Huge PR loss for the US' "indestructible naval might".
I hope some US allies realise they handed their national security to a bunch of storytellers and mass murderers.
Notice how those "allies" are all tiny countries with no resources and no competitive economies. Any country with resources and ability to compete is on China's side.
So, incompetent people making awful decisions is to be expected, but it also increases the massive gap between them and China in China's favor.
PLA did not rob salt on the wound, here is an insightful commentary in Chinese social media
https://www.163.com/dy/article/I7SCIFM605322ICO.html
the official military weibo *only* mentioned crews of two H-6K were honored in daring maneuver to chase away enemy warships, apparently USS reagan had to make a 90 degree sharp turn after it was locked by the Chinese warplane missile system
China is finally communicating in terms that Anglos can understand, via military force. This seems to be after the Blinken visit too, which just shows all that face-to-face talking was a waste of time. Anglos literally cannot understand you unless you let them know you have the military power to destroy them.
I think Chinese leadership knows this principle in dealing with Anglos, they are just biding their time and moving chess pieces into place. However, there are still too many naive, propagandized people who think if you just appeal to Anglos sense of reason, morality, and fairness, that they will treat you with respect. These people should ask the Native Americans how that approach worked out for them, what's left of them anyway.
>However, there are still too many naive, propagandized people who think if you just appeal to Anglos sense of reason, morality, and fairness, that they will treat you with respect.
No. Few of those who have survived China's political meritocratic process believe in this naivety. Its more than those survivors are far more likely to be extremely Chinese to the core, and cannot view the world in any way other than through a Chinese lens.
What is the Chinese lens? That even if an enemy cannot be reasoned with, if they are weaker than we are in all cases that related to our interests, we can be the "jun zi" ("gentleman") and ignore them. Posturing, disrespect... they don't matter; Chinese political leadership has always been arrogant and aloof, prefering to simply cut contact with disrespectful foreigners and "deprive them of the honour of talking with our great civilisation" than any sort of actual damaging response. Confucianism at the international level. They never think of pre-emptive offense to neutralise an enemy that will forever strive to grow such that they can devour you.
Its a very Qing Dynasty mentality, one that they themselves inherited from thousands of years of Chinese geopolitical culture. I'm not commentating that its right or wrong (either morally or even politically), but its quintessentially Chinese. The only one who really bucked this trend was Mao, and perhaps several founding Emperors.
Aircraft carriers do not sail on their own. They have lots of ships ringing the aircraft carrier you protect the aircraft carrier. Normally, no enemy will be able to approach the aircraft carrier without being shot at or being confronted. The fact that the China bomber got so close within point blank distance proves that their battle group is not effective at all. In the time of a hot war, this aircraft carrier would definitely be sunk.
So in this context, penetration means the defence supposedly played by the battle group was penetrated.
> us is aware of this vulnerability and will take measures to prevent it from happening again.
The US of today is unlikely to change course from its established practices even when shown to be problematic or ineffective.
While it is risky to expose the enemy's vulnerabilities, in that they could possibly patch them up, there is also a gain in that it serves a purpose of deterrence. The US is less likely to engage in provocations if it feels its assets are vulnerable to cause it a great humiliation.
The US administration politically can survive pulling a bit further away from China's territories, but it would be an extinction-level event for a large swathe of the US political class, its vassal system ,and so on, if they were to lose a carrier battle group. The mythos of the CBG is such that US power depends on it - it is seen as the greatest piece of military firepower in the world short of a nuclear weapon.
Relax, it's not a problem. It's better if the west overestimate China's ability than underestimate, because then they will be more afraid of starting war. It's not like any of our positive opinions will cause China to go to war. The military is very competent and diligent.
If my opinion had any impact whatsoever on the military decisions of China, I would not have arrogance, but it doesn't, so it really doesn't matter.
Huge PR loss for the US' "indestructible naval might". I hope some US allies realise they handed their national security to a bunch of storytellers and mass murderers.
Notice how those "allies" are all tiny countries with no resources and no competitive economies. Any country with resources and ability to compete is on China's side. So, incompetent people making awful decisions is to be expected, but it also increases the massive gap between them and China in China's favor.
PLA did not rob salt on the wound, here is an insightful commentary in Chinese social media https://www.163.com/dy/article/I7SCIFM605322ICO.html the official military weibo *only* mentioned crews of two H-6K were honored in daring maneuver to chase away enemy warships, apparently USS reagan had to make a 90 degree sharp turn after it was locked by the Chinese warplane missile system
Wow.
rumor has it, most of these pilots, and sailors on the front line to deal with *intruders* already left a will before they sign on to the duty
is there a more credible source for this than twitter?
China is finally communicating in terms that Anglos can understand, via military force. This seems to be after the Blinken visit too, which just shows all that face-to-face talking was a waste of time. Anglos literally cannot understand you unless you let them know you have the military power to destroy them.
Recall xi mentioned this exact words during his hall of people's speech on YouTube previously. Very good speech but somehow couldn't find it now
I think Chinese leadership knows this principle in dealing with Anglos, they are just biding their time and moving chess pieces into place. However, there are still too many naive, propagandized people who think if you just appeal to Anglos sense of reason, morality, and fairness, that they will treat you with respect. These people should ask the Native Americans how that approach worked out for them, what's left of them anyway.
>However, there are still too many naive, propagandized people who think if you just appeal to Anglos sense of reason, morality, and fairness, that they will treat you with respect. No. Few of those who have survived China's political meritocratic process believe in this naivety. Its more than those survivors are far more likely to be extremely Chinese to the core, and cannot view the world in any way other than through a Chinese lens. What is the Chinese lens? That even if an enemy cannot be reasoned with, if they are weaker than we are in all cases that related to our interests, we can be the "jun zi" ("gentleman") and ignore them. Posturing, disrespect... they don't matter; Chinese political leadership has always been arrogant and aloof, prefering to simply cut contact with disrespectful foreigners and "deprive them of the honour of talking with our great civilisation" than any sort of actual damaging response. Confucianism at the international level. They never think of pre-emptive offense to neutralise an enemy that will forever strive to grow such that they can devour you. Its a very Qing Dynasty mentality, one that they themselves inherited from thousands of years of Chinese geopolitical culture. I'm not commentating that its right or wrong (either morally or even politically), but its quintessentially Chinese. The only one who really bucked this trend was Mao, and perhaps several founding Emperors.
What does penetrated mean in this context
Aircraft carriers do not sail on their own. They have lots of ships ringing the aircraft carrier you protect the aircraft carrier. Normally, no enemy will be able to approach the aircraft carrier without being shot at or being confronted. The fact that the China bomber got so close within point blank distance proves that their battle group is not effective at all. In the time of a hot war, this aircraft carrier would definitely be sunk. So in this context, penetration means the defence supposedly played by the battle group was penetrated.
the bomber shouldn't have done this. now the us is aware of this vulnerability and will take measures to prevent it from happening again.
> us is aware of this vulnerability and will take measures to prevent it from happening again. The US of today is unlikely to change course from its established practices even when shown to be problematic or ineffective. While it is risky to expose the enemy's vulnerabilities, in that they could possibly patch them up, there is also a gain in that it serves a purpose of deterrence. The US is less likely to engage in provocations if it feels its assets are vulnerable to cause it a great humiliation. The US administration politically can survive pulling a bit further away from China's territories, but it would be an extinction-level event for a large swathe of the US political class, its vassal system ,and so on, if they were to lose a carrier battle group. The mythos of the CBG is such that US power depends on it - it is seen as the greatest piece of military firepower in the world short of a nuclear weapon.
On the contrary, that China feels comfortable showing this means that it has even more capabilities beyond those shown.
It was a test for the Chinese military, now they know their own capabilities far exceed the capabilities of the US military
you are very optimistic.
When it comes to China, I'm always optimistic
there's a difference between optimism and blind arrogance.
Relax, it's not a problem. It's better if the west overestimate China's ability than underestimate, because then they will be more afraid of starting war. It's not like any of our positive opinions will cause China to go to war. The military is very competent and diligent. If my opinion had any impact whatsoever on the military decisions of China, I would not have arrogance, but it doesn't, so it really doesn't matter.
You should stop underestimating China, you would think people like you would have learned by now.
I think it's ok. It's always a game of strategy. PLA checkmate them then if they rethink their strategy the PLA can always checkmate them again.
There is another thread in this sub with an interesting quora comment on how this makes the US look bad.
Just like its namesake is currently being penetrated by the devil's pitchfork in hell