Blackstone
Brigadier
I'm surprised to see your lack of understanding on the fundamental link between size of a nation's comprehensive power and the ability to pursue its interests. Nevertheless, you might benefit from a bit of education on the matter, not from pro-China writers, but from a well know and respected China hawk, Andrew Erickson. I recommend the entire article from The Diplomat, but here's the section that addresses your deficiency.You have no thesis to begin with. You have not made any connections to how the size of a nation is going to transfer sovereignty of territory of one nation to the other. Until you have the above posting remains irrelevant to the topic at hand.
In other words you have no sauce.
Most importantly, China’s sea forces have some significantly different missions than their American counterparts. In the words of Princeton professor , they are “” even without fully “catching up.” Quantity has a quality all its own in this regard. Across many realms, including industry, China is being disruptive: if not always by being good, then at least simply by being big. Presence matters considerably, and China can displace others through sheer numbers. Qualitative comparisons of naval systems will only matter in the case of an actual fight, which no one wants. Up to that point on the escalation ladder, China’s colossal bulk gives it dominance and initiative. We can see some of this in practice already in Beijing’s . Meanwhile, Chinese ship-design and -building progress is increasing the PLAN’s ability to contest sea control in a widening arc of the Western Pacific. And Chinese analysts continually probe for weaknesses to exploit; they regard satellite infrastructure as a particular vulnerability for an overseas navy such as the USN.
Last edited: