China 'ready for war' w/ America and Sec Hegseth Comments Evaluated \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

China 'ready for war' w/ America and Sec Hegseth Comments Evaluated

495 sats \ 41 comments \ @Cje95 6h Politics_And_Law

In March when the trade war was first starting to kick off China's representatives in America said: “If war is what the US wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight until the end.”

Is that possible though? How realistic is the treat? Some like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have said that China could take out the entire US Aircraft Carrier Fleet in 20 minutes and claim that the US consistently loses in war games against China. There is a critical issue with that though and that is the US has a massive tendency to overestimate their enemies capabilities. Look no further than Russia.

To get a better understanding of this I went diving into this over the last couple of weeks. There are a couple of people in the US military space I follow. I havent thought of them this way because they tend to just explain stuff but some might call them mil bloggers. The first one is Preston Stewart who does a great job in explaining geopolitics( war, conflict, national security) from a military perspective and the second one is Alex Hollings who is much more in the R&D side and explaining weapons systems. Both of these guys are fantastic sources who are highly regarded in the space and funny enough have been cited incorrectly by our advisories to explain how say Russia's Su-57 was a game changer the best war fighter ever made.

I continued to look at other things from both a historical context, the US has been in recent wars while China has not been in quite a while, as well as research published by reputable sources. That is where I found RAND Corporations "The Chinese Military's Doubtful Combat Readiness" report from earlier this year which had been recently updated.

What was found and the conclusion reached... well it made a ton of sense when you think about it in general.

The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) is focused on upholding CCP rule rather than preparing for war. It has prioritized political loyalty and enforcement of CCP rule over combat readiness
China's population is in a decline and cracks have begun to show in society. For example just a couple of years ago there were protests in China at banks that resulted in military deployment. Having to focus on keeping the CCP in power over actual military action erodes preparedness further.
War with the US directly faces few pros for China at this point and indirect methods like cutting off critical minerals or hacking among other methods would be much better for them.
China has not fought since 1979 so most people in the military do not have any sort of war experience

For China starting a war would be the last thing they would want. This includes even Taiwan because they are not going to be able to capture the chip manufacturing facilities intact and they have driven TSMC to build factories in the US and look to build them in Europe as well. An invasion would be extremely deadly for China due to how Taiwan has structured its porcupine defenses and the Taiwanese people have continued to vote against pro-China parties so the population would fight tooth and nail just like we have seen in Ukraine.

When you factor in the crazy corruption that has been recently uncovered and how they keep firing generals and other top defense officials the PLA doesn't have a clean and clear pecking order and the equipment they do have.... its a solid question to ask what is real and works. For now it would seem China is going to make a ton of comments but very very unlikely to act upon anything.

It was just a few weeks ago they "launched" a brand new sub.... only for it to immediately sink to the bottom of the river and become unsalvageable.

view all related items

59 sats \ 16 replies \ @Undisciplined 4h

the US has a massive tendency to overestimate their enemies capabilities.

This seems starkly at odds with the past 60 years of US military interventions.

The important fact is that both China and the US can destroy all human life on Earth. The stakes are too high for countries like this to ever have direct military conflict. The most likely outcome of such a conflict is that we all lose.

For now it would seem China is going to make a ton of comments but very very unlikely to act upon anything.

This is also my impression. Both countries know there won't be a direct military conflict, but they're willing to saber rattle and bluster, which they think makes them look tough. It actually makes them look weak, imho.

47 sats \ 12 replies \ @Cje95 OP 4h

Iraq was the 3/4th largest and one of the top militaries in the world before Operation Desert Storm. That didnt take long. Russia was another that the last 20 years we have kept on par with ourselves but look at Ukraine....

My one question about China is does Xi end up pulling a Putin and want to go out as a great leader restoring his country (taking Taiwan) and end up fumbling it all.

34 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford 3h

And Iraq was backed by the US before this. This is what I mean by central planning. Trying to manipulate the whole globe. To make into western democracy. Its absurdly arrogant.

67 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 3h

I was going to mention that, too. Even if Iraq had a large military, they were basically a US vassal state. Simultaneously losing support from and being attacked by the US was something they were wholly unprepared for.

32 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 3h

Some days man... some days its like the right hasn't learned a single lesson on the wars of our lifetimes. Being anti-war is surprisingly unpopular.

30 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 3h

On days when I'm feeling less charitable and maybe haven't prayed... I wanna say... wow, are people this naive and dumb? Why do they believe liars over and over again? But that's not fair. Most people don't pay attention. They live their lives and just want to keep a little of what they earn. They are abused and manipulated by masters in this arena.

view all 4 replies

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 OP 2h

They actually had a stupid supply of USSR defenses the air defense of theirs was all Scuds and other USSR equipment. Even though they diversified during the Iran-Iraq war during the Kuwait invasion and occupation by their own accords they had military people training Iraqi forces

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 2h

Doesn't seem to have gone much better than America training Iraqi forces.

reply on another page

39 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 4h

Maybe by body count Iraq was that high. They had nowhere near the 4th most military capacity, though.

You always bring up Ukraine as though Russia is suffering some huge defeat there. I just don't see what you're talking about. Russia swiftly took all of the territory I expected them to take and they've been holding it against a Ukraine with nearly endless NATO resources at its disposal. Maybe you just had the wrong expectation going in.

I agree that in some ways Russia was overblown. It's useful to have a big scary boogeyman and being honest about Russia having the same GDP as Italy makes them seem quite a bit less threatening. On the other hand, people constantly pushing for military escalation against Russia are significantly underblowing the threat the pose to all of us.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 3h

You can't take the statements of the time as fact. Its laughable to think they were the fourth in military capacity. And besides that, there is a MASSIVE gap between most military spending in the US and everywhere else. Let alone the actual forces and their effectiveness. And yet... the US managed to waste years and lives in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Also, don't forget that the American was manipulated into desert storm based on lies. The Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators was a lie. Hill and Knowlton came up with the pitch and the girl that testified was the daughter of a diplomat.

I was growing up during this time. That war was formative for me. Years later I learned about the way the public was manipulated. I also learned more about many other events in which the media and state deceived the masses. Ever since I've been skeptical of anything either the government or media tells me to believe. So pardon me if I don't believe the current war hawks and their stories of the end of the world.

I grew up being taught lies about the USSR. I watched the wall fall and the US screw the Russian people by manipulating their economy and politics. I remember Putin and US politicians seeming to get along. That could not be allowed to happen.

Good lord the elites are dark evil people. How @Cje95 and others work in DC is something I can't imagine. I like how Massey refers to it as Mordor. That's my view. I don't hate the my people but I hate the evil works being done in the name of the people.

37 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 4h

overestimate their enemies capabilities.

I think that statement is true. Iraq is a great example. But at the same time the US underestimates the cost of conflict to a point that I often wonder if they care at all. Victory seems like an inevitable outcome to them

So one the one hand the enemy is so dangerous we have to do something and we can and will win because we are the best. Both ideas seem strong in war hawks.

60 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 4h

Good point. I guess I usually dismiss the public statements as knowing lies to get us into a war that they think will be easy (and profitable).

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 4h

For sure, was just thinking the same thing. One has to separate the "marketing" from reality.

The Iraq war was a massive boon for those select few multi-national corps that were a part of the rubblization and rebuilding. The oil companies and various military contractors.

32 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5h

I hope you're right. I do agree that the Chinese military has little experience, and that the generals are more likely to have political skills than warfighting skills.

But damned if they wouldn't be able to outproduce us by factors of 10 or more.

30 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 4h

The Chinese military has an absence of evidence that they're competent.

The American military has evidence of an absence of competence.

27 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 OP 4h

If it is eliminating someone from the Earth the US is second to none lol. What we fail at is Nation Building. We have sucked at it since WWII and the reason we were successful in the countries after WWII was we maintained a long standing influence (out military was stationed there in large numbers)

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 4h

If it is eliminating someone from the Earth the US is second to none

In willingness, yes, but other countries are similarly able.

29 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 2h

Not sure how many are launching ninja swords at cars lmao.... Russia has us on the blant poisoning of people by far though... the US can and will touch you anywhere no matter what.... we just have a mad logistics network that is second to none.

31 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 5h

The threat of China IMO is that they are building economic relationships in the global south in ways where these nations are in debt to them. They are doing what the US has done but without military violence.

My strategy to gaurd against this is simple. Believe in free markets more than they do and return to hard money(bitcoin). This would mean massive deregulation and massive shifts in economic pull towards the US as well as increased prosperity.

It seems that a certain group in Washington in both parties thinks we have to be at war at all times. These people need to be rejected. They have been responsible for massive death and destruction. They don't beleive in liberty and always run to central planning. They overestimate centrally planned economies and underestimate the power of free trade and capitalism. These people are trying to steer Trump and seem to be getting more control. It's not good.

40 sats \ 3 replies \ @Cje95 OP 4h

We just saw Panama though tear those up and other countries rebel and push back against belt and road because China doesnt have the navel power to enforce what it wants at the end of the day.

War for better or worse is one of the best things for an economy and that has been shown throughout history. The victor ends up reaping benefits. Iraq and Syria most recently have been huge "wins" economic wise for the US. Really the only one in recent history is Vietnam that while we didnt lose militarily we lost because we left.

I dont see these people as central planning because the last 25 years it sure as hell hasnt gone to anyones plan. Bottom line is military sales are lucrative AF. From exports to a nation itself arming up it creates a lot of jobs a lot of spending and citizens typically win from that side since they are good and often high paying manufacturing and engineering jobs.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 4h

You consider Iraq and Syria successes? Economically? Really surprises me. War is not good for economic growth. You are seeming to state the broken window fallicy might be good for some economic actors but not the world as a whole nor the US.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 3h

For those not familiar with "the broken window fallacy" it is a good thing to think about.

The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen" ("Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas") to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.

The parable seeks to show how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are unseen or ignored. The belief that destruction is good for the economy is consequently known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy.

~ Parable of the broken window

The great Henry Hazlitt put it this way

It is never an advantage to have one’s plants destroyed by shells or bombs unless those plants have already become valueless or acquired a negative value by depreciation and obsolescence. ... Plants and equipment cannot be replaced by an individual (or a socialist government) unless he or it has acquired or can acquire the savings, the capital accumulation, to make the replacement. But war destroys accumulated capital. ... Complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.

~ Henry Hazlitt

Many years ago I picked up "Economics in One Lesson" and it opened up a new world to me of logically challenging many things I'd been told growing up listening to people like Rush Limbaugh and the main stream media. Limbaugh was actually correct more often than not but on many topics his positions and those of both parties were completely wrong.

One of the most popular myths I used to believe was that WW2 got us out of the depression. And from this people would say, well what we need to get the economy going is a good war.

Like tariffs the question is good for who? Yeah, if you work in certain industries and in certain countries you might profit from war. See "War Is a Racket".

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 4h

I dont see these people as central planning because the last 25 years it sure as hell hasnt gone to anyones plan.

You mistake success as evidence of the attempt. They are far more liberal than communists from the USSR era but make no mistake there has been central planning (that has failed) at work in the middle east.

29 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 6h

I really get bad vibes from Hegseth.

War hawks always paint adversaries as stronger than they really are. This happened during the cold war and I have a strong suspicion it is happening now with China.

I'm sure there are hawks in China but it seems to me that there is far more reason for China to fear US military action than the reverse. I mean just look at the last 40 years.

I'm not suggesting China is our friend but I am suggesting that just like in the past there are well connected people with a lot of incentives to make China our enemy and build it up as more dangerous than it is.

Americans need to try to view things through the lens of our supposed enemies and stop buying the propaganda that the USA is always the good guy. I mean if people think about it long enough they know that isn't true. Just look at our politics and how people view different administrations. We get so wrapped up in US politics we neglect to understand how other nations perceive the actions of the US regime.

Talk to people from other countries when you get the opportunity. Don't focus on who is right but rather I understanding what they think and why. Perceptions. It's fascinating when you do.

61 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 4h

I mean China has consistently said they would take Taiwan by force if they need to and 2027 is a huge anniversary year for them (100th year of the PLA founding). 2027 will also mark the 21st Party Congress where Xi will clearly move for a 4th term in office.

Yes the US has historically painted the advisory as stronger but that isnt always a bad thing as goals against them can be much easier accomplished and the civilian population will be happy.

The US cares about its chip supply which right now and for the next probably 5-10 years will heavily involve Taiwan. It is critical to the US economy over many other things and many other countries.

Right now the way that the US and others have positioned themselves via freedom of navigation flights and sailing ships is the most peaceful check to China that can happen.

58 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bishop 6h

Interesting. It seems talk is cheap ('we're ready to fight until the end') but actual battle readiness is not just expensive but also hard to prove.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 OP 4h

Exactly was the conclusion I reached. China has recently been sending officers to Russian front lines... not to fight but to study the war and learn

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 3h

I imagine that China is like the US in this way. There are diverse views and likely even people that are given platforms to threaten things like this. There isn't a uniform "China" even unified CCP. There are likely factions. Some favoring war, others that want to avoid it if at all possible.

Bottom line. Stay skeptical. I don't see China itching to start a war with the US. There's much to lose. Not saying it can't or won't happen but its far from unavoidable and we should be trying to avoid war. Not seek it out. War is incredibly wasteful and the plebs pay the cost on all sides. The elites get richer and more control over the masses. No respecting pleb should support the warfare state. We have too much to lose.

7 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3h

The same people that tell you China is incompetent are the same ones that still would tell you Ukraine is winning. They'll also tell you China is porked financially... and while the narrative lately is that wars only start when one side is wrong about who's going to win, there's another scenario, when a financial hail-mary is required. It would seem confrontation is inevitable, by their logic.

Even if we completely dismiss their traditional military, their 5GW asymmetric abilities have killed a million with fentanyl and extracted trillions from us economically... do we really want their sleeper cells activated and taking out our electrical substations next? Movies like "Leave the world behind" are comms letting you know what's on the table.

chip manufacturing facilities

It's a globalist test fail whenever this is still brought into the equation, its about naval power projection (breaking the island chain etc...) into the pacific from the US side, and nothing more.

The hedge on supply chain risks started a long time ago, was literally just announced the latest nvidia chips are being made in AZ.

Remember the psyop with NFL teams were flying masks and shit in on their own planes during the fake pandemic? Exposure op. The supply chain risks either net out or have already been mitigated.

act upon anything

Our treaty with the Phillipines should have this kinetic already if that's what the US wanted, in terms of Thucydides Trap, so why does China keep poking the bear?

The only comm's we're getting that there might not be a confrontation is the alleged rapport between Trump and Xi and whatever they hatched up in the Forbidden City during his first term.

There's a lot of confounding things going on, the fog of war is real, but the "lol their submarine sunk" is the lowest IQ case against take I've seen outside of The Atlantic.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 2h

China has won the trade war. Trumps reactionary tariffs admit this. The war is almost certain to be primarily an economic one even if Iran and Russia are already Chinese proxies waging military campaigns against the US and its wider interests. The war is for control of the global financial system. China is building its alternative to SWIFT/USD trade payments. mBridge has been built to enable digital trade payments between BRICS and other nations where they have already implemented or are about to implement domestic CBDC protocols. China, India, Brazil and Thailand already have functioning domestic digital payments protocols operated via their central banks. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia, Iran and others are near implementation of domestic CBDC payments capability. Chinas mBridge proposes the trade payments protocol for the 21st century and if implemented it displaces USD/SWIFT. At that point any speculation over the relative potency of US military force becomes more or less academic as the US empire is today utterly dependent upon its USD/SWIFT based financial monetary system hegemony to fund its military. Today USA spends more paying rent on its debt than it does on its military. Again Trumps tariffs war sought to address this by boosting government revenue and decreasing US consumption of imports. But Trumps desperate strategy failed and USTs faced imminent collapse. China has won the trade war and its assumption of dominance over trade payments and ultimately over time global financial systems is in progress. The USA must first address its imminent debt UST threat of insolvency and consequent loss of USD/SWIFT hegemony before anything else...because loss of USD hegemony triggers loss of all subsequent military and strategic abilities.

7 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 OP 2h

I was wondering when you would show up and tell me the US was falling apart. BRICS is cool and all but what is the one common currency they are going to use? China devalues the Yen in front of people and if you think Iran and Saudi will agree to use each others your crazy. That is why the USD is sticking around there isnt a replacement. Sure throw it up on a blockchain is cool but it doesnt matter when the countries wont accept the others and do not want to use someone elses.

Also I think Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia, etc. would beg to differ on US military arms. Its all fun and games till a hellfire or ATACMS lands on your head.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 2h

Russia is now dependent upon China to arrange and settle its oil and gas trade- China now buys most of Russias oil and gas output. In return China fascilitates trade payments for Russia and supplies manufactured goods which sustain the Russian economy. Likewise Iran. China has demonstrated the ability to provision such essential trade payments even where the respondent nation has been sanctioned by the US. China as a member of the IMF reserve currency board is both inside the USD/SWIFT system and essential to its viability, and building its own new digital alternative. mBridge.

The Yuan is more stable in value than the USD. USD denominated trade only makes sense as long as USD/SWIFT has a stranglehold on trade payments- and that stranglehold is facing an imminent challenge namely- mBridge. India and Russia remain closely aligned militarily and economically. They both trade with China. Tensions between nations willnot always prevent them from maximising their trade position advantage and the strength of the Chinese economy is now such that all nations must trade with them or suffer significant economic disadvantage.

The mBridge protocol while led by China enables bilateral trade payments- so on it India and Russia could make payments denominated in their respective currencies, or if they chose Yuan...if it is more stable in value, which it is.

So energy exports from Russia and Iran to China are already denominated in Yuan-simply because both Russia and Iran need the Chinese manufactured goods those Yuan access..and becasue China can and does enable the trade payments. Saudi Arabia joining both BRICS and mBridge signals they also have an interest in having access to an alternative to the USD/SWIFT, sanctions prone hegemony. The US/USD/SWIFT hegemony is facing imminent collapse. Such a collapse would make most assumed military response options become swiftly redundant. Trumps actions acknowledge this reality even if some of his public facing his underlings and supporters are not ready to confront it...the US public however deserves to know the truth as and when it is ready to.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 1h

Russia is now dependent upon China to arrange and settle its oil and gas trade- China now buys most of Russias oil and gas output. In return China fascilitates trade payments for Russia and supplies manufactured goods which sustain the Russian economy.

India would like a word.

The Yuan is more stable in value than the USD.

Kids this is a textbook example of why we stay away from crack.... this makes zero since as China literally has two Yuan currencies

So energy exports from Russia and Iran to China are already denominated in Yuan-simply because both Russia and Iran need the Chinese manufactured goods those Yuan access.

Ah yes this is why both Russia and Iran are just thriving right?!?! Drowning in goods? I mean butter is only $12 a stick in Russia but thats 110% a thriving economy

imminent collapse.

When I die and it still hasnt collapsed I will def think back to this

I am not sure what you are smoking.... but damn it must be some wild shit.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 1h

One thing that I think the CCP so a good job at is giving the impression that they are strong and powerful. During the Beijing Olympics they built walls around crumbling houses to give visitors a better impression. I found this type of thing everywhere in China. It's all aesthetics. Superficial.

There's a Sun Zu quote: (which I'll probably butcher here) When weak, appear strong. When strong, appear weak.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 33m

Omg remember the smoke stack during the winter one?! 😂😂😂

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 2h

Looking at the history of the conflict that now exists between China and the west/USA, China originally rejected the British invitation to enter a trade relationship. Britain wanted access to Chinas produce, such as tea and porcelain but the Chinese Emperor rejected the British entreaties and responded saying China did not want or need anything from the British. The British response was to attack militarily and to smuggle Opium into Shanghai. The superior British military force subjugated Chinas army and China was forced into paying reparations for defending its own territory from British military attack. As part of these 'reparations' the British demanded Hong Kong as a territory and subsequently based their banking there from which they were enabled to force trade upon China. Subsequently most other western imperial nations demanded and gained territory and concessions from the humiliated Chinese, and China was thrown into a century of humiliation, ending with the vicious Japanese invasion and 1937 massacre of Nanqing and the subsequent enslavement of most of China to the Japanese WW2 efforts. China thus understands very well how trade and military force are related and has primarily responded by building its mercantile power and playing by the rules the west has set. Now that the west, primarily USA has lost the trade war it imposed, the west wants to change the rules of engagement, at at this point the threat of military force is a real one. China is in a much stronger position than it was in 1840 and its understanding of the nature of western imperialism, and how to respond to it, is also more developed.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 1h

Interesting how you almost exclusively talk about.... Britain and China when that isn't anywhere near the target none of the people I mentioned bring up the British it soley came from you.

The U.S. played a crucial role in supporting China, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt considering China one of the "four policemen" alongside the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union, envisioning it as a cornerstone of a new world order post-war. However, China faced significant challenges due to its limited resources and the ongoing civil war between the Chinese Nationalist Party and the Communist Party.

Lets also not forget about the American Government financing American Volunteer Groups like the Flying Tigers and how the USSR occupied part of China, excluded the Nationalists from the Yalta Conference and then took a ton of equipment and resources before leaving allowing Mao to easily take over China however, leave it missing a ton of its own stuff. Cause the Chinese and Russians have suchhhhhhhh a great history together right? Just like the land Russia continues to exert control over that it never gave back after WWII?