China: aircraft carrier

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CF0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthorfiction.com%2Frumors%2 Fc%2FChina-New-Aircraft-Carrier.htm&ei=tsnnT8LpNuyA2QXmpoXaCQ&usg=AFQjCNGTKAZWZFuYeh2NBOAsSQjn-S5hFw

Somebody has big plans!!-Tyr

[ConHog]

that's bad ass.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

See what power we can give to a nation when we foolishly give away our heavy industries?
And transfer a few trillion dollars in wealth buying that which we could have produced HERE ourselves!
Truly badass looking design aircraft carrier and will cost who knows how much but the power in the future will go to those that spend and buy it!
Too bad , obama plans for us to be too broke! -TZS

[ConHog]

See what power we can give to a nation when we foolishly give away our heavy industries?
And transfer a few trillion dollars in wealth buying that which we could have produced HERE ourselves!
Truly badass looking design aircraft carrier and will cost who knows how much but the power in the future will go to those that spend and buy it!
Too bad , obama plans for us to be too broke! -TZS

:rolleyes:

[Gaffer]

But Revelarts isn't worried about china.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Gaffer, what did you think of the new ricemaker aircraft carrier design?
A wicked looking devil for sure but not sure it would live up to all the hype about speed, etc.-Tyr

[ConHog]

But Revelarts isn't worried about china.

Im not sure hes wrong. Simply put the chinese need our markets to sell their merchandise

[Gaffer]

Gaffer, what did you think of the new ricemaker aircraft carrier design?
A wicked looking devil for sure but not sure it would live up to all the hype about speed, etc.-Tyr

Those are interesting. The first one I've seen pictures of before. That's the one that's due to be launched soon. The other two are new to me. Interesting but they don't look practical. The capabilities sound good. But what's on paper and what actually is put into practice are usually two different things.

I think it will be about 15 to 20 years before china becomes a real international threat. But the time is coming. All that building takes manpower and raw materials. They will be looking south at Southeast Asia soon. A new chinese empire.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Those are interesting. The first one I've seen pictures of before. That's the one that's due to be launched soon. The other two are new to me. Interesting but they don't look practical. The capabilities sound good. But what's on paper and what actually is put into practice are usually two different things.

I think it will be about 15 to 20 years before china becomes a real international threat. But the time is coming. All that building takes manpower and raw materials. They will be looking south at Southeast Asia soon. A new chinese empire.

We think much alike my friend. China will expand close to home first. However do a google search on the land/territory that China claims as rightfully its property stolen long ago , you 'll find both the Philippines and Hawaii on that long list. Very like next major war will be us defending ourselves against the monster we created!
That is if bamboy doesnt destroy us before that happens!

Note: Japan's huge new problems have weakened it greatly and it was a counter balance to China's power in Southeast Asia. Unfortunately for us that will put more strain on our relationship with China, for we will have to take up that slack my friend.-Tyr

[revelarts]

I'm more worried about China than i am Alquida terrorist.
As I've mentioned before i think they've got us by the stones economically.
But, no, I don't think China wants a war with the U.S. Unless we decide they can't have access to stuff they want in foreign countries we think we should be running. Then they might have a problem with us.
But this is the 1st time i've seen them move this far militarily, and I've been looking as well.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31044-China-s-new-Aircraft-Carier&highlight=china

It may be another of way to get the people working on things other than huge empty cities and to keep up their sorta fake gdp.
A new days coming folks many have predicted that China will be the new world power, maybe true.
can we live with that? can we get our own gov't to stop acting like China's?


But In general China has, what, a billion+ people and a one child policy. They don't want any more people to lord it over directly seems to me.

[logroller]

Doesn't surprise me. I was told by a credible source that what China actually has now would blow my mind. Taking what we have compared to what were told about, then factor in about a tenfold level of secrecy in China...I can assume Obama's decision to restructure a presence in the south pacific wasn't purely prescient.

[ConHog]

Doesn't surprise me. I was told by a credible source that what China actually has now would blow my mind. Taking what we have compared to what were told about, then factor in about a tenfold level of secrecy in China...I can assume Obama's decision to restructure a presence in the south pacific wasn't purely prescient.

How dare another country think they can have the ability to project power.

Hulk smash

[revelarts]

Doesn't surprise me. I was told by a credible source that what China actually has now would blow my mind. Taking what we have compared to what were told about, then factor in about a tenfold level of secrecy in China...I can assume Obama's decision to restructure a presence in the south pacific wasn't purely prescient.
That's an amazing thought.

They've stolen just about all our tech anyway. Even tech companies that want their items manufactured there are suppose to agree to allow the Chinese access to it and they'd steal it anyway.

[logroller]

How dare another country think they can have the ability to project power.

Hulk smash
Yeah! Filthy pinko chinamen....BTW, can we borrow another $200,000,000,000

[ConHog]

Yeah! Filthy pinko chinamen....BTW, can we borrow another $200,000,000,000

Nope if you cant make your allowance stretch then get a job.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm more worried about China than i am Alquida terrorist.
As I've mentioned before i think they've got us by the stones economically.
But, no, I don't think China wants a war with the U.S. Unless we decide they can't have access to stuff they want in foreign countries we think we should be running. Then they might have a problem with us.
But this is the 1st time i've seen them move this far militarily, and I've been looking as well.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31044-China-s-new-Aircraft-Carier&highlight=china

It may be another of way to get the people working on things other than huge empty cities and to keep up their sorta fake gdp.
A new days coming folks many have predicted that China will be the new world power, maybe true.
can we live with that? can we get our own gov't to stop acting like China's?


But In general China has, what, a billion+ people and a one child policy. They don't want any more people to lord it over directly seems to me.

Consider China's population problem = need more territory= exspansion. Exspansion = take land = war!
Population problem , start war lose 30 ,50 or 100 million soldiers (citizens) = population control by way of war casualities, plus more territory if they win the war. A win win for them.
China , they do not value life the way that we do, such large numbers of deaths wouldnt matter to their leaders.
Now, their first exspansion will likely not be against somebody we would be that prone to defend by attacking China!
Eventually when their power got greater and their confidence much higher we would come into conflict , as by then their trade with the rest of the world would likely compensate for losing our trade. Then we would see naked aggression, for they being communist have no honor and view massive deaths as just a cost of furthering their agenda. -Tyr

Note: They are not rapidly and vastly expanding their Navy to give tourist sea cruises! And the weapons tey have recently bought from Russia were designed to take out American aircraft carriers! As is their newest and best anti -aircraft carrier missile! Designed to take on OUR carriers !! This from a supposed ALLY!

[gabosaurus]

Why should we worry about China? No Muslims live there. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Consider China's population problem = need more territory= exspansion. Exspansion = take land = war!
Population problem , start war lose 30 ,50 or 100 million soldiers (citizens) = population control by way of war casualities, plus more territory if they win the war. A win win for them.
China , they do not value life the way that we do, such large numbers of deaths wouldnt matter to their leaders.
Now, their first exspansion will likely not be against somebody we would be that prone to defend by attacking China!
Eventually when their power got greater and their confidence much higher we would come into conflict , as by then their trade with the rest of the world would likely compensate for losing our trade. Then we would see naked aggression, for they being communist have no honor and view massive deaths as just a cost of furthering their agenda. -Tyr

Note: They are not rapidly and vastly expanding their Navy to give tourist sea cruises! And the weapons tey have recently bought from Russia were designed to take out American aircraft carriers! As is their newest and best anti -aircraft carrier missile! Designed to take on OUR carriers !! This from a supposed ALLY!


Good thing we dont have weapons and plans in place to destroy our "allies" just in case......

[ConHog]

Why should we worry about China? No Muslims live there. :rolleyes:

Smelly brown people/smelly yellow people whats the difference?

USA USA USA

[logroller]

Consider China's population problem = need more territory= exspansion. Exspansion = take land = war!
Population problem , start war lose 30 ,50 or 100 million soldiers (citizens) = population control by way of war casualities, plus more territory if they win the war. A win win for them.
China , they do not value life the way that we do, such large numbers of deaths wouldnt matter to their leaders.
Now, their first exspansion will likely not be against somebody we would be that prone to defend by attacking China!
Eventually when their power got greater and their confidence much higher we would come into conflict , as by then their trade with the rest of the world would likely compensate for losing our trade. Then we would see naked aggression, for they being communist have no honor and view massive deaths as just a cost of furthering their agenda. -Tyr

Note: They are not rapidly and vastly expanding their Navy to give tourist sea cruises! And the weapons tey have recently bought from Russia were designed to take out American aircraft carriers! As is their newest and best anti -aircraft carrier missile! Designed to take on OUR carriers !! This from a supposed ALLY!

The only thing liking us to allies with China is the UN...quite a few here have made it clear their disdain for the UN...just saying-- Trading partners is more accurate description IMO.

[ConHog]

The only thing liking us to allies with China is the UN...quite a few here have made it clear their disdain for the UN...just saying-- Trading partners is more accurate description IMO.

Irrelevant anyway. Somewhere in the pentagon there is a plan to conquer england. Book it.

[gabosaurus]

Irrelevant anyway. Somewhere in the pentagon there is a plan to conquer england. Book it.

They have to conquer themselves first. Dang conservatives keep screwing up the country.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xkUB0P5OpgI" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[logroller]

Irrelevant anyway. Somewhere in the pentagon there is a plan to conquer england. Book it.

"Book it." no can do--Executive privilege. BAM!!!!

[SassyLady]

Consider China's population problem = need more territory= exspansion. Exspansion = take land = war!
Population problem , start war lose 30 ,50 or 100 million soldiers (citizens) = population control by way of war casualities, plus more territory if they win the war. A win win for them.
China , they do not value life the way that we do, such large numbers of deaths wouldnt matter to their leaders.
Now, their first exspansion will likely not be against somebody we would be that prone to defend by attacking China!
Eventually when their power got greater and their confidence much higher we would come into conflict , as by then their trade with the rest of the world would likely compensate for losing our trade. Then we would see naked aggression, for they being communist have no honor and view massive deaths as just a cost of furthering their agenda. -Tyr

Note: They are not rapidly and vastly expanding their Navy to give tourist sea cruises! And the weapons tey have recently bought from Russia were designed to take out American aircraft carriers! As is their newest and best anti -aircraft carrier missile! Designed to take on OUR carriers !! This from a supposed ALLY!

Well, just saying.....if they are a party to the Agenda 21 Treaty, the UN will put so many sanctions on them that they will have to spend all their resources on compliance. :laugh:

[revelarts]

Consider China's population problem = need more territory= exspansion. Exspansion = take land = war!
Population problem , start war lose 30 ,50 or 100 million soldiers (citizens) = population control by way of war casualities, plus more territory if they win the war. A win win for them.
China , they do not value life the way that we do, such large numbers of deaths wouldnt matter to their leaders.
Now, their first exspansion will likely not be against somebody we would be that prone to defend by attacking China!
Eventually when their power got greater and their confidence much higher we would come into conflict , as by then their trade with the rest of the world would likely compensate for losing our trade. Then we would see naked aggression, for they being communist have no honor and view massive deaths as just a cost of furthering their agenda. -Tyr

Note: They are not rapidly and vastly expanding their Navy to give tourist sea cruises! And the weapons tey have recently bought from Russia were designed to take out American aircraft carriers! As is their newest and best anti -aircraft carrier missile! Designed to take on OUR carriers !! This from a supposed ALLY!

They've got plenty of land, and space for the population, there are millions of empty homes in near empty cities because central planning is messed up. as far as the population is concerned, yes it's big but they've got to many men becuase they've been killing all the girls via abortions for a couple decades now. if anything they may attack a country and do some old style steall the women for wives. but i doubt it. seems there population is going to be in decline over the decades just like most other modern socities and as Sassy mentioned if they are part of A21 they WON"T be on living on any virgin land and WON't be taking it from others, the U.N. plan is trying to revert land back to nature not give it up to people that can use it wisely. :slap: .
Agenda 21 wants more dead people too, no need for war to do it , famine, disease and centrally planned genocide Logans run style can work that over time. To many resources and CO2 used up in wars ya know. not prudent.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The only thing liking us to allies with China is the UN...quite a few here have made it clear their disdain for the UN...just saying-- Trading partners is more accurate description IMO.

I agree that trading partners is more accurate decription. I used the world Ally because I have had this discussion with liberals many times before and everytime they called China our ally and tried to prove that to be true. I disagreed with China being our ally and then would cite their military Naval preparartions being geared toward taking out OUR carriers specificly, as in thier new misslie designed specificly to take out American aircraft carriers.
We are allies with Britian and to my knowledge Britian has not engineerd a missilr specificly designed to take out American aircraft carriers, for such preparations point towards China's views of our future relationship. -Tyr

[ConHog]

I agree that trading partners is more accurate decription. I used the world Ally because I have had this discussion with liberals many times before and everytime they called China our ally and tried to prove that to be true. I disagreed with China being our ally and then would cite their military Naval preparartions being geared toward taking out OUR carriers specificly, as in thier new misslie designed specificly to take out American aircraft carriers.
We are allies with Britian and to my knowledge Britian has not engineerd a missilr specificly designed to take out American aircraft carriers, for such preparations point towards China's views of our future relationship. -Tyr

liberals argh!!!!!!!!!!


YOU called China our ally, not some past liberal.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree that trading partners is more accurate decription. I used the world Ally because I have had this discussion with liberals many times before and everytime they called China our ally and tried to prove that to be true. I disagreed with China being our ally and then would cite their military Naval preparartions being geared toward taking out OUR carriers specificly, as in thier new misslie designed specificly to take out American aircraft carriers.
We are allies with Britian and to my knowledge Britian has not engineerd a missilr specificly designed to take out American aircraft carriers, for such preparations point towards China's views of our future relationship. -Tyr

Too late to use edit feature here in my post above. I had intended to point this out as well.
Notice that in my original quote I used the word -"supposed"-- in that sentence ("supposed Ally"), this was to clearly point out my disagreement with using the term Ally. For I've been speaking about our relationship with China for decades now and how the chinese have played our politicians for fools. I've posted numerous posts about this in the past always pointing out that China has never truly been our ally or our friend as liberals so often declare.-Tyr

[ConHog]

Too late to use edit feature here in my post above. I had intended to point this out as well.
Notice that in my original quote I used the word -"supposed"-- in that sentence ("supposed Ally"), this was to clearly point out my disagreement with using the term Ally. For I've been speaking about our relationship with China for decades now and how the chinese have played our politicians for fools. I've posted numerous posts about this in the past always pointing out that China has never truly been our ally or our friend as liberals so often declare.-Tyr

What fucking liberals are declaring that communist China is our ally? :shrug:

[revelarts]

Just a bit of FYI here. i mentioned that I thought Chinese population was going to decline.
here's one set of projections on that front.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world2050_rank.html


<tbody>



Country or area

Population (000)



Rank

1950

2000
2015
2025
2050








World
2,519,495
6,056,715
7,207,361
7,936,741
9,322,251







1
India (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/india/)
357,561
1,008,937

1,230,484
1,351,801

1,572,055



2
China (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/china/)
554,760
1,275,133

1,410,217
1,470,787

1,462,058



3
United States of America (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/united_states/)
157,813
283,230
321,225
346,822
397,063


4
Pakistan (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/pakistan/)
39,659
141,256
204,267
250,981
344,170


5
Indonesia (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/indonesia/)
79,538
212,092
250,068
272,911
311,335


6
Nigeria (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/nigeria/)
29,790
113,862
165,313
202,957
278,788


7
Bangladesh (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/bangladesh/)
41,783
137,439
183,159
210,823
265,432


8
Brazil (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/brazil/)
53,975
170,406
201,393
218,980
247,244


9
Dem. Rep. of the Congo (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/congo_democratic_republic_of_the/)
12,184
50,948
84,045
114,876
203,527


10
Ethiopia (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/ethiopia/)
18,434
62,908
89,765
113,418
186,452


11
Mexico (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/mexico/)
27,737
98,872
119,175
130,194
146,651


12
Philippines (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/philippines/)
19,996
75,653
95,881
107,073
128,383


13
Vietnam (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/vietnam/)
27,367
78,137
94,413
105,488
123,782


14
Iran (Islamic Republic of) (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/iran/)
16,913
70,330
87,103
99,343
121,424


15
Egypt (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/egypt/)
21,834
67,884
84,425
94,777
113,840


16
Japan (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/japan/)
83,625
127,096
127,522
123,798
109,220


17
Russian Federation (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/russia/)
102,702
145,491
133,314
125,687
104,258

</tbody>

[Thunderknuckles]

On the OP, the new Chinese aircraft carrier is fairly old news now and the sleek one pictured is not a real design. We know the Chinese plan to build them on their own but no one knows what designs they have planned. The carrier they bought off the Russians is old and outdated. I see it more as a training tool for what is to come. Bottom line, don't get too riled up over this. It will be decades before they have the ability to challenge us on the open seas assuming they continue to grow economically.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Opinion READ OTHER NEWS SHARE facebook

yahoo! buzz


ARTICLE TOOLS post a comment
printer friendly
email article


Advertisements
China's naval flexing at Philippine expense
GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine Star) Updated April 13, 2012 12:00 AM Comments (0)


China’s naval intrusion this week in the Scarborough Shoal is a follow-up to its recent forays into Philippine western territorial waters. Five times since June 2011 it has confronted Philippine military and civilian vessels in the Recto Bank, Rajah Soliman Reef, Quirino Atoll, and Escoda Shoal. All four lie a few dozen kilometers off Palawan but 2,000 km from China’s nearest island-province of Hainan; Scarborough is 220 km off Zambales but more than 800 km from Hong Kong. China’s pretext of protecting its fishermen and seismic surveyors is not unique. As in the last two decades, it trespasses into Philippine offshore oilfields and abets fish poaching to prop up a shaky counterclaim over the West Philippine (South China) Sea.

China’s flouting of international and Philippine fisheries laws triggered the Scarborough standoff. Eight Chinese craft were spotted Sunday hauling in endangered shark, giant clams, and corals in the 150-sq-km lagoon called Baja Masinloc, long a rest stop of Luzon fishermen. As the Philippine naval patrol BRP Gregorio del Pilar approached, two Chinese marine surveillance ships cut its path to shield the poachers. Beijing was quick to accuse Manila of harassing Chinese fishers who supposedly had only sought shelter from a storm.

The Philippine response was mainly diplomatic. President Noynoy Aquino and Foreign Sec. Albert del Rosario quickly but firmly reminded the Chinese ambassador of the two countries’ pact to shun violence in the troubled seas. The Navy has pulled out to let its Coast Guard civilian counterpart handle things as a police matter. A military skirmish would be futile. Though the Navy’s fastest vessel, the del Pilar is a refurbished five-decade-old US coast guard cutter. The handful of other Philippine warships and planes are newer but lightly armed. On the other hand, China seems to treat tact as its debility. Both sides are signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which defines coastal and archipelagic countries’ 200-mile exclusive economic zones. China’s counterclaim to the long-recognized western Philippine shoals, reefs, atolls, and banks is based solely on unverified “ancient maps.”

In contrast to Manila’s stance, China is itching to play the military card. Its naval buildup has been worrying not only the Philippines but other ASEAN members as well, and Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and America. China’s annual defense spending has risen from $30 billion in 2000 to $120 billion in 2010, says the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). Since Beijing habitually deflates by half its true naval and arms acquisitions, reports The Economist, the true budget for 2012 including research and development could well run up to $160 billion. It’s still less than a fourth of America’s (declining) defense buys, so Chinese leaders make a show of shuddering at comments of aspiring to become a military “near peer.” But while invoking China’s “peaceful rise,” they employ war footing with Vietnam, South Korea, Japan — and the Philippines — when it comes to territorial counterclaims in the North, East and South China Seas.

Having 75 principal surface warships and some 50 diesel electric submarines emboldens China. Defense magazine’s latest issue enumerated the arsenal of China’s People’s Liberation Army-Navy: 26 destroyers, 53 frigates, 26 tank-landing vessels, 49 attack submarines, and five nuclear submarines. Not counting the fighting craft from five civilian agencies (coast guard, maritime surveillance, fisheries enforcement, etc.) the PLAN also has 86 coastal patrol craft. All are armed with anti-ship medium-range cruise missiles.

China’s avoidance of diplomacy also has to do with its hazy chain of command. While its government funds most of its operations, supplies and personnel, the People’s Liberation Army does not report to the defense ministry. Its orders come instead from the Communist Party’s Military Commission, headed by the Party chairman, also the President. By contrast, the foreign office is low in the Politburo totem pole. Perhaps it proceeds from Mao Zedong’s tenets. “Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun,” the founder of communist China had pounded. “Without the Army, the Party is nothing.”

Neighbors doubt China’s assurances that, like them, it wants peaceful resolution of its encroachments. Beijing’s bigwigs talk from both sides of the mouth. The Party’s English-language paper, Global Times, betrays the doublespeak. As the defense minister mentioned “peace” 26 times in a speech before East Asian leaders last October, it editorialized: “If these countries don’t want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sounds of cannons. We need to be ready for that, as it may be the only way for the disputes in the sea to be resolved.”

Beijing may disavow the communist hawks’ opinions as unofficial. But there can be no doubt about the official line, as stated by the PLA’s doctrinal “Science of Military Strategy,” published in 2005. The Economist quotes it: “Although active defense is the essential feature of China’s military strategy, if an enemy offends our national interests it means that the enemy has already fired the first shot. In which case, the PLA’s mission is to do all we can to dominate the enemy by striking first.”

* * *

In the news is not only the Philippine territorial row with China, but also ex-President Gloria Arroyo’s arraignment for the NBN-ZTE scam. To better understand these and other events, readers may wish to read Exposés: Investigative Reporting for Clean Government. This selective compilation of my Gotcha columns also features, among others, the Diwalwal-ZTE scam, the near cession of territory to Moro separatists, and the NAIA-3 construction anomalies. Early copies available at National Bookstore and Powerbooks.

* * *

Repertory Philippines’ production of “Jekyll and Hyde” has been extended to April 22, at Onstage, 2nd Flr. Greenbelt-1, Makati. Directing the musical is Menchu Lauchengco-Yulo. Showtime: Fridays and Saturdays, 8 p.m.; Saturdays and Sundays, 3:30 p.m.

* * *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).


China flexing naval muscle already, and they claim the Philippines as "lost territory".
Early forays that point to testing American resolve.
China has greatly increased their miltary sprnding, especially Naval build up.-Tyr

[aboutime]

Honestly. As a navy veteran who keeps up with military matters. Almost as much as the 24 hour news cycle we have today.
I have no fears about China and their Aircraft Carriers. If they can afford to build hundreds of them. They will never....I SAY AGAIN....NEVER, be able to compete with our Present Navy Aircraft Carrier capabilities.
The give away is that ANGLED, SLOPE DECK.
So. Before everyone gets worried, and starts to think China, and even Russia come close to carrier operations like we..THE US NAVY can do.
Relax. It will be many, many years of testing, failing, testing, and failing before they even come close.

Anyone who needs proof. Just go to GOOGLE, click on Videos. And in Youtube...type Chinese Aircraft Carrier, or Russian Aircraft Carrier.
You'll see what I have seen, and why I am not worried.
Their ships are like Barney in Mayberry with his One bullet. Standing on a corner in Harlem, New York City...during a riot.

[ConHog]

Honestly. As a navy veteran who keeps up with military matters. Almost as much as the 24 hour news cycle we have today.
I have no fears about China and their Aircraft Carriers. If they can afford to build hundreds of them. They will never....I SAY AGAIN....NEVER, be able to compete with our Present Navy Aircraft Carrier capabilities.
The give away is that ANGLED, SLOPE DECK.
So. Before everyone gets worried, and starts to think China, and even Russia come close to carrier operations like we..THE US NAVY can do.
Relax. It will be many, many years of testing, failing, testing, and failing before they even come close.

Anyone who needs proof. Just go to GOOGLE, click on Videos. And in Youtube...type Chinese Aircraft Carrier, or Russian Aircraft Carrier.
You'll see what I have seen, and why I am not worried.
Their ships are like Barney in Mayberry with his One bullet. Standing on a corner in Harlem, New York City...during a riot.

Exactly, I don't see ANY force ever being able to match what a US Carrier Group can bring to the table in the near future. Other countries literally shit their pants when a USN carrier shows up on their doorstep.

[revelarts]

Exactly, I don't see ANY force ever being able to match what a US Carrier Group can bring to the table in the near future. Other countries literally shit their pants when a USN carrier shows up on their doorstep.


I grew up in the Hampton roads area near the Norfolk naval station just seeing a the ships role down a the bay and to see jets from Langley and Oceania scream overhead and helicopters buzz the area in a friendly way is freaking wake up call. I'd NEVER want to be on the receiving end of even some the OLD ships I've seen docked. On a visit to downtown Norfolk i was walking and turned down one street and there was the battleship Wisconsin pointing in my direction , guns pointed up towards the greater downtown area. the things just docked but you get the impression you reeeally could kill a bunch a people and break a lot of things with that ship. I think its been decommissioned though.

[Thunderknuckles]

I grew up in the Hampton roads area near the Norfolk naval station just seeing a the ships role down a the bay and to see jets from Langley and Oceania scream overhead and helicopters buzz the area in a friendly way is freaking wake up call. I'd NEVER want to be on the receiving end of even some the OLD ships I've seen docked. On a visit to downtown Norfolk i was walking and turned down one street and there was the battleship Wisconsin pointing in my direction , guns pointed up towards the greater downtown area. the things just docked but you get the impression you reeeally could kill a bunch a people and break a lot of things with that ship. I think its been decommissioned though.
I had the opportunity to spend the day on the John C. Stennis and watch them while they performed some exercises and demonstrations out at sea. It was an awesome experience. I can only imagine the power of a full carrier group.

[logroller]

Sometimes I fall asleep watching the military channel and dream about what's being described. It's pretty intense...until the commercial break and I usually drift off.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

On the OP, the new Chinese aircraft carrier is fairly old news now and the sleek one pictured is not a real design. We know the Chinese plan to build them on their own but no one knows what designs they have planned. The carrier they bought off the Russians is old and outdated. I see it more as a training tool for what is to come. Bottom line, don't get too riled up over this. It will be decades before they have the ability to challenge us on the open seas assuming they continue to grow economically.



China is rapidly spending concentrating on Naval modernization. Forecasts are that China 's defense budget will increase from 2011 to 2015 , starting at 119.80 and going up to 238.20 billion a year!
A big if, but if we diminish our Navy while they grow theirs greatly the time frame of equality in force will come much sooner than most anticipate. -Check this link out, its about our prep to meet a very real future threat.. We do see what they are up to and we do have new weapons to meet their plans.-Tyr
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-navy-thinks-new-stealth-destroyer-will-pause-china-s-rise

[ConHog]

China is rapidly spending concentrating on Naval modernization. Forecasts are that China 's defense budget will increase from 2011 to 2015 , starting at 119.80 and going up to 238.20 billion a year!
A big if, but if we diminish our Navy while they grow theirs greatly the time frame of equality in force will come much sooner than most anticipate. -Check this link out, its about our prep to meet a very real future threat.. We do see what they are up to and we do have new weapons to meet their plans.-Tyr
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-navy-thinks-new-stealth-destroyer-will-pause-china-s-rise

Dude, the USN has more gross tonnage than the next largest THIRTEEN navies COMBINED.

we have eleven carriers in service , with one in dock just in case, one being constructed and 2 more planned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy\

We could chop the Navy in half and still have the most dominating naval force in the history of mankind. Cue Rev........... :lol:

As a point of reference , at the height of WWII the USN had essentially four active carrier groups , and most of them were not at full strength for most of the war.

yes, our Navy is THAT bad ass. The Chinese will never be dumb enough to challenge us on the open seas.

[revelarts]

While I do think the U.S. military is Overkill for any current or near future threat. And should be statgically reduced. We spend, I think, about 50% of the worlds military budget. what the heck are we doing? But I don't think it should be gutted or that we shouldn't be ready for new battles with maintenance of a realistic military with new weapon systems from time to time. And I don't think we should ever be cocky no matter what kind of force we have, God don't like cocky and can send a David to put us in our place just because he can.

I ran across this, the someone else posted a awhile back

Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise
This would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811)

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".

The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.

Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html


I've got a busy time ahead see you folks later...
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God." 1 Peter 2:16

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

While I do think the U.S. military is Overkill for any current or near future threat. And should be statgically reduced. We spend, I think, about 50% of the worlds military budget. what the heck are we doing? But I don't think it should be gutted or that we shouldn't be ready for new battles with maintenance of a realistic military with new weapon systems from time to time. And I don't think we should ever be cocky no matter what kind of force we have, God don't like cocky and can send a David to put us in our place just because he can.

I ran across this, the someone else posted a awhile back

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html


I've got a busy time ahead see you folks later...
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God." 1 Peter 2:16

Do not worry, every great military eventually met its match, we as a nation are great but not invincible. Underestimating the enemy is as old as history itself. Liberals like to call China our ally. Then again, what the hell do they know except "paradise" is a damn socialist jerkfest?:laugh2:-Tyr

[ConHog]

Do not worry, every great military eventually met its match, we as a nation are great but not invincible. Underestimating the enemy is as old as history itself. Liberals like to call China our ally. Then again, what the hell do they know except "paradise" is a damn socialist jerkfest?:laugh2:-Tyr


Rev, please quote this so Tyr sees that someone is questioning his REPEATED claims that liberals call China our ally. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

I'm thinking some are confusing, 'most favored nation trading status' with ally. China is not an ally of US.

[PostmodernProphet]

isn't it wonderful what the interest on our national debt can buy......

[taft2012]

It's probably also worth pointing out that an aircraft carrier isn't worth more than a fishing vessel if the aircraft it carries are completely outclassed.

No?

[CSM]

Dude, the USN has more gross tonnage than the next largest THIRTEEN navies COMBINED.

we have eleven carriers in service , with one in dock just in case, one being constructed and 2 more planned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy\

We could chop the Navy in half and still have the most dominating naval force in the history of mankind. Cue Rev........... :lol:

As a point of reference , at the height of WWII the USN had essentially four active carrier groups , and most of them were not at full strength for most of the war.

yes, our Navy is THAT bad ass. The Chinese will never be dumb enough to challenge us on the open seas.

Hmmm, if I were the Chinese I would be thinking "target rich environment".

[ConHog]

It's probably also worth pointing out that an aircraft carrier isn't worth more than a fishing vessel if the aircraft it carries are completely outclassed.

No?

Or more to the point. The men flying those planes.

[logroller]

It's probably also worth pointing out that an aircraft carrier isn't worth more than a fishing vessel if the aircraft it carries are completely outclassed.

No?

Thats certainly true, but depends of the definition of completely outclassed. In wwII the Japanese zero was a superior aircraft in many ways, but us airmen learned which strategies worked to our advantage, (dogfighting wasnt one of them) and acheive victory. Plus, as my dad says, "there's a certain quality to quantity." we had an abundance of aircraft then; a feat l would foresee China also bringing forth. It may not be the best but it would have depth.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thats certainly true, but depends of the definition of completely outclassed. In wwII the Japanese zero was a superior aircraft in many ways, but us airmen learned which strategies worked to our advantage, (dogfighting wasnt one of them) and acheive victory. Plus, as my dad says, "there's a certain quality to quantity." we had an abundance of aircraft then; a feat l would foresee China also bringing forth. It may not be the best but it would have depth.

A great point. Numeric superiority either in men or weapons/ machines has always been a much sought after advantage. In fact , during WW2 our advantage often lay in our ability to mass produce. For example the Germans had the best tank , the germanTigertank but we overcame that advantage by sheer numbers of Shermans, for we had many many more and could replace faster the losses. China will have the industrial advantage for we have sent most of our heavy industries to their shores and additionally use China's factories to make and supply much that our military uses, boots come to mind on that. Not good when one is too heavily reliant on an enemy supply such. War starts , enemy stops supply, we have to scramble to rebirth key industries. Puts us at another huge disadvantage IMHO. China clearly already has the manpower advantage. They can field 10 times the army we can without much effort , men they have plenty of.-Tyr

[CSM]

A great point. Numeric superiority either in men or weapons/ machines has always been a much sought after advantage. In fact , during WW2 our advantage often lay in our ability to mass produce. For example the Germans had the best tank , the germanTigertank but we overcame that advantage by sheer numbers of Shermans, for we had many many more and could replace faster the losses. China will have the industrial advantage for we have sent most of our heavy industries to their shores and additionally use China's factories to make and supply much that our military uses, boots come to mind on that. Not good when one is too heavily reliant on an enemy supply such. War starts , enemy stops supply, we have to scramble to rebirth key industries. Puts us at another huge disadvantage IMHO. China clearly already has the manpower advantage. They can field 10 times the army we can without much effort , men they have plenty of.-Tyr

China also has some strategic advantages. US lines of supply and communications are MUCH longer in the Pacific; China has a very robust anti space capability (jam GPS, take out satellites and a lot of US command and control, communications and weapon systems become virtually useless) and China is also well known for their cyber warfare capability (both offensive and defensive). China has a lot of economic and politcal clout in the Pacific which could impact US allies (thus removing some allies from the fight) especially if those allies lose confidence in the US capability to support them. The US has not had to fight a technoligical equal in a very long time and China is very close to being exactly that. With tightening defense budgets, etc. they may exceed the US in a very short time. All these things are a consideration when talking a confrontation in the Pacific.

[Thunderknuckles]

A great point. Numeric superiority either in men or weapons/ machines has always been a much sought after advantage. In fact , during WW2 our advantage often lay in our ability to mass produce. For example the Germans had the best tank , the germanTigertank but we overcame that advantage by sheer numbers of Shermans, for we had many many more and could replace faster the losses. China will have the industrial advantage for we have sent most of our heavy industries to their shores and additionally use China's factories to make and supply much that our military uses, boots come to mind on that. Not good when one is too heavily reliant on an enemy supply such. War starts , enemy stops supply, we have to scramble to rebirth key industries. Puts us at another huge disadvantage IMHO. China clearly already has the manpower advantage. They can field 10 times the army we can without much effort , men they have plenty of.-Tyr
History also tells us that superior technology, tactics, and training will win over superior numbers. With that in mind I think we need to consider "mass production" not just in terms of quality vs. quantity but also in terms of the ability to replenish lost battlefield assets at a faster pace than the enemy. In my opinion, that was the real secret behind the U.S. advantage in WWII. Essentially, the Germans could never enjoy a victory for too long before we had another stack of men and equipment on the ground ready for battle. The Germans would have eventually lost to the U.S. alone through attrition.

I think you are correct in terms of China having the industrial advantage but I don't think we will be far behind. If a war ever erupted with China, I think we would immediately use our technological superiority to take out their industrial capacity along with command and control. What really worries me is our heavy reliance on computers and satellite communications. As CSM mentioned, China has strong capabilities here.

[CSM]

History also tells us that superior technology, tactics, and training will win over superior numbers. With that in mind I think we need to consider "mass production" not just in terms of quality vs. quantity but also in terms of the ability to replenish lost battlefield assets at a faster pace than the enemy. In my opinion, that was the real secret behind the U.S. advantage in WWII. Essentially, the Germans could never enjoy a victory for too long before we had another stack of men and equipment on the ground ready for battle. The Germans would have eventually lost to the U.S. alone through attrition.

I think you are correct in terms of China having the industrial advantage but I don't think we will be far behind. If a war ever erupted with China, I think we would immediately use our technological superiority to take out their industrial capacity along with command and control. What really worries me is our heavy reliance on computers and satellite communications. As CSM mentioned, China has strong capabilities here.

I am not so sure that the US has that much of a technological edge to take out their industrial capacity and C2. China is a HUGE nation; we know they have a very robust and hardened Integrated Air Defense Capability (IADS) most of which runs on hardened fiber optic networks (buried at that) so it would definitley be the "shock and awe" a la Persian Gulf. I can't see the US sending waves of B-52 bombers over mainland China and the US simply does not have enough long range remotley piloted aircraft/precision guided munitions to take out or even dent China's industrial base.

The speculation of conflict with China makes for some interesting strategic military planning/discussions.

[ConHog]

I am not so sure that the US has that much of a technological edge to take out their industrial capacity and C2. China is a HUGE nation; we know they have a very robust and hardened Integrated Air Defense Capability (IADS) most of which runs on hardened fiber optic networks (buried at that) so it would definitley be the "shock and awe" a la Persian Gulf. I can't see the US sending waves of B-52 bombers over mainland China and the US simply does not have enough long range remotley piloted aircraft/precision guided munitions to take out or even dent China's industrial base.

The speculation of conflict with China makes for some interesting strategic military planning/discussions.

Your scenario assumes we attack their homeland. An unlikely scenario to be sure. Of course we have to have plans in place, just in case, but the much more likely scenario is that if we do ever go to war with China it will be via satelite countries ala the Cold War and the way we used smaller countries to fight the Soviet Union and likewise they never attacked us on our home turf.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm thinking some are confusing, 'most favored nation trading status' with ally. China is not an ally of US.

Liberals confuse themselves as a way of life. I've debated this topic of China's rise and our future conflicts with libs for decades now and th most often heard crap from them was China is our ally. They somehow think that a trading partner is an ally! And a trading partner could never ever be anything but friendly. Such foolishness is a common trait of brainwashed fools. Often they have defenders pretending to be conservatives backing them up in thier idiotcy. True conservatives do not embrace the founding principles of -today's- liberals. American Liberals today are more socialist with a fascist bent to them. Always seeking that third world "paradise" of equal misery! No thank you I say to such fools, I have no wish for my children and grandchildren to become slaves to your idiotcy!-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

China also has some strategic advantages. US lines of supply and communications are MUCH longer in the Pacific; China has a very robust anti space capability (jam GPS, take out satellites and a lot of US command and control, communications and weapon systems become virtually useless) and China is also well known for their cyber warfare capability (both offensive and defensive). China has a lot of economic and politcal clout in the Pacific which could impact US allies (thus removing some allies from the fight) especially if those allies lose confidence in the US capability to support them. The US has not had to fight a technoligical equal in a very long time and China is very close to being exactly that. With tightening defense budgets, etc. they may exceed the US in a very short time. All these things are a consideration when talking a confrontation in the Pacific.

They will make their move when we are the weakest not before. Should they get the Philipines they would be in a far greater position to become even more powerful rapidly after that. My guess is that they will likely move to take that target first and do so when we are likely (obama)to not counter! They've already started preemptive actions there. I would not be shocked at all if obama gets a second term , China will take the Philippines within two to three years after that! -Tyr

[ConHog]

Liberals confuse themselves as a way of life. I've debated this topic of China's rise and our future conflicts with libs for decades now and th most often heard crap from them was China is our ally. They somehow think that a trading partner is an ally! And a trading partner could never ever be anything but friendly. Such foolishness is a common trait of brainwashed fools. Often they have defenders pretending to be conservatives backing them up in thier idiotcy. True conservatives do not embrace the founding principles of -today's- liberals. American Liberals today are more socialist with a fascist bent to them. Always seeking that third world "paradise" of equal misery! No thank you I say to such fools, I have no wish for my children and grandchildren to become slaves to your idiotcy!-Tyr

link to ANY liberal calling China an ally.....................?:link::link::link::link: :link::link::link::link:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am not so sure that the US has that much of a technological edge to take out their industrial capacity and C2. China is a HUGE nation; we know they have a very robust and hardened Integrated Air Defense Capability (IADS) most of which runs on hardened fiber optic networks (buried at that) so it would definitley be the "shock and awe" a la Persian Gulf. I can't see the US sending waves of B-52 bombers over mainland China and the US simply does not have enough long range remotley piloted aircraft/precision guided munitions to take out or even dent China's industrial base.

The speculation of conflict with China makes for some interesting strategic military planning/discussions.

My understanding is that China has built small cities underneath mountains there in case of nuke war with us! If so they have enough population to spare to think that they'd emerge the victor. One must remember their value placed on human life is nothing like ours! Also they have a new anti-aircraft carrier missile that was specificly designed to take out -American- carriers. Even now they do already have some advantages, and will gain more rapidly as we fall .

[aboutime]

Do not worry, every great military eventually met its match, we as a nation are great but not invincible. Underestimating the enemy is as old as history itself. Liberals like to call China our ally. Then again, what the hell do they know except "paradise" is a damn socialist jerkfest?:laugh2:-Tyr


Of Obama and Congress cutting down the size of our military. No matter what fellow Americans insist...as TOO MUCH SPENDING FOR DEFENSE.

I've lived through cutbacks, downsizing, and more cutbacks turned into outsourcing during my years in uniform.
I am also very familiar with the constantly repeated words of all Congress members who claim to be fully supportive of our Military men, and women. While, at the very same time. Without the people being informed, or told the truth. Those same phony members of congress push to cut back on Defense spending.
For as long as I can remember. Defense has always been the Number one item of Congressional Cutbacks, and this year is just more of the same again.

Of course. I have a Dog in the race, being retired military. But how many times do the American people have to be reminded. WE ARE STILL AT WAR? Even if it has been Undeclared?
Just a point here.
There has never been any Peace treaty signed, or congressional document that Officially ended the First Gulf War with Iraq.
So, who in their right mind cuts back their defense capabilities while you are Fighting a war anywhere in the world?

Oh...I forgot. The answer is...OBAMA and Democrats. THAT'S WHO.

[ConHog]

Of Obama and Congress cutting down the size of our military. No matter what fellow Americans insist...as TOO MUCH SPENDING FOR DEFENSE.

I've lived through cutbacks, downsizing, and more cutbacks turned into outsourcing during my years in uniform.
I am also very familiar with the constantly repeated words of all Congress members who claim to be fully supportive of our Military men, and women. While, at the very same time. Without the people being informed, or told the truth. Those same phony members of congress push to cut back on Defense spending.
For as long as I can remember. Defense has always been the Number one item of Congressional Cutbacks, and this year is just more of the same again.

Of course. I have a Dog in the race, being retired military. But how many times do the American people have to be reminded. WE ARE STILL AT WAR? Even if it has been Undeclared?
Just a point here.
There has never been any Peace treaty signed, or congressional document that Officially ended the First Gulf War with Iraq.
So, who in their right mind cuts back their defense capabilities while you are Fighting a war anywhere in the world?

Oh...I forgot. The answer is...OBAMA and Democrats. THAT'S WHO.

Any American who is not informed about politicians wanting to cut the defense budget it is their own fault not some nefarious plan by Congress.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of Obama and Congress cutting down the size of our military. No matter what fellow Americans insist...as TOO MUCH SPENDING FOR DEFENSE.

I've lived through cutbacks, downsizing, and more cutbacks turned into outsourcing during my years in uniform.
I am also very familiar with the constantly repeated words of all Congress members who claim to be fully supportive of our Military men, and women. While, at the very same time. Without the people being informed, or told the truth. Those same phony members of congress push to cut back on Defense spending.
For as long as I can remember. Defense has always been the Number one item of Congressional Cutbacks, and this year is just more of the same again.

Of course. I have a Dog in the race, being retired military. But how many times do the American people have to be reminded. WE ARE STILL AT WAR? Even if it has been Undeclared?
Just a point here.
There has never been any Peace treaty signed, or congressional document that Officially ended the First Gulf War with Iraq.
So, who in their right mind cuts back their defense capabilities while you are Fighting a war anywhere in the world?

Oh...I forgot. The answer is...OBAMA and Democrats. THAT'S WHO.

The socialists, I mean demorats are dead set against our military and have been since the early 60' s , that is fifty damn years! The Dem party sold completely out during that decade and have been like a damn fat, lazy leech on the back of this nation ever since. Always sucking blood and giving away that which others have had to work hard for. The ultimate damn parasites. Now they have their biggest parasite in charge. RAID will not rid the Whitehouse of it's resident vermin so we will have to vote the freaking scum out! November can not come soon enough for this American. -Tyr

[taft2012]

Plus, as my dad says, "there's a certain quality to quantity." we had an abundance of aircraft then; a feat l would foresee China also bringing forth. It may not be the best but it would have depth.

That was basically their infantry strategy in Korea, which just translated into horrific losses.

Mao didn't care about casualties, but I don't think today's China would be happy about seeing their sleek aircraft falling out of the sky.

[CSM]

I am with ConHog in that I don't think the US will confront China directly with force on force and certainly not by invading the Chinese mainland. However, as China becomes increasingly economically influential, they will certainly exert great influence on our allies in the region. The Chinese could exert enough economic pressure on Japan, for example, that Japan will deny access to US forces in Japanese territory. Without military bases in Japan, Okinawa, etc, US influence is further reduced. This, in turn, could eventually make it viable enough for China to severely impact US interests not only in the Pacific but elsewhere across the globe.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am with ConHog in that I don't think the US will confront China directly with force on force and certainly not by invading the Chinese mainland. However, as China becomes increasingly economically influential, they will certainly exert great influence on our allies in the region. The Chinese could exert enough economic pressure on Japan, for example, that Japan will deny access to US forces in Japanese territory. Without military bases in Japan, Okinawa, etc, US influence is further reduced. This, in turn, could eventually make it viable enough for China to severely impact US interests not only in the Pacific but elsewhere across the globe.


China does not have to attack mainland USA to start with, we have interests worldwide. I think they wil take the Philippines first myself. China is further along than many think. They are not stupid and will not show everything that they have, however some things they can not hide . Check this link.-Tyr

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

[taft2012]

China could win by simply not lending us gas money.

[CSM]

China does not have to attack mainland USA to start with, we have interests worldwide. I think they wil take the Philippines first myself. China is further along than many think. They are not stupid and will not show everything that they have, however some things they can not hide . Check this link.-Tyr

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

Agreed. China would not attack the mainland US directly; then the issues would be reversed. As I said, China is technologically equal and in some cases (i.e. space) technologically superior to the US.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

China could win by simply not lending us gas money.

Vote obama and he will give that gas money to all from his "private stash"!!-:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

China's wealth comes from trade not war.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

China's wealth comes from trade not war.

History, may examples of trade conflicts leading to war! Greed being what it is and evr greater power being primarily it's ultimate goal. People need to start understanding how fast the world changes in this lightning age of man's advancement. No more horses and cannons to be slowly drawn to battle.. War now is as quick to start as a simple flip of a switch! -Tyr

[fj1200]

History, may examples of trade conflicts leading to war! Greed being what it is and evr greater power being primarily it's ultimate goal. People need to start understanding how fast the world changes in this lightning age of man's advancement. No more horses and cannons to be slowly drawn to battle.. War now is as quick to start as a simple flip of a switch! -Tyr

And pissing off the rest of the trading world is not an effective way of advancing trade and the wealth that comes from it. Best for them to "conquer" by signing resource agreements.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And pissing off the rest of the trading world is not an effective way of advancing trade and the wealth that comes from it. Best for them to "conquer" by signing resource agreements.

My friend, treaties, trade agreements and azz kissing have proven to be a poor deterrent to war. History proves this so well! Nothing man has devised has ever proven to be a very successful instrument at preventing war! Nothing but hey , your comment has been proclaimed countless times before. When a nation(its leaders) decides to go to war they usually are at a stage that they dont give a damn about what "rest of the world" thinks about it. We have hydrogen bombs but did that awesome capacity stop wars from happening around the world/ No, so then I guess those going to war didnt give a damn what we the most powerful nation thought about it , the rest of the world or any damn treaties/agreements trade or otherwise!--Tyr

[fj1200]

My friend, treaties, trade agreements and azz kissing have proven to be a poor deterrent to war. History proves this so well! Nothing man has devised has ever proven to be a very successful instrument at preventing war! Nothing but hey , your comment has been proclaimed countless times before. When a nation(its leaders) decides to go to war they usually are at a stage that they dont give a damn about what "rest of the world" thinks about it. We have hydrogen bombs but did that awesome capacity stop wars from happening around the world/ No, so then I guess those going to war didnt give a damn what we the most powerful nation thought about it , the rest of the world or any damn treaties/agreements trade or otherwise!--Tyr

Have I said otherwise? You still need to show how their greed is advanced by war.

[Thunderknuckles]

One thing to keep in mind about this China business is that the U.S. is driven by fear mongering. We always need a boogeyman and like most boogeymen, the threat is imaginary.

[ConHog]

why is a person scum for having different political opinions? Someone answer me that.

[ConHog]

One thing to keep in mind about this China business is that the U.S. is driven by fear mongering. We always need a boogeyman and like most boogeymen, the threat is imaginary.

That's because like it or not our economy is arms centric. If we didn't have an "enemy" out there, how would we justify the billions? But if we stop over arming our military how many local economies would be devastated, hell talk about cancelling a single weapons system and whole cities fear going under.

[fj1200]

That's because like it or not our economy is arms centric. If we didn't have an "enemy" out there, how would we justify the billions? But if we stop over arming our military how many local economies would be devastated, hell talk about cancelling a single weapons system and whole cities fear going under.

Some economies may be arms/base centric but that didn't stop the base closure commission from being approved by Congress.

[ConHog]

Some economies may be arms/base centric but that didn't stop the base closure commission from being approved by Congress.

I was talking about the US economy as a whole. Sure some local communities are more dependent on it than others. And base closures are just proof that even Congress occasionally recognizes gluttony as a bad thing.

[CSM]

That's because like it or not our economy is arms centric. If we didn't have an "enemy" out there, how would we justify the billions? But if we stop over arming our military how many local economies would be devastated, hell talk about cancelling a single weapons system and whole cities fear going under.

This also raises the question of "where do we stop trying to achieve/maintain the technological edge?" and do we even NEED to maintain a technological edge (be it military or otherwise). If the US is content to let some other soveriegn nation assume the role of sole remaining super power, then lets stop wasting money on R&D, sit back and wait for those emerging superpowers to hand us what technological advances they are willing to share and not worry about the rest. Let's stop wasting money on things like global strike, power projection, etc. and focus on maintaining the bare minimum required for defense of the homeland with existing organizations/weapon systems/comms networks and so on. Let's use the money saved from trying to maintain super power status to take care of all domestic issues and let other nations protect our global interests (assuming that other nations will have our US interests at heart in their international dealings). The Japanese managed to do quite well with that philosophy after WW II.

[ConHog]

This also raises the question of "where do we stop trying to achieve/maintain the technological edge?" and do we even NEED to maintain a technological edge (be it military or otherwise). If the US is content to let some other soveriegn nation assume the role of sole remaining super power, then lets stop wasting money on R&D, sit back and wait for those emerging superpowers to hand us what technological advances they are willing to share and not worry about the rest. Let's stop wasting money on things like global strike, power projection, etc. and focus on maintaining the bare minimum required for defense of the homeland with existing organizations/weapon systems/comms networks and so on. Let's use the money saved from trying to maintain super power status to take care of all domestic issues and let other nations protect our global interests (assuming that other nations will have our US interests at heart in their international dealings). The Japanese managed to do quite well with that philosophy after WW II.

Honestly, I don't know if we COULD do that. It's hard wired into us as Americans. Sure we are loud and obnoxious at times, but we're also the very first person in line to bust a nose if someone misbehaves.

I think WWII taught us that lesson. We sat back and said "let Europe deal with that Hitler guy" almost until the last moment. It cost us dearly to. Now it is ironic that we managed to win a world war fought on 3 continents in 1/3 of the time as it has taken us to "win" in Afghanistan, so maybe in fact we have grown fat and complacent and aren't the world leaders we think we are anyway.

[CSM]

Honestly, I don't know if we COULD do that. It's hard wired into us as Americans. Sure we are loud and obnoxious at times, but we're also the very first person in line to bust a nose if someone misbehaves.

I think WWII taught us that lesson. We sat back and said "let Europe deal with that Hitler guy" almost until the last moment. It cost us dearly to. Now it is ironic that we managed to win a world war fought on 3 continents in 1/3 of the time as it has taken us to "win" in Afghanistan, so maybe in fact we have grown fat and complacent and aren't the world leaders we think we are anyway.

I think that comparing COIN operations to WW II is not necessarily a good thing. WW II was all about nation states; Afghanistan is all about terrorist organizations. You can't bomb an ideology and you can only bomb so many mud huts. There is no "win' in Afghanistan ... never has been.

[ConHog]

I think that comparing COIN operations to WW II is not necessarily a good thing. WW II was all about nation states; Afghanistan is all about terrorist organizations. You can't bomb an ideology and you can only bomb so many mud huts. There is no "win' in Afghanistan ... never has been.

A fair point, but we certainly beat the dog shit out of Japan's ideology in WWII. And I would certainly argue that in many ways the Japanese were as barbaric as the terrorists we are fighting now.

Of course one difference is the terrorists wouldn't surrender if we dropped a nuclear weapon on every city in the ME, they don't care.

[fj1200]

I was talking about the US economy as a whole. Sure some local communities are more dependent on it than others. And base closures are just proof that even Congress occasionally recognizes gluttony as a bad thing.

I was disagreeing with the point as a whole. Defense spending to GDP is about 3.6% which admittedly seems high but I think could be absorbed fairly easily in a growing economy.

[ConHog]

I was disagreeing with the point as a whole. Defense spending to GDP is about 3.6% which admittedly seems high but I think could be absorbed fairly easily in a growing economy.

But how much of the other 96.4% is funded BY arms? That's why I said arms centric. Of course not every dollar is directly arms related, but those dollars do affect other industries. The effect would be much greater than just losing 4% of our economy.

[fj1200]

But how much of the other 96.4% is funded BY arms? That's why I said arms centric. Of course not every dollar is directly arms related, but those dollars do affect other industries. The effect would be much greater than just losing 4% of our economy.

Then you could say that the economy is "anything" centric. Of course there's a multiplier in any spending. And that 3.6% was overall military and not just "arms."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Have I said otherwise? You still need to show how their greed is advanced by war.

If you have not said otherwise then we agree.
Actually I do not need to show that -the bolded above. History points out the truth of it and China is no exception to history. Just as we not in regrds to war. China will assume the number one spot and will become the number one trading nation in the world , simply because of their population, India will be behind but may catch up fast if we switch over to using their labor force instead of China's, which by the way we should do!
Are you willing to declare that China with its communist regime wil act better than we have since assuming the hnumber one spot after WW2!??? If yes, please share what exactly births this wonderful faith in their future gentle ways? Damn, they are already bullying the Philippines even before reaching the number one spot. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One thing to keep in mind about this China business is that the U.S. is driven by fear mongering. We always need a boogeyman and like most boogeymen, the threat is imaginary.

I disagree with that part about China not being a future boogeyman. We have been the mildest number 1 power in history. The Chinese will not be so kind and merciful, for they fear and hate freedom! -Tyr

[ConHog]

Then you could say that the economy is "anything" centric. Of course there's a multiplier in any spending. And that 3.6% was overall military and not just "arms."

Right FJ, which means it was JUST the military (at least that's my reading) doesn't account for any other weapon sales, hunting, that sort of thing.

[Noir]

I switched off when i saw that 90% of the text in the op is in caps, they may aswell of written it in comic sans.

Edit - I did type this whole post in caps, but it seems its auto-uncapped, good job whoever implemented that. (:

[taft2012]

The Japanese managed to do quite well with that philosophy after WW II.

Swell. If you can find a country that will guarantee our military security at their own expense, allow us to run up huge wealth, and even run up a huge trade imbalance against our benefactor... hell, I'm with ya!

[CSM]

Swell. If you can find a country that will guarantee our military security at their own expense, allow us to run up huge wealth, and even run up a huge trade imbalance against our benefactor... hell, I'm with ya!

That's exactly what I was being sarcastic about.

It's easy to say that the US should stand down as a super power (cut the defense budget etc.) but I am skeptical that any other nation on the planet will step in and protect US interests across the globe. If the US becomes weak enough, it would actually provide incentive for nations like China to confront the US militarily. The US cannot match China in mumbers and is quickly lagging in industrial production capability. The technology gap is narrowing swiftly as well. As I was trying to imply, the US cannot simply say "We have reached the limit. We will maintain our military capability at the current level." This is not fear mongering nor is advocating a military confrontation with any other nation. It is suggesting that the US needs to maintain enough of an edge through whatever means to protect it's own interests. If it does not, then US interests will either have to narrow in scope or be abandoned in the face of political/economic/military threat presented by any nation which deems itself capable of countering or subverting US efforts.

Obviously, there has to be a balance. We elect our nation's leaders to determine what that balance is and how to maintain it. Some of our leaders are more effective than others in that endeavor.

[fj1200]

Actually I do not need to show that -the bolded above. History points out the truth of it and China is no exception to history.

Disagree. You've stated that they will advance their greed by their aggressive ways.

[ConHog]

Disagree. You've stated that they will advance their greed by their aggressive ways.

Tyr is not interested in factual discussion.

[jimnyc]

Tyr is not interested in factual discussion.

You complain that Tyr doesn't ignore you when he said he was, and you don't ignore him any differently. I see little point in either claiming to be taking the upper road and then turning around and making veiled comments and insults. You both feel the need to make little comments to continue the animosity instead of just leaving things alone, and the same is done towards you. You're both guilty.

[Kathianne]

You complain that Tyr doesn't ignore you when he said he was, and you don't ignore him any differently. I see little point in either claiming to be taking the upper road and then turning around and making veiled comments and insults. You both feel the need to make little comments to continue the animosity instead of just leaving things alone, and the same is done towards you. You're both guilty.

and it's boring.

[ConHog]

You complain that Tyr doesn't ignore you when he said he was, and you don't ignore him any differently. I see little point in either claiming to be taking the upper road and then turning around and making veiled comments and insults. You both feel the need to make little comments to continue the animosity instead of just leaving things alone, and the same is done towards you. You're both guilty.

Correction. I make snide remarks when Tyr claims he is ignoring me all the while talking shit about me. I have never claimed to have put Tyr on ignore and yet rarely even flame him (by the way that was a damn mild "flame" anyway)

I "complain" when only one side is called out publicly, that isn't the case here so I've no problems.