Not too long ago some naval "expert" was saying China is years away from having a carrier of any kind at sea. Anybody capable of elementary mathematics and casual observation of world affairs knew different. This is the old carrier they bought from Russia. It's to be used for training purposes, study and experimentation.
China's 1st Aircraft Carrier in Sea Trial: Report - Defense News
I'm betting by 2020 they'll have a carrier battle group in service comparable to anything we have if not more.
Chinas First Carrier.
Chinas First Carrier.
I agree with that.
Chinas First Carrier.
Well they've had plenty of time during the re-build to analyse the design, give them a year cruising round their territorial waters analysing the performance, another year to incorporate their findings into a new design and that still gives them seven years to build, fit out and launch to be within your timescales.
They certainly have the shipyards to do the build of several in parallel.
All in all, I cannot disagree with you.
They certainly have the shipyards to do the build of several in parallel.
All in all, I cannot disagree with you.
Chinas First Carrier.
I don't know if they need to build battle groups like ours. Ours operate far from America for long periods of time and depend on our bases around the world. If China can control the South China sea and the Philippines they will be able to control their entire neighborhood totally.
This is interesting.
WASHINGTON — The United States said Wednesday it would like China to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier amid broader US concerns about Beijing’s lack of transparency over its military aims.
“We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters when asked whether the carrier would raise regional tensions.
“This is part of our larger concern that China is not as transparent as other countries. It’s not as transparent as the United States about its military acquisitions, about its military budget,” she said.
“And we’d like to have the kind of open, transparent relationship in military-to-military affairs,” Nuland said.
“In our military-to-military relations with many countries around the world, we have the kind of bilateral dialogue where we can get quite specific about the equipment that we have and its intended purposes and its intended movements,” she said.
But China and the United States are “not at that level of transparency” to which the two nations aspire, Nuland added.
Full Article: http://www.google.co...a7ff8064da3.5b1
This is interesting.
WASHINGTON — The United States said Wednesday it would like China to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier amid broader US concerns about Beijing’s lack of transparency over its military aims.
“We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters when asked whether the carrier would raise regional tensions.
“This is part of our larger concern that China is not as transparent as other countries. It’s not as transparent as the United States about its military acquisitions, about its military budget,” she said.
“And we’d like to have the kind of open, transparent relationship in military-to-military affairs,” Nuland said.
“In our military-to-military relations with many countries around the world, we have the kind of bilateral dialogue where we can get quite specific about the equipment that we have and its intended purposes and its intended movements,” she said.
But China and the United States are “not at that level of transparency” to which the two nations aspire, Nuland added.
Full Article: http://www.google.co...a7ff8064da3.5b1
Chinas First Carrier.
Scrat;1364857 wrote: I don't know if they need to build battle groups like ours. Ours operate far from America for long periods of time and depend on our bases around the world. If China can control the South China sea and the Philippines they will be able to control their entire neighborhood totally.
This is interesting.
You cannot raise that sort of question unless your prepared to answer the same question yourself and accept your own answer back.
This is interesting.
You cannot raise that sort of question unless your prepared to answer the same question yourself and accept your own answer back.
Chinas First Carrier.
ForumGarden said Friday it would like The USA to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier amid broader ForumGarden concerns about Washington’s lack of transparency over its military aims.
“We would welcome any kind of explanation that the USA would like to give for needing this kind of equipment,” ForumGarden spokesdog spot told reporters when asked whether US carriers have raised regional tensions.
“This is part of our larger concern that the USA is not as transparent as other countries. It’s not as transparent as any first world country about its military acquisitions, about its military budget,” spot said.
“And we’d like to have the kind of open, transparent relationship in military-to-military affairs,” spot said.
“In ForumGarden's military-to-military relations with many countries around the world, we have the kind of bilateral dialogue where we can get quite specific about the equipment that we have and its intended purposes and its intended movements,” he said. "The USA in its military-to-military relations with many countries around the world, on the other hand, has the kind of bilateral dialogue where large numbers of non-Americans die. Accidentally, we're assured, but dead is dead. And the only reason it can happen at all is that the USA deploys these floating casinos around the planet. Perhaps the US would like to decommission the damn things and start repaying its debt mountain in the process".
“We would welcome any kind of explanation that the USA would like to give for needing this kind of equipment,” ForumGarden spokesdog spot told reporters when asked whether US carriers have raised regional tensions.
“This is part of our larger concern that the USA is not as transparent as other countries. It’s not as transparent as any first world country about its military acquisitions, about its military budget,” spot said.
“And we’d like to have the kind of open, transparent relationship in military-to-military affairs,” spot said.
“In ForumGarden's military-to-military relations with many countries around the world, we have the kind of bilateral dialogue where we can get quite specific about the equipment that we have and its intended purposes and its intended movements,” he said. "The USA in its military-to-military relations with many countries around the world, on the other hand, has the kind of bilateral dialogue where large numbers of non-Americans die. Accidentally, we're assured, but dead is dead. And the only reason it can happen at all is that the USA deploys these floating casinos around the planet. Perhaps the US would like to decommission the damn things and start repaying its debt mountain in the process".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Chinas First Carrier.
What I'm afraid of is the fact that conflict may be inevitable. The US is not going to go down without striking out at some point. Some incident like the Gulf of Tonkin again used to force China into a position they will find untenable.
I hear rumblings about America building up the forces in Asia. I don't know when but I think if the US is going to strike it will have to be soon. China is just moving too fast. I don't think this will be a limited conflict either, that's what you get when you can knock out a enemy in a very short time. China as a nation is too advanced and too well armed to knock out quickly. It's going to be a brutal affair if it does happen.
I hear rumblings about America building up the forces in Asia. I don't know when but I think if the US is going to strike it will have to be soon. China is just moving too fast. I don't think this will be a limited conflict either, that's what you get when you can knock out a enemy in a very short time. China as a nation is too advanced and too well armed to knock out quickly. It's going to be a brutal affair if it does happen.
Chinas First Carrier.
China didn't start it's present build up until the first gulf war when it became very clear the technological superiority of american arms. If you had a heavily armed nation that has openly stated a policy of using it's armed force in pursuit of it's own economic interests and then actually proceeds to do so what would you do? What happens if china decides it wants to stop lending to america and maybe calls in some of the loans will the US take that as a declaration of war? There are certainly those on the right of american politics who would see it that way. If you get another right wing president that goes in for sabre rattling and sees nothing wrong with defaulting on it's debt payments you can see why china is worried
India also has carriers and has recently bought fighters from europe to replace it's ageing fleet, it's not always just about the states china and india have gone to war with each other in the past they share a birder with pakistan and afghanistan if india and pakistan become belligerents it;'s going to be hard for china to keep out of it.
Out of curiosity are most americans now aware that the gulf of tonkin incident was fabricated to give an excuse to go to war?
India also has carriers and has recently bought fighters from europe to replace it's ageing fleet, it's not always just about the states china and india have gone to war with each other in the past they share a birder with pakistan and afghanistan if india and pakistan become belligerents it;'s going to be hard for china to keep out of it.
Out of curiosity are most americans now aware that the gulf of tonkin incident was fabricated to give an excuse to go to war?
Chinas First Carrier.
Scrat;1364968 wrote: What I'm afraid of is the fact that conflict may be inevitable. The US is not going to go down without striking out at some point. Some incident like the Gulf of Tonkin again used to force China into a position they will find untenable.
I hear rumblings about America building up the forces in Asia. I don't know when but I think if the US is going to strike it will have to be soon. China is just moving too fast. I don't think this will be a limited conflict either, that's what you get when you can knock out a enemy in a very short time. China as a nation is too advanced and too well armed to knock out quickly. It's going to be a brutal affair if it does happen.
If China and the US go head to head then there will be precious few pieces left afterwards for humanity to pick up. Both are too big to push over and too ?proud / stubborn / ornery? to give up easily once they've started.
I can well see them getting into a financial war - China calling in debts, the US refusing to pay and sequestrating Chinese assets in the US etc.
The US would lose that one and every other country would suffer from the fallout but I cannot see a military war - it is too obvious, even to a right wing sabre rattler, that the US economy could not survive such a war even it it won.
I hear rumblings about America building up the forces in Asia. I don't know when but I think if the US is going to strike it will have to be soon. China is just moving too fast. I don't think this will be a limited conflict either, that's what you get when you can knock out a enemy in a very short time. China as a nation is too advanced and too well armed to knock out quickly. It's going to be a brutal affair if it does happen.
If China and the US go head to head then there will be precious few pieces left afterwards for humanity to pick up. Both are too big to push over and too ?proud / stubborn / ornery? to give up easily once they've started.
I can well see them getting into a financial war - China calling in debts, the US refusing to pay and sequestrating Chinese assets in the US etc.
The US would lose that one and every other country would suffer from the fallout but I cannot see a military war - it is too obvious, even to a right wing sabre rattler, that the US economy could not survive such a war even it it won.
Chinas First Carrier.
Bryn Mawr;1365218 wrote: If China and the US go head to head then there will be precious few pieces left afterwards for humanity to pick up. Both are too big to push over and too ?proud / stubborn / ornery? to give up easily once they've started.
I can well see them getting into a financial war - China calling in debts, the US refusing to pay and sequestrating Chinese assets in the US etc.
The US would lose that one and every other country would suffer from the fallout but I cannot see a military war - it is too obvious, even to a right wing sabre rattler, that the US economy could not survive such a war even it it won.
I don't see the U.S. & China going head to head for some time, financial or otherwise, as there is just too much interdependency at this point.
I can well see them getting into a financial war - China calling in debts, the US refusing to pay and sequestrating Chinese assets in the US etc.
The US would lose that one and every other country would suffer from the fallout but I cannot see a military war - it is too obvious, even to a right wing sabre rattler, that the US economy could not survive such a war even it it won.
I don't see the U.S. & China going head to head for some time, financial or otherwise, as there is just too much interdependency at this point.
Chinas First Carrier.
Lon;1365223 wrote: I don't see the U.S. & China going head to head for some time, financial or otherwise, as their is just too much interdependency at this point.
I agree with you and I certainly hope that you're right. I was just putting down my thoughts on what would happen if Scrat was right and conflict was inevitable.
I agree with you and I certainly hope that you're right. I was just putting down my thoughts on what would happen if Scrat was right and conflict was inevitable.
Chinas First Carrier.
posted by lon
I don't see the U.S. & China going head to head for some time, financial or otherwise, as there is just too much interdependency at this point.
posted by bywn mawr
The US would lose that one and every other country would suffer from the fallout but I cannot see a military war - it is too obvious, even to a right wing sabre rattler, that the US economy could not survive such a war even it it won.
Why do you assume common sense will come in to it?
I don't see the U.S. & China going head to head for some time, financial or otherwise, as there is just too much interdependency at this point.
posted by bywn mawr
The US would lose that one and every other country would suffer from the fallout but I cannot see a military war - it is too obvious, even to a right wing sabre rattler, that the US economy could not survive such a war even it it won.
Why do you assume common sense will come in to it?
Chinas First Carrier.
Common sense will not be part of it when the time comes. What this is about is dominance. It's about who has the means to maintain that dominance or establish it. So far China and the US have had the wherewithal to avoid a conflict but the status quo doesn't serve China well. There are limits to what she can do under these circumstances and Americas ability to rule the main exit (sea routes) in Chinas part of the world leaves China vulnerable. It's a natural need to want to correct this situation, it's also a natural need to want to maintain it.
We must hit them before they grow significantly stronger. It may already be too late.
We must hit them before they grow significantly stronger. It may already be too late.
Chinas First Carrier.
We must hit them before they grow significantly stronger. It may already be too late.
Surely you are not serious?:-3
Surely you are not serious?:-3
Chinas First Carrier.
I don't see the U.S. & China going head to head for some time, financial or otherwise, as there is just too much interdependency at this point.
What about when another 30% of the Chinese population enter the middle class? What of Indias? It's fast getting to the point where your average American can not afford what China and the other Asian countries produce. I think it will happen sooner rather than later.
What about when another 30% of the Chinese population enter the middle class? What of Indias? It's fast getting to the point where your average American can not afford what China and the other Asian countries produce. I think it will happen sooner rather than later.
Chinas First Carrier.
Surely you are not serious?
If I were the general in charge that's what I would be inclined to recommend. Of course, I might just leave the whole thing for somebody else to take care of and move to Rio or Malta. :yh_rotfl
If I were the general in charge that's what I would be inclined to recommend. Of course, I might just leave the whole thing for somebody else to take care of and move to Rio or Malta. :yh_rotfl
Chinas First Carrier.
gmc;1365282 wrote: posted by lon
posted by bywn mawr
Why do you assume common sense will come in to it?
Not so much common sense, more self interest.
posted by bywn mawr
Why do you assume common sense will come in to it?
Not so much common sense, more self interest.
Chinas First Carrier.
Scrat;1365320 wrote: Common sense will not be part of it when the time comes. What this is about is dominance. It's about who has the means to maintain that dominance or establish it. So far China and the US have had the wherewithal to avoid a conflict but the status quo doesn't serve China well. There are limits to what she can do under these circumstances and Americas ability to rule the main exit (sea routes) in Chinas part of the world leaves China vulnerable. It's a natural need to want to correct this situation, it's also a natural need to want to maintain it.
We must hit them before they grow significantly stronger. It may already be too late.
It is way too late for any military solution short of massive nuclear attack and MAD is the only possible outcome for that route.
It is also coming close to being too late for an economic solution and I doubt the American people would accept the consequences if the government were willing to try.
We must hit them before they grow significantly stronger. It may already be too late.
It is way too late for any military solution short of massive nuclear attack and MAD is the only possible outcome for that route.
It is also coming close to being too late for an economic solution and I doubt the American people would accept the consequences if the government were willing to try.
Chinas First Carrier.
Scrat;1365327 wrote: What about when another 30% of the Chinese population enter the middle class? What of Indias? It's fast getting to the point where your average American can not afford what China and the other Asian countries produce. I think it will happen sooner rather than later.
That's called reaping what you sow. A country cannot overspend for so many years, building up so big a debt without there being consequences at the end of it.
Your military "solution" would give a worse outcome for America than taking the lumps.
That's called reaping what you sow. A country cannot overspend for so many years, building up so big a debt without there being consequences at the end of it.
Your military "solution" would give a worse outcome for America than taking the lumps.
Chinas First Carrier.
Scrat;1365327 wrote: What about when another 30% of the Chinese population enter the middle class? What of Indias? It's fast getting to the point where your average American can not afford what China and the other Asian countries produce. I think it will happen sooner rather than later.
With a more affluent middle class they will be able to reap the benefits of having a consumer base at home. That American industry has destroyed it's own consumer base by shifting jobs abroad and forcing down wages on those remaining is an irony they seem incapable of appreciating as well as being quite simply against the basic tenets of capitalism.
With a more affluent middle class they will be able to reap the benefits of having a consumer base at home. That American industry has destroyed it's own consumer base by shifting jobs abroad and forcing down wages on those remaining is an irony they seem incapable of appreciating as well as being quite simply against the basic tenets of capitalism.
Chinas First Carrier.
Either a country has a wide consumer base with surplus spending capacity or it's headed for hard times. America went adrift when it forgot the "wide" part and concentrated surplus spending capacity to a small minority. I don't see it ever recovering economically, to be honest, and with economic collapse we might finally see the end of this outrageous US policy of foreign intervention we've suffered for so long. The Chinese will be a breath of fresh air by comparison.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Chinas First Carrier.
spot;1365398 wrote: Either a country has a wide consumer base with surplus spending capacity or it's headed for hard times. America went adrift when it forgot the "wide" part and concentrated surplus spending capacity to a small minority. I don't see it ever recovering economically, to be honest, and with economic collapse we might finally see the end of this outrageous US policy of foreign intervention we've suffered for so long. The Chinese will be a breath of fresh air by comparison.Why not? Do you believe America lacks the political will, or capacity? Do you think America is out-consuming itself?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Chinas First Carrier.
Ahso!;1365400 wrote: Why not? Do you believe America lacks the political will, or capacity? Do you think America is out-consuming itself?
I think the US is failing to consume, and that consumption is what fuelled its prosperity.
It no longer has a mass consumer base with surplus spending capacity. That removes the mass domestic market for importers, it impoverishes retail outlets, employment falls, it's a self-fulfilling feedback loop.
The way back is to empower the majority to spend. That's how the marketplace throve over the last fifty years of the 20th century. All the current quantitative easing - printing greenbacks backed only by future earnings - is being handed (by way of not putting taxes up) to the wealthy who hoard it rather than the majority who'd spread it around.
I think the US is failing to consume, and that consumption is what fuelled its prosperity.
It no longer has a mass consumer base with surplus spending capacity. That removes the mass domestic market for importers, it impoverishes retail outlets, employment falls, it's a self-fulfilling feedback loop.
The way back is to empower the majority to spend. That's how the marketplace throve over the last fifty years of the 20th century. All the current quantitative easing - printing greenbacks backed only by future earnings - is being handed (by way of not putting taxes up) to the wealthy who hoard it rather than the majority who'd spread it around.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Chinas First Carrier.
Ahso!;1365400 wrote: Why not? Do you believe America lacks the political will, or capacity? Do you think America is out-consuming itself?
Given that, up until recently, 70% of the American economy was domestic retail spending, it's lack of spending power that is doing the damage.
Given that, up until recently, 70% of the American economy was domestic retail spending, it's lack of spending power that is doing the damage.
Chinas First Carrier.
spot;1365402 wrote: I think the US is failing to consume, and that consumption is what fuelled its prosperity.
It no longer has a mass consumer base with surplus spending capacity. That removes the mass domestic market for importers, it impoverishes retail outlets, employment falls, it's a self-fulfilling feedback loop.
The way back is to empower the majority to spend. That's how the marketplace throve over the last fifty years of the 20th century. All the current quantitative easing - printing greenbacks backed only by future earnings - is being handed (by way of not putting taxes up) to the wealthy who hoard it rather than the majority who'd spread it around.I agree, except the wealthy are circulating the money through the market. The problem is that not enough people invest in the market to capture the money.
The tax policy and deficit reduction ideas in this country have become absurd.
It no longer has a mass consumer base with surplus spending capacity. That removes the mass domestic market for importers, it impoverishes retail outlets, employment falls, it's a self-fulfilling feedback loop.
The way back is to empower the majority to spend. That's how the marketplace throve over the last fifty years of the 20th century. All the current quantitative easing - printing greenbacks backed only by future earnings - is being handed (by way of not putting taxes up) to the wealthy who hoard it rather than the majority who'd spread it around.I agree, except the wealthy are circulating the money through the market. The problem is that not enough people invest in the market to capture the money.
The tax policy and deficit reduction ideas in this country have become absurd.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Chinas First Carrier.
China is looking around for technology. What she can't buy she steals too.
China hunts for both Soviet and US military technology — RT
They're buying 4 Zubr class LCACs from Ukraine and talking with Antonov, the builders of nothing less than the AN-225 Mriya. The largest cargo aircraft ever built. China has good ground forces and a good air force but she lacks 2 things, air mobile ground forces and a real strong naval amphibious force. She seems to be solving both those short comings. 50 Zubr hovercraft could probably put a complete battalion of heavy armor on the beaches of Taiwan in a few hours.
Zubr class LCAC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-225
Given that, up until recently, 70% of the American economy was domestic retail spending, it's lack of spending power that is doing the damage.
Correct, the basics cost so much you have nothing left to spend when all the bills are paid.
China hunts for both Soviet and US military technology — RT
They're buying 4 Zubr class LCACs from Ukraine and talking with Antonov, the builders of nothing less than the AN-225 Mriya. The largest cargo aircraft ever built. China has good ground forces and a good air force but she lacks 2 things, air mobile ground forces and a real strong naval amphibious force. She seems to be solving both those short comings. 50 Zubr hovercraft could probably put a complete battalion of heavy armor on the beaches of Taiwan in a few hours.
Zubr class LCAC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-225
Given that, up until recently, 70% of the American economy was domestic retail spending, it's lack of spending power that is doing the damage.
Correct, the basics cost so much you have nothing left to spend when all the bills are paid.