Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: China's failure

  1. #1
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258

    China's failure

    Interesting insights from George Friedman. Amazing how he summarises so much



    Healthy countries doing well don't need a dictator. Central committees don't elect one but did this time as they were afraid. Why are Chinese investing everywhere else but China. People buying homes and whatnot abroad. If China is doing well why aren't they investing in China. Made a post here several years ago about money leaving China and couldn't figure it out. The best reason is its looking for a safe harbour. The insiders understand how weak the Chinese system is. They don't trust the Chinese economy.

    Xi's in trouble in China because he failed to manage the Americans. Foreign policy of China consists essentially of ensuring the American market remains open to China.

    The China we know is one model of China. China alternates between a centralisation model and a regionalism one. For now the centralisation model is being tested. If it fails China will revert back to a regionalism model. Revert back to what China was like in the 1850s. Can't assume the way it was will always be.

    Chinese investments always come with strings. They make promises as to what will happen but cannot deliver with all of them.

    Ten years ago China said the South China sea was theirs. Americans routinely sail through, Indonesians block them, Taiwanese aren't cowed and the Philippinos could run them off if they tried. There has been no advance by the Chinese in the south china sea despite a lot of talk about them doing so. Media claims rising Chinese power but they are no further ahead than they were ten years ago.

    China has no ability to intervene in Europe, no ability to intervene in the middle east, cannot go to war with Russia, Their navy can't sail in the western pacific. Very important not to over estimate China. Two parties play up China, the Chinese themselves and the US Navy because they want a bigger budget.

    China's goal was to dominate the South China Sea and they can't even pull it off on their frontier. So much for China going to dominate the Indian ocean one day.

    China isn't going to start a war in the SCS as the credibility of the regime cannot handle losing it. This is the same reason they haven't moved on Taiwan.

    So we see gestures of power. They court with the idea of challenging the Japanese, US & Australia but they always back off because they are a fairly poor weak power.

    But we have this great illusion of Chinese power but what have they achieved militarily in the time since they started ie 2008
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Mar 19, at 10:13.

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,937

    Thoughts

    Healthy countries (define?) don’t need a dictator (sez who?).

    Central committees don’t elect a dictator (duh. Dictators, by definition, aren’t elected: they sieze power illegally), but did this time (huh?) as they were afraid (of what? of who?). Come on, these aren't even whole thoughts.

    Collapse ofthe USSR means, without qualification, the collapse of the political prospects of every single country with a similar government … except, it didn’t happen (yet). Because, Asian communists and Cuba aren’t the USSR.

    Chinese are investing everywhere but at home. Really? Does anyone ever visit China, or even just look at the data? Massive over-investment at home, compared to consumption. Try again.

    People buying homes “and whatnot” abroad. Really? A handful (as a percent of population, dollar value as a percent of the economy) buy something outside the country because they are finally allowed to (the West told China to relax capital controls, remember?), and suddenly the massive domestic housing construction and purchase trend is just dismissed. Go on, pull the other one.

    Does a capital outflow happen in a balanced economy? Nope. Run a current-account surplus, as China does, and you will – by definition – run a capital account deficit. Flip it over, and it is the USA. Someone doesn't understand what the Balance part of Balance of Payments means...

    Are people who invest abroad looking for a safe haven? Sometimes.
    Is that was drives global capital flows? Nope.
    Look for yield and diversification to find the answer to that. It is a much better explanation as to why the UK is the biggest investor in the US.

    “Gee would …” “Or, ‘A Gee’ …” Come on, if this radio talk show host is going to make such sage comments about the leader of China at least he could learn how to pronounce his name.

    Does China decentralize (“regionalize,” “like in the 1850s”) only when centralization fails? Nope.
    Have a look at the policy choices of a fellow named Deng Xiaoping.

    Is China “no further ahead” in the South China Sea than 10 years ago? Nope.
    Nope.
    Nope.
    If that were the case, there wouldn’t be all those man-made island with airstrips, aircraft shelters and troops.
    If China has yet to launch a military attack on someone in the South China Sea is that proof positive that it can’t? Nope.
    Nope.
    Nope. Ever heard of biding your time?

    Since many people 40 years ago thought Japan would become the dominant economic power in the world, therefore, ipso facto, China will fail.
    Right. Japan is exactly the same as China, only earlier. They're both Asian, right? Can't be a shred of difference between them, right?
    Right.

    *sigh*
    Last edited by DOR; 13 Mar 19, at 12:08.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  3. #3
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Healthy countries (define?) don’t need a dictator (sez who?).
    He is relatively more authoritarian than earlier leaders. Why did Xi clamp down. Expecting trouble. Why now and not with earlier leaders. What is the source of that trouble. Growth rate dropping meaning more unemployment and then things get interesting for the CCP.

    Trouble afoot is the key point. Otherwise no need for a dictator


    Central committees don’t elect a dictator (duh. Dictators, by definition, aren’t elected: they sieze power illegally), but did this time (huh?) as they were afraid (of what? of who?). Come on, these aren't even whole thoughts.
    He got their blessing to clamp down. Question is why ? George offers an answer

    Collapse ofthe USSR means, without qualification, the collapse of the political prospects of every single country with a similar government … except, it didn’t happen (yet). Because, Asian communists and Cuba aren’t the USSR.
    Am not sure to what he said that you are responding to ?

    He did mention tension between the interior & the coast. Whether that might prove too much for the centre.

    Does a capital outflow happen in a balanced economy? Nope. Run a current-account surplus, as China does, and you will – by definition – run a capital account deficit. Flip it over, and it is the USA. Someone doesn't understand what the Balance part of Balance of Payments means...
    ok,

    When i looked at outflows from China back in 2012 made a thread with a study on it i was surprised to see like 2.5 trillion going out annually. That normal to you ? likely higher now a days. They used an indirect means to measure outflows, xinhui seemed ok with the study.

    Are people who invest abroad looking for a safe haven? Sometimes.
    Is that was drives global capital flows? Nope.
    Look for yield and diversification to find the answer to that. It is a much better explanation as to why the UK is the biggest investor in the US.
    Meaning they're getting a better yield outside China ? that would explain the huge outflows.

    Why aren't they investing in China instead is his question. Faster growth surely.

    Does China decentralize (“regionalize,” “like in the 1850s”) only when centralization fails? Nope.
    Have a look at the policy choices of a fellow named Deng Xiaoping.
    Why don't you just tell us what they are.

    Is China “no further ahead” in the South China Sea than 10 years ago? Nope.
    Nope.
    Nope.
    If that were the case, there wouldn’t be all those man-made island with airstrips, aircraft shelters and troops.
    If China has yet to launch a military attack on someone in the South China Sea is that proof positive that it can’t? Nope.
    Nope.
    Nope. Ever heard of biding your time?
    Those man made islands have bugger all utility in a conflict. They haven't militarised scarborugh shoal yet AFIAK. They've stoppped using this nine dash line phrase.

    Yeah, the pushing and shoving started in 2008. Over ten years later, its still not time yet ?

    Then bide their time can be a very long time or never.

    I've been hearing that China is coming and will be unstoppable everywhere so what he said sounds more like a reality check instead of the usual hype which most aren't evne able to spot.

    Since many people 40 years ago thought Japan would become the dominant economic power in the world, therefore, ipso facto, China will fail.
    Right. Japan is exactly the same as China, only earlier. They're both Asian, right? Can't be a shred of difference between them, right?
    Right.

    *sigh*
    What is the problem. Both export oriented economies. Demand drops they end up with over capacity, start getting into infrastructure and that goes no where, they end up piling on more debt. An attempt to prolong the hope that things might bounce back. Whether China ends up like Japan remains to be seen. But aren't the initial conditions similar between both countries.

    Are China & Japan the same ? no. But what is or can China do differently ?

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,937
    It is not factual to say that Xi Jinping is “relatively more authoritarian than earlier leaders.
    Jiang Zemin? cf FaLun Gong.
    Deng Xiaoping? cf Tiananmen.

    Why did Xi clamp down? Which “clamp down” do you mean? Is the anti-corruption clamp down, that had been obviously needed for at least a decade? Or, is it the anti-Muslim clamp down in Xinjiang, which came in response to a resurgence in violent uprisings by a handful of heavily suppressed dissidents? Perhaps it was the clamp down on the internet, which progressed along with the spread of smart phones and other devices.

    “Growth rate dropping meaning more unemployment and then things get interesting for the CCP.”
    Any evidence that “things get interesting” – I assume you mean things like unrest – when the growth rate slows down?
    In the past 40 years, I haven’t seen a single incident of unrest that can be attributed to “I can’t get a job.”

    • The bosses stole my land? Yep.
    • The bosses aren’t paying me what I’m owed? Oh, yeah.
    • The bosses polluted the water so bad my kids are sick? Sure.
    • I can’t find a job? Nope, never.



    “Trouble is afoot is the key point. Otherwise no need for a dictator.”

    Here’s how Chinese politics works: The power of the top man is a direct reflection of the powers of those around him.
    If he (never she) is a proxy for an elder who has the real power, like Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang and Jiang Zemin in his first term, all controversial decisions – and many mundane ones – are run by the boss before being presented to the Politburo Standing Committee.
    If he is first among equals, like Jiang Zemin post 2002, then there has to be a concerted effort by a coalition of opponents to resist whatever he wants to do. Hence, Jiang managed to retain the MAC Chair, but had to tolerate Hu Jintao as his successor because he wasn’t powerful enough to name his own man.
    If he comes into his own during a relative power vacuum, and succeeds in purging his most powerful opponents (Zhou Enlai, post Lin Biao; Deng Xiaoping post-Mao Zedong; and Xi Jinping, post-Jiang Zemin), he gets to stack the deck with allies and take China off in a new direction (if desired).

    Xi Jinping dismantled Bo Xilai’s populist power base, Zhou Yongkang’s public security power base, Jiang Zemin / Zeng Qinghong’s princelings power base, and Hu Jintao / Li Keqiang’s CYL power base. That left exactly no one in any position to resist his move to make himself immune to the (very) recent two-term limit.

    Xi Jinping didn’t get the Central Committee’s blessing to crack down. He appointed a Central Committee that would let him do what he wanted to do, just like Deng Xiaoping did. It isn’t 100% Xi's CC, but like Deng, he’ll weed out a few each year until it isn’t any kind of threat.

    USSR: The podcast basically says that because the USSR collapsed, therefore so will China. I disagree. As for coastal-interior tensions, that’s long past. Chongqing has more in common with Shenzhen than it does with Changsha.

    Capital flows. If $2.5 trillion is flowing in on one side of the BoP, then “normal” would be $2.5 trillion flowing out on the other side.

    As for “investment yield,” that might include things that are not just percentages. Like, being able to make investments without having to get state approval, or paying for your kids’ education. And, if Mrs Zhou is 98% exposed to China in her portfolio, the question isn’t “why not 100%?,” but rather “Why not something less than 98%?”

    Deng Xiaoping’s policy choices …
    • Replace ideologues with technocrats.
    • Replace comprehensive top-down control with broader discretion to experiment.
    • See what works and what doesn’t.
    • Duplicate what works and stop doing what doesn’t.
    • Rinse and repeat.



    South China Sea. To use a comparison that seems to have been a favorite of the podcast author, let’s look at Japan’s history.
    • Beat the Chinese in 1894.
    • Wait 10 years, then beat the Russians in 1905.
    • Wait 35+ years, then reluctantly go after the USA in 1941.


    I don’t know what timetable you think would be more suitable for China to take on the USA, but it strikes me as highly prudent to avoid war for as long as possible. Oh, and the “pushing and shoving” started well before 2008. Remember the Hainan incident of 2001?


    Japan vis-à-vis China.


    In 1986, at the peak, Japan accounted for 9.9% of global exports. China peaked (perhaps) at 13.8% in 2015.
    Much more important, Japan’s two-way trade as a percent of GDP averaged 23% in the 1980s, a level that Korea achieved in the 1960s and about the same as China in the 1980s. In other words, Japan was far, far more non-trade oriented than either China or Korea.

    What characterizes both economies is a higher degree of export orientation than most economies, but that is not to say they are dependent on exports for growth. In both economies, consumption and investment are the drivers, not trade. Trade is only an economic driver in places like Hong Kong or Singapore, where it is many multiples of GDP.

    If you compare the increase in consumption or investment to net trade – that is, which adds the most to GDP in a given year or decade – the obvious conclusion is that trade is not the driver.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,144
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    South China Sea. To use a comparison that seems to have been a favorite of the podcast author, let’s look at Japan’s history.
    • Beat the Chinese in 1894.
    • Wait 10 years, then beat the Russians in 1905.
    • Wait 35+ years, then reluctantly go after the USA in 1941.
    Really a wrong comparison. The Japanese victories against China and Russia were Pyhrric affairs with Japan emerging militarily weaker than before she entered those conflicts. We have also discussed Pacific WWII to death but suffice to say that WWII China alone fought Japan to a standstill. Her victories against the Western allies were because the West were busy with Germany.

    The only examples that apply are actually Chinese examples. 1979 and 1984. The 1st and 2nd Sino-VN Wars impressed no one.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    I don’t know what timetable you think would be more suitable for China to take on the USA, but it strikes me as highly prudent to avoid war for as long as possible. Oh, and the “pushing and shoving” started well before 2008. Remember the Hainan incident of 2001?
    I'm reminded of Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone's "unsinkable aircraft carrier." Soviet Foreign Trade Minister Nikolai Potolichev then said, "When the war starts, the Japanese aircraft carrier would sink in less than 20 minutes."

    There is only one word that pop into any military man's mind when you mentioned those man made islands: target. A waste of defence dollars to add absolutely zero against a capbale foe. When Canadian and Australian warships routinely ignore 6 mile warnings, those islands lacked the military strength to back up Chinese claims. As for 2001, yeah, that did not stop American patrols. Only instead of a lone EP3, the Chinese are finding American F-18s in contested skies and no one is doing bumping.

    However, I do agree that Friedman is nothing more than a standard intel hack. Looking over his writing history, he's 50/50 when it comes to forecasting and 0/100 when it comes to non-popular events such as how the Syrian Civil War errupted.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 14 Mar 19, at 20:12.

  6. #6
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    It is not factual to say that Xi Jinping is “relatively more authoritarian than earlier leaders.
    Jiang Zemin? cf FaLun Gong.
    Deng Xiaoping? cf Tiananmen.

    Why did Xi clamp down? Which “clamp down” do you mean? Is the anti-corruption clamp down, that had been obviously needed for at least a decade? Or, is it the anti-Muslim clamp down in Xinjiang, which came in response to a resurgence in violent uprisings by a handful of heavily suppressed dissidents? Perhaps it was the clamp down on the internet, which progressed along with the spread of smart phones and other devices.
    I suppose its the anti-corruption clamp down. Gets going as soon as he enters office. Going after Bo Xilai. Didn't some PLA general get a death sentence for corruption. This is a pretty big deal. Soldiers get a death sentence for treason not corruption.

    Now you can say it was required for long but when i hear anti-corruption drive i interpret it as going after the opposition. And after this we heard Xi was consolidating power. Logical. Amassing more power. Then trying to be Mao like. Supreme leader instead of just CCP chairman. He then goes on to declare himself leader for life.

    What i'm assuming here is as Xi consolidates power that things got tighter for the general public.

    For Deng to say with growth comes corruption is a very different mindset to what Xi did. You can point to Tianamen but there is no way to play down Deng opening up the economy. Coming after Mao I can't think of Deng as authoritarian or even Jaing Zemin or even Hu jintao

    For Xi to go on an anti-corruption drive means the economy isn't doing as well as it did. He's sensing warning signs and acting to ward of larger unrest.

    “Growth rate dropping meaning more unemployment and then things get interesting for the CCP.”
    Any evidence that “things get interesting” – I assume you mean things like unrest – when the growth rate slows down?
    In the past 40 years, I haven’t seen a single incident of unrest that can be attributed to “I can’t get a job.”

    • The bosses stole my land? Yep.
    • The bosses aren’t paying me what I’m owed? Oh, yeah.
    • The bosses polluted the water so bad my kids are sick? Sure.
    • I can’t find a job? Nope, never.
    Well that's curious. Can't remember which Chinese leader it was. But when asked by another leader what kept him up at night. The answer came quick. Jobs.

    Now there may not be unrest you can attribute specfically to jobs but unemployment is just trouble waiting to happen. Discontent growing and problems.

    There was no problem in the last forty years because China was growing. But its that growth slowing that is uncharted territory. Who knows what might happen.

    Heard a stat that says for every 1% drop in GDP means 10 million out of work.

    “Trouble is afoot is the key point. Otherwise no need for a dictator.”

    Here’s how Chinese politics works: The power of the top man is a direct reflection of the powers of those around him.
    If he (never she) is a proxy for an elder who has the real power, like Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang and Jiang Zemin in his first term, all controversial decisions – and many mundane ones – are run by the boss before being presented to the Politburo Standing Committee.
    If he is first among equals, like Jiang Zemin post 2002, then there has to be a concerted effort by a coalition of opponents to resist whatever he wants to do. Hence, Jiang managed to retain the MAC Chair, but had to tolerate Hu Jintao as his successor because he wasn’t powerful enough to name his own man.
    If he comes into his own during a relative power vacuum, and succeeds in purging his most powerful opponents (Zhou Enlai, post Lin Biao; Deng Xiaoping post-Mao Zedong; and Xi Jinping, post-Jiang Zemin), he gets to stack the deck with allies and take China off in a new direction (if desired).

    Xi Jinping dismantled Bo Xilai’s populist power base, Zhou Yongkang’s public security power base, Jiang Zemin / Zeng Qinghong’s princelings power base, and Hu Jintao / Li Keqiang’s CYL power base. That left exactly no one in any position to resist his move to make himself immune to the (very) recent two-term limit.

    Xi Jinping didn’t get the Central Committee’s blessing to crack down. He appointed a Central Committee that would let him do what he wanted to do, just like Deng Xiaoping did. It isn’t 100% Xi's CC, but like Deng, he’ll weed out a few each year until it isn’t any kind of threat.
    Interesting, so Xi is no more authoritarian than Deng by your explanation.

    will reply to the rest later : )

  7. #7
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There is only one word that pop into any military man's mind when you mentioned those man made islands: target. A waste of defence dollars to add absolutely zero against a capbale foe. When Canadian and Australian warships routinely ignore 6 mile warnings, those islands lacked the military strength to back up Chinese claims. As for 2001, yeah, that did not stop American patrols. Only instead of a lone EP3, the Chinese are finding American F-18s in contested skies and no one is doing bumping.

    However, I do agree that Friedman is nothing more than a standard intel hack. Looking over his writing history, he's 50/50 when it comes to forecasting and 0/100 when it comes to non-popular events such as how the Syrian Civil War errupted.
    What did you make of fortress in the sea idea I posted by a japanese analyst as the motivation for those islands.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    What did you make of fortress in the sea idea I posted by a japanese analyst as the motivation for those islands.
    He's no military man. Two words come to mind. Damage control. The Chinese don't know anything about damage control. Sure, they built a runway but the bigger question is can they repair the runway? I've neither seen the manpower nor the equipment needed to do such things. In essence, you need at least an engineering battalion to do that kind of work and there is no such thing on any of those islands.

    So, all we have to do is to bomb the runways once and we don't have to come back to rebomb them because they repaired them. Never mind that, it has not occurred to them that we would also come back to just kill the engineers doing the repair.

    There's a hell of a lot more to combat operations than just runways and airplanes.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,132
    Colonel, 3 questions.

    #1. If US has bombed, and has to come back to re-bomb those runways, you mean an airstrike. But those islands have SAMs, anti-aircraft guns. So, the idea is to use the F-22? Or, you mean cruise missiles that the USN uses, to bombard those islands, from say nearby the DG.

    #2. In terms of generational capabilities, where does the Chinese stand as of today, considering everything from stealth fighters, PLAN, SAMs etc, things that can hurt the US military.

    #3. What about China's jump in AI and how it might change the gap between Chinese and US military in not so distant future? Propaganda or realistic scenario?

    DE, there is a section in BBC, called 'long reads' or something, and I came across a fairly investigative article about Bo Xilai 6/7 months back, and how his life crumbled. Bo's was a rags to riches story, and he was considering a shot at the top job. Apparently Bo (his wife) stashed money abroad (most rich Chinese do), his son IIRC was studying in a posh school in UK, his wife used some people and got a British guy murdered in a Chinese hotel. This British guy (teacher in China then became a businessman, IIRC) was responsible for moving money abroad and such stuff, and he kept dirt on Bo's wife as a raincheck, and he did use it for monetary gains . That article also talked about the many opposing factions within the CPC, and how, when it comes to choosing the Chairman, it's a dog eat dog world. In the CPC, everybody has dirt on everybody, but the use is mostly political to consolidate power. Corruption is not the reason, but an agenda to crush rival factions for power. Like selective leaks in US power structure.

    BBC's long reads are awesome.
    Last edited by Oracle; 15 Mar 19, at 09:48.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    #1. If US has bombed, and has to come back to re-bomb those runways, you mean an airstrike. But those islands have SAMs, anti-aircraft guns. So, the idea is to use the F-22? Or, you mean cruise missiles that the USN uses, to bombard those islands, from say nearby the DG.
    That would be dependent on the campaign objectives. If the OBJs are elsewhere, then soft kills to prevent these islands from interferring in the main OBJs would suffice. If it is to deny the Chinese any presence at all, then a co-ordinated attack by long range weaponry, SEAD, manned aircrafts, and if need be, a landing force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    #2. In terms of generational capabilities, where does the Chinese stand as of today, considering everything from stealth fighters, PLAN, SAMs etc, things that can hurt the US military.
    They are today where the Soviets were in the 1980s. No one is particularily impressed by their stealth aircrafts. I'm not impressed by their current re-org fiasco. They've not learned from their brigadization mistakes (trying to get a regt+ to do the job of a division), having to re-stand up their divisions. Now, they're in the mist of trying to get a div+ to do the job of an army. Pick one, regt-div-army or bde-div-corps, either works but mismashed them? You're in trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    #3. What about China's jump in AI and how it might change the gap between Chinese and US military in not so distant future? Propaganda or realistic scenario?
    No AI has ever took or held ground.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 15 Mar 19, at 07:12.

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,937
    Through archive.org, I found 550 responses to the search for “China corruption” and the data parameters 2002-10.
    So, let’s start by agreeing this wasn’t something Xi Jinping dreamed up after taking office. Anti-corruption drives are often used to go after the opposition, but that doesn’t mean there is no actual corruption, or that actual corruption isn’t a big deal. The CCP has been calling corruption a life-threatening cancer for decades.

    The CCP has had an anti-corruption body since the 1920s, under different names (Central Control Commission, Central Review Committee, Central Party Affairs Committee, and since 1949, the Central Discipline Control Commission, or DIC). The head DIC got a seat on the Politburo Standing Committee at the 12th National Party Congress in 1982. The DIC has its own central committee and hierarchy throughout the state and party structures (e.g., PLA DIC).

    When Deng Xiaoping became concerned with corruption, in the late 1980s, he demanded that Zhao Ziyang take strong action.
    He said (this is actually a well-known joke), “I don’t care how many you have to kill. Kill 1,000, or kill 10,000! It doesn’t matter!”
    Zhao said, “We don’t have to kill 1,000 or 10,000, only two.”
    Deng: “Two?”
    Zhao: “Yes, two. Your son and mine.”

    So, let’s agree that China has never had qualms about executing people for corruption.

    Here’s a Qiushi article from September 1989 on Zhao Ziyang’s failure to tackle corruption: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA348582/page/n21

    .

    By the way, just to be clear it wasn’t a PLA general that was executed. It was a party member. The fact that he was a general isn’t important. What is important is that party members cannot be tried by courts; they first have to be stripped of their party membership.

    Correction: Xi Jinping hasn’t declared himself leader for life. He has simply removed the common practice of leaders only serving two five-year terms.

    I don’t know where you got this, but it bears no relationship to reality: “For Xi to go on an anti-corruption drive means the economy isn't doing as well as it did. He's sensing warning signs and acting to ward of larger unrest.”

    And, this: “Well that's curious. Can't remember which Chinese leader it was. But when asked by another leader what kept him up at night. The answer came quick. Jobs.
    Now there may not be unrest you can attribute specfically to jobs but unemployment is just trouble waiting to happen. Discontent growing and problems
    .”

    And, this: “Heard a stat that says for every 1% drop in GDP means 10 million out of work.
    The last time China’s GDP contracted was 1976, and employment data have never been accurate.

    Interesting, so Xi is no more authoritarian than Deng by your explanation.”
    Did I say that? Deng came into his own in a relative power vacuum, as did Xi. But, Deng did so with decades of very serious and very senior leadership positions under his belt, whereas Xi had been a provincial leader.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  12. #12
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    He's no military man.
    Satoru has a PhD in Indian nuclear strategy but Abe did mention when he came to office that he would not allow the Chinese to fortify the China seas. So this fortress in the sea idea has traction at the highest level in Japan.

    This is the only coherent explanation with a strategy to date i've heard as to what the Chinese intend to do with those islands.

    Tell us more why what you find wrong with this idea.

    Maybe its impossible to achieve meaning others will interfere and prevent it.

    Two words come to mind. Damage control. The Chinese don't know anything about damage control. Sure, they built a runway but the bigger question is can they repair the runway? I've neither seen the manpower nor the equipment needed to do such things. In essence, you need at least an engineering battalion to do that kind of work and there is no such thing on any of those islands.

    So, all we have to do is to bomb the runways once and we don't have to come back to rebomb them because they repaired them. Never mind that, it has not occurred to them that we would also come back to just kill the engineers doing the repair.

    There's a hell of a lot more to combat operations than just runways and airplanes.
    If the idea is to build an exclusion zone then nobody is going to get to bomb those runaways in the first place isn't it. They are by definition out of bounds. If deterrence holds.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Mar 19, at 03:56.

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Satoru has a PhD in Indian nuclear strategy
    YOU'VE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME! A Japanese foreigner with no access to the Indian nuclear establishment, no access to class protected intel, reliant on open source materials, got a PhD by reading magazines and the internet? I could not find one single thing about any military service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    This is the only coherent explanation with a strategy to date i've heard as to what the Chinese intend to do with those islands.
    You and Satoru are overthinking this. They're fancy flag waving. Nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Tell us more why what you find wrong with this idea.
    Two words. Fresh water. Hit the desalination plants and your men are dead in 72 hours.

    In order for any of these man made things to be viable, they have to be on par with Deigo Garcia. Want to knock out DG? Go ahead, I dare you. These islands? Canadian and Australian destroyers are giving the Chinese the middle finger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    If the idea is to build an exclusion zone then nobody is going to get to bomb those runaways in the first place isn't it. They are by definition out of bounds. If deterrence holds.
    Deterrence has failed. When middle powers like Canada and Australia sails through your challenges, it makes a mockery of the claims.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 17 Mar 19, at 17:23.

  14. #14
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    YOU'VE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME! A Japanese foreigner with no access to the Indian nuclear establishment, no access to class protected intel, reliant on open source materials, got a PhD by reading magazines and the internet? I could not find one single thing about any military service.
    He does not have any military service afaik. I've looked for his Phd but it isn't available to browse.

    You and Satoru are overthinking this. They're fancy flag waving. Nothing more.
    To what end ? they've been pushing it since 2008 and it kind off cools down after that ICj ruling in favour of the Phillipines.

    Two words. Fresh water. Hit the desalination plants and your men are dead in 72 hours.

    In order for any of these man made things to be viable, they have to be on par with Deigo Garcia. Want to knock out DG? Go ahead, I dare you. These islands? Canadian and Australian destroyers are giving the Chinese the middle finger.

    Deterrence has failed. When middle powers like Canada and Australia sails through your challenges, it makes a mockery of the claims.
    That is George's claim. The intent to dominate the SCS has failed.

    See, this is not the perception though. The perception is China has already got two, maybe working on the third when the opportunity arises as they could care less about some court in the Europe.

    If you can see all this, what is the PLA thinking. I don't even know if this is the PLA or Beijing that wants to set the tone.

  15. #15
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    YOU'VE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME! A Japanese foreigner with no access to the Indian nuclear establishment, no access to class protected intel, reliant on open source materials, got a PhD by reading magazines and the internet? I could not find one single thing about any military service.
    He does not have any military service afaik. I've looked for his Phd dissertation but it isn't available to browse. I have no idea how one gets a copy of it.

    In the talk he was introduced by a Japanese admiral who Satoru considers a guru. So that's the military connection here. I found the admiral's talk interesting. Challenging the perception of China as this big monster.

    If US navy wants to big up China for the sake of budget, such a view also works for Abe to enable the SDF to operate further from shore with augmented budget. As there is this 'threat'

    You and Satoru are overthinking this. They're fancy flag waving. Nothing more.
    To what end ? domestic consumption ? a reaction to the American pivot to the east ? Some pivot. Obama runs a few FONOPS and is loud about it then stops FONOPS. They've resumed and this time they are more frequent and quiet.

    If you can see all this, what is the PLA thinking. I don't even know if this is the PLA or Beijing that came up with this whole charade as the military value appears to be zero. So its a show of sorts. Political in purpose.

    Two words. Fresh water. Hit the desalination plants and your men are dead in 72 hours.

    In order for any of these man made things to be viable, they have to be on par with Deigo Garcia. Want to knock out DG? Go ahead, I dare you. These islands? Canadian and Australian destroyers are giving the Chinese the middle finger.

    Deterrence has failed. When middle powers like Canada and Australia sails through your challenges, it makes a mockery of the claims.
    That is George's claim. The intent to dominate the SCS has failed eight years after China set out to make the China seas their seas.

    When you say have to be on par with DG what more needs to be done to make them on par ? It's not like these islands are so far off the Chinese coast they need to be entirely self-sustaining. Help isn't far away.

    The perception is China has already got two islands, maybe working on the third when the opportunity arises as they could care less about some court judgement from Europe. Once they complete the triangle is when they let their subs loose. Deterrence has failed currently maybe because it isn't set up to deter yet. They know nobody is going to war over a bunch of rocks so China gets to keep what they have. For whatever its worth.

    Kinda begs the question why is China waiting for the triangle to complete to let those subs loose. Why not do it now. How confident will others be when there are subs prowling around. Enter the area and you will either be chased out or shot.

    If they cannot create an exclusion zone now then they will never be able to do it ?
    Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Mar 19, at 20:03.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Europe’s Philosophy of Failure
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 31 Jan 08,, 15:56
  2. A failure in generalship
    By Shek in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 01 Jun 07,, 01:04
  3. Our failure in Afghanistan
    By Ray in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06 Mar 07,, 10:32
  4. Failure is not an Option
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31 Oct 05,, 14:30
  5. Failure Isn't An Option
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 07 Jul 05,, 06:04

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •