Naval Power in the Pacific: China vs. The United States || Peter Zeihan
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2024
- There's been much discussion lately surrounding the changing power balances in the Pacific - specifically the dynamics between the US Navy and the Chinese navy.
Full Newsletter: mailchi.mp/zeihan/naval-power...
Where to find more?
Subscribe to the Newsletter: bit.ly/3NyQu4l
Subscribe to the TH-cam Channel: bit.ly/3Ny9UXb
Listen to the Podcast: spoti.fi/3iJyNEe
Zeihan on Geopolitics website: zeihan.com/
Purchase the Global Outlook Webinar Here: bit.ly/3xBvRxd
Where to find me on Social Media?
Twitter: bit.ly/3E1E95D
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3zJAW8b
Instagram: bit.ly/3IW2mgp
Facebook: bit.ly/3ZIAjHk
#china #usa #navy #war
When are you gonna make a video on GTA6 ?
Lol you kidding? Why would you expect him to?
Because he is gangster!!!
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.
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?
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
@@user-hw5pd1mv9b 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
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
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 !
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.
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
Informative as always thanks Peter.
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.
Thank you, Mr. Peter. You are THE logical & sane voice that everyone needs to hear.
Thank you Peter for all your interesting and industrious videos. It's also good you are maintaining your fitness levels.
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.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💩
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.
Every word of this makes so much sense on so many levels. I love your content.
That last bit was very well stated.
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.
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!
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 usual your analysis is great. Always a pleasure to listen to your videos.
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 😂😂😂
That last line was gangster. "...now you have to deal with it." Love it!
Love the ending in particular!
Anti china is won't
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
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.
Wonderful commentary. Bless u brother Peter
best audio yet thanks
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
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
I really like the last portion of this video. Reallity.
Thanks
I can happily report that the refreshing combo of outdoor walking and geopolitical update is a winner. GG Peter Z.
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
Thanks for your even handed assessments of situations and always giving credit where credit is due. Cheers good sir:)
Legendary outro, your the man Pete!
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.
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.
Loved the commentary today on the status of our Navy!
Junk .
Awesome ending summary!
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?
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
Knowledge and experience makes a good employee
The scenery in this video is exquisite! There's really nothing like surrounding ourselves with nature.
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.
Strange that all US-China war games simulations conducted by US suggest exactly opposite what Peter said
The US loses all of its wargames. Go read about it, the wargames are 90% of the time gamed to make it nearly impossible for the US forces or Blue forces to win. Your units learn more from hard moments and failure than pomp. Imagine all the US war games they just steam rolled everyone? What would be learn from a command level down to the most basic infantryman other than hubris?
Great stuff, Peter
Awesome clip!
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)
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.
Another one for the Zeihan!
Another rambling
USA good china bad
Same schedule
Script
Thankyou bro
The Chinese just launched a new AI quantum hypersonic chopstick. Be careful!
don't eat rice.
Better yet; it's made from reclaimed tofu!
Scram noodle systems will defend themselves.
Powered by gutter oil!
They can do that . Maddie go to the trainer
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.
Thank you!!
Peter always reinforces my pride in the US military. May God Bless America!
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.
Double thumbs up, especially that last statement....👍🏻👍🏻
Very informative thanks
Nicely put.👍
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.
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!
Thanks for this information Peter. I live in Denver, where are you hiking?
Excellent video and the last line is perfect 😂
Finally some good news. Thank you Peter!
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.
BAM!!!! Drop the mic!!!
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...
Last week a salesperson came in pushing some great deals on an awesome product. We asked several questions, sizes, lead times, warrantees.. then finished with "where is it made? "
"Well, our headquarters is Spokane!.."
"Where is it made, though?"
"Several Countries..I can get back to you with it"
Peter please do a video on the civil war in Burma.
He only cares about stuff that affects the US.
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.
Just love your insight.
Ramblings
Beautiful!
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
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 😂
Agreed. The first order of business for the military and AI is image interpretation, ie, targeting weapons intelligently and autonomously. Otherwise there is always going to be a need to communicate long distance with the weapons and thus that is the weak link in the system.
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.
Interesting anecdote regarding satellite destruction! This was a good one, Peter. Thanks.
The US submarine fleet has had TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) weapon capabilities for over 30 years.
Our global missions just never required their need/use once the cold war ended. US submarines can also carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
The post-cold war era required the need for our submarines to carry and shoot TLAMs (Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles). Switching to carrying and shooting TASMs from fast-attack submarines is only a matter of load-out from one missile to another.
Of course, we can't forget our love for torpedoes!
"There are only two types of ships in the world.....submarines and targets!"
No it hasn't. TASM is a long-retired system.
Roger that and thanks. I stand corrected. I was not aware that they were completely withdrawn from service. I guess with the cold war being over and there no longer being a true need, it would have been terribly expensive to keep up with and maintain those builds and stay on top of technology in the program.
@@SSNPingjockey targeting problems were one reason. Another was simple lack of suitable targets. Who had a serious navy with large surface combatants to deal with? Russia had the old Soviet surface combatants, but Russia is hardly a serious navy in that sphere.
So now we have China actually starting to get reasonable numbers of surface ships of large size and being an enemy there's a driver to have such a capability again.
Harpoons are basically SAM fodder at this point. NSM, JSM, and JASSM’s will do the most damage against the Chinese navy.
@@SSNPingjockeyfirst stop israel .. then talk
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.
4 more years! I like having a president who is somewhat competent international diplomacy-wise and who lets the bureaucracy do their work
Doubtful that the USA will exist in four more years. China already beat you at your own game.
I'd be interested to hear your take on the book Red Star Over the Pacific.
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.
I really like that last bit... ha ha... Peter swore at the end, but he uses the best approach which is to not swear almost all the time, and then only use, like, the F-word for great emphasis. I love it. I also like to use that approach, although I'm no Peter Zeihan!
Cheers
Love your work. the first gulf war started in jan91 ended in Feb 91
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.
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 💪
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.
Amazing!
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.
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.
Peter Z. is a great middle school social studies teacher. 🎉
That mic drop at the end. 😂
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
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.
Glad to hear that. Cheers from (still existing) Germany!
Wow what good info
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.
Oh thank God, you're getting a hike in before it snows!! Still waiting on the "Where in the World is Peter" book. Another good briefing!!
Yeah a travel guide by Peter would be great.
Hello Peter
I really enjoy ur content. And I just ordered your book. Could u explain what the Defense agreement's that both Sweden and Finland has made with the U.S.A. why is it needed if both countries soon is in NATO?
sometimes being old is an advantage. I may not be able to work on a roof but I do know a thing or two as to what needs to be done and how to do it and my mouth still works.