China Navy Power

FuManChu said:

China hasn't recently been subject to (and breaking) UNSC resolutions like Iraq was, nor has it been kicking off conflicts against its neighbours. You cannot compare Iraq and China.

Click to expand...

Are you forgetting? Many politicians in the US say China is the worst country in the world and should be included in the Axis of Evil. The US has attacked countries for less. And somehow you think the rhetoric coming out of China is a legit reason for antagonism and suspicion from the US but not the other way around?

it is also one reason the USN does not trust China. She has refused any type of joint resource sharing and has occupied several islands in vioaltion of international law.

Click to expand...

The last I heard China is involved in joint development porgrams with several nations with claims over the Spratleys and has pledged a peaceful solution to ASEAN over the issue.

AssassinsMace said:

Are you forgetting? Many politicians in the US say China is the worst country in the world and should be included in the Axis of Evil. The US has attacked countries for less.

Click to expand...

The US has not attacked countries just because some people argue they should be included in the "Axis of Evil"! Iraq was attacked for a variety of reasons, and maybe if China was a major energy supplier it could have grounds for concern. But it isn't, and there is nothing to actually be gained from attacking China. Washington knows that, so it won't attack China lightly. As I said, the same works the other way around.

And somehow you think the rhetoric coming out of China is a legit reason for antagonism and suspicion from the US but not the other way around?

Click to expand...

Where did I say that? Please show me. I merely pointed out that reacting to the voices of some people will create a vicious circle. The best thing to do is talk with the administration and those people that want good relations.

FuManChu said:

1. You were talking about the "Western world", not just the US. I said it was nonsense that a coalition of powers was seeking to contain China. China is a concern to the US in part due to problems over Taiwan. The US is committed to helping Taiwan, so obviously it doesn't want to make its own job that much harder by allowing China to buy whatever it wants.

2. India is already a nuclear power - Iran is not. Iran has also made threats to destroy Israel - is India nearly as beligerant? Not really.

3. If the US really wanted to contain China it would subsidise Taiwanese arms shipments - as it is, it often charges more than it does its other customers.

4. China is not the only security concern in the region - North Korea is more of a current problem. Besides the US doesn't want to have to look after Japan. It would much prefer it if it could rely on Japan for military support the world over. Other countries like the UK have supported Japan's efforts to normalise itself - and we don't care nearly as much about China as the Americans do - because we want to see Japan helping out on deployments as well, whether its peacekeeping, disaster relief, or whatever.

Click to expand...

Yes I say US and Japan that want to contain China .US try to enlarge Nato mandate by invoking Islamic threat and from there it is only small step to include Asia Pacific as theater of operation Sofar the European refused to get dragged into future quakemire

What are you talking about It is the principle that count Owning nuclear bomb is discourage So I don't see any difference between India and Iran What it got to do with Israel Do you mean that the whole world owe Israel a security blanket

To butress my point for long time US has refused to sell India offensive weapon because India explode nuclear bomb only recently in an effort to contain China US butter up to India

I don't see any need for Japan to rearm because Japan is under protection of US nuclear umbrella and 7th Fleet Anyway Japan has the best defensive Navy outside US and has been spending heavily over the decades

To declare Taiwan straits as area of future collaboration between US and Japanese navy is offensive and cannot be considered as friendly act

US is a capitalist country nothing come free in US Plus defensive industry is large source of employment in certain district in US Ofcourse US will charge arm and leg for its weapon It is the Taiwan opposition party that wisely refused to dole out ransom money They don't see any need to buy grossly overprice weapon system that take to long to implement and will be outdated by the time it come into service

FuManChu said:

I know perfectly well that there are anti-Chinese attitudes in the US. But as I said there are things China could do to reduce tensions, just as there are things that it cannot change, nor should try to even if technically it could (such as revaluing the Yuan too much). But then again there are also lots of anti-US attitudes in China. If you want to have a comparison, there are more negative feelings about the US in China than vice versa.

If China just uses feelings in the US as an excuse not to try to change or a reason to do X, it will just lead to a vicious circle. The US says China is a problem, China gets annoyed and tells the US to shut up, the US sees that as evidence China isn't interested in compromise, so it takes a tougher/more defensive line, anti-US sentiment grows in China (and it is already pretty high), etc.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's not that easy. I didn't start to fully appreciate the anti-Chinese sentiment in the American congress/senate until after I came to New York. There are many in America that sees a conflict with China has inevitable and so do people in China. But China has far more reasons to avoid such a confrontation than America, since it stands to loose far more.

You didn't say that - you said the entire Indian Navy. That is asking too much.

Click to expand...

I said SSF has to be greater than the entire Indian Navy and that one carrier group of SSF has to be able to defeat any combination of carriers + escorts sent out by Indian navy.

Hendrik_2000 said:

Yes I say US and Japan that want to contain China .

Click to expand...

Since when did the US and Japan constitute the entire "Western world"?

US try to enlarge Nato mandate by invoking Islamic threat and from there it is only small step to include Asia Pacific as theater of operation Sofar the European refused to get dragged into future quakemire

Click to expand...

So now NATO enlargement is just about China? There is nothing to suggest that at all.

What are you talking about It is the principle that count Owning nuclear bomb is discourage So I don't see any difference between India and Iran What it got to do with Israel Do you mean that the whole world owe Israel a security blanket

Click to expand...

So you wouldn't have a problem with Japan going nuclear and threatening to "wipe North Korea off the map"?

To butress my point for long time US has refused to sell India offensive weapon because India explode nuclear bomb only recently in an effort to contain China US butter up to India

Click to expand...

India is far more concerned about Pakistan at the moment than it is China.

I don't see any need for Japan to rearm because Japan is under protection of US nuclear umbrella and 7th Fleet Anyway Japan has the best defensive Navy outside US and has been spending heavily over the decades

Click to expand...

It's Japan's choice whether it rearms. Why should it be the only country in the region to have an unofficial military? Besides, if China is concerned about protecting its shipping, Japan should be even more concerned as an island nation. They can't count on the Americans forever.

To declare Taiwan straits as area of future collaboration between US and Japanese navy is offensive and cannot be considered as friendly act

Click to expand...

Neither is suggesting nuclear strikes against the US West Coast by PRC missiles, but there you go.....

It is the Taiwan opposition party that wisely refused to dole out ransom money They don't see any need to buy grossly overprice weapon system that take to long to implement and will be outdated by the time it come into service

Click to expand...

Outdated?! The P-3C Orion is going to outdated by the early point of next decade? As will PAC-3 and a new fleet of SSKs (if they ever find a builder)? Hahaha, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. You really don't know much about Taiwanese military affairs, apart from Chinese propaganda do you?

Besides, the KMT have given their support to the arms purchases in part, as can be seen by the fact they've helped the government pass the procurements in the 2007 budget to the second reading. But if you knew about the situation in Taiwan you would know all that.

FuManChu said:

Since when did the US and Japan constitute the entire "Western world"?



Besides, the KMT have given their support to the arms purchases in part, as can be seen by the fact they've helped the government pass the procurements in the 2007 budget to the second reading. But if you knew about the situation in Taiwan you would know all that.

Click to expand...

No they don't pass the whole defense budget they only allow selected weapon purchase and oen of the item is buying Orion Lougheed anti submarine system

So why is allright for Japan to rearm and not for China to protect SLOC ?

FuManChu said:

The US has not attacked countries just because some people argue they should be included in the "Axis of Evil"! Iraq was attacked for a variety of reasons, and maybe if China was a major energy supplier it could have grounds for concern. But it isn't, and there is nothing to actually be gained from attacking China. Washington knows that, so it won't attack China lightly. As I said, the same works the other way around.



Where did I say that? Please show me. I merely pointed out that reacting to the voices of some people will create a vicious circle. The best thing to do is talk with the administration and those people that want good relations.

Click to expand...

Listen to the rhetoric for attacking Iraq. Human rights... getting rid of dictators... saving oppressed women... having WMDs... all things that can be said of China. Unless you want to admit that this is all bull. Just like with China?


Where you said it was pointing out a Chinese general boasting about reaching LA with a nuke. It was just rhetoric. So if you use that as a reason for US antagonism for China which was there long before that comment, then China has a hundred times more reasons.

tphuang said:

Actually, it's not that easy. I didn't start to fully appreciate the anti-Chinese sentiment in the American congress/senate until after I came to New York. There are many in America that sees a conflict with China has inevitable and so do people in China. But China has far more reasons to avoid such a confrontation than America, since it stands to loose far more.

Click to expand...

The US still has a lot to lose - just because China may suffer more doesn't mean the US would benefit. It would be a lose-lose conflict.

I said SSF has to be greater than the entire Indian Navy and that one carrier group of SSF has to be able to defeat any combination of carriers + escorts sent out by Indian navy.

Click to expand...

Ok, but I still disagree. You said it would operate two carriers - the Indians could easily end up with more than that by the time China could have two carriers at all. Even then China would have to deploy both its only big ships into the SSF and leave the other fleets with no carriers. Maybe you think that wouldn't be a problem, but personally I wouldn't want to concentrate my assets like that, until I had 3 carriers.

Hendrik_2000 said:

No they don't pass the whole defense budget they only allow selected weapon purchase and oen of the item is buying Orion Lougheed anti submarine system

Click to expand...

They allowed most of it through, especially the bits that commentators regard as being the most important. P-3C Orions, PAC-2 upgrade, R&D money for the SSKs and a budget for the F-16s if Taiwan can get a pledge from Washington the sale will be approved. It would have been unwise to pledge money for submarines that don't have a designated builder. As for new PAC-3 batteries, there was a squabble over the use of a referendum - they may be approved next year (or not).

Certainly the KMT wanted these weapons when they were in power. If they regain the Presidency in 2008, I am sure they will be placing more orders for arms, just like in the "good old days".

So why is allright for Japan to rearm and not for China to protect SLOC?

Click to expand...

I never said China "couldn't" protect its sea-lanes. I questioned whether there was such an urgent threat that it had to increase its ship production faster than it is already progressing!

Besides would you want to see Japan kit itself out with as much stuff as some people here want China to in as short a time period?

AssassinsMace said:

Listen to the rhetoric for attacking Iraq. Human rights... getting rid of dictators... saving oppressed women... having WMDs... all things that can be said of China. Unless you want to admit that this is all bull. Just like with China?

Click to expand...

America has accepted China as a nuclear power. The issue of WMDs and China is a non-starter, unless it develops a "death ray" that could wipe out the entire US and render its nuclear counter-strike unusable. Whereas Iraq was in the centre of one of the world's most key energy centres - there was no way in the Americans' minds they could take the risk Saddam would get the sanctions lifted and rearm himself. Maybe they shouldn't have attacked, but they saw a slim window of opportunity to stop him. That can't apply to China as it is already nuclear (unless as I said China invents some doomsday weapon).

As to human rights and the rest of it, that was a subsequent justification when the US realised it had screwed up over the WMD business. Saddam seemed to be interested in getting more, but he didn't have anything at the time that the US could point to. So the politicians tried to find other reasons to justify the war - what could they say, "sorry we got the WMD reason wrong, so we shouldn't have gone to war"? In that respect it was bull. Saudi Arabia is a human rights abuser, but the Yanks get on really well with them. Do you see Riyadh being concerned about an American invasion in the name of human rights?!

Where you said it was pointing out a Chinese general boasting about reaching LA with a nuke. It was just rhetoric. So if you use that as a reason for US antagonism for China which was there long before that comment, then China has a hundred times more reasons.

Click to expand...

How often has the US threatened to nuke China if it does whatever?

If you're saying that the Chinese general's comments were pure rhetoric, then surely the same can be said about US comments. Why not just discount both and ignore them? That is what I've been saying all along - ignore hardliners.