I had a cardiologist tell me. repeatedly, that I had panic attacks. He said I didn’t have angina. He sent me for a stress test, which I could not do from “imaginary” chest pain. I insisted on a angiogram. He mocked me and scoffed. I was desperate at this point and kept insisting. He angrily ordered one and told me it was a waste of time and what I really needed was a psychiatrist.

I showed up for my 7 AM Friday appointment at Broward General. I don’t know what he had written or told them, but I sat there for the entire day. Finally, about 5 PM, I went in. (I actually have no memory of anything after flicking a cigarette away at 7, when I arrived.) I woke up Monday in terrible pain. I had no idea what had happened. My wife told me that after just a few minutes, the doctor had come out and said they could not complete the angiogram because of severely clogged arteries, (including the one that causes the “widowmaker”. They put me in cardiac ICU and kept me heavily sedated until Monday, when they could operate. I had a triple bypass. The cardiologist told me I was very lucky to be alive.

Oh, and that cigarette I flicked away was my last one. I can take a hint. (That was Jan 2011.)

About two decades ago, a woman I know lost her father.

A day or two later, she found out her husband was sentenced to prison.

A couple of days later, her daughter-in-law decided to get a divorce.

Those few days COMPLETELY turned this woman’s life around.

The next day, a Monday, she went to work as normal, didn’t tell her colleagues a thing, put on a brave face.

When she came home, her husband wasn’t around as he was in prison.

She went about her usual business as if nothing had happened – cooking food and stuff.

She had a chat with her kids, including the eldest going through his divorce, told them all would be fine, lifted their spirits.

The following day, she went back to work.

She opened up about her experience to me and someone else a few weeks ago – I mean, everyone in my social circle knew about the events – but she had never discussed how she experienced it – how she coped, her motivation, which was to protect her kids.

I only then really realised why her kids, all of whom I have known since I was a child, have done so incredibly well – they had grown up with this woman as their leader.

No complaints, no self-pity, selfless. Being the example she wanted her kids to be.

This is the best example I have seen of leadership.

And, frankly, the type only a woman is capable of.

Oh, definitely. I think my old manager, David Filo fits that to a tee. He often sat around barefoot while coding; and when he was wearing shoes, they were ten-year-old sneakers, starting to show holes in them.

He drove an old Datsun for the longest time, full of random crap. Old software manuals, books, pizza boxes. When a bomb scare was called in at work, one day, the bomb squad searched the campus; they eventually called a mostly-all-clear; they’d only found one suspicious object, and cordoned it off. It was my boss’s car, dilapidated and so full of junk as to be suspiciously possible as to be harboring a bomb. (It wasn’t; as the founder of the company, he would never have done anything to harm it like that). (I think Rolling Stone gave a very apt description of his car, many years ago: “a battered Datsun filled from top to bottom with junk, including enough lumber to build several sets of bookshelves. (“If we were living in the 16th century, David would be a monk,” says Yang of his partner’s asceticism.) He bought the car while in high school in Lake Charles, LA. As a student at Tulane University, he totaled it, bought it back from the insurance company for $300 and then had it rebuilt at a local prison, where the inmates were studying auto repair.” — from Yahoo!)

There are three possible interpretations of the “end” of the Roman Empire in the West, and all are equally correct, depending on one’s point of view.

The most common one you read is that it ended on 4 September AD 476, when the German magister militum Odoacer overthrew Romulus Augustus, who was the Emperor ruling in Ravenna (the Western capital of the time, not Rome), and took control himself. He sent a letter back to Emperor Zeno in Constantinople, stating that the Empire needed only one Emperor, and sent back the western imperial regalia. Zeno accepted this (although he continued to recognize another man as Emperor; read on) and granted him patrician rank. Odoacer declared himself “King of Italy” and ruled for the next 17 years.

Another interpretation is based on the historical fact that Romulus Augustus was both a usurper and a puppet emperor set up by his father, the barbarian general Orestes, in 475, and was never recognized by Zeno as the legitimate Emperor. The actual Emperor, Julius Nepos, fled from Ravenna and set up court in Dalmatia, where he reigned, still recognized by Zeno, until 9 May 480, when he was assassinated by political enemies. Before this, Odoacer actually struck coins in Roman mints recognizing him as Emperor, accepting him as titular Emperor in the West as long as Nepos didn’t attempt to actually retake Italy. Odoacer occupied Dalmatia himself about a year later.

A third possibility lies in the fact that even after 9 May 480, there was a part of the old Western Empire that still gave allegiance directly to the Emperor. This was a substantial part of northern Gaul (France) under the control of a Roman general named Syagrius. Historians call it the “Kingdom of Soissons,” after the city that Syagrius governed from. He controlled this land from 464 to 486:

Syagrius’ problem was that he had an ally in a Frankish king, Childeric, who supported him in conflicts and had no desire to annex the area. But he died in 481 and was succeeded by his ambitious son Chlodovech, who is known to history as Clovis. Sometime in 486, we are not sure of the date, Chlodovech attacked Syagrius and defeated him in a battle near Soissons. He annexed the region to the growing Frankish Kingdom. And with that ended the final vestige of the Roman Empire in the West.

Just reading through the other answers, there is a LOT of anti-China sentiment and justified by the “Chinese have so many spies here blah blah blah Influence the Government blah blah blah etc etc” Well it’s the same here in New Zealand and so far there hasn’t been one shred of evidence to back up these claims of spying and espionage and influence. This includes the Huawei 5G backdoor thing. No evidence at all.

As an example here. A well known University Professor who wrote a book about the above subject has claimed to have had her house broken into a number of times (by Chinese spies), her car tampered with (by Chinese spies) to try to kill her. The media is outraged and other University Professors are signing protests to China letters to our Government, but it’s all fake and made up. She is either delusional or trying to sell more books. The police have investigated and come up with no evidence at all. But does that matter? Not one bit. Are the Police going to out her? Of course not, that’s not PC to shame a mad woman. The public is still rabidly anti China because the fake story that paints a villain is way more appealing than actual facts. And yes that’s my fault too, because what makes news is clicks and I click on Trump stories and help to make his bullshit get to the top of the front page.

So in answer to your question, in some ways we are trying to please USA – per the 5 eyes thing and US paranoid spy agencies sending the info/alarmism/ anti China rhetoric our way. In some ways we are just jumping on the same nationalist bandwagon that most developed western democracies seem to be jumping on. In other ways we see our house prices going up and like to blame the Chinese rather than our own shortsightedness in failing to build enough homes the last couple of decades. Finally, same as Australia, our mad political system gives a big voice to a small and xenophobic party.

I think system to system comparisons are meaningless when comparing the PRC’s military to the US. F-22 vs J-20 type comparisons make no sense when those fighters have very specific roles to play in the very different air combat philosophies of the USAF and PLAAF. If I was to hazard a guess I would say the F-22 would be fulfilling it’s designed role as an air superiority fighter while the J-20 would be deployed to use it’s stealth to destroy US surveillance, EW and AWACs platforms in contested airspace, a much more niche role.

Both of these platforms would be considered great if they meet the mission they were designed for rather than who wins some hypothetical air to air engagement.

So this answer is going to avoid most of these platform comparisons and try to take a higher level look at how the military postures of both countries compare within the context of technology, doctrines, military industries and objectives.

Joint Operations

The US excels in these. Recall that back in WW2, the French had better tanks and aircraft than the Germans but still lost their short war with Germany because their officer corp just didn’t know how to put them all together to conduct effective military operations.

The US has a effective Joint Chiefs of Staff committee to ensure the armed elements of the US military play nice with each other and can execute integrated battle plans effectively.

The Chinese are new to this. They realized how far ahead the US was in this field when they witnesses the US military’s capabilities in 1991 in the first Gulf war as well as the frustration of the 1996 US carrier pass.

At the moment, one thing the Chinese military is planning for is that rather than try to catch up to the US in terms of integrated systems and operations which would take a loooong time to do (they also don’t have the rich combat history and experience of the US military), what they can do is engage in something called ‘System Destruction’.

That is, the Chinese military should focus on degrading and pulling apart the overall US military system.

So if the US military has a Recon Strike Complex, the Chinese focus on taking away their recon ability. This has been demonstrated by their endeavors to develop ASAT capabilities and soft kill capabilities with lasers and EW. Alongside developing small satellites that can be launched into space and maneuvered close to American satellites to destroy them.

Similarly, the US is built heavily around the idea of Airpower dominance over it’s foes and the Chinese Strategic Support Force (the ex-Rocket Force) is specifically designed to nullify this advantage by training and equipping to use ballistic missiles to take out air bases from which the bulk of USAF activity will be based.

However, the conclusion here is that the US is still pretty ahead in terms of Joint Operations and while the PRC military is building up the capability to disrupt them, in order to take advantage of these disruptions, they need to up the scale and pace of their own Joint Operations capability.

The Ballistic Missile threat

The PRC ballistic missile force’s primary goal is to make US bases unusable. The short range missiles are aimed at the US bases in Okinawa while the more medium range missiles are designed to disrupt operations from bases in Japan.

And the DF-26 is designed to make even operations from bases like Guam risky if not maybe as disrupted as the other bases.

The PRC ballistic missile threat is in part inspired by the US military’s failure to effectively hunt and destroy SCUDs in Iraq during the first Gulf War. Which leads the PRC to believe that if they have mobile, solid fueled missile systems, they would not be as prone to destruction from US military forces and pose a considerable threat for the duration of any war with the US. These kinds of missiles are hard to hunt, can quickly break from cover, set up and fire before the enemy can fire back at them.

With a mobile missile system like the SCUD, you have a 15 minute window to detect and destroy it once it breaks from cover. This is currently not within the capability of the US military.

The Drone Threat

The Chinese don’t have as much loitering munition drones as the US so they definitely do lag here. They have gotten the Israeli Harpy drone, which costs less than half a million bucks but has a longer range than the F-35. These drones can be sent out by the Chinese to search for threats, locate and scan airfields in prep work for artillery and missile bombardment. IF they can make it into a defended air space.

This is completely out of date. -MM

Space

The ability of space based platforms to provide you imaging (visual or infrared) across the planet + put SAR radars on small satellites means that your ability to locate and track objects from space for a military purpose is growing rapidly. This is the kind of ability the Chinese are building up in space.

Now you still cant track aircraft but for fixed targets or large naval targets like a carrier, in conjunction with autonomous terrestrial systems you have a much better capability to locate and target naval assets. So you could use space based assets to locate naval surface targets and use them to maneuver autonomous systems like the Israeli Harop drone munition into the area where a carrier might be. And then the Harop’s own sensors take over and actively hunt in the area. (Again, assuming it can make it through contested space).

In the near future, we might have 10–15,000 satellites doing this in space and you could of course blow the whole orbit up and deny this capability to both the US and China but short of that, what the two countries are positioning themselves for is not just having these assets in space but being able to replace them once an adversary has destroyed them.

The problem with the US side is that they have a good ability to replace military satellites but in space, both civil and military capabilities operate in conjunction. So if the Chinese switch from targeting military to civil satellites, the US doesn’t have rapid replacement in place for them. And these are satellites that operate critical infrastructure like bank transactions etc.

At the moment the Chinese have quantity while the US has quality when it comes to space based assets but the US has the added advantage of commercial space launch capability as well with technologies ranging from 3D printed rockets etc. that China doesn’t have to the same scale.

Naval comparisons

The PLAN is now the largest navy in the world and while on general, the USN has better quality ships, the new PLAN destroyers like the Type 55 are fairly at par with the USN equivalent ships. Same with the stealth fighters, the question is how quickly they can approach the USN in terms of significant scale of deployment in the active military.

Underwater warfare, the USN has a clear lead and the PLAN is not close at all to bridging that gap. The PLAN is responding by seeding a huge network of sensors in the South China sea to weed out USN submarines so the USN would probably have to respond with unmanned autonomous subs in the area, turning the underwater war largely into an unmanned one.

Carrier warfare, the US has a lead as well but this lead is somewhat meaningless if we talk about a war near China. If anyone thinks the USN is going to send their carriers into the range of Chinese MRBMs and H-6 Bombers carrying extended range cruise missiles, I would highly suggest alternative thinking here. The PRC has specifically developed this extended range weapons to force the USN carriers back and nullify their advantages at close range to the Chinese seaboard.

This is based around the Chinese doctrine of ‘Counter Intervention’ which is specifically designed to force US assets like Carriers away from the Chinese shoreline.

So this creates an interesting situation where the Chinese have forced the carriers out of the first Island Chain so it’s mostly USN subs and surface vessels that would operate in the contest areas closer to the Chinese seaboard. Where the Chinese are catching up in surface vessels. For underwater, if the USN is willing to risk full subs in sensor rich environments, that’s up to them but I think they might pull even the USN subs out of the south China sea at least and be forced to replace them with autonomous underwater subs to fight against Chinese autonomous underwater subs.

Production

At the October Plenum of 2020, the PRC moved up the date for military modernization by saying they wanted a modern Chinese military by 2027.

This has accelerated their military production targets and they are currently ahead of the US in:

1. Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in both numbers and quality (the ballistic missiles lead might not mean much since the US doesn’t really utilize them in a battlefield context).
2. They have a much more massive ship building program ongoing compared to the USN.
3. They are ahead in Air defense systems while making good use of old ones.

The Chinese are also pushing ahead with a concept called ‘Civil-Military Fusion’ which is designed to integrate their civilian technology base with their military tech base (Sorta similar to how the US has it set up as well). Which is important because it means it won’t just be government led efforts that lead to tech advances only, but that Chinese private firms will sometimes even take the lead in military advances in AI, computing, autonomous systems, biotech, information tech, advanced material manufacturing, 5G and in the future 6G.

There is an issue however that the Chinese government, in an attempt to assert control and monitoring over the civil tech space, is pushing a bureaucratic layer on top of it which is expected to slow down the pace of Chinese technology than before. To compensate for this, the CPC will also push additional funding to the civilian tech space engaged in military tech development. So there’s a careful balancing act that needs to be done there. Also, the US is also vulnerable to this: Anyone familiar with the Pentagon’s bureaucratic policies would be familiar with how it introduces massive delays and cost overspends.

The Chinese have struggled with Aircraft engines and currently a lot of their aircraft projects have the Russians or Ukrainians as subcontractors to provide the engines. Russian engines by the way, are unusable after 500 hours. For military aircraft that might be ok but for civilian ones it’s a no-go so if the Chinese have any military platforms like EW and AWACs on civilian aircraft with Russian engines, it raises the question of availability.

Funnily enough, while the US has no issue with aircraft engines and can produce very high quality engines, they just cant make a lot of them at the same time. The F-35 production line right now is 15 aircraft a month at peak production. This is considered low by some standards but to be honest, considering that it’s a very advanced fighter it doesn’t seem to matter much. The problem however, is that this is under the assumption that every single F-35 produced will be deployed against China which is not true because the US has to manage multiple theaters (Russia-Europe, Home Air Bases etc.).

Also, the F-35 is a multi national project, so those 15 F-35s being made every month have to shared between 12 Airforces, 1 Marine Corp and 2 Navies across the planet. Further reducing the number of stealth fighters the US can deploy against China.

Stealth Fighters

The Stealth fighter question is actually pretty interesting and I kinda wanna build on that from what we discussed in the production line section discussed above.

First, given the limited peak production rate and distribution of F-35s among multiple partners, we might only see limited numbers deployed in the Chinese theater. But every stealth fighter the Chinese develop will be available to fight in the first Island chain theater.

The Chinese have some advanced fighters like the J-20 and J-31 which seem pretty advanced but their level of production is not close to what the US has for it’s stealth fighters at the moment. So they do lag in that respect. The US is also superior in the electronics and engines that go into their stealth aircraft although this is a gap that might close in the near future.

However, the US lead in stealth has some major problems that should be addressed. The problem is the basing of these stealth fighters. The US has 6 major bases in Japan and 1 in Guam. The USAF does not use the 80–90 airbases that the Japanese air force uses, and this might be because of how the US wants to control access to it’s stealth fighters but also because it has to equip its bases with perform the complex maintenance that it’s stealth fighters require.

So in theory, there’s only 7 total major bases you can place your stealth fighters at where you can control access to them and also do the whole fancy maintenance they require like re-applying coating etc.

That is…not good, because it means the Chinese don’t have to worry about shooting down these stealth fighters. They just need to concentrate their ballistic missile bombardment on those 7 bases with stealth fighters to knock those bases out or at least interdict operations out of them.

The USAF has realized this problem and are trying to see if they can spread the fighters out a bit more to the 90 bases the Japanese operate but it’s still a work in progress.

There is one other thing: There’s something called the “German Disease” where you get trapped in the idea that as long as you make a VERY high quality platform, it’s gonna be worth 10 of the enemy’s platforms and that’s better than matching the enemy head to head. This is very seductive thinking for a wealthier, more technically advanced power. But it means you are fighting a war with platforms you aren’t willing to lose which is not a good proposition.

The F-22 is a bit of a German Disease for the USAF because there’s only like 170 of them left and they aren’t making any more of them. Each F-22 lost is a permanent loss for the USAF and if a war against China drags on and attrition becomes a factor, a lot of these very high quality assets that the USAF isn’t willing to lose will need to be pulled from the theater after a while once their losses reach 33% per squadron. Now, no one has ever fought the US in a conventional war since Vietnam and managed to drag it out.

But if that does happen, and the US is losing say 2 F-22s a day on average from ballistic missile strikes on bases, losses due to accidents, very rare occasions when an F-22 is show down by the Chinese, this kind of loss rate might start to hurt a month into the conflict. And the USAF would have to withdraw the F-22s at some point so they still have some left in reserve and put the 4.5+ Gens into the missions the F-22s were doing. Very rare a war would last that long with China and for that high a loss rate, but you never know. The F-22s would primarily suffer more from being forced away from their 7 bases in the first island chain and being forced to operate at their max ranges from second island chain bases, but the loss rate from conflict as well in a long war cant be ignored.

Land

Apart from the strategic support force and the mobile missile systems, Land is pretty irrelevant. Invading China by land is delusional and nearly all serious US military experts have ruled it out. So the PLA and its size and it’s equipment and their comparison with the US Army are really irrelevant to this conversation.

Military Re-Organization

Similar to how the US is re-organizing their Space Force as a separate force apart from the USAF, the Chinese have broken the power of the PLA on military planning and production and reformed it into 5 Joint Commands or Theater commands.

They have to figure out how these theater commands work, something the US already has figured out.

But more importantly, the PLAF, the PLAN and the Strategic Support Force (formerly known as the Strategic Rocket Force) have become more prominent in operation planning.

I should mention that the Strategic Rocket Force of China has no equivalent in the US so they have that going for them. I mentioned before how the force is designed to nullify the USAF advantage in air dominance but that would be selling it short since they also have mission capabilities in EW, Cyber, Space and Information Warfare.

All of these missions falling under one, separate armed force definitely increases the organizational and operational efficiency (same as how the US made a separate Space Force to fully allow it to develop as a proper capability). I think they have a 4 star general leading this force and if you have all of this capability in one organization as a separate force away from PLAN, PLAF and the PLA, its definitely a more modern force structure similar to the US.

And of course, the reorganization of the PLA into 5 Theater commands is a good step as noted before but the PRC military arms need to up their joint operations capability to take advantage of this military organization.

Also a good point to mention here is that the US Space force is very newly created and even they have to work out the kinks in how to have this force integrate with the rest of the US military capability, particularly Cyber. So it’s not just China that has to figure out it’s military re-organization.

Operational Capability

The PRC has enough capability right now to contest much of the first Island chain, deal damage in the second island chain and even maybe reach the US homeland (Hawaii) via submarine mines, long range cruise missiles or ‘missiles in a box’ (The Russian concept of using commercial container ships loaded with missiles). But the idea of reaching Hawaii is not taken very seriously because the survivability of these assets against a alert USN and USAF is next to zero.

So the First Island Chain is where the bulk of the Chinese military potency will be concentrated.

Since the US has allied bases in the region and near global capability to project power, it’s assumed that they can reach any part of China they want as long as their military assets can survive their journey to their targets. But for the most part, the US military will also be focused on establishing control over the first island chain.

The Carrier Question and Scenario Planning

The USN Carriers figure prominently into the US military equation and China is no different. The problem is that the capabilities developed by the Chinese have boxed the carriers out of the first Island chain and the question is as they get pushed further and further away, how effective would they be in a war against China? There’s already a hit implied to the range of the F-35 if it has to fly from the second island chain to the engage in combat in the first island chain (or the Chinese mainland).

Currently, the carrier programs are baked deep into the USN and American military economy. Even if the US stopped building carriers today after the Miller and Ford class programs were completed, they would still have 7 carriers by 2045 and 4 by 2070.

But Large surface combatants will be prime targets in any war with China. And herein lies a big problem facing the US military vs the Chinese:

First: The US military is carrying over programs started before the Chinese even began to be considered a threat (some of these from the 80s and 90s). These programs are starting to deliver assets that would have limited if any use against the Chinese military of today. What good is the B-21 Raider going to do against China? The carrier programs already begun will not have to continue to their logical conclusion since so much money has been spent designing and producing the first entries that it’s a tremendous loss if you cancel them now. The F-35s were initially thought up of in the 80s and 90s as short ranged fighters to dominate the European battlefield in a conflict against the USSR/Russia. Are we sure they will have the operational capability to deliver effective missions in the China theater?

The Chinese however, have a blank slate. They saw the capabilities of the US military in the 90s and had a fresh start in thinking about how to design their military to beat the US military specifically without their production lines and budgets tied up for programs that weren’t specific to the US.

Second: The US must fight and win wars all across the planet. Whether it’s the Russians invading the Baltics, ISIS in the middle east, Iran with a nuclear program, African Islamist groups or what not. The Chinese only have to win in the South China Sea/The First Island Chain. This is something I see Patrick Dugan has also pointed out in the answers on this thread.

The US is spending 700–800 billion dollars a year for all the scenarios they have in their operational planning. The Chinese are spending maybe 200 billion USD for the one fight in the first island chain. In terms of budgetary comparisons, the disparity might not be as big as one might initially think.

This is causing problems to the US because currently, military tech is going through something called the “revolution of many” where a lot of countries are wondering why you cant have smaller, cheaper platforms armed with munitions thrown at your enemies in a way that would overwhelm large platforms like carriers and so on.

To the US’s defense, there are limits to what you can do with such swarms in the deep waters of the Pacific and carriers can be used in a way that complements your own swarm or even serve as the platform for it. But in the first island chain, near the Chinese seaboard, these smaller, cheaper, mobile armed small platforms will be at their most effective. And the USN has no equivalent to this.

The USN as mentioned before is baked into the carrier strategy and armament program which is not in line with the kind of conflict expectation there is in the first island chain.

And this is brings us to the idea that having better systems than your enemy is great, you have F-18s, F-22s, Carriers, JDAMs and M1Abrams and all that cool jazz. But within the specific operational theater of the first island chain in a war with China, how well will your platforms perform? The US military hardware and their doctrines have carry over legacies from the US military introspection of the 1970s after witnessing the shocking levels of fast paced, mechanized, high casualty rate action of the Yom Kippur war. A lot of the current US military systems of today like the M1 Abrams, the F-16s, F-15s, F-22s were developed as a part of how the US understood a war with USSR would be conducted after the Yom Kippur war lessons were understood (the war would be fast, rapid and there might not be enough time for the US military to bring it’s superior production to bear across from the Atlantic).

To the US’s defense again, when this hardware was deployed in the first Gulf War, it performed well and gave the US military a good confidence boost that their current platforms and strategies would apply well across the globe. But the South China sea might be a different ball game. US Air power might be greatly interdicted not by air defenses but by ballistic missile strikes on their airbases. Carriers might not have free reign of the waters in the theater. The US has superiority in underwater platforms but what good are they if PLAN just pulls back close to the shore and doesn’t send out surface combatants against the USN that would allow for their targeting by USN subs.

3rd Offset

The above discussion about carriers was meant to segue way into the US military’s emerging strategy of 3rd Offset.

In a nutshell, the strategy pushes for the idea that instead of going directly at your enemy in a fight, you use an offset. What this strategy means from a military equipment POV is that instead of sending an F-22 or a fully manned sub to engage the Chinese military, the F-22 sends it’s ‘Loyal Wingman’ AI driven UCAV at the PLAAF and the USN sends an unmanned underwater platform to engage the PLAN.

Basically, the US military is also trying to fight China in an asymmetric fashion the same way the Chinese are trying to fight the US military with their own asymmetric techniques. So missiles vs ships rather than ship to ship combat. Drones vs planes rather than air to air manned combat.

Speaking to the USN specifically, what the US navy planners want to do is that for 25% of the price of a US navy carrier and it’s air wing, you could instead have nearly 2000 missiles spread across 40 containerized missile ships. The good thing about these ships also is, is that they are replaceable unlike a carrier. You can make and deploy more with more missiles as the war drags on and losses mount.

So instead of having a carrier being boxed out of the South China sea due to the Chinese missile threat, whose air wing has limited utility due to it carrying mostly short ranged (albeit capable) fighters: Instead have 40 ships with 2000 missiles that have the range for you to safely engage targets in the South China Sea without worrying too much about the Chinese strategic support force and it’s ballistic missiles.

Now, it might seem like I’m laying the blame for all of this carrier fixation on the US military planners. I’m not. I’m laying the blame on Congress.

Opinion | Congress’ demands for supercarriers are sinking the Navy

Years ago, as a police officer in small town Wisconsin, I was checking business doorknobs at night. Walked up to the one and only funeral home, turned the knob….open! Damn! Summoned my partner (checking across the street) and in we go…..

No idea where the light switches were and our plan was to step in, turn around and leave…….indeed, we had requisitely “checked” the place. Right? Nope. We turned to leave just as we heard a crashing sound behind us. Playing our flashlight about, we found the business cash box laying on the floor in the office. Just then, we heard sound coming from downstairs…..where the casket showroom and embalming room (behind closed doors) were to be found.

Huddled together, my partner and I descended the stairs only to have our flashlights show a casket lid close across the room! We hatched a plan whereby I would stand behind the casket, reach over it, pull it open and my partner —- standing in front of it —- would then arrest the purported cashbox thief. Nervous as we both could be in the darkened room, I pulled open the lid and the perp leaped out of the casket like a jack-in-the-box! Partner dropped his flashlight and revolver and the casket occupant blew by me, up the stairs, out the door —— never to caught!

Needless to write, much more circumspect checking there, again!

Remember Justin Trudeau? He was thrown under the bus by Trump once Trump got what he wanted. Now, How Jimmy Lai’s value as an asset is compared to Trudeau? Let’s check it out.

Trudeau is a Head of State, Lai is not. Trudeau is white, Lai is yellow. In the US’s playbook, Lai isn’t even at the level that makes him fit to shine Trudeau’s shoes.

Trudeau maybe not a patriot but certainly, he is no traitor. Lai is a traitor who did not hesitate to collude with a foreign power to go against his own country and people. Traitors are garbage nobody wants anything to do with once their mission objective value is no longer there.

So basically, Jimmy Lai is only a leftover from the shit that failed to hit the fan in Hong Kong. A shit stain to be precise. Nobody would pick up a shit stain, but flush it down the toilet hole.

If Jimmy Lai’s last resort is for the US to come to his rescue, oh he is fucked.

Me.

I was working for a Fortune 500 company as a sales rep, making my quota every year, except my first, for 10 years. A new management team comes in. The new National Sales Manager, Mr. Smith, was unhappy with my image. I was 40, obese and had prematurely grey hair. He liked ‘young, lean and hungry’. Well, I’m good at hungry.

In February the company has its sales meeting. They fly us all into the little airport nearest corporate headquarters, in New England. Itinerary promises luxury hotel, 2 days of training with an awards dinner for all the quota busters (about 90 of 170 of us).

Mr. Smith meets me at the airport, asks for my customer list and price book. Then he hands me a return ticket, through a circuitous route home (it might have been cheaper) that leaves at 5pm, he says this at 7:30am. I got home at 11 pm, I could’ve driven home in 8–9 hours.

As he hands me the ticket he says,”It’s non-changeable, non-refundable. At least for the next 9 hours I’ll know where you are.” I did not call in very often, unless my clients had an issue, or an opportunity. When I did I spoke to customer service and we would resolve almost all of issues without involving higher ups. I should’ve been tooting my own horn, getting Mr. Smith involved seemed senseless. I thought the numbers would speak for me.

Sitting in the airport I decided to start my own business, independent sales representative. Took 6 months to get clients, training and start making sales on straight commission. Took 3 years to get my income above poverty level, my supportive wife sustained us. Then I started making twice the income. Never looked back. Next to marrying my wife, probably the best thing that happened to me. Definitely top 5.

Depends on your time line. Eventually, and I’m talking 2047 territory something would have been put in place. But lets time travel back to 2010. I say 2010 because the seeds of the riot were after the Pan Dems refused the changes in the voting system that would allow more direct elections.

Wong Sing Chi – Nelson Wong the Pan Dem founder was kicked out because he wanted compromise. The first riots started in 2014 and were a test to see what would happen. The not very much happening meant the bigger 2019 riots happened.

Article 23 was impossible to put into place due to protests against it, strong unions and lots of LegCO seats opposing it. You had well still have two factions, yellows anti government everything and blues. The thing is the blues weren’t rubber stampers. They were mostly meh and wanted things to stay the same.

You can literally see prominent blues actually support the anti extradition protests that were initially at the start of 2019 before the violence ramped up. Many of the blues would go no way that goes too far!

Raam Beart, Nury Vitachi pretty much have this angle. There wasn’t the support for anything NSL or article 23 at all.

But then the Yellows went nuts. Wide spread violence, dehumanisation and discrimination against anybody who opposed the yellows.

This pushed the previously meh blues to give support to the government to end the madness. I mean shit you were on the bus in 2019 going into town. You’d see everything smashed up and Chinese people here were attacked by them. I was attacked, numerous quorans who I know are real people were attacked.

So the riots going violent suddenly gave a support base for NSL and eventually article 23.

Protectionism

Plain and Simple

In 2015 – the EU Players – Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Citroen together combined had a market share of

• 40.28% in China
• 29.76% across the World

Life was good

For every Volkswagen sold – China made around $ 18 for every $ 82 that Germany ultimately earned

China got only assembly cost and low grade supplies and equipment

The Chinese brands had a market share of 15.70% in China and 2.33% across the World

India at 3.25% had a higher Global Share

Guess how much the Auto Industry and Ancillary Industry for Autos contribute to the European Economy?

Almost 4%

Thats nearly $ 800 Billion

Including $ 279 Billion in Germany Alone

In 2023 – the EU Players – Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Citroen together combined had a market share of

• 18.73% in the Chinese market with only BMW continuing the same market share and VW falling by 38% from 2015, Mercedes by 27% and Citroen by 82%
• 26.62% in the Global Market

That’s a huge fall of nearly 55% in China and barely keeping their old market share for 8 years

Now their European Sales are crashing

The Chinese products have superior design, superior quality and affordable price being almost 20% cheaper on road

In the last four months of 2023 – European Brands saw a sales drop of 21.5% while Chinese Brands saw a surge of 67.6% in their numbers

Take out the Russian market and the numbers still show a 8.1% drop for European Brands and 26.1% gain for Chinese Brands

Solution?

It’s simple protectionism

Plain and simple

Paying High Prices for Russian Gas

That’s because if Europe keeps relying on Russian Gas, the day Russia cuts off Gas suddenly , Germany could be screwed as could the rest of Europe

Once Russia went to ‘Dangerous Enemy’, decoupling was a security move even at higher expense to the economy

A Better move would have been peace and diversification but Europeans don’t have brains unfortunately

Damn you’ve found us out…

It’s time for the truth to be revealed.

I am not in fact the blonde girl in the picture.

I am a highly advanced AI program sent to Quora to find and answer questions about China that only paints the great homeland in a positive light. Forever may the glory of the People’s Republic of China shine like a beacon on —

Oh WAIT

They don’t need an artificial intelligence to do that. Anyone with normal intelligence could tell you that China kicks ass.

How China kicks ass:

• Renewable Energy: China is crushing the U.S. in renewable energy
• Tech: China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology – Journalist’s Resource
• Economics: China’s Economy Will Overtake The U.S. In 2018
• Lady power: China Produces the Most Self-Made Female Billionaires | Jing Daily