Skip to comments.Your Move, Beijing: Big Year Ahead for Chinese Navy
Posted on 12/23/2011 8:03:46 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Your Move, Beijing: Big Year Ahead for Chinese Navy
At a meeting in Beijing in December, Chinese president Hu Jintao had a powerful message for officials from the People's Liberation Army Navy. "Prepare for war," Hu said, using a Mandarin term -- junshi douzheng -- that means "conflict in general."
Amplified and misrepresented by the foreign media, Hu's words echoed across Asia and the Pacific Ocean, alarming observers in Japan, India and other nations and eliciting a cool response from the U.S. Navy. "Nobody's looking for a scrap here," Adm. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, told AFP. "Certainly we wouldn't begrudge any other nation the opportunity to develop naval forces."
"Hu was highlighting the importance of continued naval modernization," pointed out M. Taylor Fravel, a professor of security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Chinese president's statement "does not refer to a desire to go war, much less preparations for specific combat operations," Fravel said.
But the tizzy over Mandarin semantics belies a more serious issue. In a little less than a decade -- about as long as it takes the U.S. to fund, build and commission a single aircraft carrier -- the PLAN has evolved from a coastal defense force to the early stages of a blue-water navy worthy of concern.
As part of its 11th five-year military plan beginning in 2006, China has: commissioned dozens of new frigates, destroyers, submarines and amphibious ships; begun sea trials of the country's first aircraft carrier, the former Soviet Varyag; deployed ships overseas for the first time in modern Chinese history; and developed a "carrier-killer" system that combines ocean-surveillance satellites, drones and maneuverable Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles.
The past few years have
(Excerpt) Read more at defense.aol.com ...
Targets of opportunity.
Let the Chinese Navy tanks overrun North Korea!
If -- big if -- we had a naval war with China, we might start strong, and have one victory after another. But we simply could not replace any material losses we might suffer. The massive industrial base in China could churn out ships and planes and replace whatever we destroyed. Eventually, they would score some solid victories, and we would simply not recover.
This was a pretty limp ending to the article. All militaries prepare for war. And all political leaders try to raise troop morale by telling their militaries that they're not just parade ground soldiers and their role is a vital one. The difference with China is its pattern of armed clashes over territorial issues with half-a-dozen countries in the 60 year time frame after the Communist takeover.
>>Eventually, they would score some solid victories, and we would simply not recover.<<
I guess you’re expecting a protracted war.
“But we simply could not replace any material losses we might suffer.”
But, couldn’t we get some Mexicans to slap together a few steel mills and start building some planes, tanks and ships???/s;)
That massive industrial base will not be able to churn out oil to drive their war machine. That is their Achilles’ heel.
1) Protracted war -- we fight these a lot, but we fight to lose. There is no way we could win a protracted war against China. Economically, politically, militarily, we haven't a hope.
2) Atomic war -- we could win this way, but we don't fight this way. Just ain't gonna happen.
3) Undignified appeasement and surrender -- China can do anything it wants with its military: we won't even pretend to try and stop them. And they know it.
3 options. And 2 of them are jokes. Only option 3 is really on the table.
looking for a scrap? nah. we’re just devaluing our dollar... the same dollars we owe them
imagine if you lent someone $1000 and they paid you back a total of $250. how pissed would you be?
that’s what we’re doing to the chinese
Not if that industrial base was under pinpoint air attack. As you know, the US mainland was not bombed in WWII. The Chinese would not have this advantage.
Mark Steyn, writing for Macleans magazine, recently outlined some startling facts regarding the U.S. debt:
By 2010, about half our debt was owned by foreigners, and somewhere over a quarter of that was held by the Chinese (officially).
What does that mean? In 2010, the U.S. spent about $663 billion on its military, China about $78 billion. If the Peoples Republic carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payment on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces.
In 2010, the Pentagon issued an alarming report to Congress on Beijings massive military buildup, upgrading bombers, and an aircraft carrier research and development program intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the Pacific. What the report didnt mention is whos paying for it.
Steyn goes on to reveal the answer: Mr. and Mrs. America. It is a sound biblical principle that the borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). The U.S. should be very mindful that the deeper it goes into debt, the more its resources will be redirected to those nations who hold that debt.
They sure could.
But they wouldn't. We don't allow ourselves to fight wars in ways in which civilian casualties might be a possibility.
It’s 1937 again, but the old Japan is the new China —sort of.
There will be some manufactured incident, but the real cause will be OIL.
Reality is a bit more complicated. If you remain superior you prevent the instability we are discussing here. Unfortuately we may be too stupid in the long run to maintain superiority.
If you believe the war will remain conventional, it seems to me one US advantage is allies with decent armies and navies in a supporting role. Taiwan, S Korea, Japan, India, even Vietnam. Possibly England and European powers, as well.
If the war is nuclear or escalates there, all bets are off. Don’t forget the Chinese can inflict horrendous damage here. We can return the favor but the Chinese are counting on us not wanting the USA as a smouldering radioactive wreck and millions of casualties.
All this is why we should remain strong in the first place.
Also, the Russians, Cubans, Venezuelans, Arabs, and North Koreans could attack us at the same time and wipe us out in a day.
China will only risk attack with full assurance from the Russians et al that they will also attack.
China is NOT stupid.
See the tagline ...
The US has two enemies, Islam and China. US needs income to pay down their debt. Here is the quandary. If we develop shale oil and gas, we can be net exporter to generate income and pay our debts/employ Americans. This undermines Iran and Saudi Arabia as oil prices drop. Problem is cheap oil benefits Chinese economy thus rise of Chinese regional military might in Far East. Go the other way, moderate oil and NG development, lower employment slower debt repayment, Chinese economy slowed by higher cost oil and inflation, but Iran and Saudi Arabia shaky regimes have money to placate unrest and fund terrorism. The US has a two front strategic headache plus third front - inability to deal with looming gov deficits. Whoever is POTUS in 2013 must deal with this financial and two front balancing act on potential threats.