• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

China

Australian journalist Cheng Lei released from China, arrives in Melbourne

Australian journalist Cheng Le has returned to Australia more than three years after being arrested in China.

Ms Cheng had been working as a journalist for state-owned broadcaster CGTN, when she was accused of supplying state secrets overseas.

She had rejected the allegations, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said her release was a result of legal proceedings against her in China being concluded.
Click to expand...

Further:

Albanese says Cheng Lei’s release follows the completion of judicial processes in China.

Asked by a journalist about whether her release is an acknowledgement that Lei was wrongfully detained, Albanese says:

No, China would not say that that’s the position. China would say that the judicial processes had been completed in China.
Click to expand...
source

Of course China would say that.
 
ASIO and FBI heads at Five Eyes intelligence summit accuse China of being world's worst intellectual property thief

The domestic intelligence chiefs of Australia and the United States have issued a scathing criticism of China, accusing it of intellectual property theft on an unprecedented scale.

ASIO director-general Mike Burgess and FBI director Christopher Wray are in California for the first-ever public gathering of the Five Eyes intelligence partners, which also include the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.

Mr Burgess said the decision to step outside their normally secretive meetings reflected the nature of the threat they were facing.

"We recognise nations will spy, we recognise nations will seek strategic advantage," he said ahead of the summit.

"But what we're talking about here, this is behaviour that goes beyond traditional espionage.

"The Chinese government are engaged in the most sustained, sophisticated and scaled theft of intellectual property and expertise in human history.

"And this summit is about how we work with our partners together, and in the tech sector and innovation sector, so they can better be placed to identify and manage those risks effectively."
Click to expand...
 
So this is totally not at all suspicious:

China's former premier Li Keqiang has died, months after leaving office, state media says

China's former premier Li Keqiang has died from a heart attack, state media reports.

Mr Li was premier serving under President Xi Jinping from 2013 until March this year.

"Comrade Li Keqiang, while resting in Shanghai in recent days, experienced a sudden heart attack on October 26 and after all-out efforts to revive him failed, died in Shanghai at 10 minutes past midnight on October 27," state broadcaster CCTV reported.

...

Mr Li gave his first annual policy address in 2014 and was praised for promising to pursue market-oriented reform, cut government waste, clean up air pollution and root out pervasive corruption that was undermining public faith in the ruling party.

But as his time in office went on, his relationship with Mr Xi soured.

Mr Li was dropped from the Standing Committee at a party congress in October 2022 despite being two years below the informal retirement age of 70.

The same day, Mr Xi awarded himself a third five-year term as party leader, discarding a tradition under which his predecessors stepped down after 10 years.
Click to expand...
Damn, I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist now.
 
The Atheist said:
China's military is a vastly different beast now to what it was then.
Click to expand...

So they say... assuming they do actually say it.

It's only been about 20 years since the Hainan Island incident. How "vastly" different could China's military actually have become, in that time? We haven't heard of any major reform programs or doctrinal shifts. Their force composition hasn't radically changed. These are the kinds of things that make a "vast" difference to an army, in a short amount of time. And even then, 20 years is probably still pushing it.

I'd say the Chinese military is an incrementally different beast, since they are trying to upgrade their capabilities. Carrier operations being the obvious example. But I see no reason to believe that the past 20 years have produced a People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force that is "vastly" different from the one implicated in the Hainan Island incident.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
So they say... assuming they do actually say it.
Click to expand...

I always think evidence from people charged with knowing the finer details is the best place to look.

DoD’s first annual report to Congress in 2000 assessed the PRC’s armed forces at that time to be a sizable but mostly archaic military that was poorly suited to the CCP’s long-term ambitions.
...

As this year’s report details, the PRC has marshalled the resources, technology, and political will over the past two decades to strengthen and modernize the PLA in nearly every respect. Indeed, as this report shows, China is already ahead of the United States in certain areas...
Click to expand...

https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/...020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF
 
The Atheist said:
China's military is a vastly different beast now to what it was then.
Click to expand...

Ok, but... why does that matter? How would that difference manifest in the event that there was a midair collision? What would be different about the outcome?
 
Ziggurat said:
Ok, but... why does that matter? How would that difference manifest in the event that there was a midair collision? What would be different about the outcome?
Click to expand...

I don't read crystal balls, so what would happen is unknown, but it's pretty bleeding obvious that military conflict between a poorly-armed state and a well-armed one are likely to have different outcomes.
 
The Atheist said:
I always think evidence from people charged with knowing the finer details is the best place to look.



https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/...020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF
Click to expand...

The people with a vested interest in convincing Congress to un-ass more funds for the American military-industrial complex, you mean? Yes, of course they're saying the US needs to quickly develop even newer and better and more expensive weapon systems, to get ahead of some boogeyman.

Anyway, what are these supposed vast differences, according to the report?

- Shipbuilding. This describes a Navy that is greater in quantity, but not necessarily better in quality.

- A larger arsenal of cruise missiles. Again, quantity, not quality. And it's debatable whether this is truly an advantage over the US, or simply a variance between the respective arsenals due to a variance between the respective doctrines.

- Integrated air defense systems. Based on the Russian S-300 and S-400 systems. We've recently been given a demonstration of how ass these systems actually are.

However, the next paragraph does describe a massive reform effort, so I was wrong about that not being the case. On the other hand, it's not (yet) clear whether these reforms have already resulted in vast improvements, or only incremental improvements.

Was there a part of the paper that you think more clearly illustrates a "vast" improvement in PLANAF aircraft handling and flight operations?
 
The Atheist said:
I'll leave you answer answer that since it's not something I said.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Ziggurat cited an embarrassing passage in the history of PLANAF aircraft handling and flight operations. You replied to that saying, "China's military is a vastly different beast now to what it was then."

But of course you weren't actually trying to make any kind of coherent connection between your response and the thing you were responding to. That would tend to make sense of some kind.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
I don't read crystal balls, so what would happen is unknown, but it's pretty bleeding obvious that military conflict between a poorly-armed state and a well-armed one are likely to have different outcomes.
Click to expand...

We aren't discussing war. We're discussing a possible midair collision.
 
The Atheist said:
I don't read crystal balls, so what would happen is unknown, but it's pretty bleeding obvious that military conflict between a poorly-armed state and a well-armed one are likely to have different outcomes.
Click to expand...

Haha oh wow. Finally I understand. You think China is now well armed for a conflict with the US and its allies in the Pacific.
 
Remember that midair back in 2000? Comrade Pilot Wang bravely fed the fishes then. Live like him!
 
theprestige said:
Of course not. Ziggurat cited an embarrassing passage in the history of PLANAF aircraft handling and flight operations. You replied to that saying, "China's military is a vastly different beast now to what it was then."
Click to expand...

Which is correct and the outcome might be different as a result.

Ziggurat said:
We aren't discussing war. We're discussing a possible midair collision.
Click to expand...

Which has the potential to create conflict.

theprestige said:
Haha oh wow. Finally I understand. You think China is now well armed for a conflict with the US and its allies in the Pacific.
Click to expand...

Still making stuff up, I see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom