Balance of Power: China and the United States

On today’s episode, Sarah and Steve talk with Klon Kitchen, a senior fellow at the ...

By and

On today’s episode, Sarah and Steve talk with Klon Kitchen, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and veteran of the intelligence community to discuss the latest news out of China. What do China’s hypersonic missile tests mean for the balance of power between the United States and China? Are we at the start of a new “cold war?” Kitchen answers these questions and more.

Show Notes:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (33)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. David D

    I'm not super concerned about China (or other powers) getting ahead in hypersonics. In most cases, other countries deploying weapon systems more advanced than what the US operates has much more to do with our advanced defensive capabilities.

    Take, for example, the fact that the Russian, Indian, and Chinese navies have fielded sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship missiles for years, while the US has not. The reason to develop those weapons is because the US navy has excellent anti-missile defenses. The Russians and Chinese don't have ship-based defenses nearly that sophisticated, so the US navy has no reason to build hypersonic sea-skimming missiles.

    The same goes for these nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicles, they are purpose-built to counter our missile defense systems. The Russians and Chinese have nothing approaching our missile defense systems, so why would we need hypersonic glide vehicle when a normal reentry vehicle will do the job? We should develop them to keep technical parity and to reap the benefits of tangential technologies, but the pressures driving China to develop these weapons are simply not present for the US.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Robert Knudson

    i was late to listen to this episode, but would be very interested in Klon's reaction to "The Bureau". I am an ignoramus but a big span of spy dramas and that show (French show, available on AMC+) is the best one I have ever seen. It got more sensational later in the run but seemed relatively authentic.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Christopher Hall

    I am surprised that I haven’t heard a discussion regarding the timing of China’s missile launch as a discrete response to the collision or grounding of the USS Connecticut.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Octávio Lima

    I like these podcasts and kinds of analysis but I am always surprised by this conclusion, which seems to have become universal, that creating commerce with China did not make it freer. In the face of the evidence that seems to be simply wrong. There is a reason the communist party of China has become so paranoid recently. There is a reason why they have been cracking down on the "private" sector since the Hu Jintao days. There is a reason why Xi Jinping has increased the repression of religion and the persecution of Christians and Muslims in the country. There have been many reports in the foreign press, not so much in the United States, about significant protests in China about things as pollution in the big cities, restrictions of internal migration, formed relocations. The Australian press and other English news reports out of Asia have made great advances in reporting those. Are those protests enough to unravel the regime? No, certainly not yet, and hence the reason why China is clamping down so soon, but they do indicate that China was indeed getting freer, with a significant middle class that may not be asking for political freedom, but was certainly asking for more economic freedom. I would, once, like to see a discussion from one of these analysts that took that into account. It makes little sense for a country that was not getting freer to have this increase in the level of paranoia and repression by the Chinese Communist Party.

    Collapse
  5. Teddy41

    The correct answer to the closing question is George Smiley and the book to read is "Tinker,Tailor, Soldier, Spy." If you have to choose a movie version, I'd go with Alec Guinness rather than Gary Oldman.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    This was a great interview. I’d like to point out something nobody seems to be saying about the difference between supersonic and hypersonic and why ICBMs are faster than hypersonic glide vehicles and yet follow a predictable trajectory.

    Supersonic = > Mach 1
    Hypersonic = > Mach 5

    Just as there are distinct differences in the physics (fluid flow etc.) above Mach 1, there are new ones above Mach 5.

    An ICBM is a rocket. It travels out of the atmosphere and uses rocket propulsion. A hypersonic glide vehicle uses air breathing propulsion (scramjet engine). This is much more difficult to achieve from a technical standpoint.

    Collapse
  7. Deanjens

    My steel-manning of the Psaki comment is that she meant it as a non sequitur -- "In completely different contexts than this one, we welcome competition, but not in a context like this where it could lead to conflict."

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      I actually think you’re spot on. You should be the press sec’s press sec!!

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    A small thing here:

    We need to stop asking if we are staring a new Cold War.

    We are in one and have been for years. Just because one side has not readily woken up to it, does not mean the competition militarily and technologically has not been going on.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      Ya, this is where I break heavily from Reason and the libertarian dogma that we just need to rely on free markets or something. China cut off the world from N95 masks during the pandemic and US manufacturers stepped up. But once the demand waned, we were once again flooded with cheaper Chinese masks. US manufacturers were left holding the bag. The libertarians will say that they shouldn't get subsidies or protectionist policies because that distorts the market, seemingly oblivious to the fact that China has no such concern.

      https://www.npr.org/2021/06/25/1009858893/u-s-companies-shifted-to-make-n95-respirators-during-covid-now-theyre-struggling

      Honestly, after years of reading Reason and having a pretty good grasp on their positions on everything, I still have NO IDEA what their solution is to China.

      We are in a cold war. We should start acting like it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Correct.

        I am a free market capitalist too, but even that ends when morality is thrown to the dogs.

        Nixon sadly, should have never opened China. Evil with money just becomes more evil.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    What a wonderful guest! I hope Mr. Kitchen will return, soon and often.

    I admit that I'm still confused, though. Have the Chinese built a better mousetrap that doesn't kill the mouse any deader? No one mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I'm presuming — someone correct me, please, if I missed this part! — that we're not about to reprise the Thirteen Days in October scenario with Slow Joe at the helm.

    We're definitely not.

    Right?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      Hey Bill, here’s our response:

      China launches one, we launch three:

      https://mobile.twitter.com/NASA_Wallops/status/1451591024736968735?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1451591024736968735%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-716953017976764393.ampproject.net%2F2110011758000%2Fframe.html

      The Cold War is on.

      Collapse
    2. James D

      The US's overwhelming quantitative nuclear advantage vis-a-vis China precludes any possibility of a Chinese nuclear strike. It's simply not in the cards right now.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        David Chen

        Both countries have more than enough nukes to turn the other into glass. At a certain point, quantity has no benefit.

        Collapse
        1. James D

          I don't disagree; however, the reason China is enlarging their strategic nuclear force is because they do not feel that their current force is adequate enough to completely preclude the possibility of the US threatening them in a one-sided fashion during a conventional conflict.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            David Chen

            If news comes out tomorrow that China has twice as many nukes as previously though, I dont think most people would care. The reason this supersonic missile is alarming is because it potentially means the ability to strike without risk of interception. As for why they are enlarging their arsenal, I wonder if its because they see the entire western world as a potential enemy.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      At this moment no, not exactly.

      Currently, hypersonic missiles and flight is still new, even though it has been pursued (and achieved in some cases) for years now.

      The problem here though, isn’t a Cuban missile crisis where someone puts missiles and arms on a island or country near Florida.

      It’s that the missiles can be fired from mainland China and hit the US, and instead of taking an hour/hours to reach California, it will reach us in 15 minutes.

      I do have confidence though, that our military does have counter measures regardless. Especially in EMP technology to wipe off the energy grid of China if necessary, and of course China is prepping EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) against us.

      I know that we focus on the tech of China gaining on us, but the reality is our military still is ahead fairly far and there is tech hidden from the public that none of us realize.

      For example, no one was really talking about drone warfare in the 90’s during the Gulf War. Then a decade later in Afghanistan, all of a sudden we were using drones en mass. And warfare changed accordingly and everyone wants our drones or are playing catch up.

      Something is being prepped now, if history of our arms forces is any guide.

      Collapse
  10. M M (Lee)

    The guest's comment about Xi's strategy was interesting. Will his increase in authoritarian power (at the expense of economic growth) merely be temporary?

    I've read that the main reason for the rise of England as an economic power was due to the rise in competing economic interests in Parliament. Due to these competing interests, the government was less able to decree laws that benefited powerful interest groups at the expense of innovation in the nation's economy.

    The quintessential example was when England passed a law requiring everyone to wear only wool clothes, as a means to protect the wool industry against US and Indian cotton. Eventually England's textile industry apparently overcame the interests of the wool industry to overturn this law. This lead to England becoming a world leader in textiles.

    Similarly England became the first to develop the steam engine because German union workers destroyed the steam engine (literally) that had been invented first in Germany, with the support of local leaders (an example of Germany's lack of competing economic interests stifling innovation).

    That leads back to China. If Xi eventually relaxes his authoritarian rules, competing economic interests will simply return, only to be quashed again by Xi as means to maintain political control. China presumably will spend a few decades vacillating between more political control/less economic growth and less political control/more economic growth.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      If you look at the media thats produced in China, both in terms of movies and 'journalism' - the analogy I'm most reminded of is the rise of Nazi Germany. The nationalism is thick and overbearing, as if they are conditioning their people for the inevitable conflict. I dont know how receptive the average Chinese person is to that kind of stuff, but when I visited a relative in late 2015, I asked him who he wanted as president. He said Trump because Trump will screw up the US so badly that China will get free rein.

      Think about that.

      As an American, which country do you hate so much that you want them to have a terrible leader? North Korea? Russia? Hell, even China? No, we want peace and stability, which means competent sane leaders for everyone. We only want a country to have a buffoon if we intend to go to war with them.

      Are 'free markets' going to ultimately prevail? What if China has spies in all the major US tech companies? China may have cracked down on Alibaba and such, but those companies are not working on technological superiority. On the other hand, the government is investing heavily in technologies that have massive potential military and commercial advantages. We cant even figure out how to invest in roads and bridges without bogging down the process with a bigger boondoggle.

      https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/11/01/why-china-is-winning-the-war-for-high-tech/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

      Collapse
Load More