Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

[Double Edge]

For the first time since 2013 the value of venture investments into India exceeded that into China.

You still with us Oracle ?




Source : WION Gravitas

[Double Edge]

China Builds Missile Targets Shaped Like U.S. Aircraft Carrier, Destroyers in Remote Desert | USNI | Nov 07 2021

Made me think of this scene

[Double Edge]

Beyond “Conventional Wisdom”: Evaluating The PLA’s South China Sea Bases In Operational Context | WOTR | Mar 17 2020

An important article by J. Michael Dahm that merits discussion. Contrasting the American industrial age warfare elements of firepower & maneuver vs. the Chinese idea of achieving information superiority.

Information superiority is not about hacking social media, influencing populations, or higher-level information operations focused on manipulating the narrative surrounding a conflict. The concept of information power is about battlespace awareness and the ability to preserve information for one’s own weapon systems while simultaneously denying battlespace information to one’s adversary. What one sees or doesn't see and hears or doesn't hear in the cockpit, on the bridge of a ship, or in a command center.

Chinese concepts are more analogous to the former U.S. command and control warfare doctrine than to present-day U.S. doctrine for “Joint Operations in the Information Environment.”

U.S. strategies seemingly seek to defeat PLA anti-access/area denial weapons systems but do not necessarily address what the PLA sees as its own operational center-of-gravity — its information power. The PLA’s requirement for diverse and redundant communications and reconnaissance to prevail in a high-end confrontation against an enemy’s system-of-systems is reflected in the clearly evident, but often overlooked, redundant and resilient information power capabilities present on the PLA’s South China Sea outposts.

There's a couple of writeups, one by Greg Polling advocating the misunderstanding of Chinese concepts and a counter by Oli Pekka arguing the conventional wisdom still stands. This debate goes back and forth. Now I have a way to characterise them.

Old school vs. New school

Industrial age vs. Information age

New age vs. Experience

Maneuver warfare is a complex subject and there are very few people who can explain it well. Went completely over my head listening to a few speakers.

It's age old and i'd imagine its supporters would scoff at the idea it was going to be replaced any time soon by anything else or that it was inferior in any way against pretty much anything else.

Every time i hear about some new idea the PLA is putting into place the usual counter is maneuver warfare

The panacea for EVERY tactical dilemma is maneuver warfare !!!

The American (and Indian for that matter) narrative is so pervasive i sometimes wonder whether we're missing important aspects of Chinese military thought.

So I become overly influenced by the 'conventional wisdom' as it gets re-iterated numerous times by retired mil commentators.

Dahm's piece tells us what to look for over what we missed. This matters because the PLA will replicate this defense in depth or by layers architecture in other areas beyond.

To hit Hainan you need to take out those islands first. Those islands allow the PLAN to operate 700 miles from the Chinese mainland.

The SCS gives them a proving ground to try out their ideas.

Whether the PLA’s information-centric operational concepts can win out over American concepts centered on firepower and maneuver is worthy of debate.

If these islands allow the PLA to project further than was expected i don't see why they would not be taken out early in a conflict. They are clearly an information enabler. So we understand better what the purpose is but the handling part i don't think changes. Useful for grey zone operations and nothing more.

In an actual conflict they're vulnerable because they can't be adequately defended. Mike Dahm's response is here

It would take a lot of missiles to disable those islands. They're also big so things can be repositioned and then intel is needed to retarget.

As to what to do about those islands in the SCS, he says to fight strategy with strategy rather than stuff with stuff.

If the Chinese are so dependent on information superiority then we make them doubt that. Either the opponent has better info or the Chinese can't rely on their own sources. We do this by integrating communication, protecting networking and increasing maritime domain awareness between allies and partners.

While often reviled by China-watchers as cliché, the analogy that China is playing the game of Go, or Weiqi, while the United States is playing chess is nevertheless an apt analogy for how both sides conceptualize military strategy.

Increasingly i sense China watchers without a military background don't get security. Only good for reading tea leaves.

Michael Dahm is the first speaker at this CSIS meeting

He along with another speaker are ex-naval intel. Same as Captain James Fanell and tend to be critical of current US reading of the situation.

[Officer of Engineers]

China Builds Missile Targets Shaped Like U.S. Aircraft Carrier, Destroyers in Remote Desert | USNI | Nov 07 2021

Made me think of this scene

Well certainly put Chinese strategic thought culture front and centre. You have to ask why the Chinese went through all this effort when a floating barge is cheaper, easier, and much, much better at simulating a foreign warship.

Could it be that the Chinese wants you to think that they can hit a carrier with zero live tests? Also note - there is ZERO freaking hits on any of those toy models.

It's a freaking bluff. Why go through all this expense and effort when all you have to do is to sink a cheap barge? Is it because you can't sink a cheap barge?

[Double Edge]

Well certainly put Chinese strategic thought culture front and centre.

According to Dahm they believe more in information superiority than maneuver warfare.

They want us to think any of our ships that transit the region are as good as sitting ducks ?

This makes no sense to me maybe it does to higher ups in the military.

You have to ask why the Chinese went through all this effort when a floating barge is cheaper, easier, and much, much better at simulating a foreign warship.

Right, at least that barge will move in two dimensions instead of just on a rail track.

They want us to see it. If they want us to see it they want us looking away from something they don't want us to see.

How do you do that in the age of commercial satellite imagery. What was once the exclusive domain of intel agencies is now available to any one off the shelf.

That's it. They can keep on playing us because they know every one is watching. Use our media to do their propaganda.

Could it be that the Chinese wants you to think that they can hit a carrier with zero live tests? Also note - there is ZERO freaking hits on any of those toy models.

Put up in 2019 and they've yet to get around to target practice. It took a good two years before being made public.

It's a freaking bluff. Why go through all this expense and effort when all you have to do is to sink a cheap barge? Is it because you can't sink a cheap barge?

Yes, for now they can't dot it. They'd have shown us a demonstration otherwise. It can still come.

[Double Edge]

Was listening to a book discussion that Clive Hamilton gave at the McDonald Laurier Institute in Ottawa. Three years ago for his book Silent Invasion that describes the influence operations that China conducted in Australia. The talk was well received and the Canadians figured they were about 5 years away from where Australia was in 2018 (when this talk was given) in terms of Chinese influence.

03:29 The Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, its long-term objective is to absorb Australia into its sphere of influence and to shift Australia away from its alliance with the United States and that objective was decided in 2004 when the Central Committee of the CCP resolved to include Australia in what's known as China's "overall periphery" that is to regard it like countries that have a land border with China and therefore needing to be controlled.

The CCP views Australia is the weak link in the American alliance and as a European nation located in Asia a major prize in its push for strategic dominance in the asia-pacific region

How the CCP concludes Australia is the weak link in 2004 when the Aussies are already deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq is beyond me (!)

If they were looking for a "weak link" in those days, i'd nominate Spain for bailing out of GWOT in 2003


Some interesting points about Canada came up in the Q&A session.

This from Michel Juneau-Katsuya, former CSIS Officer and Manager. Interesting character.

08:06 Australia gave itself a law specifically against foreign interference and espionage. In Canada we have two little articles in a Reform Act that passed in 2001 that says, don't do espionage because this is not nice and if you do it we're not going to be happy. Big F,, deal

Let's be serious. When was last time you heard people talking about espionage issues in Canada ?? We estimate annually we're losing between 100 to 120 billion dollars due to espionage activities in Canada and I'm not even referring to the useful idiots in the age of influence manipulating the government because the government and the Chinese government understand that in our democracy every five years we need to re-elect people.

Does Canada have a law against foreign interference yet ?

44:45 In England every year MI6 and MI5 organise a conference where they invite all the leaders of various industries, the big CEOs and executives to come to a conference where they talk about the lessons they learn or the new things they discovered in counterintelligence in the form of of espionage activities. They share that with the industry.

When CSIS wanted to do something like this, SIRC, the security and intelligence committee came and slapped their finger saying you're not allowed to do that. Your sole purpose is to inform the government. What ?!? CSIS is not allowed to inform the Canadian public about what's going on ?? they are the experts !!!

Now they rely on a guy like me although I'm not tied to them anymore but it's because I take the initiative to talk about it because of my background but if I wasn't talking about it which dude would talk about it. Nobody! because I'm the one with the background and that's the problem we have.

It's speak no evil, see no evil. We need to be capable to warn everybody so the people have a reflex. They develop a reflex.

So if an American, a South American, a Brazilian, German, French or Russian or Chinese company comes and start to flirt with you but for the wrong purposes. Wrong date (!)

Your intel guys cannot freely inform the public about threats



A interesting observation and question from some one in the audience

Q:52:16 my name is Chungsen Leung. I've been doing business in China since 1980 and I'm also a former Canadian parliamentarian. My observation has been we're all seduced by a consumer market of 1.5 billion people. I mean every country in the world is. In 40 years of doing business in China, I find Australian, UK, US second tier staff, people who advise their government are a lot more astute than their Canadian counterparts.

Canadians are trained a lot in China, very few of them have received training in Taiwan, Hong Kong. So therefore the mindset is a very closed mindset. Only China centric

if you look at the Germans or French or the UK or Australia their foreign service staff are well trained in a very broad area of of the Greater China and also in Japan too even Korea.

So I'd like to hear your comments about how we can improve our foreign service. How people, scholars like yourself can raise awareness and alert Canadian politicians of their tone-deafness, naivety and borderline stupidity ?



A: Two points I see coming from the government having worked for them for decades. In general the federal government has been reluctant in developing expertise.

So people will will work for a while on the Chinese, then will be moved to the Russian desk and then probably if they did well they will move to the Washington desk after.

This expertise is not communicated from one to another so you have to reinvent or read, study everything all the time. So that's one of the big problems.

And if somebody has developed a certain expertise, he or she will probably get shot down very quickly because when we ring the alarm and talking in 1998 my unit we talked about exactly this silent invasion, about Lee Kai-sheng, Stanley Ho, Robert Kuok investing big time and again gaining super influence.

That Lee kai-shing owns six percent of downtown Vancouver and about 8 percent of downtown Toronto. You think this does not influence your local government ? Big-time !!

He owned 41% of Husky Oil, this is the kind of influence that this book is talking about. That has been well documented, that has been happening here so and if you're a federal government employee and you bring those things forward. You can be sure this is totally a career stopper because it's not going to be the flavor of the month. Not what they want to hear.

Just look at the way we go. New government comes in, we change the name of our foreign office. Global Affairs something now like what's with that name. It's so arranged but hey that's unfortunately the problem. We don't want to go and acquire the expertise that we need to be able to

Think this goes some way to explaining why the PLA was getting Artic training in Canada and the Canadian govt did not see any issues with it

Michel is on the ball when he says anyone who DOES make public the threats Canada is facing is going to get shot down. He's seen it happen at the top level.

Your intel chief in 2010 gave an interview where he spoke about foreign influence and there was an outcry and demands he step down because he created "a climate of suspicion and paranoia"

He's talking about all of govt approach back in 2010. Sorely needed when one hand does not know what the other is doing and even resents it.

This is a difficult problem for any free country. Both Canada and Australia facing the same problem.

The Aussies got a lucky break.

Around 6-7 journalists wrote about foriegn influence in 2016 in the three news networks they have. Fairfax, Murdoch & ABC.

The govt cooperated by passing foreign interference legislation. Then the ASIO guys endorsed it.

Mass awareness created without controversy.

All of govt approach equals success.

[Officer of Engineers]

According to Dahm they believe more in information superiority than maneuver warfare.

Information superiority is cheap. Manuever war is expensive. Battle management even more expensive.

They want us to think any of our ships that transit the region are as good as sitting ducks ?

This makes no sense to me maybe it does to higher ups in the military.

It's deterrence theory. They want to deter you from enforcing the region because they can't actually stop you from enforcing the region. Remember, deterrence is not warfighting. Never mind deterrence is failing big time as the USN is laughing their asses off for this budget boost.

[Double Edge]

I think i understand much better now why the Indian govt has been keeping a close eye on foreign funding to NGO's since 2015. The spin at the time was India is clamping down on civil society.

What India was doing was clamping down on the freedom of foreign entities to interfere in Indian affairs. India does not have foreign interference legislation like the Aussies do. And any attempts to create one is going to lead to the usual protests. A fight GOI is not interested in getting into. Preferring to address the issue obliquely.

Australia can get away with foreign interference legislation on the grounds of national security but if India does it we get slammed for being a fascist state.

That's just how it works

Also we face a broader spectrum problem. Anyone can send money to MP's and hold up key legislation. There are more actors involved as well.

CCP, Jihadis and certain western entities.

FCRA: Govt restricts funding by 10 foreign agencies to Indian NGOs | HT | Sept 16 2021

[Double Edge]

Information superiority is cheap. Manuever war is expensive. Battle management even more expensive.

Americans do what they have the resources for. Chinese are looking for the best bang for the buck.

Dahm begins his piece like this

Imagine entering a dark room. You can neither see nor hear, but your adversary can see and hear everything. Your opponent lives in the room and knows its every contour. For you, there are only a few ways in … or out. You may believe that you have the edge in technology and training. Allies and partners offer their support. But in the confines of the room, you cannot determine where to point your weapons and you are unable to communicate with your friends. In the dark, your foe watches and waits, preparing to pick off your team one-by-one from unexpected directions. If you reveal your position, or call for help, those in the shadows will hear.

This is the nightmare that U.S. military planners face in the South China Sea.

I'm thinking of the USS Connecticut that hit something recently. They had to operate silently and chances are you make a mistake and bump into something.

If you cannot communicate as well or less than them you are vulnerable eventually. If you realise this then their deterrence works.

It's defensive. The Americans are on the offense here. They can project power. All the Chinese can do is enforce a no go zone and hope it works.

Chinese got to study American tactics. We've not seen this information superiority at play yet. Untested. Sounds plausible up to a point.

It's deterrence theory. They want to deter you from enforcing the region because they can't actually stop you from enforcing the region. Remember, deterrence is not warfighting. Never mind deterrence is failing big time as the USN is laughing their asses off for this budget boost.

It has to be credible to work. I don't think its tenable. It's good for harassing fishermen, mining hydrocarbons in disputed territory and grabbing other people's territory.

It's an illusion.

[Double Edge]

Mike PIlsbury thinks the US is doing nothing about China.

Do the alliances count for anything ? Trump's tariffs are still in place.

Biden has not reversed anything here. The complaint is Biden has not added to them. So far anyway.

His basis is China bills that have not gone anywhere in govt.

China Task force report lists 400 recommendations. Members made bills out of those recommendation. Nothing has passed. There aren't enough sponsors.

Just 30% of Americans consider China an adversary. The rest aren't on board.

Only a Pearl Harbour like event or sinking a carrier will do it and the Chinese are too smart to initiate direct conflict

American Congress is not excited about the China threat. They will make the right noises but are unwilling to pass any legislation.

Pelosi tells the Dems not to join the Task force.


I would say this is because Biden is about to meet with XJP this week.

This dialog is going to take months and if it delivers something well and good. If not then the Dems will join the china Task force and put the squeeze on.

It is too early into this administration to say they are doing nothing.

[Officer of Engineers]

Dahm begins his piece like this

Dahm is a fucking idiot. The US owns the room, not China. The US owned it since WWII after they chased the Japanese all the way back from Pearl. What's more, the US owned all the entrances in and out of all Asian harbours since the Cold War. How do you think the Americans were able to collect every Chinese accoustic signature since 1949?

Has China been able to collect a single American submarine accoustic signature? I extremely doubt it given how freaking noisy their subs are. We can hear them 10s of miles away and that gives us an edge to avoid them.

[Albany Rifles]

Dahm is a fucking idiot. The US owns the room, not China. The US owned it since WWII after they chased the Japanese all the way back from Pearl. What's more, the US owned all the entrances in and out of all Asian harbours since the Cold War. How do you think the Americans were able to collect every Chinese accoustic signature since 1949?

Has China been able to collect a single American submarine accoustic signature? I extremely doubt it given how freaking noisy their subs are. We can hear them 10s of miles away and that gives us an edge to avoid them.

And did the same with Soviet submarines. In fact I recall we notified them of one of their subs was in trouble due to the signature our subs heard. I think I read/saw about it in Submarines: Sharks of Steel

[Double Edge]

Dahm is a fucking idiot. The US owns the room, not China. The US owned it since WWII after they chased the Japanese all the way back from Pearl. What's more, the US owned all the entrances in and out of all Asian harbours since the Cold War. How do you think the Americans were able to collect every Chinese accoustic signature since 1949?

Has China been able to collect a single American submarine accoustic signature? I extremely doubt it given how freaking noisy their subs are. We can hear them 10s of miles away and that gives us an edge to avoid them.

Dahm acknowledges US has the edge under the sea.

What about above ? this is the part i don't know how to figure with Chinese and their information superiority vs. American maneuver

If their method is cheaper it means more redundancy and resilience to attack.

Those islands according to Dahm work like radio relays. Not quite what we expect when the media goes on about them being militarised. I think he's right on their purpose.

A Type 55 Destroyer has more weapons than any of those islands. They aren't going to be attacking much, they will need to be defended by PLAN.

Dahm makes out that the Chinese don't think having less firepower in this instance is a problem.

Which means have to figure out why

It could be the purpose of those islands is just for grey zone but people seem to be putting in an awful lot of effort to show they're viable even in a conflict.

[Double Edge]

The subs you're referring to are the conventional diesel ones which are noisy. They've got some AIP's too which are quieter.

US submarines are better than China's 'by far,' but in a war that may not matter | Business Insider | Sept 12 2018

China has also built 17 Yuan-class diesel-electric, air-independent-powered attack subs over the past two decades, a total expected to rise to 20 by 2020, according to the Pentagon.

"The Yuan AIP submarine is very good," said Bryan Clark, a former US Navy submarine officer and strategist.

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments

"For the duration of a deployment that it might normally take, which is two or three weeks, where it can stay on its AIP plant and never have to come up and snorkel, they're very good," Clark added. "That's a big concern, I think, for US and Japanese policymakers."

Yuan-class boats can threaten surface forces with both torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

For US anti-submarine-warfare practitioners in the western Pacific, Clark said, "it's the Yuan they generally point to as being their target of concern, because it does offer this ability to attack US ships and [is] hard to track and there may be few opportunities to engage it."

There are windows of opportunity

Despite concerns China's current diesel-electric subs inspire, they have liabilities.

As quiet as they are, they are still not as quiet as a US nuclear-powered submarine operating in its quietest mode. They don't have the same endurance as US subs and need to surface periodically. China's sub crews also lack the depth of experience of their American counterparts.

"Chinese submarines are not ... as good as the US submarines, by far," Clark said.

China's subs have made excursions into the Indian Ocean and done anti-piracy operations in waters off East Africa, but they mostly operate around the first island chain, which refers to major islands west of the East Asian mainland and encompasses the East and South China Seas.

Chinese subs also venture into the Philippine Sea, where they could strike at US ships, Clark said.

Much of the first island chain is within range of Chinese land-based planes and missiles, which are linchpins in Beijing's anti-access/area denial strategy. It's in that area where the US and its partners could see their advantages thwarted.

"Now the Chinese have the advantage of numbers, because they have a large number of submarines that can operate, and they've only got a small area in which they need to conduct operations," Clark said.

China could "flood the zone" with subs good enough to "maybe overwhelm US and Japanese [anti-submarine warfare] capabilities."

The anti-submarine-warfare capabilities of the US and its partners may also be constrained.

US subs would likely be tasked with a range of missions, like land attacks or surveillance, rather than focusing on attacking Chinese subs, leaving much of the submarine-hunting to surface and air forces - exposing them to Chinese planes and missiles.

"The stuff we use for ASW is the stuff that's most vulnerable to the Chinese anti-access approach, and you're doing it close proximity to China, so you could get stuck and not be able to engage their submarines before they get out," Clark said.

Numbers and location also give China a potential edge in a "gray-zone" conflict, or a confrontation that stops short of open combat, for which US Navy leadership has said the service needs to prepare.

There's those magic words. Grey Zone

China's subs present "a challenge [US officials] see as, 'What if we get into one of these gray-zone confrontations with China, and China decides to start sortieing their submarines through the first island chain and get them out to open ocean a little bit so they're harder to contain,'" Clark said.

"If we're in a gray-zone situation, we can't just shoot them, and we don't necessarily have the capacity to track all of them, so now you've got these unlocated Yuans roaming around the Philippine Sea, then you may end up with a situation where if you decide to try to escalate, you've got worry about these Yuans and their ability to launch cruise missiles at your ships," Clark added.

"As the home team, essentially, China's got the ability to control the tempo and the intensity," he said.

The US and its partners have already encountered such tactics.

Beijing often deploys its coast guard to enforce its expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea (which an international court has rejected) and has built artificial islands containing military outposts to bolster its position.

When those coast guard ships encounter US Navy ships, China points to the US as the aggressor.

In the waters off the Chinese coast and around those man-made islands, "they do a lot of that because they're on their home turf and protected by their land-based missiles and sensors," Clark said. "Because of that, they can sort of ramp [the intensity] up and ramp it down ... as they desire."

The circumstances of a potential conflict may give Chinese subs an edge, but it won't change their technical capability, the shortcomings of which may be revealed in a protracted fight.

"Can the Chinese submarines - like the Yuans that have limited time on their AIP plants - can they do something before they start to run out of propellant, oxygen, and start having to snorkel?" Clark said.

"So there's a little bit of a time dimension to it," he added. "If the US and Japan can wait out the Chinese, then their Yuans have to start snorkeling or pulling into port ... that might make them more vulnerable."

and there you have it.

They're going to pull the same crap in the sea as they do in the mountains with us and in the air with Taiwan.

We know those islands help with grey zone.

[Officer of Engineers]

Dahm acknowledges US has the edge under the sea.

What about above ? this is the part i don't know how to figure with Chinese and their information superiority vs. American maneuver

If their method is cheaper it means more redundancy and resilience to attack.

Those islands according to Dahm work like radio relays. Not quite what we expect when the media goes on about them being militarised. I think he's right on their purpose.

A Type 55 Destroyer has more weapons than any of those islands. They aren't going to be attacking much, they will need to be defended by PLAN.

Dahm makes out that the Chinese don't think having less firepower in this instance is a problem.

Which means have to figure out why

It could be the purpose of those islands is just for grey zone but people seem to be putting in an awful lot of effort to show they're viable even in a conflict.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot. All this talk about information superiority. A whole bunch of new speak to explain the reccee battle - Find the enemy. Blind the enemy. Kill the enemy. That's your information superiority right there in plain terms. Find the enemy. Blind the enemy. It doesn't have to get anymore complicated than that. All this talk about hacking and viruses are just methods to blind the enemy but you still have to find the enemy first. Guess what? We don't have to find the enemy. They're sitting on nice pretty islands that don't move which makes blinding them a whole lot easier.

And this still comes back to the US owning the whole shabang. Dahm is still a fucking idiot. No way in hell could the China Navy even approach the USN in owing the waters. The Pacific Ocean and especially the SCS are American Lakes, not Chinese waters. It has been that way since WWII and no new comer China could even currently hope to claim to own the room.