How China plans for naval dominance

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC; Android or iOS:
💥 con.onelink.me...
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
Beijing is transforming from a continental power to a #sea power. Its #strategy is naval dominance in the first island chain by #2030 and naval supremacy in the second island chain by #2050.
Support CaspianReport
✔ KZbin membership ► / @caspianreport
✔ Patreon ► / caspianreport
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/...
✔ Merchandise ►teespring.com/...
Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9
Join us on Facebook or Twitter
✔ Twitter ► / caspianreport
✔ Facebook ► / caspianreport
✔ My equipment and editing software ► www.amazon.com...
Watch CaspianReport in other languages
✔ Spanish ► / historiageopol%c3%adtica
✔ Russian ► / thecuriouscat

[@CaspianReport]

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC; Android or iOS: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/ChineseNavy Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!

[@user-op8fg3ny3j]

* WW3 grows nears * Military games: * *STONKS* *

[@lifeunderthestarstv]

News channels / education channels should not be taking sponsorships like this. Lowers the quality and prestige of the channel.

[@131alexa]

Thanks for putting the ad first this time instead of interrupting the flow of the video 👍

[@TheJimbop]

I wish would would cover the capabilities of their ships. The quality of the Chinese aircraft carriers is nothing like that of the US. They are steam powered while the US has nuclear powered carriers, and it isn't like the US isn't expanding the capabilities of its fleet. Also you have to look at the strategic partnerships that the US is pursing with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Australia to hem China in.

[@user-unknownorknown]

If China wins...they will not be a good master. US is the only good master in the history of the world.

[@bf3knifer]

its really important to remember that this new aircraft carrier is not nuclear powered, considering the massive energy requirements of an AC this is a major limitation, just consider the elec power required for the aircraft launchers for a start. it will have to have a refueler shadowing it whenever it goes on a long voyage

[@igorlukyan206]

Diesel motors go brrrr

[@Rob_F8F]

The Type 003 is essentially CV-4 for the Chinese: a self-designed and self-built carrier that will be more of training and working bugs out then for operations only. The Type 004 that is building will be nuclear powered as I expect all of China's future super carrier sized ships will be.

[@dan10400]

@@igorlukyan206 Apparently there are extra diesel motors just to power that electromagnetic launch system they 'developed'.

[@AlbertCloete]

@@igorlukyan206 For as long as the diesel lasts. Then it goes ...

[@teemuvesala9575]

This is because its primarily designed to operate near mainland China, not far away other side of the world like American carriers.

[@nvlarcht]

As a Naval Archiect, Gross Tonnage is a measure of internal space in a vessel, it has nothing to do with how heavy it is. Of course it still gives an idea about how big a navy is. But gross tonnage is a more relevant thing for Cargo vessels, rather than Naval ones. Displacement tonnage would be a better indicator of the size of a navy.

[@spartancrown]

Another more relevant factor is armament. Currently the US vastly outnumbered China on shipboard missiles. China is working fast with the 055 to take up the slack.

[@nvlarcht]

@@spartancrown Of course. I was just talking from a tonnage perspective. It is very much a gross oversimplification without looking at any power multipliers.

[@drunkrtard]

Is that why he says it's of the same class as US carriers despite the graph appearing to show it being less than half the size? That part confused me, I know nothing on the subject.

[@agenttruth8096]

China's plan: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rn29oquhrtGfoMk

[@zalix512]

China is like John Wayne Gacy, they have connections with the Democratic Party and are willing to do more than the normal person to get what they want.

[@charlesferdinand422]

The official name of the Chinese Navy is People's Liberation Army Navy, so I guess that would make the Chinese Marine Corps, the People's Liberation Army Navy Army.

[@Tinil0]

Was their actual name of "People's Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps" not funny enough already?

[@Tinil0]

Actually, assuming their marines had some pilots (Ours do, but the Chinese air force is ran through the army) those could be considered the People's Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

[@isunlloaoll]

And if their marines operate aircrafts like the US marines, then it'll be People's liberation army navy marines air force.

[@AlexGarcia-ze4yg]

What would happen if Japan declared to China, "Remember when we whooped y'all ass in Nanking that time? Yeah, we 'bout to whoop that ass again right now, BYOTCHES!!!" In that exact vernacular, just like a hip hop diss. Would the Chinese prepare for pre emotive attack or would they just laugh?

[@agenttruth8096]

China's plan: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rn29oquhrtGfoMk

[@noaccount4]

One thing to note is you can build the ships quick, but building up the institutional experience amongst ratings and officers is something that cannot be rushed - especially true for a country which has no experience with blue water operations

[@wifi_soldier5076]

@Рig 🅥 no one cares.

[@Finkaisar]

Exactly, everyone underestimates usa military capabilities. They have so much experience in blue water operations since ww2 with carries and missles. China can never match that

[@Life-Is-A-Meme-t5h]

@@Finkaisar yep. Not to mention, they have experienced wars for possibly 150 years since the civil war.

[@mikehunt5637]

The US Navy would wipe China and its navy off the map. It's not even a close comparison. Their sailors are total shit. Give Libya China's navy and guess what, Libya would suck because their sailors suck. It's like sports. You play like you train. The US navy/military trains like it is going to play. China? Not so much.

[@royxeph_arcanex]

That's correct. We're talking here about a country that is extremely hesitant with providing its officers and commanders in all ranks with the necessary liberties they need to operate well. This is most strongly seen in their air force, where their pilots lack the independence needed to handle many of the unplanned complications an operation can hold. No plan survives first contact with the enemy, and without authorizing commanders to a certain degree of operational independence - an army can't adapt to a rapidly-changing battlefield like we see in modern warfare

[@the-quintessenz]

I wonder if naval power will still have the same impact as it has today. Drones, hypersonic missiles, space stations etc are increasingly sophisticated to pose a real threat to the projection power of surface ships of all sizes. Investing in space tech and long-range drones looks to me like having a far better long-term price value than building fleet eating aircraft carrier groups.

[@the-quintessenz]

Why am I unable to see the response? F*cking censorshit!

[@notme943]

In term of pure destructiveness, drones and missiles may be more cost effective but I think ships still have a role in patrolling and power projection. Also China wants to capture the islands, they need to have personale on site.

[@TJRex01]

For area denial what you’re saying makes sense, but there is still an advantage to having ships to “fly the flag”, at least in this decade.

[@l1city]

The Navy is the backbone of any military force. Once shit hits the fan, things start falling apart, whoever has the strongest navy, wins the war.

[@Poctyk]

>drones Will just replace planes as things launched from carrier. If anything it strengthens carriers as drones usually have massive endurance. >very fast missile It's just a very fast missile, with huge limitations.

[@Cyber1zed]

China's about to send up a second module for it's brand new space station. I'd be interested in a video about the current state of space geopolitics.

[@isunlloaoll]

Nothing that is revolutionary or worrying for the US. Especially considering how SpaceX is already rendering everyone else irrelevant, and when starship and starlink 2.0 succeed then it's a brand new age of space exploration.

[@vyros.3234]

Not great at the moment with Russia using the ISS for propaganda videos and previously threatening to drop it on Europe.

[@kingace6186]

Oh yeah, the new Space Race is maney. China & India look like they're aiming to dominate low Earth Orbit. NASA, JAXA, ESA & private corporations look like they're aiming to dominate Trans-Lunar Injections and Lunar exploration. ....Meanwhile, RosComos is grinding to a halt.

[@michaelf7093]

America is nearly done with the space station phase of exploration, and will soon be moving on to interplanetary space. The US government no longer takes the lead in most space activity, retaining for itself deep space probes, the training of astronauts, and of course national security. The rest is left for the private sector. Soon, there will be a return to the Moon, and also a Mars landing.

[@kingace6186]

@@michaelf7093 I will say that the US government is pretty interested in further funding NASA and projecting hard power w/the Space Force. And it's not just America, the West & JAXA are also doing their part w/ projects like Artemis and James Webb. Although, I do agree that, in the 21st century, the US's aspirations for space travel will be focused on deep space & not just on Earth's Orbit. Also, I do think there is a conscious understanding shared by all space programs that a constantly inhabited space station is key to any future aspirations. Yet, other than China's all-in investment, not enough nations are willing to invest in a Space Station as much as they invest in satellites.

[@calexico66]

The main issue with using missiles as area denying weapons is that you will need target acquisition capabilities that allow it to be effective. One thing is to bomb a fixed base, quite another a moving target or one that's under the sea. I gather that in a conflict situation the first thing to be hindered is any type of long range sensors or tracking capabilities.

[@infernosgaming8942]

Well and it’s safe saying 2/10 will not lock on the target, 2/10 will get lost in chaff and EW, and 4-6/10 will get destroyed by CIWS. Missiles are unreliable, and only one thing has to go wrong to bungle the whole operation. Hence the emphasis on swarm tactics.

[@LuddyVonBeat]

Spy satellites, space war

[@davidbryden7904]

China had been developing/acquiring modern guidance systems for some time. They have a space program, so it would follow that they are as capable as any other global power. Maybe not the same quantity, but similar quality.

[@michaelweening5171]

Hypersonic...

[@ramk2443]

China is already world leader in commercial drones , they are even building their own space station

[@Kilometoru]

I feel like this video doesn't really acknowledge how dependent China is on Oil coming from the Persian Gulf through. Which can eadiky be blocked by India, Australia, or even Singapore if the situation is right. Which would end up choking the majoroty of China's fuel supply

[@Shadeem]

someone has to buy russian oil

[@protorhinocerator142]

This. A war with China would be over before it starts. China can't beat India for this reason but wants to challenge the USA? Nobody would even need to send any troops to China. Cut off the oil supply and win. China locks up and dies. Then it's a matter of how sorry you feel for them and whether you want to be generous and let them have some oil to survive. And what's that worth to you, China? What do we get in return for allowing you to live another day? These are the questions.

[@thetruthhurts9750]

India can't block China from anything. Singapore are ethnic Chinese and would never try to harm the motherland. Plus China can always get more oil and gas from Russia. Western propaganda overstated the importance of China getting oil from Middle East. By the way, what would happen to those countries that can't sell oil to China?

[@captainbroady]

@@thetruthhurts9750 nope. Singapore is an independent country of its own, we don't bow down to any other countries. And to add, it is a misconception that since Singapore is majority Chinese, we would always side with China. That is not always the case. In fact, we openly side with the US militarily, but are close to China economically. We allow American ships and planes to use our bases for refuel and resupply, and all of our combat jets are manufactured in the United States. Also, China can't magically get more gas and oil from Russia. The entire infrastructure network currently doesn't exist for China to get most of its oil and gas from Russia. And as for India, Indian navy is dominant in the Indian Ocean. They can and will blockade Chinese cargo ships from passing through if they want to.

[@thetruthhurts9750]

@@captainbroady China can send a single Type 055 destroyer to clear an Indian blockade. As for Singapore. If you think those ethnic Han Chinese will help US stop the rise of China you are obviously naive. Not even the US government could be stupid enough to believe that.

[@richdobbs6595]

The problem I see with the Chinese naval strategy is that there is no effective way to ensure passage of international trade along contested sea routes. Convoys don't work against modern nuclear submarines. Every significant oil tanker or bulk carrier can be located from space and taken out by cruise missiles launched from B-52s traveling halfway around the world. How do you project power in the Indian Ocean once India starts using the same sea denial systems that China is using?

[@forgemaster6120]

Thats the fun part. You cant lol

[@vinozarazzi5633]

There is no plan to keep global trade running. Sorry to say.

[@headoverheels88]

Yeah. That's why I constantly rolled my eyes the entire time. This year, the US/UK announced we were transferring nuclear submarine tech to the Australians for exactly this reason as a fail safe. The problem with a lot in this video IMO is each subsequent phase of expansion are assumptions on top of assumptions. The new Chinese aircraft carrier hasn't even been completed yet, and people expect to learn the institutional knowledge of American carrier systems that we've accrued over almost a century? Come on.

[@sng2260]

@@forgemaster6120 the problem we don't have the systems right now. But in 10 years we will have hypersonic missile. Agni prime series are already tested. India will place those missiles in Andaman Islands. Agni prime can reciprocate Df21. So in 10 years China will come to claim the 4 th and 5 th island chain but that's not going to be easy. India changing its game. India is in a similar position as China of 2000s. So India will gradually develop much more capable systems in near future. At least 3 Aircraft carriers, 30 submarines. China can not dominate Indian Ocean.

[@covenant_mog05]

That's the thing the US is banking on. The QUAD is meant to have other countries closer to china do the work. China cant really go prancing around in the pacific when India who shares a land border with it might get ideas. The US is surrounded by ocean and shares a land border with mostly docile allies. Meanwhile China has done everything it can to antagonize its closest neighbors, neighbors who have historically bared their teeth against the CCP before. Countries like Taiwan, Japan and yes even the Philippines are well known to have historically good relations with the US, the fact the China still hasn't firmly gotten any of these countries in their sphere of influence means its going to be long time before they can say they control the first island chain unchallenged.

[@randomcommenteronyoutube1055]

I think these videos about China's hypothetical conquests consistently miss many things: 1. The nations around China aren't standing still; they're arming, too. Japan and South Korea in particular have outstanding militaries and navies. 2. The US has binding and strong alliances with players surrounding China. 3. China is surrounded on all sides by neutral, frenemy, or enemy states. It has no true allies. 4. China is dependent on imports of raw goods; any war will jeopardize free flow of supplies of food, energy, industrial materials, and basic components of consumer goods. 5. China is also dependent on imports of many finished goods, like everyone else in the 21st century. End of free flow here, too. The Chinese will screw themselves over waaaaaay harder than the Russians have this year if they ever attempt conquest in the island chains. If they start a land war, they'll have to plow through Russia, India, North Korea, and/or SE Asian states that are all armed to the teeth.

[@returnnull3476]

It would be nice getting a video on the Japanese navy.

[@mokomdane4297]

I believe the idea here is that China is seeking to put a big stick in it's diplomatic hands with it's military development.

[@_method_5877]

Russia and North Korea are not at odds with China and I doubt China is going to start a land war

[@FirstOfficerDelta]

The video is not about conquests but expanding spheres of influence through access to ports, and bases on foreign territory but I do see your point.

[@PerfectDeath4]

Also, what a high cost it will be to contest these waters, and for what? If things get tense, trade WILL drop. Unless China is thinking on the same level as Russia and that they can just stockpile food, fuel, and currency to keep their government afloat? I feel like the act of building up has more value than actually getting there, since it gives the communist party something to drive their people towards so they don't tear their own nation apart. "Any day now, we'll take Taiwan, then we will take the pacific, then the Indian oceans! So ignore the food and fuel shortages, we have to stockpile for this... also don't pay attention to the new mansion that my son just got, he totally didn't sell off the grain and fuel through a shell company." - CCP polititians.

[@gorgonsigil]

This video seems to assume that US will remain a completely passive actor as China grows its fleet, all the way up until 2050…. That seems ridiculous, to say the least. If there was even a hint that China was reaching actual naval parity, the American’s would freak out and build 20 more supercarriers or something. Also left out of this video is the fact that China’s new carrier isn’t nuclear powered, which drastically limits the range at which it can operate. Furthermore, the subjugation/sidelining of Taiwan, India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia would have to happen for this plan to work, which almost makes it dead on arrival. Sure, if the rest of the world just sat around and did nothing while China took over half the pacific then they might be able to pull it off, but that’s just not what’s going to happen.

[@angeluscorpius]

I gathered that the video was more of an illustration of the CCP/PLA(N) wet dream/fantasy... planned by a hormonal adolescent from a single (self-centred/China) perspective. So opposition/opposing forces are held ceteris paribus for the purpose of this fantasy. And really, the whole "break out of the first island chain" plan is anchored on one single point: taking Taiwan. And China does not seem to be gearing up for that. They would be better served with building up amphibious assault ships. Aircraft carriers will not matter much when Taiwan is only 100 miles away (well within reach of land-based aircrafts.) So it occurs to me, that China is not serious about its plan to reunite Taiwan with force if necessary. Least of all by 2030.

[@manfreds.6384]

EU was also not involved in the factor even now Germany, UK and France are sending warship in the region, as well as getting concerned with China's actions.

[@tristan7848]

Yeah, these "China is going to > America militarily!!" scenarios are becoming increasingly popular as discussion points but a strange commonality of them is assuming the US is going to be passive as "the balance shifts". Don't sleep on American industrial capabilities, national mobilization, and most especially their absolute dominance in technical expertise in everything naval.

[@duyataksis5210]

China's economy is already 30% larger than America's today and will be 3x larger by 2050. The US can go ahead and try to go into an arms race with China, China will run it into the ground.

[@dayegilharno4988]

@@tristan7848 "...absolute dominance in technical expertise..." - Yeah... I wouldn't count on that. Both American and European private entities tripped over their beards and each other, rushing to enable the technology transfer mentioned in the vid in return for a meager slice of the Chinese market for a limited time, with massive support from their respective governments, for decades and until recently.

[@TheMonotoneMan]

I think you cannot forget to equate the US allies directly next to China. For example, Japan has a fleet of 2 light aircraft carriers and 2 helicopter carriers which together amount to 100,000 tons, and South Korea which is currently the world's largest shipbuilding country operates 2 helicopter carriers. These nations' geographic positioning allows them to serve as FOPs to foreign navies that would also play a significant role in a future conflict. Everyone from the UK to France to even Brazil could form a coalition and fight the Chinese threat. Even just listing these countries, the UK has 2 aircraft carriers the Queen Elizabeth class, France has the Charles de Gaulle and is building a future aircraft carrier called 'PANG', and finally, Brazil has a Helicopter Carrier that could assist operations and is planning a future carrier as well as a fleet of Nuclear Powered submarines which is yet another thing we have neglected to mention; all of the Submarines this hypothetical coalition would involve. This all goes to prove that China, although powerful, could not stand up to an American-led coalition. Americas greatest strength is its allies, not its sheer power.

[@widodoakrom3938]

China isn't as stupid as Russia

[@CDSAfghan]

No! It's more fun to pretend the united states is an underdog and facing the world alone. Forget that 12 of the top 15 military spenders are friends or allies.

[@J_X999]

Nah, most of those "allies" are addicted to Chinese trade. And they aren't showing any signs of slowing. Disappointed with their attitude

[@joaoalbertodosanjosgomes1536]

👍

[@jackstoltz330]

@@J_X999 disappointed in their lack of blind loyalty to a foreign empire?

[@hmrdev-billnye8166]

India might throw an axe into this plan, and i doubt the US would just sit there and accept that there are Chineese ships as far as Guam or Hawaii.

[@avkk2314]

India will have 175 naval ships by 2030.Just like china most indian naval ships are near it's economic zone with land base missile systems.

[@DrD3m3nt0]

If wars can be won with braggadocio then China has to fear India.

[@waisinglee1509]

Freedom of navigation cuts both ways.

[@Crytica.]

@@avkk2314 india has been struggling fulfilling their military plans. A lo of their projects are way over due and a money sink due to corruption.

[@HimanshuSharma-oe4mk]

@@Crytica. that was the previous governments - the new government gets things done - PM modi is an asexual bachelor who eats simple food , no alcohol , works 24*7 and is supported by the RSS - there is very low corruption and much more work done in todays government

[@klakier19901]

3 decades? There are decades when nothing happens, and days when decades happen.

[@kerra3699]

Well said.

[@AbdulKhader-786]

“there are days when decades happen” what a quote

[@hughmungus2760]

Could literally be the case when antiship ballistic missiles get ICBM ranges.

[@adhirbose9910]

History and experience are two factors nobody takes into consideration while discussing military matters, this can prove to be a fatal mistake. For example. Argentina invaded the Falkland islands in the 80s thinking that the British did not have the ability and/or will to sail 6000 km away from their shores and fight to save a few islands with a few thousand inhabitants. Also Japan thought that if they delivered a punch to the jaw of the US ( pearl harbor) the US would decide to stay out of trouble while Japan gobbled up the European colonies in Asia, we know how those 2 assumptions unfolded.

[@nandokart2830]

Argentina's invasion of The Falklands had no military purpose. It was a desperate attempt from the military junta to make a rally the flag to prop a falling regime. There was a stupid move by an alcoholic dictator (Galtieri).I was 12 and living in Argentina at that time.

[@SARugby1]

Wl

[@SARugby1]

Wl

[@adhirbose9910]

@@nandokart2830 interesting. I was also 12 in 82 and live in India. And we have no love for the British ( for obvious reasons). However since we also have our own freindly neighbour dictatorship which is in the habit of starting war's with India ( and in Afghanistan), on this occasion most Indians were supportive of the British stand, and their reaction to the invasion. Infact India even bought the aircraft carrier used by the royal navy in the war after it was decommissioned from the royal navy.

[@MohammedShafiq-id5ov]

What you have to remember is that Argentina had soviet error planes with no modern avionics the British had planes with modern avionics plus RAF had missiles with the most range supplied by US in addition british had 2 carriers, one namely Harriet which was very advanced hence Argentines had no chance by analogy chinese are self sufficient, a nuclear triade with competent airforce, navy and armed forces, Chinese have one weapon that restores the balance with US everyone knows chinese are advanced with hypersonic missiles, they can easily sink a US carrier and chinese have alliances with North Korea, russia, iran and Pakistan. Mate if china wants they can easily take Taiwan however chinese will do this in there time of choosing. US can only fight with defenceless countries

[@greggweber9967]

Modern equivalent of the Kaiser wanting his High Seas Fleet to grow before the Great War.

[@azoniarnl3362]

Now that I think of it.. yes! UK was afraid to lose its position and Germany wanted it. Now the US is afraid to lose its status as global hegemon and China wants it.

[@luigidisanpietro3720]

Also like Imperial Japan before WW2 when it faced sanctions and trade embargoes from the World.... The point is, will History rhyme once again?

[@greggweber9967]

@@azoniarnl3362 I've had people speak down at me for "Whataboutism" (learning from history) which they don't like.

[@Life-Is-A-Meme-t5h]

@@luigidisanpietro3720 great point! They gone rogue by expanding territories but we’re forced to admit defeat when they got nuked, *twice.*

[@liammarra4003]

@@luigidisanpietro3720 well I don't know. Will China go on a racial based genocide across South East Asia? Wage this genocide in South East Asia for roughly 10 years and get enough attention to be sanctioned and embargoed? Japan wasn't embargoed out of the blue for nothing. They were slaughtering hundreds of thousands/millions of "racially inferior" Chinese on the mainland, Korea. So, yeah, will history research itself? Well gosh darn who knows.

[@unebkarnn4842]

"Peace is maintained by the equilibrium of forces" This isn't true at all. The current "long peace" or pax americana which only favors the US and their allies is maintained by their overwhelming advantage in force. This was also true for many other empires throughout history. As soon as other powerful countries see a way of escaping this world order they will strike, even if they are still somewhat behind.

[@TJ-vl1ff]

I think you're right but did the current world order provide peace the last two decades? America has destroyed four countries and killed half a milion civilians in the middle east alone. Our countries maybe peaceful, their countries lay in ruins and are plagued by corruption and conflict.

[@edmundt.buckley6858]

You miss a major leg of US power, which is our control over finance. Off shoring of our industrial base was the first step in weakening our power. We then shot ourselves with the Russian sanctions when we confiscated sovereign funds held in our banking system and decided to weaponize the SWIFT system. My own belief is we are watching slow suicide by the collective West.

[@doujinflip]

Right, Pax Romana, Mongolica, and Britannica all rode on a clearly dominant military force who could quickly deploy to terminate trade-blocking disputes

[@terdragontra8900]

Peace is maintained (or rather, likely) when no nation benefits from war, in a very interconnected world this should be true.

[@TheKurtkapan34]

It was the case for Cold War tho.

[@spartanparty3894]

I love your content, but I think that this video was a bit simple. It failed to take into account US allies beyond the QUAD or to emphasis logistical difficulties and the limits of a large Navy with little experience. There is just a general lack of nuance. And I understand that the video is about the future, but I would like a bit more appreciation of how difficult that is to predict. This video serves as a wish list for China's Navy, with a brief mention of a single possible bulwark. The future is impossible to predict, and any number of things, from China's crashing demographics, to the Democratic world's growing unity, to an unforeseen economic crash (never seen one of those before) could throw things off. For example, the US is currently spending the least on it's military as a percentage of GDP since WW2, this could chance easily. During the Carter administration people generally assumed that the US was going to spend less on the military- the next President was Ronald Reagan, who increased military spending precipitously. We can presume that China will gradually increase its defense spending unless something bad happens, but the US is an unpredictable animal, swayed by domestic whims and historical accidents. If the US began to spend more on its military, which is not all that unlikely, the game completely changes. Likewise, if Australia or Japan or India, as well as South Korea and others, manage to build up their Navy as quickly as they have said they would like to, China's rise seems a lot less precipitous.

[@vyros.3234]

If a Republican wins you can bet boosted spending to deter China. Still likely if a Democrat wins also. Also studies have shown that China's real spending is around 400$ billion usd. It doesn't a ton of things in its spending that the US does. China has has horrible benefits and pension and poor salaries. Th US in the other one has really good salaries, benefits, and pensions. One of those benefits being college being paid for. Tons of people join for 4-8 years for that and to serve one's country. The US spends 150 billion every year on salaries.

[@spartanparty3894]

@Kenneth But there is bipartisan recognition of a greater external threat meaning that defense will be more valued. Ultimately, I believe that the fact that 3% of GDP military spending is absurdly low for a superpower engaged in global competition with rivals means that military spending in the US will at least remain steady, if not increase. Many believed that the US would lower spending under the Biden Presidency, as that is part of the federal budget, which is largely determined by the executive branch. However, in the face of Global competition, Biden has raised defense spending, which is now 14% higher than it was in 2017, at the beginning of the Trump Presidency.

[@zachweaverproductions2523]

Is this even plausible, given China’s demographic crisis, and ever increasing tension with the west and her allies?

[@zachweaverproductions2523]

@@Zero_Contradictions I believe they might take foolish gambles like Russia and invade Taiwan, but it could easily be a military blunder that dismantles 50 years of hard work by the CCP.

[@infernosgaming8942]

Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in a dictatorial system.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Only the usa has tensions with china it seems. The rest of the "west" has little tension with china.

[@TheSwedishHistorian]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 not true. There are tons of tensions, problems with diplmoats that insult our culture etc, we are just distracted by having Russia next door

[@davidjoelsson4929]

@@Zero_Contradictions wrong, it was predicted.

[@patrickcloutier6801]

Having an inferior number of aircraft carriers will not necessarily be a disadvantage to China: in the first half of 1942, the US had only 5 aircraft carriers in the Pacific while the Japanese had at least 11. Among other things, larger numbers tempted the Japanese to underestimate the Americans and divide their superior carrier fleet. This had devastating consequences at the Battle of Midway, when a smaller American carrier force destroyed the larger Japanese carrier force, entirely. US Naval Intelligence played a considerable part in this victory, but so did Japan's contempt for American capabilities.

[@TJ-vl1ff]

True but the US cracked the Japanese code which was decisive for the US's victory. The US had access to all Japanese communications and knew exactly what they were doing and planning. If they hadn't cracked the Japanese code, I personally dont believe that the US would've won the war, given the superior fleet of the Japanese. The Japanese would've inflicted a defeat in a Midway-style battle. It's grips me to think how the world would've looked like had that occurred.

[@patrickcloutier6801]

@@TJ-vl1ff Yes, I mentioned that US Naval intelligence played a considerable role.

[@Poctyk]

11. Shoukaku, Zuikaku, Souryuu, Hiryuu, Akagi, Kaga... Who else? Or what, do you consider those meme light carriers like Ryuujo to be anywhere in the same league?

[@johnb7046]

@@TJ-vl1ff Indeed, but perhaps, since Hawaii wasn't a state - much like the Philippines (where the U.S. did not return to annex after the war) the U.S. could have ceded the islands and Pacific superiority to fight another day, to come back and island-hop years later a stretched Japanese fleet. But another aspect to that would be a switch to focus on Pacific battles at the detriment to European ones, which would be a whole other can of worms.. Also, Japanese subs and destroyers would probably try to neutralize the west coast military installations so you might be correct in your assessment. Panama canal would have absolutely been bombed at that point, like Germany attempted and failed to do. Lots of moving parts.

[@lahabitaciondelatrapado4621]

Stop treating all carriers as if they're equal. US carriers are nuclear powered, which means they can sail anywhere in the world and stay for over 6 months on patrol. Chinese carriers can't sail 1000 km in a straight line

[@mrbonanza2606]

After living in China a decade as a westerner, I am inclined to believe Peter Zeihan on China. They are too reliant on outside resources to survive the turmoil that would be any naval sanctions. And they need to do that with a massively ageing population while is geopolitical rival has replacement level demographics, and is leagues above on tech.

[@teddybearmonster]

I just knew about Peter a week ago. Very very interesting....

[@protorhinocerator142]

Cut off their oil supply at the Persian Gulf. India would probably be happy to do it. Re-route those oil tankers anywhere but China. China has no defense against this.

[@J_X999]

Peter Zeihan said this century is the "end of the Han Chinese ethnicity" I heard that and I'm not listening to that clown again LOL BTW, I'm not sure what you meant by "leagues ahead on tech" China is investing heavily in domestic semiconductors and world leading artificial intelligence. Just read the Pentagon reports

[@justinokraski3796]

I’ve been following him for about a year or so. I think he’s right on the money about China not being a threat, though I think he exaggerates how bad things will be for them

[@terencekwong3033]

@@justinokraski3796 I think Peter Zeihan will be the next Gordon Chang, a guy that wrote a book about the collapse of China that will be laughed at in the years to come.

[@Mr_M_History]

CaspianReport makes the China content that I truly look up to! A legend!

[@jokers7890]

its become pro-western trash tho

[@agenthex]

No, Shirvan just says what the western neoliberal youtube audience wants to hear, same as fox news for its crowd. It's basically the US state dept propaganda on pretty much every issue, why US state enemies are all weak in some fatal manner and will all ultimately fail etc.

[@jokers7890]

@@agenthex Correct, well said.

[@t1ll316]

@@jokers7890 bye bye then, CCP bot

[@lucasharvey8990]

@@jokers7890 It's not pro-western trash. I think it's kind of the opposite. What an awful video. He's purposely avoiding basic information in order to ring the anti-China alarm bells. He talks about China's naval might, but forgets to mention Japan's, South Korea's, Australia and New Zealand's, India's, Vietnam's, Thailand's, Taiwan's, Philippines', and NATO's navies in order to make China seem more threatening. It's not as if the whole world would sit by and do nothing, you know. China has isolated itself, and everyone around them is either an enemy or a frenemy with them. He's comparing China's naval goals for 2050 to the USA's navy in 2022 when the USA would obviously freak out and build plenty more ships at the first hint of actual power parity. He talks about China's new aircraft carrier, forgetting to mention its massive flaws, like the fact it isn't powered by nuclear energy, which severely limits everything it can do. Not to mention how he completely forgets to mention air warfare, space warfare, and ground warfare, all of which the Chinese are severely lacking, instead only talking about naval warfare where China's stated intentions are mildly alarming when compared to just the USA and no one else... He talks about missiles, again not saying a thing about every other countries' missile systems. He talks about how China can bully neighbors, conveniently forgetting to mention how if you blockade the waters around Singapore you'll cut off China's food, oil, raw materials, finished materials, and so on, which China's economy is COMPLETELY dependent on. He conveniently forgets to so much as mention any of this in order to make China look way more scary than it actually is. He forgets to mention the existential threats the Chinese Communist Party itself is facing. He forgets to mention the social aspect of it, where a society where families mostly only have single children would not support a war where their only child could die. He forgets to talk about the corruption, he forgets to talk about the fact that the CCP would be breathing down its military's back like Putin is doing with his generals in Ukraine right now, and he forgets to mention how a lot of Russia's problems in Ukraine stem from using Chinese-made military equipment. Man, what a forgetful guy. Better ring those alarm bells some more.

[@kaylenscurrah5435]

Video covers what idealistically PLA planners want to see. However, I’d remain doubtful this can be achieved. China’s ageing population bottleneck, economic slowdown and other probable unforeseen political issues will make funding and executing this grand strategy very hard beyond the first island chain. China’s taxation system is also grossly inefficient to sustain the military that is envisioned.

[@agenttruth8096]

China's plan: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rn29oquhrtGfoMk

[@PyrusFlameborn]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best

[@54788654478087654345]

Sure, and the metrics also assume the US stays the same. What if American capabilities decrease due to political instability? What if China stays on target and the US is weak internally? I think we'd both agree that it would be more wise to consider a range of possible outcomes.

[@megumiitadori9236]

This entire report also totally ignores the role of India except for a footnote at the end. Although small, the Indian Navy already has the capability to block the Strait of Malacca thus banning Chinese incursion into the Indian Ocean. In addition, the Lakshadweep Island chain is quickly being militarised. Besides this, India has very good relations with the Gulf Countries and the Middle East. If the need arises the Indian Navy can also block oil from the Gulf reaching China. Unless something drastic happens, currently, the Indian Navy is the dominant force in the Indian Ocean, bolstered by US, Australian, Japanese support.

[@folk2630]

@@megumiitadori9236 - Oil can reach China from Pakistan and Iran, maybe from Afghanistan too if Afghanistan exports it to China.

[@theproblemmustbeinyourpant5910]

It could be argued that by 2050, a lot of these islands will be overwhelmed by rising sea level and increasing severe weather, scrutinising their long term strategic value.

[@idonteven3712]

Since most climate predictions are inaccurate it is safe to assume that there will still be some value. Even if they sank China Can just build artificial Islands on top of them

[@kimmogensen4888]

max 10 cm in 2050, global cooling since 2016 of 0.17 C as a result of lower solar activity means it will probably be less, but they are easy targets for the US because they can be destroyed with cruise missiles.

[@sinoroman]

@@idonteven3712 sounds like a win

[@hughmungus2760]

the islands were only a stopgap solution till china could get its carriers up and running.

[@PARABOLA1966]

Those islands would be taken out, easily, if it came to such.

[@jron20r51]

China should figure out how to be a better neighbor, than try to fight everyone. I agree with others here, it has taken the US 100 years to get where it is at as a Navy. Just because you have the equipment, doesn't mean you have the ability. As long as Xi is running the place, they are handicapped. It isn't just the US, don't forget Japan will just it by passive while this happens?

[@מ.מ-ה9ד]

Japan, like Germany, is building back it's military capabilities.

[@Nobleheart111]

Good for them!

[@shuhaotian6966]

我不明白为什么你们会觉得中国是在挑衅周边国家，事实上，周边很多国家都占了中国很多便宜，中国政府对外从来都是忍气吞声，发展军事只是用于自保，比如你根本没有见过中国有主动进攻过其他国家，尤其是新中国

[@mylet2658]

@@shuhaotian6966 they attacked India and funded independence movement in Okinawa and fishing boats sunk ships in Philippines.

[@joaobelmar7109]

@@shuhaotian6966 they attacked tibet, india, vietnam, did excursions and messed with politics in south east asia, hostile to taiwan, south korea and japan. They are using force and money to achieve influence, its not nessecarilly being a good neibourg

[@dm9078]

A good video but flawed. It completely ignores the fact that the Japanese government has reinterpreted it’s pacifist constitution to be decidedly less pacifist and they currently have the second best navy in the Pacific and are making it stronger. And he did at least mention India in passing!

[@mnk9073]

Yeah and Abe just got shot for it.

[@Schmidty1]

No China definitely has the 2nd best navy in the pacific now days behind the U.S.. Japan does have a strong navy easily making it the 3rd strongest in the pacific.

[@davidmoss2576]

@@starchild5793 what weapon systems?

[@J_X999]

@@starchild5793 China's DJI drones have proved extremely effective in Ukraine. Have no idea what you are on

[@kenos911]

@@starchild5793 That was actually russian equipment but

[@Leptospirosi]

The main issue for China is the logistics required for a power projection: most of the nations leasing bases to the USA hugely benefit, both in security and economically, from being inside a world wide network and being protected on their own territory as part of the alliance. For China it's different, as the diplomatic and brute force pressure from the USA, could easily strangle the chain of supplies network for China and making it useless quite effectively. China does not have a good record of friendship and collaboration, often blackmailing and applying wolf politics to enforcing debts driven demands and extorting territorial rights in exchange. This is not a post WWII environment where colonial holdings were willingly accept protection from a superpower. The ability to hold a territorial presence for China is completely money driven, for as long as it will be able to economically sustain the effort under the Wester pressure. Think of Djibouti in the Red Sea, Sri Lanka in the Indian orbit, the Solomon islands in the Pacific, completely surrounded by land based USA allies. These naval bases are just tiny dots, in areas where China does not exert economical or cultural dominance, closer to European trade posts from the late XVIII before the colonial era, then to modern alliance networks.

[@thetruthhurts9750]

The countries that actually borrow money from China aren't the ones complaining. It's the Western countries who are trying to contain China are the ones screaming the loudest. China can now give economic benefits to most countries on earth. This is a fact that is obvious unless you are willfully blind.

[@joaoalbertodosanjosgomes1536]

👍

[@haikaloronsentnel138]

IN NEXT DECADES CH!NA W!LL HAS LARGE NUMBER F0RE!GN M!L!TARY A!R AND NAVAL BASE AR0UND THE GL0BE, CH!NA PLAYS IN L0NG RUN MARATH0N!!! N0W DAY CH!NA ALREADY HAS M!L!TARY BASE IN CAMB0D!A,SRI L4NKA, DJ!B0UTI, GWAD4R PAK!ST4N, S0L0M0N ISLANDS, EQUAT0R!AL GU!NEA F0R RESUPPLY F00D, FUEL, ARMS, AMMUN!T!0N AND S0ME REPA!RS IF NEEDED!!! AND D0N'T W0RRY CH!NA W!LL L!BERATES TA!WAN AFTER CH!NA ALREADY MASS PR0DUCT!0N 0F H!GH END SEMI C0NDUCT0R AND CH!PS W!TH ALL S!ZE INCLUDING BEL0W T0 14NM!!!

[@gideonmele1556]

China likes to talk and walk a big game but their follow-through isn’t usually very good. The appearance of strength and threat is the go-to. Remember that they haven’t had an actual fight in over a generation

[@covenant_mog05]

That's the thing these types of videos they leave out some important factors in regards to any nation taking the top spot and creating their own global hegemony. The US got its chance after WW2. After that event they've proven to most super powers they were a reliable partner and a powerful ally, this allowed them to establish global hegemony in the next 70 years. What China is trying to do is do the same thing however they're missing a key component. You need to be at least be likeable for them to follow you or allow you to take the lead. China has been brute forcing its international policies which tend to rub a lot of nations the wrong way, the US is no saint either but they've been able to maintain a balancing act all throughout. As bad as the US is, other countries know that Russia or China would be equally if not more so worse. Lesser of two evils in this case. Russia in the last few months pretty much removed itself from the most likely countries to replace the US. Meanwhile China was actually well on its way if they kept quiet for a couple of more decades. But given how authoritarian governments function their troubles are more like to come from within.

[@guyh9992]

In their haste to seize the fourth island chain the Chinese skip over the Indian territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the bay of Bengal and the Australian territories of Christmas Island and Coco/Keeling Islands in the Indian Ocean. India has expressed an interest in gaining reciprocal access to the Australian territories. By 2050 India is likely to have a substantial navy in the Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka is bankrupt and old friend India may have to bail her out.

[@manfreds.6384]

China's future plans of Asiatic domination depends on how strong India will be by 2030 and 2050, as well as how involved the EU will be.

[@DosPerspectiva]

@@manfreds.6384 At this point of time, the QUAD is the only hope. In the past decade India has upped its Naval game and now operates 5-6 bases in IOR. US needs to support IN with appropriate tech like in AUKUS

[@00x0xx]

Hence the reason why in the next 30 years China isn't planning to challenge India near India's home territory or nearby regional bases. It's just going to be a lost cause of them. Right now and for the next few decades, China's primarily objective is to challenge America near China's home territory and remove American influence from the East Asian nations. The reality of the matter is that America is a danger to China's geopolitical agenda, India is not. There is no additional benefit gained from China controlling India's sphere of influence, but there is a great benefit to China if they are able to kick the Americans out of their side of the Pacific Ocean.

[@Ninja1Ninja2]

sri lanka is gonna get conquered

[@ChadPANDA...]

@@sosoable depreciating currency is fine if it is under a certain % , the % depends on how the economy is structured like whether it is importing or export led economy and whether it is importing major stuff like fuel, food or something they can add value to like raw material. The idiotic comment made by you is ignorant at best and malicious at worst

[@jayakrishnanm2975]

I cant understand why everyone compares the current US tonnage or no of ships to the future tonnage of china while keeping the US tonnage constant,why wouldnt it change,the US shipbuilding will most probably increase,the US will still have dominance in noa

[@tokevarvaspolvi8999]

I mean sure, but if you used a speculative projection as a demonstrative comparison for another speculative projection, it wouldn't really work now would it? The point of the comparison is to give out a mental image, it's a shorthand educational tool.

[@infernosgaming8942]

As it is the U.S. could be building more, but there are a number of “contingency” plans to escalated keel laying(the ghost fleet for example). Even then, we’re signing off on two AB destroyers a year and up to two LA SSNs a year. In 8 years that’s a full compliment for a CBG and several sub raider forces.

[@thereal_toober6156]

Plus US is part of NATO which dramatically will ramp up it´s capabilities on both sea and land after what was happening in Ukrain.

[@joeyates3909]

the us tonnage does change in this video

[@rohitsinghsharma5012]

China is rising power, America is declining power. America does not hold power as it did in 1970s, 80s, 90s.

[@samsunggalaxytaba3858]

So many ignorant people that think diesel ships are only for close counter operations.. meanwhile the biggest container ships are diesel powered and go around the world..

[@zegfeldmobata4160]

Yeah this may be so but it takes decades of experience to fully and effectively use this naval technology. It's not only about the materiel but the know how and expertise. Only countries with real combat experience can exploit this advantage.

[@Tko_Seven]

U mean like Russia?

[@Bayard1503]

What countries actually have real combat experience when it comes to the navy??? What was the last war that had a naval aspect?? The Falklands?

[@liammarra4003]

@@Bayard1503 lmao right?

[@yosimekupelet]

@@Bayard1503 European navies have centuries of Naval combat experience, they in effect, set the standards and invented the technologies that comprise navies and the United States essentially picked up the mantle and gained a lot of experience and developed a lot of technologies in ww2. China is basically building it's navy on western blue prints but the commanders, captains and sailors that comprise the PLA navy don't have the years of experience that lead to the development of such sea crafts, they copied the designs and structure but they couldn't copy combat experience.

[@chicosquelloran6410]

Well, the Taliban has no Navy, Iraq's navy was a complete joke, so looks like the US doesn't have much naval warfare experience either, I mean when was the last time you had a naval war?

[@jong.7944]

I know creators talk all the time about "users getting unsubscribed without their notice" and I'd always thought that was bunk... but KZbin seriously unsubscribed me from your channel for no discernible reason, just FYI. Love the content!

[@antwan1357]

This reminds me of a version of Sid Meier's civilization 2 where you could only win by taking the capital of another nation. You would see the remaining nation's plateau on the technology tree , and technology advantages would cease . Then it would become a matter of who had the right resources and who could be denied those resources .

[@agenttruth8096]

China's plan: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rn29oquhrtGfoMk

[@noargs820]

2:21 "at the end of the day peace is maintained by the equilibrium of forces and will only continue for as long as this equilibrium exist" how is the word powers at an equilibrium atm ??? The US alone is the most powerful military by far and let alone the nato alliance. I'm glad the US is the main force atm, it's definetly the lesser evil, but we are quite far from an "equilibrium of forces"

[@edwardhuang3751]

Everyone is equal as long as they all have nukes.

[@johnl.7754]

@@edwardhuang3751 yeah just look at tiny weak North Korea

[@00x0xx]

US forces are spread thin around the global. For now, China only plans on securing the area near their territory, they can do so with a significantly less powerful military than the US. This is the advantage that comes with being near or in your home territory.

[@thetruthhurts9750]

By 2050 China is going to be more powerful than the US military. China has already achieved a critical milestone. China has the world's largest manufacturing base in the world. China can build more of everything than the US. The current advantage that the US military has is temporary. By 2030 China is going to have the largest Economy so it will be able to build more and spend more than the US. Welcome to China's century.

[@eliotanderson6554]

I dont think india will let that happen

[@harshrawat7392]

@@captainbroady its takinh about the future .... We must not forget that by 2050 even india plan to have 5-6 aircraft carriers...

[@CutieZalbu]

@@captainbroady lmfao with what? India doesn’t even have an economy size of Texas soooooo

[@ukashk1071]

@@captainbroady True

[@Eternal_Fire]

@@CutieZalbu If we look into the GDP forecasts by different sources, it says India will have $10 trillion economy by 2030. So, as India's economic might will get tripple in next 15 years so her millitary.

[@sudo11]

@@CutieZalbu current GDP of India is 3.1 trillion Texas is 2 trillion India is going to induct it's second indigenous 45000tn aircraft carrier on 15 August 2022 (75th Independence Day)

[@hamzamahmood9565]

All it takes is one major breakthrough in military technology to gain the upper hand in any conflict. That's why Intelligence is key to staying up-to-date in this rapidly changing civilization

[@sinoroman]

if the enemy makes a major breakthrough, you'll have to rely on strategy, tactics, and depots to counter the technology. if done right, new tech won't bring too much to the table

[@patr10t762]

Something not taken into account is if things get that unstable China has a huge reserve fleet. They have a huge fleet of civilian ships that won't be moving products. The car and truck carriers can be repurposed to move troops and support equipment. Freighters can be fitted for logistics and support roles. If nothing else they can move about the area of influence to wear down reconnaissance resources and provide cover for naval moves.

[@tamberlame27]

Overly optimistic on China's future

[@QWERTY-gp8fd]

who asked

[@kevinwilliams3694]

Given China gets its trade only with peace, via the current state of things or their dominance. Spending a fortune to engage is conflict seems really dumb.

[@Youbetternowatchthis]

It might be wise to prepare for conflict, even though you don't plan on bringing it about yourself.

[@backpackpepelon3867]

They are preparing for outside attack by making large fleet that can deter enemies by its sheer size alone. Less chances of having war is great for China since all of their grand plan like belt and road requires peace to work.

[@snuscaboose1942]

@@Youbetternowatchthis China is intent on invading and conquering Taiwan. They're arming because they are aggressive and want to conquer others, modern-day Imperialists.

[@kevinwilliams3694]

@@Youbetternowatchthis The wisdom in that is fundamentally undermined for China by constantly claiming Taiwan as part of China.

[@Driesketeer]

Some extra arguments: Corruption and maintenance effect Chinese builds negatively. Technology wise its sup-par for now. Plus India is building counter plan called diamond necklace, trying to surround new international Chinese ports.

[@MrTnylam]

@ Driesketeer India don't even have toilets for their people let alone a force to be reckoned with.

[@jonathanchoi3533]

You think the US Navy is free of corruption? There are Admirals richer than most politicians.

[@J_X999]

That diamond necklace isn't what it seems. I've heard of it, but it isn't taking shape and it is only promoted by Indian media. Which isn't realistic

[@John_Doe448]

yeah, just like the other 15 plans India tried and failed. I wouldn't put too much hope into that

[@Sassar]

Countries need to stop trying to surround one another in an attempt to subdue them. It's not right and won't end well.

[@Cam-sl8ve]

vid starts 1:01

[@warlord4713]

that GUAM zoom was awesone, keep up the good work

[@asahiorbit4565]

I didn't get notified that this video got uploaded, nor was it in my subscription box, nor was it in my recommendations. I had to search for this in the channel tab itself.

[@speedzero7478]

The thing about USA is that most of the world believes USA is crazy enough to use its military. China can build things, but do they have the stomach for an actual conflict? You can only make threats so much before the words require actions.

[@LarryWater]

China lost all wars in the last 500 years.

[@hmrdev-billnye8166]

Maybe? They are taking lessons from Ukraine and that conflict either delayed a Taiwan Invasion or made it more likely. Hope nothing happens since look how much damage the Ukraine conflict has done to the world supply chain.

[@randomcommenteronyoutube1055]

If their crying boys' performance against India a few years ago was any indication...Lol

[@Micha-qv5uf]

I also think the US is luring them into a trap. Carriers are actually stupid. They are massively expensive but can be taken out relatively easy. A stealth aircraft, a long range missile, even a small submarine and carrier + 40 aircrafts is gone.

[@cjclark2002]

China pushed us back in the 50s in Korea, not even six years after WW2. Many forget this.

[@logaandm]

Lots of talk about China, the US, the QUAD, the SCS, the Indian Ocean. None about Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines or India. All of those countries have an interest. Most of those countries prefer the US to China, or at least are wary of Chinese intentions. All of those countries, especially India, Japan and South Korea, could put up credible resistance to the Chinese military. Those other countries not only exist, not only are they important, but the people and their national aspirations matter. China, like Germany and Russia, does not control access to the major water ways of the world. China, like German and Russia, thinks that it can force others to secure that access. China, like Germany and Russia, thus makes enemies of most of it's neighbors. Will China be any more successful than Germany in WW I and WW II or Russia for the last three centuries? Probably not. You formulate this as a geopolitical battle between China and the US. You are wrong. It is between China and almost all of China's neighbours.

[@rizkyadiyanto7922]

facts.

[@manofculture9051]

andrew bro woke up and chose facts

[@sidneysun3865]

Let’s see how many Allies you have left in 5 years.

[@davidmoss2576]

Nobody is going to fight a war for the US. Japan and maybe Australia are the only lapdogs in the region. The rest are going to take a pass on total destruction of their country. China is their biggest trading partner, hurting China is like hurting themselves

[@lucasharvey8990]

@@sidneysun3865 Are you one of those trolls the CCP pays to go in comment sections and make people mad at the USA, or just a regular anti-American person? I understand that the USA has shaky diplomacy sometimes. Keep in mind though that it has the most extensive network of allies and partners of any country in world history, actively working with most countries on something or another, whether it be counter-terrorism, simple humanitarian aid like distributing food, science sharing like with fighting climate change, maintaining military bases, distributing medical attention like sharing surplus vaccines, disaster relief, and so on. And the USA maintains this network because overall, when a country elsewhere halfway across the world prospers, that means that that country can enter the world's marketplace, resulting in increased business, which of course benefits the USA. Meanwhile China's committing genocide, stealing both land and waters, threatening almost all of its neighbors, literally invading and destroying democratic states like Hong Kong and now trying to do so with Taiwan, silencing literally everyone it can to the point where they have one of the lowest levels of freedom in the world, and so on. If I were the president of South Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, or any other country in East Asia, I think it's pretty obvious which of these two countries I would side with! Say what you want about the USA, but we aren't nearly as bad as China. So when you come in here and say that in 5 years our allies will have left us behind or whatever, I want to laugh at you. Either you're literally a professional troll payed by the CCP, or you're an uneducated anti-American rando from who-knows-where. I hope my explanation changed your mind about the nature of America's alliances.

[@yungdamula]

Raghu's fan here! Props to the editor!

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

Excellent high quality work as ever. Thanks for the upload and info.

[@onetwo5155]

Interesting projection and video, thank you for the analysis. The possible issue here might be that the Chinese seem to be planning on parity with the modern concepts within the US fleets. I wonder for how long these will remain relevant due to technological innovation.

[@covenant_mog05]

We can't really blame them for wanting to catch up which as a nation they are entitled to do however that only makes sense if their rivals stay stagnant long enough for them to catch up.

[@basedchad6035]

@@covenant_mog05 I mean kinda, but china is a little too nationalistic/imperialistic that I like it. Its no healthy amount. We see it when they speak about the century of humiliation and their self perception as being the top nation for all of history but for theese 100 years and they now need "to take their rightful place back". Also they hate the west and indocrinate their people to hate the west. So yeah, I dont like them.

[@aburetik4866]

In 2020, China already sent several type-055 warships to American coast for freedom of navigation patrol. It's been doing it every year

[@Rjsjrjsjrjsj]

UTTER BS. They got close to the Aleutians. They can't even make it to the US west coast. U 🤡. 🙄

[@rsa2uk902]

Your videos are great! Didn't even think about the 4th and 5th island chains as island chains that work like the other 3.

[@Xanti97]

They really aren't. They fail to take into account some of the most basic understandings of geopolitics.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

Most of this video is Caspian projecting his rather old fashioned take on what China intends to do. Old fashioned cos he seems to live in a world where nothing changes apart from China's navy getting larger and everyone is still fighting wars the conventional way. That's fine for 2030 maybe, but 2050 lol? It's like everyone is talking about the world shifting in a matter of days following Russia's invasion, but apparently nothing is going to change across several decades wrt China or the West.

[@autumn_aya5471]

China is amazing, well done!

[@markanderson3870]

Ok but this is the best case scenario for China. It doesn't account for China's neighbours stepping up to provide a major counterweight to China's planned naval dominance. That's not including the U.S. The other big question is whether or not China can afford its grand plans. There are many potential roadblocks to China's economic expansion, and its grandiose plans may fall prey to the reality of economic stagnation. And that's not even getting into the question of quantity vs. quality...China may have some good hardware but may well lack the skills to use it against better-prepared adversaries.

[@agenttruth8096]

China's plan: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rn29oquhrtGfoMk

[@fuzzyhair321]

if the americans are having problems with their aircarft carriers, how well do you think china would be at it too. just because they build it fast doesn;t mean it will last

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

This is basically the Made in China version of the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet where a land power tries to be a sea power to challenge the dominant sea power, then the British One thing this analysis missed is that the US and its regional allies won't just sit back with their thumbs in their asses. As the Bomber Gap Incident taught us, the Americans don't take competition very well. This naval race will probably end with the Chinese navy being dwarfed with the Americans autistically spamming naval and air capabilities. Not only that but the Koreans, Japanese and Indians as well as the Filipinos and the Vietnamese, who have more to lose to a dominant China, will also increase their capabilities, not to mention the British, Australians and European allies, who have vested interest in the region, which when combined with the Americans in a Gulf War style coalition, will cumberstomped the Chinese. Oh, also you can just park the entire Indian navy in the Straights of Malacca and China will begin suing for peace

[@GabrielvonBorstel]

True.. Good points there, especially on a military strategic level. However, the USA might not be abke to do as you described due to a lack if financial ressources. Caspians prospective view into the future showed that problem as the US navy won't be stacked up in the same speed as the Chinese. To me, all of this is a very fascinating situation in which a huge variety of national and multinational interests will come and/or clash together.

[@ParallelComparison]

US carriers = Nuclear powered. 90 5th generation fighters China carriers = Non-nuclear powered. 40 4th generation fighters. Fujian carrier is not even comparable to Kitty Hawk class carriers

[@michaelf7093]

Remember that while the US runs 10 nuclear fleet carriers, it also runs 8 amphibious light carriers. These do not need to carry Marines and helicopters, and could instead carry F35s. If they did, they would be comparable to a Fujian. Note that "light" is a relative term, and they are in fact about the same size as the old Kitty Hawk class.

[@ParallelComparison]

@@michaelf7093 China could build light carriers fast and probably catch up

[@infidelheretic923]

Taiwan must not fall. All depends on it.

[@davidjoelsson4929]

And it all depends on the youth of taiwan aswell, ideologies of the youth could change everything taiwan needs to be careful

[@benudharmadhi4154]

If Taiwan falls world falls 65% of the semiconductor comes from Taiwan

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@davidjoelsson4929 AFAIK Taiwanese youth tend to be more pro-independance.

[@NostalgicMem0ries]

i dont get why usa is even allowed to go near china or asian shores? they should go to their shores in america and nato partners, why intervene in foreign affairs? this time china has all right to close their seas and shores from foreign navies, that's a threat

[@maninredhelm]

I don't think the US cares that much about the Indian Ocean. Very little in those sea lanes directly impacts the US, at least east of the Persian Gulf. The smarter play is to help India set their navy up and let them dominate that zone. Then if Europe handles at least half the workload in the Atlantic, that frees up the US to focus on the western Pacific.

[@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505]

Mate as a Somali I'll tell you the USA cares extremely about the Indian Ocean...USA wants to maintain being a superpower...the Indian Ocean connects future super powers in east and south Asia with Europe...this alone makes this sea very critical not to mention the Indian Ocean containing most of the worlds remaining warm water fish plus other resources ...also the currents of the north west Indian Ocean influence even the maritime environment of the entire Atlantic...fish species leave the cold Atlantic and migrate to the Indian Ocean during to its currents that are unique and due to its high plankton presence...this indian or erthyrean ocean is very important heck it even has some random wonders like the coast of north east Somalia where the largest bio luminescent area in the world is found in a sea area the size of the American state of Connecticut and no scientist can explain why this occurs

[@cristy7381]

The United States cares. The US agreed to police the world's oceans in exchange for the world using the US Dollar as d reserve currency.

[@hikodzu]

"this video is sponsored by conflict of nation" what a great start 😂

[@pacershark452]

3:40 My THEORY, based on the current trade routes displayed on the map, is that India & Australia would combine forces to block trade between Africa and china in the event of war. That would be a big part of the overall strategy to starve china of materials for war. Theoretically...

[@realhumphreyappleby]

Hence why the Quad is so crucial.

[@pacershark452]

@Shy Cracker True. I hav'nt read what their military posture to China is.

[@nightsage217]

@@pacershark452 we will be just exactly the same as what our predecessors did. Free for All. We just stand on the winner's side.

[@pacershark452]

@@nightsage217 Right. Good to know.

[@kevinchen4662]

And China could also cut off a sizable portion of India's freshwater source via Tibet to redirect or limit the flow of water with dams and such in the event of its trade route being cut off by India. Theoretically...

[@MikeJoseph1992]

This was one of your best ones yet. Great work.

[@Cheattoe]

I swear your channel always comes through with a video right when I need one! I was just feeling annoyed about dumb things at my job and needed something to take my mind off of it :’)

[@andriusdi]

Well like many other commentators said here, this is just a wishful thinking. China in this video is represented with only positive things in it's development and without any negatives.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

What would be the negatives about trying to protect your own essential trade routes? Maybe we can ask china to come protect atlantic sea routes between europe and the usa if having countries from the other side of the planet protecting seas is so acceptable and efficient. Maybe the mediteranian as well. Have china protect that as well.

[@andriusdi]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 What I meant is, that not only China is building up it's military, ASEAN countries do that too. if they see increasing threat from China, they will do something about it too, build up anti ship missile systems, air defense system, naval and air power too and could potentially join military alliances against China. China's increasing power would be contained and it wouldn't be able to control what is wants. If you think that everyone will sit and watch while China starts to warmonger and do nothing about it, is a real wishful thinking.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

@@andriusdi you keep calling china a threat but i am pretty sure you are part of the same group that is droning on about how "europe needs to look after their own protection". China is looking after their own protection and just as europe is doing now so are these other countries. If china has no millitary, the rest doesn't need one either. And if the usa didn't have such a huge millitary neither would china need one. There is no threat or whatever, it is just maintaining a reasonable balance. When none of the countries in asia had a meaningful navy, nobody needed a navy. Now china is building a navy, so their neighbours need a navy as well to keep china out. And the neighbours of those neighbours now see other countries around them also building navies, so guess what...... they now need to contest their waters as well. This stuff isn't rocket science. Don't let the bastards grind you down like that man.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

@@andriusdi are you really surprised china wants to protect their own traderoutes and not be at the whim of the usa. If the usa decides china is no longer allowed to trade china just has to swallow that and suffer economic collapse. Would you accept that for your country, that another country can simply decide if you are allowed to trade or not and cut you off from all resources and trade? Ofcourse not, then why in the world do you believe china should and would be fine with that? You guys live in some twisted alternative dimension or something.

[@dsnodgrass4843]

It's useful as a hypothetical. Everyone knows none of this would go like that.

[@funchable212]

Absolutely incredible graphics. So glad to see caspian report getting even better. Shirvan is a boss

[@BAPK1602]

"domestically designed", ya mean stolen? I would like to know the inner workings of the ship, and how close it mimics US carriers.

[@mattahmann]

It's all stolen ip

[@mariamarie4317]

plsss send love to the people's republic of c---- 19

[@54788654478087654345]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but where did America get their technology from when they weren't top dog? Is it not the way of the world that subordinates mimic the tactics/strategy of superiors?

[@mattahmann]

@@54788654478087654345 there's a difference between theft and working with other countries.

[@markpukey8]

@@54788654478087654345 Do you have any examples of tech that the US stole? Not tech that our allies shared with us, or us with them, that's different with allies. But actually took from another nation via some kind of theft? It's a whole lot easier to look at the list of patents and inventions coming FROM the US. We really did invent gigantic swatches of modern technology right here in the US. China didn't. At all. Even today they don't receive many international patents for domestic research, and much of what they DO receive is for derivative work (i.e. a patent for a process to manufacture a type of computer chip. But they don't have the patent on the chip itself).

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

The best historic comparison for China's navy is not that of the US, or of the Imperial (ww2) Japanese, but rather of Imperial (ww1) Germany.

[@xtraordinarychemistry7410]

China is nothing like Imperial Japanese and Germany. Nowadays, US looks a lot like Imperial Japanese.

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

@@xtraordinarychemistry7410 🤦‍♂️

[@andrewsmithphoto]

I feel it is sort sighted to not mention Chinas Maritime Militia. A force 11,000 vessel strong capable of depleting fish stocks the world over, blocking access to areas by sheer numbers and with the estimated capability of 1,228,000 miles of ocean a day.

[@PyrusFlameborn]

Their maritime militia might be weak individually but no matter how powerful the missile, it can only hit one target.

[@MikMoen]

Japan: "We could've hit the US West Coast, but didn't in the end." China: "We will pull what the Imperialists call, a Pro Gamer Move."

[@sonneh86]

You make it seem like the new Chinese aircraft carrier is on par with the US ones. This is far from the case. The Chinese one is not even finished. It's slingshot doesn't appear to be operational. Moreover, the Chinese one is diesel powered whereas the American ones are nuclear.

[@shirihotep3741]

Another excellent video! Very informative and well researched. Thanks.

[@robertseaborne5758]

Thank you Caspian Report, for your rigorous analysis and precise presentation of such technical and geo-strategic information; both valuable and much appreciated.

[@foxbat296]

""Nothing worth having was ever achieved without efforts"...another set of great lines from Shirvan...

[@lucasharvey8990]

Honestly people overhype the ending quotes sometimes. Sometimes they're really interesting, sure, but today for example it was pretty basic. Every parent and teacher who has ever tried to get a kid to do something has told them some variation of "you can't achieve anything big if you don't put in the effort..."

[@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745]

@@lucasharvey8990 Exactly, seemed pretty standard to me

[@captainalex157]

@@lucasharvey8990 if you have to pee, go to the toilet. ive been your host Shirvan from caspian report.

[@johnnyd6953]

not a great line at all. The best things to have always come with zero effort. Accidents of birth, geography, location, etc.

[@syedmohibalishah1497]

Thankyou for your high quality videos. Amazing

[@forcedanonymity1791]

It’s worth noting that the US not only has 11 of the now 12 Super Carriers, we also have half the world’s Jump Carriers. China’s tonnage in ships is not equivalent to the US’s tonnage in terms of strike power. China is a PAPER TIGER. They have a huge advantage in terms of the current Taiwan question, mainly due to the tyrant of distance and response time. China is making a MASSIVE mistake, but then look at their jacked up demographics chart. Mao’s stupidity with the one-child policy caused millions and millions of baby girls to be aborted or murdered. Nobody else’s demographics look like theirs. Just as demographics drove Russia to make their move this year on Ukraine, demographics is also driving China to take their shot at expansionism because they don’t have the workforce to continue being the world’s factory when their population is set to nearly HALVE by 2050.

[@michaelf7093]

History shows that in naval duels, what counts is the training, heritage and culture of the navies in question. The US Navy has a deep institutional reservoir of this, like the Royal Navy. It served the Royal Navy well at Trafalgar, where it defeated a force twice its number, and at Jutland, again defeating superior German technology. The US Navy did the same to the Japanese, despite being heavily damaged by surprise attack, and then outnumbered in heavy carriers for the first half of the war. The Chinese have no real naval tradition, the last being the fleet of Cheng He, which last sailed in 1433. And he was not truly Chinese, but a Central Asian eunuch. This fleet sailed about, collecting tribute from small weak maritime states, and then was broken up. Other than a handful of pirates, there is no other Chinese naval heritage, just some trading and fishing fleets, in its 5000 year history. It's hard to imagine a major power with a weaker naval culture. Not even Russia. The idea that they somehow challenge the present world order is ludicrous. They are barely comparable to Japan in strength, and given the Japanese heritage, it wouldn't be close. Even Australia, once they have their 8 new nuclear attack subs, would find nothing they can't handle. Once this distraction of eastern Europe is over, the US will complete its pivot to the Pacific littoral. Even the UK will soon be home porting a carrier in Singapore. There will be no contest.

[@ChoongaLoonga]

But according to your point Royal Navy is much stronger than USA because Royal Navy is only navy that had real naval battle against real opponent after ww2.During Ming dynasty chinese defetead portuguesse and spaniards in taiwan and phillipines.Unfortunatley Qing dynasty didnt continue to invest in navy.I agree with expirience but you forgot thag modern naval battles are all about long range surface to surface missiles and cyber attacks.Although US NAVY is superrior in electronics its biggest weakness is that it vuenarlble to cyber attacks and relying to much on electronic system in case of malfunction can proo e deadly for both crew and ahip.Cuple years ago two burkes crashed in ports of okinawa and singapoore due to GPS malfunction.Investigation showed that GOS malfunction happened due to cyber attack

[@lao5610]

I’m not usually conspiratorial but I’ve lived in China long enough to know that Chinese carrier is nowhere near finished building. I’ve been a fan for years so please go back and rewatch the CLN video showing the launch. Specifically, look at the bridge tower which appears to be nothing but a frame. Also, where are the deck weapons and defense systems? For the most modern carrier in the world, they don’t appear to have any visible radar, rocket, or AA systems… Literally the only evidence that this ship is operational is a poorly made propaganda video and the CCP’s word based off the CLN’s word. Again, I don’t want to be conspiratorial and you can come to you own conclusion. But I think the importance of this event is being way over blown. I’ve love China but I’m also the first to admit they probably have the both the best foreign and domestic propaganda network in history.

[@ChoongaLoonga]

@@lao5610 it is stated by china that carrier will be fully operational by 2024/2025

[@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016]

The German example is actually worrying. With no real naval tradition, Germany came off better at Jutland. But, as you alluded to, it had no strategic impact. China cannot hope to defeat Japan and the U.S., but I fear they'll do far better than people think. Experience isn't everything. Training and technology do a lot of work, which means I could end up at the bottom of the ocean if anything pops off in the next 5 years. At present China can't win, but they could make one hell of a mess on the way down.

[@marlarki5280]

Nobody has any modern naval warfare experience, the closest anyone have is Falkland and the British almost completely bungled it, what ever ""training, heritage and culture of the navies"" that the British have is completely gone by WW1, Germans did better than the Brits at Jutland, but Britain's superiority in numbers meant that nothing changes strategically. It shows that navies subjected to the exact same patterns as land forces, its effectiveness rises and fall the same as the other.

[@damsb.6078]

Ho boy, we are living an intersting time in the great History of Mankind... A Chinese superpower could bring balance in the geopolitical game, it would allow smaller countries to have a greater weight in negotiation with their "big brothers", at the end of the day, no one wants to see a real hot war starting between the US and China. The problem is how the US will accept to loose their superpower status, because declining powers are generally more aggressive than rising superpowers.

[@hamzamahmood9565]

Dominating first island chain by 2030 seems pretty ambitious given the sheer combined strength of U.S., Japan and Australia in the Pacific. Also, after watching the result of Ukraine invasion I don't think China will go for the infinitely more difficult challenge of taking Taiwan anytime soon.

[@widodoakrom3938]

True

[@呵呵哈哈-o3m]

unless China becomes the largest economy then.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

It's easier, not more difficult. They can simply blockade it, something Russia can't do with Ukraine cos it has the west on the other side. That won't let them conquer it ofc, but their primary goal would be to ensure the US can't use it as another staging post.

[@chipschannel9494]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn you have to have a blue water navy to blockade also to invade. Think Normandy on a grandeur scale, more like the plans to invade Japan in 46’.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@chipschannel9494 Lol no you don't. That depends on how far the target is - Taiwan is right next to them. Japan was going to be invaded by a country all the way across the ocean, which Taiwan isn't.

[@martinschouwenburg506]

Oh yeah and by the way. All neigbours of China will sit silently and sigh. Or not. Action gets reaction as always. China stands mostely alone and that is very uneasy position if you have the ambitions China has. The Americans may be hamfisted, arrogant and sometimes stupid in their ambitions but they do maintain a healthy string of usefull allies around the globe. Easing their expenditure as world power considerably. The demographic clock is weighted heavily against China, with all the economic fallout that causes, making their aspirations a bit dubious

[@muhammadadeel8639]

America doesnt has allies, it has vassals (virtually the whole world, excluding resistance contries e.g. iran china russia). World is currently living in an Anglo-saxon empire/US empire

[@martinschouwenburg506]

@@muhammadadeel8639 We Are the Borg. You Will be Assimilated. Resistance is Futile.

[@dariusdareme]

You have one of the few intros that I actually like.

[@Mma_tips]

By taking notice of the Ukraine war, when large targets are subdued easily with guerrilla warfare, Aircraft carriers will pose to be more of a liability in case of a full scale fighting, requiring only one to three missiles to destroy such a big target, drones, hypersonic weapons and other tactical weapons will be given more importance if China is to increase its naval fleet. Not to forget, its a 20th century tool for power projection, as dominance in space provides more coverage and attack capabilities to any part of the world at a short notice.

[@paulstevenconyngham7880]

by far the most underated comment here

[@Monsterpala]

The destruction of moskva was russian incompetence. The ship was built to deal with three + missles. Good thing the PLA not only copies russian tech but corruption as well.

[@darkspirit8247]

However in case of missilistic warfare there's no doubt anti missile defense (hypersonic included) will be developed by both sides

[@jonathanchoi3533]

American soldiers aren't gonna be engaging in geurilla warfare at sea.

[@zsarimaxim692]

By taking notice of Ukraine war, the lack of air cover for Russian navy is seriously jeopardizing its fleet. And you are correct in that additional space cover will be necessary in future war.

[@dh8973]

Excellent video script and infographics.

[@Sweet_Pup_g]

Interesting as always. Some thoughts is of course China's interests are much more limited compared to the US, and are regional in nature rather than global for the US. Second is the fact that even if US would commit say 40-50% of total naval force in the Pacific, almost certainly the entirety of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, with potential support from Canada, and the UK would be in the calculation of any sort of conflict. Of course there are technology, experience and Naval Tradition considerations to make as well. I'm sure China will force arms expenditure but anything resembling "Naval Dominance" is a very long ways away.

[@hallarious506]

Yet. More regional yet.

[@hallarious506]

@@sosoable Ah yes. "You only need to do one thing to win". The peak of military analysis xD

[@hallarious506]

@@sosoable Yes. But there need to be an or instead of an and. Otherwise, your sentence doesnt make any sense.

[@markpukey8]

I agree with your conclusion, but I have to point out that China's interests are ABSOLUTELY global in nature. They don't want global dominion (they've made it very clear they are happy to let the US spend the money and do the work of being the global policeman. They don't want the job!) but they do want guaranteed access to raw materials. And since China brings in raw materials from the entire globe, either their navy has to be up to protecting their convoys of materials and the convoys of exported finished goods, or someone else has to do it. Commerce raiding and outright piracy are almost unheard of in 2022 because the US Navy stomps it down whenever we find it. If we stop, various nations and rogues will go back to just taking cargoes when they need goods they cannot otherwise afford to buy. i.e. India might seize oil tankers or even grain shipments as needed. Several African nations would be delighted to intercept cargoes moving to the Suez Canal, etc.... I personally don't believe we'll continue protecting Chinese interests if they use their navy to interfere with OUR interests. So they will have no choice. If they want to be the dominant global economy, their whole Navy will be forced to play world policeman. They won't be tooling around in the South China Sea playing "big bully" to Vietnam or Brunei. So like I said, I agree that China's Naval Dominance is a long, long ways away, but they will be forced to build a global navy and that task adds decades to any reasonable timeline. It's not about pretty ships, it's about alliances, and China isn't good at those.

[@ddobry21]

That's a nice aircraft carrier but let's not forget it's Made in China

[@blueciffer1653]

what's that supposed to mean

[@J_X999]

Let's not forget that the Chinese built your phone. Deny it, you will

[@ddobry21]

@@J_X999 China owns Samsung?

[@J_X999]

@@ddobry21 Nope but they make a tonne of electronic components in Samsung devices. LOL, I've done that multiple times and they've all fallen straight into it Your reply ain't different

[@ddobry21]

@@J_X999 But Taiwan also makes these chips right? And I don't consider Taiwan to be part of China. So there you go. Taiwan makes my phone.

[@aburetik4866]

China has world's most advanced ship building industry. It has 3 shipyards capable of building aircraft carriers while America only has one. If China wants, it can build way more carriers in a matter of few years. Meanwhile, USN is rapidly aging. It has to retire 33 cruisers/destroyers and 3 nimitz class carriers in the coming few years. The balance of power is fast shifting in favor of China.

[@Rjsjrjsjrjsj]

And yet the US has 11 nuclear powered Super Carriers and China has none. 🤣

[@chellybub]

I dunno, the video of the Fujian carrier showed it looking pretty empty... Didn't seem to have any equipment in the bridge. So I don't think it's finished yet. Let's see what it's like when it's done. It's impressive that they have made their own carrier instead of using basically recycled carriers. It's rather interesting that they have apparently gotten the magnetic launch systems going. But they are a little late to the party. This is an interesting development, though I'll be more impressed when they get it all working.

[@brucesi]

Yeah it's not operational for anther few years. Also of note, it's not nuclear powered like all US Navy carriers.

[@davidmoss2576]

It needs to go through sea trials before being fitted with all the equipments etc.

[@sidneysun3865]

Because there isn’t any equipment yet. Jeez, don’t you read the news?

[@chellybub]

@@secretname4190 I didn't want to be too arogant you know? But I'll be honest, I doubt it will ever be working to the level we would expect from the US or Russia. It's hard not to be a sceptic when they have had so many engineering failures over the years and their society is rife with corruption. Every boss at every level skims off the top. By the time the project managers get their budget it's been cut to ribbons. Which is probably why it's a fancy looking barge currently. Some have speculated that the reason they covered up the mag launchers is because they don't exist... Especially as the tech is no secret to any power who might be able to employ them in their own designs. Why hide them? They likely copied someone else's design anyways. Which I don't really have that much of an issue with for most things. Mostly because just like copying homework, you don't learn as much as if you did the hard work yourself. Face is the most important thing to the CCP, soft power victories. And it's working, Shirvan is talking about 3rd island chain and the possibility of invading Taiwan in the next 30 years. Why? Because of an empty hulk? I'll give it to the CCP they certainly are clever with their propaganda. I admit I could be wrong... Time will tell.

[@Poctyk]

There is a difference between ship being launched and entering service.

[@Gmanhenejen]

I guess I'm gonna have to intervene

[@jaredgomora6506]

@@Alpha-Cheeno yeah like you 🤡

[@jochemlambers]

Excellent video, really nice maps

[@sumitchoudhari7274]

Please show the correct map of India 🙏

[@nazmulhasankhan3393]

Prajjits at first conquer the whole Kashmir than talk about it Don't cry before conquer whole Kashmir Rendian

[@kokuyocamlin07]

@@nazmulhasankhan3393 Aye Chìna's 🐕 Päkistani xD

[@xWarLegendx]

@@kokuyocamlin07 don’t be angry sar

[@nazmulhasankhan3393]

@@kokuyocamlin07 prajjits you will never get Kashmir

[@harshrawat7392]

@@nazmulhasankhan3393 imran khan we support u saaaar behrooooooni saajizzz

[@hewas_chewasky]

I love this topographical map so much

[@MrYosssup]

yet another outstanding report...thanks Caspian!

[@mihaidumitrescu8717]

I suppose that pursuing its expansion strategy, non nuclear AC will suffice for reaching the first island chain and probably even more. But we have to consider that until that time they won't sit with the hands in their pockets. For sure they'll construct nuclear aircraft carriers or perhaps by that time ACs will be obsolete in the new warfare. Perhaps they will develop other means and ways to wage war, more efficient and less costly: drones, autonomous u-boats, orbital shuttles for "growing plants experiments", EM technology, all sorts of robots etc. But US and the rest of the Western world won't ignore these changes and already having technological advantage perhaps they'll develop faster these new weapons or even create some weapons that we cannot even think about. Yet. Things are moving faster and faster and until 2050 there's enough time for all sides to reach higher technological levels.

[@PyrusFlameborn]

Indeed. We should not stare ourselves blind on their current works. China always works on a schedule of decades, not years.

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

I'm sure that Japan wont allow this

[@sleepyjoe4529]

Japan has no say

[@Conn30Mtenor]

@@sleepyjoe4529 think again. They have a pretty capable navy of their own.

[@Life-Is-A-Meme-t5h]

@@sleepyjoe4529 if they had no say, then how come they had joint military exercise with the US not too long ago?

[@ricardomesquita8167]

@@Life-Is-A-Meme-t5h japan is still occupied by usa

[@LarryWater]

They’ll bring back the fun to Nanjing again.

[@gamologists2772]

What a great video!

[@hughjass1044]

All of this is aspirational and while it's good to aspire, set goals and make plans, turning them into reality is quite something else. What is not accounted for here is just how China intends to pay for all of this. China gained most of its wealth by turning itself into the world's factory. Exploiting western shortsightedness and greed worked wonders for China but that only works for a while and there's every indication that the trend is starting to turn. Add in the facts that China is no longer the ultra cheap place to do business it once was, that they still haven't mastered the art of manufacturing high value products, that their game plan is now laid bare for all to see, that their economy has plateaued, their demography is in crisis and their debt situation is a looming disaster and you have what is certain to be a very bad period on the horizon for China. With the way things are headed for them, they'll do very well to maintain what they have, never mind dreaming about world domination. And that's not even accounting for the fact that the US, UK, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Vietnam, India, Indonesia and others are not simply going to sit around with their thumbs up their butts just watching all this happen. They're going to respond and do so in a massive way.

[@d0nj03]

Things are not starting to turn, the US is not rebuilding its factories, it's a heavily financialized economy and the neo-feudal lords in charge making all the profits will not willingly invest in turning it back into a more production-focused and less profit-accumulation economy. And the naval "expansion" shown in this video is precisely China trying to maintain what they have and not let themselves be turned into another Russia by the US empire fomenting open conflict in some nearby territory like Taiwan as yet another proxy.

[@Life-Is-A-Meme-t5h]

And yet, they still dont have the proper technology to develop their own semiconductor processors like Taiwan. The tiny island nation of Taiwan has that stronghold which China does not have.

[@sinoroman]

china is building their own semiconductor processors but the processors just aren't the best. the gap is closing quickly

[@markpukey8]

I agree that China WANTS naval superiority in 2 phases. But I greatly doubt they can achieve it. If nothing else, the 1st Island chain leaves Japan with it's normal access to the wide oceans, but China actually controlling the 2nd Island chain would require China to dominate Japan. And I don't see that happening easily, or without a fight. Or at all to be honest. This whole video talks about what "China Wants", and that's fine. But there are other people whose actions matter here. Notably the Japanese, the folks with the 2nd most powerful navy on Earth, and who really don't like China or seem to want to be dominated by China. China mucking about in the South China Sea is one thing. But have you noticed how they did NOT try to build any new islands off the coast of Japan? Exactly as strategically useful as the Spratley's, but they're not doing anything there. Why? Because Japan won't tolerate that level of encroachment. Also, China just figured out how to build a catapult for this new carrier. The US figured it out 70 years ago. Consider that as an example. No matter what China builds for the next few decades, it will all be catch-up technology. They'll learn fast with examples of US, French, British, Russian and even Indian carriers to copy, but don't imagine their carriers will be as good at force projection as the Nimitz or Ford class carriers. Experience matters a lot.

[@richardsears4665]

China just flat out sucks, they haven't had any war experience so their troops will fare poorly, thanks for the insight Mark!

[@sinoroman]

Japan can't really do anything without action nor orders from the USA. Japan usually just follows the US.

[@richardsears4665]

@@sinoroman Not really Japan vowed to never start another war, which is why their military is called the Self Defense Force, Japan will only retaliate if it is being attack or infringed upon

[@sinoroman]

Japan did vow by themselves. USA made sure Japan didn’t declare war by themselves again. But, due to rising nationalism and calls for rearmament, Japan is looking to be violent once more

[@richardsears4665]

​@@sinoroman Rearmament? Japan is currently ranked 5th in terms of world power, I'd say they are pretty well armed, they are a very close US ally, they even hold the most US debt, and they would help the US in a war with China, but the US does not rule Japan

[@MrSupernova111]

Phenomenal reporting! Thank you!!

[@louisquatorze9280]

The Chinese "blue water navy" is considerably more vulnerable to anti ship missiles than the USN is, given the way the carrier battle group defenses have evolved. Only one way to find out for sure, just as Russian weaknesses have been revealed. I expect the Japanese military will step up in the area as well, given time.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

We will never find out, they are building them to ensure that.

[@angelarch5352]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Agreed. I love looking at new military technology, but hope we never find out if any of this works in a real life war.

[@sinoroman]

prepare for the destruction that the japanese will bring again. smh

[@tritium1998]

They also have anti-ship missiles you wish they never had though. Even Germany could build plenty of submarines with its small coastline.

[@TattoosAndGin]

Peace is maintained by American military superiority.

[@NewsRedial]

Fantastic scripting, narration and production values.

[@CMVBrielman]

Looking at that thumbnail…can someone let me know if the video even addresses the population collapse that will happen by 2050? Kinda hard to build an empire when your society is aging into obsolescence.

[@hanismh6300]

Can be solved by automation.Also populationcollapse is happening all over the world especially in Europe,China,Japan and USA.

[@suibora]

@@hanismh6300 The difference is that europe/usa/west allows immigration which can work to offset an aging population. China will never do that

[@markchiu1716]

@@suibora you are saying immigration led demographic change has no problems? Lol

[@jackstoltz330]

@@suibora China also has 1.5 billion people; immigration is still far from being needed.

[@benk5577]

@@jackstoltz330 it's not about population, its about working age population. The US immigration policy prioritizes highly trained highly educated members of the workforce, whereas China will have a growing aging population drawing from a smaller pool of workers