OT: China's new carrier

[Raellus]

To get us back on topic, two things bear keeping in mind.

First, the U.S. is capable of projecting military power throughout the globe but they are becoming less and less capable of paying for the capability to do so. We can barely afford (I would contend that we can't afford) the two "low intensity conflicts" we're currently neck deep in.

The Chinese may not have a true blue water navy like that of the U.S., but they don't really need one. Logistically speaking, the Chinese, in most places in Asia- Taiwan specifically- would be essentially operating with interior lines of supply, whereas the United Space would be have to supply its naval forces over much greater distances. To do so is not cheap.

Look at a Jane's Warship Recognition guide from about 10 years ago and then look at the most up-to-date edition. China's navy is growing in size and capability every year. They can afford to close the "naval gap" with the United States. We can't afford to keep the distance. Like it or not, the Chinese military is slowly but surely catching up to those of the West. And, quantity has a quality all its own. Add to that the fact that any conceivable future war between China and the U.S. will most likely be fought in their backyard and I can't really understand all the jingoistic self-congratulation that is flying about here. It's a painful reality to face but that doesn't make it any less real. The Eagle is slowly landing and the Dragon is slowly rising.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

To get us back on topic, two things bear keeping in mind.

First, the U.S. is capable of projecting military power throughout the globe but they are becoming less and less capable of paying for the capability to do so. We can barely afford (I would contend that we can't afford) the two "low intensity conflicts" we're currently neck deep in.

The Chinese may not have a true blue water navy like that of the U.S., but they don't really need one. Logistically speaking, the Chinese, in most places in Asia- Taiwan specifically- would be essentially operating with interior lines of supply, whereas the United Space would be have to supply its naval forces over much greater distances. To do so is not cheap.

Look at a Jane's Warship Recognition guide from about 10 years ago and then look at the most up-to-date edition. China's navy is growing in size and capability every year. They can afford to close the "missile gap" with the U.S. We can't afford to keep the distance. Like it or not, the Chinese military is slowly but surely catching up to those in the West. And, quantity has a quality all its own. Add to that the fact that any conceivable future war between China and the U.S. will most likely be fought in their backyard and I can't really understand all the jingoistic self-congratulations that are flying about here. It's a painful reality to face but that doesn't make it any less real. The Eagle is slowly landing and the Dragon is slowly rising.

America actually spends a higher part its GDP on defence than any of the other main powers in the world at the moment, so in these testing economic times the strain is beginning to show.

$US Billion
698. USA (4.8%)
119. China (2.1%)
061. France (2.5%)
059. Britain (2.7%)
058. Russia (4.0%)
054. Japan (1.0%)
047. Germany (1.4%)
045. Saudi Arabia (11.2%)
041. India (2.8%)
037. Italy (1.8%)
033. Brazil (1.6%)
027. South Korea (2.8%)

But America also polices the world; fights two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, basing air, land and naval forces in Germany, Britain, South Korea, Japan and elswhere to guarantee the security of Europe and Asia, funds a blue fleet navy that has a battle tonnage larger than the next 13 navies combined, has a marine corps roughly the same size as the air and ground forces of a major Western European country, and maintains a strategic nuclear deterent many times greater than its needs to be. Is it any wonder that America is finding it hard to pay for all this.

If I was Obama I'd tell the Europeans and Asian allies, particularly Germany and Japan to go and pay for their own defence, and contribute more to the security of the world. If America cuts its defence spending to the same level as Britain (who defence spending is higher than average), it would trim the defence budget by nearly $US 350 billion, which would still be three times the official Chinese defence budget (I'd love to know what the real unofficial Chinese defence budget is tho).

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by RN7

But America also polices the world; fights two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, basing air, land and naval forces in Germany, Britain, South Korea, Japan and elswhere to guarantee the security of Europe and Asia, funds a blue fleet navy that has a battle tonnage larger than the next 13 navies combined, has a marine corps roughly the same size as the air and ground forces of a major Western European country, and maintains a strategic nuclear deterent many times greater than its needs to be. Is it any wonder that America is finding it hard to pay for all this.

America polices the world? This statement is just alittle bit jingoistic.

For a start the Germans are actualy quite pissed at other nations being based in their country now that there is no soviet threat. Unified Germany can look after herself. The US bases in Germany are NOT there to guarantee European security, they are there to provide America with the ability to supply and project military force, for insance Afghanistan. The Britis are already reducing our military in Germany (the RAF pulled out years ago). The japanese have been protesting the American military presence on their territory for some time now.

The British don't actualy care to be honest and the defense cuts mean that the British military will be used as a supporting force in future conflicts rather than a leading element. We are currently putting together a joint Anglo/French force which is considered to be the first steps for an EU military.
It can be argued that South Korea need the US presence to keep those North korean lunatics in check.

As for policing the world, when you look at the UN peacekeeping missions you'll see allot more nations involved in police actions, especialy Europe.

America spends so much money on defence because America STILL sees itself as the country that represents all that is good and great about Western democracy, capitalism and culture and STILL sees the rest of the world as little Americans just waiting to be rescued from their regimes. Afghanistan and Iraq are failures in this philosophy.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

America polices the world? This statement is just alittle bit jingoistic.

It happens to be true. Whenever crap happens somewhere, the first nation that people look towards to shoulder the burden of committing troops, materiel, and/or immense amounts of money to make the problem go away is the US. Or do you need to be reminded of the Balkans in the 90s, right in the EU's back yard, where no one could be bothered to take the initiative? Twice.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

For a start the Germans are actualy quite pissed at other nations being based in their country now that there is no soviet threat. Unified Germany can look after herself.

We're all sure that it can. Which is why it's so irritating to the other NATO member nations that Germany hasn't done much to honor its NATO commitments recently.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The japanese have been protesting the American military presence on their territory for some time now.

That's mischaracterizing the nature of the protests. What a minority of the people desire is for the bases on Okinawa (not mainland Japan) to be moved someplace less disruptive, noise-wise and aesthetically. The Japanese government does not want the US to leave, nor do most of the citizens. The Japanese want the warm fuzzy feeling they get from having a lot of troops close at hand to protect them that are not bound by their pacifist constitution. They also like the amount of money those bases pump into their local economies. When the Philippines had the US close its bases there, the economic losses in the areas where the bases were was quite damaging. Something that they failed to consider in their rush to kick the Americans out. The Japanese government isn't as short-sighted.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

As for policing the world, when you look at the UN peacekeeping missions you'll see allot more nations involved in police actions, especialy Europe.

Most of those UN so-called peacekeeping missions involve troops that are rarely willing to fire their weapons to protect anyone. Not because the troops are cowards, but because the UN leadership makes ROE that are worse than useless. The UN is a bad joke.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

America polices the world? This statement is just alittle bit jingoistic.

For a start the Germans are actualy quite pissed at other nations being based in their country now that there is no soviet threat. Unified Germany can look after herself. The US bases in Germany are NOT there to guarantee European security, they are there to provide America with the ability to supply and project military force, for insance Afghanistan. The Britis are already reducing our military in Germany (the RAF pulled out years ago). The japanese have been protesting the American military presence on their territory for some time now.

The British don't actualy care to be honest and the defense cuts mean that the British military will be used as a supporting force in future conflicts rather than a leading element. We are currently putting together a joint Anglo/French force which is considered to be the first steps for an EU military.
It can be argued that South Korea need the US presence to keep those North korean lunatics in check.

As for policing the world, when you look at the UN peacekeeping missions you'll see allot more nations involved in police actions, especialy Europe.

America spends so much money on defence because America STILL sees itself as the country that represents all that is good and great about Western democracy, capitalism and culture and STILL sees the rest of the world as little Americans just waiting to be rescued from their regimes. Afghanistan and Iraq are failures in this philosophy.

So when a rogue state or dictator invades or threaten a neighbouring country, or starts causing trouble by funding terrorism, disrupting shipping, or stoking insurection outside of its border, who deters it? China? an Anglo/French force?

I can remember the Germans and others complaining about US forces based in their country when the Red Army was breeding down their necks. But sure the US should pull its forces out of Europe and Japan, and let Europe and Japan pay for their own defence. I'm sure the Germans and Japanese will be protesting about the taxes being raised or services been cut to support it, and when the Japanese military can't provide a large enough deterent to stop China from increasing its nuclear arsenal, or deter North Korea from developing missiles which can hit every city in Japan, or over-running South Korea etc, I suppose the Japanese will be asking where are the Americans.

UN peacekeepers are sent into countries were wars have already started, but do they stop them from happening in the first place. Also I think you will find that Britain is one of the major opponents of the creation of a EU military force, because there are always squabbles about who's in charge, countries have different agendas, and its tends to exclude the Americans who can sort out problems quicker than anyone else.

[dragoon500ly]

The world is a changing, and the U.S. needs to change along with it.

NATO has changed from a defensive alliance to an alliance in search of some kind of purpose. And in spite of the spin placed on it by various politicans, I really can't see why NATO is in Afghanistan, last time I checked, the Afghans were neither in the north nor on the Atlantic.

Like many Americans, I supported the war in Afghanistan, at least in the early years, after all it was directed towards al-Quida and the Taliban. I have never been happy with any of the excuses offered for invading Iraq. Other than a vague feeling that George W just wanted to finish off what his daddy couldn't do. And for the (mis)conduct of Cheney and Rumsfield....both of them should have been dropped, naked, into Iraq and let them show us how to get'er done!

The real failure of U.S. foreign policy has been its continued support for regimes that don't have the best intrests of the U.S. at heart. Why should we pump billions in foreign aid to every pissant country that turns right around and slams the U.S. in the UN? Or even worse, provides support to the very terrorists that attack the U.S.? Don't get me wrong, providing aid in the wake of a natural disaster is one thing....providing aid that is channeled straight to al-Quida?

The U.S., like all too many nations, has problems that needs to be fixed at home. There should be no homeless in the greatest republic. Our education system should be the envy of the world, health care should be available to all and at reasonable prices. Our factories should be producing products sold around the world. People should realize that there is no better friend nor a more deadly foe than the U.S.

We, as a people, have lost our focus, our pride in what it means to be an American. And we are paying for that today.

The days of the last super power are indeed, numbered.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The U.S., like all too many nations, has problems that needs to be fixed at home. There should be no homeless in the greatest republic. Our education system should be the envy of the world, health care should be available to all and at reasonable prices. Our factories should be producing products sold around the world.

I pretty much agree with everything you said in your post. But I have to comment on the quoted portion above. As long as the US treats healthcare as a for-profit enterprise, it will never be affordable. And it will eventually cause the entire economy to implode. As for US factories, what factories? Most of them are now in other countries. As long as there are no laws barring US companies from relocating factories to where labor is cheaper, the problem will only continue to worsen, and more and more Americans will lose their jobs. And not just factories, but services too. My last job as a programmer was outsourced to India back in '02.

[dragoon500ly]

Isn't that my point?

We need to fix healthcare, nobody argues, the only question is how and while I will admit that perhaps the shine does shine through Obama's pants....his healthcare plan is, at best, poorly thought out and poorly implantmented and yes, I'm being chartiable!

The U.S. doesn't need to be outsourcing its factories....John Deere, to name just one, finally moved its corporate headquarters to a certain island nation with favorable tax laws....the last of its major factories moved south of the border....and to add insult to injury, they managed to negotiate major tax cuts from both fed and state governments, not to mention a nice contract to supply the fed government. My point is that if the U.S. is not good enough for your company to produce its product here...then there should be ZERO tax cuts for your company...and as for you getting a nice federal contract...err, well, not just no but HELL NO!

Instead of giving a certain country that we know is providing aid and comfort to certain terrorist organizations...to the tune of over 30 BILLION dollars....that tap should be turned off and the money used to fund education, pay off the debt...things that benefit America.

Why should Americans lay down their lives, spend their country into debt in support of regimes that are more than willing to stab us in the back? Or stand firmly with both hands outstretched to take American aid, and then walk their tails into the UN and damn the U.S. as imperialist, war-mongering pigs? Let's take care of ourselves, our allies, our friends....and those who have proven themselves to be our enemies...do without our aid.

[ShadoWarrior]

Right on!

[95th Rifleman]

While for different reasons, i agree with your statement dragoon500ly

[Webstral]

I read something interesting the other day that sheds some new light on the carrier:

"Moreover, since the white barbarians came by ship, the traditiopnal Chinese defensive strategy was completely reversed. The sea now took the place of the steppe. China's frontier was no longer on the Great Wall or at the Jade Gate in Kansu, but at Canton and Shanghai. Age-old conceptions had to be reversed accordingly" (Fairbank, 1972, p. 142).

The Chinese may be practicing nothing more than what the West Germans called "forward defense" back in the day. The further out you push your defensive lines, the more ground you can give up during a fighting withdrawal.

Fairbank, John K. (1972). The United States and China (3rd Ed). Harvard Univeristy Press: Massachusetts.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I read something interesting the other day that sheds some new light on the carrier:

"Moreover, since the white barbarians came by ship, the traditiopnal Chinese defensive strategy was completely reversed. The sea now took the place of the steppe. China's frontier was no longer on the Great Wall or at the Jade Gate in Kansu, but at Canton and Shanghai. Age-old conceptions had to be reversed accordingly" (Fairbank, 1972, p. 142).

The Chinese may be practicing nothing more than what the West Germans called "forward defense" back in the day. The further out you push your defensive lines, the more ground you can give up during a fighting withdrawal.

Fairbank, John K. (1972). The United States and China (3rd Ed). Harvard Univeristy Press: Massachusetts.

I think the Germans and the Japanese had the same idea in WW2, but they just called it Empire and Lebensraum.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

I think the Germans and the Japanese had the same idea in WW2, but they just called it Empire and Lebensraum.

I know that sort of thing is fun to write, but demonizing the Chinese a priori serves no good purpose. By doing so create a lens through which events are interpreted to fit an operating premise; i.e., the Chinese are up to no good. They may in fact be up to no good. Stampeding to that conclusion hastens conflict and makes the avoidable inevitable.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I know that sort of thing is fun to write, but demonizing the Chinese a priori serves no good purpose. By doing so create a lens through which events are interpreted to fit an operating premise; i.e., the Chinese are up to no good. They may in fact be up to no good. Stampeding to that conclusion hastens conflict and makes the avoidable inevitable.

Well if they still consider Westerners to be "white barbarians" as you quoted, then you would have to wonder what their motives are.

[Webstral]

Cultural bias does not equal wars of aggression or any of the crimes of which Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty. Don't get me wrong: the Chinese ain't fluffy bunnies. They are hard people with an agenda. Nonetheless, it's useful to understand where they are coming from in interpreting their actions.

I'm guilty of not giving sufficient context to my quoted material. This passage describes the situation in the 1800's, when Europeans started making serious inroads into China's economy. I used it in a current context because the Chinese remember their history. One could argue that the economic explosion in China is a direct result of the hard lessons learned by China at the hands of the West. Wars are won by powers that have the right combination of wealth, technology, and manpower. China is determined not to be victimized again, and China wants her place in the sun.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Wars are won by powers that have the right combination of wealth, technology, and manpower.

And, often, ruthlessness.

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't think that China poses a military threat to most of the countries in the world right now. Maybe in 10-15 years when oil supplies have gotten a lot shorter, it will get "interesting." But right now, the biggest threat from China is economic. They are constantly manipulating the worth of the yuan (I think that's the name of their currency), giving it an artificially high or low value depending upon what's better for them at the moment. They undermine countries' economies by selling them cheap goods and keeping their manufacturing costs artificially low so that factories in the receiving countries close or have high operating costs and correspondingly high prices for their goods.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Cultural bias does not equal wars of aggression or any of the crimes of which Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty. Don't get me wrong: the Chinese ain't fluffy bunnies. They are hard people with an agenda. Nonetheless, it's useful to understand where they are coming from in interpreting their actions.

Tibet, Xinjiang!

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'm guilty of not giving sufficient context to my quoted material. This passage describes the situation in the 1800's, when Europeans started making serious inroads into China's economy. I used it in a current context because the Chinese remember their history. One could argue that the economic explosion in China is a direct result of the hard lessons learned by China at the hands of the West. Wars are won by powers that have the right combination of wealth, technology, and manpower. China is determined not to be victimized again, and China wants her place in the sun.

The funny thing about Chinese perception of aggression from the West is that the nations that have historicaly harmed them the worst were other Asian people, ie the Japanese and the Mongols. America who has been the greatest of all Western powers for some time has in fact been China's greatest ally.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

The funny thing about Chinese perception of aggression from the West is that the nations that have historicaly harmed them the worst were other Asian people, ie the Japanese and the Mongols. America who has been the greatest of all Western powers for some time has in fact been China's greatest ally.

I guess. But more recently than the Japanese or Mongols have fought China, we had that iddy biddy disagreement we call the Korean War, and that never actually ended. I know that didn't involve western troops on Chinese soil but the Chinese clearly regard North Korea as being vital as a buffer-state.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I don't think that China poses a military threat to most of the countries in the world right now. Maybe in 10-15 years when oil supplies have gotten a lot shorter, it will get "interesting." But right now, the biggest threat from China is economic. They are constantly manipulating the worth of the yuan (I think that's the name of their currency), giving it an artificially high or low value depending upon what's better for them at the moment. They undermine countries' economies by selling them cheap goods and keeping their manufacturing costs artificially low so that factories in the receiving countries close or have high operating costs and correspondingly high prices for their goods.

Absolutely the Chinese government is totally manipulating market forces to its own advantage, and its eroding America's manufacturing base and putting Americans out of work. Many economists also believe that China is cooking its books as regards to keeping up the international impression that its economy is booming when the reality is far different.

Until recently Chinese economic expansion was dependent on cheap exports to America. But with the global recession the Chinese government decided to switch its focus to developing a consumer based economy even though China is not a consumer based economy in the sense found in the developed world due to its very low standard of living. A massive build up of infrastructure and housing development, skyscrapers, shopping malls etc but most Chinese cant afford to live or shop in them. It has however kept Chinese factory orders running artificialy very high which gives the impression that their economy is expanding at a higher rate than it actually is. Something has to give as even a centraly planned economy such as China cant hide and keep this up given China's current massive exposure to the international economic system.

I suspect that China is bracing itself for the next US presidential race as the economy is going to be by far the biggest issue. I'd say that China is hoping that Obama will remain president as he seem reluctant to tackle this problem. A new president would cause real problems for China if tarrifs or taxes were imposed on Chinese imports to America, particulary on imports produced in China by American companies which would basicaly devastate Chinese export based industries.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

I guess. But more recently than the Japanese or Mongols have fought China, we had that iddy biddy disagreement we call the Korean War, and that never actually ended. I know that didn't involve western troops on Chinese soil but the Chinese clearly regard North Korea as being vital as a buffer-state.

But was the Korean War realy a Chinese war against America or was it a Russian backed Communist proxy war against America?

If the Chinese nationalists had won the Chinese Civil War a few years earlier would they have realy went to war with America and other western forces in the Korean Peninsula. Shortly after the Korean war ended (finished actually fighting) the Chinese Communists started fighting their Russian allies along their borders in the late 1950's and early 1960's, before breaking off political relations and leading to a Tri-Polar Cold War between the US, the USSR and China, which then reverted on its head when Nixon visited Communist China in 1972.

[Legbreaker]

Considering the Chinese had a few hundred thousand troops on the ground in Korea and the Russians little more than a few "advisors"....

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

Tibet, Xinjiang!

Be specific about what that means. I'm well aware of Chinese aggression in these areas. However, you have chosen to compare Communist China with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Therefore, you must draw direct parallels for your comparison to stand; otherwise, choose a different comparison.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Be specific about what that means. I'm well aware of Chinese aggression in these areas. However, you have chosen to compare Communist China with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Therefore, you must draw direct parallels for your comparison to stand; otherwise, choose a different comparison.

not really part of the debate but my best guess on that would be the arms buildup of the 30's being a good parallel. no real clue now or then why all them guns are needed. china is sponsering a majority of armed combatants in proxy wars against the US.(hence new manufacture chinese type 56 rifles in afghanistan) which is similar to german involvement in spain in the 30's. and of course the financial manuvering.

[manunancy]

Originally Posted by RN7

The funny thing about Chinese perception of aggression from the West is that the nations that have historicaly harmed them the worst were other Asian people, ie the Japanese and the Mongols. America who has been the greatest of all Western powers for some time has in fact been China's greatest ally.

things like the opium wars and the following crubling of the chines monarchy into the warlord"s mess of the first half of the 20th century are recent events that have done very little to endear 'the west' to China. The mongols may have been invaders, but they kept China more or less in one part.

The halfhearthed support during the japanese invasion of that period along with the later support of the thoroughly rotten and widely unpopular nationalists under Chang Kai Chek didn't help either.

Compared with china's several thousand years of history, it's still fresh memories.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Considering the Chinese had a few hundred thousand troops on the ground in Korea and the Russians little more than a few "advisors"....

I think the Chinese had about one million troops in Korea duing the entire war as opposed to about 25,000 Russian advisors. But most of the modern tanks, artillery, technical support and replacement equipment used by the Communist side were supplied by the Russians, and most combat pilots were also Russian, hense the word proxy war.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Be specific about what that means. I'm well aware of Chinese aggression in these areas. However, you have chosen to compare Communist China with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Therefore, you must draw direct parallels for your comparison to stand; otherwise, choose a different comparison.

According to Amnesty International about 1.2 million Tibetans have died as a direct result of the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed and valuable artifacts vandalized and sold in Hong Kong. Tibetans in Tibet are second class citizen without basic Human Rights, such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Right to Education. Tibetan women are subjected to forced abortion and sterilization. Tibetan Children are denied their right to education. 70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate. Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial are the order of the day for Tibetans in their country. Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity. Thousands of Tibetans are still in prisons in China. Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed. 6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Han Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own country.

In Xinjiang a full scale insurection against Chinese domination of the region and the native Uighurs is underway that is in many ways comparable to what is going on in Afghanistan but largely hushed up by the Chinese government. The reasons for this? See Tibet.

Without even talking about what happened at Tianamen Square the way the Chinese Government is capable of treating its own people is illustrated by the Chinese Cultural Revoultion from 1966 to 1976, which was started by their great leader Mao to enforce socialism by removing capitalist, traditional and cultural elements from Chinese society, and impose his will on the nation and Chinese Communist Party. Not only was the country socially and economically damaged on a huge scale, but millions of innocent Chinese were persecuted in the violent factional struggles that ensued across the country, and suffered a wide range of abuses such as torture, rape, imprisonment, sustained harassment, and seizure of property. A large segment of the population was forcibly displaced, most notably the transfer of urban youth to rural regions and many historical relics and artifacts were destroyed. The death toll among Han Chinese is unknown but probably was in the millions, but ethnic minorities suffered worse. In Inner Mongolia 23,000 people were beaten to death and 120,000 were maimed during a witchhunt to find members of the alleged separatist New Inner Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party. In Xinjiang, copies of the Qu'ran and other books of the Uyghur people were burned, and Imans were paraded around with paint splashed on their bodies. In Yunnan Province, the palace of the Dai people's king was torched, and an infamous massacre of Hui Muslim people at the hands of the People's Liberation Army in Yunnan, known as the "Shadian incident", reportedly claimed over 1,600 lives in 1975.

However a comparable comparison might be Stalanist Russia.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by manunancy

things like the opium wars and the following crubling of the chines monarchy into the warlord"s mess of the first half of the 20th century are recent events that have done very little to endear 'the west' to China. The mongols may have been invaders, but they kept China more or less in one part.

The halfhearthed support during the japanese invasion of that period along with the later support of the thoroughly rotten and widely unpopular nationalists under Chang Kai Chek didn't help either.

Compared with china's several thousand years of history, it's still fresh memories.

The Chinese actually started the Opium Wars themselves by restricting western and all foreign acces to trade with China as they wanted all the profits for themselves. Although Opium is a fairly odious sustance it was a traded commodity and was used and sold by the Chinese themselves. In some ways there are parallels with today in all of this.

Sure the Mongols kept China in one part, the death toll in the Mongol invasion of China is estimated at 60 million. They killed everyone who resisted them.

[headquarters]

Posters are steadily nudging this thread OT - the thread as far as I see it is a discussion about the technical capacity, motivations and military/diplomatic implications of an advanced Chinese blue water navy. I am not saying that it should be this ONLY - but its getting political with refernces to domestic US politics etc etc .

The last 10-20 posts about the ills in the Chinese political system are not really on this topic as far as I can judge. That said - I am not trying to dishearten debate or anything, but this harsh characterization of China - be it true or groundless - and I know SOME of it to be true - could be a little much for some.

To try and get back on track - building a force projection capacity like carriers etc doesnt seem all that sinister considering the huge interests China has outside its borders - nationals working all over Asia and Africa in great numbers, economical interests in oil, minerals etc in said areas.. It would be considered pretty reckless in other political systems to build no such capacity in view of these interests.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by headquarters

Posters are steadily nudging this thread OT - the thread as far as I see it is a discussion about the technical capacity, motivations and military/diplomatic implications of an advanced Chinese blue water navy. I am not saying that it should be this ONLY - but its getting political with refernces to domestic US politics etc etc .

The last 10-20 posts about the ills in the Chinese political system are not really on this topic as far as I can judge. That said - I am not trying to dishearten debate or anything, but this harsh characterization of China - be it true or groundless - and I know SOME of it to be true - could be a little much for some.

To try and get back on track - building a force projection capacity like carriers etc doesnt seem all that sinister considering the huge interests China has outside its borders - nationals working all over Asia and Africa in great numbers, economical interests in oil, minerals etc in said areas.. It would be considered pretty reckless in other political systems to build no such capacity in view of these interests.

The new Chinese carrier is a flag shower, nothing else. I'd be more concerned if China started building up a fleet of powerful nuclear attack submarines with land attack capabilities, or actually started building a couple of nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the Nimitz or Ford class.

The Chinese navy couldn't hope to challenge American naval power in the Pacific at the moment. But if India and Thailand have carriers, and Japan, South Korea and Australia are building helicopter carrying assault ships then the Chinese probably feel they should have one as well.