Meanwhile in China

[BamaATL 16,593]

41 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Chinese dam repair...

 

I must have had only one bloodshot eye open in hydrology class when they covered dumping the physical truck into a void.  

[The Ace of Aces 5,175]

A fun way to do a shit job, at least. 

[Parliament 14,239]

I mean, if the dam was on the verge of a complete failure, it’s something you might do as a last ditch.

[UT_OB1 2,217]

4 hours ago, BamaATL said:

I must have had only one bloodshot eye open in hydrology class when they covered dumping the physical truck into a void.  

Is it possible it’s too dangerous to back the truck up close enough to dump with it the ground beneath it washing out / collapsing?

[BamaATL 16,593]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

I mean, if the dam was on the verge of a complete failure, it’s something you might do as a last ditch.

In all honesty, they are probably fucked either way, so I get the desperation.  The only quick band aid I can think of is a shit load of boulders, followed by a metric shit ton of hydraulic cement, along with draining the reservoir/lake to levels where you can get a caisson to start a real repair.  That brings us to other sunny part of this, once an earthen damn fails, I'm not aware of anyone really fixing it, it may well be more cost effective to just start over; assuming you are hell bent on having it.  

It's a shit deal for everyone, and we have a lot of earthen dams here that are going to be problematic for us as well.  

[BamaATL 16,593]

8 minutes ago, UT_OB1 said:

Is it possible it’s too dangerous to back the truck up close enough to dump with it the ground beneath it washing out / collapsing?

That's fair, to be honest I doubt any part of that is safe for really anyone to be on, let alone heavy equipment.  That having been said, if your whole town is about to be washed away, I'm guessing you take your chances.  

[Laxtonto 12,078]

Dropping the trucks (or other heavy obstacles the rushing water can't easily move/wash away ) gives the rocks/sand/etc something to stay against while the water is rushing past. So fill the crack with debris and then add sand/rock/gravel in front to more quickly fill the breach.

 

I would have thought boulders or steel girders or something, but if all you got is old trucks and are in a hurry, it would work in a pinch.

[RPM 26,315]

Should have backed them in. Sand would have stayed in the bed.

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

China raises it's retirement age.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd9v48yn8ro

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[SydneyCarton 48,054]

21 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

China raises it's retirement age.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd9v48yn8ro

Why would they raise retirement age when like 30% of people under 30 are unemployed?

[Chad Fuck 17,659]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/opinion/china-us-military-south-china-sea.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

[B00M 6,413]

20 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/opinion/china-us-military-south-china-sea.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

Here’s the article…

Quote

Over the past 15 years, China has expanded its once-minimal military presence in the South China Sea into a significant one.

Beijing has laid claim to nearly all of the strategic waterway, a vital shipping lifeline for the global economy that is rich in energy and fishery resources. China has used nonmilitary assets such as its Coast Guard, fishing vessels and maritime militia to bully its neighbors, blockade their ships and build Chinese military bases on disputed islands.

America is partly to blame. It has condemned China’s behavior, but, eager to avoid escalation, has consistently refrained from standing up militarily, which has only further emboldened Beijing. A new approach is needed. The United States must take real action to strengthen alliances and confront China before it eventually takes control of this hugely important body of water without firing a shot.

Like any unchallenged bully, China has become increasingly aggressive. Last month, Chinese Coast Guard personnel attacked a Philippine supply vessel with axes and other crude weapons — Manila says a Filipino sailor and several others were injured — in one of the worst acts of violence between China and its rivals in the South China Sea in years. The incident took place near the Sierra Madre, a rusting World War II-era ship that the Philippines had beached 25 years ago at Second Thomas Shoal to assert its territorial claim. The shoal lies about 120 miles off the Philippine island of Palawan and is well within the nation’s exclusive economic zone.

China also had past territorial confrontations in the South China Sea or other waters on its periphery with Vietnam, the United States, Australia, Japan and Taiwan. In 2012, China took controlof the disputed Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, and run-ins between China and the Philippines have grown in number and intensity in recent years. In late May, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines warned that any Filipino deaths caused by a “willful act” by a foreign force in the South China Sea would be “very close to what we define as an act of war.”

Concern has grown in Manila, Beijing and Washington that tensions in the South China Sea — perhaps even more than Taiwan — could trigger a conflict with China.

These fears are overblown. I study Chinese military strength and strategy, and I’m convinced that if the United States were to take a more assertive stance in the South China Sea, Beijing would be likely to back down to avoid a war it knows it would lose.

China may enjoy military advantages in a potential conflict with Taiwan, which is just off the mainland. But its position is less secure in the South China Sea. Over the past 15 years China has built more than two dozen military outposts on disputed islands. Among the largest — at Mischief Reef, Fiery Cross Reef and Subi Reef — there are air strips, fighter jets, radar systems, and laser and jamming equipment. But so far China lacks sufficient antiaircraft and anti-ship missile systems in the region to deny U.S. forces the ability to operate, which leaves the Chinese bases vulnerable to air and naval bombardment.

And the South China Sea is vast — about half the size of the continental United States. The Sierra Madre is around 800 miles from the Chinese mainland. A conflict there would require the People’s Liberation Army to mount joint air and naval resupply operations and to refuel its fighters across great distances — something it has never done and is not equipped for.

If the Philippines is in the fight, treaty obligations would trigger the participation of the United States, which would have access to nine Philippine air and naval bases, greatly enhancing its already considerable ability to project military power in the region. China does have “carrier-killer” ballistic missiles based on its mainland. But U.S. carriers could still send fighters into parts of the South China Sea from outside the range of those missiles. In conjunction with land-based fighters operating from the Philippines, the United States could gain crucial air superiority over a Chinese surface fleet.

China has spent huge sums on its aircraft carrier program and has two in operation, with two more in development. But those still cannot rival the number or capabilities of nuclear-powered U.S. carriers, which are larger, support more aircraft and need to refuel only about every 20 years. China’s carriers need to be refueled about every six days. And learning how to effectively conduct carrier operations takes time; the Chinese have only just begun.

It’s telling that China has been careful to use Coast Guard and civilian vessels in its encounters with neighbors rather than hard military assets — the latter would signal an escalation that Beijing is not yet willing to embark on.

But there is another very good reason China is unlikely to risk war with the United States: It doesn’t need to. Its brinkmanship and use of nonmilitary assets to intimidate its Asian neighbors has been more than enough to take China from almost no military presence in the South China Sea in the late 2000s to a significant force today.

America should call China’s bluff and press its military advantage. This could include escorting Philippine resupply vessels headed to Second Thomas Shoal or even conducting some supply missions itself or with allies like Australia and Japan. This would send China the powerful message that its intimidation will no longer go unchallenged, while allowing Manila to remain visibly in the lead but part of a more enduring coalition. To save face for China, Washington could present operations like these as exercises or training to minimize pressure on Beijing to respond.

Manila is a strategically vital player in America’s regional competition with China. The United States and the Philippines should strengthen their alliance to allow for more U.S. bases in the Philippines and a stronger U.S. commitment to help defend against Chinese incursions into Philippine waters. Closer relations could also make it easier for the United States to resupply Taiwan from Philippine bases during a conflict with China and open the door for enhanced military cooperation with other South China Sea nations, whose fear of an unrestrained Beijing may be deterring them from taking that step. If China determines that its provocations are likely to draw in the United States, it might begin to moderate its behavior.

Of course, anything is possible — Beijing may respond with a full-on military escalation, a daunting prospect that should not be taken lightly. But that risk is low for a Chinese military whose own doctrine is to avoid any war in which victory is not ensured.

Neither U.S. option — standing up to China or backing down — is attractive. But unless the United States asserts itself, China will continue chipping away with its tactics of bluster and intimidation until its military presence in the South China Sea becomes so dominant that it no longer fears war.

The United States can re-establish a favorable balance of power, but it must act now.

 

 

Edited July 25 by B00M

[Orange&White 5,522]

Quote

Concern has grown in Manila, Beijing and Washington that tensions in the South China Sea — perhaps even more than Taiwan — could trigger a conflict with China.

These fears are overblown. I study Chinese military strength and strategy, and I’m convinced that if the United States were to take a more assertive stance in the South China Sea, Beijing would be likely to back down to avoid a war it knows it would lose.

Ok, OK. As long as YOU study it and think it is overblown, we should be good to go. I'm sure we don't have anyone working on this issue in the Pentagon or CIA.

 

That is a good opinion piece and thanks for posting it, but that one section made me laugh a little bit.

Edited July 25 by Orange&White

[KYHorn 17,013]

A useful overview of the current state of China's economy, where it is headed, and the issues associated with China's approach from The Dispatch:

The Economy Xi Wants

Spoiler

A market in Shanghai, China. (Photo by Nuno Alberto via Unsplash.)

China’s economic woes have been the subject of many a headline over the last few years, and the bad vibes appear to be reflected in the country’s online sentiment, with censors and state media trying to stifle discussions about a new era of Chinese economic decline affectionately referred to as a “garbage time of history.”

Signs of the country’s struggles continue to abound, but Beijing is doubling down on “Chinese-style modernization” policies that some economists argue will worsen the distortions already plaguing the world’s second-largest economy as trade tensions with the U.S. and other developed economies remain elevated.

After China eased its “zero-COVID” lockdown policies in late 2022, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hoped the country’s economy would come roaring back to pre-pandemic growth levels that had once been a feature of modern Chinese markets—China’s economy grew at an average annual rate of 9.5 percent between 1979 and 2018, according to World Bank data. But the economy is still sputtering a year and a half later, dragged down by a flagging real estate sector, overproduction, and weak consumer spending.

New data this summer did little to assuage fears about the state of China’s economy. Gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.7 percent in the second quarter of 2024, according to data released in July by China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the numbers from which are best digested with several grains of salt. While most developed economies would be thrilled with such a growth rate, the numbers came in below the expected growth of 5.1 percent. The Chinese government has set a target of 5 percent annual GDP growth, but many economists now see that growth as out of reach for 2024.

But those numbers may be even more disappointing in reality, perhaps a full percentage point or more below the reported numbers. China’s National Bureau of Statistics has a less-than-sterling record on other economic data: The agency suspended reporting on the youth unemployment rate after it reached a record high of 21.3 percent in June 2023. Instead, the agency adjusted its criteria to “optimize” the numbers and began releasing rosier reports in January of this year.

Among the most worrying sectors is real estate, which has experienced a steep decline over the last three years as giant property developers defaulted and collapsed. “The basic story over the past few years has been that China was an investment-led economy with an overwhelming proportion of that investment concentrated in the property market, in property construction, and the infrastructure sector,” Logan Wright—director of China markets research at Rhodium Group, an economic analysis firm—told TMD. “Those two sectors have declined very sharply.” New home sales by the top 100 Chinese developers fell 26.8 percent year-over-year in August, according to preliminary data released last week. New home prices in China fell 4.9 percent in July compared to a year earlier—the fastest drop in nine years—and used-home prices fell 7.9 percent.

Property investment in China dropped by 10 percent in the first six months of 2024, and foreign investment overall has also declined. Last month, the government restricted previously daily data on net investment in Chinese stocks from foreign funds to quarterly reporting. The move came in the wake of billions of dollars in foreign investment leaving Chinese stocks this summer. For only the second time since 1990—the first being November—foreign direct investment in China turned negative in the second quarter of 2024, both an indicator of and contributor to the weakening of the Chinese economy.

What has been the CCP’s answer to the economic headwinds? Largely staying the course. In July, the party convened its Third Plenum of the Central Committee—a major economic policy meeting once held every five years. The CCP reiterated its focus on industrial policy and boosting manufacturing and investments in technological innovation, referred to as “high-quality development.” What was absent were any detailed plans for turning the real estate market around or boosting consumer spending. The government announced a $70 billion lending program in May for local governments to buy up unsold properties and convert them to affordable housing units, which has faced a slow rollout that hasn’t seemed to make a dent in the housing market decline.

The overall policy orientation continues China’s state-driven economic development focused on manufacturing and production, with some emphasis on new tech sectors—efforts that seem to ignore prevailing economic wisdom that holds that robust consumer spending is the way to drive sustainable growth. Household spending among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries—a collection of states with market economies—accounts for about 60 percent of GDP, but it’s only around 40 percent of China’s GDP.

Yet a focus on consumer spending, either through fiscal stimulus or broader economic reforms to expand private sector growth and incomes, doesn’t appear to be the goal of the CCP’s economic policy. “If you want to be like an OECD economy, then yes, you’d have to shrink the state sector, let private incomes rise, allow the private sector to expand into more areas, certainly including finance, if you want that kind of economy,” Derek Scissors—a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and chief economist at the China Beige Book, a data-collection firm tracking the Chinese economy—told TMD. “But they don’t.”

“If you want the economy that they want, make sure we can control everything so there aren’t any destabilizing events,” he added, noting that tight state control of the economy prevented the housing glut from sparking a financial crisis, but will prolong the pain of climbing out of the bubble.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has expressed an aversion to any large fiscal policies to stimulate consumer spending and has previously criticized social spending programs as “welfarism” that breeds laziness. “As the party sees it, consumption is an individualistic distraction that threatens to divert resources away from China’s core economic strength: its industrial base,” Zongyuan Zoe Liu, a fellow in China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote last month.

The CCP’s commitment to manufacturing and production as the engine of economic activity necessarily led to excess capacity that has put the Chinese economy on a collision course with Western countries looking to protect nascent domestic industry in green energy and national security-sensitive sectors. “In prioritizing industrial output, China’s economic planners assume that Chinese producers will always be able to offload excess supply in the global market and reap cash from foreign sales,” Liu argued. “In practice, however, they have created vast overinvestment in production across sectors in which the domestic market is already saturated and foreign governments are wary of Chinese supply chain dominance.”

But the current economic hole likely can’t be filled by manufacturing. “[The property sector] was around 25 to 27 percent of GDP at its peak,” Wright told TMD. “As it has declined, nothing has taken its place.” He noted that China’s development in the green energy sector—namely batteries, electric vehicles, and solar panels—hasn’t come close to real estate’s previous share of the economy.

“China can’t maintain the same pace of economic growth post-pandemic after the property market collapsed,” he added. “The math does not add up at this point.”

Potentially complicating the economic picture, President Joe Biden announced a slew of new and increased tariffs in May on imports from China of electric vehicles (EVs), semiconductors, solar panels, critical minerals, and medical goods—although the administration has delayed the actual rollout which was originally set for August 1. Europe has followed suit with the European Commission imposing provisional tariffs on Chinese EVs. Our friendly northern neighbors announced tariffs late last month on Chinese EVs and steel and aluminum imports. Beyond tariffs, the Biden administration is also reportedly considering additional subsidization of the critical mineral industry in the form of a guaranteed price floor to help stabilize the financing of domestic projects.

It remains to be seen how effective these measures will be at combating cheaper Chinese exports, let alone successfully seeding domestic industry. Our own Scott Lincicome is skeptical to say the least, arguing that such industrial policies could drive up prices, create new gluts, and actually make domestic industry less competitive in the long run.

But policy trends in both China and the West seem to remain set on a more confrontational trajectory. For the CCP, the success of its own economic strategy will likely be measured more by its geopolitical effects than GDP growth, Scissors argued. “They’re trying to export their way to foreign dependence,” he said. “They’re not trying to export their way to growth.”

 

[InkaUtexas 25,858]

Great Leap Forward and mass starvation time? A shift hard to the Mao line would mess them up. First thing is remove their control of Rare Earth Minerals. Like yesterday.

[Parliament 14,239]

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/panda-dogs-china-zoo-chow-chow-shanwei-b2616011.html
 

Edited September 22 by Parliament

[Nivek 16,917]

That is hysterical.

[Parliament 14,239]

Kinda cute though.

[Bevo&Pevo 5,120]

Tennis balls probably gave it away.  It is funny though. 

[atomheartbevo 89,625]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/26/politics/chinese-nuclear-powered-submarine-sank/index.html

Quote

China’s newest nuclear-powered submarine sank pierside in the spring and the Chinese Navy tried to conceal the loss, according to two US defense officials. The attack submarine was the first of its new Zhou-class line of vessels, the official said, under construction at a shipyard near the city of Wuhan. The Zhou-class submarines have a distinctive X-shaped stern, designed to improve maneuverability underwater.

A satellite image from March 10, taken by Maxar Technologies, shows the Zhou-class sub, with its signature x-shape tail, docked at the port. Additional Maxar imagery reviewed by CNN from later in June shows that the sub did not return to the pier. “It’s not surprising that the PLA Navy would try to conceal the fact that their new first-in-class nuclear-powered attack submarine sank pierside,” said the senior US defense official.

Quote

The unusual activity at the shipyard was first noticed by Tom Shugart, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security who routinely studies satellite imagery of Chinese shipyards. “I’ve never seen a bunch of cranes clustered around (one spot),” Shugart told CNN. “If you go back and look at historical imagery, you can see one crane, but not a bunch clustered there.” In looking at older satellite images of the same shipyard, Shugart also noticed the submarine’s larger size and its distinctive tail, indicating a new class of submarine.

“Usually, those submarines, after they get launched, they’re there at the shipyard for several months in outfitting. And it wasn’t there anymore,” Shugart said.

Quote

CNN has asked China’s embassy in Washington, DC, for comment.

 

[bolverk 29,652]

33 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/26/politics/chinese-nuclear-powered-submarine-sank/index.html

 

 

[Chad Fuck 17,659]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

[Brisketexan 105,058]

17 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

A sub went underwater.  I mean, isn't that what they're SUPPOSED to do?  Looks like a roaring success to me!

[CHIEF 5,075]

They could just put a couple of guys in scuba gear, have them fire it up and get it on plane. Pull the plugs and it will drain right out.

CHIEF

[BamaATL 16,593]

On a positive note, they didn't appear to be diving towards the Titanic, so they got that going for them.  

[atomheartbevo 89,625]

5 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

On a positive note, they didn't appear to be diving towards the Titanic, so they got that going for them.  

Not for a lack of trying, but they messed up and made it landlocked.

 

[UT_OB1 2,217]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/26/politics/chinese-nuclear-powered-submarine-sank/index.html

 

Surly slipping 

[InkaUtexas 25,858]

6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Not for a lack of trying, but they messed up and made it landlocked.

 

This has to be the dumbest tourist trap idea in the world. This is worse than the crap the Emirates do. well we don't have any culture so to speak, so lets build a park replicating all the cool shit everyone else built and get them to come and see it. I always wondered how many Parisians would go to Dubai to see a knock off Eiffel Tower.

[bolverk 29,652]

35 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

This has to be the dumbest tourist trap idea in the world. This is worse than the crap the Emirates do. well we don't have any culture so to speak, so lets build a park replicating all the cool shit everyone else built and get them to come and see it. I always wondered how many Parisians would go to Dubai to see a knock off Eiffel Tower.

The thing is: we've got one in Vegas.

[InkaUtexas 25,858]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

The thing is: we've got one in Vegas.

Yeah, and I would never go there to see it.

[bolverk 29,652]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yeah, and I would never go there to see it.

Me neither, but a lot of people do. How about I interest you in Paris, Texas?

Spoiler

I'm not serious about it -- just giving you a hard time. 

[InkaUtexas 25,858]

16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Me neither, but a lot of people do. How about I interest you in Paris, Texas?

  Hide contents

I'm not serious about it -- just giving you a hard time. 

If you are buying the bbq I will meet you in Paris, Texas.

[0xdeadbeef 1,645]

1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

This has to be the dumbest tourist trap idea in the world. This is worse than the crap the Emirates do. well we don't have any culture so to speak, so lets build a park replicating all the cool shit everyone else built and get them to come and see it. I always wondered how many Parisians would go to Dubai to see a knock off Eiffel Tower.

Just think of the marketing spin. You get to go on the Titanic and this time they can guarantee it won't sink.  

 

 

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,625]

8 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Just think of the marketing spin. You get to go on the Titanic and this time they can guarantee it won't sink.  

[InkaUtexas 25,858]

6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

No shit. It is China. That river could flood, take out a damn down river and we all know what that means.

[crash_davis 23,098]

They should've used a ratchet strap.

[BamaATL 16,593]

11 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

This has to be the dumbest tourist trap idea in the world. This is worse than the crap the Emirates do. well we don't have any culture so to speak, so lets build a park replicating all the cool shit everyone else built and get them to come and see it. I always wondered how many Parisians would go to Dubai to see a knock off Eiffel Tower.

This isn't even the close to the dumbest thing they've done  They built a replica of Paris, in the middle of bumfuck China.  

[InkaUtexas 25,858]

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

This isn't even the close to the dumbest thing they've done  They built a replica of Paris, in the middle of bumfuck China.  

I might say the Cultural Revolution was also pretty dumb. And Mao's wonderful Agriculture Reform concepts.

[Parliament 14,239]

54 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I might say the Cultural Revolution was also pretty dumb. And Mao's wonderful Agriculture Reform concepts.

Boxer Rebellion.  They thought if they were REALLY good at the martial arts they could dodge bullets.  Proved to not be true unfortunately.