Japan, Koreas, China and Taiwan regional issues

[ngatimozart]

China just doesn't take Japan seriously

If the CCP / PRC doesn't take Japan seriously then it is showing more stupidity than I thought it was possible for even Xi Jinping to conjour up. I have always thought that Xi Jinping was smarter than Donald Trump, but it appears that I may be in error. Somehow I don't believe that Xi Jinping isn't familiar with the Sun Tzu ping fa and he and the PLA generals wouldn't write Japan off so easily. The Japanese Self Defence Force isn't something to be sneezed at AND there is a large United States military presence in and around Japan, including nuclear capable forces.

Every 4 years or so, China has added a Japan-sized economy. And China believes that this will continue

How about you provide a reliable source to back up that claim. The rules of this Forum require it. So time to provide some evidence.

 

[Todjaeger]

How about you provide a reliable source to back up that claim. The rules of this Forum require it. So time to provide some evidence.

I too would be interested in the info sources for this claim, as data from the IMF does not appear to support it.

Not to mention the apparent assumptions (which are question IMO) that both the planned/intended economic growth can be sustained, or that the claimed % of GDP for defence is accurate.

 

[AndrewS]

If the CCP / PRC doesn't take Japan seriously then it is showing more stupidity than I thought it was possible for even Xi Jinping to conjour up. I have always thought that Xi Jinping was smarter than Donald Trump, but it appears that I may be in error. Somehow I don't believe that Xi Jinping isn't familiar with the Sun Tzu ping fa and he and the PLA generals wouldn't write Japan off so easily. The Japanese Self Defence Force isn't something to be sneezed at AND there is a large United States military presence in and around Japan, including nuclear capable forces.

How about you provide a reliable source to back up that claim. The rules of this Forum require it. So time to provide some evidence.

World Bank datasets

GDP, PPP (current international $) - Japan, China | Data

GDP, PPP (current international $) - Japan, China from The World Bank: Data

data.worldbank.org

China GDP (PPP)
2019 $23.4 Trillion
2015 $17.8 Trillion
2011 $13.8 Trillion

In the space of 8 years, Chinese GDP has increased by $10 Trillion. That is roughly 2 Japans

Plus it is not Xi Jinping that doesn't take Japan that seriously. It's most of the Chinese bureaucracy and think tanks

 

[AndrewS]

I too would be interested in the info sources for this claim, as data from the IMF does not appear to support it.

Not to mention the apparent assumptions (which are question IMO) that both the planned/intended economic growth can be sustained, or that the claimed % of GDP for defence is accurate.

Well, the Chinese government is targeting 6% growth , so you'll have to take it up with them

And if you rerun Chinese growth at only 4% per year, you end up with China adding a Japan-sized economy every 5 years instead of every 4 years

Hence I stand by my statement that China adds a Japan-sized economy every 4 years or so

---

SIPRI have a comprehensive dataset which goes back decades with their estimate of 1.7% for Chinese military spending

 

[Redlands18]

…Australian government white papers also have China with an economy twice the size of the USA in the 2030-2035 timeframe…

If China maintains military spending at a modest 1.7% of GDP, that works out as $850 Billion per year…

China just doesn't take Japan seriously

Every 4 years or so, China has added a Japan-sized economy. And China believes that this will continue

Lets not forget something about reporting Defence spending, you are reliant on the Nation reporting the actual true Defence spending and while most liberal Democratic Nations are required by law to do so.

Can you say the same for the PRC?

 

[MrConservative]

Yep China's debt fuelled GDP rise. Around 30% of which has created an oversupplied over valued property market - which seems to have crested the top of the bell curve. Falling production outputs, export markets now switching to ethical supply chains, energy supply imbalances.

 

[swerve]

World Bank datasets

GDP, PPP (current international $) - Japan, China | Data

GDP, PPP (current international $) - Japan, China from The World Bank: Data

data.worldbank.org

China GDP (PPP)
2019 $23.4 Trillion
2015 $17.8 Trillion
2011 $13.8 Trillion

In the space of 8 years, Chinese GDP has increased by $10 Trillion. That is roughly 2 Japans

Plus it is not Xi Jinping that doesn't take Japan that seriously. It's most of the Chinese bureaucracy and think tanks

The World Bank uses Chinese official data (because it pretty much has to, China being a member) which is generally agreed to overstate GDP growth. Last time I checked it still had internal inconsistencies, such as the sum of provincial products being significantly bigger than national GDP. Doesn't inspire confidence.

One of the signs of overstatement is that the 2011 & 2017 PPP calculations (the two most recent, & the first really reliable ones - & carried out with Chinese government support & participation) are inconsistent with official GDP growth. The 2017 figure is lower than projection forward from 2011 at official growth rates. It is, however, close to what one gets by projecting forward the 2011 PPP GDP by the alternative growth rates given by The Conference Board in its Total Economy Database - https://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/total-economy-database-productivity/

Look at that & you'll see that when a GDP growth rate which is consistent with other Chinese official data is used, it takes about twice as long for China to add a Japan-sized economy as you say.

Note that among other inconsistencies, Chinese official statistics give GDP per head in 1952 (projected back from the present at official growth rates) which is incompatible with biological survival. Given that it's universally agreed that China's GDP was significantly higher then than in the last years of the civil war, one wonders how the miracle of over 500 million people still being alive was accomplished.

N.B. GDP PPP for years since 2017 is obtained by projecting the 2017 baseline forward with GDP growth figures. The Conference Board's alternative growth rates are based on those of the eminent Professor Harry (Xiaoying) Wu - https://imera.univ-amu.fr/en/system/files/cv_harry_x_wu.pdf

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Numerous J-6s have been seen on satellite imagery of two airbases in China’s coastal provinces opposite Taiwan.

Reports emerged from 2013 that China had converted the type into unmanned aircraft, for use either as a decoy to overwhelm adversary air defences by their sheer numbers or as a rudimentary unmanned combat aircraft.

Looking to the place these unmanned J-6s are based, its obvious what the purpose of these J-6s will be.

China shows off drones recycled from Soviet-era fighter jets

China has for the first time showed off retired 1950s era fighter jets that have been converted to unmanned drones, with satellite photos of two of its east coast bases near Taiwan showing a large number of the jets on site.

www.defensenews.com

 

[ngatimozart]

Numerous J-6s have been seen on satellite imagery of two airbases in China’s coastal provinces opposite Taiwan.

Reports emerged from 2013 that China had converted the type into unmanned aircraft, for use either as a decoy to overwhelm adversary air defences by their sheer numbers or as a rudimentary unmanned combat aircraft.

Looking to the place these unmanned J-6s are based, its obvious what the purpose of these J-6s will be.

China shows off drones recycled from Soviet-era fighter jets

China has for the first time showed off retired 1950s era fighter jets that have been converted to unmanned drones, with satellite photos of two of its east coast bases near Taiwan showing a large number of the jets on site.

www.defensenews.com

Yep even a blind fulla could see that. I read it this arvo and the thought crossed my mind of kamikaze missions.

 

[Ananda]

Indonesia becomes China’s biggest coal supplier amid power crisis

Cargoes of coking, thermal and brown coal imported into China from Indonesia surpassed 21 million tonnes in September, from just over 17 million tonnes in August.

amp.scmp.com

China energy crisis, part of it coming from previous banned of Australian coals. Indonesia become benefitors at this moment on this CCP policies, eventough some of Indonesian coals are lower qualities then Australian ones.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Indonesia becomes China’s biggest coal supplier amid power crisis

Cargoes of coking, thermal and brown coal imported into China from Indonesia surpassed 21 million tonnes in September, from just over 17 million tonnes in August.

amp.scmp.com

China energy crisis, part of it coming from previous banned of Australian coals. Indonesia become benefitors at this moment on this CCP policies, eventough some of Indonesian coals are lower qualities then Australian ones.

117 new coal-fired powerplants are planned to be build in Indonesia, that's a lot.

Sadly the demand for electrical power will only increase this century, and all other alternatives are or too expensive (like diesel), limited available (water powered and heat from the Earth) or not yet available (like nuclear power).

And Indonesia is not the only one with this problem, some other countries like India will also add more coal plants and also other countries are still forced to use it. The Netherlands for example will not be able anymore to use its own gas. Environment freaks are not only against coal, but also against nuclear energy and even windturbines.

So becoming climate-neutral in 2030 like some people are demanding, is actually just an illusion.

 

[Ananda]

becoming climate-neutral in 2030 like some people are demanding, is actually just an illusion.

2030 Target is highly illusions, and those eco crazy demands also part of problem that creates this energy crisis right now. It's just that non fossil fuel alternative has not been able to produce enough and with Economics of Coal and Gas. The only viable with long term economics comparable to Gas and Coals is Nuclear.

Environment freaks are not only against coal, but also against nuclear energy and even windturbines.

Even with 2050 target, the only alternative is Nuclear power for replacing enough capacity on Coal and Gas. Long term Economics of Nuclear is also still competitive enough against Coal. Those ecocrazy freaks demand on shutting down some of Europe Nuclear plants also the reasons why Europe can't break the dependencies with fossil fuels like Gas even maintaining some of the coals.

How hypocrite and stupid some of those eco freaks turn out to be. Shown actually those eco parties are not thinking long term consequences on having carbon neutral demand with availability and economics of what their perceive as eco friendly alternative. That's why I hate those Eco NGO and Eco Parties. Good thing Asia still not infested enough by those eco crazy yet.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

2030 Target is highly illusions, and those eco crazy demands also part of problem that creates this energy crisis right now. It's just that non fossil fuel alternative has not been able to produce enough and with Economics of Coal and Gas. The only viable with long term economics comparable to Gas and Coals is Nuclear.



Even with 2050 target, the only alternative is Nuclear power for replacing enough capacity on Coal and Gas. Long term Economics of Nuclear is also still competitive enough against Coal. Those ecocrazy freaks demand on shutting down some of Europe Nuclear plants also the reasons why Europe can't break the dependencies with fossil fuels like Gas even maintaining some of the coals.

How hypocrite and stupid some of those eco freaks turn out to be. Shown actually those eco parties are not thinking long term consequences on having carbon neutral demand with availability and economics of what their perceive as eco friendly alternative. That's why I hate those Eco NGO and Eco Parties. Good thing Asia still not infested enough by those eco crazy yet.

Caring about nature and environment is important, and yes we are polluting the Earth while changing our climate and exterminate countless of animal and plant spieces. But the problem is that those fanatic eco-freaks are against everything.

If we obey to their demands we end up living in a way before the industrial revolution, but even then we need to use fires to survive, and that will consume the wood of the forests!

Another example of hypocrisy is that the way of protesting of these eco-extremists are often not really environmental friendly at all.
These guys here, they are protesting against the CO2-emission of the jetfighters based at Volkel Airbase, but how many spray cans full of chemical fluorescent paint did they use just to 'decorate' their tools?

Acht demonstranten aangehouden bij vliegbasis Volkel, groeven gat onder hek

De verdachten maakten deel uit van een groep demonstranten die een protest hielden bij de vliegbasis. De actiegroep vreest dat volgend jaar een nieuwe generatie kernbommen naar Nederland komt.

nos.nl

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

President Joe Biden said the US would defend Taiwan if China attacked, in an apparent departure from a long-held policy.
But a White House spokesman later told some US media outlets that his remarks did not signify a change in policy.

Its still a remarkable statement by an american president.
We just wait for an official comment from the other side of the Taiwan Strait.

Biden says US will defend Taiwan if China attacks

His comments are an apparent departure from the long-held US position of "strategic ambiguity".

www.bbc.com

 

[OPSSG]

President Joe Biden said the US would defend Taiwan if China attacked, in an apparent departure from a long-held policy.

But a White House spokesman later told some US media outlets that his remarks did not signify a change in policy.

Its still a remarkable statement by an american president.
We just wait for an official comment from the other side of the Taiwan Strait.

Biden says US will defend Taiwan if China attacks

His comments are an apparent departure from the long-held US position of "strategic ambiguity".

www.bbc.com

1. The US has long practised "strategic ambiguity" when it comes to the thorny issue of defending Taiwan. That said:

• American thinking on Taiwan is often a mess, and that is among the people that are even thinking. Within the US Navy it is occurring at all levels. We have silly admirals saying Chinese ships can’t fight — that is no longer true. Many Americans have lost touch with reality of China’s real at sea capability relative to American naval decline. It’s a scary time, if you are in the JMSDF.
• The leadership of the JMSDF are strident critics of CCP, but they are never be so stupid, racist or strategically blind to consciously underestimate the PLA/N/AF, as a combined arms force that uses AI.
• I don't understand why some in the American Navy continues to make this same mistake. Don’t just look at the fighters or destroyers, rather, to understand current JMSDF capability, it must be located as a competing C4 system for the Blue force to be used against the Red force. The Chinese are already using of AI to process information gathered by domain awareness sensors.

2. Back in the past, silly George Bush II, did the same thing and the State Department walked back the comments too. As a status quo power, Team Biden will walk back the comments, slowly. It is a pity the Biden is so lacking in seriousness with regard to Taiwan (and China more broadly). This silly approach is underwritten by hubris.

3. Despite what I said earlier, in a way, President Xi Jinping has over played his hand. At that time US arms sales to Taiwan was intentionally limited; but the American arms sales tap is on FULL OPEN, now.

 

[STURM]

We have silly admirals saying Chinese ships can’t fight — that is no longer true.

There is a tendency on the part of many to adopt the attitude that the Chinse are improving and are good but still not ''good enough''. That ultimately; no matter how good the Chinese get; the Americans and their allies will always be 'better' and that superior training and greater experience will prove decisive. These assumptions really remain to be seen. In private, I'm sure that there is a lot of concern and anxiety about what the Chinese are really capable of.

I would argue that the Chinese have a far better understanding of what makes the Americans tick rather than vice versa. The Chinse also have a far better understanding of the limitations of what military action can and can't accomplish in the wider scope of strategic geo political things. It should be the other way around; given that America has experts and think tanks which specialise in practically almost every field known to mankind and have been in the 'great power' business far longer than China.

…This silly approach is underwritten by hubris.

A lot of what the Americans have done [in common with other powers] has been coloured by hubris; not just the policy with China but with the Middle East, Russia and Afghanistan.

 

[swerve]

2030 Target is highly illusions, and those eco crazy demands also part of problem that creates this energy crisis right now. It's just that non fossil fuel alternative has not been able to produce enough and with Economics of Coal and Gas. The only viable with long term economics comparable to Gas and Coals is Nuclear.

Solar & wind are competitive financially now, after massive falls in price (improved technology, economies of scale) in recent years, but neither is able to provide a base load. Nuclear's good at that. The chief problems with it are reckless builders & operators who build in the wrong places or take crazy risks when running (Chernobyl, Fukushima), & waste disposal. Gas is good at stop-start power on demand. Coal's the dirtiest in almost every way.

If we don't stop pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, whether by burning coal, oil & gas for power, clearing forests (especially when it's done by burning), or draining peat bogs & letting them catch fire, it'll cost our grandchildren a lot more than the cost of switching away fron fossil fuels. A lot of superb farmland will be lost, along with much very valuable coastal infrastructure, & other farmland will be degraded.

 

[John Fedup]

Can’t speak for other jurisdictions but bureaucrats in our nuclear safety agencies (federal and provincial) constantly changed regulations during plant construction that resulted in huge cost overruns and significant delays. The end result was CANDU reactors were too expensive for Canadian utilities but successful sales continued in other countries. Ontario still gets 60% of its electricity from CANDU reactors built 40 years ago (some have been retuned). Huge investments were made in solar and wind when the technology was expensive along with subsidized production contracts by the worst provincial government ever. A real black eye for renewables. Solar for the southern USA and Australia is an excellent choice but for Canada, a waste of good farmland in many instances. Regardless, fossil fuels have to go ASAP. Wonder what happened to LM’s compact fusion reactor that was supposed to arrive by now?

 

[76mmGuns]

Well, Putin's invasion of Ukraine has many wondering about China/Xi and Taiwan. Fortunately, the geography between China and Taiwan is quite different. Unless China wants to simply bombard Taiwan into the stone age with a massive missile barrage, it'll need to continue it's non stop naval build up for at least 1-2 decades in order to invade. But tempering this, is the fact that Xi, like Putin, are life long dictators in their late 60's. Still young enough to enjoy the fruits of their "legacy" for 1-2 decades after their conquests. So Xi may still follow Putin's steps by late 2020's. Never say never

 

[swerve]

...Solar for the southern USA and Australia is an excellent choice but for Canada, a waste of good farmland in many instances. Regardless, fossil fuels have to go ASAP.

There are easy wins such as rooftop solar. Can't replace other sources but it's not shading any crops or using land that would have any other uses.