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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.