Chinese Capabilities – 2024 Report to Congress
Excerpted from the 2024 Annual Report to Congress, P. 151
Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China
Aviation Industry
The PRC is advancing its domestic aviation industry through two major state-owned aircraft corporations, the China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC) and the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC). AVIC designs and produces the PRC’s military aircraft, including the J-20 fifth-generation fighter, the Y-20 heavy transport, and the future H-20 flying wing stealth bomber. In February 2024, AVIC displayed its Z-10 attack helicopter for the first time outside of the PRC at the Singapore Airshow. As of February, Pakistan is the sole known export customer for the helicopter. COMAC produces large passenger aircraft and has begun to export the ARJ21 regional jet to Indonesia, in line with its efforts to expand into the international commercial airliner market. COMAC has delivered its first narrow-body C919 airliner to China Eastern Airlines but cooperation with Russia on the wide-body CR929 may be stalled because of the effects of Western sanctions on Russia. In early 2024, a model of the J-35 stealth fighter appeared on the deck of the PRC’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning—a test bed for PLA carrier capabilities. Although the J-35 is in the development and prototype phase, it could be in operation in the coming years. The PRC’s decades-long effort to improve domestic aircraft engine production is starting to produce results, with the J-10 and J-20 fighters beginning to switch to domestically produced WS-10 engines, although some Russian AL-31F engines may remain in use. As early as 2023, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group began increasing the production capacity of the J-20 as it is building a new assembly plant to prepare for the subsequent further expansion of production. The PRC’s first domestically produced high-bypass turbofan, the WS-20, has entered flight-testing on the Y-20 heavy transport aircraft and probably has begun to replace previously imported Russian engines. UAV development has proceeded rapidly with new flight tests of experimental craft, such as the Y-5U transport UAV. The PRC’s military aviation industry has continued to export UAVs abroad, including its sale of nine armed drones to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2023.
IPCC AR6 Statistics
- Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over the last 2000 years.
- Historical cumulative net CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2019 were 2400±240 GtCO2 of which more than half (58%) occurred between 1850 and 1989, and about 42% between 1990 and 2019.
- In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations (410 parts per million) were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years.
- Concentrations of methane (1866 parts per billion) and nitrous oxide (332 parts per billion) were higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
- The largest share and growth in gross greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions occurred in CO2 from fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes (CO2 – fossil fuel investment) followed by methane.
- The highest relative growth occurred in fluorinated gases (F-gases).
- Average annual GHG emissions during 2010-2019 were higher than in any previous decade on record.
- In 2019, approximately 79% of global GHG emissions came from the sectors of energy, industry, transport and buildings together, and 22% from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU).
- Emissions reductions in CO2 – FFI (fossil fuel investment) due to improvements in energy intensity of GDP and intensity of energy have been less than emissions increases from rising global activity levels in industry, supply, transport, agriculture and buildings.
- Least developed countries and Small Island Developing States have much lower per capita emissions (1.7 tCO2-eq and 4.6 tCO2-eq, respectively) than the global average (6.9 tCO2-eq), excluding CO2-LULUCF.
- The 10% of households with the highest per capita emissions contribute 34-35% of global consumption-base household GHG emissions, while the bottom 50% contribute 13-15%.
- Increasing weather and climate extreme events have exposed millions of people to acute food insecurity and reduced water security, with the largest adverse impacts observed in many locations and/or communities in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, least developed countries, Small Islands and the Arctic, and globally for Indigenous Peoples, small-scale food producers and low-income households.
- Between 2010 and 2020, human mortality from floods, droughts and storms was 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to regions with very low vulnerability.
- Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater, cryospheric, and coastal and open ocean ecosystems.
- Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes with mass mortality events recorded on land and in the ocean.
- Impacts on some ecosystems are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw.
- Climate change has reduced food security and affected water security, hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals.
- Ocean warming and ocean acidification have adversely affected food production from fisheries and shellfish aquaculture in some oceanic regions.
- Roughly half of the world’s population currently experience severe water scarcity for a t least part of the year to due to a combination of climatic and non-climatic drivers.
- Climate and weather extremes are increasingly driving displacement in Africa, Asia, North America, and Central and South America, with small island states in the Caribbean and South Pacific being disproportionately affected relative to their small population size.
- In urban areas, observed climate change has caused adverse impacts on human health, livelihoods and key infrastructure.
- Urban infrastructure including transportation, water, sanitation and energy systems has been compromised by extreme and slow-onset events.
Observed adverse impacts are concentrated among economically and socially marginalized urban residents.
The International Energy Agency reports that in 2024 energy-related CO2 emissions hit an all-time high of 37.8 Gt CO2.
Breaking the Impasse
Preface
The world has reached a critical point analogous to 1913, when the German and British Empires were locked into a race for naval supremacy. The difference between then and now is that at that time neither one had weapons with which to destroy the world. In view of the alacrity with which they eventually slaughtered each other in two consecutive wars, there is no reason to doubt that had they had access to such weapons, they would have used them. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that an all-out conventional war between the U.S. and China and/or Russia would quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange.
Today nine countries have nuclear arsenals, four of which (Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India) were not independent in 1945. In addition, the ongoing rise of India, Russia and China increasingly challenges the U.S. dollar’s hegemony as reserve currency of the world. This process, of course, has happened before. What is new is that for the first time in history China is a global contender, and no one can predict how the saga will evolve. Ultimately a few powerful men will determine its outcome. As for the rest of us, who are powerless to do anything about it, we can choose either to remain disposable spectators or to share with others our fact-based opinions and suggestions.
Bubbling Volcanoes
The rift between NATO and Russia stretches from Finland and the Baltics to Ukraine and the Black Sea, and on through the Persian Gulf on account of the outright enmity between Iran and Israel and the latter’s ally, the U.S. The Far East, possibly the most dangerous area, features China against the U.S. and its allies, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia. There the primary bone of contention is the South China Sea and Taiwan. These, then, are the critical fault lines where their tectonic interests collide.
On September 3, 2025, China held a grand military parade in Beijing commemorating the 80th anniversary of Japan’s World War II surrender and showcased some of its most advanced weaponry. Of course, the U.S. and Russia are believed to already have, or will soon acquire, equivalent systems. In any event, the Northern Hemisphere is a powder keg ready to go off at any time, deliberately or due to error, miscalculation, or accident. If it does, it will be a global terminal event.
Seemingly Irreconcilable Perspectives
The confrontation between the U.S. and China includes irreconcilable philosophical creeds. The former’s is based on the Euro-American model, legacy of the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan at the end of World War II, America’s formerly lopsided share of global manufacturing, hegemonic dollar, and de facto control of the world’s major oil reserves. In contrast, modern China’s premise is apparently based on President Xi’s four initiatives: Global Security, Global Development, Global Civilization, and Global Governance.
The Situation
The United States, currently saddled with the largest debt in history, relentless deficit spending, and a persistent trade deficit that in the aggregate risk pushing the nation into insolvency, has embraced a strategy aimed at forestalling a financial catastrophe. Some key elements include:
• Extend, for as long as possible, conditions whereby the dollar will continue to be used to settle oil transactions.
• Impose tariffs and sanctions to compel recalcitrant allies, neutrals or antagonists to submit to America’s terms.
• Control, directly or indirectly, the world’s largest oil reserves.
The fundamental problem with this approach is that a backup Plan B either does not exist, or if it does, it hasn’t been disclosed. This is critical because two catastrophic events are on the horizon: the world will at some point cease using fossil fuels to generate electricity, and interest on the accumulated debt will increase to the point where the government will have little or no room to meet its other obligations. Either one could collapse the dollar’s value and ignite runaway domestic inflation. While at first glance it would seem that China stands to gain from America’s collapse, that is in fact not the case. The U.S. is China’s biggest single-country customer, accounting for approximately 15% of China’s total exports. Though China is trying to diversify away from the U.S., it is still in its best interest to do everything possible, without compromising its core interests, to cooperate with the U.S. to prevent the complete loss of its biggest client.
Current Prognosis
It’s irrelevant who’s right or wrong. What matters is that China and the U.S. are on a collision course, and like in a game of chicken, neither one appears to be backing down. In fact, they’re both deploying more and deadlier weapons.
President Trump’s apparent strategy to impose defensive tariffs purportedly meant to rough start the manufacturing sector and create jobs that pay living wages to American human workers, not robots, is justifiable and necessary. If that is indeed his intent, he deserves the highest praise. Unfortunately, unless and until the twin deficits are radically curtailed or -better yet- eliminated, his efforts will not prevent the dollar’s fall. Furthermore, arbitrary punitive tariffs and sanctions solely for non-economic reasons, reminiscent of Emperor Caligula’s adopted personal motto of “Oderint dum metuant”, Latin for “Let them hate, provided that they fear” will only galvanize affected friends and foes into an overt or covert opposition block. In simple terms, the U.S. risks self-isolation and loss of however much is left of the goodwill it painstakingly amassed between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War. Not only is that a self-inflicted wound, but it’s also not conducive to global cooperation, an essential prerequisite for a stable and enduring peace.
Breaking the Impasse
As it happens, Europe (collectively), China and India are not self-sufficient in oil and gas. In addition, with glaciers melting at an accelerating rate almost everywhere (including the Himalayas), and many of the world’s aquifers already stressed beyond the tipping point, agricultural yields are poised to decline. That could potentially lead, among other things, to famines, wars, and mass-migrations. We’ve previously outlined a viable scheme to address these impending disasters and even suggested one way to finance it without additional taxes or confiscations; no use going over that again. What counts is that this time around President Xi has put forth in writing his vision for the future, purportedly for humanity’s benefit. But he left out one towering possibility: a long-term plan to use white and/or green hydrogen to generate most of the world’s electricity. A public letter of intent committing China to import as much as possible of it over time might prompt India to follow suit. That would almost certainly generate the required demand to encourage many nations not endowed with fossil fuel reserves to eventually become energy (hydrogen) exporters and earn revenue with which to service existing and future debts, invest in their economies, and pay for imported goods. Incidentally, nations such as the Philippines and the U.S., which run significant trade deficits with both China and India and are potentially capable of producing a vast amount of green hydrogen, would have an unprecedented opportunity to significantly reduce or even eliminate their deficits. China and India would also benefit enormously. Not only would they switch to a clean, sanctions-free fuel from a multitude of non-aligned sources, but they could also harvest its byproduct – pure water – to counteract current and future droughts and shortages. But perhaps the biggest and most treasured benefit for everyone would be a much-needed transition from confrontation to cooperation.
Fig. 4 – Cascading Turbines
It’s generally more efficient to have a single, larger generator at the bottom of the mountain than a series of smaller cascading generators. Here’s why:
- Energy Losses: Every time water flows through a generator, there are energy losses due to friction and turbulence. Having multiple generators means multiplying these losses.
- Efficiency: Larger generators tend to be more efficient at converting potential energy into electricity compared to smaller ones.
- Maintenance and Cost: Multiple smaller generators mean higher installation, maintenance and repair costs compared to a single larger unit.
- Complexity: Managing water flow and coordinating multiple generators adds complexity to the system.
However, there are some potential advantages to a cascading system in specific situations:
- Terrain: If the mountainside is very steep or has challenging terrain, a series of smaller generators might be easier to install and maintain.
- Water Flow Variation: If water flow from the reservoir fluctuates significantly, a cascading system could potentially operate some generators even with lower water levels, while the larger generator might require a certain minimum flow.
In Conclusion: While there might be specific niche scenarios where a cascading system could be beneficial, in most cases, a single, larger generator at the bottom of the mountain would be more efficient and cost-ef
Lust For Power
“Chief among the forces affecting political folly is lust for power, named by Tacitus as “the most flagrant of all the passions.” Because it can only be satisfied by power over others, government is its favorite field of exercise. Business offers a kind of power, but only to the very successful at the top, and without the dominion and titles and red carpets and motorcycle escorts of public office.” ~ Barbara Tuchman
It is one thing to endure leaders who suffer, as Winston Churchill put it, from “insatiable lust for power equaled by their incurable impotence in exercising it”, and another to silently watch from the sidelines as they pursue a flawed strategy that can only lead to a catastrophic encore.
A “foolish strategy” refers to a plan of action or approach that is ill-conceived, short-sighted, and likely to lead to negative consequences or fail in achieving its intended goals. It often disregards fundamental principles, ignores crucial information, or relies on flawed assumptions.
Foolish Strategies
A “foolish strategy” refers to a plan of action or approach that is ill-conceived, short-sighted, and likely to lead to negative consequences or fail in achieving its intended goals. It often disregards fundamental principles, ignores crucial information, or relies on flawed assumptions.
Characteristics of a foolish strategy
• Ignoring fundamental principles: A foolish strategy might neglect crucial foundational knowledge or established best practices in a given field
• Lack of foresight or planning: It often involves making impulsive decisions without considering long-term consequences.
• Overconfidence or arrogance: A foolish strategy might stem from an overestimation of one’s own abilities or a disdain for feedback and differing perspectives.
• Failure to learn from mistakes: Repeating past errors or refusing to adapt to changing circumstances are also signs of a foolish approach.
• Unrealistic or scattershot goals: A strategy with too many goals, or goals that are vague and not aligned with a coherent plan, is likely to be ineffective.
• Misaligned with resources or capabilities: A foolish strategy might propose actions that are not feasible given the available resources, skills, or organizational culture.
History is bulging at the seams with examples of such individuals, some insignificant, others who, mostly for worse, have left an indelible mark on our collective consciousness.








