Generational Dynamics World View News

[Navigator]

Ise is a DDH and only operates helicopters until it's upgraded to handle F-35Bs.

Using a nuke on US carriers would invite US retaliation, likely to include China's main navy bases. China knows this. In an actual war or near war setting, carrier strike groups would not be that close together. There is also the problem of actually delivering a nuclear weapon to attack a carrier. The USN has worried about that problem for decades and has some really good ideas on what to do.

Saw an article on the Ise and F35B operations a few days ago.

https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... 21-10?op=1

I would love to hear about the really good ideas on protecting the CV task forces.

[Guest]

China has won AI battle with U.S., Pentagon's ex-software chief says

LONDON, Oct 11 (Reuters) - China has won the artificial intelligence battle with the United States and is heading towards global dominance because of its technological advances, the Pentagon's former software chief told the Financial Times.

China, the world's second largest economy, is likely to dominate many of the key emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, synthetic biology and genetics within a decade or so, according to Western intelligence assessments.

Nicolas Chaillan, the Pentagon's first chief software officer who resigned in protest against the slow pace of technological transformation in the U.S. military, said the failure to respond was putting the United States at risk.

"We have no competing fighting chance against China in 15 to 20 years. Right now, it's already a done deal; it is already over in my opinion," he told the newspaper. "Whether it takes a war or not is kind of anecdotal."

China was set to dominate the future of the world, controlling everything from media narratives to geopolitics, he said.

Chaillan blamed sluggish innovation, the reluctance of U.S. companies such as Google to work with the state on AI and extensive ethical debates over the technology.

Google was not immediately available for comment outside business hours.

Chinese companies, Chaillan said, were obliged to work with their government and were making "massive investment" in AI without regard to ethics.

He said U.S. cyber defences in some government departments were at "kindergarten level".

Chaillan announced his resignation at the beginning of September, saying military officials were repeatedly put in charge of cyber initiatives for which they lacked experience.

A spokesperson for the Department of the Air Force said Frank Kendall, secretary of the U.S. Air Force, had discussed with Chaillan his recommendations for the department's future software development following his resignation and thanked him for his contributions, the FT said.

https://news.trust.org/item/20211011063736-r28k4


Google never had any problem working with the Chinese government...

[Guest]

So China has already won.

[thomasglee]

So China has already won.

China hasn't won as much as we have lost. This was our battle to lose.

[Xeraphim1]

Ise is a DDH and only operates helicopters until it's upgraded to handle F-35Bs.

Using a nuke on US carriers would invite US retaliation, likely to include China's main navy bases. China knows this. In an actual war or near war setting, carrier strike groups would not be that close together. There is also the problem of actually delivering a nuclear weapon to attack a carrier. The USN has worried about that problem for decades and has some really good ideas on what to do.

Saw an article on the Ise and F35B operations a few days ago.

https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... 21-10?op=1

I would love to hear about the really good ideas on protecting the CV task forces.

That was actually Izumo that the tests were done on. It and Kaga are being updated to operate F-35s. Ise and Hyuga might be, but they're further done in the queue since they're smaller and older.

Take a look at US naval strategy for the North Atlantic back in the 1980's; the Soviet Northern Fleet was designed specifically to kill US carriers. There aren't any truly new weapon types while US fleet defenses have greatly increased in capability.

The myth is that it's easy to kill carriers and yet most major countries have them or are building. US; UK; France; China; Russia; Japan; South Korea; India; Italy. With that many countries building, perhaps the myth is just that.

[Cool Breeze]

So China has already won.

China hasn't won as much as we have lost. This was our battle to lose.

The larger question is, will the Chinese "lash out" and instigate war when they have a lot to lose (risk losing) for much less overall gain. That is, why would the leaders of the CCP, or many of the military and families that are prominent, risk their status atop all the other billion people?

The only answer that I see is that they have to distract from MAJOR economic and sociopolitical realities that threaten that status. Which might be happening. Apparently Diego Parilla recently told Hedgeye that China is currently Lehman squared, not 2.0.

[thomasglee]

So China has already won.

China hasn't won as much as we have lost. This was our battle to lose.

The larger question is, will the Chinese "lash out" and instigate war when they have a lot to lose (risk losing) for much less overall gain. That is, why would the leaders of the CCP, or many of the military and families that are prominent, risk their status atop all the other billion people?

The only answer that I see is that they have to distract from MAJOR economic and sociopolitical realities that threaten that status. Which might be happening. Apparently Diego Parilla recently told Hedgeye that China is currently Lehman squared, not 2.0.

As John so often points out, you cannot use logic when it comes to a crisis war.

[Navigator]

Take a look at US naval strategy for the North Atlantic back in the 1980's; the Soviet Northern Fleet was designed specifically to kill US carriers. There aren't any truly new weapon types while US fleet defenses have greatly increased in capability.

The myth is that it's easy to kill carriers and yet most major countries have them or are building. US; UK; France; China; Russia; Japan; South Korea; India; Italy. With that many countries building, perhaps the myth is just that.

I am still very curious as to what the great increases to US fleet defenses are.

Carriers are still the "prestige weapon", like Battleships still were pre WW2. Of course many thought that newer BB designs would make them "unsinkable" and that increased AA armament would protect them from newer threats. Even Japan had such advocates.

Well, we will shortly see.

Personally, I think that missile barrages will overwhelm the CV group. And of course there can be long range guided nuclear tipped torpedoes. Also, vast improvements in mine warfare have also happened, but are commonly overlooked.

[jmparret]

So China has already won.

China hasn't won as much as we have lost. This was our battle to lose.

The larger question is, will the Chinese "lash out" and instigate war when they have a lot to lose (risk losing) for much less overall gain. That is, why would the leaders of the CCP, or many of the military and families that are prominent, risk their status atop all the other billion people?

The only answer that I see is that they have to distract from MAJOR economic and sociopolitical realities that threaten that status. Which might be happening. Apparently Diego Parilla recently told Hedgeye that China is currently Lehman squared, not 2.0.

Another view on China by George Friedman. He does not expect war. Much shorter than my last one and it should be listened at 2x speed because Emil talks slowly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cHR3v8Yydc&t=555s
Joe

[DaKardii]

The larger question is, will the Chinese "lash out" and instigate war when they have a lot to lose (risk losing) for much less overall gain. That is, why would the leaders of the CCP, or many of the military and families that are prominent, risk their status atop all the other billion people?

The only answer that I see is that they have to distract from MAJOR economic and sociopolitical realities that threaten that status. Which might be happening. Apparently Diego Parilla recently told Hedgeye that China is currently Lehman squared, not 2.0.

Another view on China by George Friedman. He does not expect war. Much shorter than my last one and it should be listened at 2x speed because Emil talks slowly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cHR3v8Yydc&t=555s
Joe
[/quote]

I've mentioned Friedman on here before. John isn't a fan; he thinks Friedman doesn't know what he's talking about. But since you're interested, I'll elaborate on what Friedman believes anyway.

Friedman believes that the 2020s will be defined by a Second Cold War, one that pits the US against China and Russia. In the end the US will win once again, but at a price. As China and Russia fragment, key American allies (particularly Japan, Poland, and Turkey) will begin pursuing their own expansionist policies within the resulting power vacuums, while the US struggles to keep them in check (and thus maintain its own de facto empire).

The 2030s and 2040s will be defined by the US losing ground across Eurasia. As Japan and Turkey displace American power (in East Asia and the Middle East, respectively), the US will begin treating them not as allies, but as enemies. Meanwhile, the rise of Poland will severely disrupt the balance of power in Europe, and eventually lead to another East-West divide. Except this time, the US and the UK will side with the East (led by Poland), resulting in the West (led by France and Germany) becoming an enemy of the US as well.

Around 2050 or so, the continued fragmentation of the US' de-facto empire will result in the outbreak of a Third World War, pitting the US, the UK, Poland, India, Korea, and what remains of China against Japan, Turkey, France, Germany, and possibly Mexico. In essence, it will be like a replay of World War II, except this time the Middle East and possibly Mexico are aligned with the Axis. And once again, the Allies would be the victorious party.

The rest of the century will be defined by a Third Cold War, this time pitting the US against Poland and especially Mexico. Regardless of how badly it suffers during World War III, Mexico will make a comeback during the second half of the century, and its geopolitical power will reach unprecedented heights. The rise of Mexican power will dramatically inflame nationalist and irredentist sentiments among Mexican-Americans, especially in the Southwest. By 2100, the US will be facing its greatest internal crisis since the Civil War, with many in the Southwest calling for secession. However, Friedman does not elaborate on what would occur beyond that, as he is not interested in making predictions beyond the 21st century.