire as PRC. Zeihan stans keep wanking about virtues of USN blue water projection and energy security as if PRC needs to match like for like to be able to challenge the US. PRC doesn't need to spend 30 years building 11 carriers to secure trade, it needs 5 years to build enough conventional global strike backed by ongoing nuke expansion to deter anyone from messing with her SLOCs in the first place.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  When you’re talking about global strikes between nuclear powers and converting massive amounts of coal to fertilizer, you have already exceeded the optimal costs for a splendid little war. China blundering into more than it bargained for over Taiwan is one thing, are you really expecting it’s going to commit to a world war-level of production and economic transformation over one island, no matter how much it might believe it to be its patrimony? And as if the U.S. wouldn't retaliate with transpacific conventional strikes in kind? As we see in the reversal over zero COVID, even the Chinese government has to listen to the sentiments of its well-to-do urbanized population created by Dengist reforms, regardless of how objectionable it might find them. Can you not imagine those coastal elites and middle classes complaining about wartime austerity, the blow to the quality of life they're used to? At some point devising so many elaborate hypothetical war plans is just technothriller novelizing. Which is just fine with me, Tom Clancy left us no true heirs.

by simonh 4y ago

ManuelKiessling 4y ago

I mean this without the slightest hint of doubt, really just curious: Source?

simonh 4y ago
My wife is a Chinese so I’ve been interested in Chinese news, economics and geopolitics for 20 years now. I also have friends who have lived there for years, including one who’s father in law is, I’ll just say well connected*. I can’t give you one source, I read almost everything about China I come across. * His perspective on the internal politics of zero covid isn’t anything I’ve seen reported anywhere so I can’t corroborate it in any way, but it’s jaw dropping. Basically his position is that the extreme swings in policy implementation by the regions is a deliberate attempt to discredit Hu. Since Hu has deeply identified covid policy with himself personally, and all the regional party factions absolutely hate his guts (which I know is true), they’re deliberately blowing it large style on covid policy. One clue this might be correct is national news now doesn’t mention Hu in relation to covid any more, but regional news often still does.
- real_jiakai 4y ago
  Who is Hu? Chinese president is Xi instead of Hu.
  - xtian 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - real_jiakai 4y ago
      ? I am curious about Hu. Can you tell me his name? If you mean Hu Xijin, I will say he is a news reporter instead of expert.
      - xtian 4y ago
        I think this person is just deeply confused.
  - simonh 4y ago
    I shouldn't post at 4am.

jjcc 4y ago

Your last word is very interesting. The equivalents have been used in many places. It has more meaning than it appears. There's no really good research on decoding the mind of modern human specie' yet and even there was one, there would be little impact because the result will be consumed by human mind so if there were bugs then they won't be fixed because the bugs are in human mind. The conflicts in the world are caused by those bugs, in AI's opinion(in future)

abrookewood 4y ago

I have zero expertise in this area, but I did read an article earlier today suggesting that the bigger naval fleet almost always wins against a technically superior but smaller fleet, and that China already has the world’s largest navy [0] [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/16/asia/china-navy-fleet-size-history-victory-intl-hnk-ml/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/16/asia/china-navy-fleet-siz...

simonh 4y ago
The problem the Chinese fleet has is zero operational experience. Their carriers are barely capable of peacetime air operations. You’re making the same mistake everyone made about the Russian army a year ago, big on numbers and big on hardware so big on threat. But all that hardware doesn’t do you much good if the actual soldiers (or seamen) have no idea how to function in an actual war.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
China has the world's 2nd largest navy, by any metric that makes sense. It's only the largest if you count the number of ships, counting every ship equally. Counting a small coastal patrol boat the same as an aircraft carrier is manifestly absurd. China currently has 3 aircraft carriers, only one of which is a "supercarrier" on par with American carriers. The US has 11 supercarriers. One could make similar comparisons with nuclear-powered submarines and many other types of ships. Overall tonnage is a better metric: the Chinese navy weighs about 1.3 tons, while the US navy weighs about 4.5 million tons. Of course, there are many other factors beyond this one-dimensional metric, but this nevertheless gives you an idea of the large gap between the US and Chinese navies. China is catching up with the US quickly, because of China's growing industrial might, but it will still take decades to reach full parity.

fortuna86 4y ago

Somebody listened to Joe Rogan's podcast last week.

Fatnino 4y ago

Russia won't be joining the sanctions against China. Russia and China share a border. China will continue to eat Russian food as they have since trump scared them off reliance on US soy without disruption. Furthermore, the imagined might of the US navy in the age of drones is as obsolete as the fleets of World War One in the age of aircraft carriers.

simonh 4y ago
Almost all of those Russian exports go by sea, not land. They’re coming from the wrong end of Russia and the rail links have very limited capacity. China has been trying to get that upgraded as part of belt and a road, but it’s been slow going and far more expensive than they thought and much of the capacity that does exist goes through the stans. A decent capacity gas pipeline only got approved after the Ukraine war and will take a decade or more to get operational. Drones are too slow and too short range to be anything more than a near coastal threat. China’s sea lane supply routes stretch from south China all the way to the Persian gulf, Suez and round Africa. Only a real global navy can secure shipping across that sort of territory, and only the USA has a real global navy on that scale these days. Also where are all the Chinese naval bases to support such operations? The US and its allies have naval bases peppered over that whole area. China has one in Djibouti. It’s their only overseas naval base.
- xtian 4y ago
  > The US and its allies have naval bases peppered over that whole area. Is this the "Chinese aggression" I’ve been hearing so much about?
  - simonh 4y ago
    The primary mission of the US navy globally is to guarantee freedom of navigation for everyone in international waters. That includes for shipping to and from China. The Chinese know this very well. The truth is Chinese and US commercial and strategic interests align almost completely in practice because their economies complement each other much more than they compete and their strategic dependencies are mostly shared (Gulf oil being a biggie), the problems are political. They're major political problems for sure and they lead to strong economic rivalry for geopolitical reasons, but take away the political dimension and they'd be natural allies, IMHO. It's the same way that Japan and the USA went from being direct competitors to natural allies after WW2. Before WW2 that would have been unimaginable, after WW2 it became obvious. I think it's the same with China. Also Russia actually, it's why the Ukraine invasion caught the USA completely by surprise. They just don't see what Russia could possibly gain from it because they view the world in commercial terms. If Russia was a liberal democracy them and the USA would be best friends ever, but authoritarian regimes must have enemies in order to justify their repression.

dirtyid 4y ago

And the US is incredibly vulnerable to having its 130 refineries destroyed by PRC conventional global strike - ultimately no better able to defend her energy and calorie inputs as PRC. The Malacca dilemma / PRC blockade was viable in an era where the US could unilaterally enforce with impunity. That game theory doesn't exist anymore, PRC can simply run blockade and threaten to take down comparable levels of US energy production that will reverberate down the chain into fertilizer and agriculture. Fortress America doesn't hold when an adversary like PRC can hit strategic targets on CONUS, hence US energy "security" is relegated to energy autonomy, the resources exist, but their processing cannot be secured in war. Think Saudi. Functionally, the CONUS is now as existentially vulnerable as the PRC in the event of war. The US knows this. In terms of sanctions, which energy producer is going to sanction PRC? We already see with RU war that bulk cargo will just get transshipped through various middle men. Or that PRC can always double down on coal conversion to make fertilizer - was previously curtailed to reduce emissions, but coal is making way back on the menu in the last few years. Projection of the PRC blockade scenario has PRC stretching out reserves and rationing for multiple years. Which TBH is longer than modern war will last, and by that time, in terms of attrition, US homefront would be as dire as PRC. Zeihan stans keep wanking about virtues of USN blue water projection and energy security as if PRC needs to match like for like to be able to challenge the US. PRC doesn't need to spend 30 years building 11 carriers to secure trade, it needs 5 years to build enough conventional global strike backed by ongoing nuke expansion to deter anyone from messing with her SLOCs in the first place.

Apocryphon 4y ago
When you’re talking about global strikes between nuclear powers and converting massive amounts of coal to fertilizer, you have already exceeded the optimal costs for a splendid little war. China blundering into more than it bargained for over Taiwan is one thing, are you really expecting it’s going to commit to a world war-level of production and economic transformation over one island, no matter how much it might believe it to be its patrimony? And as if the U.S. wouldn't retaliate with transpacific conventional strikes in kind? As we see in the reversal over zero COVID, even the Chinese government has to listen to the sentiments of its well-to-do urbanized population created by Dengist reforms, regardless of how objectionable it might find them. Can you not imagine those coastal elites and middle classes complaining about wartime austerity, the blow to the quality of life they're used to? At some point devising so many elaborate hypothetical war plans is just technothriller novelizing. Which is just fine with me, Tom Clancy left us no true heirs.