whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Oldbear83 said:
FLBear5630 said:
cowboycwr said:
FLBear5630 said:
This is not going to end well...
China tests 'wolf robot' assault force, destroys Taiwan's defenses in 10 seconds
Reading the article a few thoughts….
1. It is reported by Chinese media so of course it sounds like a smashing success
2. It didn't destroy defenses in less than 10 seconds. Rather it detects a threat, responds (shoots) and hits the target in under 10 seconds.
3. It is Chinese media so of course it is reported as a smashing success
actually it wasn't. they are bad at defense snd not combat ready. You guys ever think ahead? This is where they are going and they will get it at some point. not everything has repercussions immediately. u guys ever look at trends?
What I do is read a lot, and pay attention to History. China is very good at stealing technology and sometimes reverse engineering, but they suck all at genuine creation.
I mentioned China's abysmal attempt to develop a decent aircraft carrier. They finally got desperate enough to buy the Kuznetsov from Russia when the Russkies gave up on building a second-rate carrier, let alone a blue-water power projection force. The results are not talked about in Beijing.
China has been hungry for decades to be one of the big players, and to that end has bought or stolen every kind of strategic tool, economic as much as military. It's also telling that for all the saber-rattling, Beijing has not launched an invasion of Taiwan. Another scenario we have heard about for decades, but it somehow has not happened, not even when we had a potato in the Oval Office for all practical purposes, and Beijing knew this.
I could go on about the contradictions in China, like trying to build cutting-edge jet fighters at the same time as developing drone swarms that were supposed to make fighters obsolete. My point there is that China does not have a unified plan for their main strategy; they do not even have a single military leader in control of their forces. That is by Xi's intent, to prevent a possible rival for Politburo influence.
Ironically, Xi faced an internal crisis this summer, according to a number of people in IC, and at one point was out of public view for almost two months. It depends on who tells the story whether Xi was ducking enemies or was actually in a kind of house arrest, but almost two dozen senior Chinese military officials died during that time, some being arrested and executed, some dying from odd accidents and four from unexpected heart attacks. If nothing else. the senior military leadership in China is still getting used to their new roles.
Additional concerns about uprisings in Southwest China, a number of accidents along the Mongolian frontier, and unexpected volatility in the stock market also raise questions about China's plans and stability. This is one reason for Xi's recent deals with Putin - he needs to quiet Russian concerns in order to have free hands to work against Trump as much as he can.
There are a lot of moving parts at work, but it should be understood that China is not in control by any rational standard.
you should also know that history is a poor indicator of the future. China was bad at new ideas, the China you describe is the China of 20 to 30 years ago. They are doing pretty good at innovation recently. i see a lot of hubris on this site.
Good point. the last 200yrs of Chinese history is not representative of the whole. Would be more accurate to say they are returning to the mean.
Within that context, though, it is also true that authoritarian regimes tend to not be particularly good at innovation. Yes, they can accomplish things with great nation programs, but that's more a function of spending enough money to move needles. It's hard for dictators to encourage free thinking, experimentation, trial/error exercises in science, technology, business.....and then squelch all that when it comes to public square politics. So can China innovate? Sure. Can they keep pace with us on innovation? No. There's a reason the stealing is mostly "them from us" rather than the other way around.
Great post! This is really a big point and will play heavily into the future. IMO, a combination is key.
I bang on Trump when he does things that I believe need questioning, not necessarily changing but discussion and justification, but I do need to point out I am seeing some innovation show itself and credited to Trump's ideas. For example, the 50 year mortgage. Most of the world allows for a 50 year mortgage with generational options. That to me is a great innovation, it doesn't have to be technical, it can be process to be innovative. I am curious to see where it goes.
I actually agree with his explanation of the Ukraine situation and how it is working out. But, I had to listen to a presentation to the military to get it. He needs to explain to the General Population the why he is doing things, not just the what. IMO, communication is what, why, how, who and when. Explain those items and you are good. Funny how Op Orger training sticks with you for 40 years.
