CIMSEC, the Center for International Maritime Security, publishes analysis on naval strategy, navies, and maritime disputes, especially involving China.
HN commenters link it for context on Chinese fishing fleets, South China Sea claims, and naval incidents, treating it as a source on maritime affairs.
The whole focus on Chinese fishing in foreign EEZs is a red herring (excuse the pun) compared to the real goal behind subsidizing a large deep water fishing fleet.
http://cimsec.org/evolution-of-the-fleet-a-closer-look-at-the-chinese-fishing-vessels-off-the-galapagos/46116
Most Chinese fishing takes place right outside the EEZ in the high seas, and after the 2017 fiasco with a Chinese ship caught in the Galapagos EEZ they've been very careful not to actually enter its 200nm limit. The linked article has some great maps of AIS data that clearly show this. There may still be scattered instances of ships with AIS transponders turned off being sent into the EEZ or transfers from non-Chinese flagged vessels to Chinese ships, but according to the article "In most cases, what is detectable may not be illegal, and care is clearly being taken by the Chinese fleet to give the appearance of legal compliance with national and international laws."
The real bombshell is this here: "A task force report published in 2010 by Chinese government, industry, and academics argued that countries that have a longer history of using the ocean have more power in determining how resources are distributed and thus receive a larger share of those resources: occupying brings about rights and interests"
China is subsidizing a large deep water fleet so they become the largest fishers on the high seas outside of the 200nm EEZs and so can write the future rules for high seas fishing. As stated in the…
I'm not sure where GP's 25% comes from. But there have been various assessments that China intends to "reunify" with Taiwan by 2030. [1] Xi Xinping has also instructed the PLA to be prepared to invade by 2027. [2]
If you then ask yourself whether China would rather invade during the Trump administration (with its tendencies towards isolationism and "deal making") or roll the dice on a subsequent U.S. administration, you might find yourself thinking that the odds actually seem considerably higher than 25% that this could happen in the next four years.
To the extent that this narrative comes via the U.S. intelligence/defense community, one has to assume that it may biased towards exaggerating the threat. I for one hope that is the case, since I do not want to see a U.S.-China conflict any time soon. At the same time, I unfortunately don't think it's likely to be completely baseless.
[1] https://media.defense.gov/2023/Apr/24/2003205865/-1/-1/1/07-AMONSON%20&%20EGLI_FEATURE%20IWD.PDF
[2] See, e.g., https://cimsec.org/the-maritime-convoys-of-2027-supporting-taiwan-in-contested-seas/; https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4547637-china-potential-taiwan-invasion-2027-us-admiral-warns/
They never publicly said either way because that would have been a diplomatic nightmare. But it's clear the game only makes sense if red team was Iran.
> In 2002 the Pentagon ran an expensive wargame designed to simulate what a war with Iran would be like—and the U.S. lost heavily.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/
> That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-a-marine-general-led-a-fictional-iran-against-the-us-military-and-won/
> Learning Curve: Iranian Asymmetrical Warfare and Millennium Challenge 2002
https://cimsec.org/learning-curve-iranian-asymmetrical-warfare-millennium-challenge-2002-2/
Iraq's military was set up completely different than what red team did, as Iraq tried to have a traditional, symmetric military. This is because, as a minority controlled nation, they were attracted to the added legitimacy it gave their regime to not have a focus on assymetric warfare. Tanks in columns make the state look stronger to the populace, even if you get trounced in an actual battle.
>and US and their trade partners enjoy safe trade routes
Bingo, and that's from the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard actively patrolling GLOBAL waters.
Maritime piracy alone is a considerable economic threat, yes in the 21st century. An estimated 2 BILLION dollars a year is spent on naval operations just off the coast of Somalia (PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/Piracy-Docs/the-economic-cost-of-piracy.pdf?sfvrsn=0 )
In this article from 2014 ( https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/134829/annual-global-cost-of-piracy-measured-in-billions/ ), again just Somalia, "The OEF estimates the total cost of piracy off the coast of Somalia at US$7–US$12 billion in 2010; US$6.6–US$6.9 billion in 2011 42 and US$5.7–US$6.1 billion in 2012".
Between 2008 and 2012 alone JUST the U.S. Navy responded to 1139 piracy incidents https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/antipiracy/index.html that's an average of 0.78 incidents a day.
It's not just the U.S. patrolling either. China has launched at least 20 anti-piracy floatillas since 2009 http://cimsec.org/chinas-anti-piracy-flotillas-by-the-numbers/16117
This is fairly on the dot, at least in regards with how the Indian [0][1], French [2], and Chinese [3] are approaching SMRs.
SMRs - like most other technology - are dual use.
[0] - https://www.stimson.org/2021/prospects-for-small-modular-reactors-in-india/
[1] - https://maritime-executive.com/article/india-to-explore-supplying-small-reactors-for-nuclear-powered-shipping
[2] - https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defense/pa-ng-une-propulsion-electrique-nucleaire
[3] - https://cimsec.org/neither-fish-nor-fowl-chinas-development-of-a-nuclear-battery-aip-submarine/
The US clearly are an outlier when it comes to military spending, and the European NATO memebrs did downsize their armies since the end of the cold war. Looking at this (https://cimsec.org/nato-defense-spending-past-present-part-1/) shows a less clear cut picture so. Was the US the top military NATO spender? Yes. Was it also the biggest economic power? Yes. Did the other nations significantly under spend? No.