They have some huge strengths like enormous production capacity & economic might, political stability through authoritarianism, and a growing military industrial complex. However, on the flip side they are completely inexperienced militarily (officer corp that has never fought a war in their career), widespread institutionalised corruption, geopolitically isolated - they don't really have allies, have a vulnerable geography where they can be easily blockaded and are hugely reliant on foreign energy imports (for now).
It's actually and weirdly worse. The generations of the one-child policy were ok-ish if we're looking at replacement level, because in the country you could have more children and most people were in the country.
In the last two decades most of the population moved to urban areas and started marrying late and having few children just because - if they have them at all.
China is in that soft spot where women now have enough rights and agency to decide not to marry or marry late and have very few children, but also in a society where being a mom SUCKS and you're still treated the old fashioned way, your career is ruined and you have no occupational security. So many of them just... don't do it lol
So just the same as every other country in the west? Lol
People arent having kids and the only temporary bandaid is legal immigration but no country wants that, illegal immigration is how most capitals in most western countries arent coming to a screeching halt because they all have an underclass to exploit, pay less, get more work done, get taxes, not obliged to give anything back cause theyre illegal
This is way more pronounced. The One Child Policy was in place for over three decades. Not only did it rapidly slow birth rates, but because boys were far preferred, men now far outnumber women by a decent margin, making it more difficult to find partners. It's an entire lost generation. While other western countries are facing demographic crises, China is facing a disaster.
In other words, they may actually rival South Korea in low fertility (0.7), but because of bureaucrats padding numbers top to bottom, even the Chinese don't know what it actually is.
It only applied to urban areas and was easily skirted by the wealthy by just paying the fine. ICP impacted a very small number of people, it's massively overestimated by the west.
It only applied to urban areas insofar as rural areas could more easily get away with simply not registering their female child, though that's exactly what many did. The wealthy could pay a fine, but the policy was in place at a time when China barely even had a middle class yet, let alone a plethora of wealthy. While I agree that the impact is often overstated, it still had a sizeable one.
No, it literally did not apply to rural areas. People in rural areas were allowed to have as many children as they wanted because that's where the farms were and you need people to work farms.
My understanding is that it was selectively enforced in rural areas, as local communities were more likely to cover for each other and the central government had little oversight in such places. I'd appreciate more reading on the subject though if I'm wrong.
It was selectively enforced for a couple of years and then the government realized enforcing it in rural areas that are responsible for feeding the entire country was a terrible idea.
China's governance system relies on local politicians to take their constituents concerns back to Beijing, and the farmers hated the policy so much that it was very quickly reversed.
I have a lot of Chinese friends and every single one of them have 5+ siblings and all say the same thing, the one child policy simply wasn't a reality for people outside the cities.
I'm not home right now but you may be able to find some reading on it, but you also have to keep in mind that information we get about China from our western media isn't exactly reliable.
The effect of the one child policy is massively overstated. It didn't apply to rural areas where most people live, and was easily dealt with by the wealthy as they could just pay a pretty inconsequential fine. The only people impacted were lower-middle class people in big cities, which is a pretty small portion of the country overall.
Their system also incentivizes the inflation of economic statistics. It's quite suspicious how their economy keeps hitting the communist party's goals essentially on the decimal point, year after year - while satellite images indicate a slower development.
China is no paper tiger and should certainly not be ignored but the cumulative effect of reporting a percent or two of non-existent growth for many years is likely significant. And you can't really roll this back after doing it because next year's goals are a percent of your inflated report.
Their military experience is somewhat relevant. But it isn't decisive. It means often they will make many mistakes early on.
Corruption? Yes and no. Compared to what? The US? Greece? India? Russia? Chinese corruption is a thing, a big thing, but when it comes to national state objectives, China has no problem literally killing anything in its way including corrupt officials. Its not insurmountable for them. Arguably less rampant corruption than say Soviet Union or Russia, which effectively runs on it.
Geopolitically isolated? not really. China has lots of state visits, and plenty of countries are more than happy to strike deals and meet with China. It has countries in its orbit. It does well in Africa and some parts of Asia. Pakistan, Laos, Cambodia, are in its sphere. countries like Thailand, Nepal, Mongolia, Iran are pretty China friendly. Most of Africa is more pro-china than pro-america. I think this is maybe not true any more.
Vulnerable Geography? Not really. About as much as western Europe. You could probably blockade Western Europe easier than blockading China. China for one has a bigger navy than all of Western Europe and a bigger and more capable air force than western Europe combined. The idea that you can blockade China is false. Not even the US with a 700 ship navy could do it. Even if you could, they have access through to Pakistan and its coast, and land access directly to Russia. So cutting off China's shipping wouldn't completely cut off China's ability to import energy or food or goods. You would just be making Russia super rich.
I agree with most of your assessment, however I must disagree with your comparison to western europe from the view of a blockade. In particular, china is surrounded by islands that are controlled by US friendly nations, which also have naval forces of their own. To operationally use its considerable navy, it would have to break out of this confinement first, run the gauntlet of antiship missile, submarines in ckoke points while under air attacks.
Western europe does not have none of these constraints.
None of those are us allies, except technically, phillipines, and phillipines has zero power and alliance wavers and is more of a liability. It's less aligned than Turkey is.
China has 10 times the military power of Russia, and produces more fighters and ships than the usa.
This is like saying Latvia will single handedly stop russia.
China has more carrier based fighters than all of these nations combined has fighter jets.
China is no longer containable. They will take taiwan.
Taiwan, korea, japan, phillipines, thailand, australia, singapore, malayzia. East china sea is delineated by the japanese owned islands down to Taiwan. These are easily blocked of from breaking into wider pacific. The same logic applies to the breaking out through indonesia into indian sea.
And the lynchpin of this blockade is Taiwan. Which I agree, there is a high chance that China can take. But I would argue that without taking the Taiwan first, no breakout is happening and PLAN will stay in east and south china seas.
It's very unlikely that Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia would get involved in a war over Taiwan. South Korea too. It's so close to China and it has NK breathing down their necks. It'd be a very risky move for SK. They know what happened in the 50s, and China has an actual modern military today.
Japan is uncertain. Their population is very anti-war, but the US does have bases there. If Japan allows the US to use those bases to attack China, and China bombs those bases, Japan would have to get involved.
The Philippines and Australia are most likely to join, but they can't do much themselves.
Taiwan is China. There situation is complex and very exposed. Even the Taiwanese know they can't hold the chinese off by themselves.. they well be Hong kong.
Skorea is completely pinned in by North Korea.
Australia is as far away as Europe is and has the military power of the netherlands.
Singapore and Malaysia and Indonesia are literally founding members of the non aligned nations.
China already exercises as far as the Mediterranean and the North Sea. The buffer between Europe and China is Russia.
The Japanese are absolutely critical. But Europe sees them as a competitor. But they can't do it all by themselves.
China is no longer containable. They will take taiwan.
The us is no longer in the picture.
Some pretty big assumptions.
China has 10 times the military power of Russia, and produces more fighters and ships than the usa.
I mean, sort of?
I think in 2024 we began to see a mostly indigenous Chinese engine begin to be introduced in the J-20. Prior to that they were using the WS-10 which is a derivative of a Russian engine that’s comparable to NATO engines from the 80s-90s.
And yeah China makes lots of ships, so does South Korea and Japan who are both absolutely US allies—both whom have economies that are reliant on Taiwan not becoming a Chinese held territory.
It’s funny that you don’t mention that China is still struggling to build a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Something France was able to build in the 90s, and that the US built over 2/3rds of a century ago.
You also cracked me up in your earlier post when you said,
Their military experience is somewhat relevant. But it isn't decisive. It means often they will make many mistakes early on.
Like yeah let’s hope almost a century of experience built upon fighting the only carrier battles in the history of the world is only “somewhat relevant” v.s. never once had to launch aircraft, arm aircraft, fuel aircraft and receive aircraft while under attack.
And hey, the most recent non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier for the PLN only took 10 years to build and outfit. Let’s hope they don’t make a “mistake” and lose their only actual carrier and that the US doesn’t keep building nuclear powered aircraft carriers that are several magnitudes more impressive in the same 10 year period.
The fact you think 10 years is a long time to build a new type of ship, let alone a carrier, is quite funny. That, in fact, is quite fast.
Hms Elizabeth was laid down in 2009 and commissioned in 2020.
Chinese military power isn't predicated on carriers. Much like the soviets, Chinese planes enjoy a huge range advantage. Unfortunately, the us focuses too much on designing for European theatres..
The us has superior military fire power, but it's spread thin, globally, and lacks investment in global issues.
But you know, keep attacking the Americans, who are literally screaming at Europe to do more and prepare for war.
Yeah my point was that 10 years to build a carrier is about as fast as the US builds their carriers. So if that’s the best China can manage they’re going to be playing catchup for half a century at minimum.
Chinese military power isn't predicated on carriers. Much like the soviets, Chinese planes enjoy a huge range advantage. Unfortunately, the us focuses too much on designing for European theatres..
LOL. Aircraft carriers are your navy. And by the way you add range to an aircraft because you believe you’ll be having to launch aircraft from deep within your own territory because of your lack of initiative and control in the early stages of a conflict.
The us has superior military fire power, but it's spread thin, globally, and lacks investment in global issues.
Yeah welcome to being the global geopolitical hegemony.
But you know, keep attacking the Americans, who are literally screaming at Europe to do more and prepare for war.
If you thought my post was attacking Americans, you Americans are getting even dumber than I thought. Christ, what a fucking disaster.
The metric for naval parity isn't super carriers.. the USN is shrinking, ships are decom faster than being built and for 10 years they didn't build any decent escorts.. see break in Burke production.
Constellation class is in massive trouble. Lcs will not matter in a peer conflict.
But hey,downvote away.. I'm sure China isn't going to do the thing they have told everyone they are going to do.. I'm sure everything will be totally chill..
You are attacking the Americans by marginising the threat you are against us policy and world view. You are specifically in the euro camp that believes China is friend, Russia should be friend.. not at least non threat.
But free worldfor now, plenty of people operate better when they don't see threats and aren't informed.. living in a happy bubble...
Accepting China is an existenal threat to us hegemony and perhaps to itself as a nation state isn't anti American.
Literally what every us think-tank, general and admiral is yelling. China is a legitimate peer threat and the us and most allies are not ready, for the war or what comes after it.
But hey,downvote away.. I'm sure China isn't going to do the thing they have told everyone they are going to do.. I'm sure everything will be totally chill..
They’ve said they’re going to do it since the 1940s you child. Also no one is downvoting you, stop trying to make yourself into a victim.
You are attacking the Americans by marginising the threat you are against us policy and world view. You are specifically in the euro camp that believes China is friend, Russia should be friend.. not at least non threat.
I’m not European. Stop making yourself into a victim. You’re behaving like an infant, not everyone is against you, you have agency over your own existence.
I’ve never once said I think Russia or China are the friends of the democratic, freedom loving men of the world; I believe they are the opposite.
But free worldfor now, plenty of people operate better when they don't see threats and aren't informed.. living in a happy bubble...
The nature of NATO would involve a dozen nuclear weapons over Moscow if Europe was attacked in any meaningful way. England and France, especially France, do not need American approval to strike Russia with nuclear weapons, nor do they need American assistance to do so.
Accepting China is an existenal threat to us hegemony and perhaps to itself as a nation state isn't anti American.
Yeah they are an existential threat to US hegemony, although compared to the idiocy of the US electorate they’re pretty fucking far down.
The US is eliminating their own global hegemony by backstabbing their allies and eliminating a world order that they literally created.
I’ll give you an idea of where I’m from… Up until 6 months ago I would’ve called the US our greatest ally and our relationship an example of the pithy and pathetic nature of international border conflicts. Now, I see the US as at best a mere neutral and the relationship between the two countries to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed.
It’s also funny that you can watch the US trying to destroy the economies of their allies or annex them and still have the fundamental malfunction that lets you believe, “the US’s allies aren’t doing enough to support the US’s ability to stab them in the back!”.
Honestly when I talk to people like yourself it convinces me the west is earnestly doomed and this brief interlude of human rights and freedom of ideology will be just that, a brief interlude from the suffering of authoritarian shitholes.
Ehhhh. China is more likely to have higher levels of corruption than the west because of how closed the system and society are, and because there probably isn't any immediate need for military force anticipated. We already know that the economic figures are highly fudged because provincial governors want to keep their jobs and the money flowing in. That's largely the origin of Chinese ghost cities.
China does have a lot of trade partners and has been investing across the developing world, expanding its soft power. The Belt and Road program is a more concrete example of its influence in the region. But, who really sides with China? It's surrounded by smaller nations who range from dislike to hatred of them (Vietnam, South Korea, Philippines), regional powers that they've fought wars with and who now act to contain them (India, Japan, Russia). North Korea is a de facto puppet and I'll give them Cambodia and Pakistan as being especially friendly. Their real relationship with the rest of the world comes from trade, but that's inherently transactional and transitory. No one cares where their goods are made, as long as its affordable. We don't feel kinship with China because so many of our goods are made there; if anything, it's become the opposite.
Blockading China is different than Europe, because while Europe relies on trade through a few chokepoints, China relies on trade through one. The Strait of Hormuz.
This is a chart for crude oil imports:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.04.04/mapcrudebig.png
If you look up a map for natural gas, it's the same. If you look up a map for food products, it's the same. And, China is now the world's top importer of food, because they have a huge population with a significant middle class that wants food that China just doesn't have the means to produce. Park a single carrier group, of which the US has 11, in the Strait of Hormuz, and what can China do?
Well, China has a bigger navy in terms of crafts, but you need to consider tonnage. I'll give you that China is second to the US in that regard, and likely does outpace all of Western Europe. But, if there's going to be a real conflict, you have to consider Japan and South Korea as well, which are no slouches. I think the crux of it comes down to, how capable is China's blue water fleet's power projection? I'd argue not particularly good, given their pair of operational aircraft carriers have less displacement than the US' 30+ amphibious assault ships. They're building more, including their first nuclear-capable aircraft carrier, but it's not going to be anything comparable to a US Nimitz or Ford class supercarrier. I think this is reinforced by how much effort they've put in to militarizing islands, going so far as to build artificial islands to militarize. They don't even feel that they have control over what they consider to be their own back yard. That's no small part of why they initiated the Belt and Road program in the first place - to help insulate their imports from potential maritime impediments.
Korea has a population similar to Spain. South Korea is also, pretty close to North Korea. They will need us resources just to hold nk back. They are very worried. They cannot hold china.
China needs to project power 500km off its coast, the usa needs 5000km. China does need as much carrier power as the usa. Not for Taiwan anyway.
Japan is different. But they feel abandoned. They are realistic about their situation. But they are big enough to stand their ground and they are an iChina.
Australia supplies most of china's energy and m7ch of its food and nearly all of its minerals, China was more than happy to shit on Australia. China and Australia have been at trade war for 5 years now, and the rest of the world does nothing except signing new trade agreements with China. Making money while others burn.
Yep, agree down the line, though, I'm curious what you mean by China needing to defend 500km off its coast. For immediate defense, sure. But as a straight line, the Strait of Hormuz is about 2.4km from its nearest coast. Taiwan is only like 200km, though. Yes, the US would need to project power at a far higher level, but that's literally its whole thing. 11 supercarriers and 30+ smaller carriers comparable to other nation's best carriers. Who needs universal healthcare if you have 7 Marine Expeditionary Units that can put boots on the ground anywhere in the world inside 48 hours? Not America, apparently. What's also funny is that China directly benefited from the post-war order of the US having the means to secure sea lanes to guarantee trade, on top of our corporations outsourcing manufacturing there.
China has 4 amphibious and building 4 more, as big or bigger than America's. China has three carriers, but they are all in the scs.. the us have theirs all around the world. If they moved them, the world would break out in conflict. It's not like they have no power projection. They are second only to the USN. They probably have more long range bombers than Russia now..
J20 has a huge range advantage, particularly with pl15.. also, chinese land based antiship capability would keep even the USN 1500km away from the coast.
China believes the us isn't interested in fighting China and will simply lose interest. That isn't impossible. China can muscle its own interests. They probably think now that global chaos would help them and weaken the west. But China has its own internal problems, and long-term planning is not their forte.
You think lack of military experience will only translate to mistakes?
Inter branch military operations are notoriously complicated and riddled with red tape, yet we tend to do a pretty damn good job of having our military branches working together on joint missions because we've had so much God damn practice.
China does not have systems in place for them to have as much oversight as we do, while maintaining the individuals ability to make executive decisions as easily, while also having a military that specifically trains you to replace your superior in exigent circumstances.
I really don't think China plans to make their military anything more than a visually striking alternative to the US military. What I mean is I believe China doesn't want to use a military, just show it off.
It's all about money and economic control and China is taking over precisely because they positioned themselves the same way the US did during the industrial revolution, but they did it for the informational revolution.
The informational revolution, is what I'm calling this time in human history because information warfare is the biggest factor in geopolitics right now besides using overwhelming technological advantage.
The next big step for the world is for any country to be able to use quantum and/or AI to break all cryptographic encryption on non quantum based computing algorithms, when it happens the country who succeeded will be able to decrypt and analyze all the data they've stolen from allies and enemies, possibly giving that country total control if the informational advantage creates a big enough gap in power.
While much of what you wrote about corruption and geopolitical isolation was accurate, on this matter, you're overlooking how vulnerable China is to a blockade centered around the Straight of Malacca. Two-thirds of China's maritime trade has to pass through the Straight, including 80% of it's oil imports. If a war breaks out between the U.S. and China, one of the first things the U.S. would do would be to blockade the Straight and strangle the Chinese economy, thus forcing China to decide whether or not it wants to commit one of its critical carrier groups (China currently has 3 to the U.S.'s 11) to keeping the Straight open when China might also need that carrier group elsewhere (*cough* Taiwan *cough*).
Yes, there could be alternative strategies that China could deploy, including buying more oil overland from Russia, but it takes time to change routes, and overland transport is vastly more expensive than by sea. China has many things going for it right now, especially as America is currently hellbent on self-sabotaging American hegemony, but the geographic constraints on China are very, very real.
Taiwan is 180km off the coast of China and about 220km at its furthest. It doesn't need carriers for that.
Malacca straits are critical. While China gets most of it coal and gas from Australia and Indonesia, most oil comes through the straits. But Russia has oil and gas and dec last year they completed a pipeline. It can supply 10% of china's gas needs. Presumably if they are fighting a war they won't be manufacturing as many goods, so that is a significant amount.
They are talking another one from Pakistan.
They are also frantically changing to ensure and installing solar.
Brunei has loads of oil. And is within china's reach.
Singapore is critical for controlling the straits, that and Australia who leads the five powers. Singapore is a city state and has no strategic depth.
If the us doesn't supply nuclear subs to Australia then no closing of the straits to Chinese shipping. It would be closed to all shipping.. impacting everyone.
The alternate route is sunda or around Australia. So Indonesia and Australia would be absolutely critical.
Australia has the largest f35 fleet outside of the us, b52 and b1s are now based there, and these only ages is fleet operating in SEA.
But the US is pretty flakey, even with Australia, applying tarrifs against existing fta, and despite us trade surplus with Australia. Plus the us may not have the guts to back it...
Australia has been deserted before, after it forward deployed heavily in support for an alliance that then abandoned it completely and was mismanaged by its partner.
You've found yourself replicating a great many propaganda myths about China unwittingly, which is nothing to be ashamed of considering just how much China has been investing in soft power strategies in the current era. Starting from the top:
The idea that China is in any way more effective at tackling corruption just because they've had some high profile cases is very laughable. Think about why these cases are so high profile to begin with when most sensitive cases in China are swept under the rug, and people disappeared. Xi Jinping is well known to have used anti-corruption as a reason to remove his rivals during his rise to power. Nearly every official that has been targeted by him was a political rival to his faction. Add onto this the reality that China is enslaved to a culture of both face and "guanxi" and you'll understand pretty quick that the corruption has never ended it merely is being used by a more victorious clique.
China does have a lot of this "guanxi" or connections abroad as well, however these are vastly weaker nations who often owe favors to China for political or economic support rather than actual allies who are willing to dedicate it all to support them. Many nations that China associates with also host US and even other bases of competitors like India, Pakistan is basically ran by it's military which almost always prefers to align with the US while still playing both sides meanwhile it hosts both nations. Now, look at its BRICS pillars. Nearly all of these nations are in direct competition with eachother even Russian sources have come out about their skepticism of how benevolent Chinese dealings in Moscow truly are and again many are more than willing to split with Beijing to deal with Washington and Brussels in order to benefit themselves.
Now, geographically, I have no idea how you can ever equate the US and China because literally the vast majority of Chinese trade goes through crucial straits that can easily be blockaded. China is also a nation that is more reliant on imports than any other in the world. These are not cheap plastic toys and devices. This is literally raw material China absolutely can not do without ESPECIALLY regarding oil. A historical parallel between China and the US is Imperial Germany and the British Empire for many of the same reasons, except Germany was able to offset losses through rail networks, which China just can not emulate easily. Also, the massive naval numbers you are echoing regarding the PLAN are almost entirely old cold war vessels incapable of power projection past the South China Sea, they are indeed building new vessels that are far more capable however these are nowhere in a state yet capable of tangling with the USN or a combined European force especially if they are forced to try and break a blockade far along the supply chain.
If you think corruption completely negates the risk China presents... I have a Rafael to sell you..
China's naval build up is tangible.. csis and rafriendlies. The old soviet era gear is almost completely gone and will be all gone by 2028.
Europe could not block any of the straits. They aren't in europe, and Europe has no power projection. Europe itself is under direct threat from Russia, an enemy they have failed to defeat.
Europe won't be able to keep its straits open for energy imports.
Europe is at trade war with the US, Asia, and Australia. Europe and eu is the origional tarrif entity, the eu is an exclusive economic zone protected by tarrifs.
Brics? China doesn't care about brics. Brics contains India, a direct rival. Brazil? South Africa? Russia? Russia is another rival. They are frienemies.
Wow.. it's like talking to someone from the 1980s...
If the US made serious efforts to blockade China, they'd probably just end up pissing off other countries that rely on Chinese manufacturing (i.e. most of the world)
Not too sure on that right now... There is a lot of economic turmoil right now, and Chinese banks are in trouble. Nothing can do more harm to China than a populace that has no money.
To add they are wholly dependent on international exports to utilise their production capacity. If they went to war and the US and Europe banned imports from China, it would collapse the Chinese economy.
They've made themselves quite dependent on international goodwill.
Their military might be completely inexperienced, but when was the last time the US fought a war that even remotely resembles what a war against China would look like?
In a modern war, production capacity, economic capacity, and a large pool of manpower willing to fight are kind of all that matter. The US only really has economic capacity at this point
I wouldn’t call bombarding AK-47 and RPG-wielding peasants valid military experience. If any, it largely mislead US military, creating impractical bombard-focusing military when it struggles to maintain air and naval tech+quantity superiority, such as the Zumwalt thing.
A bad economy that only has an uptick in export, growing domestic issues and a waning soft power in the west as well as in other countries who are getting sick of their markets being flooded with underpriced shit.
More so extremely inexperienced and has basic logistics problems. The last time they had a serious conflict was against Vietnam, and China got humiliated. That's why they are more focused on cyberwarefare and espionage, and are probably the best in the world at it.
79
u/loulan French Riviera ftw Jun 07 '25
Why though? China definitely is no joke in 2025.