China on our doorstep

[houtman]

Cheers @Garpal Gumnut

His many other vids are much more in-depth paticularly regarding demographics and how that plays out; especially for Germany, Japan, Russia and China, as they are too top heavy with an ageing population and no replacements coming through the rank and file. Gen Z is just not reproducing in the numbers required.

He covers a lot of ground, there are many pieces to the puzzle of globalisation. He paints in brush strokes that may be broad and based on the available statistics.
Some may say he's seen to be spruiking the US of A but, America is blessed with a huge labour pool to the south (Mexico), a resource rich neighbour to the north (Canada), a topography that is favourable and favours a large population, now thanks to shale oil is now a nett exporter etc all coupled with a govt. that isn't hell bent on using it's younger population as cannon fodder.

I agree his POV isn't the end all to be all but of lot of what he puts forward resonants.

From a DYOR investment perspective, I personally like knowing where he's parking his money and from one of his latest vids, he's strong into "energy" commodities like copper and the big four food giants like ADM.

Propaganda?
Yeah, maybe...

Peter, in his capacity as a geo-politics strategist, has advised the Australian govt. in the past so he does has creditibility. From that one short video, it is much condensed but IMHO, succint re. China.

Thanks @Craton
PZ is becoming a rockstar of late.
A lot of punters and YouTubers quoting him and “Demographics “ has become a go to for content.
I’ve tried looking for the arguments against his big picture without much success but will keep looking. Of course a couple of butterflies could upset the narrative.


I have, however, found I sleep more soundly after watching one of his presentations, the future looks so bright, as payment to PZ for this service I have bought his latest book.
I’ll post once read- it may take a while though.

 

[Craton]

I would expect that given the rampant COVID in China, there will be a lot more deaths this year, and with an already falling birth rate, China may go two years in a row with a declining population.

According to that ABC article:

Long-term, UN experts expect to see China's population shrinking by 109 million by 2050, more than triple the decline of their previous forecast in 2019.

That's a decline of around 4mill per yr, it seems not a short term decline at all.

Geez, economically we punch well above our weight with a mere 26mill, imagine Oz sustaining 109mill.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

As in the ageing thread now running,

Population and ageing, unlike climate, has some decided advantages when it comes to forecasting. While it is feasible for pandemics, natural or man-made disasters to significantly reduce global population, fertility and the ageing process mean it is virtually impossible to get massive surprises in the other direction

... demographics is an interesting deep dive. Couple it with health, and it's a toxic stew.

Just reading this about Pakistan ...l5th largest population in the world.

Dubious distinctions

Current life expectancy in Pakistan is 67.7 years, while 149 countries have higher life expectancy than us.

www.dawn.com

(I reserve the right to go off -topic ; others seem to.)

 

[Craton]

Thanks @Craton
PZ is becoming a rockstar of late.
A lot of punters and YouTubers quoting him and “Demographics “ has become a go to for content.
I’ve tried looking for the arguments against his big picture without much success but will keep looking. Of course a couple of butterflies could upset the narrative.


I have, however, found I sleep more soundly after watching one of his presentations, the future looks so bright, as payment to PZ for this service I have bought his latest book.
I’ll post once read- it may take a while though.

Cheers mate, glad PZ is of some use to you.
Yeah, demographics is something we can all relate to quite easily. Coming or getting to grips with the "very big" picture is no easy task. Trick is having access to reliable info/data and double checking/confirming what is being touted.

I'm heartened that he mentions Oz as one of a handful of countries that will/should survive relatively unscathed, thus well may we say we live in a lucky country.

Peter isn't shy in admitting he has made a mistake either. Even he expected Ukraine to fall very quickly to Russia and has openly stated that fact in his vids. He later admits that like most of us (in the West), oops, I was totally wrong. He gets kudos from me on that alone.

 

[JohnDe]

"The problem with this era was that the winner was China. Beijing didn’t obey the rules of globalisation but reaped all the benefits of everyone else obeying the rules. It got the fastest economic growth of any big society in history. More than a million American jobs migrated to China. Beijing could subsidise any strategic industry, rig the rules of investment so that it got the intellectual property of any Western company located there, use the openness of Western societies to enable traditional and cyber espionage to steal technology and gallop up the technology ladder, all the while engaging in the greatest peacetime military build-up the world has seen."​

This was the week that China’s population began to fall, China’s economic growth rate slumped to its lowest level in decades and China’s Vice-Premier, Liu He, told the exquisitely timed and mostly fatuous World Economic Forum at Davos that Beijing was committed to economic liberalism, free trade and globalisation. Any of those three stretch your credulity at all?

We are living through a hinge moment in history. The era of globalisation is coming to an end. Is globalisation dead? Maybe not quite dead, but like a Covid virus it’s mutating into something new and different. Deglobalisation, decoupling, democracy versus dictatorship, Cold War 2.0, national resilience economies, national security conservatives, renewed military alliances, grey zone conflict, regional wars, free markets lacking advocates or post-globalisation – whatever you call it, we are rushing into the third era of history after World War II.

Era one, which began as soon as Hitler and Imperial Japan were defeated, was the bipolar Cold War: the United States and its allies against the Soviet Union and its empire. This was when the US created the so-called rules-based liberal international order – the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank. Later on, with help from the US, regions inaugurated their own pro-US organisations, the European Union and, much later, bodies such as APEC.

They all believed in globalisation, which was another term for US power. The Soviet Union stood outside globalisation. The object of Western policy was to triumph over the Soviet Union while avoiding nuclear war. The West was successful.

That led to Era Two, the unipolar era, when the US, for a time the hyperpower, was alone at the top and sought to underwrite a much more genuinely global liberal order than had ever existed before. Free trade was linked to free societies. Economic integration, followed by social integration, would solve all geo-strategic problems. Economic freedom would be contagious; peaceful evolution would lead to liberty’s triumph. Francis Fukuyama called it the end of history.

The problem with this era was that the winner was China. Beijing didn’t obey the rules of globalisation but reaped all the benefits of everyone else obeying the rules. It got the fastest economic growth of any big society in history. More than a million American jobs migrated to China. Beijing could subsidise any strategic industry, rig the rules of investment so that it got the intellectual property of any Western company located there, use the openness of Western societies to enable traditional and cyber espionage to steal technology and gallop up the technology ladder, all the while engaging in the greatest peacetime military build-up the world has seen.

Now we are entering a new era. We haven’t got a good name for it yet. Post-globalisation seems too negative but globalisation is stone motherless dead as a motivating force in any Western economic or political argument.

This doesn’t mean the world is moving back to 1950s-style protectionism, much less 1930s-style protectionism. But it is going to find a new balance between free trade, open economies, national resilience, not giving your adversary your best technology or your critical infrastructure, securing supply chains and military readiness which means both hi-tech kit and sufficient mass to deter attack. It’s going to see national security, military alliances and regionalism come back to the centre of how nations behave.

This is not all down to China. There are four factors, four huge historic dynamics, driving the world away from globalisation. These are: China; Russia’s war in Ukraine; Covid; and the energy crisis in Western societies brought about by attempting rapid decarbonisation.

Take them one by one. When China was a small part of the global economy, the US and some of its allies could pursue free-trade policies on a no-regrets basis. Even if China cheated in restricting imports and putting all kinds of non-competitive rules around foreign direct investment, we, the US and its allies, still got cheap Chinese products and overall China was still a big market. Australia did well because our big exports to China were unprocessed commodities – iron ore and coal in particular.

Two things changed. China got too big an economy – now about two thirds the size of the US though it may not catch the US in size for many years – to give that kind of advantage to. And it became an aggressive strategic competitor building military capabilities designed to invade Taiwan, occupy the South China Sea and cripple US forces in Asia.

So it’s just plain strategic insanity for the West to help Beijing dominate hypersonics, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, microchips, telcos, machine learning, battery technology and the other hi-techs determinants of the future. Yet even now, with all the decoupling talk, since 2000 US venture capitalists have invested more than $US50bn ($72bn) in China.

The Chinese government essentially produced Donald Trump, the first anti-globalisation president. He was chaotic in his rejection of globalisation but he used tariffs and technology boycotts to begin decoupling. He wanted industry back in the US. Joe Biden has continued Trump’s policies. US allies and friends have selectively applied similar measures, Australia, Canada, Japan, Britain, even India have all banned Huawei from their 5G networks. Many nations restrict Chinese investment in critical infrastructure. This is fully bipartisan in the US, almost the only issue that is.

The second factor driving deglobalisation is Russia’s war in Ukraine. Trump and other US leaders tried to limit Europe’s energy dependence on Russia. The Germans in particular thought the Americans paranoid. Although no-one would call the Europeans free marketeers, their energy dependence on Russia perfectly embodied a free market, globalisation outlook. Russia has a comparative advantage in natural gas and oil, certainly compared with Western Europe. The income Russia earns that way should give it a big incentive not to destroy its commercial, political and military relationship with Europe. Everyone’s a winner.

But guess what? Russian leaders, especially Vladimir Putin, had not drunk the globalisation elixir. They had other priorities. Russia invaded Ukraine anyway, thinking it would be bloody but quick and Western sanctions would exhibit their normal hypocrisy and lack of staying power. Everyone got that wrong because of the magnificent resistance and heroism of the Ukrainian leadership and Ukrainian people.

But no one can any longer pretend that globalisation works if you’re dealing with a supplier like Russia. So energy markets will be deglobalised and Europe will decouple from Russia which will cling ever more tightly, as a loyal client, to China. This, incidentally, will reinforce the bipolar nature of the post-globalisation, international system.

Factor three is Covid. This persistent, wretched virus was an enormous shock to global supply chains. The old ideal was just-in-time supply, so you didn’t waste money storing merchandise. That’s no good any more. Just as the Ukraine war shows that the West doesn’t have enough weapons or ammunition even for a regional war, Covid showed that all kinds of essential items in the West depend on one or two suppliers, who might be unreliable. They might be unable to supply, they might make their own needs a priority over the needs of their customers, or they might decide to hold up supplies as an act of hostility.

At the same time, Covid caused Western governments to abandon all fiscal restraint, thus producing a bout of global inflation. This also reinforces insecurity. People want critical products made and stored at home, or made and stored by a reliable friend. Comparative advantage will be a much lesser consideration.

And the final factor, which plays into the other three, is the almost panicked, desperate rush to decarbonise among Western nations. This is not happening in Asian nations. China is still building coal fired power stations apace. But in Western Europe, North America and Australia, New Zealand and a few other pro-Western nations, there is something approaching a seemingly desperate and rapid switch to decarbonise. All rhetoric aside, the plain truth is this is enormously expensive. Carbon-neutral energy technology is not remotely competitive in price, for a total system, compared with fossil fuels. This means almost every Western nation is undergoing an energy price crisis, exacerbated by the Russia/Ukraine war and the Western commitment to decarbonise.

That’s a big argument for another day. But it has this quite precise impact on globalisation. If as a society you are going to pay the massive costs of decarbonisation, and if you believe this is righteous, then you will be determined that everyone else should pay those costs as well. Thus we are seeing a wave of implicit and explicit carbon protectionism sweeping across the global economy.

These four factors not only drive deglobalisation, they interact with each other in complex and unpredictable ways.

So where do we go from here?

I asked three senior Australians with intimate policy experience of globalisation to react to the general thesis of this article.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott says: “The problem with globalisation is that its focus was on short-term cost minimisation over everything else. We’re now much more aware of the national security, as well as the economic, dimensions of freer trade, especially where it concerns countries which are now so obviously our strategic competitors.”

Peter Varghese, a former head of DFAT with a storied career at the top of Australian policy, tells me: “It’s still an open question whether we end up with a decoupled but still global economy. This depends on whether we see a further hardening of US and Chinese positions. It’s driven by geopolitical factors accelerated by Covid.

“It’s one thing for geopolitics to drive a slowdown in globalisation and an inward-looking turn in economics. But that then through lower economic growth can feed back into geopolitics, including through the rise in populism.

“There is a global trend towards policies such as self-reliance and rising protectionism that we know from history makes us poorer, not richer. A poorer world is a more unstable world. The politics of globalisation has played out badly in many countries. Australia is an exception.

“I’m very uncomfortable with policies that try to thwart Chinese economic growth rather than building mechanisms that constrain and deter China from acting in unacceptable ways.

“We’re going to have to find ways to re-prosecute the case for an open economy.”

Justin Bassi, head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, also has a long history of advising governments on foreign policy. He says: “There are significant geostrategic implications from the move away from globalisation. After the intense competition of the Cold War, the US and its allies put all their eggs in the globalisation basket and thought trade was an inherent good.

“Economic development is vital, but where a trade relationship becomes a dependency it can produce instability and enable coercion.

“Interdependence was thought to reduce the likelihood of conflict, but both China and Russia have shown that conflict can happen where there is a power imbalance. Europe’s energy dependence on Russia did not deter Russian aggression and only solved to weaken European resolve.

“China has shown that it can engage in conflict and intimidation below the level of war, including by leaning on economic relationships. While many countries are debating the pros and cons of decoupling from China, Beijing itself has gone down that road without using the word.

“Its strategic objective is to be technologically sovereign but have everyone else dependent on its technology.”

Overall, Australia was a winner from globalisation, certainly economically. I think it was a tremendous mistake to allow our car industry to collapse, but this was certainly in line with ideas of comparative advantage and globalisation. Now we need to rebuild a manufacturing capability if we can.

But while the new era will be challenging for us, we could well emerge as winners in the deglobalisation era as well. Our reliability as a supplier of energy, commodities and agricultural exports will be highly valued, so long as we don’t allow green madness to destroy our advantage in these industries. And the products we export to China – iron ore and coal – are not hi-tech so our allies won’t ask us to stop those exports, unless military tension becomes very grave.

There are other substantial opportunities awaiting the post-globalisation era as well. The US has redefined its National Technological and Industrial Base to include Australia, Britain and Canada – all the Five Eyes except New Zealand. This is the real significance of AUKUS. The nuclear subs, I’m afraid, are so far away they will not in themselves play any strategic role for us in probably the next two decades.

But we have the opportunity – if we’re smart enough technically, economically, socially, diplomatically and politically – to become a significant part of the US-led supply chain in a significant number of critical technologies.

Globalisation is dying, but global opportunities remain for us. Moving away from globalisation could mean consciously choosing more security and a little less income, but it can also mean new economic opportunities.

That’s assuming, of course, that the ragged new bipolar order, with so many nations confused and internally polarised and the rules of the road as clear as mud, can avoid debilitating warfare.

Employees working on a car assembly line at a Beijing Automotive factory in Qingdao, in China's eastern Shandong province.

Workers produce medicine at a pharmaceutical factory in Lianyungang, in China's eastern Jiangsu province on December 20.

GREG SHERIDAN
FOREIGN EDITOR

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

As in the ageing thread now running,

... demographics is an interesting deep dive. Couple it with health, and it's a toxic stew.

Just reading this about Pakistan ...l5th largest population in the world.

Dubious distinctions

Current life expectancy in Pakistan is 67.7 years, while 149 countries have higher life expectancy than us.

www.dawn.com

(I reserve the right to go off -topic ; others seem to.)

While I have occasionally been accused of veering off topic it would not appear to me that the mentioning the demographics of countries in the Indian subcontinent and comparing to China would fit the bill.

As for ageing, some health economists estimate a disproportionate amount of money is spent in one's last last five years of life, last one year of life and last week of life. Meanwhile the cost of care escalates and the newer treatments for diseases of ageing proliferate.

Young people here and in China are not willing to have more than one or two children. The cousins in Pakistan by and large have an inadeqaute health system for the majority of their population so maybe they are better prepared than China is for the demographic cliff.

btw Dawn is a very good newspaper for those wishing to veer.

gg

 

[rederob]

Peter Zeihan's prognosis for China is insightful and thought provoking. Video is 4.34 mins and Australia gets a mention.

Peter Zeihan is largely a "fact free zone" and has been for as long as he has had a YouTube presence. What he does get right are things which are obvious. But when it comes to matters of data and detail, he gets so much wrong by inventing information that it's laughable.
But let's look at this brief one's first minute for starters:

• China's "complete demographic dissolution", as he calls it, is a baseless opinion. For example, if you compared Japan's 2013 population pyramid with China's 2030 forecast population pyramid they are almost identical. Yet that's almost 2 decades of difference, and Japan's economy today is far from the basket case that Zeihan is painting for China.
• Equally baseless is his view about China's "economic collapse within the decade." It might happen if America continues to ban cutting edge technologies, although the opposite seems to be happening at present as China invests more to subvert America's plans. But China has relied on well implemented 5-year economic development plans over recent decades and Zeihan remains oblivious to this feature of its progress.
• Zeihan's next claim, on Middle East energy dependence, is absolute nonsense. About 20% of China's oil comes from the Middle East. However, in volume terms, Chinese refined product exports - diesel, gasoline and aviation fuel combined (estimated at 6.5 million to 7.1 million tons) - are almost equal to total Middle East crude oil imports. In other words, China is only relying on Saudi oil for refinery exports and not energy.
• Zeihan's next claim on the US navy making it safe for China to trade internationally is spurious. The world is not at war. Unless America chooses to attack Chinese merchant vessels there will be no problem! Anyway, according to Globalfirepower China already has the world's largest navy, as shown below, with rankings against 145 other nations for each class of vessel:
• 

I only needed the first 50 seconds to show how vacuous Zeihan is, and to reinforce my point I might dig up a recent Zeihan YouTube video on EVs and post it in the EV thread; it's laughable.

 

[Craton]

Thanks for chiming in @rederob. I for one, have missed your insightful posts.

 

[mullokintyre]

China is getting a taste of the dance that is the African Country loan defaults.
from Axios

Lusaka, Zambia — The first test for African debt restructuring in a post-COVID world is playing out in Zambia, a land-locked country bigger than Texas, rich in copper and loaded with Chinese debt — and so poor that most of its population lives on less than $2 dollars a day.

Why it matters: If Zambia, China and international creditors cannot come to an agreement on how to restructure Zambia's debt, other African countries might get a glimpse of their fate. It's not pretty.

• Unable to pay their bills, and unable to restructure their debt, countries like Zambia will be unable to attract any investors to help them them improve their economy — and grow out of poverty.

The big picture: China has agreed, in principle, to help restructure the debt of struggling Africa economies. But the question remains if China is willing, in practice, to take a haircut on any of its loans.

• Zambia, which defaulted on $17 billion of its external debt two years ago, is China's first debt rodeo under the new so-called "Common Framework" program.
• That makes the debt question in Zambia, Africa's second largest copper producer, bigger than just a single country.

Driving the news: The Biden administration and the International Monetary Fund are swinging into action.

• Putting pressure on China, the biggest holder of Zambia’s external debt, has been a central push of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s private and public diplomacy on the first two stops of her 10-day Africa tour.
• "We will continue to press for all official bilateral and private-sector creditors to meaningfully participate in debt relief for Zambia, especially," Yellen told Zambia’s president on Monday. She also called China a "barrier."
• The IMF’s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva also flew to the capital of Lusaka, where new Chinese-built roads lead onto old British traffic circles, for private talks on Monday.
• China's embassy in Lusaka shot back at Yellen's comments. In a statement, a spokesperson accused the U.S. of "sabotaging" efforts to find a debt solution and needled the U.S. on its own "catastrophic debt problem."

The intrigue: The U.S. and China discussions over Zambia could also be a game of footsie for two countries, testing their willingness to cooperate on a range of global issues after President Biden and President Xi promised to communicate better at the G-20 last November.

Being landlocked, Zambia does not have any ports for China to take over.
They are going to have to come up with something else.
Other African countries will be watching with interest.
Mick

 

[qldfrog]

China is getting a taste of the dance that is the African Country loan defaults.
from Axios

Being landlocked, Zambia does not have any ports for China to take over.
They are going to have to come up with something else.
Other African countries will be watching with interest.
Mick

wasn't it the plan all along?
Provide debt to poor buggers, debt they will never be able to repay, never even anywhere near, when deadline loom take control of the country
i remember something along that line when djibouti I think took a loan from China.
Being a former colony and french air force base, there were a few articles in France at the time, I read a few studies about that pending future.It did not even take 5y from memory.
Now Djibouti is a chinese naval base...they have no minerals,
-> for Zambia, their mineral resources are now chinese. full stop.
I am still waiting to see chinese protests in BJ by chinese gender studies students and psychology PHDs raging angainst Han imperialism and burning CCCP flag
ROL

 

[moXJO]

Peter Zeihan is largely a "fact free zone" and has been for as long as he has had a YouTube presence. What he does get right are things which are obvious. But when it comes to matters of data and detail, he gets so much wrong by inventing information that it's laughable.
But let's look at this brief one's first minute for starters:

• China's "complete demographic dissolution", as he calls it, is a baseless opinion. For example, if you compared Japan's 2013 population pyramid with China's 2030 forecast population pyramid they are almost identical. Yet that's almost 2 decades of difference, and Japan's economy today is far from the basket case that Zeihan is painting for China.
• Equally baseless is his view about China's "economic collapse within the decade." It might happen if America continues to ban cutting edge technologies, although the opposite seems to be happening at present as China invests more to subvert America's plans. But China has relied on well implemented 5-year economic development plans over recent decades and Zeihan remains oblivious to this feature of its progress.
• Zeihan's next claim, on Middle East energy dependence, is absolute nonsense. About 20% of China's oil comes from the Middle East. However, in volume terms, Chinese refined product exports - diesel, gasoline and aviation fuel combined (estimated at 6.5 million to 7.1 million tons) - are almost equal to total Middle East crude oil imports. In other words, China is only relying on Saudi oil for refinery exports and not energy.
• Zeihan's next claim on the US navy making it safe for China to trade internationally is spurious. The world is not at war. Unless America chooses to attack Chinese merchant vessels there will be no problem! Anyway, according to Globalfirepower China already has the world's largest navy, as shown below, with rankings against 145 other nations for each class of vessel:
• View attachment 152197

I only needed the first 50 seconds to show how vacuous Zeihan is, and to reinforce my point I might dig up a recent Zeihan YouTube video on EVs and post it in the EV thread; it's laughable.

I have to agree with Rob. A few of his videos on topics where I have people on the ground have shown he was talking out his ar5e on a few videos

 

[frugal.rock]

I've only watched half of 1 of his videos and he was up in the hills in California, you know, the areas that used to be notorious for illegal dope growing ventures years ago before it got legalised as medicinal..
He reminded me of this character.

 

[mullokintyre]

The latest farce that is the Chinese weather balloon, is getting murkier by the minute.

The pentagon has questioned the origin and purpose of the balloons.
From CNN

The official said a second balloon, spotted over Central and South America, was “another PRC surveillance balloon” and bore similar technical characteristics to the one that flew over the US.

“Both balloons also carry surveillance equipment not usually associated with standard meteorological activities or civilian research,” the official said. “Collection pod equipment and solar panels located on the metal truss suspended below the balloon are a prominent feature of both balloons.”
The official said China is able to “actively maneuver the balloons to overfly specific locations,” pointing to the balloons’ flight patterns and the small motors and propellers seen in videos as evidence.

So they reckon it has a means to travel deliberately over US bases.

We now know that the Americans shot it down.
In pretty much standard Chinese response, they accused the Americans os seriously violating international standards.
from China has expressed its “strong dissatisfaction and protest” against the US’ shooting down of its balloon, saying Washington was “overreacting” and “seriously violating international practice,” in a statement from its foreign ministry.

“China expresses its strong dissatisfaction and protest against the US's use of force to attack civilian unmanned aircraft. The Chinese side has repeatedly informed the US side after verification that the airship is for civilian use and entered the US due to force majeure – it was completely an accident,” reads the statement, which was published Sunday morning local time (Saturday evening in the US).

“China clearly asked the US to handle it properly in a calm, professional and restrained manner. A spokesman for the US Department of Defense also stated that the balloon will not pose a military or personal threat to ground personnel,” the statement continued.
“China will resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of relevant companies, while reserving the right to make further necessary reaction,” the ministry said.

Surprisingly, the Pentagon has suggested that this is not the first time that Chinese have done this. In later sections of the same article

The official said China had used these types of surveillance balloons for years and the devices had been spotted over five continents.

So how come we have never heard of these before?
And why did the US admin only admit to knowing about this Balloon when the media took pictures of it and started asking questions?

According to BBloombergs

The mysterious white object entered US airspace on Jan. 28
Its existence derailed a top US-China meeting in Beijing

They reckon they pentagon kept quiet about it as they did not want to derail the meeting with Blinken, but had to admit to knowing about it when local media started asking questions.
The Chinese are about as trustworthy as a used car salesman.
Mick

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Weather balloon?

It was at 90,000ft. Anything above 60,000 ft is outside FAA control.

And note that modern balloons, unlike their WWII counterparts, have some control of their direction. The computers on board can pick the best altitude to choose the winds and get where they want to go, or come as close as possible. This is how they "steer".

 

[mullokintyre]

Weather balloon?

It was at 90,000ft. Anything above 60,000 ft is outside FAA control.

And note that modern balloons, unlike their WWII counterparts, have some control of their direction. The computers on board can pick the best altitude to choose the winds and get where they want to go, or come as close as possible. This is how they "steer".

Quite true, but not out of the Military control.
Gary powers was somewhere near 70,000 feet when he was shot down over Soviet territroy in 1960.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

Why didn't they capture it, rather than blow it up? Do they already know all about them?

Not sure, but I suspect they were not willing to bring it to ground over use land area.
There would be some technical difficulties, at that height you cannot just send a bit of rope out to latch onto it, but I bet the yanks will be practicing how to do it. Perhaps sending their own balloon up to intercept it, I don't know.
Knowing the Chinese, it could have contained anything, and they saw no reason to take the chance.
Whatever intelligence gathering facilities it may have had will probably have sent the data to the motherland long ago.
It may be boobytrapped, who knows.
They can now send underwater robots to the area it came down in and search for radioactive decay, bilogical weapsn who knows what else.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

According to NOAA, the balloon varied between 15,000 metres and 15,500 meters during ther latter part of its flight across the states.
Thats between 50,000 and 51,000 feet.
No wonder the civil aircraft in the flight levels were able to see it.
Mick

 

[JohnDe]

Some reality coming back to the world.

Balance of power in Asia now shifting away from China

The galvanising impact of the war in Ukraine is not confined to Europe. It is having an equally transformative effect on the security of our own region. “Ukraine today may be Asia tomorrow” is the new catchcry as countries reassess their vulnerabilities and the adequacy of their defence spending and security partnerships.

Overstretched and anxious to avoid being drawn into a Ukrainian quagmire, the Biden administration is keeping a watchful eye on its pacing challenger, mindful that China would like nothing more than to see the US bogged down in a protracted European conflict. Relentlessly focused on Asia, Beijing has been able to bide its time and build its forces while the US continues to be distracted by the polycrisis – multiple, interconnected global challenges that require its leadership and unique deterrent power.

Despite its problems and these distractions, the US is on the comeback. Most evident in Europe, the effectiveness of Washington’s diplomacy in Asia has surprised friends and adversaries alike. The Biden administration is building a formidable network of alliances and security partnerships that threatens Xi Jinping’s ambition to dominate the region and take Taiwan by force.

For all the effort the Chinese leader has put into making his country a near competitor to the US, the balance of power in Asia is starting to shift away from China as Biden’s policy of “constrainment” starts to bite.

China can’t match America’s unrivalled convening power. The US President has begun to unite a constellation of allies, friends and even reluctant fence-sitters who fear the consequences of a hegemonic China and know the US is the only country able to prevent it.

Biden realises he can’t do this alone. Australia and Japan are the indispensable allies at the heart of an emerging latticework of US-aligned security partners.

Both countries are committed to profound defence transformations unequalled since the Pacific War. While we await the public release of the Albanese government’s response to the Defence Strategic Review to grasp the full implications for Australia’s national security, the dramatic changes in Japan’s posture, capabilities and security thinking are already evident.

Driven by Beijing’s aggressive and uncompromising behaviour, Japan is rapidly emerging from its post-war pacifism. The Kishida government’s historic decision to double defence spending by 2027 will give Japan the world’s third largest defence budget after the US and China.

But that’s not all. Buying and producing long-range missiles will make China and North Korea think twice about striking Japan. Kishida’s agreement to allow the deployment of a restructured US Marine Corps force to Japan’s southwestern islands equipped with lethal, mobile anti-ship missiles will seriously complicate China’s plans to attack Taiwan.

Equally game changing is the breakthrough agreement with The Philippines to allow the US access to four additional military facilities. These will be crucial to the defence of Taiwan as well as The Philippines.

The agreement will allow the US to pre-position equipment, better supply its forces and threaten China’s navy from the land in the event of conflict.

The political and strategic multiplier effect of Biden’s coalition building will be difficult for China to counter.

Unlike the centralised hub-and-spokes model of the old US-led Asian alliance system, the evolving latticework of partnerships and coalitions is more flexible, dynamic and fit for the times. The US guides, supports and enables. But partners have much more freedom to choose the scope of their defence and security co-operation with the US as well as with other partners.

Australia epitomises the new approach. Defence activity with Japan is set to ramp up after the ratification of last year’s Reciprocal Access Agreement. There is now talk of joint naval patrols with The Philippines in the South China Sea.

And negotiations soon will begin on a defence treaty with Indonesia to strengthen military interoperability.

Xi is in danger of making the same mistake as his autocratic predecessors in Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and the Soviet Union – underestimating American power.

Before Germany’s ill-advised invasion turned the Soviet Union from friend to foe in June 1941, the Axis powers were in a far stronger position than today’s China, producing more than half the world’s gross domestic product and fielding large, battle-tested militaries. Yet they still lost. America’s unleashed wealth, resources and productive capacities on the side of the Allies proved decisive.

In a thought-provoking article for The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan – a former leading American neo-conservative turned centrist foreign policy intellectual – argues that even if China is successful in taking Taiwan, its ambition to dominate the region is destined to fail for the same reason.

China and Russia account for roughly 20 per cent of the world’s wealth. But the US and its growing network of allies, partners and sympathisers control more than 50 per cent.

Regionally, they include economic heavyweights Japan and India as well as advanced economies Australia, South Korea, Taiwan and Canada. Moreover, China’s support for Russia is pushing Europe firmly into the US camp.

Germany and Japan had already acquired military pre-eminence in Europe and Asia before the US entered World War II. China starts from a much weaker position, says Kagan. It “does not even control all the territory in the region it regards as its own”, including Taiwan.

He might have added that China has no real allies. Fellow travellers North Korea and Iran are more hindrance than help. And Russia is becoming an unanticipated burden.

Conversely, the US is in a much stronger position than it was in 1939 when its military was totally unprepared for “industrial war on a global scale”, says Kagan. Nor did it “possess the industrial plant to boost weapons production quickly”.

Yet within three years it outproduced all other countries combined, churning out war-winning quantities of everything from bullets to aircraft carriers.

Xi has made the fatal mistake of turning the US into an adversary. Supplying Russia’s war machine with weapons would shatter any remaining Western illusions that Xi’s China is a force for good.

Alan Dupont is chief executive of geopolitical risk consultancy The Cognoscenti Group and a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute.

ALAN DUPONT COLUMNIST

 

[divs4ever]

The latest farce that is the Chinese weather balloon, is getting murkier by the minute.

that was because the Ohio smoke plume was getting in the way

 

[Sean K]

Some reality coming back to the world.

China have miscalculated with their aggressive approach in SE Asia. The Belt and Road debt trap is not working as well as they might have been expecting and may be pushing smaller nations away. Vietnam has been very important and now Philippines is turning back to the US it's going to be very hard to make a solid play for ASEAN support. Indonesia now comes into play as the largest economy in ASEAN and if they change their neutrality policy to one of even the slightest support of US/Australia through joint military exercises (which we already do on a very minor basis) China is definitely surrounded. In the end, geography is actually China's biggest threat. They're trapped.