Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

[SSridhar]

. . . rather than protect Philippine territorial sovereignty on the Panganiban Reef, nothing much can be done . . .

Not only that, he also completely surrendered to the Chinese when his boyish-looking Foreign Minister went to Beijing where he and Wang Yi 'agreed' to jointly prospect oil, gas and fishing and 'agreed' to bury the UNCLOS arbitration judgement. He decided that being friendly with PRC was a better option than taking it on especially with a declining and a faraway US which has been showing every sign of being unreliable and with the personal egoistic arrogance of Duterte against the US, especially Obama.

This is the fate of the small island nations stretching from West Pacific to far western corners of the Indian Ocean, in the face of Chinese hegemony.

[Singha]

it is worth noting the east india company and the french also came as traders first
after studying the local fault lines for a bit
they subverted or browbeat the political elites to grant them monopoly on external trade, duty free imports and right to collect tax in some areas
soon it became necessary to recruit local levies and bring in foreign troops to safeguard trade interests
those elites who resisted were taken out by other elites who loved the easy money of giving 'access' and sharing the spoils.
local industry and trade got destroyed
craftsmen became the landless peasants or the urban poor

people only think of border threats

but china is a threat to everything in the indian society - every productive sector, millions of jobs including all of us can and will be targeted using various means - duty free or low duty imports, FTAs of third parties, dumping, denial of external markets, denial of access to vital resouces, subversion of the young......complacent zamindars sitting in rajbaris thought let the peasants suffer, my cash flow is safe....whether my people collect them or east india company goons


china is a existential threat to india as a society and country, the smartest and most potent threat our civilization has ever faced -- and we must accept that and move accordingly

“In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them.... I destroy them.”
― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game

[Bart S]

^ + 1 million.

It must be noted as well that the Europeans came with the advantage of having just surged ahead in industrial production and scientific research, something that the other countries they were colonizing were yet to catch up with and never did catch up to, due to colonization. Eerie parallels with China vs other small countries in Asia/Africa and India too.

[Singha]

they were looking for both for new markets and new resources... other than the spaniards/portugalis who mixed looting with religious zealotry, the rest were pretty mercantile, doing whatever was needed to extract the maximum possible and agnostic to any dogma.
very efficient.

this unfotunately for us is the same description that Chola sir gives the sinic horde.

[Misra]

indian priority for the next few decades needs to be: nutrition, education, and profession. if that’s taken care of then, as the population pyramids for india and china show below, in 40-70 years the chinese tone toward india (actually vice versa) is likely to be different from what it is now. chinese maneuvers, from their perspective, need to be grab-now-flex-later. indian response over the medium term will be interesting.

india:


china:

[panduranghari]

This is important.

Another piece of the puzzle. https://twitter.com/ChuBailiang/status/ ... 0519756801

The Study Times headline is the spirit of the times. In summary: Why is Great Xi Jinping Thought Just So Great?

Just because xi thinks, he is considered great. Why would such an article be written? There must be something brewing.

[panduranghari]

Xi Jinping's BRI is somewhat like a Chinese Marshall Plan in that he wishes to keep the party going by creating overseas demand for Chinese products by handouts and financing. Let's see how far that goes...

Even CFR agrees with you.

Link

By 2012 external lending by the Chinese banks was rising by about $50 billion a year. And in 2016, the total external lending of the main state banks topped $100 billion.

I sort of expected the Belt and Road initiative, given its hype, to increase that sum.

So far, though, it hasn’t.

We don’t have the complete numbers for 2017 yet. But based on the data for the first three quarters and the banking data that has been released for q4, I am confident that the pace of offshore lending by China's banks slowed a bit in 2017. The scale of lending probably picked up from the $50 billion over four years that Keith Bradsher and Jane Perlez reported last May. But some fraction of the new Belt and Road lending seems to came come from redirecting lending away from other projects —energy lending, for example — rather than an increase in the overall pace of lending by the state banks.

Not only did the pace of lending slow a bit, the Chinese banks were able to finance their external lending with external borrowing—so the need to draw on reserves to support policy lending abroad fell. The chart below shows the broadest possible measure of banking flows, one that captures short-term flows as well as long-term flows. But a chart showing only "loans" would tell the same story: the net outflow through the banking system fell in 2017.

In 2017, Chinese banks increased their external borrowing, and in a sense, started borrowing from the world to lend to the world. They were doing more than intermediating Chinese savings. They were mobilizing some of the world’s savings to back China’s strategic goals—taking a page from the United States' old global playbook.

Meh! It will work until it does not. The day of reckoning is not far. I expect to read about some hangings at the Tianamen square.

[Bart S]

they were looking for both for new markets and new resources... other than the spaniards/portugalis who mixed looting with religious zealotry, the rest were pretty mercantile, doing whatever was needed to extract the maximum possible and agnostic to any dogma.
very efficient.

this unfotunately for us is the same description that Chola sir gives the sinic horde.

The point I was making on the relevance of the Industrial revolution and them leveraging the slight surge ahead of Asia (that the Asians would have inevitably caught up with if genuinely free trade was allowed) is perfectly illustrated in this article about Britain and India:

https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-gun-the-b ... vilisation

In the mid-18th century, advanced areas of northwest Europe and east and south Asia enjoyed roughly comparable life expectancy, rates of consumption, and potential for economic growth. But around 1800, in what scholars call the ‘great divergence’, the power and wealth of the West suddenly and dramatically eclipsed that of India, China and the Ottoman Empire.
...

The idea that knowledge-sharing was a particularly European trait would have surprised the Enlightenment thinker Adam Smith as he observed the world in that moment. Concerned about Britain’s aggressive pursuit of empire, he presumed that the universal capacity for knowledge-sharing would ultimately right the wrongs of colonialism. Noting in An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) that South Asians were not reaping benefits from the discovery of the Americas and suffered ‘every sort of injustice’ at the hands of Europeans, Smith remained sanguine that the sharing of knowledge and improvements that commerce produced would eventually put all nations on an equal footing and compel them into mutual respect.

We know that history did not play out that way. Why not? Why didn’t knowledge-sharing equalise the world? Was Smith too generous or naive in believing that it had cultural purchase beyond Europe? Smith’s naivety in fact lay in his presumption that the emerging political inequalities that he observed would not also shape the spread of knowledge. Like liberal thinkers today, he imagined that knowledge-exchange somehow transpires regardless of power relations.

In reality, in the 18th century, as now, power shaped knowledge-sharing everywhere. In Britain, for instance, government offices engaged in military supply often prohibited contractors from patenting their inventions: a patent would slow the spread of innovation to other contractors and thus slow the production of urgently needed supplies. While the British government thus abetted the sharing of know-how within Britain, it actively stifled such sharing abroad. British industrialists copied Asian textiles and pottery without scrupling over ‘intellectual property’, but could rely on their government to minimise the threat of colonial competition with their own manufactures.

It's a fascinating historical account, well worth a read in full.

The relevance to this thread is that, when a country has even a relatively narrow edge over others (like China has now) and their industry and government actively collude, they can not only penetrate but subvert and destroy the economy, industrial capacity and security of more open/gullible/corrupt/inept states like India.

I'm afraid, India not only has to get it's act together to avoid becoming colonized, but take the battle to other smaller nations in a competition for markets and profits, much like the European colonialists 200 years ago.

Or we can keep our heads in the sand and entertain ourselves by arguing about Padmavat or the price of Rafales.

[panduranghari]

https://www.voanews.com/a/countries-pus ... 39171.html


U.S. Navy Adm. Harry Harris, left, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command and Australian Navy Vice Adm. David Johnston take part in a ceremony marking the start of Talisman Saber 2017, a biennial joint military exercise.

Adm. Harris who was at the Raisina dialogue is now the US ambassador to Australia. This is a substantial move by Americans to contain the Chinese.

[NRao]

https://www.voanews.com/a/countries-pus ... 39171.html


U.S. Navy Adm. Harry Harris, left, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command and Australian Navy Vice Adm. David Johnston take part in a ceremony marking the start of Talisman Saber 2017, a biennial joint military exercise.

Adm. Harris who was at the Raisina dialogue is now the US ambassador to Australia. This is a substantial move by Americans to contain the Chinese.

True.

A year ago China (Xi) left no stone unturned to try and have him replaced as commander of PACOM. oh boy, this will not sit well with China.

Will need to see who replaces him at PACOM.

[Singha]

>>Will need to see who replaces him at PACOM.

hopefully a anti-A2AD hawk

[NRao]

Leave it to Adm Harris to act and talk about it. From a year ago:

Army Maj. (now Lieutenant) Gen. Bryan Fenton on Friday became the first special operations officer to assume the job of deputy commander at U.S. Pacific Command on Oahu -- reflecting the growing role of forces such as Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs in influencing world events.

"In PACOM's illustrious history, across 70 years, we've had 31 deputies, and there's never been a special operator. Bryan Fenton will be the first," Adm. Harry Harris, head of U.S. Pacific Command, said at the change-of-command ceremony. "I think this point not only proves what kind of outstanding leader Gen. Fenton is, but it also demonstrates the value that I place on the work by our SOCPAC warriors. And considering our global fight against the scourge to humanity known as ISIS, I think the time is right for this historic appointment."

[anupmisra]

China's Secret Plan to Invade Europe! (Financially)

[anupmisra]

China's Hypocrisy on Missile Defense

[Peregrine]

China's military could soon rival American power 'across almost every domain': Top US Admiral

WASHINGTON: China's military might is growing at such a pace that it could soon rival American power "across almost every domain," a top US military official said Wednesday.

Admiral Harry Harris, who heads up the military's enormous Pacific Command (PACOM), warned lawmakers they must be wary of Beijing's investments in traditional assets as well as its development of a new wave of technologies such as hypersonic missiles and artificial intelligence.

"China's impressive military buildup could soon challenge the United States across almost every domain," Harris told the House Armed Services Committee.

"Key advancements include fielding significant improvements in missile systems, developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft capabilities, and growing the size and capability of the Chinese navy to include their first overseas base in the port of Djibouti."

He added: "If the US does not keep pace, PACOM will struggle to compete with the People's Liberation Army on future battlefields."

The admiral stressed that China's One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative is not as benign as it is made out to be and, in fact, all global chokepoints are currently under pressure from it.

"One Belt One Road is much more than just an economic engine that China is undertaking. It is a concerted, strategic endeavour by China to gain a foothold and displace the United States and our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region," he said.

One needs to look at the bases and places where China is putting its emphasis to see the realisation of this, he said. "They are in a position today to influence the shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea which means the Suez Canal, and also in our hemisphere in the Panama Canal," he said.

"Also, finally in the Strait of Malacca, all those global chokepoints are under pressure from China's One Belt One Road initiative," Harris said.

Notably, India was the first country to object to OBOR, part of which passes through the Pak-Occupied Kashmir. India has said that the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) violates India's sovereignty. Last year India had skipped China's OBOR summit.

Following India's objections, many countries including the United States have come out openly against China's OBOR.

Touted as Chinese President Xi Jinping's ambitious project, the One Belt One Road initiative focuses on improving connectivity and cooperation among Asian countries, Africa, China and Europe.

Cheers

[NRao]

Following India's objections, many countries including the United States have come out openly against China's OBOR.

NPR, for this entire week, has allocated about 30 minutes every day on OBOR. Wanted to point out that although the US is against it, most, if not all US companies are for it - these companies see a huge profit from OBOR. We may just see a push back from such companies world wide.

Also, China, via OBOR (and the silk road effort?) has made in roads into EU. China has bought a port in Greece and already (within 3 years?) made it the 3rd largest port in EU. The entry point for all Chinese sent goods via sea.


There was a fairly lengthy discussion on pyops - the building of an entire new railway station, in China, is some 12(?) hours.

[SSridhar]

Beijing fumes at PM Modi’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh - Atul Aneja, The Hindu

China has slammed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, saying it was not helpful in creating “enabling conditions” for boundary talks and improving Beijing-New Delhi ties.

Xinhua news agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang as saying on Thursday that China was “firmly opposed” to Mr. Modi’s visit to the “disputed area.”

‘Consistent stand’

“China’s position on the China-India boundary question is consistent and clear-cut,” Mr. Geng said. “The Chinese government has never recognised the so-called Arunachal Pradesh and is firmly opposed to the Indian leader’s visit to the disputed area,” the spokesperson observed. “We will lodge stern representations with the Indian side.” {The Chinese claim about being 'consistent' on this issue is so very true. They never missed the slightest opportunity. We have not been so on China likewise} Mr. Geng said that China and India had reached “important consensus” on properly managing disputes and the two sides were working to resolve territorial disputes through negotiation and consultation.

“The Chinese side urges the Indian side to honour its commitment and abide by the relevant consensus, and refrain from taking any action that may complicate the boundary question.”

He urged India to cherish “the hard-won momentum of improvements in bilateral relations and create enabling conditions for the boundary talks and the development of bilateral relations.”

[TKiran]

Why can't MEA give a statement "We have been consistently saying that there is only one China and Tibet is not China, Taiwan is not China, Hong Kong is not China, Macau is not China"?

[fanne]

or something like, AP is more part of India then Tibet/...is of China

[SSridhar]

We don't even have to go that far. We must remind China everyday about its CPEC activities in the Indian state of J&K. We must warn China that these projects located in POK are fair game for India.

[SSridhar]

To China's 40 years of reforms, yam seng! - Ravi Velloor, Straits Times

As South-east Asia heads into the Chinese New Year weekend, we are getting useful reminders that the civilisation that spawned the celebration continues to be in vibrant mode, and poised for renewal in myriad ways.

This week's release of Singapore tourism data for 2017 revealed that China has ended Indonesia's two-decades-long reign as the top market for the island's tourists, with more than 3.2 million visitors over the year. Increasing numbers of Chinese are travelling out by air and sea as their country's massive economy continues to expand.

Last year, China's slowing economy nevertheless grew close to 7 per cent, beating forecasts.

But you'd expect that from China.

More interesting are stray bits of data that point to remarkable new directions in which the country is heading. Take solar energy, for instance, where it is a global champion. China had planned to reach 105GW of solar capacity by 2020. It passed that target last year, three years ahead of schedule.

China today adds more solar capacity in a month than Australia's entire installed photovoltaic capacity. By 2040, according to the International Energy Agency, renewable sources will account for 40 per cent of the country's energy generation while coal, which now provides two-thirds of China's energy, will drop to the same level.

This swift ascent may have come with heavy costs in the form of polluted cities and chemical-coated lakes, but there is determination to learn from mistakes.

DENG'S REMARKABLE LEGACY

This year marks the 40th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping's reforms and, looking back, one cannot but marvel at the milestones, big and small, that have marked that remarkable journey.

From the small step in 1978 of allowing farmers to sell their produce in local markets and the new laws passed the following year that allowed foreign capital to enter China, to the reopening of the Shanghai Stock Exchange in December 1990 after four decades, entry to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2002, the setting up of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the International Monetary Fund's acceptance of the yuan as a reserve currency in 2016, there is not a corner of the world that has not felt its impact.

The reforms would provide such a boost that until 2012, the Chinese economy would clock double-digit growth consistently for three decades, achieving - in the words of a former United States envoy to Beijing - an economic performance that has "raised more people from poverty faster than ever seen before in history".

And as it plots its course, it is building new relationships around the world. This week, I sat down with Professor Flemming Besenbacher, a reputed figure in nanosciences who is the chairman of Danish beer company Carlsberg. Prof Besenbacher's curriculum vitae lists more than a dozen Chinese universities that have honoured him with doctorates.

I asked how many other Asian universities had similarly recognised him; Prof Besenbacher looked away.

Meanwhile, millions of Chinese students have passed through the portals of top-class universities in the US, Europe and Australia. Rather than wait around trying to extend their stay, they seem to be in a hurry to return home lately.

Some 82 per cent of students who studied abroad returned to China last year, up from 72 per cent in 2012, according to government figures.

To be sure, Chinese growth is slowing but even at its current pace of expansion, China adds more to global gross domestic product growth in a year than the combined GDP of Thailand and Philippines, Asean's second-and third-largest economies, respectively. There is no hard landing in sight and while its debt continues to be a worry, its economic managers have proved equal to their task. The feared capital flight that raised so much consternation two years ago has been staunched.

Every economist, fund manager and political thinker who confidently predicted the coming fall of China has had to eat his spreadsheet - at least thus far.

NEW CHINESE WAVE

Put together, everything points to a new Chinese wave that is building around us, not just on opportunity but excitement and pride too. Why else would the young, enjoying the liberties and democratic freedoms of the West, hurry back home?

Militarily, China has never been so powerful. Its navy today has more surface ships than the US which, of course, still dominates the planet with no fewer than 11 carrier battle groups.

But the People's Liberation Army is leaner now - President Xi Jinping having trimmed its various commands from seven to five - even as its technological capabilities, including in cyber, have leapfrogged.

The issue for the world, particularly nations that live on China's periphery, are two. First, will China continue to find new sinews of growth and, second, what it intends to do with all this heft.

On the first, there is little question that it is reasonably sure of its ground. Productivity increases, the embracing of automation and robotics (it has been the No. 1 importer of robotic equipment since 2013), the push for green technology and its massive strides in digitisation as well as successes in building innovative, world-class companies all portend a second wave.

Indeed, its relentless pursuit of global technology firms that it feels can add value to its industries is legend. The foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into China used to be the figure to watch - more than US$700 billion (S$919 billion) by some estimates. Since 2016, however, more attention has been paid to Chinese outbound FDI - and not always in a positive way.

China needs to work harder to quell those suspicions, which stretch from Auckland to New York. Australia recently introduced legislation imposing stringent curbs on foreign donations to political parties and will force lobbyists to reveal their overseas clients.

BIG ATTITUDE PROBLEM

Foreign intelligence services, said Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull as he presented the Bill to Parliament, were interfering in his nation's affairs on an "unprecedented" scale.

With its unique development model, disregard for human rights and - except perhaps for the troubled decade of the Cultural Revolution - competent national leaders, it is generally acknowledged that China, unlike many of the nations it deals with, has been in a position to take the long view.

Yet it has had its stumbles. When Super Typhoon Haiyan struck the Philippines in November 2013, its initial offer of support was so niggardly - Beijing was angry with the Philippine government of the time for taking the South China Sea issue to international arbitration - that some newspapers commented that the European furniture-maker Ikea had given more.

The nation that propounded the five principles of peaceful coexistence, the benchmark subsequently adopted by many others with some adaptations, has often appeared to come across as a bully. Not too long ago, at a meeting with his South-east Asian counterparts, then Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was said to have looked an Asean minister in the eye and said: "China is a big country and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact."

Equally, fear that China's growing power may some day threaten their very way of life is drawing some powers like Australia and Britain - nations that are hardly likely to feel direct military pressure from it - to raise their military profiles in Asia and seek to construct fresh strategic alliances here.

President Xi has not helped his case by campaigning against Western values and speaking of an Asia for Asians, even if that was talk meant to shore up his support with the Chinese Communist Party.

This week, Britain, whose Prime Minister was in Beijing recently, suggested that it would sail a warship close to disputed isles in the South China Sea in the manner that the US has been doing.

HOW TO WIN FRIENDS

If, and when trouble arrives at China's doorstep, it could be dressed in any of three or four garb.

First, China, the world's top exporting nation - it was at No. 30 when reforms started - is more dependent on the world today than it has ever been before. Having become expert at using WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, its refusal to countenance international law where it collides with its interests has brought long-term consequences, witnessed in the resistance to Beijing that has begun to coalesce.

Second, a more dramatic slowdown in growth - not outside the realm of possibility, given that its economy is maturing and its population ageing - could remove the cushion for policy errors.

The Xi era, while seeing a concentration of power, also has seen a rise of cronyism that has weakened many of China's institutions at a time when they desperately needed strengthening.

China has a job on its hands convincing the world that its intentions are benign and it is doing no more than any nation that feels an intense responsibility towards the security and welfare of its people. It also behoves the world to appreciate that many of China's insecurities come from historical experiences burned into the national consciousness.{China must also recognize the fact that the same 'insecurities' might drive other nations too}

To the China that behaves responsibly and with humility and generosity, yam seng!

[SSridhar]

Our leaders, people have the right to visit Arunachal: India to China - PTI

In a strong reaction to China's objection to Prime Minister Narendra Modi visiting Arunachal Pradesh, India on Friday said its leaders and people have the right to visit the northeastern state, asserting that it is an integral part of the country.

"Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India. Our leaders and people have the right to visit Arunachal Pradesh," external affairs ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar told reporters when asked about Chinese objection.

[Arjun]

We don't even have to go that far. We must remind China everyday about its CPEC activities in the Indian state of J&K. We must warn China that these projects located in POK are fair game for India.

Setting up an equivalence between Kashmir and Arunachal is rather dangerous...CPEC is fair game for India since it passes thru PoK, irrespective of what China does in Arunachal....and we definitely do not want to imply that China can console themselves with Arunachal if we chop off CPEC.

[Peregrine]

US will not allow China to 'coerce' nations in Asia: Donald Trump admin

WASHINGTON: The US will not allow China to "bully" or "coerce" nations in Asia, a senior Trump administration official has said, amidst Beijing flexing its muscles in the region.

The Trump administration has made clear that the US wants a "productive" relationship with China, and the two countries must work to manage and resolve differences, Susan Thornton, Acting Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during her confirmation hearing.

"We have been equally clear, however, that we will not abide Chinese attempts to displace the US in Asia, to coerce countries in the region and that we will not be taken advantage of," she said.

"If the international system that has enabled China's rise is to continue, then rules and standards must be observed and countries must not be bullied or threatened, but treated as equal players," Thornton said.

The administration, under Trump's leadership, is working to expand and deepen partnerships throughout the region via the Indo-Pacific strategy, she said.

"We also continue to prioritise work in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to promote high-standards and fair trade and to support ASEAN-centered regional architecture, which underpins East Asian peace and security.

The US is a Pacific power and will remain committed to this regions success, Thornton said.

The Asia Pacific region has a "very real security" and economic challenges, including the menacing threat of North Korea, the rise of an authoritarian China, and the spread of terrorism and extremism, she said.

"Although the region has enjoyed peace and growing prosperity for years, the threat from North Korea continues to increase, tensions and extremism are on the rise, and the export-led model that underpinned," Thornton said.

East Asia's stunning growth is no longer viable. We must insist on fair and reciprocal market access, if we are to sustain the global trading system.

Backsliding on democracy, governance and corruption, and human rights is also undermining prospects for stability and growth in some countries, she told the lawmakers.

China is involved in a widening maritime dispute with several Southeast Asian countries over islands in the resource-rich South China Sea.

Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan have counter claims over the islands.

Cheers

[NRao]

^^^^^

Interesting!!

Two days back the US Amby stated on NPR that he had pretty much given an ultimate (my word) to the Chinese. He pretty much said the same thing in other words - that China needs to clean up her act.

The kicker is that the Amby has been very close to both Xi and Trump, which is why he was made the Amby to China.

[SSridhar]

We don't even have to go that far. We must remind China everyday about its CPEC activities in the Indian state of J&K. We must warn China that these projects located in POK are fair game for India.

Setting up an equivalence between Kashmir and Arunachal is rather dangerous...CPEC is fair game for India since it passes thru PoK, irrespective of what China does in Arunachal....and we definitely do not want to imply that China can console themselves with Arunachal if we chop off CPEC.

That's an equivalence you are drawing.

[shiv]

My new video
An analysis of the railway link between China and Tibet
https://youtu.be/4uEO-fWyv48

[panduranghari]

Good video Doctor saab. What are the chances a lot of stuff has been already moved to Lhasa and stored in underground bunkers?

[Ramesh]

Excellent analysis hakim saab...

[shiv]

Thanks people.

It is well known that China already stores a lot of war ready hardware in Tibet - ready to be used. The only issue is more manpower and consumables like fuel and food. China cannot house hundreds of thousands of men in Tibet without shipping in food for them because Tibet is still a net importer of food and cannot sustain a huge extra population. Obviously that makes the logistics lines important and we must keep an eye on them

Here we have a country that simply walked in and occupied Tibet as well as Aksai Chin. Let that be history. Any further Chinese misadventure in trying to grab territory should be extremely painful for them and also very humiliating - getting kicked by the dirty black Indians. One bridge taken out near Lhasa should be fairly useful. And 5 bridges would be cool.

I also wondering. 500 km of that damn line sits on marginal permafrost. How many sacks of salt on the rocks under the line would melt the ice enough to cause instability. Sabotage??

[VinodTK]

From The National Intrest: Are China's South China Sea Bases Pointless?

China has built some islands in the South China Sea. Can it protect them?

During World War II Japan found that control of islands offered some strategic advantages, but not enough to force the United States to reduce each island individually. Moreover, over time the islands became a strategic liability, as Japan struggled to keep them supplied with food, fuel and equipment. The islands of the SCS are conveniently located for China, but do they really represent an asset to China’s military? The answer is yes, but in an actual conflict the value would dwindle quickly.

The Installations

China has established numerous military installations in the South China Sea, primarily in the Spratly and Paracel Islands. In the Spratlys, China has built airfields at Subi, Mischief and Fiery Cross, along with potential missile, radar and helicopter infrastructure at several smaller formations. In the Paracels, China has established a significant military installation at Woody Island, as well as radar and helicopter facilities in several other areas. China continues construction across the region, meaning that it may expand its military presence in the future. The larger bases (Subi, Mischief, Fiery Cross and Woody Island) have infrastructure necessary for the management of military aircraft, including fighters and large patrol craft. These missiles, radars and aircraft extend the lethal reach of China’s military across the breadth of the South China Sea.

Missiles

Several of the islands serve as bases for SAM systems (including the HQ-9, with a range of 125 miles, and perhaps eventually the Russian S-400) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs). These missiles serve to make the South China Sea lethal for U.S. ships and aircraft that do not have stealth capabilities, or that do not enjoy a layered air-defense system. The SAM installations, buoyed by networks of radars, can effectively limit the ability of enemy aircraft to enter their lethal zone without significant electronic-warfare assistance. The GLCMs can add another set of launchers to China’s A2/AD network, although not necessarily with any greater effectiveness than missiles launched from subs, ships or aircraft.

But it is an open question how survivable the missile installations would be in a conflict. Land-based missiles survive air attack because they can hide among hills, forests and other natural cover. There is no effective natural cover on the islands that China has created, and even man-made defensive installations may not survive concerted attack. Moreover, missile launchers depend upon an at least somewhat robust logistical network for fuel, power and munitions, which China may not be able to reliably provide during a shooting war.

Airfields

The four largest military installations in the SCS have extensive facilities for the operation of military aircraft. This includes advanced fighters, but more importantly patrol, electronic-warfare and advanced early-warning aircraft. The ability to use these airfields effectively extends the reach of China’s A2/AD bubble, enabling the transmission of targeting data to missile launchers at sea and in mainland China. The fighter aircraft themselves serve to make the skies over the SCS even more lethal than they otherwise would be, as well as threaten U.S. ships at a distance with cruise missiles.

But in conflict, the durability of an airfield depends on the availability of materials and equipment to execute repairs after an attack. It is not obvious that the islands China has created in the South China Sea will be robust enough to continue in operation after U.S. missile and bomb attacks. Although the larger islands have aircraft shelters, it is an open question whether these shelters could long survive a concerted U.S. attack.

Radars

SAMs, GLCMs and combat aircraft depend on accurate targeting data for effectiveness. The most important contribution that the SCS islands may offer to the Chinese military is through the radar installations that China has established on many of the islands. These installations, while individually vulnerable, help to provide a much fuller picture of the battle space than China would otherwise enjoy. Together, they significantly enhance the lethality of China’s defensive networks.

That said, the radars themselves are vulnerable to a wide array of U.S. attacks. These include kinetic methods such as missiles (launched from submarines, stealth aircraft or other platforms), electronic warfare, cyberattacks and even special-forces raids. In a conflict, China could quickly lose access to the radar network that it has established. Still, the network offers a relatively low-cost way of complicating the job that the U.S. military faces in penetrating the SCS.

Logistics

As Lord Horatio Nelson may have quipped, “a ship’s a fool to fight a fort.” But there are situations in which ships have a major advantage over forts. China’s islands in the SCS are not mobile, and are not large enough to hide much in the way of military equipment and material. The United States will be able to meticulously map the military installations on each of the islands in the SCS, and will probably be able to track shipments of military equipment to the islands. This will make the islands extremely vulnerable to attack from ships, subs and aircraft, as missiles will not require real-time targeting data.

One positive step for the United States would be to reverse the decision to “retire in place” the Advanced Gun System on the Zumwalt-class destroyer. Making available a munition for this gun would enable the Zumwalts to strike Chinese island installations at range, potentially causing serious, practically irreparable damage at a relatively low cost. Otherwise, the islands will suck up cruise missiles that might effectively be used on more juicy targets.

The islands of the SCS have some military relevance, but are more important as a political claim to waterways and undersea resources. Militarily, they represent a thin crust on China’s A2/AD system. Under certain conditions this crust could disrupt U.S. freedom of action, but it won’t be hard for the United States’ Air Force and Navy to punch through.

[sanjaykumar]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... m-internet

This has the imprimatur of a former editor at Nature. It does not mention AI.

Now I'm worried. Though not so distressed as to neglect to offer congratulations to the Chinese.

[sanjaykumar]

China’s islands in the SCS are not mobile, and are not large enough to hide much in the way of military equipment and material.


Just as is Tibet. (BTW it's materiel not material).

[ashish raval]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... m-internet

This has the imprimatur of a former editor at Nature. It does not mention AI.

Now I'm worried. Though not so distressed as to neglect to offer congratulations to the Chinese.

Your worry is not misplaced. China had massively sponsored students and post docs to move into every western universities and they attended every seminars and research topics that were being discussed and I suspect many if not all reverted back the progress of the west in various topics in all fields.

This definateky would have helped domestic researchers in China get inkling of where things are in the west on a rough basis. I still think most good resesrch is hidden in west but lizard did managed to scrap off a lot of these areas and to a researchers and experts hints are enough to recreate things and copy them.

[sanjaykumar]

There is no question one must not underestimate the contours of the frontiers of research in the US.

As an example, I did notice that fMRI’s application to truth telling just disappeared 15 years ago. I suspected patents and private enterprise but also security agencies to be responsible.

There is never an American rejoinder to Chinese claims to quantum encryption. It’s the dog that didn’t bark.

[Prem]

http://www.afr.com/news/australia-mulls ... 0w7k5?btis
Australia mulls rival to China's 'belt and road' with US, Japan, India

Australia is discussing with the United States, India and Japan the establishment of a joint regional infrastructure scheme to rival China's multibillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative in an attempt to counter Beijing's spreading influence.Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is expected to discuss the idea during talks in Washington DC this week, possibly during a scheduled meeting with US President Donald Trump.A senior US Official told The Australian Financial Review the plan involving four regional partners was still "nascent" and "won't be ripe enough to be announced' during Mr Turnbull's visit, but was being seriously discussed.He preferred to describe the plan as an "alternative" to the Belt and Road Initiative rather than a "rival".No one is saying China should not build infrastructure," the official said."China might build a port which, on its own is not economically viable. We could make it economically viable by building a road or rail line linking that port."The prospect of such an initiative will be watched closely by Beijing which is already jumpy at the same four nations for agreeing last year to restore the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD).
In November, China protested after senior foreign affairs officials from Australia, the US, Japan and India met in Manila on the sidelines ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Manila to discuss the restoration of the QSD. The dialogue was devised last decade to try to contain China but collapsed when the Rudd government withdrew due to pressure from Beijing.The US and her allies have long been suspicious of Belt and Road, a massive push by Chinese President Xi Jinping to fund a global network of major infrastructure projects throughout the region and beyond such as ports, rail networks, bridges and roads.

[Prem]

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/ind ... do-pacific
Indonesia ready to take on bigger role in Indo-Pacific

To understand why Jakarta sees a bigger role as necessary, consider what is at stake.
Under President Joko Widodo, the country has thrived economically and as a democracyConsider but one of the many indexes of Indonesia's international potential: it is slated to be the fifth-largest economy by 2030. There are not many countries with a quarter of a billion people which are set to grow so rapidly, generating massive business opportunities in the region and beyond.Yet, all this potential will come to nothing if the Indo-Pacific region in which it resides is consumed by internecine conflict, to say nothing of war.
Stretching from India through South-east Asia and North-east Asia to the western part of the ocean, the Indo-Pacific region will be to this century, for good or for bad, what the Mediterranean and the Atlantic were to previous centuries of peace punctuated by war.
Now, imagine the Indo-Pacific region without South-east Asia: It cannot be done. Then, imagine South-east Asia without Indonesia: It cannot be done, either. Hence the pivotal role that this sprawling archipelagic country cannot but play in the ordering of maritime affairs in the 21st century.Shortly into his term, President Widodo notably laid out his vision of Indonesia as a "world maritime axis"; a force for peace that lies between the Indian and Pacific oceans, drawing countries together through commerce, not warfare.Geographically, Asean is the immediate neighbourhood for Indonesia.

[ashish raval]

There is no question one must not underestimate the contours of the frontiers of research in the US.

As an example, I did notice that fMRI’s application to truth telling just disappeared 15 years ago. I suspected patents and private enterprise but also security agencies to be responsible.

There is never an American rejoinder to Chinese claims to quantum encryption. It’s the dog that didn’t bark.

Agree. Cutting edge research in West is very well hidden. There are guys working on quantum decryption and had recently published a study on how that was theoretically possible. So quantum encryption will not really legend in two decades or so. Zuma payload was a ultra secret box worth 1 billion. Now what on earth of the size of a small car cost a billion dollar ? Or actually even more costly that estimated!! My guess is some ground breaking surveillance or perhaps a time travel test device!!

[Prem]

[Prem]

edited