At the time the Liaoning was the only carrier put in service by China, taking around fifteen years, and it was only refurbished rather than built from scratch. So based on the pace of that work if China is to have >2 carriers in the water by 2025, potentially new designs, and carrier fleet expansion was highly prioritized, it is reasonable to expect 2+ carriers to be under construction in 2015. Very relevant and logical representation of the opposite of my opinion, and thereby in negative form representing my opinion as well, as a wager proposal on the matter.
PLAN 2nd & 3rd Aircraft Carrier wager & planning
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
At the time the Liaoning was the only carrier put in service by China, taking around fifteen years, and it was only refurbished rather than built from scratch. So based on the pace of that work if China is to have >2 carriers in the water by 2025, potentially new designs, and carrier fleet expansion was highly prioritized, it is reasonable to expect 2+ carriers to be under construction in 2015. Very relevant and logical representation of the opposite of my opinion, and thereby in negative form representing my opinion as well, as a wager proposal on the matter.
Just to ensure the current status:
So proponents of the 2nd and 3rd carriers now cannot "lose".
But the 3rd carrier has not been seen and verified yet. So PanAsian has not "lost" to date either.
Just thought I would give this update.
Clearly, the first condition has been met and the 2nd carrier is building.
So proponents of the 2nd and 3rd carriers now cannot "lose".
But the 3rd carrier has not been seen and verified yet. So PanAsian has not "lost" to date either.
Just thought I would give this update.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I am mostly just waiting for a few good shots of the Carrier.
yet Multiple carriers is in the future.
yet Multiple carriers is in the future.
Yes, and I'm saying that I believe the suggestion of two carriers being constructed in 2015 was not reasonable as a metric to quantify high or low priority... both at the time of suggestion, and remains so now in hindsight as well.
On the contrary, the fact that the wager was associated by pages and pages of insistent debate on the topic, suggests to me that each side clearly had some well thought out premises. So it's only logical that each side would only agree to set up positions in a wager that they believed would fulfill their premises.
It's a fun wager of course, but it's also one which sits atop a bedrock of strong opinions regarding the Navy's future direction for their carrier force.
Sure, it's absolutely 'subjective' if one looks up the definition of the word.
However as seasoned PLA watchers, we all know that some credible rumours are more informative than others, and we've been getting a steady stream of such rumours regarding the Navy's carrier programme over the last few years, and we are left to try and interpret and assess them using our own critical thinking to reach standing conclusions.
If you truly believe that you think "it could easily have been the case a year ago" for two carriers to be under construction, then it is likely we are either assessing and interpreting those rumours in different ways -- and there's nothing wrong that, but it does mean for the purposes of a wager it would require both sides to agree on what they believe is a reasonable metric/terms to quantify the original basis of the discussion (i.e.: more than two carriers in water by 2025 or not), based on their own logic and evidence to more strongly support their position.
As I wrote above, this bet was never ever going to be down to "chance" -- there were arguments to be made for each side that could try to be logically defended or sourced from what they perceived as evidence.
The only reason I took up this bet with the position I did, is because there was enough of what I interpreted as credible evidence to strongly support my position within the terms of the wager -- and I had assumed that you took your position because you believed you had the evidence or logic to back up your position as well.
In other words, I was under the impression that both sides were equally convinced of the infallibility of their positions within the confines of the terms of the wager, and thus the wager was equally "fair".
Very obviously we disagree on the nature of the wager.
Gosh, I feel kind of bad now, I thought your position was maintained on the basis of your own deduction and logic and analysis of evidence, rather than just a random quantity thrown into the wind to see where it would land.
You should feel bad about being hostile and pompous, and dishonest about the role of luck in any wager other than unfair or unworthy ones. No need to slip in a personal attack on my position which is based on sound deduction, logic, and analysis while acknowledging the role of luck though I failed to negotiate an advantageous wager setup.
I think there's been a miscommunication.
I did not intend to make a personal attack on your position -- when I wrote "just a random quantity thrown into the wind to see where it would land" I was describing my impression that you were saying the wager should be equally "fair" in the sense that both sides were at an equal information and evidence disadvantage, when you wrote: "If there is relatively much less unknown on one or more sides then it is either an unfair or unworthy wager."
In other words, based on your last few posts I thought your entire point was to argue that your position was one based overwhelmingly on luck, rather seeking to find a position based on "less unknowns"... and that this was why you believed the wager was an unfair or unworthy one... so because of that I actually did feel bad (despite how it may have come across via text -- I admit re-reading it, it can be easily interpreted as hostile or pompous)
Out of interest, if you wanted to offer different terms for the wager at this point now, what would you be willing to accept (keeping in mind it would have to fulfill the original issue of whether the Navy would have more than two carriers in the water by 2025).
Once again, to recap current status of the wager:
So proponents of the 2nd and 3rd carriers now cannot "lose".
But the 3rd carrier has not been seen and verified yet. So PanAsian has not "lost" to date either.
Clearly, the first condition has been met and the 2nd carrier is building.
So proponents of the 2nd and 3rd carriers now cannot "lose".
But the 3rd carrier has not been seen and verified yet. So PanAsian has not "lost" to date either.
That's good if it was just an attitude miscommunication regarding your last post.
You do understand me correctly regarding fair being an equal information and evidence disadvantage.
However it is your opinion that my position was based overwhelmingly on luck and you have been arguing that luck has no part in the wager.
I have shown that my position is based on evidence and reasoning, albeit different than yours, and I have been arguing that some luck, or unknown, apparently more than you are willing to acknowledge, is inherent to any wager otherwise there is no point or it wouldn't be a fair one.
Keep in mind that two carriers in the water by 2025 was not the only issue even if that was what you wanted to focus on but also China's prioritization of expanding their carrier fleet, nor was this just a wager between you and me. As I have said many times before I have no intention of changing the original wager.
That said, what I think would have been fairer terms:
- Assuming everyone's estimates in 2015 were no different from those stated just a few posts back for how long it takes China to put a new carrier in the water.
- These estimates account for any and all unknowns such as China's prioritization of their carrier program, Liaoning-based or new design, war or no war, however the Chinese economy performs, etc.
- The average estimate would be a period of 8 years, counting back from June 30th 2025 for the carrier to be in the water, would translate into a 3rd Chinese carrier beginning construction by June 30th 2017.