OT:‘Sink two aircraft carriers’

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff
Surely therefor, the chinese system can not be that bad.

I have a very basic expectation of the behavior of governments. Very basic. I think it unfathomable that other nations should have normalized trade relations with countries that are building de facto concentration camps for their ethnic minorities. So this is my first rule regarding how 'bad' a system is.

Rule #1: Are you building de facto concentration camps for your ethnic minorities? If yes-then your system *is* that bad. If no, then maybe we can talk.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I find the Chinese solution to the problem of projecting power in the South China Sea very elegant. The USN projects power with it's carriers and submarines, the PLAN does it with some dredgers and construction units.

The article however is a mixed bag, the guy quoted isn't even in an active role and there's been sabre rattling over Taiwan for decades now. Anyone with even a meagre understanding of the Taiwanese military capabilities knows that any attempt for an amphib landing is a tall order for the PLAN at best. They'll get there eventually, but even if they could take Taiwan, they're smart enough to know that political reunification is the easiest path.

"Elegant"? I think it's ridiculous. The article is complete pap and saber-rattling nonsense. Anyone that thinks that resolution of non-shooting war tensions will be 'resolved' by shooting wars is off his nut.

Carry out a monumental amphibious and mixed arms invasion of a well-defended island? With naval forces that haven't seen combat in over a century? In 100 hours? With 'a few dozen' casualties?

If they did sink two of our fleet carriers, how do they think their economy would function with a full naval blockade? Do they think that their ships in port would just stay afloat? Do they think their own CV capabilities unimpinged in such an exchange? Do they think their far-flung bases abroad would exist as though nothing happened?

The fact that this is state-sponsored and state-sanctioned saber rattling should be first and foremost in the minds of any readers. I'm disappointed that the publication didn't cite that motivation in its article.

Elegant in the sense that the Chinese take a long-term approach to power projection. If the USN wants to project power, they send a carrier task force. That's very effective, but the world is large and full of hotspots. If tensions fall or there's a more pressing flare up elsewhere, even the USN is limited by the number of carriers it can send.

Not so with the PLA's approach. Make an island, build an airstrip on it. It's now there for good, isn't going to have massive running costs and power can easily can be easily projected at a whim by rotate planes in and out as needs be.

I just find it an elegant solution to China's strategic problem - if you can't build a ship to act as a mobile floating airbase, just build an island for an airbase instead.

I'm just going to say that, simply put, underdogs have to be "elegant" - they have to finesse things.

There are pros/cons to being top dog and being an underdog.

[fcooke]

Tolsdorff,

Not sure where you hail from but your post seems like State propaganda. Taiwan will never be 'assimilated' into the PRC after seeing how the PRC has treated HK and violated pretty much every agreement made for the 97 handover from the UK. And Chinese engineers are 'good' in their fields but please reference your sources that they are leaders in their fields - this has not been my experience. The State boxes them in too much for them to rival their peers from places like Stanford, Harvard, Cambridge and many other world class institutions.

And it would not be good for Taiwan.

And it would not be good for the world.

I have been to China and HK many times. The first time was less than a month before T-square. I stayed at Beijing University. The students there were generally unhappy with the status quo. How much Beijing and Shanghai have changed in less than 30 years is impressive. But constant delays in air travel because of PLA exercises limits their commerce. And the amount of construction that has been built but remains empty is a testament to the failure of centralized government planning - heck Democracies screw this up all the time, but centralized governments do so even more frequently. So, if you want to have any credibility please try to back up your assertions with facts.

And saber rattling is the action of an insecure person or country.

If the future of the world is a hope that China will lead the way, the world is doomed.

Regards,
Frank

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I find the Chinese solution to the problem of projecting power in the South China Sea very elegant. The USN projects power with it's carriers and submarines, the PLAN does it with some dredgers and construction units.

The article however is a mixed bag, the guy quoted isn't even in an active role and there's been sabre rattling over Taiwan for decades now. Anyone with even a meagre understanding of the Taiwanese military capabilities knows that any attempt for an amphib landing is a tall order for the PLAN at best. They'll get there eventually, but even if they could take Taiwan, they're smart enough to know that political reunification is the easiest path.

"Elegant"? I think it's ridiculous. The article is complete pap and saber-rattling nonsense. Anyone that thinks that resolution of non-shooting war tensions will be 'resolved' by shooting wars is off his nut.

Carry out a monumental amphibious and mixed arms invasion of a well-defended island? With naval forces that haven't seen combat in over a century? In 100 hours? With 'a few dozen' casualties?

If they did sink two of our fleet carriers, how do they think their economy would function with a full naval blockade? Do they think that their ships in port would just stay afloat? Do they think their own CV capabilities unimpinged in such an exchange? Do they think their far-flung bases abroad would exist as though nothing happened?

The fact that this is state-sponsored and state-sanctioned saber rattling should be first and foremost in the minds of any readers. I'm disappointed that the publication didn't cite that motivation in its article.

Elegant in the sense that the Chinese take a long-term approach to power projection. If the USN wants to project power, they send a carrier task force. That's very effective, but the world is large and full of hotspots. If tensions fall or there's a more pressing flare up elsewhere, even the USN is limited by the number of carriers it can send.

Not so with the PLA's approach. Make an island, build an airstrip on it. It's now there for good, isn't going to have massive running costs and power can easily can be easily projected at a whim by rotate planes in and out as needs be.

I just find it an elegant solution to China's strategic problem - if you can't build a ship to act as a mobile floating airbase, just build an island for an airbase instead.

OK. Have there been other powers that have built fixed fortifications and island redoubts before? Yes. Long-term? Perhaps. Also see: derivative and been-there-done-that. Your 'elegant' is my 'welcome to what everybody else has been doing for 400 years'. So if building up some sandbar or larger island and reinforcing it is long-term then so are we, the Japanese, the British, the Indians, the Russians, the Dutch, the...you get the idea.

By the way, the suggestion that the only way the USN can project power is to send a CVTF is somewhat myopic and narrow. Do you think our bases on Diego Garcia, Guam, Okinawa, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, etc. are capable of projecting power or is it just our CVTFs? If your definition of power projection includes island redoubts, then you'd better include these iterations as well. And there are also a myriad of other ship types capable of projecting power that don't involve building up a sandbar somewhere.

[USSAmerica]

From my perspective, building the "new" islands in the South China Sea has a primarily political goal rather than a military goal. China now politically claims these artificial islands as sovereign territory and is insisting on the typical range of sea rights as they would claim for the same distances from their mainland. Sure, they have built up plenty of defenses on these artificial islands in an attempt to keep other nations off of them, but projecting military power from these piles of sea bottom sand that has been dredged up is only a secondary goal at best. Their real hope for them is that they are able to keep control of them until someone starts to recognize them as Chinese sovereign land and they can then try to legally claim exclusive rights to all the resources found in and below the seas around them.

[Chickenboy]

To further my previous comment:

This from the New York Times, 12/16/18:

The Chinese state media has praised the centers as leading wayward people toward modern civilization. It also reports that the workers are generously paid.

“The training will turn them from ‘nomads’ into skilled marvels,” the official Xinjiang Daily said last month. “Education and training will make them into ‘modern people,’ useful to society.”

"Wayward" people. "Modern Civilization". Turning them from worthless nomads into skillful people, "useful to society". Work sets you free!

Or, as they say in German-Arbeit Macht Frei.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




"Elegant"? I think it's ridiculous. The article is complete pap and saber-rattling nonsense. Anyone that thinks that resolution of non-shooting war tensions will be 'resolved' by shooting wars is off his nut.

Carry out a monumental amphibious and mixed arms invasion of a well-defended island? With naval forces that haven't seen combat in over a century? In 100 hours? With 'a few dozen' casualties?

If they did sink two of our fleet carriers, how do they think their economy would function with a full naval blockade? Do they think that their ships in port would just stay afloat? Do they think their own CV capabilities unimpinged in such an exchange? Do they think their far-flung bases abroad would exist as though nothing happened?

The fact that this is state-sponsored and state-sanctioned saber rattling should be first and foremost in the minds of any readers. I'm disappointed that the publication didn't cite that motivation in its article.

Elegant in the sense that the Chinese take a long-term approach to power projection. If the USN wants to project power, they send a carrier task force. That's very effective, but the world is large and full of hotspots. If tensions fall or there's a more pressing flare up elsewhere, even the USN is limited by the number of carriers it can send.

Not so with the PLA's approach. Make an island, build an airstrip on it. It's now there for good, isn't going to have massive running costs and power can easily can be easily projected at a whim by rotate planes in and out as needs be.

I just find it an elegant solution to China's strategic problem - if you can't build a ship to act as a mobile floating airbase, just build an island for an airbase instead.

OK. Have there been other powers that have built fixed fortifications and island redoubts before? Yes. Long-term? Perhaps. Also see: derivative and been-there-done-that. Your 'elegant' is my 'welcome to what everybody else has been doing for 400 years'. So if building up some sandbar or larger island and reinforcing it is long-term then so are we, the Japanese, the British, the Indians, the Russians, the Dutch, the...you get the idea.

By the way, the suggestion that the only way the USN can project power is to send a CVTF is somewhat myopic and narrow. Do you think our bases on Diego Garcia, Guam, Okinawa, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, etc. are capable of projecting power or is it just our CVTFs? If your definition of power projection includes island redoubts, then you'd better include these iterations as well. And there are also a myriad of other ship types capable of projecting power that don't involve building up a sandbar somewhere.

I get where you're coming from here. As far as my limited knowledge on the subject goes, the Chinese are pretty much the first to actually create the islands for their redoubts and fortifications. That removes a whole host of political issues involved with building bases in foriegn nations. The real-estate in the region is pretty much all taken by nations wishing to block the expansion of Chinese influence. With that being the case, rather than exerting effort for territorial concessions, simply creating new territory is a good solution.

You're correct about power projection being more than just CVTF's, but I was thinking within the confines of the South China Sea and CVTF's being the ultimate expression of projecting hard power.

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

From my perspective, building the "new" islands in the South China Sea has a primarily political goal rather than a military goal. China now politically claims these artificial islands as sovereign territory and is insisting on the typical range of sea rights as they would claim for the same distances from their mainland. Sure, they have built up plenty of defenses on these artificial islands in an attempt to keep other nations off of them, but projecting military power from these piles of sea bottom sand that has been dredged up is only a secondary goal at best. Their real hope for them is that they are able to keep control of them until someone starts to recognize them as Chinese sovereign land and they can then try to legally claim exclusive rights to all the resources found in and below the seas around them.

You're correct, but nothing says "This is mine now" than a military base and some men with guns.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

To further my previous comment:

This from the New York Times, 12/16/18:

The Chinese state media has praised the centers as leading wayward people toward modern civilization. It also reports that the workers are generously paid.

“The training will turn them from ‘nomads’ into skilled marvels,” the official Xinjiang Daily said last month. “Education and training will make them into ‘modern people,’ useful to society.”

"Wayward" people. "Modern Civilization". Turning them from worthless nomads into skillful people, "useful to society". Work sets you free!

Or, as they say in German-Arbeit Macht Frei.

I am pretty sure we're all civil and educated enough to discuss geostrategic matters regarding an existing country, its government and its People without Godwin points to rob us of any sort of argumentation. Less passion, more sense? Besides, being half Chinese and a quarter Jew, being an ethnic minority whenever I go myself and a perfect Xinjiang look-alike, allow me to find that sort of comparisons irrelevant, to say the very least.

Regarding sabre-rattling, what can I say, other than you're the fine example that it works well enough: the original speaker in the interview (who's not even an active soldier, but an academic of sort with an honorary rank mind you) has no actual point whatsoever, "Trump" it out of proportion with a bombastic, unrealistic claim, and instead of calling their bluff you just explode in rage and enter the ring. Hopefully America's a bit harder to bait than that, for its sake, and ours all the same.

PLAN is gearing up for regional intervention, but obviously use of force is not expected. Salami-like territory grabs work well enough. For anything else, as long as China will remain a market for the US and very much the same the other way around, don't expect anyone to be actually on the brink of anything serious. The latest round of tariff de-escalation actually allows the importation of US products that were not even available before the start of the trade war. We're certainly not going anywhere here - if going to war is going anywhere at all.

Nobody wants a war. Nobody can afford a war. Nobody gets nothing more through a war. Alibaba or Huawei won't get any more market share that way. Tencent or New Oriental will not raise more money in Wall Street that way either. Nobody wants to ask hundred of thousands of Chinese students currently studying in America to get home grab a rifle. And if there's a war in the end - believe it or not - China or the US simply won't be the ones who will start it.

Best.

[tarkalak]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

But are they also going to sink a battleship and numerous cruisers and destroyers? Inquiring minds want to know.

[:D]

The US has no active battleships and few cruisers. Plan averted. [8D]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

But are they also going to sink a battleship and numerous cruisers and destroyers? Inquiring minds want to know.

[:D]

The US has no active battleships and few cruisers. PLAN averted. [8D]

FTFY

[Rusty1961]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... f0e0d590eb

1. China is not restrained by any "arms control" agreements on ICBMs.
2. We financed this.
3. we spent much of our revenue on unwinnable insurgent wars for the last 18 years instead of upgrading our strategic forces.
4. We financed that.

[tarkalak]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


[:D]

The US has no active battleships and few cruisers. PLAN averted. [8D]

FTFY

The plan of PLAN has been averted.

[MakeeLearn]

China deploys missiles capable of sinking US ships
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn8kMSpD0WU

[Lokasenna]

I don't mean to be impertinent, but technically anything that goes boom is capable of sinking (US) ships.

[USSAmerica]

.... as can "loose lips" [;)] [:D]