- China missiles filled with water, not fuel: US intelligence
- Xi seeking to root out corruption, prepare military for combat
US intelligence indicates that President Xi Jinping’s sweeping military purge came after it emerged that widespread corruption undermined his efforts to modernize the armed forces and raised questions about China’s ability to fight a war, according to people familiar with the assessments.
The corruption inside China’s Rocket Force and throughout the nation’s defense industrial base is so extensive that US officials now believe Xi is less likely to contemplate major military action in the coming years than would otherwise have been the case, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing intelligence.
China missiles filled with water, not fuel: US intelligence
oops
US officials now believe Xi is less likely to contemplate major military action in the coming years than would otherwise have been the case
So this is a good news story.
Mmm.
Hopefully.
Unless you think war is inevitable.
The current Chinese doctrine in a theoretical conflict with America relies heavily on saturation of missile defenses to take out things like carrier groups.
If they didn’t know they’d have a 10% failure rate or whatever it could have completely invalidated their tactics.
But it you accept both that war is inevitable and that China will be the aggressor it would have been better for them not to discover this and thus be unprepared for the conflict, like we see with Russia and Ukraine.
War isn’t inevitable. Back in the cold war it was averted multiple times, and the USSR had a much more closed economy than China’s. China going to war with NATO would lose them all their largest trading partners.
They don’t want a war with NATO. But they might want to invade Taiwan which pretty much everybody in NATO kind of agrees is sort of China’s anyway. Only a handful of nations recognise Taiwan as sovereign, and they ain’t coming to the rescue.
We don’t really want them to take Taiwan, but the only bargaining tool we have to stop them is the threat of stopping trade. And as far as I can tell, the main reason we don’t recognise Taiwan is because we don’t want China to stop trade either.
No one builds a trillion dollar navy without intending to use it, but sure.
It might not happen.
In a world that solves its energy crisis and stops climate change.
Surely they intend to use it the same way the US does - projecting force to cement soft power?
And who, exactly, do you think they can project force against?
Taiwan, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Australia, Thailand, Myanmar.
Do I need to keep going?
The key for them, really, is being able to ensure they have naval access through the strait of Malacca
Uh huh.
And who are most of them, particularly their most pressing territorial claims, allied with?
Taiwan, according to them
Unless you think war is inevitable.
I don’t think it’s inevitable, but I do hope that one day West Taiwan will be liberated.
If China ever wants to be able to take Taiwan, it’ll have to do so within the next few years. Due to a large number of factors, like economy weakening due to over ballooning, an upcoming extreme population decline (they have a serious problem on their hands there alone) and more, they find themselves in the best position to grab and conquer Taiwan now, or never. I do expect the next 4 years in this world to be shit, no matter what US president we get, just a matter of “really shit” or “holy fucking hell its the end times” shit.
It’s absolutely wild to me that people can say this kind of thing with a straight face, with no knowledge of the actual numbers involved, unknowingly reenacting the attitudes of Spaniards on their way to conquer those filthy English heretics.
While having China’s rockets fail at a high rate during an invasion would be good. They may be weaker by the time they rebuild their arsenal and an invasion is not possible. They are going to have to check a huge amount of rockets then start rebuilding. A lot can change in 2 years.
deleted by creator
I mean…the US Navy is roughly 40 times more capable than the Chinese navy just looking at aircraft carriers compared, nevermind the carrier group components or the planes. A US super carrier is so much more capable than the 2 Chinese carriers combined.
China’s ship building capacity is greater than the US. They may be able to overwhelm the US Navy in an extended conflict.
That said, China is looking at a demographic cliff from the One Child Policy. Too many old people and not enough young ones to take care of them. If they’re going to start a war, it has to be in the next few years or not at all. It’s possible the window is already closed.
Imagine what their demographics would look like if they also started a war and killed their young people though.
Not saying they won’t do it, and they do currently have an excess of young men specifically, but a country with a population problem isn’t in a great place to start a war imo.
They can’t. China is a green-water navy with but-water dreams, but a complete lack of ability to produce the right type of ships for the task. Their missile boats are concerns in littoral areas, but effectively worthless anywhere else, and that’s all they can produce at any appreciable speed. Their carriers aren’t even sea worthy.
China is a green-water navy with but-water dreams
Butt-water Dreams. Band name.
That’s like saying if we produce enough preschoolers fast enough we might be able to overwhelm that SWAT team.
The US Navy could likely sink their entire fleet without losing anything of significance outside of ammunition and fuel, it doesn’t matter how fast they can build such inferior ships.
When it comes to engaging with developed nations the US doesn’t do extended conflicts, that’s a luxury of third world occupations. We’d take out their Navy and then invade or force a surrender based on extended range weapons.
A war can also solve another problem China has: too many men and too few women. War deaths will not only reduce the man to female ratio, but as in past Chinese wars soldiers will bring home war “brides”.
China would need to build ships faster then the US can build antiship missiles. The US has thousands of stealthy Long Range Anti Ship Missiles. The only thing that quantity of ships would do is make a bunch of reefs.
And there’s what, 7 to 10 of em?
Of which? Last I looked at Wiki the US has 11 aircraft carriers in service.
China with two ramped smaller ones. Apparently one was formerly a casino and the other is a clone.
Tonnage is another decent metric. US has 4.6 million tons to Chinas 2.
The capability of the tonnage is a whole other twist. Force multipliers like mid air refueling, AWACs, stealth etc
Aircraft carriers, so 11. Aren’t they working on 1 or 2 more as well?
The plan is to phase in Ford-class carriers to replace the Nimitz-class. There is supposed to be 10 total in the end.
That said, the US DoD is doing its usual sandbagging thing where it says China could totally overwhelm the US Navy in an extended conflict and that means we need to make an even bigger navy. Commenters elsewhere in the thread comparing preschoolers to SWAT teams are off base; China’s ships and planes aren’t on the same level as the US, but quantity in a conflict near China’s borders would still be a problem. Still, pretending the US military is behind is a budget tactic that worked all throughout the Cold War, and it’s working again. It’s why the military-industrial complex is such a problem.
So are they going to try and get funding to keep the old ones running or are they legit going to be decommissioned and just make more Fords?
I don’t think they’ll try to keep the Nimitz class going. Part of the reason for a whole new class is that the Nimitzes didn’t have enough power for some of the upgrades the Navy wants. If there are even more total carrier groups to be made, it’ll probably be all new ones.
Who knows, though. The non-nuclear Kitty Hawk lasted into the 21st century.
Yep. It’s a big navy.
Much as I love to toot Murica’s horn US’s fleet figures become less daunting when you consider the areas of interest and responsibility they cover. China has one long coast line and offshore interests, (and yes some rather optimistic claims and attempts to create islands to expand their influence) compared to US fleet having 2 major coastlines, Alaska and Hawaii, to say nothing of areas of interest and defense commitments to allies.
Under ideal circumstances US can only ever afford to have a third of it’s fleet in any single theatre, where China can theoretically put almost all of their fleet into a single theatre, granted that theatre basically needs to be the Pacific Ocean.
US still has the clear advantage the moment you step away from coastal waters but its not nearly as big as first glance.
Time to get the South China sea under control. What are they gonna do? Start a water balloon fight?
Except for the families of those related to this flop.
That’s an occupational risk when working for a corrupt one-party state.
Well, if they flushed out the corruption that undermined their capabilities then one might expect their capabilities to increase afterward.
China missiles filled with water, not fuel: US intelligence
Somebody fucked up the actual story somewhere along the way. A normal problem with liquid ICBMs like a DF5 is tiny amounts of water contamination in propellant. N2O4 is meant to sit in a missile for months but if even just the humidity in the air gets in to it, it forms nitric acid and corrodes the missile. That happened to US ICBMs like the Titan II constantly and the US never reliably stopped it, they just switched to solid fuel. If contractors cut corners building a silo water contamination causing corrosion is the first thing that would go wrong. Meth heads siphoning rocket fuel and trying to replace it with water and dying instantly in a massive explosion didn’t happen.
I hate to be that guy, but source?
All the info I could find is derived from the Bloomburg article, which clearly says “water instead of fuel”, and also silo doors that don’t fully open lmao
The accusations as I understand it is the fuel never hot the the missile, it was sold black market elsewhere and someone filled the missile with water instead because you can’t really check it given how it reacts with moisture in the air.
No source it’s just pretty much physically impossible. Even if there’s no safety system setting off alarms N2O4/UDMH is denser than water, you can’t fit enough water in the rocket to make it weigh like it’s full of fuel, it’s going to read like 20% is missing either way. And if nobody cares about that why are you putting anything in it at all?
Water contamination and the 100 ton armored door not working are both super likely results of generals embezzling money, water instead of fuel is dumb and Bloomberg has a track record of fucking up this kind of thing
So your proof is just that you think your scenario is more plausible than what Bloomburg reported?
Bro but like chinese walter white??? /wwww
deleted by creator
Putin has the same problem. Perhaps it made Xi look for it.
100%
A significant delay could be the ballgame in Taiwan for the foreseeable future.
The B-21 will be in service in 2027 and sixth generation fighters a few years later. The Chinese will need a very long time to try to come up with countermeasures for the new tech.
Given how defensive warfare is showing its strength in Ukraine, without air superiority, I doubt China could take the island right now. And I think the US and all of its allies would make life hell for the Chinese. Just submarine warfare would cut Chinese oil off like it did to the Japanese in WWII.
True, and unlike Russia China is not even remotely self-sufficient. Fuel, food, etc. all imported on a massive scale.
And unlike Ukraine, Taiwan already has a lot of protection against incoming missiles and no direct border. Having to ship everything by sea makes it so complicated, I believe the only option for china would be to nuke Taiwan. But that would have a whole lot of other repercussions…
Not the least of which being that if they nuke it, they don’t get it. At least not in the way they want it.
But honestly, way theory aside, massive open warfare against Taiwan would be horrific for Taiwan, but outside of the region, it would really doom China as it exists.
Even if they did manage to take the island, likely with just an overwhelming wave of soldiers, at that point, the entire world, aside from a few exceptions (NK, Iran, Syria, Russia, Belarus, and maybe some African nations) are going to effectively strangle the Chinese economy with sanctions if not an outright embargo.
It might not change things overnight, but hitting China square in the economy is far more effective than it is for Russia, because China is so much more of a player in the world economy. They depend on the world buying their goods. As long as the rest of the world can keep unfulfilled consumer demand from triggering crippling sustained double digit inflation for years on end, there may not even be a need for large scale, near-peer open warfare.
Aww. China invading Taiwan with Super Soakers.
deleted by creator
So… Chinese Watergate?
Chinese Waterballoon
Could be why they used weather ballons to spy on other nations, instead of spy planes. 🤣
They used balloons because it’s deniable and cheap.
Taking lessons from the US. No risk of having your plane shot down, your pilot captured, and backing yourself into a corner with your own lies if there is no plane or pilot in the first place.
Obscure dictatorship armies are corrupt as fuck and barely functioning? I would not believe it if I didn’t hear it with my own eyes.
What even uses a liquid fuel in the Chinese arsenal? The newer Dongfengs are all solid fuel. US intelligence once again demonstrates their impeccable research ability.
I guess the DF-4, but it was mostly decommissioned ages ago. There’s like one or two hanging around for historical reasons.
A 1 minute google search would have revealed that the main ICBM used by the PLA uses a liquid fuel rocket. It is being replaced with the DF-41, but it is very likely DF-5 is the missile being referenced by the article.
The DF-5s are used in two main operational modes: erecting a mobile launch platform commonly on rails (missiles stored inside mountain tunnels) or stored vertically and ready to launch in silos.
China has maintained a sort of minimalistic nuclear deterrent for years - I think very responsibly - where a handful of quick to launch and well hidden nuclear weapons ensure other powers don’t get too uppity. The pre-fueled missiles in silos therefore represent an essential retaliatory strike component for China’s nuclear deterrent.
Although embarrassing, this sort of corruption can cause catastrophic consequences. I would be happy that rotten apples like this are rooted out.
I disagree. ICBMs serve no purpose in a war unless you’ve already lost. Nuclear strike capability is suicidal and China’s no-first-use policy makes ICBMs completely irrelevant to the discussion of China’s war capability (particularly w.r.t. Taiwan and the SCS).
You don’t launch nuclear weapons unless you’ve lost and you want the other side to lose, too.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a responsible number of nuclear weapons.
I agree with you in principle, but in a world where some countries do possess nuclear weapons, the calculus is a lot more complex.
In addition, possession of a nuclear weapon appears to be a comparatively effective way to quarantee territorial integrity. Would Russia have started their war of aggression in Ukraine if the Ukrainians still had nuclear capability?
I have concluded that like all technology, there is a responsible and irresponsible way of having these weapons. It’s a technology that’s surely more trouble than it’s worth, but the genie is out and since it is, it’s worthwhile to recognise the responsible ways of using it.
