China & Chinese Shenanigans

[Clark Griswold]

More Chinese UAVs - inflatable ones.

Tianjin expo reveals Chinese UAV innovations, aspirations

[17D_guy]

Borrowed from a cyber security mailing list -

Long read but interesting -

China’s Undermining an Open Internet

Interesting section:

Finally, we believe that nation-states have responsibilities in cyberspace, just as they do elsewhere, to abide by certain standards of behavior. That is why the United States remains deeply concerned about China’s continuing and indisputable government-sponsored cyber theft from companies and commercial sectors around the world for Chinese companies’ advantage. The United States does not engage in these types of activities. This behavior is adversely affecting the fundamentals of the U.S.-China relationship, harming the ties of our business community, tarnishing Chinese firms’ international image, and at a broader level, undermining the basic foundations of free and fair commerce. That is why China’s government-sponsored cyber theft for commercial gain is not just a U.S.-China issue. It is an issue of concern to countries around the world. It needs to stop.

More useless saber rattling at the end.

[deaddebate]

https://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5610 / Remarks on the Next Phase of the U.S. Rebalance to the Asia-Pacific / SECDEF Carter / April 06, 2015

Some people would have you believe that China will displace America in the Asia-Pacific or that its economic growth will somehow squeeze out opportunities for young people like you. But I reject the zero-sum thinking that China's gain is our loss because there is another scenario in which everyone wins and it is a continuation of the decades of peace and stability anchored by a strong American role, in which all Asia-Pacific countries continue to rise and prosper, including China. This is the scenario we seek in the ongoing rebalance.

That said, we and many other countries are deeply concerned about some of the activities China is undertaking. Its opaque defense budget, its actions in cyberspace, and its behavior in places like the South and East China Seas raise a number of serious questions. These are concerns we raise with our Chinese counterparts on a regular basis.

The U.S. and China are not allies, but we don't have to be adversaries. A strong, constructive U.S.-China relationship is essential for global security and prosperity. Our relationship will be complex as we continue to both compete and cooperate. But we also believe there are opportunities to improve understanding and to reduce risk with China, which is why President Obama and President Xi announced two historic confidence-building agreements this past fall. We're working to complete another measure this year that aims to prevent dangerous air-to-air encounters, and there are a wide range of other possible confidence-building measures that I will be strongly working on.

Edited April 7, 2015 by deaddebate

[Guest]

https://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/global-publics-back-u-s-on-fighting-isis-but-are-critical-of-post-911-torture/

[Don Frank]

I'm curious how the US view of China changes after each large scale hacking or data breach that occurs, whether or not China is really responsible. I'm sure the OPM breach might have changed some people's opinions.

[Ram]

Well, my personal opinion was already pretty low, so... No change here.

[SurelySerious]

I'm curious how the US view of China changes after each large scale hacking or data breach that occurs, whether or not China is really responsible. I'm sure the OPM breach might have changed some people's opinions.

I'd venture most of the US Americans don't pay enough attention to know the difference.

[DFRESH]

They're more concerned with skittles pictures on the bookface.

[Goblin]

^ 2

[Guest]

thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/467/americans-in-china

Great perspective on American-Chinese relations. Worth hearing (or reading).

[Clark Griswold]

Call it Op Kitchen Sink.

Stopping China Would Take 2/3 of U.S. Air Power

https://warisboring.com/articles/stopping-china-would-take-23-of-u-s-air-power/

Minor edit.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[Majestik Møøse]

So the Chinese can fly at night now? Or not?

[Clark Griswold]

So the Chinese can fly at night now? Or not?

Apparently so.

 

[Fuzz]

Call it Op Kitchen Sink.

Stopping China Would Take 2/3 of U.S. Air Power

https://warisboring.com/articles/stopping-china-would-take-23-of-u-s-air-power/

Minor edit.

Only looks at the air to air fight and seems to disregard the fact that Taiwan lies well within the range of the PLA's land based S-400 completely disregarding any naval SAMs) giving them a significant leg up in the air superiority fight.

[Clark Griswold]

Only looks at the air to air fight and seems to disregard the fact that Taiwan lies well within the range of the PLA's land based S-400 completely disregarding any naval SAMs) giving them a significant leg up in the air superiority fight.

Yep - not the whole bleak picture but probably a good guess at what the Battle of Taiwan would require... a shit load of airplanes, missiles, luck and brass balls to fight.

Article on what a PRC invasion of Taiwan might look like or their options for a military solution to re-unification:

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan-would-look-like-2014-6

Probably the best Taiwan can do it make the island one giant IED, machine gun and sniper's nest to make any amphibious or airborne invasion enormously costly to the invasion force, a pyrrhic victory at best via a very long bloody campaign.   

Article at TNR on that subject:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/taiwans-master-plan-defeat-china-war-12510

The best deterrent is the anticipated reaction of the world:  Seizure of foreign investments and good luck getting paid on the 2+ trillion the US owes you, no one except the pariah states would recognize their annexation and everyone around you will now arm themselves to the max extent they can afford and probably cozy up with the US and maybe even Japan.  Great you got an island with no natural resources, no one recognizes your claim, you fought a very bloody & expensive campaign and the population hates you - big win.

[deaddebate]

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/632040/discussion-with-secretary-carter-at-the-john-f-kennedy-jr-forum-harvard-institu

Discussion with Secretary Carter at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, Harvard Institute of Politics, Cambridge, Massachusetts

SEC. CARTER: I'm not one of those people who believes war, cold or otherwise, with China is likely.  It's certainly not desirable. But you don't get anything for free in this world.  We have to create the conditions under which change can occur, including a change of great consequence in the Asia-Pacific region in a way that is -- preserves the peace and stability. That the peace and stability that for 70 years has allowed prosperity and the rise of, first of Japan, then of South Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia.  Today China and India.  This is good.  But it has been able to occur because there has been peace and stability in the region. And the single most important factor in that 70-year history has been the American -- pivotal role of American military power in the region.  We aim to keep that going. Now, that's not a matter of stopping China from rising.  It's on the contrary.  That's not our approach at all.  Our approach is everybody rises.  That's fine with us.  It's not to exclude.  Our approach has always been an inclusive one.  So we actually seek to include China, India. I was in Vietnam a couple of months ago.  And you know some of us go back long enough to remember when it was otherwise with Vietnam. But this is the single region of the world, Graham, which will be of greatest consequence to our nation's future.  And I say that for the very simple reason it's where half of humanity lives.  It's where half of the economic activity of the globe is. And so keeping peace and stability there is a very important thing to do.  And we need to do that.  Now, you know, that involves everybody else in the region and China.  Everybody needs to play their part. So that is a politico-military task of great consequence.  I pay a lot of attention to it.  We have something called the rebalance, which is a big and probably not the greatest word in the world.  But all it means is we aim to keep going what has worked for 70 years in this region and has allowed everyone, including China and their -- if Chinese think about it, and many do recognize that this has been great for China.  China can do its own thing, raise hundreds of millions out of poverty, develop in a way that is congenial to China. [...] a few weeks ago, I was aboard the Theodore Roosevelt in the South China Sea. Now, why was that even noticed, is the question you might ask?  American Naval vessels have been in the South China Sea for 70 years. We weren't doing anything new.  Why was it in the newspapers?  Because China has been doing something new, namely, dredging islands in the South China Sea, and making unilateral claims to territory.  Now, they're not the only ones that are doing that out there.  There are other countries that have been doing the same.  We oppose that, we say, that's no way to stake claims, by China or anyone else.  And for our part -- it's not going to change what we do.  We're going to sail, fly, operate anywhere international law allows, like we have for decade upon decade upon decade.  So that's what I was doing.  Now you said what do other people think about it?  Well, with me was the Malaysian defense minister.  And what does that tell you?  That tells you that in the region there, there are others who are concerned also about this conduct.  And basically the over-weaning and domineering attitude that goes with dredging.  As I said, the Chinese aren't the only ones that are doing that, but they're the principle one that causes concern.  And it's having the effect of causing the entire region to rally in opposition to China.  Is that really what China wants in the end?  That's certainly not what we want.  I told you, our approach is not to exclude.  Our approach is to include.  But if they self-exclude by behaving this way, that's what will happen.  And that's what you see happening. [...] But I think the interesting point is it wasn't new that the American aircraft carrier was in the South China Sea.  It was interesting that I got so much press attention.  But that's because of what the Chinese are doing that's new, not because of what we're doing. [...] I don't know what is the most likely.  I can certainly say what is the most desirable.  And that would be a South China Sea in which territorial claims are settled peacefully and without military activities, where everyone has freedom of navigation. Remember, those are the seas through which most of the world's commerce flows, including to China, both imports and exports, energy and everything else.  So we all depend upon the freedom of the commons.  And I'm fine with having China you know at sea also.  They have a navy.  They can go anywhere the United States Navy goes.  And we can partner with China's navy, and we are in things like dealing with piracy, trafficking in human beings and drug trade. [...] Everybody can share those oceans.  There's no reason why anybody has to dominate them.  We're certainly not seeking to dominate them.  So that's the future I hope for. [...] we oppose all reclamation and further militarization.  We think everybody ought to knock it off.  That's no way to do things.  You can resolve these disputes, territorial disputes in some other way.  Let's not forget the big prize here, which is free commons for everyone.

[SurelySerious]

New Chinese anti-terror law confuses the shit out of US companies

https://recode.net/2015/12/28/new-china-anti-terrorism-law-confuses-the--out-of-u-s-tech-companies/

U.S. tech companies are asking themselves what the heck happened over the weekend after China laid down a new anti-terrorism law that, among other things like creating its own version of James Bond, has given it powers to demand the decryption of electronic messages.

[Clark Griswold]

YGBSM

Chinese Wild Weasel.

https://www.popsci.com/china-builds-its-own-wild-weasel-to-suppress-air-defenses

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Clark Griswold
insufficient general knowledge

[Ram]

FYI, Clark, it's "YGBSM"

[Clark Griswold]

17 minutes ago, Ram said:

FYI, Clark, it's "YGBSM"

[Clark Griswold]

Another from pop sci - Chinese seaplane AG-600

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/china-building-worlds-largest-sea-plane

and one from Defense News

https://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/naval-aviation/2015/03/28/china-seaplane-islands-scs-claims-spratley-reef/70542218/

 

 

[Planeform]

Looks like they are building their own organic carrier now too...

[pcola]

their own organic carrier

Pesticide free? Is it free range as well?

[matmacwc]

Anything they build will just fall apart in a couple of months anyway.

[Clark Griswold]