• China missiles filled with water, not fuel: US intelligence
  • Xi seeking to root out corruption, prepare military for combat

US intelligence indicates that President Xi Jinping’s sweeping military purge came after it emerged that widespread corruption undermined his efforts to modernize the armed forces and raised questions about China’s ability to fight a war, according to people familiar with the assessments.

The corruption inside China’s Rocket Force and throughout the nation’s defense industrial base is so extensive that US officials now believe Xi is less likely to contemplate major military action in the coming years than would otherwise have been the case, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing intelligence.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    China missiles filled with water, not fuel: US intelligence

    oops

    US officials now believe Xi is less likely to contemplate major military action in the coming years than would otherwise have been the case

    So this is a good news story.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Mmm.

      Hopefully.

      Unless you think war is inevitable.

      The current Chinese doctrine in a theoretical conflict with America relies heavily on saturation of missile defenses to take out things like carrier groups.

      If they didn’t know they’d have a 10% failure rate or whatever it could have completely invalidated their tactics.

      But it you accept both that war is inevitable and that China will be the aggressor it would have been better for them not to discover this and thus be unprepared for the conflict, like we see with Russia and Ukraine.

      • falcunculus@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        War isn’t inevitable. Back in the cold war it was averted multiple times, and the USSR had a much more closed economy than China’s. China going to war with NATO would lose them all their largest trading partners.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          They don’t want a war with NATO. But they might want to invade Taiwan which pretty much everybody in NATO kind of agrees is sort of China’s anyway. Only a handful of nations recognise Taiwan as sovereign, and they ain’t coming to the rescue.

          We don’t really want them to take Taiwan, but the only bargaining tool we have to stop them is the threat of stopping trade. And as far as I can tell, the main reason we don’t recognise Taiwan is because we don’t want China to stop trade either.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          No one builds a trillion dollar navy without intending to use it, but sure.

          It might not happen.

          In a world that solves its energy crisis and stops climate change.

          • Risk@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Surely they intend to use it the same way the US does - projecting force to cement soft power?

              • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                10 months ago

                Taiwan, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Australia, Thailand, Myanmar.

                Do I need to keep going?

                The key for them, really, is being able to ensure they have naval access through the strait of Malacca

                  • Risk@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Yes, those things create friction with the US.

                    However, I’m sure China will grow to use their navy to project control of their Belt-And-Road initiatives. You bet they’ll be working to prop up governments that will reap the profit from their investments down the line, than allow rebellious groups or hostile neighbouring states to threaten those interests.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Unless you think war is inevitable.

        I don’t think it’s inevitable, but I do hope that one day West Taiwan will be liberated.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        If China ever wants to be able to take Taiwan, it’ll have to do so within the next few years. Due to a large number of factors, like economy weakening due to over ballooning, an upcoming extreme population decline (they have a serious problem on their hands there alone) and more, they find themselves in the best position to grab and conquer Taiwan now, or never. I do expect the next 4 years in this world to be shit, no matter what US president we get, just a matter of “really shit” or “holy fucking hell its the end times” shit.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s absolutely wild to me that people can say this kind of thing with a straight face, with no knowledge of the actual numbers involved, unknowingly reenacting the attitudes of Spaniards on their way to conquer those filthy English heretics.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        While having China’s rockets fail at a high rate during an invasion would be good. They may be weaker by the time they rebuild their arsenal and an invasion is not possible. They are going to have to check a huge amount of rockets then start rebuilding. A lot can change in 2 years.

    • MechanicalJester@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I mean…the US Navy is roughly 40 times more capable than the Chinese navy just looking at aircraft carriers compared, nevermind the carrier group components or the planes. A US super carrier is so much more capable than the 2 Chinese carriers combined.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        China’s ship building capacity is greater than the US. They may be able to overwhelm the US Navy in an extended conflict.

        That said, China is looking at a demographic cliff from the One Child Policy. Too many old people and not enough young ones to take care of them. If they’re going to start a war, it has to be in the next few years or not at all. It’s possible the window is already closed.

        • Wolf_359@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          Imagine what their demographics would look like if they also started a war and killed their young people though.

          Not saying they won’t do it, and they do currently have an excess of young men specifically, but a country with a population problem isn’t in a great place to start a war imo.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          They can’t. China is a green-water navy with but-water dreams, but a complete lack of ability to produce the right type of ships for the task. Their missile boats are concerns in littoral areas, but effectively worthless anywhere else, and that’s all they can produce at any appreciable speed. Their carriers aren’t even sea worthy.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s like saying if we produce enough preschoolers fast enough we might be able to overwhelm that SWAT team.

          The US Navy could likely sink their entire fleet without losing anything of significance outside of ammunition and fuel, it doesn’t matter how fast they can build such inferior ships.

          When it comes to engaging with developed nations the US doesn’t do extended conflicts, that’s a luxury of third world occupations. We’d take out their Navy and then invade or force a surrender based on extended range weapons.

        • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          A war can also solve another problem China has: too many men and too few women. War deaths will not only reduce the man to female ratio, but as in past Chinese wars soldiers will bring home war “brides”.

        • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          China would need to build ships faster then the US can build antiship missiles. The US has thousands of stealthy Long Range Anti Ship Missiles. The only thing that quantity of ships would do is make a bunch of reefs.

        • MechanicalJester@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Of which? Last I looked at Wiki the US has 11 aircraft carriers in service.

          China with two ramped smaller ones. Apparently one was formerly a casino and the other is a clone.

          Tonnage is another decent metric. US has 4.6 million tons to Chinas 2.

          The capability of the tonnage is a whole other twist. Force multipliers like mid air refueling, AWACs, stealth etc

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              The plan is to phase in Ford-class carriers to replace the Nimitz-class. There is supposed to be 10 total in the end.

              That said, the US DoD is doing its usual sandbagging thing where it says China could totally overwhelm the US Navy in an extended conflict and that means we need to make an even bigger navy. Commenters elsewhere in the thread comparing preschoolers to SWAT teams are off base; China’s ships and planes aren’t on the same level as the US, but quantity in a conflict near China’s borders would still be a problem. Still, pretending the US military is behind is a budget tactic that worked all throughout the Cold War, and it’s working again. It’s why the military-industrial complex is such a problem.

              • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                So are they going to try and get funding to keep the old ones running or are they legit going to be decommissioned and just make more Fords?

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I don’t think they’ll try to keep the Nimitz class going. Part of the reason for a whole new class is that the Nimitzes didn’t have enough power for some of the upgrades the Navy wants. If there are even more total carrier groups to be made, it’ll probably be all new ones.

                  Who knows, though. The non-nuclear Kitty Hawk lasted into the 21st century.

          • Rakonat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Much as I love to toot Murica’s horn US’s fleet figures become less daunting when you consider the areas of interest and responsibility they cover. China has one long coast line and offshore interests, (and yes some rather optimistic claims and attempts to create islands to expand their influence) compared to US fleet having 2 major coastlines, Alaska and Hawaii, to say nothing of areas of interest and defense commitments to allies.

            Under ideal circumstances US can only ever afford to have a third of it’s fleet in any single theatre, where China can theoretically put almost all of their fleet into a single theatre, granted that theatre basically needs to be the Pacific Ocean.

            US still has the clear advantage the moment you step away from coastal waters but its not nearly as big as first glance.

    • The Assman@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Time to get the South China sea under control. What are they gonna do? Start a water balloon fight?

    • Bilb!@lem.monster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well, if they flushed out the corruption that undermined their capabilities then one might expect their capabilities to increase afterward.