PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Bltizo said:

That statement of mine was half facetious, but if you want to seriously examine my position, you can read the last few posts I made prior to this one.
Basically, I am saying that this encounter is not a demonstration of poor seamanship or a single act of disproportionate aggression by the PLAN LSTs commander, but is a symptom systematic military pressure that the US is exerting in the western pacific against china, as well as the dissimilar military power imbalance between the US and china, and the military intents of both sides.


Just for the record I do not believe the USS cowpens acted aggressively or dangerously per se.

Click to expand...

Point taken. If China wants to be respected on the world stage it has to earn that respect - it is not something that can be demanded. The action of a big boy (which China wants to be seen as) requires a standard of a big boy. In other words, don't expect to be respected as a big boy if its action continue to exhibit childish behaviour. As China gains ascension both economically and militarily, often it has to be more restrained in its behaviour as it is a fine line between a bully and a big boy exercising its muscles. China needs to step up professionally in both its behaviour and its PR management. I think it is still stuck between a totalitarian mentally and attempting to be a meaningful player in geopolitical affairs. Often China's official position is that it is acting legally but that official position is untenable driven by a psyche of a totalitarian society that its actions are by fiat. In contrast, when engaging the international community one has to argue your case based on facts, substance and the framework of international law.

Pressure will come upon China and its consequent behaviour will project whether it is maturing as a major player or it is still a child in big boy's clothing. The actions pertaining to China in the South China Sea incident is not about whether it is legal or not but rather whether it acted professionally or dangerously.

I don't see how China's totalitarianism or lack of is relevant to this discussion, or my position, or indeed, China's actions on the geopolitical stage. Just FYI, China is actually being very restrained in its involvement in geopolitics. It's foreign policy can basically be divided into, A: do business with as many countries as possible. B: as long as that doesn't infringe on national interests (in this case, it can be reduced to three Ses, sovereignty, security, and stability)

I agree that China's PR is absolutely terrible, allowing foreign media to deliberately misconstrue otherwise acceptable statements and acts into what people may call aggressive or sabre rattling.
But we should also recognize that the aspirations of china and the US do butt heads in many domains. That, combined with racism, a lingering Cold War fear of "communism," and a plain old fear of another ascending power, will always refract the true actions of both sides.


Did the PLAN act professionally in this case? I want to say that it did. Based on what I know, it had signalled the Cowpens as extensively as possible before finally resorting to intercepting it. Afterwards, words between the cowpens captain and the liaoning's captain were changed, and all the anonymous sources say they were fairly professional.
You could argue whether it was professional or reasonable of the PLAN to perceive the cowpens a potential threat in the first place, and that is where I point to the larger military and geopolitical balance between the two countries, as justification for my position that yes, I think it was reasonable.

Brumby said:

Point taken. If China wants to be respected on the world stage it has to earn that respect - it is not something that can be demanded. The action of a big boy (which China wants to be seen as) requires a standard of a big boy. In other words, don't expect to be respected as a big boy if its action continue to exhibit childish behaviour. As China gains ascension both economically and militarily, often it has to be more restrained in its behaviour as it is a fine line between a bully and a big boy exercising its muscles. China needs to step up professionally in both its behaviour and its PR management. I think it is still stuck between a totalitarian mentally and attempting to be a meaningful player in geopolitical affairs. Often China's official position is that it is acting legally but that official position is untenable driven by a psyche of a totalitarian society that its actions are by fiat. In contrast, when engaging the international community one has to argue your case based on facts, substance and the framework of international law.

Pressure will come upon China and its consequent behaviour will project whether it is maturing as a major player or it is still a child in big boy's clothing. The actions pertaining to China in the South China Sea incident is not about whether it is legal or not but rather whether it acted professionally or dangerously.

Click to expand...

Actually, the action of a big boy requires a big gun. That fine line between a bully and a big boy has to do with whether the gun is big enough. If there is a big gun, bully actions are by nature big boy actions and obey international laws. If not, defensive actions are seen as childish and totalitarian. When engaging the international community, one has to argue his case based on the size of the gun. Without a big gun, facts are meaningless.

So at the end of the day, power grows out of the barrel of a gun which is what really matters. What China really needs to do is step up its military power.

Bltizo said:

I don't see how China's totalitarianism or lack of is relevant to this discussion, or my position, or indeed, China's actions on the geopolitical stage.

Click to expand...

A totalitarian state by virtue often makes and interprets its own rules and laws. Its declaration its normally final with little recourse by those outside the system. Unfortunately this doesn't work outside its borders as it can no longer act in a unilateral manner but unfortunately the state sometimes have difficulty appreciating the difference, as with China.

Below is an extract from USA Today reporting on the incident "On Monday, the Global Times, a state-run newspaper, said the U.S. vessel "posed a threat to China's military security" and had been "tailing after and harassing" the Liaoning aircraft carrier on its maiden voyage into the South China Sea. The paper said the Cowpens came within 30 miles of the Chinese squadron that was part of the flotilla, inside what it called its "inner defense layer."

Beijing has claimed it owns the nearly 1 million square mile swath of ocean, a claim that neighbouring countries have termed outrageous. The United States say the sea is international and open to all ocean traffic."

The root of the problem is that China believes and has declared that a big part of the South China Sea is sovereign but is not recognised by others. Problem is that outside of its declaration very little has been advanced by China to substantiate its case. This in my view is action by fiat.

Brumby said:

A totalitarian state by virtue often makes and interprets its own rules and laws. Its declaration its normally final with little recourse by those outside the system. Unfortunately this doesn't work outside its borders as it can no longer act in a unilateral manner but unfortunately the state sometimes have difficulty appreciating the difference, as with China.

Below is an extract from USA Today reporting on the incident "On Monday, the Global Times, a state-run newspaper, said the U.S. vessel "posed a threat to China's military security" and had been "tailing after and harassing" the Liaoning aircraft carrier on its maiden voyage into the South China Sea. The paper said the Cowpens came within 30 miles of the Chinese squadron that was part of the flotilla, inside what it called its "inner defense layer."

Beijing has claimed it owns the nearly 1 million square mile swath of ocean, a claim that neighbouring countries have termed outrageous. The United States say the sea is international and open to all ocean traffic."

The root of the problem is that China believes and has declared that a big part of the South China Sea is sovereign but is not recognised by others. Problem is that outside of its declaration very little has been advanced by China to substantiate its case. This in my view is action by fiat.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, you are interpreting different events.

In this case, the PLAN did not seek to expel the cowpens from the area using its maritime claims of the nine dot line as a pretext. Media have tried to insinuate that, but it is a blatant misrepresentation of this situation.
I repeat, the PLAN desire to prevent the cowpens from getting closer was not a result of its maritime territorial claims in the South china seas.


As for the "totalitarian" way china acts, I think that is just a convenient way for critics to dismiss all acts that china does which they don't like.
The word totalitarian is a loaded one anyway, and is rather emotional too. There is very little substance, and using it to describe the manner a country conducts itself on the international stage is very non descriptive. I'd be happy to compare China's foreign policy with other countries and see just how "totalitarian" it is.

Brumby said:

A totalitarian state by virtue often makes and interprets its own rules and laws. Its declaration its normally final with little recourse by those outside the system. Unfortunately this doesn't work outside its borders as it can no longer act in a unilateral manner but unfortunately the state sometimes have difficulty appreciating the difference, as with China.

Click to expand...

The totalitarian actions of making and interpreting its own rules and laws, such as declaring an interpretation of navigation freedom to mean operating within and interfering with China's fleet operations. Such declarations are made with little recourse by others, as in declaring freedom of navigation that interferes with China's operation on the high sea while allowing little recourse by China. And of course, difficulty in appreciating the difference unilateral and international situations, such as failing to see interfering with China's fleet operations is an international matter and not an unilateral one.

Brumby said:

Below is an extract from USA Today reporting on the incident "On Monday, the Global Times, a state-run newspaper, said the U.S. vessel "posed a threat to China's military security" and had been "tailing after and harassing" the Liaoning aircraft carrier on its maiden voyage into the South China Sea. The paper said the Cowpens came within 30 miles of the Chinese squadron that was part of the flotilla, inside what it called its "inner defense layer."

Beijing has claimed it owns the nearly 1 million square mile swath of ocean, a claim that neighbouring countries have termed outrageous. The United States say the sea is international and open to all ocean traffic."

The root of the problem is that China believes and has declared that a big part of the South China Sea is sovereign but is not recognised by others. Problem is that outside of its declaration very little has been advanced by China to substantiate its case. This in my view is action by fiat.

Click to expand...

Actually, it was Western media who claims Beijing claiming up to 1 million square mile swath of ocean. Beijing has actually made no such declaration. So essentially, your argument is that of a strawman.

I just deleted 12 post arguing about the Cowpens incident with political hackery tossed in.

Knock it off, the discussion is over. Move on to the next episode.

So it is written, so it shall be done.

bd popeye super moderator

Pictures of Liaoning as she approached, arrived at, and docked at Sanya base:

Anyone has photos of the PLA-N aircraft carrier with its support group (interim or otherwise)? They would be great to view. I am almost sure they have or are planning one. Comments please.

Meanwhile, A MERRY CHRISTMAS & A HAPPY NEW YEAR to ALL Commenters of this great website.

advill

latenlazy said:

More likely that one will be a low risk while the other would be a high risk.

Click to expand...