The homeland? I though we were worried about an amphibious invasion across the Taiwan Strait, not the full Pacific.
Presumably, she is talking about the threat to our supply of advanced computer chips coming from Taiwan.
China puts $50,000 bounty on the head of an Australian human rights activist and his family. They would like to pay in Bitcoin so no one will know. China Allegedly Offered Bitcoin Bounty to ‘Terminate’ Australian Activist
Likely. Just a really weird choice of words. "Homeland" usually denotes a threat to the actual nation, well it's economy through a foreign supply
She may also consider U.S. aircraft carriers to be part of the homeland. China has certainly threatened our carriers in a bid to keep them out of the western Pacific.
Chinese journalist compares China's economic problems to the U.S.'s Great Depression, and gets banned from social media. China censors prominent journalist who raised concerns about economy
Chinese industrial profits take a tumble, dropping 19% since last year. China's industrial profits tumble, deepening economic gloom
China has a new counter-espionage law that targets western companies in China, but is written so vaguely that western companies don't know what it could mean. Basically, many normal business activities could be labeled espionage against China and get the western employees in hot water. The law also indicates that Chinese employees of western firms in China could be compelled to spy on the rest of the company. My guess is that western firms will no longer want to do business in China. What a nightmare (for both China and western businesses that choose to continue doing business in China). Not a good idea to piss off your biggest customers. US warns firms over new Chinese 'counter-espionage' law
Wonder if this ‘Australian human rights activist’ has spoken to Australians being beaten and strangled for not wearing masks ?
I follow Chinese military developments rather closely, and the reliability of Chinese engines has been a topic of much debate within military discussion communities. From my many years of following the Chinese military I have not been able to find any reliable answers on this topic, so I was curious as to how this conclusion was reached: "In addition to trying to develop an engine that meets the thrust-to-weight requirements of fifth-generation aircraft, Chinese aerospace engineers are struggling to achieve meaningful reliability," according to a report published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a US think tank, in March." I decided to do some digging. The article cites a CSIS study, which upon reading states this: "Currently, Chinese jet engines can at best achieve one-fourth the life span of Western engines." The source for this comment was the Air University, based on Maxwell AFB in Alabama, and this is the paper: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Po...nfrastructure/2020-04-15 CASI_Aeroengines.pdf In the paper is this statement: "Reportedly the domestically-manufactured Taihang engine, however, has now reached a TBO of 500 hours. This is a major improvement from its previously reported TBO of 300 hours." Just above the article states that Western engines typically have a TBO of 2000 hours, so this is probably where the "one-fourth the life span of Western engines" comes from. Now, here's where it gets interesting. The source cited for this comment is here: 中国太行发动机仍未超越俄AL31F 寿命仅为俄航发50%|中国|战斗机|发动机_新浪军事_新浪网 That appears to be a blog post by a blogger named 小飞猪观察, or "little flying pig observation". In other words, our think tanks and higher educational institution for the air force is getting their info on Chinese engine reliability from Little Flying Pig Observation's blog post. What a mess. Now, a lot of info on Chinese weapons systems actually do come from social media, but this particularly blogger does not appear to be a reliable source. If you're interested in Chinese military developments, some Western guys to follow would be Henri Kenhmann or Andreas Rupprecht. I'd suggest ignoring information provided by Little Flying Pig Observation.
Obviously, the people at Maxwell AFB think this guy is credible. Who am I to argue with Maxwell AFB? Sometimes the low-level people are more honest than higher-level people, especially in a communist society where there is much to lose by saying something the big bosses might find unfavorable. Of course in the military, the lower level people are more likely to be risking their lives if a weapons system doesn't work. Lower level people are less concerned with politics and impressing the enemy, and more willing to draw attention to a problem to get it fixed. Much like the U.S. sub commander in WWII that announced over the open airwaves that U.S. torpedoes don't work after launching several at a ship and hearing only a clang on impact--he was mostly concerned with his own survival at the moment. That broadcast alerted Japan to not be very concerned with the U.S. submarine threat. His bosses got him in big trouble, but they also fixed the problem. And the name "Little Flying Pig" in Chinese is not as bizarre-sounding as it is in the U.S. The Chinese use animal metaphors in their everyday speech all the time. Sounds to me like he might be a military pilot, and he might know what he's talking about.
If he's credible he'd be well known in the Chinese military watch circle. It's good that Western analysts are starting to pick up OSINT from Chinese SM, that's actually where a lot of good info comes from. But it seems like they haven't gotten very good at separating the wheat from the chaff. It's probably better to just follow guys like Rupprecht or Kenhmann for amateurs like us since they've been at this for a long time and have a lot of experience doing so. Luckily, the actual professionals at the Pentagon are not so gullible. Their reports as well as active service American generals' comments sometimes reveal info that's simply not available on the web. Even if you ignore their threat level assessment, which people often argue over- or underestimate the Chinese military to serve some sort of agenda, their assessment of in service dates, weapons testing schedule, as well as deployment are often quite accurate.
It's not so much that "professionals" at the Pentagon are not being gullible. It's more likely that they are predicting and preparing for the worst case scenario, whatever that might be. Their job is to ask for as much money as they can for defense spending, and do (and say) what it takes to justify that spending. Even if they know there is a significant chance that the basis of their information is incorrect. A perfect example of this is the Russian military. The Pentagon WAY over-estimated the capabilities of Russia's ground forces (and did it for years). No question about it. Ukraine just revealed the truth for all to see. You seem to have a bad habit of taking the word of the highest ranking/most official sounding person/corporation on any subject, and discounting everything everyone else has to say. This is the second time you've done it on this thread. You said that China's economy is doing great because Goldman Sachs says so. Almost everyone else says otherwise, including the people of China.
China retaliates against the West in the computer chip wars: they are restricting sales of gallium and germanium, two important metals in the manufacture of advanced chips. Gallium currently costs $550/lb and germanium costs about $2700/lb. China Retaliates: Restricts Vital Chipmaking Materials Gallium and Germanium
China almost doubles its imports of coal in the first five months of the year compared to last year. They imported 182 million tons of coal. So much for their green energy programs. China is afraid of a summer with power blackouts caused by additional air conditioning usage. China’s Importing So Much Coal That Local Miners Are Suffering
