# US miscalculates China military growth: study



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Well, duh.  What have I been saying?  We are going to pay a dear price for ignoring China's growing military might.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_miscalculates_China_military_growth_study_999.html



> The United States has underestimated the growth of China's military as policymakers have taken public statements at face value or failed to understand Beijing's thinking, a study said Thursday.
> 
> The report prepared for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission said the United States had a mixed record on predicting the rising power's new weaponry, including largely missing the emergence of more advanced submarines.
> 
> ...



We're idiots.  We deserve what we're going to get.  Learn to speak Chinese, morons.  Your kids will be speaking it.  By law.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2012)

The interesting thing is China said, right after the gulfwar, I think Gulf War 1, that they had miss calculated the US military strength and needed to change. They did not believe their original strategy would work of overwhelming numbers, so they started doing things differently, like growing their navy. Last I read they now feel that by 2015 will be able to defeat the USA should it ever come to that. And they did not keep that a secret either so I do not understand the surprise. As a note, historically China has never cared about expanding its borders beyond what its historical view of China, which by the way includes Tibet, Vietnam, Korea and now Taiwan based on the nationalist that went there. 

I also said in a post here on MT a few years back that the Chinese Military was much more formidable than most people thought and that China was very happy to let every other country in the world believe that their military was of no consequence. However the recent display of the Carrier buster missile has me a bit concerned as to what China is actually doing since, if again you look at this based on history, China has never flaunted its military might, China tended to keep things secret but that missile changed things, could just be sabre rattling, who knows. But they never did much of that before either

However a friend of mine recently pointed out that China likely does not want war with the US, it just wants superiority. They currently have WAY to much financial interest and connecting to us to want a war with us... I hope he is right


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> However a friend of mine recently pointed out that China likely does not want war with the US, it just wants superiority. They currently have WAY to much financial interest and connecting to us to want a war with us... I hope he is right



Let me put it this way.  If your landlord comes to your door for the rent, and you refuse to pay or haven't got the money to pay, your landlord has options, including the use of force to have you put out via eviction.  Now imagine a day in the future when the US defaults on its debts, including those to China.  Would China prefer to be in a situation where they have to eat it, or would they prefer to have some options, including being to credibly threaten us with force?

China has also been making it clear that they intend to revisit old disputes about various territory in the Pacific Rim that are in dispute; they want it.  From small islands and fishing / mineral rights to Taiwan.

And of course, China is making huge forays into Africa and South America.  Making friends with countries that we do not get along with.  North Korea basically still exists because China at least partially covers their bets; now imagine when Hugo Chavez does something very very stupid and we want to take action, but China says "Oh, no you don't," and can back it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China_–_Venezuela_relations



> People's Republic of China-Venezuela relations have seen an increasing partnership between the government of the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez (President since 1998) and the People's Republic of China. Sino-Venezuelan trade was less than $500m per year before 1999, and reached $7.5bn in 2009, making China Venezuela's second-largest trade partner,[1] and Venezuela China's biggest investment destination in Latin America. Various bilateral deals have seen China invest billions in Venezuela, and Venezuela increase exports of oil and other resources to China.



China is no different than the USA, and is behaving exactly as we would in their position.  They are increasing their influence and involvement overseas, securing mineral, oil, and other assets that they do not have domestically, and protecting those interests in a variety of ways, including militarily.

We have been complete idiots to ignore that.  People who kept playing it down and pooh-poohing China's growing might were seriously incorrect in their analysis.  This will bite us in the ***, I'm certain of that.

No, I do not think China is about to attack us; they'd damage their investment.  But when they call their notes and end up owning us, they will have the 'sheriff' at the door with them to enforce their judgment against us and take possession of the property.  Learn to speak Chinese; your kids will.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> China has also been making it clear that they intend to revisit old disputes about various territory in the Pacific Rim that are in dispute; they want it.  From small islands and fishing / mineral rights to Taiwan.



Thank you Hillary Clinton. She is the one that started the whole small Island issue by her saying the exact wrong thing in Vietnam. As for Taiwan, China is a bit more insidious there. Find out who the most powerful political party is there...now find out who their biggest funds contributor is 



Bill Mattocks said:


> And of course, China is making huge forays into Africa and South America.  Making friends with countries that we do not get along with.  North Korea basically still exists because China at least partially covers their bets; now imagine when Hugo Chavez does something very very stupid and we want to take action, but China says "Oh, no you don't," and can back it up?



Not saying the Hugo Chavez bit is not a possibility but I think there is much more to it than that and I am not so sure they would back Hugo on something like they are inclined to in Korea, even though they really do not get along with Korea or trust it much. They just don't like the fact we are that close. I give them this, when we had naval war games with japan off Korea China was upset and the US response was that they were just war games so it was no big deal. The Chinese response was, OK we will get together with Cuba and have war games in the Gulf and based on your response to us I guess the USA will not mind...I have to admit...they have a point on that one.



Bill Mattocks said:


> China is no different than the USA, and is behaving exactly as we would in their position.  They are increasing their influence and involvement overseas, securing mineral, oil, and other assets that they do not have domestically, and protecting those interests in a variety of ways, including militarily.



Well they have tried on more than one occasion to buy oil refineries only to be told no because OPEC feared that China would mess up their control and really mess up their pricing. Heck when they went to China and opened up gas stations for all the cars there China was told that the pricing would be..... and China said no it won't, you want our business you want us to stay out of oil...then the prices will be what WE tell you they will be...and they got their way.

They were the 300 pound Gorilla then and are becoming the 500 pound Gorilla now



Bill Mattocks said:


> We have been complete idiots to ignore that.  People who kept playing it down and pooh-poohing China's growing might were seriously incorrect in their analysis.  This will bite us in the ***, I'm certain of that.



No argument there and that just adds to my shock that we are shocked at all, they did not exactly keep much of this secert as they would have done in the past.



Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I do not think China is about to attack us; they'd damage their investment.  But when they call their notes and end up owning us, they will have the 'sheriff' at the door with them to enforce their judgment against us and take possession of the property.  Learn to speak Chinese; your kids will.



Agree mostly, but I am not so sure about the sheriff, that also is not in thier best finacial interests.... as for the last bit, my kids already speak Chinese


----------



## WC_lun (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill, I think you are supposing a lot of things happening that just are not likely.  Will China do some saber rattling in regards to Taiwan and possibly Tibet?  Probably.  Will they really want to get into a shooting war with the US...or even a cold war.  Not very likely, for a mulitude of reasons.  It just isn't in China's best interest, or ours.  The funny thing is, if we had refrained some needless wars ourselves, we would still have both advantage and the money to get greater advantage if need be.  I think you fear of China is a bit much.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Thank you Hillary Clinton. She is the one that started the whole small Island issue by her saying the exact wrong thing in Vietnam. As for Taiwan, China is a bit more insidious there. Find out who the most powerful political party is there...now find out who their biggest funds contributor is
> 
> Not saying the Hugo Chavez bit is not a possibility but I think there is much more to it than that and I am not so sure they would back Hugo on something like they are inclined to in Korea, even though they really do not get along with Korea or trust it much. They just don't like the fact we are that close. I give them this, when we had naval war games with japan off Korea China was upset and the US response was that they were just war games so it was no big deal. The Chinese response was, OK we will get together with Cuba and have war games in the Gulf and based on your response to us I guess the USA will not mind...I have to admit...they have a point on that one.
> 
> ...





I wish I spoke Chinese!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-4bn-drive-to-buy-Africas-mineral-wealth.html



> China's £4bn drive to buy Africa's mineral wealth
> China's modern-day "Scramble for Africa" to buy up the continent's mineral wealth enters a new phase this week.


http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/14/china-us-afghanistan-mineral-mining/



> China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches
> Although the U.S. government has spent more than $940 billion on the conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.



http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/china_gold_063020108



> AFTER buying mineral rights and backing new mines across West Africa and Latin America, the Chinese state is buying gold from a new Gold Mining project in Alaska, USA, newswires report.
> 
> The deal between state-owned China National Gold &#8211; the largest Gold Mining producer in China &#8211; and the New York/Toronto-listed Coeur d'Alene miner will see it buy and process gold concentrate from the north-west US state's Kensington site, estimated to hold 1.5 million ounces of gold reserves.
> 
> *China National Gold operates around 60 Gold Mining projects in China &#8211; now the world's No.1 producer nation* &#8211; and accounts for over a fifth of Chinese output. It also owns and operates smelting and refining plants said to be "world-class" by Coeur's director of corporate communications, Tony Ebersole.



http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/local/article/China-stakes-claim-to-S-Texas-oil-gas-858329.php



> China stakes claim to S. Texas oil, gas
> CNOOC's deal with Chesapeake Energy is the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets by a Chinese company. Chinese investment will boost South Texas drilling Slideshow: China's hunger for energy
> By Monica Hatcher
> Published 01:15 a.m., Tuesday, October 12, 2010



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37577656/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/china-reaps-benefits-iraq-war/



> China reaps benefits of Iraq war
> Five oil project have been awarded to critic of invasion
> WASIT, Iraq &#8212; Perspiration staining their orange jumpsuits, the Chinese engineers and laborers form Al-Waha Oil Co. work alongside their Iraqi counterparts under a sweltering sun readying an expanse of arid land southeast of Baghdad for infrastructure to extract and carry the viscous liquid on which Iraq's future lies: oil.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ons-as-local-industry-expands-sipri-says.html



> China's Share of Global Arms Imports Falls, Sipri Says
> By Daniel Ten Kate - Mar 18, 2012 7:00 PM ET
> 
> *China, the world&#8217;s top weapons importer* for much of the past decade, fell to fourth from second on an annual list from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as it produces more arms at home.
> ...



http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20120316/news_20120316_56_826254.htm



> China buys more US govt debt
> 
> 16-03-2012
> China has increased purchases of US government debt for the first time in half a year. Beijing bought an additional US$8-billion of debt in January, bringing its holdings to US$1.16-trillion. That made it the largest foreign creditor of the US, ahead of Japan, which held a record of just over US$1-trillion in January.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...
> 
> China is no different than the USA, and is behaving exactly as we would in their position. They are increasing their influence and involvement overseas, securing mineral, oil, and other assets that they do not have domestically, and protecting those interests in a variety of ways, including militarily.
> 
> ...



Because of things I apply to get email on, and things I attend, I get a lot of advertisements disguised as conferences and webinars.  I often get invitations to conferences or webinars on how to be sucessful in doing business in China.  Laws of both the US and China that will apply and how to apply to be more successful.  Business in China; brilliant!  They get lots of money by exporting goods.  Oh, and they get a lot of technology, not just knowhow, but actual product producing plants, at no expense.  And of course, we won't have those plants ourselves, since our deals with China will price them out of business.

No, they won't attack us any time soon.  But they will any time it suits them, such as nothing more needed, 

How can anyone think they are dumb?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I wish I spoke Chinese!



Hey, one even lives there 

An interesting thing is currently going on that should be watched as it applies to China's Middle East friends. China has a big problem with a Muslim Province (nothing new by the way) and I believe it is the same sect that most Middle East countries have supported in the past. Now there has been no official statement from any of China's Middle Eastern Friends. Now if they come out in support of the Muslims causing problems in China...then I have to wonder how long that friendship will actually last


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/04/economist-looks-at-rise-of-chinas.html



> Economist - China is rapidly modernising its armed forces is not in doubt, though there is disagreement about what the true spending figure is. China&#8217;s defence budget has almost certainly experienced double digit growth for two decades. According to SIPRI, a research institute, annual defence spending rose from over $30 billion in 2000 to almost $120 billion in 2010. SIPRI usually adds about 50% to the official figure that China gives for its defence spending, because even basic military items such as research and development are kept off budget. Including those items would imply total military spending in 2012, based on the latest announcement from Beijing, will be around $160 billion. America still spends four-and-a-half times as much on defence, but on present trends China&#8217;s defence spending could overtake America&#8217;s after 2035.



http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/04/06/2003529620



> China modernizing missile brigades
> HOT PEACEefense analysts are at odds over what is going on in Fujian Province, but satellite imagery is pointing to deployments of more modern ballistic missiles



http://www.economist.com/node/21552193



> AT A meeting of South-East Asian nations in 2010, China&#8217;s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, facing a barrage of complaints about his country&#8217;s behaviour in the region, blurted out the sort of thing polite leaders usually prefer to leave unsaid. &#8220;China is a big country,&#8221; he pointed out, &#8220;and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.&#8221; Indeed it is, and China is big not merely in terms of territory and population, but also military might. Its Communist Party is presiding over the world&#8217;s largest military build-up. And that is just a fact, too&#8212;one which the rest of the world is having to come to terms with.
> ...
> 
> But China&#8217;s real military strength increasingly lies elsewhere. *The Pentagon&#8217;s planners think China is intent on acquiring what is called in the jargon A2/AD, or &#8220;anti-access/area denial&#8221; capabilities. *The idea is to use pinpoint ground attack and anti-ship missiles, a growing fleet of modern submarines and cyber and anti-satellite weapons to destroy or disable another nation&#8217;s military assets from afar.
> ...


----------



## K-man (Apr 6, 2012)

Not to mention the South China Sea.

http://www2.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21488#


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2012)

Would China build it's military force up as much or as fast if we didn't have 700 military bases spread across the world and spend almost as much on our military as all of the rest of the world's country's combined?

The US is an aggressive empire and this is an obvious response, IMO.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Would China build it's military force up as much or as fast if we didn't have 700 military bases spread across the world and spend almost as much on our military as all of the rest of the world's country's combined?
> 
> The US is an aggressive empire and this is an obvious response, IMO.



Doesn't matter; I deal with what is, not what some think should be.  China is the threat to us, not the other way around.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Would China build it's military force up as much or as fast if we didn't have 700 military bases spread across the world and spend almost as much on our military as all of the rest of the world's country's combined?
> 
> The US is an aggressive empire and this is an obvious response, IMO.



Since we have been cutting back on our military for some time now, both in personnel and material, why would they choose these times to expand?  Doesn't seem to make sense from that point of view does it?



Bill Mattocks said:


> Doesn't matter; I deal with what is, not what some think should be. China is the threat to us, not the other way around.



And from what I keep hearing, China is moving towards what we and other modern countries have.  A military which all have the same material.  At one time, they often were supplied by manufacturing in the province they were in.  It meant they didn't all have the same (interchangeable) equipment.  Not a good way to fight a global war.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Doesn't matter; I deal with what is, not what some think should be.  China is the threat to us, not the other way around.





You don't think we're a threat to China?  Look at a map and start plotting how our military bases and actions are encircling that nation.  Ninja please...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You don't think we're a threat to China?  Look at a map and start plotting how our military bases and actions are encircling that nation.  Ninja please...



I don't care if we're a threat to China.  I live in the USA.  Screw them, yay us.  Simple stuff here.

If we're doing something wrong in the world that we can realistically set right and end the threat to ourselves, then I hope we do it.  But if we do not - and even if I agreed with you that we posed a threat to China, I don't think that will happen - then the end result is I do not care about them as much as I care about us.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Since we have been cutting back on our military for some time now, both in personnel and material, why would they choose these times to expand?  Doesn't seem to make sense from that point of view does it?



http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_chart_30.html

Even with proposed cuts increases in the future, the US military budget will continue to rise through 2017.  I suspect that future cuts will not happen, however.  

The seven top military spending countries in the world are listed below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Note the encirclement of China in 2008.  It's more complete now.

http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/08/map-of-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/




oftheherd1 said:


> And from what I keep hearing, China is moving towards what we and other modern countries have.  A military which all have the same material.  At one time, they often were supplied by manufacturing in the province they were in.  It meant they didn't all have the same (interchangeable) equipment.  Not a good way to fight a global war.



I don't think China wants to fight a global war.  It would destroy the world and it would take a century, at least, to recover.  This falls in line with a lot of the long term Chinese thinking that I've read.  That said, the US is clearly contesting for the globe right now.  Looking at the last map I posted, you can clearly see that China (and Russia) is being encircled.  The US is actively driving it out of markets in Africa and the Middle East, it's interests are clearly under attack.  I feel confident after seeing this data in my opinion that the US is the aggressor and China is defensibly building up it's military.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't care if we're a threat to China.  I live in the USA.  Screw them, yay us.  Simple stuff here.
> 
> If we're doing something wrong in the world that we can realistically set right and end the threat to ourselves, then I hope we do it.  But if we do not - and even if I agreed with you that we posed a threat to China, I don't think that will happen - then the end result is I do not care about them as much as I care about us.



The following graphic denotes the places where the US currently stations  it's military as of 2008.  This has expanded further into Asia and  Africa since then.

http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/08/map-of-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/

China is being encircled and we are a threat to it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The following graphic denotes the places where the US currently stations  it's military as of 2008.  This has expanded further into Asia and  Africa since then.
> 
> http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/08/map-of-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/
> 
> China is being encircled and we are a threat.



We are not a threat to us.  Screw them, yay us.  I am glad we're where we are.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Doesn't matter; I deal with what is, not what some think should be.  China is the threat to us, not the other way around.



That is how you see it but I believe the Chinese see it the other way around, it all depends on your perspective actually. Hell under Mao they were teaching the Chinese people that the US was going to invade them and tha tis why they built underground bunkers all over the place....one is now a mall in Beijing too

and now to all in this thread

And since I do not want to quote every single user I can tell you that what China sees, per its TV news and newspapers is the US in wars all over the place with Military bases everywhere. The Military bases were not all that much of a concern but the wars we got in recently are and the statements that have come out of DC are making Beijing get up and take notice (they view the world through thier culture just like we view it through ours). Basically the Chinese government does not understand why the USA cares about what goes on in another country, outside of the USA. Whether or not they actually see anything the USA is doing as a threat does not really matter, their military locked on it and the government is using it as an excuse to build the military up. And don't forget, or maybe you just did not know, the Chinese military downsized too and then advanced technologically and mechanically so downsizing to them does not necessarily mean we are not powerful or not a threat.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We are not a threat to us.



I beg to differ, Bill.  All of this militarism will cost US our liberty.  There is currently a thread in the study about this.

Then, there is this...

Predator drones being used in North Dakota to aid Law Enforcement.

Have American Police Become Militarized?

A Swarm of Nano Quadrotors

That buzzing sound you hear?  You will learn to fear that.  Imagine the police state that's going to be created when all of this military technology is used to extract every last penny of wealth to pay for these Imperial adventures.  

Militarism always comes home in the form of a Police State.  We'll have no freedom and the weapons created for war will eventually be turned on itself.  We are a great threat to ourselves as well as everyone else and the sooner people wake up to this...that they are NOT safe from the military industrial complex...the sooner we can have more liberty in our lives.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Screw them, yay us.  I am glad we're where we are.



Bill, et all, I have children.  I don't want them to go and fight on some imperial adventure.  I don't want them to have to pay a significant portion of their wealth and liberty because we screwed up so badly now, ran up the debt, and created monsters everywhere we went with our guns.

The people of this country need to throw the Ring of Power into the Crack of Doom before Sauron's eye (visualize it on top of the Washington Monument) turns upon them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The people of this country need to throw the Ring of Power into the Crack of Doom before Sauron's eye (visualize it on top of the Washington Monument) turns upon them.



I am not a member of the _'Blame America First'_ Brigade and never will be.  We do lots of things wrong.  I wish we did more things right.  But I live in the world we have and not the one we wish we had.  China is a growing threat today.  We deal with that.  And that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

This _'oh gosh oh gee see how awful we'_ are nonsense is going to get us apologizing to our enemies as they kill us.  I won't play that game.  You play it if it makes you feel better.

It's like the argument I had with my brother-in-law when he said that we deserved to have soldiers being killed in Afghanistan because we're not supposed to be there.  Let's make it clear; whether we are supposed to be there or not, we are there.  When a US soldier gets killed there, I am not going to blame us; period.  *Not now, not ever.*   And you can post all the links you like to how awful it all is; I'm not going to look at them.


----------



## Gemini (Apr 6, 2012)

Though I hope you're wrong, I take some of this with a grain of salt. As you, I try to focus on only facts and filter out the fabrication. Unfortunately, I have yet to read an article about their growing military might that doesn't reflect a bias one way or the other. 

Your initial article would indicate that we have been caught almost completely off guard, yet I've read articles on different aspects of this topic back to '08, which just by their existence, would indicate that probably is not accurate. Some articles indicate that the Chinese have indeed passed us in areas such as submarine technology, followed shortly after by a report that says their technology is decades behind us. Same with their supposed 5th gen. "Stealth" fighter. Who's actually seen one? To my knowledge, there's no hard evidence to support one even really exists. Navy might? Define might. I don't think it's even their intent to match us in the open waters, as much as coastal conflicts. You could come up with military strategies all day long that could support either's claim to superiority.

I'm not saying this isn't a cause for concern, or that much of the information you've provided isn't enlightening. I'm just saying I'm not ready to blow the dust out of the old bomb shelter just yet. My personal opinion is that China has a very clear long term plan that involves "adjusting" their borders, compiling assets and other less than pleasant business that will no doubt involve us at some point. But so are we. They're certainly strategically moving pieces on the chess board. But so are we. On the shorter term, I would agree with many here that recognize it's not in either ours or theirs interest to cause friction any time soon. Given the general public doesn't even know the cards in our own hand, I wouldn't count us out just yet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808704576061674166905408.html



> BEIJING&#8212;The first clear pictures of what appears to be a Chinese stealth fighter prototype have been published online, highlighting China's military buildup just days before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates heads to Beijing to try to repair defense ties.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12266973



> China stealth fighter 'copied parts from downed US jet'
> The technology behind China's J-20 stealth fighter may have come from a US plane shot down during the Kosovo war, Balkan military sources say.
> 
> Adm Davor Domazet-Loso, Croatia's military chief of staff at the time, claims Chinese agents took parts of a downed F-117 stealth jet in 1999.
> ...



http://defensetech.org/2012/04/03/china-has-a-second-j-20-stealth-fighter/



> China Has a Second J-20 Stealth Fighter
> Well, it looks like the J-20 stealth fighter we showed you yesterday is indeed China&#8217;s second stealth jet.
> The pic above shows a new serial number ending in 02 for the plane, identifying it as the second J-20. The first &#8212; unveiled in late 2010 &#8212; has the serial number of 2001 written on the nose (shown below).
> No one outside of China is certain just what these planes are designed to do. Given their size, one could infer that they are either high-speed interceptors &#8212; like the MiG-25 &#8212; or they are long-range fast strike jets like the F-111.
> ...


----------



## Gemini (Apr 6, 2012)

All these articles say pretty much the same thing as the articles I've read previously. The Chinese claim to have a stealth fighter, the J-20. Yep. There it is. I'm absolutely convinced the Chinese have a plane identified as the J-20. While clearly there is a plane, there's nothing _confirming_ in any article that it is in fact a true stealth fighter, or that it incorporates true stealth technology. Claim? Yes. Confirm? No. 

I could be wrong, but I need more than a mock up picture and an enormous boast to be convinced. It strikes me more as the Soviet claim (70's?) that their (then) new Mig-25 boasted the same capabilities as our F-15. While it appeared to be identical, performance wise it wasn't even close. I have a real hard time believing that the Chinese could simply "reverse engineer" a stealth fighter from a few parts of a first generation F-117 and match our accomplishments in the F-22.

Again, I don't want to dismiss the advances the Chinese have clearly made or the momentum they're carrying, but let's keep it real.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Gemini said:


> All these articles say pretty much the same thing as the articles I've read previously. The Chinese claim to have a stealth fighter, the J-20. Yep. There it is. I'm absolutely convinced the Chinese have a plane identified as the J-20. While clearly there is a plane, there's nothing _confirming_ in any article that it is in fact a true stealth fighter, or that it incorporates true stealth technology, or that it even flies. Claim? Yes. Confirm? No.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I need more than a mock up picture and an enormous boast to be convinced. It strikes me more as the Soviet claim (70's?) that their (then) new Mig-25 boasted the same capabilities as our F-15. While it appeared to be identical, performance wise it wasn't even close. I have a real hard time believing that the Chinese could simply "reverse engineer" a stealth fighter from a few parts of a first generation F-117 and match our accomplishments in the F-22.
> 
> Again, I don't want to dismiss the advances the Chinese have clearly made or the momentum they're carrying, but let's keep it real.



I think we have a difference in opinion over what a 'mock up' is.  This is a real plane, it really flies.  The photos prove that at least two of the planes exist.  China has planned to build many more of them; that's no secret.  The only real secrets are the timetable (which appears to be running considerably ahead of the announced schedule) and the capability.  I agree we don't know how capable these planes are.

However, you claimed there was no proof they exist at all.  They exist.

In any case, China is doing more than building a few fighter planes.  We hardly depend upon our few stealth fighters for our military might, and neither does China.

As to waiting until China proves how capable it is militarily before getting worried enough to take action, I think that kind of thinking got us Pearl Harbor.  No, I don't think China is about to attack us, I don't even think China is planning to attack us in the future;  but I do think they want to be able to confront and defeat us if they feel they have to, and that they are taking many steps in that direction as fast as they can manage it.  I think waiting until the threat is proven before taking steps to ameliorate it is stupid.


----------



## Gemini (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think we have a difference in opinion over what a 'mock up' is.  This is a real plane, it really flies.  The photos prove that at least two of the planes exist.  China has planned to build many more of them; that's no secret.  The only real secrets are the timetable (which appears to be running considerably ahead of the announced schedule) and the capability.  I agree we don't know how capable these planes are.
> 
> However, you claimed there was no proof they exist at all. They exist.


Let me clarify. The J-20 does exist. No dispute. My dispute is about _what_ it is. They claim stealth. Prove it. In other articles I've read, they've claimed it has all the capabilities of the F-22 from high speed performance to weapons systems. Yea, okay. Just press the "Easy" button and wha la! Why didn't we think of that? No proof required. You did correct me in that the plane did have its first flight recently. But that tells us what? That it's gen 5 stealth? No. Not even close.



Bill Mattocks said:


> In any case, China is doing more than building a few fighter planes.  We hardly depend upon our few stealth fighters for our military might, and neither does China.


 Agreed, but this seems to have focused on the planes. Regardless, as many of the articles you've provided have suggested, though China has drastically increased their defense spending, it's still well below ours. To your point, there are many ingredients that make up a winning strategy. Technology is a huge ingredient.



Bill Mattocks said:


> As to waiting until China proves how capable it is militarily before getting worried enough to take action, I think that kind of thinking got us Pearl Harbor.  No, I don't think China is about to attack us, I don't even think China is planning to attack us in the future;  but I do think they want to be able to confront and defeat us if they feel they have to, and that they are taking many steps in that direction as fast as they can manage it.  I think waiting until the threat is proven before taking steps to ameliorate it is stupid.


I would agree, but we're not waiting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the F-22 is scheduled to be cancelled because of the advances in the F-35. We're hardly sitting still. Maybe a wake up call is just what we needed.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2012)

Gemini said:


> Though I hope you're wrong, I take some of this with a grain of salt. As you, I try to focus on only facts and filter out the fabrication. Unfortunately, I have yet to read an article about their growing military might that doesn't reflect a bias one way or the other.
> 
> Your initial article would indicate that we have been caught almost completely off guard, yet I've read articles on different aspects of this topic back to '08, which just by their existence, would indicate that probably is not accurate.



Exactly

There is an entire book Cyber War by Robert K Knake that was published in 2010 that talks abot Chinese military build up and its view of both cyberwar and a ground war with the USA and if those who wrote that article read that book they may not have been surprised. Now if Mr Knake knew about this way back in 2010 and likely before when he was writing his book I am guessing that the US Governement knew as well. This is why I have said at least twice in this thread why I do not understand why the USA was surprised. And like I said a few years back right here on MT, the Chinese military was more powerful that many thought. And if I knew (and old broken down MAist) I am willing to bet BIG money that the US Government knew as well. 

Oh and by the way when you are talking Cyber War there are only 3 big players out there 1) America 2) Russia 3) China. In that order


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not a member of the _'Blame America First'_ Brigade and never will be...*Insert Propaganda Here*...And you can post all the links you like to how awful it all is; I'm not going to look at them.





There, I fixed that for you.  :angel:

There's no need to contest anything with China.  I think we could take a defensive posture throughout the world and trade peacefully on even footing as long as we wanted.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 7, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> ...
> 
> Oh and by the way when you are talking Cyber War there are only 3 big players out there 1) America 2) Russia 3) China. In that order



That's very interesting.  It doesn't jive with what I have been reading.  I think Russia would be first.  It appears they have already used cyber warfare in a war.  China would be second.  They have been reported as using cyber attacks as well, but not in a war.  They are probably stealing information and attempting to position themselves to destroy infrastructure and damage our own use of technology.  We may be doing things as well, that are not reported, good for us considering.  BTW, I don't think there are only 3 main players.   I wish, but I don't believe.

Everybody gets to read what they want, and form their own opinions.  I believe we are under serious threat.  If China, or even Russia with Putin, feel the same, sounds like we all need to look back at history.  Will they, or us? only time will tell.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 7, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> That's very interesting.  It doesn't jive with what I have been reading.  I think Russia would be first.  It appears they have already used cyber warfare in a war.  China would be second.  They have been reported as using cyber attacks as well, but not in a war.  They are probably stealing information and attempting to position themselves to destroy infrastructure and damage our own use of technology.  We may be doing things as well, that are not reported, good for us considering.  BTW, I don't think there are only 3 main players.   I wish, but I don't believe.
> 
> Everybody gets to read what they want, and form their own opinions.  I believe we are under serious threat.  If China, or even Russia with Putin, feel the same, sounds like we all need to look back at history.  Will they, or us? only time will tell.



Yes Russia have used it, so has China, Israelis and North Korea and I believe the US has too. The rating is not based on who is biggest dog out there not on who has used it of course it is also from 2010 and 2 years in the cyber world is a long time


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 7, 2012)

So what I'm reading in this thread is...

A) China is not really that big of a threat.
B) And we know all about it anyway.

Think about that one.  I know irony is hard to handle first thing in the morning, but try it anyway.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 7, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So what I'm reading in this thread is...
> 
> A) China is not really that big of a threat.
> B) And we know all about it anyway.
> ...



Bill if you are basing any of that on what I wrote you got it wrong, but then at times I suspect you do this intentionally to keep the thread tension going.

China is a potential threat but I am not sure China will ever take it there and the article is likely wrong as it applies to the US being taken by surprise by Chinese Military Build up...that or you actually believe that the author of Cyber War and I know more about it that the US Government does.

You are looking at the whole thing from only one side of the coin through the culture in which you grew up in, and that is normal sunce the Chinese are doing the same exact thing only from thier side of the coin and through thier culture so if you ask either side who is right they will both say they are and from thier perspective they are and sitting there telling the US they are wrong or tell China they are wrong gets us nowhere.

But regardless I doubt the US was taken by surprise by the build up, They may have been taken by surprise at the overt show Beijing has been using these days however since they never did that before.

As to China and Cyber war they, like jsut about everyone else in teh game look at cyber warfare as unrestricted warfare. However the Chinese military has extended that to since cyber warfare is unrestricted ALL warfare is unrestricted and that is a bit scary but I would not be surprised if the Russians are there as well.


----------



## Gemini (Apr 7, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So what I'm reading in this thread is...
> 
> A) China is not really that big of a threat.
> 
> ...





Xue Sheng said:


> but then at times I suspect you do this intentionally to keep the thread tension going.


 I do too, but he's very good at it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 9, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes Russia have used it, so has China, Israelis and North Korea and I believe the US has too. The rating is not based on who is biggest dog out there not on who has used it of course it is also from 2010 and 2 years in the cyber world is a long time



I agree there are others who are playing, or trying to play in the cyber warfare arena.  But I wasn't sure if what you meant above was that the rating was based on who was the biggest dog, and that we were.  I guess I would be curious what was meant by biggest: population, engagement in cyber war attacks, people engaged it cyber warfare, or effectiveness of a country's cyber warfare?  I don't know that I would put the USA in the top on any of those categories, but I would like to.



Xue Sheng said:


> ...
> 
> As to China and Cyber war they, like jsut about everyone else in teh game look at cyber warfare as unrestricted warfare. However the Chinese military has extended that to since cyber warfare is unrestricted ALL warfare is unrestricted and that is a bit scary but I would not be surprised if the Russians are there as well.



I wasn't aware either had stopped considering war to be restricted.  Of course, we did some questionable things in WWII as well, such as fire bombing.  A tenuous case might be made for it in Japan where there was a lot of cottage industry, but I'm not aware there was much if any of that in Germany.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 9, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I agree there are others who are playing, or trying to play in the cyber warfare arena.  But I wasn't sure if what you meant above was that the rating was based on who was the biggest dog, and that we were.  I guess I would be curious what was meant by biggest: population, engagement in cyber war attacks, people engaged it cyber warfare, or effectiveness of a country's cyber warfare?  I don't know that I would put the USA in the top on any of those categories, but I would like to.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware either had stopped considering war to be restricted.  Of course, we did some questionable things in WWII as well, such as fire bombing.  A tenuous case might be made for it in Japan where there was a lot of cottage industry, but I'm not aware there was much if any of that in Germany.



The biggest was meant to say mroe in control of Cyberspace, but that is not necessarily the case. That what the book said and although it was a very good bok yo ucannot forget that it was writtine by an American form an American POV.

As to unrestricted warfare I believe it was China's POV that Cyber warfare is unresstricted and thereby all warfare is now unrestricted, civilians and civilian targets are all on the list. But That is from one source, a good one, but still just one.


----------

