China conducts flight landing on aircraft carrier

[Weta43]

No, it's like saying someone might purchase a handgun or rifle for the purpose of defending their family.

 

Sorry, but if you have an Empire, you're the mugger, not the victim.

 

That's what Empires are for - extracting the wealth from subject states.

 

Conflicts between Empires are not about self defence, they're about fighting it out to see who gets the most lucrative victims.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Weta43

[eleazar]

As a Chinese I have to say I am impressed with all the arguments and comments in this thread. Most of the other threads in the news websites are just full with "it is a like shit, anyone can sink it easily" stuffs.

 

Actually i am in a strange position right now. Grow up in China, but spend the last 10 years study in Singapore, thus i actually know both sides, their ideology and strategy etc.

 

1st of all i have to say that the carrier which is developed by China IS an aggressive approach. Seriously, who will be so desperately in need for a carrier that he decides to rebuild the Varyag. (if you know what has been done to it before shipping to China) The usage of the carrier will be mostly to train carrier crews and pilots, BUT it is still a mobile weapon platform which can create serious potential damage to most of the countries in SEA region. (to U.S and Japan I don't think so.) As for which doctrine that the Chinese will follow, I do believe that China is following the U.S (in naval design and build up), or at least the Chinese are taking the U.S as a model that to learn from. (just look at the China J-15 takeoff from carrier video, the crew setup and action they use) And while China has already trying to pass the stage of cheap and low cost production, the desire for resource, especially oil is obvious and that is one of the reason for China to take stand on both territorial conflicts with Japan and SEA countries.

 

Now, about SEA. Being in Singapore for 10 years and look around the neighbors I have to say if they lose the south china sea, they brought this to themselves. (maybe i am too cruel) The problem is other than Singapore and India, the SEA countries lack in military power in EVERY aspect. (you can wiki) Most of the SEA countries rely TOO MUCH on the U.S regarding on military power, and what they do is to take their own sweet time and corrupt their own country. Yes, many people here might know how corrupted the Chinese government is, however the reason that we all know the corruption is because the Chinese are trying to correct it by bring the problems out to the sun. What happened in the SEA region is the corruption has been so bad that most regular people can do nothing about it. Thus, while OBAMA starts to focus on rebuilding U.S and reduce military spending by NOT getting involved in too many conflicts, the SEA country realize they do not have the strength nor power to over come the presents of China. (recently the conflict between China and Philippine few months back) Thus they are crying for help on the U.S to bring balance back to the region. However as all of you know that just ASIA itself U.S has to bring power to 3 parts, 01. N.Korea vs S.Korea 02. China vs Japan and Russia vs Japan 03 China vs Taiwan. Now it requires another fleet to operating in south china sea which makes total of 4 regions to take care of, that is not even counting the middle east, Iran and etc. The recent "the economist" magazine has also pointed out this problem that OBAMA tries to focus on U.S yet the world is asking for the balance of power EVERYWHERE. Thus the absence of the U.S in SEA region makes the China carrier a much more big treat and topic.

 

As China will not stop building the new carrier (most likely the similar design of the U.S with catapult, people will say it is a copy again lol) and increase its naval power (just look at the speed that we are building the 054 series) with the SEA countries still fighting with each other or corrupting their own country. South china sea will eventually being the paradise and training field for the Chinese. IMO

[Cali]

Who cares if people say it's a copy, as long as it works for them.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

However as all of you know that just ASIA itself U.S has to bring power to 3 parts, 01. N.Korea vs S.Korea 02. China vs Japan and Russia vs Japan 03 China vs Taiwan.

U.S.A. does not have to bring power anywhere! Why should my tax dollars be spent to "to bring power" around the world?

 

BTW, right now, USA, my government, borrows 40 cents for every dollar it spends! So "to bring power" to "protect" (what?) people around the world, my children and grandchildren will be paying back to China and other creditors countries for decades to come. Decades ... Right now, USA government debt Interest alone is more then we spend on our own EDUCATION!!!!

 

Since 2010 Social Security fund is paying MORE then it takes, that means, when I retire, my pension my not be available!! And that is from the fund I've been paying into my entire life!

 

As is right now, Medicare funding will only hold until 2024, that means when I retire I MIGHT not have medical insurance!!

 

With all due respect, Eleazar, one need to understand that USA is not what it use to be. We are still the biggest superpower, and nobody in the world can challenge that might. But it is not what it use to be ...

[EtherealN]

I think you are misunderstanding what he's saying:

 

He's saying that given the lack of military might in most SEA countries, if military balance is to be maintained, the US has to cover all those areas. He doesn't say the US has an obligation to the world or to itself to do this, just the practical statement that if balance is to be achieved, given the current inability of local countries to do it, it would have to be the US.

[Kuky]

Well things never stay the way they are forever... one falls... another rises... and so on and so on.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I think you are misunderstanding what he's saying:

I know exactly what he was saying.

 

He's saying that given the lack of military might in most SEA countries, if military balance is to be maintained, the US has to cover all those areas.

Military balance can be achieved without US involvement. Those countries over there, they can sit down to talk or create military alliances on their own. Thus, US does NOT have to cover all those areas.

 

He doesn't say the US has an obligation to the world or to itself to do this, just the practical statement that if balance is to be achieved, given the current inability of local countries to do it, it would have to be the US.

Inability, often comes from unwillingness. Thus, I don't want to spend my money and my blood to support unwilling ...

 

There is a different dimension to this discussion. And that is, many people believe that USA can just bring F-16 and problem is "solved"! Maybe, it was possible in the past (often, it was very wrong way to "solve" problems), but times are changing ...

[eleazar]

U.S.A. does not have to bring power anywhere! Why should my tax dollars be spent to "to bring power" around the world?

 

BTW, right now, USA, my government, borrows 40 cents for every dollar it spends! So "to bring power" to "protect" (what?) people around the world, my children and grandchildren will be paying back to China and other creditors countries for decades to come. Decades ... Right now, USA government debt Interest alone is more then we spend on our own EDUCATION!!!!

 

Since 2010 Social Security fund is paying MORE then it takes, that means, when I retire, my pension my not be available!! And that is from the fund I've been paying into my entire life!

 

As is right now, Medicare funding will only hold until 2024, that means when I retire I MIGHT not have medical insurance!!

 

With all due respect, Eleazar, one need to understand that USA is not what it use to be. We are still the biggest superpower, and nobody in the world can challenge that might. But it is not what it use to be ...

 

Yes, it is exactly what should be done in the U.S side. (and IMO obama wins the election is good for the future of the U.S) However, those SEA countries don't care about what the U.S people are suffering with. They are just want to relax and let the U.S to deal with the problem. I am NOT joking and that's why i said that my country China can easily take over the control of the region. The SEA countries just want the good things without working hard. As for the N.Korea, think you have read the news about the missile thingy. it feels like this world relies too much on the U.S and U.S along.

[Cali]

I know exactly what he was saying.

 

Military balance can be achieved without US involvement. Those countries over there, they can sit down to talk or create military alliances on their own. Thus, US does NOT have to cover all those areas.

 

Inability, often comes from unwillingness. Thus, I don't want to spend my money and my blood to support unwilling ...

 

There is a different dimension to this discussion. And that is, many people believe that USA can just bring F-16 and problem is "solved"! Maybe, it was possible in the past (often, it was very wrong way to "solve" problems), but times are changing ...

 

The USA gets involved in every conflict, don't know why sometimes but they do. We have troops all over the world, Korea, Afgan and Iraq just to name a few places. Hopefully people don't think we can bring a few F-16's and that's it. It takes a lot more then that, I'm sure some people don't really know what is involved in moving military assets around the world.

 

Yes, it is exactly what should be done in the U.S side. (and IMO obama wins the election is good for the future of the U.S) However, those SEA countries don't care about what the U.S people are suffering with. They are just want to relax and let the U.S to deal with the problem. I am NOT joking and that's why i said that my country China can easily take over the control of the region. The SEA countries just want the good things without working hard. As for the N.Korea, think you have read the news about the missile thingy. it feels like this world relies too much on the U.S and U.S along.

 

You are right, people don't care about someone they don't know. Our leaders should be the ones that have us in mind. I see this happen often, our last base commander would never say "no, we can't support that". He would say yes to everything and we would be spread thin working 12 hour shifts because of it.

 

Whenever there is a problem in the world, we send people. Sometimes they need to work this stuff out on their own. However, I do see sometimes why we do send people. We don't want things to get out of hand. We give Pakistan Millions of dollars and they didn't even know Bin laden was living down the street from one of their bases, yea right....they were playing both sides.

[Kuky]

Keep in mind though, any time the US sends troops the US gets something in return, be it more influence in the region, helping setup new gov that is beneficial to them, etc etc. Things like this is not done for nothing... there's always something in return. The gov has to "sell" their reasons why they do it, why their people go to fight somewhere else, "for someone else" etc... all of it is just politics... you know the drill.

 

PS: this is not just a slam on the US, it's just like that with any country/gov that has potential and means to do so. Small countries send troops also but in smaller numbers, in return they get help (money of other) from the big guys, as sometimes just being able to say the big guys have support from others has political meaning.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Kuky

[marcos]

The gov has to "sell" their reasons why they do it, why their people go to fight somewhere else, "for someone else" etc... all of it is just politics... you know the drill.

Pun?:D

[blackbelter]

As a Chinese I have to say I am impressed with all the arguments and comments in this thread. Most of the other threads in the news websites are just full with "it is a like shit, anyone can sink it easily" stuffs.

 

Actually i am in a strange position right now. Grow up in China, but spend the last 10 years study in Singapore, thus i actually know both sides, their ideology and strategy etc.

 

1st of all i have to say that the carrier which is developed by China IS an aggressive approach. Seriously, who will be so desperately in need for a carrier that he decides to rebuild the Varyag. (if you know what has been done to it before shipping to China) The usage of the carrier will be mostly to train carrier crews and pilots, BUT it is still a mobile weapon platform which can create serious potential damage to most of the countries in SEA region. (to U.S and Japan I don't think so.) As for which doctrine that the Chinese will follow, I do believe that China is following the U.S (in naval design and build up), or at least the Chinese are taking the U.S as a model that to learn from. (just look at the China J-15 takeoff from carrier video, the crew setup and action they use) And while China has already trying to pass the stage of cheap and low cost production, the desire for resource, especially oil is obvious and that is one of the reason for China to take stand on both territorial conflicts with Japan and SEA countries.

 

Now, about SEA. Being in Singapore for 10 years and look around the neighbors I have to say if they lose the south china sea, they brought this to themselves. (maybe i am too cruel) The problem is other than Singapore and India, the SEA countries lack in military power in EVERY aspect. (you can wiki) Most of the SEA countries rely TOO MUCH on the U.S regarding on military power, and what they do is to take their own sweet time and corrupt their own country. Yes, many people here might know how corrupted the Chinese government is, however the reason that we all know the corruption is because the Chinese are trying to correct it by bring the problems out to the sun. What happened in the SEA region is the corruption has been so bad that most regular people can do nothing about it. Thus, while OBAMA starts to focus on rebuilding U.S and reduce military spending by NOT getting involved in too many conflicts, the SEA country realize they do not have the strength nor power to over come the presents of China. (recently the conflict between China and Philippine few months back) Thus they are crying for help on the U.S to bring balance back to the region. However as all of you know that just ASIA itself U.S has to bring power to 3 parts, 01. N.Korea vs S.Korea 02. China vs Japan and Russia vs Japan 03 China vs Taiwan. Now it requires another fleet to operating in south china sea which makes total of 4 regions to take care of, that is not even counting the middle east, Iran and etc. The recent "the economist" magazine has also pointed out this problem that OBAMA tries to focus on U.S yet the world is asking for the balance of power EVERYWHERE. Thus the absence of the U.S in SEA region makes the China carrier a much more big treat and topic.

 

As China will not stop building the new carrier (most likely the similar design of the U.S with catapult, people will say it is a copy again lol) and increase its naval power (just look at the speed that we are building the 054 series) with the SEA countries still fighting with each other or corrupting their own country. South china sea will eventually being the paradise and training field for the Chinese. IMO

 

Hello there, your fellow countryman here. And I am in Singapore, too.

 

I beg to disagree with your overly-simplified point of view on the current territorial confrontations surrounding China, as I think there is more to them. A more retrospective as well as a bigger point of view is required in order to better understand these confrontations. We need to ask questions such as the following. These territorial disputes between China and our neighboring countries have existed for many years, why do they suddenly become realistic confrontations? More importantly, why do these incidences occur virtually at the same time? And who started these confrontations? Don't tell me it's all but coincidence that all these happened soon after the US government announced its plan of "rebalancing toward Asia". Now people in Japan and Phillipines are welcoming the US troops, while Vietnam is waving toward Russia.

 

On a related issue, it's truely sad to see the premature suspension of the Yuan-Yen direct trading system because of the dispute. It could have been a big thing, for both China and Japan.

Edited January 15, 2013 by blackbelter

[dumgrunt]

I think confrontations and territorial disputes become more of an issues when there is something worth fighting for. I think the US "shift to the pacific" came after the fact not before. And the dispute became heightened when the shitload of oil became a very real prospect if not certainty. Look at the Agean, and that is between two NATO "allies".

 

The US seems to be far less willing to take on the global policeman role. The intervention in Libya where Obama insisted the EU do some of the heavy lifting is a perfect example. Probably one of his best pieces of foreign policy to date.

 

One massive counter balance that people are forgetting is India, who are actively helping the Vietnamese with natural resource prospecting in the region, have a confrontational history with China, and probably are the only credible threat to the Chinese in the region. The US forming closer ties with Pakistan at the expense of relations with India could have been at the risk of greater consequences down the line.

 

One major element at least here is the underestimation of the chinese willingness to go to war over the south china sea. Recent conversation i had with mates:

White guy: China would never go to war, it doesnt make economic sense

Chinese guy: you don't understand it not just about the money.

 

And this is coming from a country where our defence spending is at its lowest since the great depression, which was announced the same time as us inviting an MEU at Darwin. (yes we are bludging off the yanks too)

 

One thing I am asking myself is it really against Australia's interests if the Chinese own the South China sea. Because if shit gets real (our treaty with the US and Singapore) we will be involved.

[blackbelter]

Hi there. You may not agree with the causality between the events, but the temporal order of them cannot be denied. While energy resources can be an issue in the future, it is of no particular importance in the immediate short term to any of the countries involved, all of which have more important economic problems to deal with. So energy resources cannot be the cause of the materialization of the confrontation at this particular moment.

 

As to your concern whether Australia should be involved in possible future conflicts, my opinion would be: it must be. What would be a war that is started among the three largest economies? It has got to be a world war. In other words, all countries would be involved directly or indirectly. The world economy would go south further than it has, and more conflicts would appear as consequences. I am not even mentioning the possibility of a nuclear war. Fortunately, it is precisely because of this perspective, rational powers will not choose that path. But i have no idea if irrational powers, be it Japanese, Chinese or American, have the energy to push history into that path.

Edited January 19, 2013 by blackbelter

[lobo]

What the heck happened to this thread... lol :doh:

[FanBoy2006.01]

What the heck happened to this thread... lol :doh:

 

When the USA sneezes, the rest of the word gets a cold.

 

When China test their handgun, the rest of the world reaches for theirs.

Edited January 21, 2013 by FanBoy2006.01

[blackbelter]

When the USA sneezes, the rest of the word gets a cold.

 

When China test their handgun, the rest of the world reaches for theirs.

 

What you said is sad but, unfortunately, true. On a different perspective, it's not so surprising that other countries are so sensitive to anything military in China. Considering that China has recently invaded Afganistan and Iraq for b******ting reasons, it is likely that China will do it again to another country. The problem is: no one can be sure which country will be China's next target.

 

Oh wait...

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Considering that China has recently invaded Afganistan and Iraq for b******ting reasons, it is likely that China will do it again to another country.

China invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Are you referring to "economical" invasion?

 

BTW, in the past two decades or more, we have been fighting wars and using military for "democracy and human rights" (read "to advance our interest"), while Chinese quietly worked to establish trade with many countries, taking over almost entire continents ... Our debt is now more the 100% of our GDP and growing, our budget deficit is close to 30%, we did not avoid fiscal cliff (yet), our military budget is larger then entire world together, and our combined financial obligations is a number with 14 or 15 digits ...

 

No country in the history of the world benefited from prolonged warfare.

[FanBoy2006.01]

...

No country in the history of the world benefited from prolonged warfare.

 

Actually. I heard years ago (Before 2001.) that back then the USA was already the country with the highest dept in the world.

 

Clearly war will always been economically bad for a country; but there are other factors involved. Western nations just have bad economical policy.

 

That is not the only reason though. So my statement is a gross oversimplification.

 

Here in South Africa we are much better. Except that our government is stealing the budget and mismanaging that which they couldn't steal.:thumbup:

[EtherealN]

Guys, subject is Chinese carrier landing, not debates about international and economic policy and politics. Thankyou.