Images show massive new Chinese aircraft carrier

China has been doing a bit of economic work to not be so vulnerable to a conflict.
It appears dictator leadership does have a few advantages with long term planning etc. I wouldn’t want to live under one.
I really hope we can remain peaceful.
For Taiwan really they must prepare to make an invasion really difficult. The time it would take to get help into the area will be long.
I don’t think a lot of countries want to risk going to war over Taiwan. It’s a tricky situation and being an island would be difficult to get past a Chinese blockade and resupply the island.
If countries are serious about defending Taiwan they should have boots on the ground, large supplies, aircraft etc.

They have an Imperial mentality; nobody can deny that. Some people are asleep that’s all and just like 2014 back then with Russia and taking Crimea from Ukraine.

Absolutely

No, the Tories were almost completely in charge the Lib Dems were naive and totally hoodwinked manipulated and out manoeuvred by the Tories during the so called coalition. ( I am a Lib Dem by the way).

Splitting straws really, it was Cameron who called the shots, swung the axe and put our armed forces on its knees…..

OK, to be pedantic, but the Tories were the senior party in the Coalition and made the Defence decisions.

Let’s play go back in time by 60 years.

Could you add the politics and economics to your post.

Ad infinitum, the Cons ordered through deck cruisers, not, aircraft carriers. Facts matter, especially if you want to use a time machine.

In near time politics, the Cons have been a disaster for Defence.

Labour have said they would focus on NATO tasks, given the state of our frigate force, is that a bad thing?

Defence will need a massive uplift in spending and that can only come from curtailing the spend on NHS Management trusts.

Another candidate ripe for intervention is, wait for it, drum roll, fireworks… “GREAT British Rail,” which has rather been shunted into a siding. The Scrapps Report is almost shredded and a HS2 to Manchester truncated between Old Oak Common and some station in Birmingham not Birmingham New Street and not even Moor Street. Renationalising Rail and bringing track and track back under one organisation would risk Union power and strikes but could save literally billions, that could be used for Defence.

DWP – Ripe for cuts, PIP has massive fraud.
UC – No one can live on UC
OAP pensions – absurd sums spent with the current government’s ‘triple lock,’ however, I doubt Labour will do anything major unless they win a second term, and all the while, AUKUS will be feeding into the economy and therefore decisions.

Very challenging for Labour especially when they will have MPs like Michelle Scrogham who doesn’t know an SSN from SSBN and will represent Barrow in Furness if elected.

Fact is both the Tories & Labour have been a disaster. Liz Truss showed that between Gordon in 2008-10 & Rishi during Covid, the UK credit card is maxed out. Whoever wins the next election, they will have little room for serious extra spending.

In effect the track is nationalised as Network Rail is a state company. As for saving billions by nationalising the train company’s, i find it unlikely. Uk rail subsidy is about third lower per mile than France or Germany as the cost is passed onto the passenger. I cant see that being a popular policy if the government were fully running the network

There are now several DOR services. I think only Anglia has returned a premium to Govt.

However, we still have delay attribution payment between NR and a TOC, even if DOR, requiring staff, lawyers and accountants to calculate the payments.

Office of Road Rail adjudicate on whether an open access operator should run a certain timetable – given the troubles of Deutsch Bhan and their decision to withdraw from UK rail, now is the time to renationalise rail under one roof and in one fell swoop axe the middle management duplication of NR and TOCs. Create a comprehensive procurement system that maybe saves Bombardier going bust and allows a common vehicle across regions that allows cascades of stock rather than the current stock of 3y/o train sets going to the cutters torch while Northern struggle on with 156s, for example.

Ha!!!! Delay attribution. They ring at least 3 times a shift.🤔

The UK simply needs to spend a true 2% of GDP well to have a capable armed force across all services ( Get pensions out of the numbers)

Procurement exercises such as competitive fixed price approaches for T31 and the collaborative MBDA precision effects programs deliver value. Specification and design tinkering post order but pre delivery will always drain billions as will decades long concept programs

100%

Interesting, you think the renationalisation will happen? Have not heard this from Starmer.

Morning Daniele

I think the first 5 year term will be steady as she goes.

Should it look good for a second year term then:
Rail nationalisation, electrification.
Rejoin the EU referendum
Green Energy

Nightmare time.

They will not renew any franchises so effectively nationalised over time.

Starmer? He’s a a younger victor meldrew

Sorry how would nationalised rail save billions, what through the money paid to shareholders? It would save around 1b over 5 years. But you also need to consider the cost savings private rail has brought which there will be no incentive to do if nationalised. We forget the best railways on the planet are in Japan and are private and run with minimal subsidies. I’d support nationalised rail if they show a plan to fully modernised, like when the first driverless train be in place. Japan is already trialing these yet it the UK its considered science fiction.

The problem is with both main parties they are peddling ideologies that are not fit for the 21st century.

Each TOC has to put together a bid.

These bids run into the 100ms according to Modern Railways and is recouped from fares.

At major stations, take Preston, there is a Network Rail(NR) manager who is also mirrored by Avanti and Northern oppos and there their staff.

Routes have a NR management team and guess what? Route directors can receive £500,000/annum.

Then as Daniele admits, delay attribution minutes. Where the TOCS and NR have teams of bean counters arguing over a 1 minute delay for over occupancy of a track. However, where NR caused the delay, they are chased. All but one TOC receive subsidies from UK Govt and NR receive UK Govt funding as well.

Network occupy the track to build a new station, they must pay delay attribution to the TOCs, the TOCs must renegotiate the contract to include the stop. The TOCs can abstract an amount of profit, govt subsidy remains the same unless cause majure in which case TOCs can hand back the keys or go for an operations contract – Govt stipulate and pay for trains to run.

Now, consider that several TOCs are operated by the Holder of the last resort ‘DOR’ railways, this is an arms length Govt organisation OR run services Govt stipulation.

All contracts need lawyers and accountants on all sides. The delay minutes is just Govt money sloshing around.

Please explain the cost of this.

Now, should we start with LGBTQxyz inclusion training and inclusion officers for each TOC and NR…

And labour the order the Queen Elizabeth class and the Tory’s that tried to scrap them.

Let’s see, we can’t have a bigger army and all the other toys.

We need a huge increase in growth that’s not funded by borrowing. Neither party has any idea on how they will make that happen.

When it comes to Defence no HMG are any good 😕 🇬🇧

Thanks Iain for the post.

Our preparedness for Covid-19 and the subsequent execution, might be a broad indicator as to how a General War might unfold.
No major PPE stocks held. A disbelieving PM who did not attend five early COBRA meetings. Huge mistakes made about everything – timing of first lockdown, release of infected elderly bed-blockers to care homes, purchase of poor PPE with contracts awarded to cronies, mega-expensive Test & Trace system that did not work well. Rule breaking by politicians and SPADs. Partygate. Thousands of people dead. NHS nearly breaks. Award honours to the guilty or promote them. Then… commission a £200m enquiry to see what went wrong.

The above is not really a digression, but possibly something how preparing for and prosecuting a major European war would go for the UK.

In and from 1934/35 we did the right thing in setting up a Govt Rearmament Committee, and then rearming – and were just about ready for war in Sep 1939.

Watch a series called War Factories it’s on free view. It’s clear in the 30s Britain’s low tax economy allowed for good growth and therefore we had the economy to support rearming. Command economies like Germany and Russia failed miserably due to too much state interference . Russia managed to produce masses amounts of the wrong stuff, starved its people and ended up needin a trillion dollars of aid in today’s money. Germany couldn’t bring its self to introduce mass production techniques because they were considered to be a product of ‘Jewish Capitalism’. They had large numbers of Tanks going into the war but they couldn’t replenish quickly enough.

On covid yes we may have voted in JC and maybe we would have had a better Covid response but seriously you think we would have had a better armed forces, sorry that’s a stretch for most of us. Last election people voted for the least worst option. Lastly a Corbyn government would have very likely dolled out even more covid money and wanted longer lockdowns. Lockdowns cut of supply and additional money into the economy are massive inflation drivers. So I very much doubt at this point we would have been any better off had Labour been in power, so defence wise we would had very similar challenges = no money.

Thanks for the tip on ‘War factories’.
I am not a Labour Party supporter or a Corbynite – far from it. I alsways used to vote Tory.
Did I really say that Corbyn, if PM, would have improved our armed forces? I don’t think so.
I did say that the Cons had a rubbish record on steering us though the Covid crisis. The whole point of me saying that was that if we went into a General War, the Cons would probably have done an equally rubbish job at managing that crisis. Not that Corbyn would have improved our armed forces or would be a great wartime leader if WW3 happened.
Labour and Tory are useless at Defence – and do not see rearming as a priority.

Spot on.

I am guessing you suggest that Labour would cut either one Carrier Strike Group (a Carrier plus a number of escorts) or both carriers and not cut escorts?
Without carriers, the Navy would no longer be a bluewater Navy in essence. Could that really happen?

It was the Cons that certainly allowed at least one of those economic disasters with banking deregulation which led in part to the financial crises circa 08, although howmany unscrupulous bankers went to prison for their deeds?

Today, we have affordable housing because the Cons allowed banks to offer more money than they had through securitisation of debt which was then sold on creating a pyramid of unfunded debt that brought the banks down. Play fair Mr Blay.

And have a Great New Year!

Which all started in America with cheap mortgages. And Labour had been in power for 11 years by 2008. Mr Blair liked going to war. But he didn’t like paying for it. Hence the very large black hole in the defence budget by 2010. But I’ll meet you half way 😜Both parties are pants when it comes to defence. Both see it like house insurance. You definitely need it. But nobody likes paying for it. 👍

Unfortunately you are sadly right they do see it as house insurance…which is entirely the wrong way to look at it…house insurance does not prevent your house burning down….having a very strong defence policy ( in some cases and in specific domains offence policy), strong military industrial base and strong military that regularly deploys and shows its prowess…prevents your proverbial house burning down in the first place.I think that’s been forgotten.

Affordable housing? That is a typo I assume?

Redshift wrote:
“Affordable housing? That is a typo I assume?”

The world wide 2007–2008 financial crisis began in the US due to the widescale application of subprime mortgages targeting low-income homebuyers, (Subprime lending is the provision of loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule) In 2008 alone, the United States government allocated over $900 billion to special loans and rescues related to the U.S. housing bubble. With most of that money going to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)  Both of whom were all we heard about on the news at the time.

and British Banks were directly involved with buying into that as well chasing the pot of gold .
One-HBoS-was the 5th biggest UK bank at the time and had to be rescued by Lloyds as it was too big to be bailed out by the Tories.
This was despite the CEO at the time -one Andy Hornby-repeatedly insisting HBoS were a ‘strong and capitalised bank’ …until they weren’t!
In the interviening 15 years 50% of the accumulated staff have been axed.
It would have been far better to have nationalised HBoS rather than keelhaul Lloyds into taking it on.

Yeah lloyds wasn’t heavily exposed so it’s unfair to say all banks. Barcleys and HSBC sort alternatives so received not UK government money.

Indeed it also shows the importance of keeping the commercial banks and investment banks separate…one is a requirement national asset and part of the structure of a healthy economy….the other is gambling for high stakes and high risks.

Ta.

…UNAFFORDABLE housing…

Wouldn’t have mattered even if we had stronger regulations the issue was contagion and that would have hit a regulated Bank here in the UK.

And had we had an economy that had no debt or even a surplus riding out the crisis would gave been far easier.

You cannot possibly know that about Labour and the carriers.

There were no plans to scrap the invincible class until Cameron took over.

To be fair, the Invincible class were on their arse when they were withdrawn, all in a poor material state and ready for recycling. That’s not to say we couldn’t have squeezed a couple more year from them.

Scrapping the highly capable GR9 fleet was insane. They would have been adding mass to the QE Class while the F35 force slowly grew.

Labour on the other hand scrapped the highly useful Jaguar GR3 fleet, another stupid decision.

Both parties are terrible on defence, but I would suggest that the hollowing out has removed any possible room for manoeuvre, there’s no cuts left to be made without causing a real collapse of capability.

Cancellation of GCAP, selling the Carriers and F35B’s for an off the shelf order of F35A, replacing both the B model and and Thypoon?

We can hope not, but who knows.

I guess we will find out soon enough, SDSR2025.

Your maybe right , it’s just my opinion 👍

Please share where you’ve seem this.

it from the CND response to the Labour Party conference motion on its defence manifesto:

“CND condemns composite motion 1 DEFENCE, passed at Labour Party conference which commits any future Labour government to the continuation of Tory policies on increased military spending, nuclear weapons, and the AUKUS pact, which poses a nuclear proliferation risk, as well as driving a new arms race in the Indo-Pacific.
The motion reaffirmed Labour’s “absolute” support for Britain’s nuclear weapons and NATO spending commitments, deepening military ties in the Indo-Pacific and Europe, as well as promising to increase the British military manufacturing base.”CND Oct 2023…

still the communists useful idiots..they have just moved from being manipulated by the communist party of the Soviet Union to being manipulated by the CCP…

Agreed Cameron with out a doubt Gold medal 🎖 and to think he was on GB news tonight saying UK forces may have to take Action in the red sea , what with I ask 🤔 🇬🇧 for me he and is little mate MR George Osborne put the UK in a very Dangerous position hardly been able to Defend our selfs let alone Attack an Enemy 🙄 sorry for the rant 🇬🇧

Not ranting at all Andrew, it’s a simple statement of fact, Cameron and Osborne accomplished what the Germans could never do and brought our armed forces to it’s very knees….

When I hear people saying the Tories are the ‘party of defence’ it makes me laugh.

Your not ranting he was geopolitically incompetent, the level of error he made in regards to china is immense, he should not be foreign secretary simply for the message it sends to a nation that is for all intent and purpose our defecto enemy ( china).

I’m staying out of this one….I just get shouted at when I mention Labour’s record vs Tory in assets chopped and programs cancelled since 95.

Morning DM dont think there’s ever going to be a winner on this one 🤗

They are both appalling mate, the reality is the serious ( post NS professional Armed forces) cutting started way back in 1957 under Duncan Sands and it’s never stopped.

Governments of both colours have handed the baton between them and carried on slicing away for 67 years so far…

The army has been cut once or twice a decade since the end of the Korean War.

I don’t support either party (the Cons are certainly no longer my party of choice and haven’t been for some years – they have created Broken Britain and not just in the defence arena) – and it will be tricky to work out who to vote for at the next election.

Labour seems to send out mixed messages as previously John Healey has been supportive of the Indo-Pacific tilt.

Very true that carriers have no role in home waters where air power can come from land airbases. We have always had carriers for our ‘Global Britain’ role even before that became a particular term. We would only lose one or both carriers if Labour really stood by abandonment of Britain’s global role in practice, rather than making just one random comment in the pre-election period. Who would buy them anyway? Oz? Canada?

I personally do not see our armed forces, especially the RN, being centric on Europe, North Atlantic and North Sea. There is too much global tension and conflict. We need to protect trade routes. We need to oppose piracy and drug transit in international waters. We need not to look to be a hopeless military ally in US eyes – some US officers already consider our armed forces, especially army to longer be Tier 1 – selling one or both carriers would confirm to them that we are just a ‘run of the mill’, medium size power with modest sized armed forces, much like, Germany, Italy or Spain (except for our nuclear weapons).

Larger army cuts? – no meat at all on that bone. But you are right that money is tight for an incoming Labour government and they want to spend more on education, health and social care. No idea how they will square the circle except by tax increases, especially on the wealthy and to raise business corporate tax rates, as well as fuel duty, VAT. They surely could not borrow even more than has been done under the Cons.

🤔 If it becomes necessary because of budget constraints, please make the carriers, T-26s, T-45s, Astute and AUKUS class SSNs and Dreadnought SSBNs available for purchase by Uncle Sugar. Reasonably certain US has benefited in the past from discarded/retired British equipment (e.g., C-130Js).

Also eg – a lot of Harriers!

I think/hope people are joking about the second best navy in the world selling off its principle assets, even ones that are very new or haven’t even been built yet!

Duh…had forgotten the Harriers! 🙄 Perhaps only half-joking, if a philosophically pacifist, unilateral disarmament government is elected at some point. UK could adopt the Republic of Ireland military/foreign policy model. 🤔😉

Believe that your recitation of probable ChiCom actions during a conventional conflict, will be the cause of escalation.

The Bill past already but it’s open to debate if congress can legally stop him doing it.

If POTUS wants out of NATO all they have to do is state they are out and article 5 no longer applies.

It would be up to the Supreme Court to argue the case but that would take years.

The French did much the same under CDG.

The big problem is that NATO would effectively stop functioning as a lot of the legal elements of how NATO works is tied to the US…it would probably end the alliance completely and a new set of agreements developed that were European centric.

But I honestly don’t think the U.S. would go there..even trump, it would be geopolitical madness for the US and would probably cause china to immediately invade Taiwan on the assumption of maximum geopolitical instability in the west.

I agree..but not only that it would create the political instability in the west that china would want and I could see china simply launching a war pretty much straight of the bat from the U.S. bouncing out of NATO ( I don’t think people appreciate just how close china is to going to war..all it’s looking for is that geopolitical instability in the west or domestic instability in the U.S..and bang it will be at the US…

I do think in that case the rest of Europe would go not our war..( china would be using all its influence for that)…I’m not sure if the Uk would sit it out….what I would say is china will us Russia, North Korea and Iran to put pressure and danger in play globally that may force Europe to stay out of a pacific war if the U.S. out of NATO…I would say with a neutral Europe, India, etc and china having Russia and Iran and North Korea on its side..I don’t think it would be a war the US could win in the long term.

Jonathan, your commentary is always so confident and you seem sure you know how things will pan out in geo-strategic future moves. What oracle do you use?

No one has an oracle Graham, but simply put if something is catastrophic and in the realms of the possible or likely you should always assume it will happen and plan accordingly. Simply put if you look at something say gosh that a realistic and “shit if it happens” I’m utterly f@cked and if you have not fully prepared or put mitigation in place in my view your being foolish.

if it’s happened before and the same thing or similar is happening again you don’t stick your hands in your ears and close your eyes, you look at the evidence, you look at what is likely or may happen and if you cannot allow that to occur you do every possible thing in your power to prevent it. Even if that possible truth is utterly horrific ( I’ve spent my life having to tell people and organisations horrific truths…pretending it’s not always ends in more pain…).

The evidence with china is pretty much overwhelming that at the moment there is a very very good chance they are going to war, infact many serious people far more qualified than me think that is the case and have produced reams of evidence as to why that is the case…I’ve gone through huge amounts of it and agree with their conclusions..which are based on present actions, the drivers of the CCP, likely future predictions of drivers and also how the west has responded…

simply put I ask you a question…if the USSR was suddenly back in the world at the hight of its power, with its convictions vast armies etc all still in place…what would it likely do with the west in its present state…and would the west just accept and keep playing the game in the same way ( I guarantee it would act )…china is actually far more able and committed than the old USSR…and has the added impetus of believing completely that a part of its homeland needs liberating…the west for some reason has utter china blindness…

the west only finally managed the USSR because Reagan essentially decided to fight it in every possible domain of sub kinetic ( and even in some cases kinetic) warfare. We have not done that with china and seem to have forgotten how.

So if you notice I say in most of my posts “likely or possibly”..because the evidence is that this is the case ( and the evidence I give is all proven from reliable documented sources not made up) this is all fact:

1) it is a profound part of the Chinese national belief that china must be reunified with Taiwan. it’s an absolute tenant of the CCP, they have educated their entire population to believe. China as a nation believes Taiwan is china and china is Taiwan and that the western democracies have stolen part of their homeland.
2) china has publicly and “in fact” changed its economic model to reduce dependence on outside supply lines, as well as creates internal markets. This has cost china around 2% of growth each year since it started this change in its economy.
3) china has put in legislation requiring all manufacturing companies ensure they can participate in a war time economy, at great cost.
3) china has undertaken intense and aggressive political warfare against the west over a number of years…political warfare is in inbuilt and taught part of Chinese military strategy and is considered a major part of both the pre kinetic and kinetic part of the conflict..china has 4 major organisations undertaking active political warfare against the west, employing around 3 million people.
4) china has created very intrusive laws on mobilisation and practices mobilising for war with enter provinces at vast expense ( china actual practices mobilising populations the size of most European nations for war).
5) Chinese exercises around Taiwan are actual rehearsals of its invasion plans.
6) chinas strategic view and method of warfare is based on the believe that people win.( the reason for its 3 million political warfare force) .in the last decade it has constantly told its population that the U.S. is its enemy ( last year in official publications it called the US the “great enemy” no less than 100 times, the concept of the great enemy is important to the Chinese national believe systems ). It has constantly informed it’s population to prepare for great suffering in a coming war ( it uses specific language from the work of Mao and the long March..saying that as a nation they will need to suffer a new long March to reunite the nation…this would be like our government suddenly telling everyone in this county that France was an existential threat we need to fight them on the beaches etc and that we would never surrender).
7) China has moved its ship building capacity from almost nothing to 28 million tons a year..that’s over 80% of the planets ship building capacity’s..or 1800 ships being build in 2022…because of chinas laws all of that can be placed in immediate wartime construction at the will of the party. The U.S. ship building capacity is 100,000 tons and had 4-5 ships being build in 2022..even at peace time operations china is putting in the water and commissioning 10 major surface combatants per year. IT’s ability to build ships during any war would be staggering..it’s purposely developed its industrial capacity around wartime needs from ship building to munitions.
8) china now has the full nuclear triad and with 500 warhead can ensure MAD ( 500 warheads will kill a nation and cause the death of a very significant portion of the human race)
9) china has been stockpiling and limiting sales of key elements and raw materials required of modern economies and military industries ..even when it really needs the money ( link this with hobbling its own economy to secure its supply lines and creating international markets…its losing a lot of money on purpose).
10) not only has china been explicitly telling its population to prepare for war..and it does this more and more regularly including now giving a specific time frame ( 2027)..it is explicitly telling the west that it will reunite Taiwan either through political or military means and this will happen this decade..its also told the west it will go to war with the west if the west tries any form of intervention ( remembering the Chinese follow the Maoist view of warfare which involves every possible domain, not just the military, economic and diplomacy that the west sees and uses).
11) it has built up a theatre based missile force of around 1500 theatre range ballistic and cruise missiles giving the ability to attack every major U.S. western pacific base ( first chain and even out to second chain). It’s ibuild life size models of these US bases and actually practices ballistic and cruise missile attacks on them ( there are actual pictures of these mock up bases with impact craters….is that normal ?)
12) it’s has/is developed a number of navel bases across the key choke points across the indo pacific occeans ( from the western Indian Ocean choke points ( Red Sea area), the gulf, and choke points in the eastern indian ocean…its speaking bases in the Atlantic and close to that Panama Canal.
13) General military build up…it now has the largest navy, airforce, army, political warfare and cyber warfare forces in the world ( The U.S. has a better airforce, navy and army..but chinas is bigger and china far outweighs the US in political and probably cyber..it’s hard to stress how important china sees these two in the case of a world war).
14) home security..china believes in the political, people part of warfare more than any other..it has invested more than it has in its army to ensure internal security…it has larger paramilitary internal security forces than it does an army. It has a system of surveillance beyond anything imaginable in the west..facial recognition on every citizen..with cameras everywhere linked to facial recognition software…belief in the party is enforced as well as educated from early years…this is to ensure compliance during times of extreme stress and suffering.
15) leadership: The present leader has ensured absolute control of the CCP. The CCP had absolute control of everything in china ( it makes the communist party of the Soviet Union and the Nazi party of the third Reich look like amateur day…) every business has a shadow CCP board that can at any time take over from actual business board…the CCP controls every part of Chinese life…and the CCP is xi Jinping…they even call him the “great leader”…it’s hard to express what this means..china has only ever had one “great leader and that was Mao…china has a funny relationship with Mao he is considered the ultimate communist and war leader..but ever so slightly flawed ( you can only go so far with this) but he was essentially the leader of a cult that would fight to the death for china…for Xi to be called the great leader is to say that he is a Great War leader who will take china through the struggle of its life…it’s a worry.
16) strategy..china takes its strategic concepts from a different place than the west…we believe in the concept of focused military force, economic power and diplomacy..the Chinese strategic thinking comes from the great struggle ( invasion of China by japan and earlier defeat of the imperial Chinese forces) and writings of Mao this is more about the long war and political struggle..essentially you out suffer and use every possible means to subvert the will of the other nation to fight…it does not matter if their armies are stronger if the nation losses political will it losses..that’s how china is and will attack the west..it’s why china thinks it’s already at war with the west..the west just has not realised yet..the kinetic bit is the finisher although even this will be long…one of Maos key writings is on the concept of the long war ( china does not in any way see the concept of the short war was a way to win)

so these are all documented facts as well as view from military academics who’s have studied Chinese strategic thinking ( the Military works of Mao are essential reading requirements for any Chinese officer) ..

what china will do with these is facts is the unknown…but another key driver to war is the above is unsustainable and damaging to the chinese economy..it will be at the hight of its strategic power by around 2027-30 then the burden the above as well as demographic will start to impact on Chinas ability to fulfill it’s destiny as it sees it ( and in this I mean what it actually says it’s destiny is constantly).

finally you have to take what china sees, some of this is fact and some is subjective.

so the west

1) The west is politically weak and unstable…it looks at the U.S. and sees a society that agrees on nothing…riven by party lines..in the 50s around 80% of the US population would support the policies of a U.S. president of the other side..so the Democrat voting population would essentially still support a republican president..this unity was what the USSR faced..now less than 30% of other sides voters would support any policy of a president from the other party…china sees this as a profound weakness..essentially a war losing weakness…it’s been attacking the US and wider western world long theses lines for the last decade…( this is documented in its own strategic writings and western intelligence).
2) it sees the west unable to engage in long term warfare being beaten by weak enemies that were strong in the domain of the “people” Afghanistan and Syria.
3) its sees western industry as failing and with massive supply line issues..this is specific to military industries…it’s seen the west unable to even sustain munitions for Ukraine…which is essentially a minuscule conflict compared to the clash of two super powers.
4) it sees a growth in anti western feeling with its own block expanding..it now essentially has firm allies in Russia and Iran and uses iran as route to extremism proxies…( the only boats being attacked in the Red Sea are heading to the west not the east)…most of this missile tec and Irans tec base comes from china. BRICs had 5 new members for the new year…two of these are meant to be key western allies in the Middle East..we got lucky in the Argentinian elections and Argentina has withdrawn its application).
5) it sees the independence movement in Taiwan growing…this is an existential threat to one china.
6) the U.S. president has now come out and explicitly stated the US will defend Taiwan..he has now formally confirmed that U.S. troops would land on Taiwan if china invaded..as china. Sees Taiwan as china..to the Chinese this is essentially the US saying it will invade china.

Now above are all either facts, formally published views or summary of national beliefs from respected academic sources…

from this it’s my belief that china will likely initiate a war with the US over Taiwan within the decade, unless the west takes specific steps to prevent this and these steps need to take into account everything I have documented.

live you to make up your own mind..on if war is likely and I’d the wests is failing to deter.

as for how china will fight…well it keeps on practicing its invasion moves over and over…geography dictates that the USN will have to go to China and fight in the china seas..china has the largest attritional green water navel force ever created..it’s also got a blue water force only exceeded by the USN, its building or has navel bases closed to the major key choke points in the indo pacific to the west and has built a huge arsenal of theatre missiles..with the US having a handful of key military bases within theatre as targets …most of which china has build models of and practiced blowing up with said missiles…all the while Harding its manufacturing, spending a fortune on internal security as well as have a political arm of 3 million..it does not take a huge leap to figure what its strategy will be ( it’s all in Maos books).

Hi Jonathan, I respect and admire the level of effort you have gone to in reseaching the Chinese threat and in constructing your post. Very compelling.

But is China ready to lose nearly all the benefits that economic transformation has given them? If they went to war against Taiwan and their backers (the USA) – and possibly with any allies of Taiwan & the US who chose to actively partipate in military operations, then sanctions would apply and they would lose trading markets. More of China’s economy would be allocated to prosecuting the war – currently 30% of the Russian economy is allocated to preosecuting the war with Ukraine. China would risk nuclear exchange with the US.

It would be a high risk strategy for China to invade and secure Taiwan, much as they are ideologically driven to seek this. They could end up losing a war at sea with the US, losing their western trading partners and drastically diminishing their economy, and possibly in extremis to have cities destroyed by US nuclear weapons.

The US response to Chinese preparations for an invasion of Taiwan..and the actual invasion and aftermath, would depend on the nature of the US Presidency. Would the US President be isolationist or determined to be actively and fully militarily engaged or at some half way house position?
Would traditional US allies such as the UK actually commit to assisting the US to either deter invasion or to attempt to retake Taiwan from ChiCom forces?
Do we have enough resource to bring to a fight with such a large military as China has…and do we (Parliament and the People) have the associated political will?

Hi Graham yes indeed, but in this you do have to remember that china is not a nation in the same way as the west. It really is one man Xi he controls china in a way no other nation is controlled. Infact he has the same level of control as Mao and you just have to look at how far Mao went in his beliefs…he shattered China causing the death of 2 million people..but they still love him.

Chinese culture has a few very interesting beliefs that have basically shaped and Xi and his personal belief systems ( and Xi is a believer, this is not just a cynical power munger like Putin..)

The first is the concept of the cycle of order and chaos, from disorder and destruction to unity and destiny a the paramount power under heaven…this is a profound part of the national belief, it’s Chinas destiny to go through cycles of chaos and destruction raising to unity and becoming the paramount power…then again failing and rising…( this is encapsulated in the story the romance of the three kingdoms..probably the single most important window into Chinese nationalism, Han exceptionalism and what drives the beliefs of the CCP and Xi.it starts with the words.”the empire long divided must unite, long United must divide, thus it has ever been” it’s a profund and engrained belief in rise fall and eternal struggle and suffering..the Chinese belief in suffering for national unity is a key part of their national character..it’s one of the CCPs beliefs and the book a core teaching text.

Now how does this resonate with Xi and his personality….for that you look at the child.

Xi was the son of two child soldiers of the revolution, true believers who were indoctrinated, killed and battled both imperial japan and the western backed Chinese imperial forces as children…his mother then ran a school and his father became a high official…he spend the first decade of his education in an indoctrination school on the cult of Mao..then his father and mother were arrested..imprisoned the entire family threatened with death..in the end he and his siblings were left on the streets as children his sister killed herself…after a couple of years they were swept up in the cultural revolution transported across china and dumped in a village to work as child peasants ( child slaves essentially)..Xi rebelled escaped in the end, was captured and as a 16-17 year old was imprisoned and sentenced to hard Labour..it would be hard for us to imagine what hard Labour would man during the Chinese cultural revolution…but it basically re sculpted Xi into a true believer…this 19 year old who had done years of hard Labour re education..after a childhood of education was an absolute believer…went back to being a peasant and spent a year applying and being rejected by the communist party before they let him join…he then when through the ranks like the wind…to where he is now…but this is a child of indoctrinated child solider who’s childhood was shattered by the CCP sent to hard Labour and reduction and came out as the epitome of the Maoist communist and believer in the destiny of china…that’s scary..

So Xi is seen as the literally the embodiment of chinas belief…and that belief is utterly focused around reunification and the suffering required for reunification and growth ..the cycle of Chinese suffering for reunification and greatness cannot be competed until it’s reunified.if you don’t understand this national religion you cannot really understand Chinese motivation….essentially tawain is a rip in the soul of china that must be healed, and to do that will require suffering ( even the majority of Taiwanese believe the same thing, just without the same level of indoctrination and control….it’s just they believe china needs to be reunited under the ROC not the CCP).

So decision to invade tiawan will be guided very much by Xis personal belief around the destiny of china…which is based on the concept of cyles of suffering, disintegrated, disorder and chaos..then reunification and primacy..the CCP/Chinese belief is that the last cycle of disorder and chaos was the century of humiliation..starting with the Uk lead opium wars and ending with driving of Japan from its shores…the victory of the CCP in the civil war was the start of the road to unification and primacy of china as the premier world power…with that road taking 100 years…so by 2048 china believes it must be one nation and the premier world power…that is essentially a state religion and the purpose and goal of Xi, his hand selected standing committee of the polite bureau, the wider polite bureau and the 90 million members of the CCP..this is the hard core of belief in that dialogue, everyone else either believes or has to pretend they believe.

so we are really actually look more at a belief system as much as anything else. When you add this to a summary of Xi. assessed personality traits…you can see why a lot of people look at his actions and are very very worried.

“Based on his personality profile, Xi’s foreign policy orientation is anticipated to be primarily that of a high-dominance introvert with an expansionist orientation, characterized by a tendency to dichotomize the world in terms of moral good vs. evil, tenacity in striving to reshape the international system in accordance with his personal vision, and preoccupation with establishing institutions or principles to keep potentially disruptive forces in check.”

in summary we cannot use the thinking that would drive a western nations decision making to assess the risk of china invading Taiwan…the national dialogue, belief systems, willingness to suffer, moral values etc are not the same….and china may very well see it as a moral imperative to go to war with the west over Taiwan. Even if that will create massive suffering..as long as they think they can force the west to the table and re unify they may very well take the hurt…they took the two million dead and catastrophic suffering of the cultural revolution.

The west need deicide one way or another and to urgently make a decision..

1) suffer the costs to rearm massively, harden its supply chains, reconfigure its industrial capacity to harden it, tell its population that it may need to go to war if china does invade at that we will be ready, show political unity ( as in every party of the major nations signs up to the same Vision).

2) or simply accept that tawian is the product of an unfinished civil war and we should not stick our unprepared noses into another powers business and expect anything other than war..basically disengagement from any promise to rescue Taiwan from its situation..as well as harden our supply lines so we are not effected by reunification.

The third way is to hold our present view that we will defend Taiwan with a set of deterrents that we know china thinks it can overcome…

in my view the Chinese national belief system, Xis own beliefs and their actions so far means that the third way will likely lead to war..one that the west may loss, way one may possibly lead to war..but would be a war we would likely win, way two will stop any possibility war over Taiwan, but it may lead in the end to Chinese hegemony or china may simply be content it’s got reunification..be happy it’s restored and do what china has do in the past…happily sit in a self obsessed we are great world and ignore everything beyond the western pacific. As we live a very long way from china I’m not sure exactly how that would go and how it would affect us.

To be very honest I don’t know which is the best way…only that the present way is asking for catastrophic war.

Hi Jonathan, I am worried that you may be losing out on life by spending so much time telling me about China!

Our Government is not interested in responding to the crisis in Europe (Ukraine) by increasing the defence budget to 2.5 or 3% and rearming. It had IR 2023 Refresh specifically to take into accountb the war in Ukraine – and also refreshed the DCP. Result – no more money for defence, no pledge to reverse either the 10,000 army cut or the reduction to 148 tanks. No pledge to go back to buying 5 RAF Wedgetails not 3 etc etc. Just some more kit (relatively small numbers) to be gifted to UKR.

I therefore doubt that drama the other side of the world and outside the NATO area will prompt much reaction.

We will go into the China crisis (between now and 2030, you say) with forces no stronger than those in 2023, with a significantly smaller army and a somewhat reduced Navy (perhaps without 2 LPDs and having lost a further 2 frigates and with maybe one carrier in mothballs if recent posts here are to be believed).

We will not blindly and automatically follow the US lead again, as we did in Iraq (2003). I doubt NATO will make a formal response to China planning to or actually invading Taiwan. Acordingly we will make our own decision having consulted with allies.

What will that decision be? We will either opt for your #2 – non-intervention as it could conveniently be viewed as a Chinese Civil War – or we might send a CSG into the SCS but only if the US wants us to – I really don’t know what a RN CSG would do or what ROE would be drawn up…or we could send a CSG into the Med to backfill and allow some or all of the US Sixth Fleet to sail to the east. We might also send some RM Cdos if they have any assault shipping to use.

I’m pretty sure a labour government faced with a US exit of NATO under a Trump presidency that then got himself in to a war with China would see the UK sitting out.

The real damage to the US of a pull out of NATO on its pacific strategy is that US sanctions would be massively reduced in effectiveness if Europe decided to not invoke sanctions.

A US blockade of Chinese sea lanes in the Indian Ocean would be massively reduced in effectiveness if it was unable to use Diego Garcia assuming no Australian or Indian participation.

The US in NATO is virtually invincible, outside of NATO the US is still the most powerful country but it looses so many options for success that any war would become protracted.

The US would still win but it may be the kind of Pyrrhic victory the British Empire won in 1918 or 1945.

NATO surely only goes to war (General War) if a NATO nation is attacked, not if the Chinese attack Taiwan and the US choose to get involved.

We went to war in Iraq in 2003 because of our NATO membership?? Never heard anyone say that before. Blair took us to war to show solidarity with the US in order to deal with a perceived WMD threat – nothing to do with NATO.

Any plan by China to successfully invade Taiwan probably involves massive opening attacks on US bases in Guam Japan and possibly Hawaii. It’s a point of interpretation of NATO article 6 if an attack on these territories would invoke NATO article 5 but the US would certainly see it that way as would the UK so it would very much be a NATO issue.

The attack has to be in Europe or North America. It’s clear – no need to fuss about interpretation.

“Article 5The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area….”

I think you have the correct interpretation of article five, it’s Europe, North America, and the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer ( which is why the Falklands was not an article five). I think china would limit any strategic surprise strikes to the major bases on the first island change…but I may be wrong and it also day one attacks the second chain as it would see Guam as a major node to knock out ( it’s about 1500nm from Guam to theatre, so reaction time would be around a week for anything immediately ready to sail so china may decide to knock out Guam as a day one). Would the US consider Guam part of the U.S. in regards to article 5 not sure ( we did not consider the Falklands as a presidence).

But…..and this is the big but and why in my personal view a pacific war will trigger article five and stress the hell out of NATO, is that china will undertake attacks on the U.S mainland it’s part of its know strategy…it may not do it day one, but it’s most definitely part of its long war strategy…these are unlikely to be conventional attacks at first..but they will be attacks…so you will see a massive uptick in political warfare that will likely involve terror attacks, subversion and sabotage as well as cyber attacks on a massive scale..as the U.S. has triggered article five once related to political warfare ( 9/11) it will almost definitely do so against when faced with a state on state peer war in which the other state undertakes attacks on North America ( remember article five does not define where the enemy has to be just the attacks…so we have already been involved in an article five war halfway across the planet…But again I may be wrong and china simply day one launches a massive political and cyber war campaign against the entire western world…making the assumption that NATO will be involved…I suspect china will make its assessments based on what the politics looks like at the time..if the US is isolated and trump disengaged with NATO they may leave off the attacks on Europe if the rhetoric is strong it may attack Europe as well…if on the other hand the west has shown absolute unity and will ( the sort that ended the USSR) it may be deterred.or if the US backs away from Taiwan china may simply not say one attack the U.S. and just go ahead and invade tiawan…we well know by 2030 one way or another.

I lifted the Article 5 words straight from NATOs website – it needs no interpretation as it is clear as day. NATO would not call Article 5 if a US base in Japan, Sth Korea, Guam etc were attacked. It is immaterial if the US wants to claim that Guam is part of the US (it is in fact an organized, unincorporated territory of the US located in the Micronesia subregion of the western Pacific Ocean) – Guam is in the Pacific Ocean and not in North America or Europe. As you say Article 5 was not called on Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falklands as those islands are not in North America or Europe.

You say that China might launch attacks on the US mainland (CONUS) as part of its invasion plan for Taiwan. Really? Why? Would China want a war with NATO as well as prosecuting one against Taiwan? If China did attack CONUS, then Article 5 would be called. I am very aware that Article 5 has only ever been called once in NATO’s history since 1949 as a result of the 9/11 attacks on the USA.

Perhaps what has not been considered are other ways China could annex Taiwan without conducting a full-scale assault – example is Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Hi graham, if china could take Taiwan without a major war it will..but the U.S. has been very very powerful in its voicing of the fact an attack on Taiwan is an attack on the U.S..Biden used this language.he specifically stated the US commitment to Taiwan is the same as the U.S. commitment to a NATO county and the US would go to war with china over Tiawan…

This is the problem, China believes that the U.S. will go to war..but china must unify with Taiwan ( this is probably chinas single most important national goal it utterly dominates their thinking and actions) therefore china must consider how it beats the US if it is to reunify…china is also on a culturally and belief imposed timeframe for reunification…it’s really hard to fully describe chinas need for reunification…as it’s not guided by rational humanist morality in the way we in the west see it…after doing a lot of study around what is driving china I honestly think they would attack the US and they would attack the mainland using unconventional means if that is the only road they see to reunification…and that the U.S. would use to trigger article five if china did that…

The wests big problem is that we profoundly miss understand what is driving china and the utter need for reunification…this is a effectively the equivalent of a national religious belief, Xi is it’s high priest/Pope and the communist party it’s priests…if you view it like that then the potential actions it will take and the actions it already has because clearer….The US and therefore NATO has put itself in the way of another superpowers core belief and red line…this is the Cuban missile crisis from the other sides view point ..we just don’t seem to realise the line we have crossed their line.

Biden may not be President this time next year. Another President might have a different view on defending Taiwan in the event of Chinese threats to invade or actual invasion.

If however the US is attacked by China, it is not necessary for the US to call Article 5 – NATO decides this collectively in the North Atlantic Council.

I worry abou the phrase parties agree

Why? This was written in 1949, a bit late now to be concerned about the wording. When 9/11 happened the parties did agree that an attack had taken place against a Member and that a response was required.

From a UK Geopolitical stand point the transatlantic relationship and NATO are indistinguishable.

I think there is a difference. NATO deploys operationally as its governing body (the North American Council) decides in agreement with the Governments of the member nations – they are focussed on security within the Euro-Atlantic area especially eastern Europe.

The transatlantic relationship covers many aspects, not just military – military operations involving the US and UK rather than the wider NATO are operations of choice – US-led and supported by UK and are in other areas of the world ie Middle East/Arabian peninsula (Gulf War 1 and 2).

Agree china have mocked up a large number of US bases in the western pacific and practiced flattening them…I would lay good money the the first firm actionable intel the US gets on an indo pacific war starting will be 1500 theatre based ballistic and cruise missiles hitting their bases. The unfortunate truth is for the US to break a Chinese encirclement of Taiwan it’s going to have to put its carriers into range of Chinese land based aircraft and its green water attrition navy….it will undoubtedly be the largest, most intense and bloodiest navel battle in history..it’s going to make Leyte Golf look like a minor skirmish..I don’t think either side will have much of an operational navy in the pacific after.

Im honestly not even sure the USN should even go there beyond what it has as a standing force in the western pacific ( one would assume everything based in the western pacific will end up lost ) . The china seas and first chain western pacific islands are going to be a grave yard by the time the USN can put together A strong enough force to even have a good at relieving Taiwan. The USN would be better served keeping it’s likely 8 remain CBGs as a fleet in being…to keep china out of the second chain islands and Indian Ocean.

in reality if the USN can keep the bulk of its navy as a fleet in being it can keep a lid on the blue water Chinese navy which will make a massive difference to the long war..if on the other hand the USN expends itself in a blood bath within the first Chain islands I think it would have a greater likelihood of losing the long war ( if it losses 50% of its Carrier battle groups and 50% of its ssn forces playing with china in its own back yard it would have a very big problem….where as china can piss away it’s green water navy as it’s whole job is to kill the USN in the china seas) … But I feel the USN will go for the blockade and get mauled as the politicians will make them…., instead of playing a blue water game later.

US (ex CONUS) and all treaty allies will be devastated upon conflict initiation, including Australia, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, SK and possibly certain non-aligned countries such India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Taiwan (of course), Vietnam, etc. Predict that the level of destruction will be so great that it will not leave any POTUS any recourse but to order a full retaliatory strike, whether measured in hours, days or weeks. Subsequently, remaining countries will not need to worry about the PRC. Nuclear winter, perhaps, but confidently predict PRC will no longer be a factor in world affairs.

But quantity has a quality all of its own, as someone else once said. Best not to undesestimate the Chinese armed forces.

Well. Russia has quantity. And they can’t invade a neighbour like they thought they could. Because they don’t have the quality, training, and capability. If they did. It would have been over in 4 weeks. China has zero real-world warfighting experience.

You are right that factors other than quantity play a part in military success (or failure).
But although Russia did not seized the whole of Ukraine in 4 weeks, they have caused immense destruction, loss of life and suffering to Ukraine and her people.
That is why we should not underestimate a sizeable, albeit poor quality, enemy (Russia) – or a sizeable but inexperienced enemy (China).

I still can’t quite get my head around giving the USSR the RR Nene jet engine (or the Americans the earlier powerjet tbh). Does any other country on earth give away its highest tech secrets?

That was Wilson who sanctioned that I believe?
The soviets couldnt believe their ‘luck’….

Long before the Wilson government although he may have been in it. Attlee I think which is odd as he was very patriotic and quite anti Soviet. Perhaps it happened behind his back? Wilson killed off TSR2.

They had a big whinge about it and a few other systems…(catapults, jet blast defectors and lifts seem to be the big three problems)…via pentagon test and evaluation office report January last…a bit of a sorry report really..but it’s a new ship and they all have their issues…but it’s essentially boiled down to catapult failure every 500 sorties or so ( I seem to recall the average was 470) needing a full reset so stopping flying opps for a day…it’s basically not really able to undertake sustained operational flying ops at present…lucky we did not go for the same system really.

You know what doesn’t breakdown? The “cope slope”. Oh how the turn tables…

I fear you are right. Only just read today that a Professor of War Studies at Potsdam University says it will take European NATO, especially Germany, 15 years to get ready for General War in the continent. Nore on the land side, than the naval side, methinks, but even so….

I would say that’s ok as there is no real chance of a major land war in Europe..unfortunately I read an interesting piece that linked together the fact that the anti western collective may end up working in concert..if china ( personally I think when) decides it’s lost patients with Taiwan, invades tiawan kicks of a pacific war and attacks the US, Russia May work in concert….unfortunately the worst possible ( but not so likely) case is now china launching an indo pacific war…Russia supporting by engaging NATO ( say in the Baltic/high north), Iran making its Middle Eastern power play and North Korea deciding it “go time” in the peninsular…it’s unlikely but now not an impossible situation…after all we already have a war in Europe …the Middle East is on fire…with these nations supplying and supporting each other…it’s Chinese designed missiles, assembled in and supplies by Iran than are attacking shipping in the Red Sea…it’s North Korea, Iranian and Chinese munitions attacking Ukraine….

so actually the big question for me is not just can the US and allies fight and win a long war with china ( as this is a likely possible outcome ) but in the worst case can it fight a world war..engaging Russias army and air force in the baltics, Russia navy in the high north..keeping the eastern med sea lanes safe from Hezbollah when Iran presss their go button, keep the Red Sea open from the huathi attacks..fight a war in the gulf with Iran..fight a load of bush fires in Africa as Iranian, Russian and Chinese backed forces work to cut key access to supples…fight a blue water campaign against the PLANs blue water navy in the Indian Ocean and eastern pacific ( two carrier groups, around 10 major amphibious units, 100 ish major surface combats..whatever junk Russia adds..say a total of 20ish SSNs and 30-40 blue water electors boats..fight a war in the western pacific against PLANs green water navy…another 100 medium sized surface combatants 30-40 smaller electric boats, 3500 jets..the largest army in the world..etc…political warface on a scale it’s never faces before..subversion…distention..terror attacks…massive cyber assaults…it’s supply chains cut..the Armageddon test ( essentially what the west was prepared for in the Cold War…a total war) the worts possible case now actually dwarfs the threat from the USSR, which was essentially a one dimensional power…..and yet the power and resolve the west used to deter and in the end defeat the USSR was vast compared to its present abilities and will.

Hi Jonathan, you clearly think that the war in Ukraine is not a major land war in Europe – I think the Ukrainians would disagree! Poland, who is rearming massively, clearly fear Russian invasion. Even Germany has decided finally to increase defence spending.
Some, including General (Retd) Shirreff, consider that Russia might one day attack one or more Baltic countries. Others think Russia might invade at least the Russian speaking areas of Moldova (16% of Moldovans speak Russian as their first language).
There is little evidence of wider and significant collusion between the Axis of Evil countries aside from some arms supplies from North Korea and Iran to Russia. I doubt there are discussions ongoing about them initiating WW3.
I still fear war in eastern Europe over war in the Far East. Which is more likely? Who knows?

Hi graham, the Ukraine conflict is a war between two nations..when I was taking about a major lane war I was meaning general war..involving multiple nations.sorry miss use of language.

as for an axis of evil, it does not need to be formalised..the WW2 axis was very much informal in its beginnings as one fire created the opportunity for the next and the next…with agreements and collusion between nations a shifting pattern…WW2 was in reality a number of very distinct wars each given opportunity to occur by the other. Infact there are views that see the period from the start of WW1 to end of the Korean War as simply a continuation of the same conflation…its sands shift but it kept on burning….until they settled into the semi war that was the Cold War ( restricted not by a will to fight but the appsolute deterrence of MAD).

As you say which fire will start first who knows..but we know from history that when the pressure is this high…one fire begets another and so on.

What I wouldn’t mind is a stretched River/ Mini landing ship crossover. It’s pretty obvious now that without USA resources or Chinese indifference to casualties, large-scale amphibious assault is a thing of the past.
Therefore a ship the size of a small frigate, with maybe a 57mm and the ability to carry a couple/ three or four Offshore Raiding Craft for coastal raiding might be very useful. In peacetime they would carry the autonomous minesweepers in places like the Gulf. Based on T31, Rosyth could put out 4 in 5 years no problem.

No, they were mostly carrying essential war supplies, including for Russia, and also troops, but likely a few apples & oranges I grant you. And possibly sausages, baked beans, etc – well known how the RN likes to announce how many consumed per trip.

that’s a good synopsis (and analysis) Jonathan. I don’t entirety concur with the Babbage view that “Xi jinping and his colleagues view the United States growing at a modest rate, losing its technological lead in several sectors, and becoming handicapped by high levels of domestic tension”

In his synopsis, I’d be interested in understating if Babbage considers the pending fiscal crisis in China driven off the real estate debt bubble. Looking at economic GPD forecasts, the US seems to be having a growing economy whilst China’s GDP appears rather flat. Possibly this is partially driven off a stronger US dollar.

I also believe the Chinese are smart and will be learn from the Ukraine experience – war is expensive. On a geo political note ( based on my observation living here in the Antipodes), AUKUS may expand to included Japan, Korea, NZ and possibly Singapore and India . That’s a massive head ache for China .A potential war on it’s Western border with India and the combined navies/air force on their Eastern front. Apart from North Korea. I don’t believe China has any natural allies? Then again, Iran remains a wild card.

In summary , I view Xi jinping as intelligent man and I hope he believes in the old adage – better a lean peace than a fat victory.

they soon lifted the lockdown when people appeared on streets protesting

Aukus sub, not August. Apologise. Darn autocorrection.

Hi mr Bell, the problem for the USN is that it will be reacting into a battle space prepared by china..so USN losses are going to be significant. The fight will be in stages and china has the home advantage over the US.

US forces in the western pacific are essentially crowded into a small number of bases all within range of Chinese theatre based missiles..Chinese forces are scattered across the whole theatre..this means in any operation involving strategic surprise US forces in the western pacific will be vulnerable.

Also that vast bulk of the the USN is not in the western pacific…it’s sitting around the eastern pacific..at least 2 weeks away….strategic surprise would lead the U.S. forces in the western pacific massively out numbered and on the back foot..with significant reenforcement distant in time and space ( the pacific is 19,000km wide)…

So the USN will need to either wait or feed its forces in peicmeal…and although the US SSN force would have advantage in the mid pacific it’s going to have to go into the china seas…a place full of sensor nets, mines and twice to three times their number of quite electric boats..chinas SSNs may be shite but the assessment of their electric boats is not…

I honestly think if the USN reacts into the china seas it’s going to get hammered hard, it may win that campaign ( I think it would) but what will come out the end ? . It’s very possible the USN will be at the wrong end of strategic surprise, the tyranny of distance and at a significant disadvantage in numbers and support and that can be very significant.

Hi Pete and that is why china thinks it can win…as 1.4 billion Chinese all think it’s their joint responsibly to make the Middle Kingdom great again and support the CCP against the west…

It’s funny most people don’t even realise that china has for the last decade had a “china” first policy ( before trumps America first) that the population have swallowed hook line and sinker. The population of china are vastly interested in the destiny of the Middle Kingdom to become preeminent and that defeating “the great enemy” yes the Chinese call the US and the west “the Great enemy” they have been told to be….

Using the term “great enemy” has specific cultural context to the Chinese…it lets them know they are in the struggle of their lives and to expect vast losses…that “last great enemy” was imperial japan and the fight for chinas life.

China sees the fact the west’s population does not give a shite as the reason it will win….it’s sees people as far more important than armies or navies in the eventual outcome of a war…unless the population of the west start acting like a population that understands war may come and struggle is needed war will come…as a populations will is probably the only deterrent that will truely convince china to back off.

Yes, would seem an adequate response, Pete (tofya)

But you can’t just do global operations without a huge amount of planning and logistics. If the PLAN could send escorts or a carrier strike group to the Med or up the English Channel or sit off the coast of LA. They would. You don’t just decide to do it overnight. The military doesn’t work that way. The Chinese public are no hardened to war than we are. They are human beings at the end of the day. The Wests resolve has been tested many times over the decades. And every time , we stepped up to the plate. I think. And a fully accept I could be wrong. But I think the Chinese military would crumble. When faced against the experience and warfighting capability of the US military. Let alone the rest of the allied nations. The Chinese centralised command and control structure would not be able to cope with US tactics and firepower. Never underestimate what we can do when our democracy is at threat.

I think the key point here is making china believe that and unfortunately our leaders have been shite at showing that…western resolve has not really been on display much over the last few years. It is after all “all about deterrent” and in the end we could not even deter an essentially milliary and industrial minnow like Russia from invading a European action….what the west needs to do is find a new steely eyed Reagan Doctrine suitable to confront and defeat china in a sub kinetic conflict ( to prevent a kinetic conflict) …we are essentially in the same place as we were in the 70s in regards to the west and the USSR..containment had failed and a new strategy was needed or war was coming.

Morning mate. I do agree on that. The west has been to soft over the last 15 years. But I think attitudes are now changing. Interesting times ahead.

Indeed even if the U.S. wins handily any indo pacific war will be catastrophic for the world economy and kill hundred of thousands…if not millions. the only answer is either give china what it wants ( and let’s be honest feeding a dictator nations has never ended well in the past) or undertaking such a level of deterrence that the chinaese leadership is convinced the west will win…that means very serious changes to how we do supply chains, massive investment in armaments industry and ensuring all outs industry can be war proofed, engagement in political warfare across the globe and massive up arming at high speed. As well as political unity across all parties of governments around conflict with china…china needs to see the hard Edge of a unified west that knows how to engage in all the elements of warfare that china views as important ( and it does not consider the armed forces to be key domain…it sees will and the will of the people as the key domain ).

What the west does not really understand is we are dealing with extremism here..the Chinese government is the final word in communism..they have always been far more committed communists than the Russians ever were..they analysed the fall of the Soviet Union..looked at the weakness of communism and how the west won..they have strengthened the weakness of communism, worked on its strengths and spent several decades exploiting the weakness they see in liberal democracies…they honestly think they can and will win and they are risk takers. They have also merged communism with Han exceptionalism…they are communists who believe they are better then everyone else and have a manifest destiny to supremacy that the west is getting in the way of…it’s scary when you start to try and get in the head of the CCP….china is not a nation it’s the CCP.