Latest news with #CenterforStrategicandInternationalStudies
Mint
a day ago
- Business
- Mint
America let its military-industrial might wither. China's is booming.
Adapting to the dual challenge of China's military and its economy has been a focus of U.S. administrations for years. America is losing ground. Modern warfare is a contest of industrial might, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shown. Both sides are burning through arsenals of artillery shells, rockets and military vehicles. Automated factories now spit out drones day and night. Even an old-fashioned howitzer requires precision manufacturing. The U.S. won World War II in part by producing more of everything—from bullets to food—than its enemies. One California shipyard in 1942 assembled a supply ship in less than five days. America is no longer capable of that kind of manufacturing feat. Today, the country that can make the most of almost everything is China. Its products run the gamut from basic chemicals to advanced machinery. With tensions rising between the U.S. and China, the two countries' industrial capacity is coming into focus as a key battleground in any conflict. China's economic growth has allowed it to build a military that rivals the U.S. A single Chinese shipbuilder last year produced more commercial ships by tonnage than the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry has made since World War II, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. The scale of China's commercial shipbuilding subsidizes its production of naval vessels and, in a war, capacity could be shifted from freighters to warships. Since 2000, China has built more than twice as many naval vessels as the U.S., according to defense intelligence company Janes. China's air force and navy are closing the gap with the U.S., though many American platforms are considered more advanced than their Chinese counterparts. Naval firepower offers a prime example. China's ability to launch cruise missiles and other rockets at sea is closing a big combat gap with the U.S. Many of China's manufacturers aren't in the military sector but could easily be repurposed to arms-making or support in a war. China not only has more factories, it is also modernizing them faster, with technologies such as 5G private networks for automation. That means it can more quickly and efficiently link manufacturing equipment to designers and users, updating products at speeds that traditional manufacturing can't achieve. In Ukraine, constant feedback from front-line troops to drone makers has allowed the country to make rapid advances in robotic aircraft. That also means China can more easily accelerate production. The country has far more industrial robots too, supplementing its enormous labor advantage. Wars aren't just about military equipment. Every plane, ship and tank needs fuel, spare parts and ammunition. Their crews need food, water and medical care. Those support functions entail vast logistics networks, most of which rely on ships and China has more of the vessels needed to sustain troops. Even if the U.S. is able to expand its fleet of commercial cargo ships, it lacks sailors to staff them. By some estimates, the U.S. now has fewer than 10,000 commercial sailors—though the number is uncertain because the government stopped tracking them years ago. China has almost 200 times as many merchant mariners. China also has more of the raw materials needed for modern warfare. The country's control of the world's rare earth mines and processing plants—needed to build missiles, planes, and submarines—would allow it to more easily replenish losses in an extended conflict. Chinese companies have largely brushed off U.S. attempts to loosen their grip on the world's critical minerals. If the U.S. faced a major conflict, it would need to reorient industries and workers, as it did in the two world wars of the 20th century. China's workforce is already in position, with an army of manufacturing workers that dwarfs other nations. Write to Jon Emont at Daniel Michaels at Ming Li at and Jason French at
Mint
3 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
The risky ‘side launch' that doomed Kim Jong Un's new warship
SEOUL—A week ago, Kim Jong Un traveled to North Korea's 'City of Iron," home to a major industrial shipyard where a hulking warship awaited him. A VIP podium had been erected alongside the port for the vessel's launch. Officials waited in anticipation. But the moment of celebration turned into calamity. The 5,000-ton destroyer lost its balance as it lurched into the water, toppling over and embarrassing Kim, who seeks to modernize his Soviet-era naval fleet. Four North Korean officials have been detained over the mishap, according to state media, which called it an 'unpardonable crime." What has become clearer in the aftermath is how an unconventional choice of launch method, Kim's rushed timetable and a top-heavy warship overladen with weapons systems was a recipe for disaster, according to satellite-imagery analysis, naval experts and North Korea's official statements. 'I haven't seen a failure like this one," said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The 470-feet-long warship—Kim's second Choe Hyon-class destroyer—had been built at a port in the northeastern city of Chongjin, a major cargo hub near the Russian border. North Korea's largest steel mill sits nearby. Vessels carrying oil and wheat dot the surrounding waterways. Days before the May 21 launch, satellite imagery showed the vessel alongside the dock, resting on a sloped ramp designed to slide it side first into the water. This setup meant North Korea had chosen to attempt a risky 'side launch," as opposed to other, more common methods. The country hadn't before been observed attempting the method with other military vessels, according to 38 North, a website that analyzes North Korea. The movement requires precise calculations predicting the ship's center of gravity and the launch angle. With Kim looking on, the warship didn't descend the rails evenly. Instead, only its stern slid into the water, causing the vessel to topple over into the water with its bow remaining on the dockside, according to experts who viewed the satellite images. North Korea said the accident occurred because of 'inexperienced command and operational carelessness." Naval experts said a miscalculation of how to keep the ship balanced appears likely. Blue tarps now cover the warship, concealing from the outside world the extent of the damage. The bottom of the warship wasn't punctured in the accident, North Korea's state media reported. Pumping out seawater from the submerged part of the vessel takes several days, North Korean state media said. Getting the ship back upright should be completed by next week. Even when a side launch is successful, the ship violently bobs back and forth before coming to a standstill. This was the case for the 2013 side launch of the USS Milwaukee, a littoral combat ship, in a video from its manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The Milwaukee is also significantly smaller than the capsized North Korean vessel, at about 3,400 tons and 388-feet long. The U.S. now generally avoids side launches for large warships, since other options are safer and more stable. South Korea's military said following the North Korean accident that it avoids the method. Side launches are commonly used for cargo vessels or tankers, as they have flatter hulls and are therefore easier to balance after being dropped into the water, naval experts said. The method is risky for warships, since their hulls are narrow to maximize speed and they have bulky weapons systems mounted atop them. To North Korea, a side launch is also a less costly option and requires less advanced equipment than the common alternative, a so-called floating dock launch, in which a dock is filled with water. This approach is considered safer and more controlled than a side launch, and is how the U.S., South Korea and other military powers typically ease their big warships into water, naval experts said. It is also the method used by the Kim regime just weeks earlier at a different port, in the west coast city of Nampo, for the launching of the first Choe Hyon-class warship. Nampo's shipyard is larger and more modern. Kim was on hand for that launch, too. Standing aboard a vessel draped in North Korean flags, he smiled with his daughter as confetti fell from the sky. The North Korean leader's demands for speed also likely played a role in the accident, said Neil Watts, a former South African navy captain. 'It's a combination of lack of technical expertise and the pressure to get the ship launched in a short period of time," said Watts, a former member of the now-disbanded United Nations panel monitoring North Korean sanctions compliance. The first Choe Hyon-class warship had been built in roughly 400 days, North Korean state media said, with plans to deploy it by early next year. The second began construction about a year ago, according to satellite-imagery analysis of Chongjin port. That would be a fast turnaround for a country with North Korea's industrial limitations and inexperience, naval experts said. It typically takes Japan and South Korea about three years to build a frigate or destroyer. Europe takes three to six years and the U.S. often longer. Moreover, North Korea appeared to have affixed roughly 70 weapons systems atop the destroyer before launch, plus other arms, whereas the U.S., South Korea and others typically mount far fewer and take years to fully equip a military vessel, said Yoon Suk-joon, a retired South Korean navy captain and now senior fellow at the Korea Institute for Military Affairs. 'North Korea got too ambitious," he said. Write to Dasl Yoon at
CNBC
3 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
Xi wants to boost China's advance manufacturing prowess — and Trump may not like it
Forget the factory lines for socks, sneakers and T-shirts. U.S. President Donald Trump wants to boost the domestic production of high-tech products, and not apparel or footwear, he told reporters Sunday. However, China is doubling down on its efforts to bolster advanced manufacturing, which could put both countries on a collision course. Just last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed his plans for manufacturing-led growth during a visit to the northern province of Henan, pressing ahead with a strategy long criticized by the U.S. and major trade partners for deepening global trade imbalances. Xi told workers at a state-owned ball-bearing factory that self-reliance in advanced manufacturing is "the right path" for China and the "backbone" of its economy, according to an official statement. The manufacturing sector contributed to over 25% of China's GDP in 2023, according to the World Bank. While China's push to expand its manufacturing capabilities is part of its goal to achieve self-reliance, especially in high-tech sectors, this could run counter to the Trump administration's core demands in the ongoing trade talks, experts warn. Trump wants China to address the trade imbalances and has slammed Beijing for providing state subsidies to Chinese companies, thereby distorting competition. However, there is "little scope" for China to budge and scale back its manufacturing-led strategy, which is closely tied to Beijing's drive for self-reliance, said Allan von Mehren, China economist at Danske Bank. "I'm not too optimistic on a big deal between the U.S. and China," Mehren said, anticipating U.S. tariff rates on Chinese goods to hold at around 40%. The "Made in China 2025" ten-year plan, released in 2015 — two years after Xi came into power — aimed to transform China into a leading high-end manufacturer, from electric vehicles and commercial aircraft to semiconductors and robots. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in a 2022 report that China's spending in funding favored industries amounted to at least 1.73% of its GDP in 2019, significantly higher than the U.S., which spent 0.39% of its GDP on industrial support in 2019. These include direct grants and tax benefits to its prized sectors, with nearly all large, listed Chinese firms receiving some form of state subsidies, according to economic consulting firm Rhodium Group. Despite the support, China missed several key targets from its ten-year plan, including those for aerospace and high-end robots, and fostered unhealthy industrial competition that worsened global trade tensions, according to the European Chamber of Commerce in China. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in an interview with CNBC earlier this month, sounded optimistic about reaching a middle ground with China: "We need more manufacturing, they need more consumption, so there is a chance to rebalance together, we'll see if that's possible." But it remains unclear whether Bessent will make that a priority during the ongoing trade negotiation with Beijing as part of the 90-day trade truce. The U.S. trade deficit with China is unlikely to "narrow substantially," Jing Wang, China economist at Nomura, and the team said in a note. They expect Beijing to reduce its reliance on U.S. imports and for American manufacturers to take years to shift manufacturing onshore and find suitable alternatives. "As the U.S. is the most buoyant consumer market worldwide, a sudden flood of cheaper Chinese goods to the rest of the world will inevitably spark global backlash," Wang added. China's continued industrial push and ramped-up exports are stirring anxiety in non-U.S. markets and inviting fresh trade barriers. As the specter of U.S. tariffs loomed at the start of the year, Chinese toy manufacturers in Yiwu city, a manufacturing hub, rushed to redesign Santa Claus figurines with rounder faces and blue eyes in hopes of appealing more to European consumers. But their search for new markets to compensate for the opportunities lost in the U.S. is stirring anxiety in Europe, said Nick Marro, principal economist at Economist Intelligence Unit. "By the end of this year, it's not just U.S.-China tensions that we need to watch, it's going to increasingly be EU-China tensions ... And it's no longer just going to be about electric vehicles [but] across a whole wide range of different products," Marro added. Top finance officials from G7 nations, led by the U.S., convened last week to discuss steps to address overcapacity and unfair trade practices — "with a clear aim of curbing China's export saturation," said Wang Dan, China director at Eurasia Group. These moves could still be interpreted in Beijing as a "deliberate provocation" and prompt it to use other ways to create headaches for foreign businesses eyeing the Chinese market. "Delays in licensing, exclusion from local incentive schemes, or tighter oversight may follow if tensions rise in other areas of the bilateral relationship," Eurasia's Wang said. China's grip on low-end manufacturing could also undercut manufacturing in developing nations, according to Leah Fahy, China economist at Capital Economics. For example, India's share of global exports in furniture, toys and games has stagnated in recent years, while garment exports declined. China widened its lead for these goods in the same period. India, Vietnam and Indonesia have imposed various protectionist measures to provide some relief for domestic producers from intense price competition, particularly in sectors facing overcapacity, cheap imports. That said, some argue that excess Chinese capacity could offer a silver lining for inflation-weary economies by easing price pressures. "China is going to be exporting deflation to the rest of the world," said Marro, noting that for markets with limited manufacturing bases, like Australia, cheap Chinese imports could ease the cost-of-living crisis and help bring down inflationary pressure. Economists at home and abroad have called on Beijing to shift to a consumption-led model and reduce reliance on manufacturing, a strategy widely blamed for deepening deflationary pressure in the economy. Chinese customs data in April offered a fresh reminder of the imbalance between China's productive capacity and its domestic demand. Its trade surplus hit a record high of $992.2 billion, driven by persistent imbalances with major partners including the U.S., the European Union and Southeast Asia. The Chinese leadership has stepped up its support, aiming to divert U.S.-bound goods to sell to domestic consumers. But convincing consumers, wary of income and job prospects, to spend again has proven to be a challenging task. China's retail sales growth slowed to 5.1% in April, missing economists' expectations, with automobile sales lagging significantly, growing just 0.7% from a year earlier, compared with a 5.5% jump in March. Beijing's shift toward a more consumption-led model will see a "very slow reform momentum," said Louise Loo, lead economist at Oxford Economics, forecasting consumption to account for half of China's economy only by mid-century, well below the 70% shares seen in the U.S. However, Xi's focus on manufacturing is not entirely unjustified, as Washington is likely to maintain a firm grip, restricting Beijing's access to more advanced technology. "The Trump administration, by treating China as the most potent near-peer adversary, would make the yard bigger and fence higher," Nomura's Wang said. The "small yard, high fence" was a strategy adopted by the Biden administration aimed at safeguarding a narrow set of critical technologies (small yard) with tough and extensive restrictions (high fence), while maintaining normal economic exchange in other areas. "Strategic decoupling remains inevitable on national security concerns," Wang added.
Axios
3 days ago
- Business
- Axios
Beltway bloat could doom Trump's Golden Dome
Intercepting missiles — hitting a bullet with a bullet — is difficult. Overcoming bureaucracy may be even harder. The big picture: President Trump's Golden Dome, a continent's worth of 24/7 overhead defense, will be a jigsaw puzzle of ideas, authorities, personalities, contractors, procurements, production lines, users, fixers, technological leaps and diplomacy. Realizing even the most basic form in three years, as the president and Pentagon promised, will require intense coordination. Getting it done fast means resisting Washington's greatest vice: new offices, task forces, branches, blue-chip studies and advisers. Driving the news: Axios consulted a half-dozen analysts, businesspeople and former defense officials and tuned into some timely think-tank discussions to get a temperature check. Simply put, Golden Dome is polarizing. (And that's without asking what the Chinese or Russians think of it.) The latest: "I think there's been a lot of discussion about the capability ... and there's been little discussion about the organization and the authorities to get stuff done," Tom Karako, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview. "We don't need to re-create the wheel." State of play: Trump this month gave the world its best look yet at Golden (née Iron) Dome during an Oval Office address. He was accompanied by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and a handful of lawmakers. The president tapped Gen. Michael Guetlein, the vice chief of space operations, as his lead. Folks Axios spoke with applauded that choice. Trump, who mentioned "super technology," also slapped on a $175 billion price tag. That's low, considering the costs of space-based interceptors at the heart of the concept. He also described Alaska as a key contributor to the vision. A Boeing-led team recently finished building 20 new silos for the homeland missile defense system at Fort Greely, Defense News reported. What they're saying: "There was a rollout, but there was almost no information," Laura Grego, a senior research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Axios. "I think the way most people are starting to use 'Golden Dome' is synonymous with space-based missile defense. But the executive order covered every missile from every adverse area every time," she said. "I can hardly imagine potential adversaries just sitting still, not developing the ways to counter such a system." Yes, but: The defense industry is raring to go. Jordan Blashek, a managing partner at America's Frontier Fund, told Axios "breakthrough technologies have now made something like Golden Dome possible, fulfilling the Reagan administration's vision" for the Strategic Defense Initiative. Trump cited Reagan several times in his Oval Office remarks. Case in point: Apex, a satellite bus maker, is "heavily investing in internal research and development funding for this, as are our partners," CEO Ian Cinnamon said in an inteview. (The company recently announced a $200 million Series C.) Cinnamon foresees different methods for different threats: intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, fractional orbital bombardment systems. "There are so many pieces ... and they all need to talk," he said. "They all need to listen. They all need to be able to do that within milliseconds."
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
North Korea slams Trump's ‘Golden Dome' plan: ‘Height of self-righteousness'
North Korea on Tuesday slammed President Trump for his plans to create the Golden Dome missile defense system. Officials in Pyongyang dubbed the effort 'the height of self-righteousness, arrogance, high-handed and arbitrary practice' read a memorandum issued by the Institute for American Studies, according to state media. The country now joins Russia and China in their critique of the United States' outer space defense system, projected by Trump to cost $175 billion. The Golden Dome model is expected to mirror Israel's Iron Dome, intercepting scheduled strikes from near and far in the outer space realm. North Korea's leaders have skirted the idea that the project's development stems from the threat of war but seeks to provoke a nuclear war instead. 'Under the pretext of defending its mainland, it has been hell-bent on building a missile defense system targeting the independent sovereign states including the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]. Clear is the reason why the U.S. is scheming to freeze the so-called 'threat' from sovereign states as a pretext for modernizing its missile defense system, persistently spinning out the time-worn sophism just like a guilty party filing the suit first,' the memorandum read. 'It is to preemptively attain military superiority in an all-round way by justifying its hegemony-oriented moves for space arms buildup and accelerating outer space militarization behind the screen of 'mainland defence' and to launch the military strike at its enemy states at its will by relying on it,' it added. The Trump administration said the system would take three years to build, culminating at the end of the president's second term. However, experts have doubted its completion in the short timeline, suggesting the Golden Dome's development would need significant extensions and bipartisan support. 'We will not have space-based interceptors in three years,' Melanie Marlowe, a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies's Missile Defense Project, previously told The Hill. 'That is a very challenging and expensive problem to solve. But if we start moving quickly, we can make good progress on getting missiles, radars, and satellite constellations in that time frame,' she added. In response to the upscaled U.S. military effort, North Korea has vowed to ramp up its security with strengthened defense measures. 'The global security environment, which is becoming uncertain due to the U.S. undisguised moves for space militarization, proves that the security of the state and the region can be reliably guaranteed only by the symmetry of the matchless power capable of firmly bringing not only the current challenges but also the coming challenges under its control,' the memorandum stressed, according to state media. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
