Tag Archives: china

China 10-15 years head of U.S. in ability to deploy nuclear power, and gearing up for fusion

Leave a reply

This article from “Information Technology and Innovation Foundation”, which I have never heard of but does not raise my government propaganda hackles, says China is “China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale”. Also, “China’s innovation strengths in nuclear power pertain especially to organizational, systemic, and incremental innovation.” So, we can still invent technology here in the USA but we can’t follow through to execute and construct it at scale. Sounds about right. Plus, we have a strong headwind of fossil fuel company propaganda to overcome, which the nuclear and regulated electric utility industries do not seem able to match.

Nuclear power has to be a big part of the climate solution. It just has to, and we should have started the pipeline decades ago, but there is no time like the present and China has the right idea. There is no reason this should be threatening to the U.S. either, other than our companies’ inability to compete. We should partner with them and get this technology built for the good of the world, which is also our own good. Or if companies based in China are too much of a political hot potato, partner with Japanese and Korean companies that know how to get things built.

America’s “ambiguous” Taiwan policy

Leave a reply

This article explains the U.S. policy of being intentionally vague about defending Taiwan. It is all about maximizing deterrence. Historically, the idea was both to deter China from any attack, but also to deter Taiwan from a declaration of independence that would be likely to provoke an attack. Going forward, this article suggests arming Taiwan to the teeth and encircling China by stationing U.S. forces in Japan, the Philippines and Australia.

I don’t know – not being a foreign policy expert but not wanting war or especially nuclear war, I might focus on convincing China that the U.S. is not a threat to them as long as they do not threaten Taiwan. And keep reducing our nuclear stockpile so they don’t feel like they have to keep growing theirs, and consider a no first strike policy.

Formalizing the U.S. alliance with other countries in the region sounds a bit NATO-like, and look how well that has been working for Europe.

The Sierra Madre

Leave a reply

This is a weird story. In the South China Sea, there is a Philippines ship that ran aground on a shoal in 1999. Sailors from that country have occupied the ship ever since, and are regularly resupplied while being bombarded by the Chinese navy using things other than guns, like water cannons and lasers.

That month, the Sierra Madre ran aground at Second Thomas Shoal, a small reef in what was then disputed territory, about 120 miles off the coast of Palawan island. A second ship did the same at another shoal later that year. Beijing suspected that Manila was using the beached ships to create outposts.

Philippine officials initially played coy, saying that they meant to repair the Sierra Madre but were having trouble finding the materials, while the other ship was eventually towed away. Yet, more than two decades later, the Sierra Madre remains grounded, a rusted dieselpunk monolith interrupting an otherwise pristine swath of tropical waters. A small group of sailors crews it; they pick their way through its slightly listing steel skeleton as they monitor the area for incursions. Their rotations generally last two months but can stretch up to five. Carlos referred to these tours as a “test of sanity…”

Beijing blatantly ignores this ruling. When the Philippines delivers supplies for the sailors on board the Sierra Madre via small boats escorted by coast-guard ships, Chinese ships attempt to block them. In early August, the Chinese coast guard used water cannons to prevent Philippine boats from reaching the outpost. A second attempt later that month was successful, as was one in September, when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft flew overhead.

Atlantic

The U.S., of course, feels the need to get involved in all this. Not by being a voice of reason, but by ramping up tensions and threats of violence.

Taiwan’s 2024 election

Leave a reply

There is an important election taking place in 2024 that affects people far beyond the borders of the country where it takes place. I’m talking, of course, about Taiwan. Well, the three (?) sides don’t even agree on what the borders of the country are, so we could start there.

Far be it from me to express any opinions about the politics of Taiwan. But it is worth watching because it affects relations between Taiwan and (Peoples Republic of) China, and this potentially affects everyone. The idea of a full-frontal invasion of Taiwan has always seemed far-fetched to me. It seems more likely to me that there would be some form of subversion, election interference (like we saw BOTH the U.S. and Russia do in Ukraine), confusion about who is in charge, shadowy paramilitary forces (Russia in Ukraine), etc.

I’ve always thought Taiwan must have the best counter-intelligence in the world. It must be a bit like Cold War Germany, where the two antagonist sides basically look identical and speak the same language. Only there is a lot of economic interaction, free information flow, at least some travel, and the two sides are not as far apart culturally as, say, Cold Water era Germany and today’s North and South Korea. (In the latter case, the two sides might look and speak similarly, the comparison ends there – certainly no free flow of information, travel, and very little economic interaction, so it is hard to imagine how North Korea could place spies effectively in South Korea). So how does Taiwan manage to secure its elections and keep its government from being a nest of spies? But somehow, they seem to manage this on an ongoing basis.

1,000 nuclear weapons by 2030!

Leave a reply

The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post says China will have 1,000 nuclear weapons by 2030, an increase from a few hundred now. This is bad, in my view. It is also less than the U.S. and Russia have (5,000-6,000 each). Whatever one may think of China’s policies toward Tibet, Xinxiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, China has not invaded any sovereign UN member states without permission in recent memory (ever? there’s a good history question but I can’t think of one.) The United States and Russia have both invaded multiple sovereign states each in very recent memory (do I need to list them? Panama, Bosnia, Iraqx2, Afghanistan, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, and I’m probably forgetting some – oh, Syria, when and how the f— did the United States invade Syria without anyone noticing? I’m not counting the dozens or hundreds of countries where we have boots on the ground with the permission of sketchy governments.) So who has reasons to be afraid of whom? I’m just saying, the United States leadership could try putting themselves in another country’s shoes and ask what they might be thinking and feeling. You don’t have to agree with your opponent to try to understand them better.

Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war. I hope we can continue to make this statement for a long time to come. If we have 5,000 nuclear war heads, China has 300 (making up some round numbers here), and is threatening to build more, maybe there is some room for negotiation? Maybe they would agree to stop at 1,000 if the U.S. and Russia both agreed to reduce to 2,000. The whole world would be safer. We would have a shred of credibility when we tell other countries they don’t need nuclear weapons. This would be a clear win-win-win-(etc.) situation. Are there any courageous leaders left in our country or anywhere on Earth?

Is the U.S. encircling China?

Leave a reply

Caitlin Johnstone is not an unbiased source, but I tend to agree with her statement here.

The US empire has been surrounding China with military bases and war machinery for many years, in ways Washington would never tolerate China doing in the nations and waters surrounding the United States. There is no question that the US is the aggressor in this increasingly hostile standoff between major powers. Yet we’re all meant to be freaking out about a balloon.

Ask me to show you how the US has been aggressing against China I can show you all the well-documented ways in which the US is encircling China with weapons of war. Ask an empire apologist to show you how China is aggressing against the US and they’ll start babbling about TikTok and balloons.

These things are not equal. Maybe Americans should stop watching out for hostile foreign threats and start looking a little closer to home.

Caitlin Johnstone

Well, actually I don’t agree that we should “stop watching out for hostile foreign threats”. That is exactly what our military and intelligence agencies should be doing. Our politicians and diplomats need to be thinking about how hostile and threatening we appear to others, whether their seemingly hostile actions are in reaction to a perceived threat from us, and whether trying to be less threatening would be in the entire world’s interest.

China and Taiwan

Leave a reply

What would a China-Taiwan military conflict look like, and could it happen in 2021 or in the relatively near future? Would the U.S. necessarily get dragged in?

I don’t really trust what I read in the media about China. It’s not that I assume everything I read is outright lies, but I assume there are layers of misunderstanding and intentional bias along with facts. For one thing, we know the U.S. military-industrial complex needs enemies to continue sucking in a quarter or so of our tax payments and our government’s spending. Then there is just the general American lack of ability to see things from other peoples’ and countries’ points of view. It can help to read accounts from international sources, although they will also have biases. Anyway, this particular account is from The Diplomat, which seems to be a reputable news source from what I can tell, and the author is a Taiwanese academic. So exercise your own judgment in evaluating the source, but here is my summary:

  • China’s official stated goal is “peaceful unification”.
  • China is engaged in propaganda, disinformation, and putting pressure on other countries in the region. (I would imagine this is true of both sides, and in fact most countries in any kind of conflict.)
  • China’s goal in a military conflict would be for any conflict to be over quickly, before other countries have much chance to react.
  • China is currently engaged in what the author calls a “gray zone strategy”, in which it uses ships and aircraft to harass and threaten Taiwan without actually attacking. It might also be doing things underwater in “blind spots that Taiwan’s surveillance and reconnaissance systems fail to cover.”
  • Further escalation could be to blockade offshore islands claimed by Taiwan, and possibly occupy them.
  • The next major escalation could be stopping ship traffic to and from Taiwan, which would cut off energy supplies and trade.
  • China would likely amass a large number of troops nearby, whether or not it had immediate plans to use them. The initial goal would be to intimidate politicians in Taiwan in hopes they would agree to negotiate.
  • The Taiwan military and leadership would have to decide at this point whether to defend itself militarily, which could launch an all-out war.

This article doesn’t quite hold together for me. A protracted blockade seems like exactly the thing that would give Taiwan time to appeal internationally for help, and other countries time to decide what to do.

24 million people live on Taiwan, and they have many more people who care about them all over the world. The human cost of any military conflict would be horrific. Let’s hope none of this ever comes to pass!

Chinese government and genocide

Leave a reply

There are reports that the Chinese government is forcibly sterilizing women in detention camps.

Women who had fewer than the legally permitted limit of two children were involuntarily fitted with intrauterine contraceptives, says the report.

It also reports that some of the women said they were being coerced into receiving sterilisation surgeries.

Former camp detainees said they were given injections that stopped their periods or caused unusual bleeding consistent with the effects of birth-control drugs.

Guardian

The report goes on to say this might be genocide. I don’t understand the “might”. Let’s review the UN definition of genocide. And remember these people are either in detention camps or under heavy surveillance designed to suppress their religion, language and culture.

…genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

UN

I just don’t see the ambiguity.

I’m not against intrauterine devices by the way. They are safe, effective, and reversible. Maybe we should pop one into every girl around age 13 or so (I don’t know the minimum safe age, I’m not a doctor), then let her decide when and if to take it out as an adult. The seemingly intractable abortion debate might go away. We need an equally safe, effective, and reversible male contraceptive too.

more on internment camps in China

Leave a reply

A while ago I linked to a Der Spiegel article on surveillance and internment camps in certain provinces in China. This article in Breitbart is the first coverage I have seen of this story in any U.S. press outlet, and all the sources they link to are sources outside the U.S. The only good news is that the Der Spiegel reporters couldn’t seem to find anyone who has returned from the camps, whereas Breitbart actually has. I’m not sure exactly what Breitbart’s motive is for covering the story, but I’ll give them some credit.