4 ms·

Because the "elite" that actually make US economic policy made a mint on it and could engage in their all time favorite activity in the world: undercutting and

Because the "elite" that actually make US economic policy made a mint on it and could engage in their all time favorite activity in the world: undercutting and destroying the financial viability of unions and labor The rich don't actually care about how much money they have, they care about how much money they have relative to other people. Hollowing out the middle class meant while milking profits from cheap overseas near-slave labor? My god, so many billionaire boners. Why do you think nothing tangible has been done about illegal immigration in, what, 40, 50 years now? Something that massively increases the number of desperate workers to undermine labor supply and union-based manual labor and trades? As it stands now, this problem will self-correct because manufacturing WILL onshore. It has to. China is dropping the hammer on economic reforms and ratcheting up totalitarian control, to say nothing of demographic bombs, the real estate / regional debt crisis, and the inevitable sanctions from a Taiwan invasion. Don't worry about the shipbuilding. China doesn't have carriers. They don't have a navy that can leave shore more than a hundred miles or so. The fact is the US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum (as in, fertilizer so ... most domestic food) shipments in Malaysia at will and ... China starves a couple months later. The policy that needs to be pursued isn't one of China as a dangerous peer state. That has already passed. The policy is to deal with China as a dangerous collapsing state. It's kind of the same effect (manufactured goods being shut off, reestablishing more domestic production and manufacturing), just with or without overt warfare. IMO this is an opportunity for greenfield modern manufacturing construction: lots of automation, lots of modern EV-based low cost low carbon transportation and infrastructure, building up the domestic energy industry around alternative energy on a fundamentally cheap basis never seen before. One way to do this is to intelligently allow the best and brightest in China to immigrate. They'll certainly want to get out... As for the article, it was a lot easier to crank out airplanes when they were basically automobiles with different body shapes. These weren't turbojets, they were ICE engine-powered prop planes. Yes that handwaves a massive amount of engineering and retooling, but it wasn't like ICE engine designers suddenly needed to learn how chip manufacturing worked.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
>> US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum It can't, as long as China has atomic bombs and ICBMs to deliver them.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  1) China won't care about the starvation of a half billion people. That's the totalitarian effect. 2) That is suicide for the CCP. They may be crazy authoritarian, but they aren't suicidal. By the same justification, China won't invade Taiwan because we "have atomic bombs and the ICBMs to deliver them". But it's pretty inevitable they will.
- ovi256 2y ago
  The US 5th fleet can just stop policing the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and the various local peoples would hinder maritime traffic through piracy and ransom. Those can't be stopped with ICBMs.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    But it can be stopped by other governments and it can be stopped by ship owners simply taking defense into their own hands. If prices are high enough. Pirates can almost never fully cut off a shipping lane.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > The US 5th fleet can just stop policing the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and the various local peoples would hinder maritime traffic through piracy and ransom. Those can't be stopped with ICBMs. While it would be a particularly horrific way to deal with the problem, the local people in the area of the Bab-el Mandeb strait and their capacity to interfere with international shipping can, in fact, be stopped with ICBMs.
DeathArrow 2y ago
>Don't worry about the shipbuilding. China doesn't have carriers. They don't have a navy that can leave shore more than a hundred miles or so. >The fact is the US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum (as in, fertilizer so ... most domestic food) shipments in Malaysia at will and ... China starves a couple months later. The fact is that China do not have ships because they don't intend to do large scale invasions thousands of miles from home. US Navy can't blockade China because the have enough missiles to destroy 100 times more ships. And they have the capacity to fab more than 1000 missiles per day.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  I agree in many respects that the US surface fleet is basically obsolete against a power with a decent supply of antiship ballistics, but US nuclear submarines are an entirely different matter.
CraigJPerry 2y ago
I don’t know enough to form an opinion but there’s an entertaining geopolitics chap called Peter Zeihan who’s thesis is basically exactly what you’ve said. He’s one of these folks who are really engaging to listen to and he uses a fun argument style like Simon Sinek where he presents stuff in a way that leaves you to put 2+2 together and feel smart about yourself when you think “aha! 4!” Just before he says “4”. That argument style seems to be like catnip for me so when I recognise it I have to force myself out of the “well that’s obviously true” mindset I’ve fallen into and go spot check a few of the facts he shares during his opinions. Maybe about 1/3rd of them don’t hold. It leaves me thinking he’s probably meaningfully wrong but like I say I don’t have enough knowledge to say for sure, just using a simple heuristic of “is this person’s argument consistent?”. I haven’t decided one way or the other, I just rate his thesis “caution, may not be true”
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  I consume a lot of Zeihan. He's a dramatic clickbait artist in many respects, but his "takes" are nonetheless often based in a lot of truth, just projected too quickly. He's been saying China would collapse for quite a while, but only recently have I seen a lot of other geopolitical types go from poo-pooing him to essentially agreeing with him. He still has a very strongly petrodollar/petroleum dominates the economy/alt energy isn't important, but a lot of that is because the tech churn in batteries/solar panels is so rapid. He doesn't really appreciate what sodium ion will bring to the table for example, he still thinks batteries can't scale because of limited cobalt and nickel, which is a two year old take. He is still a bit too dramatic on open seas piracy/reduction of the US Navy, but I've seen him reduce that take. Really the open seas and global trade are going to disrupt because between Russia in Ukraine and China doing the Taiwan invasion, there's going to be a LOT of global trade disruption. At this point I agree with his China take because it has four different fronts which are conspiring. Demographic collapse didn't cause Japan to completely fall apart, but demographic collapse + totalitarian incompetence absolutely can. I also haven't seen as many rebuke videos of his China take, and the US and its megaconglomerates are definitely shortening their supply chain and re-shoring manufacturing already. The most public one is the fab act (which will also expose Taiwan to a higher risk of invasion).
gwervc 2y ago
> The fact is the US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum Yeah sure, just like Russian economy was supposed to fall in a few months after sanctions.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  Russia has its own domestic oil supply. China does not. It is that simple, basically.
  - lossolo 2y ago
    China have access to Russia through land and they are building new pipeline that should start operating this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipeline-could-run-alongside-planned-new-gas-link-china-2024-05-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipel...
    - AtlasBarfed 2y ago
      A single cross continental pipeline will not supply a nation of 1-point-whatever (statistics are in flux on a monthly basis) billion people. Ukraine alone can take that out. Cruise missiles, sabotage, special forces, mercenaries. You don't even need to explicitly destroy it, Russians and Chinese build poor infrastructure. Sarah Paine, a prof at the Naval War college really opened my eyes to this and the Belt and Road. Marine shipping is basically free. Keeping rail lines and pipelines intact over thousands and thousands of miles in Asia through desert wastes, mountains, tundra, and a half dozen politically iffy -stans is not a recipe for efficient trade logistics. And China and Russia hate each other. Strange bedfellows, but would China want to rely on Russia for oil if it invades Taiwan and Russia has their country's oil supply in a firm iron grip? Putin? Nope nope nope.
      - lossolo 2y ago
        > A single cross continental pipeline will not supply a nation of 1-point-whatever (statistics are in flux on a monthly basis) billion people. As another comment in this thread has already mentioned, they have sufficient local production to fuel their war machine, while restricting other uses. > Ukraine alone can take that out. It's actually quite interesting. Are you aware that there is a pipeline running from Russia through Ukraine that pumps Russian gas to the EU? Ukraine earns $800 million USD a year from this. Then, they buy back that gas. Life is a little more complicated than it seems. > And China and Russia hate each other. Strange bedfellows, but would China want to rely on Russia for oil if it invades Taiwan and Russia has their country's oil supply in a firm iron grip? Putin? Nope nope nope. It doesn't matter whether they hate or love each other, the only thing that matters is interests. Stalin was called a dictator and a ruthless killer by the West, but when he changed sides, he was suddenly 'Uncle Joe.' China will only invade Taiwan if the US forces their hand. In the short term, it's against their interests to invade Taiwan, just as Taiwan prefers to maintain the status quo. They know that if they invade, the US can say, 'You see? We told you. Look what they are doing' which would result in sanctions from the US and EU and lead to internal problems. Why would they do it? It's neither logical nor rational, and it goes against their culture. There's a Chinese saying: 'The wise win before the fight while the ignorant fight to win'.
lossolo 2y ago
> US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum It's such an unrealistic comment. Have you seen the new Navy report in Congress? Have you seen the yearly Congress report about Chinese rocket capabilities from the last few months? Have you seen the results of the war games in the South China Sea, most of which were lost by the US? "US Congressmen: 90% of US fighter jets in the Western Pacific will be destroyed within hours of a US-China conflicts by missiles. The military bases being mentioned are those in Japan, S Korea, Guam and Northern Marianas." [1] > to say nothing of demographic bombs, the real estate / regional debt crisis, and the inevitable sanctions from a Taiwan invasion. They are heavily investing in Sub-Saharan Africa because, based on IMF data, it will be the only region in the next few decades experiencing significant population growth. This region is their own 'China.' With increasing automation and a cheap workforce, demographics are not a significant problem. They just poured 53 billion USD into the real estate crisis. To receive sanctions for a Taiwan invasion, first, you need to invade it, and it's not in the short-term interests of either China or Taiwan. > Don't worry about the shipbuilding. China doesn't have carriers. They don't have a navy that can leave shore more than a hundred miles or so. Don't worry? If they destroy a US ship, it will take 5-10 years to rebuild it, whereas they will rebuild theirs in a year. This is also mentioned in reports. Your entire comment is wishful thinking. China is not collapsing, and the data confirms that. [2][3] 1. https://x.com/Ignis_Rex/status/1791035870210085350 https://x.com/Ignis_Rex/status/1791035870210085350 2. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-ris... 3. https://x.com/davidpgoldman/status/1792215020941565983 https://x.com/davidpgoldman/status/1792215020941565983
- axus 2y ago
  The problem with centralizing power in one person for too long, they get strange ideas about what's in their nation's interest.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  1) you can't trust most of China's numbers. They are in full only-show-numbers-that-please-dear-leader mode. The tarriff war that is brewing between the US and China is about China doing some last-gasp production dumping before economic collapse, although that argument could admittedly be dressing up numbers that don't support their arguments of the pro-collapse geopoliticists. 2) China's rattling on Taiwan is very similar to the demographic motivations of Russia's invasion of Ukraine: both are suffering huge demographic collapses soon, so this is the last generation that the country can use for an offensive war. Yes, it is utterly stupid to take a demographic problem of a shrinking younger generations and KILL THOSE PEOPLE IN A WAR to exacerbate the problem, but strongmen just concern themselves with keeping their positions, not how the nation as a whole thrives. 3) Sub Saharan Africa? Like, that is 5,000 to 6,000 miles away? And an area that will become increasingly utterly uninhabitable due to global warming. The Belt and Road is a complete failure, again, because the infrastructure was poor and the payoff isn't there. The countries are just going to walk away from China, and instead of paying them back or restructuring (China won't restructure), they'll join a Western bloc against the Chinese. Belt and road, for the reasons described about the complete inability to defend multi-thousand-mile infrastructure lines like pipelines and rail, is an impossibility to work in Asia. Even if the political and security challenges are solved (which requires a nice intercooperation and low-war world, which we are NOT headed for right now), it isn't even remotely economically viable. 4) Ultimately war games are meant to be lost. Because that drives the exigent threats to American hegemony that drive the near-trillion-dollar defense and intelligence budgets politically. Yes you don't want to underestimate the enemy, but look at what is going on with the Russian army under decades of totalitarian corruption and incompetence. China is headed down that path, but doesn't want to stop at a neo-western society like Russia has, they want full on North Korean dear leader control. 5) The fact of the matter is that China imports its oil through the Malaysian Staits/Straits of Malacca. Go look at the map. No matter how much shipbuilding China has, no matter how many cruise missiles, they won't get oil through there if the West decides to impose sanctions. 6) Finally, there's India. India of course hates China as well, and India is modernizing its military under Modi and it alone would jump at the chance to choke China in the Indian Ocean. China is not collapsing overnight. It is not economic armageddon, these things are always slow slides. I mean, in theory it could because mass starvation at the hands of the communist party is in China's 20th century history, and it is actively occurring in North Korea. The point is that the old world political economic order, and by order I mean stability and structure, not the illuminati evil control council "order", is over. Russia invading Ukraine, COVID disrupting supply chains, and China becoming aggressive and authoritarian ended that. That era, a solid 75 years between bipolar Cold War stability and unipolar post-Cold War is OVER. Every five years that go by in China will decrease their military effectiveness by a substantial degree, because of authoritarian degradation in chain of command and corruption, because of demographic reductions and disruption.
vimy 2y ago
> Don't worry about the shipbuilding. China doesn't have carriers. They don't have a navy that can leave shore more than a hundred miles or so. They have 3 carriers and are rapidly building more. They have naval bases as far as Africa. A lot more misinformation in your comment but it would take too long to correct it all.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago

>> US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum It can't, as long as China has atomic bombs and ICBMs to deliver them.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
1) China won't care about the starvation of a half billion people. That's the totalitarian effect. 2) That is suicide for the CCP. They may be crazy authoritarian, but they aren't suicidal. By the same justification, China won't invade Taiwan because we "have atomic bombs and the ICBMs to deliver them". But it's pretty inevitable they will.
ovi256 2y ago
The US 5th fleet can just stop policing the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and the various local peoples would hinder maritime traffic through piracy and ransom. Those can't be stopped with ICBMs.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  But it can be stopped by other governments and it can be stopped by ship owners simply taking defense into their own hands. If prices are high enough. Pirates can almost never fully cut off a shipping lane.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The US 5th fleet can just stop policing the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and the various local peoples would hinder maritime traffic through piracy and ransom. Those can't be stopped with ICBMs. While it would be a particularly horrific way to deal with the problem, the local people in the area of the Bab-el Mandeb strait and their capacity to interfere with international shipping can, in fact, be stopped with ICBMs.

DeathArrow 2y ago

>Don't worry about the shipbuilding. China doesn't have carriers. They don't have a navy that can leave shore more than a hundred miles or so. >The fact is the US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum (as in, fertilizer so ... most domestic food) shipments in Malaysia at will and ... China starves a couple months later. The fact is that China do not have ships because they don't intend to do large scale invasions thousands of miles from home. US Navy can't blockade China because the have enough missiles to destroy 100 times more ships. And they have the capacity to fab more than 1000 missiles per day.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
I agree in many respects that the US surface fleet is basically obsolete against a power with a decent supply of antiship ballistics, but US nuclear submarines are an entirely different matter.

CraigJPerry 2y ago

I don’t know enough to form an opinion but there’s an entertaining geopolitics chap called Peter Zeihan who’s thesis is basically exactly what you’ve said. He’s one of these folks who are really engaging to listen to and he uses a fun argument style like Simon Sinek where he presents stuff in a way that leaves you to put 2+2 together and feel smart about yourself when you think “aha! 4!” Just before he says “4”. That argument style seems to be like catnip for me so when I recognise it I have to force myself out of the “well that’s obviously true” mindset I’ve fallen into and go spot check a few of the facts he shares during his opinions. Maybe about 1/3rd of them don’t hold. It leaves me thinking he’s probably meaningfully wrong but like I say I don’t have enough knowledge to say for sure, just using a simple heuristic of “is this person’s argument consistent?”. I haven’t decided one way or the other, I just rate his thesis “caution, may not be true”

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
I consume a lot of Zeihan. He's a dramatic clickbait artist in many respects, but his "takes" are nonetheless often based in a lot of truth, just projected too quickly. He's been saying China would collapse for quite a while, but only recently have I seen a lot of other geopolitical types go from poo-pooing him to essentially agreeing with him. He still has a very strongly petrodollar/petroleum dominates the economy/alt energy isn't important, but a lot of that is because the tech churn in batteries/solar panels is so rapid. He doesn't really appreciate what sodium ion will bring to the table for example, he still thinks batteries can't scale because of limited cobalt and nickel, which is a two year old take. He is still a bit too dramatic on open seas piracy/reduction of the US Navy, but I've seen him reduce that take. Really the open seas and global trade are going to disrupt because between Russia in Ukraine and China doing the Taiwan invasion, there's going to be a LOT of global trade disruption. At this point I agree with his China take because it has four different fronts which are conspiring. Demographic collapse didn't cause Japan to completely fall apart, but demographic collapse + totalitarian incompetence absolutely can. I also haven't seen as many rebuke videos of his China take, and the US and its megaconglomerates are definitely shortening their supply chain and re-shoring manufacturing already. The most public one is the fab act (which will also expose Taiwan to a higher risk of invasion).

gwervc 2y ago

> The fact is the US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum Yeah sure, just like Russian economy was supposed to fall in a few months after sanctions.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Russia has its own domestic oil supply. China does not. It is that simple, basically.
- lossolo 2y ago
  China have access to Russia through land and they are building new pipeline that should start operating this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipeline-could-run-alongside-planned-new-gas-link-china-2024-05-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipel...
  - AtlasBarfed 2y ago
    A single cross continental pipeline will not supply a nation of 1-point-whatever (statistics are in flux on a monthly basis) billion people. Ukraine alone can take that out. Cruise missiles, sabotage, special forces, mercenaries. You don't even need to explicitly destroy it, Russians and Chinese build poor infrastructure. Sarah Paine, a prof at the Naval War college really opened my eyes to this and the Belt and Road. Marine shipping is basically free. Keeping rail lines and pipelines intact over thousands and thousands of miles in Asia through desert wastes, mountains, tundra, and a half dozen politically iffy -stans is not a recipe for efficient trade logistics. And China and Russia hate each other. Strange bedfellows, but would China want to rely on Russia for oil if it invades Taiwan and Russia has their country's oil supply in a firm iron grip? Putin? Nope nope nope.
    - lossolo 2y ago
      > A single cross continental pipeline will not supply a nation of 1-point-whatever (statistics are in flux on a monthly basis) billion people. As another comment in this thread has already mentioned, they have sufficient local production to fuel their war machine, while restricting other uses. > Ukraine alone can take that out. It's actually quite interesting. Are you aware that there is a pipeline running from Russia through Ukraine that pumps Russian gas to the EU? Ukraine earns $800 million USD a year from this. Then, they buy back that gas. Life is a little more complicated than it seems. > And China and Russia hate each other. Strange bedfellows, but would China want to rely on Russia for oil if it invades Taiwan and Russia has their country's oil supply in a firm iron grip? Putin? Nope nope nope. It doesn't matter whether they hate or love each other, the only thing that matters is interests. Stalin was called a dictator and a ruthless killer by the West, but when he changed sides, he was suddenly 'Uncle Joe.' China will only invade Taiwan if the US forces their hand. In the short term, it's against their interests to invade Taiwan, just as Taiwan prefers to maintain the status quo. They know that if they invade, the US can say, 'You see? We told you. Look what they are doing' which would result in sanctions from the US and EU and lead to internal problems. Why would they do it? It's neither logical nor rational, and it goes against their culture. There's a Chinese saying: 'The wise win before the fight while the ignorant fight to win'.

lossolo 2y ago

> US Navy can blockade China's food imports and petroleum It's such an unrealistic comment. Have you seen the new Navy report in Congress? Have you seen the yearly Congress report about Chinese rocket capabilities from the last few months? Have you seen the results of the war games in the South China Sea, most of which were lost by the US? "US Congressmen: 90% of US fighter jets in the Western Pacific will be destroyed within hours of a US-China conflicts by missiles. The military bases being mentioned are those in Japan, S Korea, Guam and Northern Marianas." [1] > to say nothing of demographic bombs, the real estate / regional debt crisis, and the inevitable sanctions from a Taiwan invasion. They are heavily investing in Sub-Saharan Africa because, based on IMF data, it will be the only region in the next few decades experiencing significant population growth. This region is their own 'China.' With increasing automation and a cheap workforce, demographics are not a significant problem. They just poured 53 billion USD into the real estate crisis. To receive sanctions for a Taiwan invasion, first, you need to invade it, and it's not in the short-term interests of either China or Taiwan. > Don't worry about the shipbuilding. China doesn't have carriers. They don't have a navy that can leave shore more than a hundred miles or so. Don't worry? If they destroy a US ship, it will take 5-10 years to rebuild it, whereas they will rebuild theirs in a year. This is also mentioned in reports. Your entire comment is wishful thinking. China is not collapsing, and the data confirms that. [2][3] 1. https://x.com/Ignis_Rex/status/1791035870210085350 https://x.com/Ignis_Rex/status/1791035870210085350 2. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-ris... 3. https://x.com/davidpgoldman/status/1792215020941565983 https://x.com/davidpgoldman/status/1792215020941565983

axus 2y ago
The problem with centralizing power in one person for too long, they get strange ideas about what's in their nation's interest.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
1) you can't trust most of China's numbers. They are in full only-show-numbers-that-please-dear-leader mode. The tarriff war that is brewing between the US and China is about China doing some last-gasp production dumping before economic collapse, although that argument could admittedly be dressing up numbers that don't support their arguments of the pro-collapse geopoliticists. 2) China's rattling on Taiwan is very similar to the demographic motivations of Russia's invasion of Ukraine: both are suffering huge demographic collapses soon, so this is the last generation that the country can use for an offensive war. Yes, it is utterly stupid to take a demographic problem of a shrinking younger generations and KILL THOSE PEOPLE IN A WAR to exacerbate the problem, but strongmen just concern themselves with keeping their positions, not how the nation as a whole thrives. 3) Sub Saharan Africa? Like, that is 5,000 to 6,000 miles away? And an area that will become increasingly utterly uninhabitable due to global warming. The Belt and Road is a complete failure, again, because the infrastructure was poor and the payoff isn't there. The countries are just going to walk away from China, and instead of paying them back or restructuring (China won't restructure), they'll join a Western bloc against the Chinese. Belt and road, for the reasons described about the complete inability to defend multi-thousand-mile infrastructure lines like pipelines and rail, is an impossibility to work in Asia. Even if the political and security challenges are solved (which requires a nice intercooperation and low-war world, which we are NOT headed for right now), it isn't even remotely economically viable. 4) Ultimately war games are meant to be lost. Because that drives the exigent threats to American hegemony that drive the near-trillion-dollar defense and intelligence budgets politically. Yes you don't want to underestimate the enemy, but look at what is going on with the Russian army under decades of totalitarian corruption and incompetence. China is headed down that path, but doesn't want to stop at a neo-western society like Russia has, they want full on North Korean dear leader control. 5) The fact of the matter is that China imports its oil through the Malaysian Staits/Straits of Malacca. Go look at the map. No matter how much shipbuilding China has, no matter how many cruise missiles, they won't get oil through there if the West decides to impose sanctions. 6) Finally, there's India. India of course hates China as well, and India is modernizing its military under Modi and it alone would jump at the chance to choke China in the Indian Ocean. China is not collapsing overnight. It is not economic armageddon, these things are always slow slides. I mean, in theory it could because mass starvation at the hands of the communist party is in China's 20th century history, and it is actively occurring in North Korea. The point is that the old world political economic order, and by order I mean stability and structure, not the illuminati evil control council "order", is over. Russia invading Ukraine, COVID disrupting supply chains, and China becoming aggressive and authoritarian ended that. That era, a solid 75 years between bipolar Cold War stability and unipolar post-Cold War is OVER. Every five years that go by in China will decrease their military effectiveness by a substantial degree, because of authoritarian degradation in chain of command and corruption, because of demographic reductions and disruption.

vimy 2y ago

> Don't worry about the shipbuilding. China doesn't have carriers. They don't have a navy that can leave shore more than a hundred miles or so. They have 3 carriers and are rapidly building more. They have naval bases as far as Africa. A lot more misinformation in your comment but it would take too long to correct it all.