
China will soon have air power rivalling the West’s - fmihaila
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737074-some-technologies-it-has-surpassed-it-china-will-soon-have-air-power-rivalling-wests
======
FrozenTuna
Had me interested until:

"Non-state firms are helping the armed forces to develop quantum technologies
that will boost their ability to make use of artificial intelligence and big
data, as well as to develop unhackable communications networks."

Oh boy is that buzz word central. I'm still convinced we're decades away from
using quantum computing for much more than finding prime numbers. Everything
I've read says we're just barely scratching the surface how to use this stuff.
We're a long way off before Quantum AI uses Big Data to design military
planes.

~~~
williamscales
It is buzz-word central for sure. However, there is a nugget of truth in
there: China is currently winning handily in the quantum teleportation race.
They have been setting all kinds of records for teleporting photons to
satellites. Quantum encryption is different from general purpose quantum
computing. It relies on teleporting photons to communicate and it is
unhackable—if someone tries to eavesdrop on a quantum encrypted communication,
then the people communicating can immediately tell that this has happened. So
on this one China really does seem to be ahead and the applications are not so
fantastical.

~~~
drb91
I thought quantum encryption was about secure key distribution for traditional
sigint, not anything about a new encryption mechanism or medium for
communicating an encrypted payload or an ability to detect interception. Do
you have any more information?

~~~
outworlder
You need the quantum state and a conventional communication channel. Your
'key' is basically the quantum state. So you can consider it a new encryption
mechanism.

Interception detection is for someone messing with the quantum state (in other
words, trying to use it). Both parties will know that happened. It is not for
the conventional channel.

~~~
drb91
You can’t consider it a new form of encryption if you’re just stuffing a key
distributed with entanglement into AES and sending the encrypted result over
tcp. The detection only holds for key distribution, which is a different
problem than encryption (to my understanding).

As i understand it, the main novelty here is that china has demonstrated
recent ability to teleport particles a long ways away. This is only related to
encryption in the slimmest chain of buzzwords.

------
colemannugent
I'm getting some serious Cold War vibes from this article: Communist country
tries to get into an arms race with the US, has to choose between their
preferred economic strategy and military competitiveness, ends up trying to
have both.

The big difference I see with China is that they have a massive booming
economy. Unlike the USSR which failed to stay productive, they might be able
to pull it off.

But the "air power" advancements in the article seem a bit underwhelming to
me. A new fighter jet, a new air-to-air missile, and another unnamed air-to-
air system with longer range seem like the first steps in bringing Chinese air
power up to par. It certainly doesn't suggest that they will soon be able to
"rival the West", let alone the US.

~~~
totalZero
The US needs more manpower and cheap manufacturing to compete with such a
large adversary as China. Instead of keeping close ties with Europe, we should
be investing our time and energy in building a strong fraternity among
American nations.

~~~
pjc50
American ties to Europe were never entirely altruistic but about maintaining
it against Russian influence and control.

Whereas the US presence in South America has always been about anti-communism
at any cost, including overthrowing elected governments to replace them with
dictatorships (Chile); then secondarily about maintaining the drug war and its
associated violence. If the US wants to get started there it should see about
bringing peace to Mexico and work downwards.

~~~
dragonwriter
> American ties to Europe were never entirely altruistic but about maintaining
> it against Russian influence and control

US ties to Europe predate geopolitical conflict with Russia.

> Whereas the US presence in South America has always been about anti-
> communism at any cost

Likewise, US presence and exercise of colonial and quasi-legal power in Latin
America _long_ predates anticommunist foreign policy.

------
philipkglass
Whether or not China has technology to directly threaten US aircraft carriers
or air defenses is pretty inconsequential IMO. Both sides have had
thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs for decades. Are US aircraft carriers immune
to Chinese anti-ship weapons? Then the US gets the opportunity to spark
thermonuclear war if they press that advantage against Chinese forces. Are US
aircraft carriers vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship weapons? Then it's the
Chinese who can start WW III by sinking them.

The movie Threads is still terrifyingly relevant:

[https://archive.org/details/threads_201712](https://archive.org/details/threads_201712)

I suppose that with improved military forces China can intervene in weaker
states' affairs like other P5 members do. There's always room for another
nation to participate in the Syrian civil war.

~~~
rrggrr
Your thinking is not supported by any historical evidence. The historical
evidence demonstrates that countries with comparable conventional military
capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces
and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons. For this reason,
conventional military advantage is far more important than the balance of
nuclear power.

The corollary to this reality, is that pronounced conventional military
imbalances __increase __the probably of nuclear war as either (a) the only
available response to perceived aggression by a superior conventional force;
or (b) the perceived correct strategic preemptive option in anticipation of
(a).

Its been awhile since I was mired in cold war nuclear strategy papers, but I
seem to recall conventional military parity as a highly stabilizing factor in
global competition and conflict.

I would add that Chinese conventional superiority is as much a threat to India
and Asian-pacific countries as to the United States.

Many times on HN I've expressed concern over the new multi-polar world we find
ourselves entering. US hegemony had advantages we may wish persisted.

~~~
pjc50
Er, since when has there been a full scale conventional conflict between two
nuclear-armed states?

~~~
rrggrr
Full scale isn't part of my comment... your assumption. Anyway, here are
historical precedents that illustrate my point. For each conflict ask yourself
how it may have been different if the disparity in conventional capabilities
had been great. In some cases I don't recall dates, but do recall severity of
conflict:

US v. China - by proxy (Korean War) US v. Russia - by proxy (Vietnam War) US
v. Russia - by proxy (Afghanistan Conflict) India v. Pakistan India v. China
US v. Russia - by proxy (1973 Yom Kippur War Brinksmanship)

~~~
pjc50
You said that "countries with comparable conventional military capabilities
will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will
negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons"

You said "expeditionary", not "proxy", which is very different.

The Korean war ended in 1953 and the Chinese government did not get nuclear
weapons until 1965 and ICBM capability later.

The actual shooting wars between India and Pakistan mostly pre-date both
countries achieving nuclear weapons, indicating that MAD generally works.

------
sgillen
Worth noting, The J-20 compares favorable to the F-35, but what really gives
America it’s air superiority is the F-22, which is still unmatched by China to
my knowledge.

America actually sells the F-35 to other countries it likes, and there are a
lot of them and they were supposed to be inexpensive. We’ve kept the F-22 to
ourselves, it’s main job is taking down over planes and it’s really really
good at it.

~~~
yborg
>tt's really really good at it

Citation needed. To my knowledge the F-22 has downed exactly zero adversary
aircraft in actual air-air combat.

~~~
slowmovintarget
Beyond that, they aren't made anymore, and require a land base. (Okinawa, for
example.)

In a carrier v. carrier battle, the F-22 likely won't be a factor unless the
chosen "ground" is in the operational vicinity of a land base. Granted,
Wikipedia believes the avionics range for the F-22 is 250 miles.

That shows some of the advantages of China's South China Sea strategy (taken
straight out of the U.S. playbook with Caribbean).

------
caio1982
For a moment I was hoping this to be some groundbreaking air pollution feat,
alas. The naive downside of not being a native english speaker :-)

~~~
z2
If the naivety is actually a healthy bit of optimism when taking in
information, then that's not so bad!

------
Pica_soO
Im still wondering, weather the recent progress did not render aircraft, tanks
and carriers sort of obsolete alltogether.

Imagine a operation team, that rents a house, carves it out, and installs -
delivered in 3 or 4 container- a explosive drone factory, generators and some
material supply silos.

Once the conflicts start, the factory starts out churning kill vehicles like
there is no tomorrow- attacking vital infrastructure, public transport- and in
addition depositing droves of "fallback" mines, activated after years of
delay.

The result is a instantly collapsing society, without even a aggressor
visible. And who was it? Anyone could have done this- its a low cost attack.
Low tech, once you have the auto-factory line up. Anyone having just one of
those terrorizing a city has a plausible denial.

Meanwhile out on the oceans some subs and ships have a cruise with noone to
strike at. Noone to strike towards, a redundant a force as a battalion of
cavalary at Verdun.

Its nice and shiny new toys for the not yet big boys, but the great scott help
us, the day they face a dedicated advessary forced to go cheap.

That would be actually a nice little addition to the mil-industrial complex- a
branch forced to develop assymetric attacks, with a very low budget. That way,
if you allow that branch to conduct its own exercises and manouvers - you can
actually look ahead to find out what those mysterious machine guns are- before
you try to solve the excession by sending in wave after wave.

------
eatbitseveryday
We should stop spending so much money on defense as a world, and more on
health, beneficial applications of scientific progress, and improving global
well-being... Arms races are stupid and a waste of human talent.

/rant

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Arms races are stupid and a waste of human talent_

Arms races are how we got meritocracy [1], NASA, the ARPANET and other
goodies. Our species has a terrible track record with non-hedonistically
deploying capital without the motivation of an external threat. In that mold,
a Cold War (emphasis on "cold") is a least-worst optimum.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena–Auerstedt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena–Auerstedt)

EDIT: Better source
[https://books.google.com/books?id=z14AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=z14AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=battle+of+jena+reform&source=bl&ots=FRoOuJMWso&sig=21Xg2pkLyIGJHmMBsx7IY7F8xGs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-
nY6-4rfZAhVhmuAKHUbNBTw4FBDoAQgsMAE#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20jena%20reform&f=false)

~~~
yesenadam
I clicked on the link.. Napoleon going around Europe slaughtering is somehow
"how we got meritocracy" and a "goodie"? Um. I don't see it. (I'm not an
expert in these areas.)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Napoleon going around Europe slaughtering is somehow "how we got
> meritocracy" and a "goodie"?_

Pardon me, a quote from a better source:

"Prussia, notwithstanding the reforms of Frederick the Great, had retained its
half-feudal institutions down to the decisive defat of Jena. The agricultural
classes were serfs bound to the soil and compelled to work a certain part of
each week for their lords with our remeration. The population was still
divided into three distinct castes, nobles, burghers, and peasants, who could
not acquire one another's land. The disaster of Jena and the losses at Tilsit
convinced the statesmen of Prussia–among whom Baron von Stein and Prince
Hardenberg were conspicuous–that the country's only hope of recovery was a
complete social and political revolution not unlike that which had taken place
in France. They saw that the old system must be abolished, the peasants freed,
and the restrictions which hedged about the different classes done away with,
before it would be possible to arouse public spirit to a point where a great
popular uprising might expel the intruder forever."

Beard and Harvey, James Robinson. _Outlines of European History_. Ginn &
Company, 1907.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=z14AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=z14AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=battle+of+jena+reform&source=bl&ots=FRoOuJMWso&sig=21Xg2pkLyIGJHmMBsx7IY7F8xGs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-
nY6-4rfZAhVhmuAKHUbNBTw4FBDoAQgsMAE#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20jena%20reform&f=false)

------
trisimix
Cool, China’s not so bad. U.S needs to be kept on our toes.

~~~
munificent
I'm struggling to understand why we should enthused about an arms race.
Wouldn't it be better to put those resources into things that actually improve
the lives of people?

~~~
mulmen
Arms races are a type of technological competition. The Cold War was an arms
race that gave us the moon landing and everything that came with it.

We can debate if the ends justify the means but arms races do have benefits.

------
arialeks
I see this as good news, no country should rein supreme as that would most
certainly allow it to misuse it's power, instead having two competitors
guarantees, to some degree at least, that neither will abuse it's position.

~~~
eloff
In principle, yes. In reality, look at how they use their power. You don't see
the US taking territory and resources at gunpoint from Mexico and Canada, like
China in the South China Sea. You don't see parallels to the Taiwan situation.
Let's not pretend that communist China acts with the same level of integrity
in the world as the USA. Not the the US hasn't done many questionable things,
but by and large the US has invaded countries and brought them democracy and
freed their people from dictators. China would do the opposite if they could
get away with it, look at Nepal, Hong Kong.

I spent 10 years in Panama, where although many people still resent the US
invasion, chiefly over the loss of life - the country is unquestionably better
off today for it.

~~~
orijing
Are you sure about that? I live in California, which was previously Mexican
territory.

I also have friends from Texas, which was also Mexican territory.

Perhaps your point is that the US became less imperialistic since then, but
that's easy to say once it's taken what it wants.

China sees Taiwan as an integral part of the "Greater China", a still
unresolved problem from the past century's wars. It sees the South China sea
as its own backyard. Can you imagine the US response if China were sailing
military vessels provocatively close to the cost of continental US?

I'm not saying either is right. I'm pointing out that the US is not without
its hypocrisies either, and that each country has its own flaws.

~~~
eloff
That was hundreds of years ago when the world was a very different place. In a
post WWII, post UN world, the standards for behavior for nation states are
very, very different.

The point I'm trying to make is the world has largely moved beyond that, but
China still thinks it's ok to steal territory from it's neighbors.

If the situation were reversed and Chinese vessels were patrolling in
international waters in the Caribbean to dissuade the US from taking territory
from it's neighbors there, I'd be cheering them on.

That's not to say the USA doesn't do their fair share of despicable or
hypocritical things, but by and large they have been a much better steward of
power than China. I think the world will come to miss those days of American
leadership in this century.

