Listen Again: Understanding China

[@2012photograph]

Those who pay attention to Foreign affairs this audio great insight.

[@melodymaker135]

Great episode! KZbin bans the phrase “and so forth.” Poor Philip has to resign from the podcast.

[@tylerlivingston82]

Wait wait wait, this is literally the exact same video as your other understanding China video. Like a complete copy, not just going over similar topics. Are you guys serious? That is so lazy.

[@_archimedes]

Bro its called "Listening again"

[@tylerlivingston82]

@@_archimedes They literally have 2 separate videos with the same material with different titles. I understand how to read. But instead of new content they just literally repost? Wtf is that?

[@christophermcanally1246]

Mr. Friedman makes the point that China hasn't fought a naval war since the 19th century... Well the US hasn't fought a serious naval war since WW2, and we may be operating on a number of false assumptions, like the value of aircraft carriers vs missiles.

[@Joseph565112]

💯 I’m a former submariner (USS Florida). We’ve drilled and drilled and shot some fish in a barrel (Operation Odessy Dawn among others). But nobody has had a real engagement with modern armament

[@josephcasey7098]

Missiles have to guided by satellites to intended targets. You think a satellite from outer space is going to find a US carrier (which would be a tiny speck in the Pacific Ocean while moving)? The reason there hasn’t been a naval confrontation with modern weapons is because the US controls the oceans. There is no one that can challenge that status quo. Lol.

[@christophermcanally1246]

@@josephcasey7098 Both Russia and China almost certainly task satellites specifically to track us carriers and would likely exchange targeting data if the other went to war with the US, and modern satellites can track individual automobiles as Russia proved in Chechnya over two decades ago. It's MUCH harder to target a small satellite in the vastness of space than a carrier group. It's unlikely the China & Russia don't know exactly where each US carrier is at all times. Granted knowing where they are and hitting them, are different things, but missiles are cheap compared to a carrier. The days of a ship vanishing into the vastness of the ocean are over. They can't hide their thermal signatures even under cloud cover. Similarly I'd guess that in the event of war Liaoning and Shandong would quickly sink or encounter mission-kills as US submarines and missiles would quickly put them out of action. I'm certain the US tracks Chinese carriers from space and submarines. If you think US control over the oceans can't change.... Remember in WW2 the US had the manufacturing advantage, now China can manufacture much more than we can domestically. Technology can change warfighting and the US military now exists to fund the defense contractors more than defeat an enemy, so they're building new models of the same kinds of weapon systems they've built for decades. We haven't fought a serious foe for 70+ years, and we have little idea if our weapons systems will serve in a modern environment.

[@josephcasey7098]

This is absurd on so many levels. China and Russia DO NOT HAVE SATELLITES for the sole purpose of tracking US carriers. Who told you that? Lol. Russia and chinas Navy’s are NOT BLUE WATER NAVIES. Russia has ONE air craft carrier, China has two air craft carriers that are copies of the Russian class carrier from the 60’s. That have limited range and constantly break down. The total US power projection of naval power is something like 40-1. This isn’t a contest. Like I said you are way OVER ESTIMATING CHINA AND RUSSIAS NAVAL CAPABILITIES. Plus, the US has allies all over the pacific rim including Japan, Tawain, the Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, and India. If it was so easy to take out an air craft carrier than why does China want to build more of them? Lol. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

[@christophermcanally1246]

@@josephcasey7098 Actually since 2020, the Chinese have at least 9 Yaogan 31 satellites specifically designed to track US naval forces (and Taiwan as well). It's thought that they'll be adding to that over the next 18 months. That's likely enough to track US carrier task forces in the Pacific. It's not like they can hide like submarines. Don't overestimate Chinese capabilities, but also don't put too much faith in carriers today because they've worked in the past. We simply don't know if aircraft carriers could work against a peer or even near peer enemy.

[@gordbolton27]

Propaganda from Jr. High!

[@Joseph565112]

Nobody has fought a serious naval engagement with modern weapons. Nobody. The Chinese haven’t had to try and sink a super carrier and the USN hasn’t had to cope with salvos of supersonic missiles coming at it plus enemy subs plus mines plus planes.

[@josephcasey7098]

You think China (who’s Navy can only operate as a coastal defense) is going to find US carriers (as big as they are) in the vast pacific let alone hit a carrier with a missile while a US carrier is moving? You are WAY OVER ESTIMATING missile technology and Chinese capabilities. China would get annihilated in a naval war against the US.

[@devalapar7878]

This is all true. Nonetheless, super carriers have a huge advantage. They can stay for months on the ocean. They are nuclear powered and produce their own drink water. They can hit and run. They have enough firepower to destroy a small country. And the US has the biggest ones and 10 of them. China has none. In a war with China, the US would only need to block the oil from Saudi Arabia and stop delivering food. How do you fight a war without energy and food? When you know geography (I don't mean just topology), the world makes so much sense. You suddenly understand why countries developed a certain way.

[@lmyunxlee2005]

this opinion is about 10 years ago..

[@wareagleA5]

Friedman said you don't announce the country you intend to invade, but we(US) have done this on several occasions now. Every time we use the big "shock and awe campaign " we announce an invasion with threats, see Iraq as an example. This is what a powerful country does to demoralize it's enemies into not fighting back. This also saves critical/valuable infrastructure from being destroyed in a long war. Friedman is ignoring our own history and sounding like a propagandist to ease fears in Taiwan.

[@tylerlivingston82]

Yea but that doesn't work when you're attacking similarly matched militaries, or in this case, superior militaries to your own. The reason the US was able to do that is because the outcome of that first Gulf war was inevitable, the US command knew they would destroy the Iraqi military easily. That calculus completely changes when you're not sure you're going to emerge victorious.

[@wareagleA5]

@@tylerlivingston82 The US isn't going to fight for Taiwan. The most the US will do is try to destroy Taiwan's infrastructure on the way out. Just like Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. The only objective would be to make it expensive for the winner. We don't have the military capacity to sit off the coast of China and have an endless barrage of missiles shot at us. This is pure propaganda. The entire USMC is being retooled to increase our number of boats and to teach Marines how to use sea launched precision missiles. The two year missile testing actually just started.

[@tylerlivingston82]

​@@wareagleA5 And you think the conflict would just end if the US lost Taiwan off the bat and the US navy would just retreat back to Hawaii with its tail between its legs? Sounds exactly like the line of thought the imperial Japanese war machine had after they took the Philippines from the US. The conflict would not end there. Why do you say the US won't fight for Taiwan? The US navy along with its allies are actively deploying more and more vessels to the South China sea. The UK and Germany have both deployed warships there this year for example.

[@tylerlivingston82]

@@wareagleA5 But back to your original point, you listed an example of an invasion announcement, are you saying that this is what China should do? Announce to the largest military in the world that it is about to invade its ally?

[@wareagleA5]

@@tylerlivingston82 China should do what's in it's best interest, and that depends on the situation in Taiwan. The US article 5 commitment to Taiwan ended in 1979 when we officially switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing. The biggest military in the world is irrelevant to China. We've already proven that we can't send enough men to cause people to politically reform(force democracy), and how stupid would we look if Taiwan chose to side with China in 20 years. This is about buying time for the US to start it's own semiconductor manufacturing, the Chinese have even helped by outlawing crypto mining so they could be rid of us sooner. Freidman is selling security to insecure people, our spot at the top of the world is gone now, and you can't criticize the people who did this to our country.

[@jackiejt4862]

The second guy speaking is really not an “expert”. He has no idea.

[@frankw2410]

Are these people clowns?

[@walid7885]

Yes, they are. Just wishful thinking to make them feel good. Either they're not able to see the current trend or they're just making propaganda (I hope at least they get paid for it)

[@walid7885]

Delusional as usual.