I love that he throws shade where it is due regardless of political leanings. Plus, not a single reference card in that video, all one take, with the knowledge just flowing like he truly knows it. Thanks again Peter.
@@jeffreykalb9752 It's impossible not to. It's your job to determine what is useful information, and what is politics. No person on earth is truly apolitical.
@@chessgeek10707 Hes wrong a lot. I heard him speak a year ago at an Ag conf, he was telling people natural gas markets were going to inaccessable by eu. Nothing has been further from the truth, we hit 2.30 yesterday
The four oldest Ohio class ballistic missile subs (Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia) have been converted to guided missile subs. Their launch tubes, 22 each, can take seven Tomahawks, i.e. 154 cruise missile per boat or 616 cruise missiles. The Ohio and Michigan are somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, with 308 ship killing missiles. Those missiles would account for much of the Chinese navy larger than a rubber Zodiak.
I chuckle at these ships -- in as much as I advocated conversions of same -- decades ago -- in High Technology magazine. Yeah, my pitch made it into print before the WWW. A the time, the USN didn't quite know "what next?"
The maritime strike Tomahawk is just now coming online and it's unlikely that many are in the fleet just yet. All previous Tomahawk cruise missiles could only hit fixed locations because they followed GPS and other guidance to the target. They could not be used against any moving target because they did not have a way of locking on.
@@twelvestitches984 Tomahawk needs a module add-on that employs a short-range radar lock-on. Technically, the US could just pull off the system from retired F-16/18 and add them onto the Tomahawks.
Speaking of new weaponry, the US has just deployed its first batch of HIMARS capable PrSM missile. Longer range and larger warheads. Also capable of doubling ammo capacity.
When I was in the 7th Fleet, USN, we were constantly having to chase China out of the territorial waters of other countries; where they didn't belong. I know quite a bit about their assets, capabilities, and locations.... If anyone is interested: *PLN North [HQ Qingdao]* 1 Aircraft Carrier, 18 Subs, 1 Cruiser, 9 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 10 Corvettes, 2 Tank Landing Ships, 5 Medium Landing Ships, 18 Missile Patrol Craft *PLN East [HQ Ningbo]* 18 Subs, 12 Destroyers, 23 Frigates, 19 Corvettes, 2 Amphibs, 16 Tank Landing Ships, 7 Medium Landing Ships, and 46 Missile Patrol Craft *PLN South [HQ Zhanjiang]* 1 Carrier, 20 Subs, 11 Destroyers, 18 Frigates, 20 Corvettes, 4 Amphibs, 13 Tank Landing Ships, 9 Medium Landing Ships, and 22 Missile Patrol Craft Their Navy isn't as aircraft focused as ours. The reason being that PLAAF pilots have a hard time with simply just staying in the air. So they've designed a very lightweight fleet based on Aerial denial, and a meat grinder island hopping strategy. The southern fleet is designed for the Philippines. The eastern fleet is the primary defense and its main purpose is Taiwan. The northern fleet is their weakest, because they believe that Russia will help them.
Their 1 Carrier is a second hand vessel they bought from Ukraine and retro fitted....it's their best operational Carrier at the moment. Their planes have to take off from it with 20-30% less fuel as the launch lip on one Carrier puts too much stress on the aircraft on take off....The other Carrier has hull issues from either design or construction flaws and needs almost a day and a half to power up enough steam each time it shuts down just to get moving. Their 3rd and not yet operational Carrier is a Hot Mess as the Electro Magnetic Deck Launch Propulsion System does not jive with the rest of the Power Systems on board. The only thing the PLA has that concerns me is the Missles they can launch from land to kill our Carriers. But they do not have enough of them to target and successfully kill more than 1 or maybe 2 and then they are done. Xi will only invade Taiwan if he loses control of the population due to financial collapse and we shall have to wait and see if that becomes a reality in 2024-2025 @radovan739
@radovan739 I love people like you In the comments, you don’t get that constant war is a business in America. If they wanted to win a war they would. There’s no money in winning and until you understand that you look stooooooopid thinking America can’t win a war.
Keep dreaming@radovan739 It's the newest biggest and best trained war machine of the planet ........... and they're not alone in this. China on the other hand got zero experience !
I was in the Navy on a Tyco Cruiser 30 years ago. The capabilities back then were mind blowing. I can imagine where the Navy is now and it's pretty damn scary. We could take on this modern day Chinese navy with a Fleet from the early 90's. Enterprise and America Battle Groups would wipe ocean floor with 'em.
half of Ticonderoga-class cruisers are still active but, the Enterprise-class (only one of its class) and Kitty Hawk-class carriers have all been retired.
@@DavidCoxDallas Have you seen the Gerald R. Ford? It has all the capabilities of 1.5 -2X Enterprise-class Carriers, I believe they have laid the Kell on two more available in 7-10 years their expected lifetime service is into the 2100's
@@Richard-e5m yes, Ford class. it would have been better to build more destroyers so the navy could have power projection in more places concurrently. those 11 CBGs are also a limited number of very high value targets.
@@DavidCoxDallasKitty Hawk and JFK, and earlier Saratoga, Forrestal, Ranger, all scrapped needlessly and for pennies. And paying $9 million to scrap Constellation and Independence
When counting naval strength for the USA everyone forgets to count the US Coast Guard with its ships. This origination is working with training everybody's Coast Guard around the world. The USCG match or exceeds most countries' navies capabilities. The USCG bring a different skill sets of seamanship to the party.
USCG Pacific command has 16 cutters. The big ones are ~50 years old; the smaller ones aren't really fit for trans-Pac service. None of them are easy to arm with meaningful air-defense weaponry, nevermind anti-ship capability. So your comment is about 30 years past its expiration date... today's USCG is not going to contribute much to any near-peer naval engagement.
Good point, if you're going to count Chinese PLA near shore ships as part of their Navy (they do) then you have to apples to apples it, and count our Coast Guard ships too.
@@SpamSuckerI think the OP's point was more that when you say China has X number of ships and the US only has Y... it's misleading because you left out our Coast Guard. The Chinese Navy numbers do include all their stay at home, coastal defense ships. Ours do not. So you should be adding 30 or 40 ships to the US total. And remember, whatever issues the USCG ships might have as 'warships', the same applies to all the smaller vessels China is trying to pretend ARE warships.
@@HKim0072 Rapid dragon is just putting existing missiles on pallets and then launching them one at a time as they drop. There isn't a great deal of new development or testing needed. If the missiles work, then all you're doing is making sure they don't target each other as they set off and also not all target the same ship (almost a definition of overkill). I guess they could add: priorities from from recognising different types of ships + timing so multiple missiles could hit a high value target at once to overwhelm defences + maybe also ensure that if a missile is knocked out then another missile with a lower priority target could take it's place. These parts are all optional though.
@@mikebikekite1All modern american cruise missiles are equipped with a datalink. They have an automatic deconfliction system that allows multiple missiles to target different critical systems of the same ship. This also allows the missiles to consider the defenses of the target. They will coordinate approaches to arrive simultaneously from different vectors to overwhelm defenses. They will use less stealthy missiles as decoys. And that’s just what they’ve publicly announced
Except he is wrong about the history of the newer weapons. So you ought do your own fact checking with Google before offering your heartfelt thanks to Pete for his weak reporting.
Some clarifications: The RGM-109C Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAM) used in the 1991 Gulf War were probably Block I or Block II missiles, which used terrain contour mapping for navigation. GPS wasn't added until the introduction of the Block III sometime circa 1994. Furthermore, there used to be an old anti-shipping variant of the Tomahawk, the RGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Shipping Missile (TASM). This was a late Cold War era missile that was retired in the 90's because the missiles were unlikely to hit the correct target. Like Peter said, these made the missiles very problematic for shooting moving ships. USN submarines and surface ships still retained the Harpoon antiship missile, which was more than capable of hitting the correct target at meaningful ranges.
7 Mach missile, 10 Mach, 15Mach, sounds familiar? Wait until you hear this: Israel are taking down drones with the speed of light laser beams. There is no higher speed than that.
I was an avid 'Harpoon' gamer and **distinctly** remember the TASM as part of my sub loadout so thanks for reminding everyone it was a thing in the 90's! :)
@@strategosopsikion8576 It is receiving the ability to attack moving ships at sea with the Block Va update, yes. I hesitate to call it "navalized" because the term typically refers to weapons that can be fired from naval vessels. The Navy has never stopped operating Tomahawks since they were initially introduced in the 80's.
For 5 years, from 2008-13, I lived and worked in China. There was always an underlying yet strong sense of nationalism among the Chinese, but when Xi took power, it came fully to the surface. I liken it to a teenager 'feeling their oats.' They are now ready to take on the world, as their actions in the South Chins Sea have shown. The average Chinese, though, does not understand the weaknesses of their armed forces such as those outlined in this video. But their leaders know and, for now, will likely not do anything stupid.
True. Good observations about youth nationalism. Though, I used to fly in and out of China from HK. Hegemony, though, has its origins, as early as Zhou En Lai and Nixon. I have read now declassified documents having Kissinger warning US President Ford and Australian PM Fraser. Excellent post, rinyding.
Most American like you and Peter never learn the fact America lost the war in Vietnam, Afghanistan and the proxy war in Ukraine. There's nothing wrong to be patriotic in China and America. But it's wrong when America is addicted to wars in the 0ast 40 years.
One of the most important elements of this balance is not addressed here. The US has militarily and economically significant allies in the Pacific region. China doesn't.
My biggest fear is that the Chinese (like Japan in 1941) will make the mistake of thinking that a surprise attack that sinks half the US Navy will bring the USA to the negotiating table. They would be very wrong, I just can't see the US response in 2024 as being any different than in 1942.
if you think so, you have to ask yourself why russia did not attack NATO while attacking Ukraine? and why Nato chose not to fight russia directly? when china invade TW, will the US attack china? china has never planned to have a war with the US in the middle of the ocean, never and ever. the real question at hand is if russia win the war with Ukraine, will russia invade other european countries and control all the rest of the europe? if the US really think so, US should fight Russia from the 1st day of war.
My concern is in 2025! The mega people are more concerned about a woman carrying a baby and a four year old 1600 miles from Venezuelan, looking for a better life, than how to respond to a 1941 attack.
The big threat from China isn't from their military. They haven't been in a hot war in forever. Also, the have little experience at manufacturing military grade equipment. Take for example the Type 002, and the 003 aircraft carriers. Both were built using substandard iron, and have developed metal fatigue cracks already. There are other questionable decisions that went into their design as well. The real threat will be them trying to undermine our way of life from within. Their presence and influence in our universities is clearly being felt here already. China would lose a hot war with the US in rather short order.
Their last hot war was in 1979 against Vietnam. They lost. Before that? Korean War. They lost that as well (both sides really lost that war). The last time China was on the winning side in a war was 1945. The PRC has never won a war it has taken part in. China in 1945 was run by Chiang Kai-shek. Aka the government of Taiwan. It was also on the winning side then through no real achievement of its own. China essentially played no real substantive military role in the defeat of Japan. Chinese forces were of some use in northern Burma but that wasn't a crucial campaign for defeating Japan: it was a campaign to re-open the Burma Road ... to supply China better. Chinese forces also kept a lot of Japanese forces tied down in China itself. Except that Japan didn't have the sealift to supply more forces than were used in the Pacific in reality. So again not decisive or particularly useful to defeating Japan. The United States and Australia did the vast majority of the actual, decisive fighting against Japan. The UK joined in from Okinawa with a substantial Royal Navy task force. New Zealand also made a small Pacific contribution. China hasn't actually made a substantive military contribution towards winning a major war for a VERY long time. Well over a century.
Also, if you look at the vessels they bought from the soviet union and ukraine, there button hauls are intact, vs. the as you stated above the metal fatigue and i think Peter is under estimating how bad the Chinese Navy is, in terms of they crank out these ships, but they are NOT combat ready i think they are using an illusion of quantity of ships to scare its adversaries? Just in the same way we thought Russia had the 2nd best military in the world and yet, Ukraine conflict has shown otherwise.... Chinese military also you have to remoemebr is the one child policy, many of the men and women are the only child, if a hot war happens, there is no safety net for there parents if something happens to those children that they will rely on, so many dynamics to the entire situation that is a broader picture, i think the US with combined forces, hell even alone could take out the majority of Chinese Navy and they wouldn't know what would happen or happened!
@@chrislin2774 You get a mixed bag there. They can cause some issues, but then so can we. They would more than likely loose satellite coms in the first days of any war, if not the first day.
I will put it like this. China has the largest Navy in the exact same way that Matchbox is the world's largest Car manufacturer. Also, China knows its Navy is not even close to being able to take on the U.S. Navy. This is why they built so many military bases/artificial islands in the South China Sea. A single Aircraft Carrier Group can take out China's entire navy.
"China has the largest Navy in the exact same way that Matchbox is the world's largest Car manufacture."....Perfect, so perfect in fact I'm going to steal it!
The 1st thing China will do is take out, jam or spoof all the US satellites. Since they probably stole the encryption keys, they can redirect US missiles to sink US ships. The US military's satellite advantage will be crippled all or partially and they probably don't know how to printout, let lone read a map anymore. The 2nd thing China will do is try to take out the carriers because the planes will have no where to land, be at the bottom of the sea and can't use their missiles. The 3rd thing is they will continue to build more ships and missiles at a faster rate than USA and then it's game over.
There's a hole in your logic. If China built military bases to take on the U.S. Navy, why did the U.S. build even more military bases around China? The US didn't need to take on the Chinese Navy because it was non-existent when the US bases were built
Old news. Taiwan to Buy 400 US Anti-Ship Missiles Intended to Repel a China Invasion Boeing contract completes a sale Congress approved in 2020 The deal is Taiwan’s first for land-launched Harpoon missile
@@mitchells7634 What for? The US can simply block OIL at point of origin or block the Strait of Hormuz. Why can't people understand that simple logic? Why argue pointlessly about weapons, troops and politics? BLOCKING THE OIL IS CHILD'S PLAY CHINA DIES WITHIN A MONTH
In the last 15 years I would travel to Trinidad for work (in our hemisphere) and would see Chinese navy hospital ships docked there. I think they are closer to us then most think.
Trying to implement Taiwan's playbook for international relations. TAIWAN 🇹🇼 has been sending medical support to nations in Central, South America for many years to help gain favor. Chinese are copy cats
As a Nigerian, i am glad that the west(US anyway) will still maintain military hegemony for a while more. Lord knows you guys are more trustworthy and better to deal with than the Wokf Warrior Chinese.
That's a good one. I personally was wondering about the implications of the rapidly evolving situation in Myanmar. With the Chinese needing the port,and pipeline running through the regions under the brother alliance territory. The CCP wet dream of circumventing us naval power.
Old man here with a thought about man buns. Pretty sure president Abraham Lincoln wore his man bun under his hat along with George Washington who had his wig formed into a man bun. Best not to judge a person’s IQ by their hair.
I've never heard the proverb, "Never trust a guy with a man bun.", I have however heard of the one that states "Never judge a book by its cover"@@jeffbeck8993
TASM actually predates TLAM by at least a decade, they are just restoring an old capability. Also the big key here aren't the stand off ASCMs, it's the new generation of American sea mines. It's hard to overstate how lethal naval mines are, and how they can instantly shut down a naval offensive when one force is locked in near shore (China) and the other controls the open sea (USA)
All I Know is about a week after the US was out of the INF treaty the wind tunnel I was employed by was overloaded with new models to build for testing, so just because it's not in the arsenal doesn't mean it's not in development.
One other thing that needs to be talked about with regards to western naval strength, Japan and South Korea, the Chinese can’t not attack American bases in both nations if war breaks out, so they’ll be at war with them too. Both nations have more frigates and destroyers than most of Europe combined, even if they lack nuclear subs…for now
If China attacks Taiwan, North Korea is getting involved somehow. Even if it's to rabble-rouse. Russia will make "noise" near Japan as a distraction as well.
So the US has bases in SK and Japan. Does China have bases in Mexico and Canada? So most Chinese ships can only stay close to China? The US navy can sail anywhere in the World and hurt people in every country. Americans constantly talk about enemy countries. Other powers try to secure their own borders and never go to North America to try and destabilise that continent. Sounds fair. Long live the hypocritical West! And remember, if anyone doesn't like you it's ONLY because you're free.
I've been following Peter's forecasts and assessments since the 2000s when he was with STRATFOR. He's way off the mark on this one. Biden has actively been working for the Soviets since they got him into the Senate in 1972. He was one of their lead moles on killing the B-1A program and trying to neuter the US under SALT II. Many senior military leaders have been calling for upgrading and developing new theater ballistic missile and missile defense systems for decades, and finally got traction under the Trump WH. Some of those programs are just barely coming to fruition, despite the geriatric pedophile's presence in the WH, definitely not because of it. US strategic forces were neglected as he says from Bush41 through Obama. Under Trump WH, they finally got the attention they deserved. That included hypersonics, ships, increased production of F-35s, P-8A Poseidon, more nukes, and strategic integrated missile defense programs. What Peter claimed here is directly opposite of reality. You can look right now and see a list of articles discussing the Biden WH reversals on Trump strategic weapons programs.
@@ebrim5013The Senate and House Armed Services Committees are more dialed-in than you realize. They get regular classified briefings on all of this, since they are fighting to steer or maintain contracts in their States and districts. They take US military superiority for granted, treating the defense industry as more of a jobs program, even though it isn't among the top 20 industries in revenue in the US. Many of the members of Congress are acting in cohort as Russian and Chinese moles, since they got into office with schemes from Council for a Livable World and CPUSA re-branded under Democratic Socialists of America. One of the strategies the Soviets devised was to waste as much US money on unrelated expenses that deplete money from being spent on the weapons they hate and fear. Congress and multiple White Houses have done a bang-up job of that. Look at how the Bush and Obama White Houses killed the F-22, but funded MRAPs.
A naval weaponwonk friend told me most anti-ship missiles no longer bother with warheads. They divert that weight capacity into extra fuel. Apparently, after action assessments confirmed that dud missiles were more effective because the lack of blast kept the deflagrating fuel remainder from dispersing. The fuel fire ended up causing worse problems than the warhead blast. Go figure...
So well said! My USA flag displayed in my office actually unfurled, did a gentle flap, probably due to the sheer power of your words Mr. Zeihan. This is just another of a collection of the most worthwhile excerpts and dialogues I look forward to every time you post. God willing, there will be many more to come. God bless you Sir. God Bless America.
@@zacksmith5963shows you that China is USA's B they sit in factories making US flags. Imagine hating The US and being forced to make your enemies flags on a daily.
My understanding is that the real problem is we don't enough smart missiles in stock. We need to be producing them much more quickly. I heard Niall Ferguson say that in a shooting war with China, we would be out of smart missiles inside of a week.
The Ukraine war at times resembled a WW1 battlefield....With long stalemates and artillery exchanges because of how quickly they went through the high-tech weapons....Artillery shells was the only thing left..
@@AlainNavasDrama Artillery shells won't be much use in naval and air battle unless the Chinese gain a long-term foothold on Taiwan. Totally different dynamic compared to Ukraine. But yes, we need to be producing more shells as well.
Ate Chute (French navy pilot channel) says the same for air to air missiles, great equipment , just not enough of it. We are not ready for a full scale peer to peer war.
@@Nick-bh5bk I think the o.p.'s point was that the super duper weapons that Peter mentioned (and haven't been delivered yet) will quickly be exhausted. After that you are down to the old conventional weapons that are cheap and easily mass produced. Both China and Russia have large stocks of them on hand as well as fully functional production systems up and running. Yemeni forces just severely damaged a commercial freighter off their coast. Between the American and French defenders, it cost twenty five million dollars for them to take out the attacking cheap drones and sea skimmer missiles. And one got through anyway. That was from a bunch of ragtag Muslim rebels. Imagine if it wasn't a half dozen air assets attacking but was sixty instead. At the performance level achieved in this case, that would mean it would cost two hundred and fifty million dollars for each such engagement with ten attacking elements hitting their target. The attacker will be happy with that exchange every time. If they can keep it up, eventually quality goes out the window for the defender and all that counts is the quantity delivered, with increasing returns achieved by the attacker from each volley. .
@paulmakinson1965 true. We weren't before WW2 as well. But because we became the "arsenal for democracy " by the time we entered the war we had a head start on mass production. We probably won't have that luxury in our next major war.
For better or worse the US has been at war constantly for the last 30 years. These complex systems, on both sides, require constant training and operator experience to maximize their combat capabilities. We have seen time and time again that countries that haven't trained or do not have the combat experience are not able to achieve the combat effectiveness they should "on paper". A naval war would be a disaster for the Chinese due to this more than any other factor.
I've never been worried about China's military power. I didn't care how many troops they could feel. I didn't care how much equipment they had because my understanding was they were operating with their military size and the size of their country and the size of their government. They were literally operating at just above break so and if you understand that it cost an immense amount of money to move, just a few thousand troops anywhere and for the Chinese to be able to move their forces anywhere would be an astronomical amount they couldn't afford. And the more I keep hearing about how they're facing bank failures people not paying loans. Buildings not being built started but not being built. The more I understand that the Chinese economy is kind of still quite fragile. On another reason, the last time I heard anything China GDP is rooted into the United States economy by 70% and if they were to go to war with the United States that's 70% of their GDP that would disappear instantly and they couldn't afford to do that
China's carriers were already 60 years behind when the blueprints were created. They're smaller, slower, and have far fewer defenses than their American counterparts. More, Chinese jet engines are hot garbage, so they don't actually have any truly carrier-capable aircraft. The ones they use are so bad that the planes have to take off with vastly reduced armaments and only half a tank of fuel or they fall off the end of the ramp and crash.
@@samuelphillian1286 Exactly. Carriers were an afterthought and battleships the mainstay of U.S. Navy until the opening day of World War Two. Luckily for America, Japan sank so many of thebattleships in the opening fray that the U.S. Navy had no choice but to fight with what they had left. That is when they realized what they had left was better than what they wanted to fight with originally. Now the U.S Navy is hung up on the past glory of the carriers.
The anti ship Tomahawks you are referring to have a 300 mile range . They are also on cruisers and destroyers. The other stealth anti ship cruise missiles are the LRASMs launched from B1Bs, P8 Poseidons, and F18 Superhornets. Just to add to what you were saying.
They are back to broken roads and bridges because daddy USA told them to withdraw. They are part of G7 so called developed countries with broken roads and bridges too. Big display of ego by USA.
Possibly one of your best, most (deliciously) detailed videos. Is there an economic or demographic point when China won’t be able to attack Taiwan in any meaningful way ?
I think we're past the notion of China invading Taiwan making any sense. Even if they could seize it, they couldn't run it. If they try, they'll just break it, and it won't benefit anyone.
@@thesidburgess - Just watched another video about this earlier today (which is probably why the RUclips algorithm recommended this video). Seems like there are many indicators that China has missed its window, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how immensely hard an invasion can be, even if you have a much larger military than your opponent. Russia had the advantage of a massive land border too, China faces almost 100 miles of open ocean before they can launch an invasion.
@jsmith1746 Won't the 100 mile distance be an advantage for China over TAI though? I'm not too sure if that's a too far enough buffer zone for TAI to fend off a Chinese invasion for long. Granted China might suffer insane losses due to the arms U.S can guarantee TAI. All these discussions are interesting, and I hope it never gets to that point. One serious ace U.S has that gets overlooked is the fact that in a conventional warfare, I doubt any nation can go toe to toe with U.S. just a subjective opinion. Again, interesting scenarios.
Tomahawk Block V have longer range and dynamic targeting with the capability to hit vessels at sea (maritime strike role). Raytheon is recertifying and modernizing the missile, extending its service life by 15 years, and resulting in the new Tomahawk Block V series: March 2022
The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile is a long-range, all-weather, jet-powered, subsonic cruise missile that is primarily used by the United States Navy and Royal Navy in ship and submarine-based land-attack operations. Under contract from the U.S. Navy, the Tomahawk was designed at the APL/JHU in a project led by James H. Walker near Laurel, Maryland, and was first manufactured by General Dynamics in the 1970s. It was intended to fill the role of a medium- to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a naval surface warfare platform, and featured a modular design accommodating a wide variety of warhead, guidance, and range capabilities. At least six variants and multiple upgraded versions of the TLAM have been added since the original design was introduced, including air-, sub-, and ground-launched variants with conventional and nuclear armaments. Wikipedia
Its right, Peters having a slip of the mind. When he says the tomahawks were used in 92. The gulf war was January, February of 91. I always start questioning experts I like when they get dates and names wrong. I also don't like his attacks on peoples age. Every other culture has respect for the old but not the U.S.
There is also "Rapid Dragon" which launches shipping container like bundles of shorter range missiles closer to the battlefront on logistics like planes and B52s etc..
I’ve never understood why some people were so worked up about China’s Navy. They’re a joke. They literally put boats in the water that are the size of fishing boats and call them a naval vessel. 😂
When you have so many mobile attack points, it takes more operational resources from the opposition. Their boats and people are expendable, we cannot make the same claim.
@@steveo85 legacy media influence has not been there for at least 10-15 years. who even watches TV or even more so - reads a newspaper? even people over 60 do that less and less. people under 50-60 are mostly getting their news on youtube, tiktok and other social media, not legacy ones.
If you look at the PLAN ships, most have a range well in excess of 1000 nm. However, it operational range maybe 1/4th or 1/3rd of that published range. If you only want to attack something, then the range is one half of the publish range because you sail out, fire your missiles or guns, and then sail back. However, if you want to patrol an area, you may need to allocate one third to one half of your fuel for operations on station and the rest is used for getting to the area of operations and back. Also, if you look at some of the smaller ships, they have an endurance of 30 days or maybe just a few weeks. Thwy basically can't carry that much food and water for longer.
I have a huge doubt about Chinese hypersonic missiles. It's never been seen. I think it doesn't exist. I explain why: There is intercept of Chinese missile moving at hypersonic speed but that does not mean hypersonic missile. Any cheaper ballistic missile forced to fly low can do that. A hypesonic missile must perform two very critical tasks: one is to survive the friction of lower atmosphere where all of its fuels, shields, warheads, wings, electronics are being roasted by normal air, almost all missiles will disintegrate within seconds. Second is to accurately explode on the target location, but during hypersonic speed, which means its electronics must react to 1/1000th of a second. Any error of 1/1000th of a second then it will miss its target by a hundred yards. China can't even build a decent jet without copying from other countries. That they can build a missile withstanding roasting disassembly and still accurate to 1/1000th of a second is just downright lying.
To add to your point, I recently read that Chinese jets spend up to ten times as much time under maintenance compared to their US counterparts. It's not so bad if you have relatively cheaper labor, but it sucks if you are actually in a war and need those things in the sky.
At the very least you expanded on your remark. Most here shoot from the hip on a single sentence. And kudos for you for breaking into readable paragraphs. We have some rant bugs here who are off the charts.
Americans have a strange common sense: war is only something that happens outside the homeland. It is meaningless to discuss these after China already possesses a large number of variable-trajectory supersonic missiles capable of carrying nuclear bombs. These missiles can cover the entire area of US territory as long as the war starts. Even if the U.S can do the same to Chinese territory.
It is hard to argue with the enormous success of the Afghan withdrawal or the way they have intimidated the Iranians and Hamas. Everyone in the Biden administration is a military genius.
Worst take by Zeihan by far is giving senile Joe Biden ANY credit for knowledge and experience in weapons systems just because he's been a government buffoon for 55 years. Biden does and says what his handlers tell him to do and say with no independent thought or wisdom.
Fortunately, an administration is more than just person at the helm. Jake Sullivan in particular has been one of the real reasons for any juggernaut-ness.
This can´t be new. Over here in Sweden we got weapons that can target independently for decades and decades and decades. For instant the anti ship cruise missile RBS15 that use both satellite position, inertia and pattern recognition. It was fielded in 1984. And we also have Bonus airborne mine that can differentiate between a tank, a APC, a IFV and civilian vehicles, first fielded in 1990 (the later one is currently being procured by US army). And there is of cause simpler weapon that N-LAW that also target specific vehicle semi automatically. This is actually fairly old tech
The US has weapons of that nature already in its navy. The difference with what Peter is taking about is that the weapons can work independently in deep water naval warfare which can take place over a million square miles. The types of weapons you are referring operate on specific non dynamic targets in coastal or land warfare.
@@Art-is-craft that is not corect. Rbs15 is specially made to operate in a dynamic target enviorment. It can store profiles for target to attack and not attack. It's quite a few system we have that can do that. Also Strix. Of cause rbs15 is the only one doing that on a somewhat long range, and its still considered short range. It was only ever designed to work in the baltic.
Agreed. Not to mention little tech items like anti-radiation loiter missiles that just fly around waiting for radar to pop up, so it can kill the source. Most people don't know you can differentiate radar signals...and the Chinese have a fingerprint just like anyone else. These things have been around since the 80s. The more modern updates will go way beyond.
Your discussion on the numerical difference between the China and US naval forces ignores the South China Sea. This is the Chinese priority. And this is where they can use their numerical superiority to intimidate many countries that the US would like as allies. A strategic war with China is unlikely. But local wars are highly probable.
The sheer tonnage of the US fleet is mind blowing. 4.2 million tons. The Chinese fleet is 2 million tons. According to stats, N. Korea has more ships than the US, so that isn't saying much.
@@Flightman453 Oh yeah. For sure. They have 4 times as many people so its just a matter of time. I think with swarms of AI killer drones, ships are just going to be sitting ducks in the very near future. The US doesn't have any men left, and the woman are so woke, they would allow China to invade and take over and they would celebrate the communists as heros.
He is probably looking into right now. Most likely picking quotable sources and going through cables. At least he edits what he puts out there , based on what he gathers. He walks talking as if he was shooting from the hip, but in actuality he does some homework.
Peter - have you done a video on the military vulnerabilities of Australia? You mention Australia in this video. Very interested to hear your views on how poor Australia is at theor own preparedness
A different, Peter, here. Australia has a modern medium sized militarily, having fairly strong in high tech and airforce to protect itself against even a major requiring a long supply lines. Australia’s white powers from the 1970s into the 2000s, were more concerned about Indonesia, because Indonesian generals have influence on the Indonesian government and historically Australia has contained Indonesian expansion efforts. Curiously, in retort, Australia has NOT heavily developed its military, because, given lead times, Australia was more advanced and could then outspend Indonesia. Australia global advantages are in radar and technologies not the size of its military: Something admired by Colin Powell. More recently, AUKUS has built the foundation for the three countries, to increase the superior defence between China and the three allies. Australia pioneered scramjet technologies and AI drone technologies. Australia has an underdeveloped, basically non-existed, nuclear defence industry: Australia needs and will receive American help! Thanks 👍🇺🇸🇦🇺 AUKUS, will see joint R&D on AI and QM too. Australia was the third country to launch a satellite and has indicated going into the long range missile business. Australia has said it will spend AUD 368 billion on current and new AUKUS class nuclear submarines into 2030s for the 2040s. The Brits? The are advanced in stealth tile technologies and, post Brexit, under Global Britain, are trying to pivot to the Asia Pacific, using Australia as a platform. Australia can support Britain’s application and deny China’s application into the CP TPP. The 2030s will likely see the US lead the integration of the military complexes of the advanced economies, having significant development in Australia’s defence capabilities and, defence export opportunities for all three advanced democracies.
@@robertmillar2037Australia's military defence strategy is focussed on holding off an invasion force until USA bails us out. We're utterly joined at the hip to the USA alliance.
Peter is not a naval strategist, and these are some of his most dangerous videos. He speaks with so much confidence, that it's tempting to think he knows what he's talking about. He doesn't. He's painting a picture, yet is somehow leaving out China's A2/AD* capabilities and strategy, which is the backbone of their Island Chain defensive strategy. BTW A2/AD was such a revolutionary approach that Australia has adopted it and is implementing their own version. Do I think the USN would ultimately prevail vs the PLAAN? Yes. Do I think Peter is talking out of his ass? Yes. *Anti Access/Area Denial All that said, Peter's fucking charisma will keep me coming back. I did appreciate his take on Biden's 170 gazillion years of experience in American politics.
In regards to speaking with confidence about things he doesn’t understand that is peters. I have a stick and he’s better than anyone else at it. Don’t get me wrong. He’s a smart guy and he knows a lot, but only God knows the future you can, and will be surprised in the future just like you have been in your own personal lives, we caught a black swan cause we can’t couldn’t even assume that anything like that would happen. How many people anticipated, smart phones when you were in high school?
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Guyana's long term prospects, how are they handling the new oil wealth? Provided they can handle the Venezuela crisis, can you see them avoiding Dutch disease? What other sectors are there for them to grow?
Peter, can you provide an analysis of the state of cyber attacks on the US and what concerns you may or may not have on the impact of state sponsored cyber attacks on the US?
China does have the worlds largest Navy. Problem is (for them) that the majority of that Navy consists of literal fishing vessels with guns mounted onto the deck
@@jacksmith-mu3ee fun fact : you’re delusional b/c according to literally every news source , we took out the Taliban in less than a year . And our army is under no obligation to remain there permanently - if the afghans want to restart the taliban after we leave , that’s their problem , not ours
It still is amazing to me that people that fancy themselves as intelligent operate with the notion that ANY president of a corporation as in the U.S.G./U.S.A.(inc) makes any decisions whatsoever. This includes China, Russia etc. All corps and given permission to legally exist as such by >>> ? Do you EVEN have a clue? No you don't. So continue on with the charade that actually people like PZ know about but truth telling just doesn't pay all that well. People just seem to love myth and bulls_it. Also, that while PZ is 100% correct on somethings he balances it with 100% assumption/presumption and people actually $uooort his rhetoric. Go get em' PZ! Scoop it up while the scoopin' is still good. Ps. There always is that chance he is sincere meaning sincerely stupid. Seems a likeable fella. That Man bun is cute too.
I have always suspected that if China did move on Taiwan the US or Japan would probably destroy their 3 carriers (the 2 old russian hulks and the "new" one still in dock) while they were in port. They will in fact probably never make it to open water to actually fight.
@@samanthajones4877 One possibility would be to immediately cut off all exports to the U.S., further crippling their economy. What do YOU think they would do?
@@CarterM54 if the US or any country sank a few of their carriers killing thousands of their citizens, cutting off exports is the minimum they would do but I doubt they would allow that to happen without killing a few thousands of our citizens. Do people really think they are incapable of sinking our carriers?
@@samanthajones4877 they would try to fight back with what they have left but we all know they will fail. They won't use nukes because they know the US isn't going to invade there but the US will absolutely delete their entire navy and they know this.
At a cursory glance, it seems like rockets and missiles might be something the Chinese do well. At least compared to the boondoggles which their advanced microchip, high-tech exports, Belt and Road, Hong Kong, Russian alliance, and Wolf Warriorism have turned into. This might be why they treated the INF Treaty so dismissively; they are pursuing a rare bright spot in their strategy.
@jaykaufman978 Uhhh....everything you mentioned is a success from the Chinese point of view. China dominates the high tech *market* but not the super, expensive advanced design and prototype developement level. The Belt and Road initiative was never expected to be a success in western terms. But it does do what China wants. Admittedly it doesn't do what you want it to do to meet your approval. Hong Kong was easily absorbed into the Chinese state with only a few ripples, noticeable only by the west because there are so few such ripples in China. Otherwise it was a very smooth transition.Lots of huffing and puffing in the west but not very noteworthy in China. The Good cop/bad cop diplomacy works well for China as evidenced by the recent Biden/Xi summit and the COP 28 conference. China easily got what it wanted from both with everybody glad it went so well.
China and Russia don't really have allies, they have proxy states and other authoritarian countries which also want to gain more power. Democracy does have some benefits.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 No, you're totally wrong. What happened is that Moscow was responding to Red China -- as it became clear that Beijing was never going to join with America and Russia in strategic restraint. The US DoD -- as ever -- wanted the newest, high tech, counter-threat missile -- from a clean sheet of paper. THIS is why the American response to Red China has been years later than Russia's. No doubt the new design will be quite stealthy -- hell to detect on the way to its target. Whereas the old designs were all pre-stealth, and plainly targetable with look-down, shoot-down radars. The Russian stuff is talked about as a threat to Europe -- whereas its cruise missiles are deployed to hit Red China's nukes, instead. Only a token amount are sited to hit Europe -- which is no threat to the Kremlin -- not withstanding Putin's posturing. BTW, Xi's nukes are easy pickings for Moscow, as they were originally sited far inland -- to stop USN attack -- issue number one back then. Xi and Putin are best friends because they each have the other by the balls. That's all. If America didn't exist, they'd be straight at each other, PDQ.
@@davidhimmelsbach557 You say I'm totally wrong but it's a fact that the USA never ratified the treaty we're talking about. You don't even try to address this verifiable fact. BTW same thing happened with the League of Nations back in the day. President Wilson pushed it but Congress never ratified it. So the whole project was a waste of time.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 The USA ratified it de facto -- which is a situation quite unlike the League which didn't get any American delegation.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 Waste of time? Only because the Republican led Senate led by Henry Cabot Lodge would not ratify it. The US then led the formation of the UN by FDR and the UN Declaration of Human Rights that followed was led by his wife Eleanor, along with the five member Security Council including China, the USSR, the UK, and France, all allies at that time. The world has such a short memory. Americans have always been for either peace or unconditional surrender. Now having turned against us, they'll have to deal with the consequences!
🇨🇦 👍 I definitely like the security policy that Biden has set in place, it's good to protect the home team players when the world beyond our borders is still ruled by a handful of persons possessed by an anti-western or even anti-american psyche. Since 1991 during the following 3 decades we've acted in good faith toward China & Russia, we helped make their oligarchs fabulously wealthy through cooperation in trade & commerce - only to be faced 30+ yrs later with belligerent & aggressive regimes strikingly reminiscent of cold war dictators that we in the free world were led to believe no longer existed. They duped us.....and, now, we are past that. They've effectively shown they're true colors, and that puts us on different sides of the barbed wire.👍🇨🇦
Peter is a smart man. We have lots of very smart men working in our DoJ. The very smart men in our DoJ recognize the power of social media, and more specifically the power of people who are perceived to be smart men in social media. This is worth keeping in mind while listening to Peter.
What triggered the INF treaty was the US responding to USSR intermediate range missiles with the Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM), which was a land based extended range version of Tomahawk, and Pershing II, a ballistic missile. The Pershing II scared the Soviets, because it had a maneuvering warhead they knew their ABM systems couldn't stop (probably still couldn't, even with the S-400). Returning to that response should be an easy reach for the US.
lol, if Britian took all her navy and went after China, they would win.. quantity over quality wouldn't trump the most experienced naval country in the world.. if Britian was serious and funded alot more into her arms/ naval forces, America would struggle too in a what if scenario
@@jamiemcaloon5548 What a dumb comment. The Royal Navy is an absolute joke. Comparing the UK Royal Navy to the PLAN is nothing more than an insult to the PLAN. Because yes, their "quality" ships are going to defeat China who simply wins on numbers alone. Their readiness rate is a joke because their ships are always undergoing maintenance. Royal Navy has 6 measly destroyers with less VLS than a Chinese one, carriers that are always having issues, and 1990s era frigates. You're just not smart. China building more destroyer's currently than the UK even has in their entire fleet.
You hit most of it on the head, but as a former Operation Specialist on the USS Coontz (DDG-40) who was both Combat Information Center Watch Supervisor as well as a graduate of Naval Enlisted Tactical Actions, I can say unequivocally the Tomahawk Cruise Missile was developed in the 70's and that we were already using them for surface warfare in the 80's. I was the Watch Supervisor on watch when 3 days before the USS Stark was struck by 2 Iraqi Exocet missiles, that same F1 Mirage attempted to attack my ship the USS Coontz on May 14th. 1987. We responded appropriately and it never got close enough to shoot a missile that only had about a 20 mile range. But yes, the USS Coontz was fitted with 8 Tomahawk missiles back in the 80's.
When are you gonna make a video on GTA6 ?
Lol you kidding? Why would you expect him to?
Because Hes a proper top G
Obviously 🙄
Kkkkkkkk legend
Oh!!!!!!! I really am very curious about the geopolitics of video games. Apparently sports and geopolitics are very intertwined right now.
"Hello Peter Zeihan here, we're going to be talking about how the release of GTA 6 affects the geopolitics of the South Asian peninsula"
I love that he throws shade where it is due regardless of political leanings. Plus, not a single reference card in that video, all one take, with the knowledge just flowing like he truly knows it. Thanks again Peter.
He poisons everything with his politics.
@@jeffreykalb9752 It's impossible not to. It's your job to determine what is useful information, and what is politics. No person on earth is truly apolitical.
So, the dude has a point of view. Isn't that what we wanted of him, good or bad?
I love Peter's long form conversations,hope he reappears on joe rogan
@@chessgeek10707 Hes wrong a lot. I heard him speak a year ago at an Ag conf, he was telling people natural gas markets were going to inaccessable by eu. Nothing has been further from the truth, we hit 2.30 yesterday
The four oldest Ohio class ballistic missile subs (Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia) have been converted to guided missile subs. Their launch tubes, 22 each, can take seven Tomahawks, i.e. 154 cruise missile per boat or 616 cruise missiles. The Ohio and Michigan are somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, with 308 ship killing missiles. Those missiles would account for much of the Chinese navy larger than a rubber Zodiak.
At first I looked at your post and saw "Iowa class subs". NOOOOOO
I chuckle at these ships -- in as much as I advocated conversions of same -- decades ago -- in High Technology magazine. Yeah, my pitch made it into print before the WWW. A the time, the USN didn't quite know "what next?"
The maritime strike Tomahawk is just now coming online and it's unlikely that many are in the fleet just yet. All previous Tomahawk cruise missiles could only hit fixed locations because they followed GPS and other guidance to the target. They could not be used against any moving target because they did not have a way of locking on.
@@twelvestitches984 Tomahawk needs a module add-on that employs a short-range radar lock-on.
Technically, the US could just pull off the system from retired F-16/18 and add them onto the Tomahawks.
So, does the US Navy plan to buy more than their typical 31 per year?
Speaking of new weaponry, the US has just deployed its first batch of HIMARS capable PrSM missile. Longer range and larger warheads. Also capable of doubling ammo capacity.
When I was in the 7th Fleet, USN, we were constantly having to chase China out of the territorial waters of other countries; where they didn't belong. I know quite a bit about their assets, capabilities, and locations....
If anyone is interested:
*PLN North [HQ Qingdao]*
1 Aircraft Carrier, 18 Subs, 1 Cruiser, 9 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 10 Corvettes, 2 Tank Landing Ships, 5 Medium Landing Ships, 18 Missile Patrol Craft
*PLN East [HQ Ningbo]*
18 Subs, 12 Destroyers, 23 Frigates, 19 Corvettes, 2 Amphibs, 16 Tank Landing Ships, 7 Medium Landing Ships, and 46 Missile Patrol Craft
*PLN South [HQ Zhanjiang]*
1 Carrier, 20 Subs, 11 Destroyers, 18 Frigates, 20 Corvettes, 4 Amphibs, 13 Tank Landing Ships, 9 Medium Landing Ships, and 22 Missile Patrol Craft
Their Navy isn't as aircraft focused as ours. The reason being that PLAAF pilots have a hard time with simply just staying in the air. So they've designed a very lightweight fleet based on Aerial denial, and a meat grinder island hopping strategy.
The southern fleet is designed for the Philippines. The eastern fleet is the primary defense and its main purpose is Taiwan. The northern fleet is their weakest, because they believe that Russia will help them.
I didn't know that Corvettes floated.
Their 1 Carrier is a second hand vessel they bought from Ukraine and retro fitted....it's their best operational Carrier at the moment. Their planes have to take off from it with 20-30% less fuel as the launch lip on one Carrier puts too much stress on the aircraft on take off....The other Carrier has hull issues from either design or construction flaws and needs almost a day and a half to power up enough steam each time it shuts down just to get moving. Their 3rd and not yet operational Carrier is a Hot Mess as the Electro Magnetic Deck Launch Propulsion System does not jive with the rest of the Power Systems on board. The only thing the PLA has that concerns me is the Missles they can launch from land to kill our Carriers. But they do not have enough of them to target and successfully kill more than 1 or maybe 2 and then they are done. Xi will only invade Taiwan if he loses control of the population due to financial collapse and we shall have to wait and see if that becomes a reality in 2024-2025
@radovan739
“Chasing China out of other countries territories” but then we can freely traverse in those same countries waters because we control those counties😂
@radovan739
I love people like you In the comments, you don’t get that constant war is a business in America. If they wanted to win a war they would. There’s no money in winning and until you understand that you look stooooooopid thinking America can’t win a war.
Keep dreaming@radovan739 It's the newest biggest and best trained war machine of the planet ........... and they're not alone in this.
China on the other hand got zero experience !
I was in the Navy on a Tyco Cruiser 30 years ago. The capabilities back then were mind blowing. I can imagine where the Navy is now and it's pretty damn scary. We could take on this modern day Chinese navy with a Fleet from the early 90's. Enterprise and America Battle Groups would wipe ocean floor with 'em.
half of Ticonderoga-class cruisers are still active but, the Enterprise-class (only one of its class) and Kitty Hawk-class carriers have all been retired.
@@DavidCoxDallas There is a new Enterprise under construction.
@@DavidCoxDallas Have you seen the Gerald R. Ford? It has all the capabilities of 1.5 -2X Enterprise-class Carriers, I believe they have laid the Kell on two more available in 7-10 years their expected lifetime service is into the 2100's
@@Richard-e5m yes, Ford class. it would have been better to build more destroyers so the navy could have power projection in more places concurrently. those 11 CBGs are also a limited number of very high value targets.
@@DavidCoxDallasKitty Hawk and JFK, and earlier Saratoga, Forrestal, Ranger, all scrapped needlessly and for pennies. And paying $9 million to scrap Constellation and Independence
When counting naval strength for the USA everyone forgets to count the US Coast Guard with its ships. This origination is working with training everybody's Coast Guard around the world. The USCG match or exceeds most countries' navies capabilities. The USCG bring a different skill sets of seamanship to the party.
@radovan739 I think your bot is broken, its posting nonsensical comments in the wrong place.
USCG Pacific command has 16 cutters. The big ones are ~50 years old; the smaller ones aren't really fit for trans-Pac service. None of them are easy to arm with meaningful air-defense weaponry, nevermind anti-ship capability. So your comment is about 30 years past its expiration date... today's USCG is not going to contribute much to any near-peer naval engagement.
No one counts the puddle pirates, because no one should. They're for coastal operations (the US coast)
Good point, if you're going to count Chinese PLA near shore ships as part of their Navy (they do) then you have to apples to apples it, and count our Coast Guard ships too.
@@SpamSuckerI think the OP's point was more that when you say China has X number of ships and the US only has Y... it's misleading because you left out our Coast Guard. The Chinese Navy numbers do include all their stay at home, coastal defense ships. Ours do not.
So you should be adding 30 or 40 ships to the US total. And remember, whatever issues the USCG ships might have as 'warships', the same applies to all the smaller vessels China is trying to pretend ARE warships.
Might also be worth adding the Rapid Dragon system which allows transport aircraft like the C17 to launch 45 cruise missiles at a time.
Specificaly the LRAMS, a smart, low-observable, ship-killing cruise missile. Fun times.
I was thinking about that fleet crushing system as Peter spoke.
That's like 2 years out minimally.
@@HKim0072 Rapid dragon is just putting existing missiles on pallets and then launching them one at a time as they drop. There isn't a great deal of new development or testing needed. If the missiles work, then all you're doing is making sure they don't target each other as they set off and also not all target the same ship (almost a definition of overkill). I guess they could add: priorities from from recognising different types of ships + timing so multiple missiles could hit a high value target at once to overwhelm defences + maybe also ensure that if a missile is knocked out then another missile with a lower priority target could take it's place. These parts are all optional though.
@@mikebikekite1All modern american cruise missiles are equipped with a datalink. They have an automatic deconfliction system that allows multiple missiles to target different critical systems of the same ship.
This also allows the missiles to consider the defenses of the target. They will coordinate approaches to arrive simultaneously from different vectors to overwhelm defenses. They will use less stealthy missiles as decoys.
And that’s just what they’ve publicly announced
Love your "below the surface" (I.e. in more depth) discussions Peter. As a non-American, they are very informative. Thank you 😊
Except he is wrong about the history of the newer weapons. So you ought do your own fact checking with Google before offering your heartfelt thanks to Pete for his weak reporting.
Nice spectrum. Slava Ukraine!
Wow. We live in a wonderful time. Peter, you make my day. Im receiving an excellent education from a gentleman hiking through the rocky mts.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💩
Some clarifications:
The RGM-109C Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAM) used in the 1991 Gulf War were probably Block I or Block II missiles, which used terrain contour mapping for navigation. GPS wasn't added until the introduction of the Block III sometime circa 1994.
Furthermore, there used to be an old anti-shipping variant of the Tomahawk, the RGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Shipping Missile (TASM). This was a late Cold War era missile that was retired in the 90's because the missiles were unlikely to hit the correct target. Like Peter said, these made the missiles very problematic for shooting moving ships. USN submarines and surface ships still retained the Harpoon antiship missile, which was more than capable of hitting the correct target at meaningful ranges.
7 Mach missile, 10 Mach, 15Mach, sounds familiar? Wait until you hear this: Israel are taking down drones with the speed of light laser beams. There is no higher speed than that.
I was an avid 'Harpoon' gamer and **distinctly** remember the TASM as part of my sub loadout so thanks for reminding everyone it was a thing in the 90's! :)
It’s the Block V tomahawk that has been navalised correct?
@@strategosopsikion8576 It is receiving the ability to attack moving ships at sea with the Block Va update, yes.
I hesitate to call it "navalized" because the term typically refers to weapons that can be fired from naval vessels. The Navy has never stopped operating Tomahawks since they were initially introduced in the 80's.
@@isotaan good point. Good to know. Thx
For 5 years, from 2008-13, I lived and worked in China. There was always an underlying yet strong sense of nationalism among the Chinese, but when Xi took power, it came fully to the surface. I liken it to a teenager 'feeling their oats.' They are now ready to take on the world, as their actions in the South Chins Sea have shown. The average Chinese, though, does not understand the weaknesses of their armed forces such as those outlined in this video. But their leaders know and, for now, will likely not do anything stupid.
True. Good observations about youth nationalism. Though, I used to fly in and out of China from HK. Hegemony, though, has its origins, as early as Zhou En Lai and Nixon. I have read now declassified documents having Kissinger warning US President Ford and Australian PM Fraser. Excellent post, rinyding.
期待美军在中东展现强大，就像当年伊拉克战争一样。让我们学习学习😂
who is the youth think again
Most American like you and Peter never learn the fact America lost the war in Vietnam, Afghanistan and the proxy war in Ukraine.
There's nothing wrong to be patriotic in China and America. But it's wrong when America is addicted to wars in the 0ast 40 years.
Afghans : look how cute these yankees are 😂😂😂
One of the most important elements of this balance is not addressed here. The US has militarily and economically significant allies in the Pacific region. China doesn't.
That last bit was very well stated.
The scenery in this video is exquisite! There's really nothing like surrounding ourselves with nature.
My biggest fear is that the Chinese (like Japan in 1941) will make the mistake of thinking that a surprise attack that sinks half the US Navy will bring the USA to the negotiating table. They would be very wrong, I just can't see the US response in 2024 as being any different than in 1942.
China doesn't need to fight the US. They've already won.
You are right
But the American shipyards aren’t efficient as they were decades ago
if you think so, you have to ask yourself why russia did not attack NATO while attacking Ukraine? and why Nato chose not to fight russia directly? when china invade TW, will the US attack china? china has never planned to have a war with the US in the middle of the ocean, never and ever. the real question at hand is if russia win the war with Ukraine, will russia invade other european countries and control all the rest of the europe? if the US really think so, US should fight Russia from the 1st day of war.
"Early Warning" is a little more advanced today than it was in 1941.
My concern is in 2025! The mega people are more concerned about a woman carrying a baby and a four year old 1600 miles from Venezuelan, looking for a better life, than how to respond to a 1941 attack.
The big threat from China isn't from their military. They haven't been in a hot war in forever. Also, the have little experience at manufacturing military grade equipment. Take for example the Type 002, and the 003 aircraft carriers. Both were built using substandard iron, and have developed metal fatigue cracks already. There are other questionable decisions that went into their design as well. The real threat will be them trying to undermine our way of life from within. Their presence and influence in our universities is clearly being felt here already. China would lose a hot war with the US in rather short order.
Their last hot war was in 1979 against Vietnam. They lost. Before that? Korean War. They lost that as well (both sides really lost that war).
The last time China was on the winning side in a war was 1945. The PRC has never won a war it has taken part in. China in 1945 was run by Chiang Kai-shek. Aka the government of Taiwan.
It was also on the winning side then through no real achievement of its own. China essentially played no real substantive military role in the defeat of Japan. Chinese forces were of some use in northern Burma but that wasn't a crucial campaign for defeating Japan: it was a campaign to re-open the Burma Road ... to supply China better. Chinese forces also kept a lot of Japanese forces tied down in China itself. Except that Japan didn't have the sealift to supply more forces than were used in the Pacific in reality. So again not decisive or particularly useful to defeating Japan.
The United States and Australia did the vast majority of the actual, decisive fighting against Japan. The UK joined in from Okinawa with a substantial Royal Navy task force. New Zealand also made a small Pacific contribution.
China hasn't actually made a substantive military contribution towards winning a major war for a VERY long time. Well over a century.
Now what about China's cyber army? What is their capability?
Also, if you look at the vessels they bought from the soviet union and ukraine, there button hauls are intact, vs. the as you stated above the metal fatigue and i think Peter is under estimating how bad the Chinese Navy is, in terms of they crank out these ships, but they are NOT combat ready i think they are using an illusion of quantity of ships to scare its adversaries? Just in the same way we thought Russia had the 2nd best military in the world and yet, Ukraine conflict has shown otherwise.... Chinese military also you have to remoemebr is the one child policy, many of the men and women are the only child, if a hot war happens, there is no safety net for there parents if something happens to those children that they will rely on, so many dynamics to the entire situation that is a broader picture, i think the US with combined forces, hell even alone could take out the majority of Chinese Navy and they wouldn't know what would happen or happened!
@@chrislin2774 You get a mixed bag there. They can cause some issues, but then so can we. They would more than likely loose satellite coms in the first days of any war, if not the first day.
80% of the world's shipbuilding industry is in China. What kind of idiot can make such a comment?
Informative as always thanks Peter.
That last line was gangster. "...now you have to deal with it." Love it!
I will put it like this. China has the largest Navy in the exact same way that Matchbox is the world's largest Car manufacturer. Also, China knows its Navy is not even close to being able to take on the U.S. Navy. This is why they built so many military bases/artificial islands in the South China Sea. A single Aircraft Carrier Group can take out China's entire navy.
Matchbox army 😂
"China has the largest Navy in the exact same way that Matchbox is the world's largest Car manufacture."....Perfect, so perfect in fact I'm going to steal it!
The 1st thing China will do is take out, jam or spoof all the US satellites. Since they probably stole the encryption keys, they can redirect US missiles to sink US ships. The US military's satellite advantage will be crippled all or partially and they probably don't know how to printout, let lone read a map anymore. The 2nd thing China will do is try to take out the carriers because the planes will have no where to land, be at the bottom of the sea and can't use their missiles. The 3rd thing is they will continue to build more ships and missiles at a faster rate than USA and then it's game over.
👍😊
There's a hole in your logic. If China built military bases to take on the U.S. Navy, why did the U.S. build even more military bases around China? The US didn't need to take on the Chinese Navy because it was non-existent when the US bases were built
Those new land based missiles sound like the bees knees for the Taiwanese
Old news. Taiwan to Buy 400 US Anti-Ship Missiles Intended to Repel a China Invasion
Boeing contract completes a sale Congress approved in 2020
The deal is Taiwan’s first for land-launched Harpoon missile
Also for the Japanese and Philippines as well!
@@mitchells7634Nobody's letting the Filipinos operate these systems.
@@RogueReplicant Yet. If China was invading Taiwan, I think the US would be much more willing to give advanced weapons to our East Asian allies.
@@mitchells7634 What for? The US can simply block OIL at point of origin or block the Strait of Hormuz. Why can't people understand that simple logic? Why argue pointlessly about weapons, troops and politics?
BLOCKING THE OIL IS CHILD'S PLAY
CHINA DIES WITHIN A MONTH
In the last 15 years I would travel to Trinidad for work (in our hemisphere) and would see Chinese navy hospital ships docked there. I think they are closer to us then most think.
Trying to implement Taiwan's playbook for international relations. TAIWAN 🇹🇼 has been sending medical support to nations in Central, South America for many years to help gain favor. Chinese are copy cats
Really enjoy these talks. Always time well spent to listen.
Great way to end it. I think I'll be adopting this concise yet very effective conclusion in all my discussions.
As a Nigerian, i am glad that the west(US anyway) will still maintain military hegemony for a while more. Lord knows you guys are more trustworthy and better to deal with than the Wokf Warrior Chinese.
Stockholm syndrome
Chinese slave
@@yellowwasprakija2869 sure, keep telling yourself that😕
Your government doesn't fee the same way
@@orboakin8074this ain't colonial period, asia willl rise again 😂
Q: Peter, any thoughts on the Guyana Venezuela Border dispute?
Whoa, I second that question. I want to know too. 👍🏻
That's a good one. I personally was wondering about the implications of the rapidly evolving situation in Myanmar. With the Chinese needing the port,and pipeline running through the regions under the brother alliance territory. The CCP wet dream of circumventing us naval power.
When Peter ends with an F Bomb instead of "take care," I know he's more than serious about the topic. I kinda like it.
He's a guru to his groupies. Never trust a guy with a man bun.
'Law & Order' is one of his guilty pleasures 😅
@@jeffbeck8993: …and your here as a newbie troll…happy 1 year birthday 🙄
Old man here with a thought about man buns. Pretty sure president Abraham Lincoln wore his man bun under his hat along with George Washington who had his wig formed into a man bun. Best not to judge a person’s IQ by their hair.
I've never heard the proverb, "Never trust a guy with a man bun.", I have however heard of the one that states "Never judge a book by its cover"@@jeffbeck8993
This will be included in my first episode! I’ll give all credit don’t worry, keep up the good work we need voices of reason more than ever
Thank you, Mr. Peter. You are THE logical & sane voice that everyone needs to hear.
Finally some good news. Thank you Peter!
Peter always reinforces my pride in the US military. May God Bless America!
As usual your analysis is great. Always a pleasure to listen to your videos.
TASM actually predates TLAM by at least a decade, they are just restoring an old capability. Also the big key here aren't the stand off ASCMs, it's the new generation of American sea mines. It's hard to overstate how lethal naval mines are, and how they can instantly shut down a naval offensive when one force is locked in near shore (China) and the other controls the open sea (USA)
All I Know is about a week after the US was out of the INF treaty the wind tunnel I was employed by was overloaded with new models to build for testing, so just because it's not in the arsenal doesn't mean it's not in development.
One other thing that needs to be talked about with regards to western naval strength, Japan and South Korea, the Chinese can’t not attack American bases in both nations if war breaks out, so they’ll be at war with them too. Both nations have more frigates and destroyers than most of Europe combined, even if they lack nuclear subs…for now
If China attacks Taiwan, North Korea is getting involved somehow. Even if it's to rabble-rouse.
Russia will make "noise" near Japan as a distraction as well.
Japan is rectifying that lack of nuclear subs, I read.
So the US has bases in SK and Japan. Does China have bases in Mexico and Canada?
So most Chinese ships can only stay close to China? The US navy can sail anywhere in the World and hurt people in every country.
Americans constantly talk about enemy countries. Other powers try to secure their own borders and never go to North America to try and destabilise that continent.
Sounds fair. Long live the hypocritical West! And remember, if anyone doesn't like you it's ONLY because you're free.
Hey PZ -- given your usual condescension for Donald Trump, any thoughts on Space Force?
And the Phillipeans as well, dont forget them as well!
Interesting anecdote regarding satellite destruction! This was a good one, Peter. Thanks.
Once again, Peter calling out failings on BOTH sides of the aisle👍
can anyone anywhere in the world claim obama did anything good?
Too many of our civilian politicians both red and blue team are clueless about strategic concerns. So yeah, they’re all going to make mistakes.
After going full left for like 3 weeks.
I've been following Peter's forecasts and assessments since the 2000s when he was with STRATFOR.
He's way off the mark on this one. Biden has actively been working for the Soviets since they got him into the Senate in 1972.
He was one of their lead moles on killing the B-1A program and trying to neuter the US under SALT II.
Many senior military leaders have been calling for upgrading and developing new theater ballistic missile and missile defense systems for decades, and finally got traction under the Trump WH.
Some of those programs are just barely coming to fruition, despite the geriatric pedophile's presence in the WH, definitely not because of it.
US strategic forces were neglected as he says from Bush41 through Obama. Under Trump WH, they finally got the attention they deserved. That included hypersonics, ships, increased production of F-35s, P-8A Poseidon, more nukes, and strategic integrated missile defense programs.
What Peter claimed here is directly opposite of reality. You can look right now and see a list of articles discussing the Biden WH reversals on Trump strategic weapons programs.
@@ebrim5013The Senate and House Armed Services Committees are more dialed-in than you realize. They get regular classified briefings on all of this, since they are fighting to steer or maintain contracts in their States and districts.
They take US military superiority for granted, treating the defense industry as more of a jobs program, even though it isn't among the top 20 industries in revenue in the US.
Many of the members of Congress are acting in cohort as Russian and Chinese moles, since they got into office with schemes from Council for a Livable World and CPUSA re-branded under Democratic Socialists of America.
One of the strategies the Soviets devised was to waste as much US money on unrelated expenses that deplete money from being spent on the weapons they hate and fear.
Congress and multiple White Houses have done a bang-up job of that. Look at how the Bush and Obama White Houses killed the F-22, but funded MRAPs.
Every word of this makes so much sense on so many levels. I love your content.
Thank you Peter for all your interesting and industrious videos. It's also good you are maintaining your fitness levels.
A naval weaponwonk friend told me most anti-ship missiles no longer bother with warheads. They divert that weight capacity into extra fuel. Apparently, after action assessments confirmed that dud missiles were more effective because the lack of blast kept the deflagrating fuel remainder from dispersing. The fuel fire ended up causing worse problems than the warhead blast. Go figure...
So well said! My USA flag displayed in my office actually unfurled, did a gentle flap, probably due to the sheer power of your words Mr. Zeihan. This is just another of a collection of the most worthwhile excerpts and dialogues I look forward to every time you post. God willing, there will be many more to come. God bless you Sir. God Bless America.
You sure you didn't just fart?
Hate to break it to you Peter, but Joe Biden is a drooling mess. Its only his Deep State handlers that keeps him relevant in National Security issues.
That flag is made in china
And he said the Chinese are narcissistic.
@@zacksmith5963shows you that China is USA's B they sit in factories making US flags. Imagine hating The US and being forced to make your enemies flags on a daily.
My understanding is that the real problem is we don't enough smart missiles in stock. We need to be producing them much more quickly. I heard Niall Ferguson say that in a shooting war with China, we would be out of smart missiles inside of a week.
The Ukraine war at times resembled a WW1 battlefield....With long stalemates and artillery exchanges because of how quickly they went through the high-tech weapons....Artillery shells was the only thing left..
@@AlainNavasDrama Artillery shells won't be much use in naval and air battle unless the Chinese gain a long-term foothold on Taiwan. Totally different dynamic compared to Ukraine. But yes, we need to be producing more shells as well.
Ate Chute (French navy pilot channel) says the same for air to air missiles, great equipment , just not enough of it. We are not ready for a full scale peer to peer war.
@@Nick-bh5bk I think the o.p.'s point was that the super duper weapons that Peter mentioned (and haven't been delivered yet) will quickly be exhausted. After that you are down to the old conventional weapons that are cheap and easily mass produced. Both China and Russia have large stocks of them on hand as well as fully functional production systems up and running.
Yemeni forces just severely damaged a commercial freighter off their coast. Between the American and French defenders, it cost twenty five million dollars for them to take out the attacking cheap drones and sea skimmer missiles. And one got through anyway. That was from a bunch of ragtag Muslim rebels. Imagine if it wasn't a half dozen air assets attacking but was sixty instead.
At the performance level achieved in this case, that would mean it would cost two hundred and fifty million dollars for each such engagement with ten attacking elements hitting their target. The attacker will be happy with that exchange every time. If they can keep it up, eventually quality goes out the window for the defender and all that counts is the quantity delivered, with increasing returns achieved by the attacker from each volley. .
@paulmakinson1965 true. We weren't before WW2 as well. But because we became the "arsenal for democracy " by the time we entered the war we had a head start on mass production. We probably won't have that luxury in our next major war.
For better or worse the US has been at war constantly for the last 30 years. These complex systems, on both sides, require constant training and operator experience to maximize their combat capabilities. We have seen time and time again that countries that haven't trained or do not have the combat experience are not able to achieve the combat effectiveness they should "on paper". A naval war would be a disaster for the Chinese due to this more than any other factor.
USA has been at war constantly since 1776.
Disastrous because of what? Because they aren't invading countries every decade? Experience is overrated no one cares.
I can happily report that the refreshing combo of outdoor walking and geopolitical update is a winner. GG Peter Z.
Thank you Peter for your service to our country.
What service
I've never been worried about China's military power. I didn't care how many troops they could feel. I didn't care how much equipment they had because my understanding was they were operating with their military size and the size of their country and the size of their government. They were literally operating at just above break so and if you understand that it cost an immense amount of money to move, just a few thousand troops anywhere and for the Chinese to be able to move their forces anywhere would be an astronomical amount they couldn't afford. And the more I keep hearing about how they're facing bank failures people not paying loans. Buildings not being built started but not being built. The more I understand that the Chinese economy is kind of still quite fragile. On another reason, the last time I heard anything China GDP is rooted into the United States economy by 70% and if they were to go to war with the United States that's 70% of their GDP that would disappear instantly and they couldn't afford to do that
Agreed.
Not to mention that if we were ever attacked by China all of NATO backs us up.
It’s nice to have friends.
It's one thing to build an aircraft carrier, it's a whole other thing to operate it... Let alone a fleet of them.
Case-in-point: The Admiral Kuznetsov.
China's carriers were already 60 years behind when the blueprints were created. They're smaller, slower, and have far fewer defenses than their American counterparts. More, Chinese jet engines are hot garbage, so they don't actually have any truly carrier-capable aircraft. The ones they use are so bad that the planes have to take off with vastly reduced armaments and only half a tank of fuel or they fall off the end of the ramp and crash.
@C.Fecteau-AU-MJ13 You assume that carriers are a vital piece of equipment in a battle betwwen peers.
@@ronarnett4811hmm, like the US vs Japan in the war for the pacific?
@@samuelphillian1286 Exactly. Carriers were an afterthought and battleships the mainstay of U.S. Navy until the opening day of World War Two. Luckily for America, Japan sank so many of thebattleships in the opening fray that the U.S. Navy had no choice but to fight with what they had left. That is when they realized what they had left was better than what they wanted to fight with originally.
Now the U.S Navy is hung up on the past glory of the carriers.
As an Australia, that's exactly what we're saying and how we're saying it 😄
Fuckin Oath!
when Britian kits you out with all the new shiny bae toys, you'll be unstoppable , best frigates and subs in the Pacific 💪
The anti ship Tomahawks you are referring to have a 300 mile range . They are also on cruisers and destroyers. The other stealth anti ship cruise missiles are the LRASMs launched from B1Bs, P8 Poseidons, and F18 Superhornets. Just to add to what you were saying.
best audio yet thanks
Q: Peter, any thoughts on Italy's withdrawal from The Belt and Road Initiative?
They realised that they(Italy) ended up importing much more from China than exporting to them. This is/was Chinese deception at its best...
They are back to broken roads and bridges because daddy USA told them to withdraw. They are part of G7 so called developed countries with broken roads and bridges too. Big display of ego by USA.
@@DK-ev9dgthe stuff China has been building in other countries has been of such poor quality that I doubt Italy will notice much of a difference.
@@DK-ev9dg have you ever heard of tofu-dreg, eh? Talk about broken roads and bridges, lol
I second that question. 🙏🏻 I want to know too.
Possibly one of your best, most (deliciously) detailed videos. Is there an economic or demographic point when China won’t be able to attack Taiwan in any meaningful way ?
I was just saying the same thing, the details in the video are fascinating.
I think we're past the notion of China invading Taiwan making any sense. Even if they could seize it, they couldn't run it. If they try, they'll just break it, and it won't benefit anyone.
We are likely already past this point but concrete indicators will lag.
@@thesidburgess - Just watched another video about this earlier today (which is probably why the RUclips algorithm recommended this video). Seems like there are many indicators that China has missed its window, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how immensely hard an invasion can be, even if you have a much larger military than your opponent. Russia had the advantage of a massive land border too, China faces almost 100 miles of open ocean before they can launch an invasion.
@jsmith1746 Won't the 100 mile distance be an advantage for China over TAI though? I'm not too sure if that's a too far enough buffer zone for TAI to fend off a Chinese invasion for long. Granted China might suffer insane losses due to the arms U.S can guarantee TAI. All these discussions are interesting, and I hope it never gets to that point. One serious ace U.S has that gets overlooked is the fact that in a conventional warfare, I doubt any nation can go toe to toe with U.S. just a subjective opinion. Again, interesting scenarios.
According to Wikipedia, a Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile was active in the 80’s then withdrawn from service.
Tomahawk Block V have longer range and dynamic targeting with the capability to hit vessels at sea (maritime strike role). Raytheon is recertifying and modernizing the missile, extending its service life by 15 years, and resulting in the new Tomahawk Block V series: March 2022
I was going to say..
The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile is a long-range, all-weather, jet-powered, subsonic cruise missile that is primarily used by the United States Navy and Royal Navy in ship and submarine-based land-attack operations. Under contract from the U.S. Navy, the Tomahawk was designed at the APL/JHU in a project led by James H. Walker near Laurel, Maryland, and was first manufactured by General Dynamics in the 1970s. It was intended to fill the role of a medium- to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a naval surface warfare platform, and featured a modular design accommodating a wide variety of warhead, guidance, and range capabilities. At least six variants and multiple upgraded versions of the TLAM have been added since the original design was introduced, including air-, sub-, and ground-launched variants with conventional and nuclear armaments. Wikipedia
Its right, Peters having a slip of the mind. When he says the tomahawks were used in 92. The gulf war was January, February of 91. I always start questioning experts I like when they get dates and names wrong. I also don't like his attacks on peoples age. Every other culture has respect for the old but not the U.S.
Love the ending in particular!
Anti china is won't
Zeihan Brilliance Really shines in this analysis .
I've been saying the same for a couple of years. Set aside the terrible monetary policy, 46 has a vicious foreign policy.
it's more extreme than the guy before...
@@unclespliff_productions I concur. Sanctions on the CCP being one of those areas.
Hmmm… Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine disaster, WW3 underway? Yep, great military leader. Recruitment numbers are collapsing too.
"46"?
@@howtoappearincompletely9739 46th POTUS, Biden
There is also "Rapid Dragon" which launches shipping container like bundles of shorter range missiles closer to the battlefront on logistics like planes and B52s etc..
Hey, we gotta get some logistics pilot aces.
I’ve never understood why some people were so worked up about China’s Navy. They’re a joke. They literally put boats in the water that are the size of fishing boats and call them a naval vessel. 😂
Because they are ignorant and buy into populist fear-mongering.
Agreed. It’s like legacy media wants to create anxiety 🤡
When you have so many mobile attack points, it takes more operational resources from the opposition. Their boats and people are expendable, we cannot make the same claim.
@@steveo85 legacy media influence has not been there for at least 10-15 years. who even watches TV or even more so - reads a newspaper? even people over 60 do that less and less. people under 50-60 are mostly getting their news on youtube, tiktok and other social media, not legacy ones.
@@jaysmail Except we have no need to attack all of them. Not even close to all of them.
If you look at the PLAN ships, most have a range well in excess of 1000 nm. However, it operational range maybe 1/4th or 1/3rd of that published range. If you only want to attack something, then the range is one half of the publish range because you sail out, fire your missiles or guns, and then sail back. However, if you want to patrol an area, you may need to allocate one third to one half of your fuel for operations on station and the rest is used for getting to the area of operations and back. Also, if you look at some of the smaller ships, they have an endurance of 30 days or maybe just a few weeks. Thwy basically can't carry that much food and water for longer.
I really like the last portion of this video. Reallity.
Thanks
I have a huge doubt about Chinese hypersonic missiles. It's never been seen. I think it doesn't exist. I explain why:
There is intercept of Chinese missile moving at hypersonic speed but that does not mean hypersonic missile. Any cheaper ballistic missile forced to fly low can do that.
A hypesonic missile must perform two very critical tasks: one is to survive the friction of lower atmosphere where all of its fuels, shields, warheads, wings, electronics are being roasted by normal air, almost all missiles will disintegrate within seconds.
Second is to accurately explode on the target location, but during hypersonic speed, which means its electronics must react to 1/1000th of a second. Any error of 1/1000th of a second then it will miss its target by a hundred yards.
China can't even build a decent jet without copying from other countries. That they can build a missile withstanding roasting disassembly and still accurate to 1/1000th of a second is just downright lying.
Pentagon released details, not China
To add to your point, I recently read that Chinese jets spend up to ten times as much time under maintenance compared to their US counterparts. It's not so bad if you have relatively cheaper labor, but it sucks if you are actually in a war and need those things in the sky.
They always steal everything.
Chinese made components are in the US F-35.
At the very least you expanded on your remark. Most here shoot from the hip on a single sentence.
And kudos for you for breaking into readable paragraphs. We have some rant bugs here who are off the charts.
Americans have a strange common sense: war is only something that happens outside the homeland. It is meaningless to discuss these after China already possesses a large number of variable-trajectory supersonic missiles capable of carrying nuclear bombs. These missiles can cover the entire area of US territory as long as the war starts. Even if the U.S can do the same to Chinese territory.
Peter please do a video on the civil war in Burma.
He only cares about stuff that affects the US.
Wonderful commentary. Bless u brother Peter
Loved the commentary today on the status of our Navy!
Junk .
Who knew old Sleepy Joe was such a juggernaut of military wisdom and decisiveness.
He is older than 40...we rock, we believe in kicking ass, not our feelings
He’s not, his staff are
It is hard to argue with the enormous success of the Afghan withdrawal or the way they have intimidated the Iranians and Hamas. Everyone in the Biden administration is a military genius.
Worst take by Zeihan by far is giving senile Joe Biden ANY credit for knowledge and experience in weapons systems just because he's been a government buffoon for 55 years. Biden does and says what his handlers tell him to do and say with no independent thought or wisdom.
Fortunately, an administration is more than just person at the helm. Jake Sullivan in particular has been one of the real reasons for any juggernaut-ness.
This can´t be new. Over here in Sweden we got weapons that can target independently for decades and decades and decades. For instant the anti ship cruise missile RBS15 that use both satellite position, inertia and pattern recognition. It was fielded in 1984.
And we also have Bonus airborne mine that can differentiate between a tank, a APC, a IFV and civilian vehicles, first fielded in 1990 (the later one is currently being procured by US army). And there is of cause simpler weapon that N-LAW that also target specific vehicle semi automatically.
This is actually fairly old tech
The US has weapons of that nature already in its navy. The difference with what Peter is taking about is that the weapons can work independently in deep water naval warfare which can take place over a million square miles. The types of weapons you are referring operate on specific non dynamic targets in coastal or land warfare.
@@Art-is-craft that is not corect. Rbs15 is specially made to operate in a dynamic target enviorment. It can store profiles for target to attack and not attack.
It's quite a few system we have that can do that. Also Strix. Of cause rbs15 is the only one doing that on a somewhat long range, and its still considered short range. It was only ever designed to work in the baltic.
Agreed. Not to mention little tech items like anti-radiation loiter missiles that just fly around waiting for radar to pop up, so it can kill the source. Most people don't know you can differentiate radar signals...and the Chinese have a fingerprint just like anyone else. These things have been around since the 80s. The more modern updates will go way beyond.
Does the RBS have range in excess of 1500 km?
@@keystonekabes no, only 400, but its a farily small missiles, 2 or even 4 can be carried by a small fighter.
Your discussion on the numerical difference between the China and US naval forces ignores the South China Sea. This is the Chinese priority. And this is where they can use their numerical superiority to intimidate many countries that the US would like as allies. A strategic war with China is unlikely. But local wars are highly probable.
Legendary outro, your the man Pete!
Another one for the Zeihan!
Another rambling
USA good china bad
Same schedule
Script
The sheer tonnage of the US fleet is mind blowing. 4.2 million tons. The Chinese fleet is 2 million tons. According to stats, N. Korea has more ships than the US, so that isn't saying much.
Yes, but the Chinese are catching up rapidly.
@@Flightman453 Oh yeah. For sure. They have 4 times as many people so its just a matter of time. I think with swarms of AI killer drones, ships are just going to be sitting ducks in the very near future. The US doesn't have any men left, and the woman are so woke, they would allow China to invade and take over and they would celebrate the communists as heros.
Next video please please give your take on the whole Guyana Venezuela Border dispute!
He is probably looking into right now. Most likely picking quotable sources and going through cables. At least he edits what he puts out there , based on what he gathers. He walks talking as if he was shooting from the hip, but in actuality he does some homework.
basically it is an effort to create a proxy war by russia
Peter - have you done a video on the military vulnerabilities of Australia? You mention Australia in this video. Very interested to hear your views on how poor Australia is at theor own preparedness
A different, Peter, here. Australia has a modern medium sized militarily, having fairly strong in high tech and airforce to protect itself against even a major requiring a long supply lines. Australia’s white powers from the 1970s into the 2000s, were more concerned about Indonesia, because Indonesian generals have influence on the Indonesian government and historically Australia has contained Indonesian expansion efforts.
Curiously, in retort, Australia has NOT heavily developed its military, because, given lead times, Australia was more advanced and could then outspend Indonesia. Australia global advantages are in radar and technologies not the size of its military: Something admired by Colin Powell. More recently, AUKUS has built the foundation for the three countries, to increase the superior defence between China and the three allies.
Australia pioneered scramjet technologies and AI drone technologies. Australia has an underdeveloped, basically non-existed, nuclear defence industry: Australia needs and will receive American help! Thanks 👍🇺🇸🇦🇺 AUKUS, will see joint R&D on AI and QM too. Australia was the third country to launch a satellite and has indicated going into the long range missile business. Australia has said it will spend AUD 368 billion on current and new AUKUS class nuclear submarines into 2030s for the 2040s. The Brits? The are advanced in stealth tile technologies and, post Brexit, under Global Britain, are trying to pivot to the Asia Pacific, using Australia as a platform. Australia can support Britain’s application and deny China’s application into the CP TPP. The 2030s will likely see the US lead the integration of the military complexes of the advanced economies, having significant development in Australia’s defence capabilities and, defence export opportunities for all three advanced democracies.
@@petersinclair3997 you’re far too supportive of Australia. Australia has virtually no military and low expenditures on equipment.
@@robertmillar2037Australia's military defence strategy is focussed on holding off an invasion force until USA bails us out. We're utterly joined at the hip to the USA alliance.
Glad to hear that. Cheers from (still existing) Germany!
Awesome ending summary!
Peter is not a naval strategist, and these are some of his most dangerous videos. He speaks with so much confidence, that it's tempting to think he knows what he's talking about. He doesn't. He's painting a picture, yet is somehow leaving out China's A2/AD* capabilities and strategy, which is the backbone of their Island Chain defensive strategy. BTW A2/AD was such a revolutionary approach that Australia has adopted it and is implementing their own version.
Do I think the USN would ultimately prevail vs the PLAAN? Yes. Do I think Peter is talking out of his ass? Yes.
*Anti Access/Area Denial
All that said, Peter's fucking charisma will keep me coming back. I did appreciate his take on Biden's 170 gazillion years of experience in American politics.
170 gazillion years of USA military failures and warmongering. Not something to be proud of.
Agreed. The Supreme confidence is both captivating and terrifying. But damn he puts on a show
In regards to speaking with confidence about things he doesn’t understand that is peters. I have a stick and he’s better than anyone else at it. Don’t get me wrong. He’s a smart guy and he knows a lot, but only God knows the future you can, and will be surprised in the future just like you have been in your own personal lives, we caught a black swan cause we can’t couldn’t even assume that anything like that would happen. How many people anticipated, smart phones when you were in high school?
Hi Peter, are you going to make a video about the situation in Yemen? Seems like it's been overlooked so far.
He'll Google it once and presto, he's an expert.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Guyana's long term prospects, how are they handling the new oil wealth? Provided they can handle the Venezuela crisis, can you see them avoiding Dutch disease? What other sectors are there for them to grow?
Given its geography, I’d say eco-tourism. Small population is the limiting factor towards developing much else beyond cottage type industry.
Thank you for sharing this video with us.. ❤ hiking cool 👍🏼
Peter, can you provide an analysis of the state of cyber attacks on the US and what concerns you may or may not have on the impact of state sponsored cyber attacks on the US?
China does have the worlds largest Navy. Problem is (for them) that the majority of that Navy consists of literal fishing vessels with guns mounted onto the deck
说的太对了好吧🧐
No, the USN is by far the largest, because size is measured by tonnage, not number of hulls, for this very reason.
They were built to scare off fishermen in the south china sea not to come face to face with Roman empire part deux
Fun fact . Usa military lost to
Afghans
@@jacksmith-mu3ee fun fact : you’re delusional b/c according to literally every news source , we took out the Taliban in less than a year . And our army is under no obligation to remain there permanently - if the afghans want to restart the taliban after we leave , that’s their problem , not ours
I think Biden is better at getting competent people around him.
@rogerwilco2-- You are completely wrong, he has Obama's old team of college teachers.
It still is amazing to me that people that fancy themselves as intelligent operate with the notion that ANY president of a corporation as in the U.S.G./U.S.A.(inc) makes any decisions whatsoever. This includes China, Russia etc. All corps and given permission to legally exist as such by >>> ? Do you EVEN have a clue? No you don't.
So continue on with the charade that actually people like PZ know about but truth telling just doesn't pay all that well. People just seem to love myth and bulls_it.
Also, that while PZ is 100% correct on somethings he balances it with 100% assumption/presumption and people actually $uooort his rhetoric. Go get em' PZ! Scoop it up while the scoopin' is still good.
Ps. There always is that chance he is sincere meaning sincerely stupid. Seems a likeable fella. That Man bun is cute too.
@@JohnSmith-ti2kp well they're clearly doing a better job than Trump and his team
@@chomskysfavefive You are delusional or a socialist.
It was extremely brief, but The Philippines was mentioned. Apparently, it has risen from the Pacific Ocean and now exists in Peter's world.
Nah. Nobody cares about the Philippines.
Thanks for your even handed assessments of situations and always giving credit where credit is due. Cheers good sir:)
Knowledge and experience makes a good employee
I have always suspected that if China did move on Taiwan the US or Japan would probably destroy their 3 carriers (the 2 old russian hulks and the "new" one still in dock) while they were in port. They will in fact probably never make it to open water to actually fight.
If that were to happen what would you think the Chinese would do in return?
@@samanthajones4877 One possibility would be to immediately cut off all exports to the U.S., further crippling their economy. What do YOU think they would do?
@@CarterM54 if the US or any country sank a few of their carriers killing thousands of their citizens, cutting off exports is the minimum they would do but I doubt they would allow that to happen without killing a few thousands of our citizens. Do people really think they are incapable of sinking our carriers?
@@CarterM54 when Japan killed thousands of our countrymen did we simply cut off trade with Japan?
@@samanthajones4877 they would try to fight back with what they have left but we all know they will fail. They won't use nukes because they know the US isn't going to invade there but the US will absolutely delete their entire navy and they know this.
At a cursory glance, it seems like rockets and missiles might be something the Chinese do well. At least compared to the boondoggles which their advanced microchip, high-tech exports, Belt and Road, Hong Kong, Russian alliance, and Wolf Warriorism have turned into. This might be why they treated the INF Treaty so dismissively; they are pursuing a rare bright spot in their strategy.
Never underestimate Chinese incompetence when left to their own devices.
Missiles are useless without a functional military force that can use them.
@jaykaufman978 Uhhh....everything you mentioned is a success from the Chinese point of view.
China dominates the high tech *market* but not the super, expensive advanced design and prototype developement level.
The Belt and Road initiative was never expected to be a success in western terms. But it does do what China wants. Admittedly it doesn't do what you want it to do to meet your approval.
Hong Kong was easily absorbed into the Chinese state with only a few ripples, noticeable only by the west because there are so few such ripples in China. Otherwise it was a very smooth transition.Lots of huffing and puffing in the west but not very noteworthy in China.
The Good cop/bad cop diplomacy works well for China as evidenced by the recent Biden/Xi summit and the COP 28 conference. China easily got what it wanted from both with everybody glad it went so well.
@@ronarnett4811
What are you even talking about? Xi is riding rough shod over a system that is verging on total collapse.
@@olteddersThey are nearly 20% of some major USA universities. They are just doing what Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are doing
Would be interesting to hear how US and Chinese allies might affect this
China doesn't have allies; it has temporarily-aligned rivals.
China doesn't have any allies.
Chinese Allies,, with a navy? Lol
@@bobgriffith1810 yea we can take their navy out now.... Stop all food and oil from going to their ports...
China and Russia don't really have allies, they have proxy states and other authoritarian countries which also want to gain more power. Democracy does have some benefits.
Great stuff, Peter
BAM!!!! Drop the mic!!!
I'm English. I live and work in China. I have to say this is the most insane channel to watch in my current situation.😊
Yeah he's a blatant neocon propagandist. For example saying Russia ignored the missile treaty without telling you the US never ratified it.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 No, you're totally wrong. What happened is that Moscow was responding to Red China -- as it became clear that Beijing was never going to join with America and Russia in strategic restraint. The US DoD -- as ever -- wanted the newest, high tech, counter-threat missile -- from a clean sheet of paper. THIS is why the American response to Red China has been years later than Russia's. No doubt the new design will be quite stealthy -- hell to detect on the way to its target. Whereas the old designs were all pre-stealth, and plainly targetable with look-down, shoot-down radars.
The Russian stuff is talked about as a threat to Europe -- whereas its cruise missiles are deployed to hit Red China's nukes, instead.
Only a token amount are sited to hit Europe -- which is no threat to the Kremlin -- not withstanding Putin's posturing.
BTW, Xi's nukes are easy pickings for Moscow, as they were originally sited far inland -- to stop USN attack -- issue number one back then. Xi and Putin are best friends because they each have the other by the balls. That's all.
If America didn't exist, they'd be straight at each other, PDQ.
@@davidhimmelsbach557 You say I'm totally wrong but it's a fact that the USA never ratified the treaty we're talking about. You don't even try to address this verifiable fact. BTW same thing happened with the League of Nations back in the day. President Wilson pushed it but Congress never ratified it. So the whole project was a waste of time.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 The USA ratified it de facto -- which is a situation quite unlike the League which didn't get any American delegation.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 Waste of time? Only because the Republican led Senate led by Henry Cabot Lodge would not ratify it. The US then led the formation of the UN by FDR and the UN Declaration of Human Rights that followed was led by his wife Eleanor, along with the five member Security Council including China, the USSR, the UK, and France, all allies at that time. The world has such a short memory. Americans have always been for either peace or unconditional surrender. Now having turned against us, they'll have to deal with the consequences!
🇨🇦 👍 I definitely like the security policy that Biden has set in place, it's good to protect the home team players when the world beyond our borders is still ruled by a handful of persons possessed by an anti-western or even anti-american psyche. Since 1991 during the following 3 decades we've acted in good faith toward China & Russia, we helped make their oligarchs fabulously wealthy through cooperation in trade & commerce - only to be faced 30+ yrs later with belligerent & aggressive regimes strikingly reminiscent of cold war dictators that we in the free world were led to believe no longer existed. They duped us.....and, now, we are past that. They've effectively shown they're true colors, and that puts us on different sides of the barbed wire.👍🇨🇦
No u didn't karem
The Chinese navy is a hysterical joke.
You are correct.
same thing said about china in the korean war lol
USA military is the biggest joke. ( Some afghan in 2023 )
@@jonmueller2117agreed . China lost to afghanistan in 2021 .... Oh wait it was USA😂
@@dustinchensame thing about USA in Vietnam, Korea , Iraq, afghanistan
Peter is a smart man. We have lots of very smart men working in our DoJ. The very smart men in our DoJ recognize the power of social media, and more specifically the power of people who are perceived to be smart men in social media. This is worth keeping in mind while listening to Peter.
What triggered the INF treaty was the US responding to USSR intermediate range missiles with the Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM), which was a land based extended range version of Tomahawk, and Pershing II, a ballistic missile. The Pershing II scared the Soviets, because it had a maneuvering warhead they knew their ABM systems couldn't stop (probably still couldn't, even with the S-400). Returning to that response should be an easy reach for the US.
Norway has an edge on medium range stealthy cruise missiles and America already purchased a few hundred of them.
How does this drifter keep getting reception out in the wilderness?
He has an intro and outro, so he is probably recording locally and then editing and uploading the video later, so he wouldn't need a phone network
recording and later uploading versus live streaming
@@seanweisbrotYou guys realise i'm joking right?😊
Huawei phone
Throw in Japan, AUS, NZ, and UK. The Japanese Navy is the best in Asia and getting better. The Japanese is very well balanced.
That's my income tax going to work right there!
They also have 2 Izumo class "destroyers" that can carry 12+ F-35 VSTOL fighters each; i.e., mini-carriers.
lol, if Britian took all her navy and went after China, they would win.. quantity over quality wouldn't trump the most experienced naval country in the world.. if Britian was serious and funded alot more into her arms/ naval forces, America would struggle too in a what if scenario
Nothing is declared so bringing them up in pointless and no Japan's Navy is not the best in Asia, the PLAN is.
@@jamiemcaloon5548 What a dumb comment. The Royal Navy is an absolute joke. Comparing the UK Royal Navy to the PLAN is nothing more than an insult to the PLAN. Because yes, their "quality" ships are going to defeat China who simply wins on numbers alone. Their readiness rate is a joke because their ships are always undergoing maintenance. Royal Navy has 6 measly destroyers with less VLS than a Chinese one, carriers that are always having issues, and 1990s era frigates. You're just not smart. China building more destroyer's currently than the UK even has in their entire fleet.
You hit most of it on the head, but as a former Operation Specialist on the USS Coontz (DDG-40) who was both Combat Information Center Watch Supervisor as well as a graduate of Naval Enlisted Tactical Actions, I can say unequivocally the Tomahawk Cruise Missile was developed in the 70's and that we were already using them for surface warfare in the 80's.
I was the Watch Supervisor on watch when 3 days before the USS Stark was struck by 2 Iraqi Exocet missiles, that same F1 Mirage attempted to attack my ship the USS Coontz on May 14th. 1987. We responded appropriately and it never got close enough to shoot a missile that only had about a 20 mile range.
But yes, the USS Coontz was fitted with 8 Tomahawk missiles back in the 80's.
Bla bla bla .. Afghans defeated is army
@@zacksmith5963 it would be nice if you had been educated enough to talk in complete sentences that actually make sense.🤣
@@daf631 i don't need education from a home schooled nra loser .
@@zacksmith5963u destroyed him
Peter Z. is a great middle school social studies teacher. 🎉