The entire Chinese naval fleet is projected to surpass the size of the US fleet by 2015

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2007/April/opinion_April48.xml§ion=opinion&col=

Rise and fall of navies
BY PAUL KENNEDY

14 April 2007

TO WORLD historians, there is nothing more fascinating than to notice a coincidence or a disjuncture across space but within roughly the same time. snip

Right now, for example, South Korea is constructing three large and impressive destroyers that displace more than 7,000 tons and possess extremely powerful armaments -- clearly, these are not designed to stop little North Korean submarines from sneaking down the coastline!

But, as the Koreans will point out, their much more powerful neighbour Japan is in the midst of an even greater naval build-up. The authoritative 2006 publication "The Military Balance" (produced by The International Institute for Strategic Studies) records that the Japanese Navy includes 54 "principal surface combatants" - that is, destroyers and frigates, warships that possess guns, missiles, torpedoes and depth charges.

The Japanese, however, will point to the extremely rapid build-up of the Chinese Navy, which already deploys 71 destroyers and frigates, not to mention 58 submarines (compared with Japan's 18 subs).

Yet the Chinese naval build-up is only in its early stages, like, say, the U.S. Navy was in the 1890s. Just last month the Congressional Research Service, a body not known for hyperbole or dramatic statement, issued a remarkable 95-page report entitled "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities." The details are extensive, and look impressive. Perhaps the most important facts are tucked into the first footnote: "By 2010, China's submarine force will be nearly double the size of the US submarine fleet. The entire Chinese naval fleet is projected to surpass the size of the US fleet by 2015."

[yurbud]

1. aircraft carriers too? I doubt that they will be a technological threat to us

our electronics warfare edge trumps raw numbers.

Saddam had good Russian fighters in the Gulf War, but the planes themselves were irrelevant since our superior electronics meant our planes could kill theirs before they saw us. China makes modified copies of Russian planes, and the the electronics they have are borrowed or stolen from us or Japan. That gap will take more than 8 years to close.

[aquart]

3. Are you aware that our spare parts are outsourced to foreign suppliers?

[MADem]

5. That author is very respected, FWIW.

I wouldn't dismiss his assessments.

Sometimes, technology can get in the way. All they need is a way to kill our electronics and we're flying blind. Remember that recent dateline fuckup?

Don't think they wouldn't pay spies, either, to get what they need to counter any technology we may be employing. If I were them, that's what I'd do. Remember the Walker case!

Last but not least, you can overcome technology with numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. And they've got the draftable population, unlike us, who have a strongly nationalist attitude and an expectation of national service.

They see their star rising, they've got a rising tide on their side, psychologically speaking. That's an important aspect to their mindset, as well.

I do think they are the biggest worry on the horizon. Send your kids to Chinese classes. They may come in handy one day.

[yurbud]

21. all true but a couple of other non-tech considerations:

1. We would be difficult to invade and occupy even for a more populous country like China.

2. We buy a lot of the shit they make.

3. They buy a lot of our debt.

You are falling into the Bush fallacy of seeing military factors as separate from political realities and even Clauswitz saw them as seemless.

We don't worry about India attacking us even though they have a much larger population and nukes because of those kind of factors.

So far, China is exercising soft power and at worst, they will be an economic competitor. Judging from the last decade and a half or so since the last Cold War, we did a lot better with a competitor than without.

[dysfunctional press]

28. things are going to get ugly as oil and water resources diminish.

china appears to be preparing for the worst.

[MADem]

33. All true, and I am not falling into any Bush fallacy--I've been talking about this since the sixties

You just might be falling into the fallacy, dare I say, that things remain static--that China will always have a shitload of our debt (they had none in the sixties, mind you), that we will continue to buy the crap they make (with the news about plastics, and fumes, and harm to fetuses, and sustainable resources,we just may become less "consumer crap" oriented and move to spare "Star Trek" homes--it's what happened after the Victorian era, after all--parlors were stripped bare, relatively speaking), and that they will never have need for anything we have materially (with the way they are hideously polluting their own land, they might just have need of a slightly cleaner breadbasket) over on this end of the world.

Hey, no one gave a shit about "rare earths" a century ago--no one even knew what the hell they were, but now China has cornered the billion dollar per annum market on the commodity: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/22/business/rare.php

And if you've read and remember your von Clauswitz, he also spoke about obtaining the 'key to the country' when occupying nations or regions. While he acknowledged that this key could be seen as a piece of high ground, he stated plainly that the best key was in the the Armed Forces of the enemy.

So essentially, all you really need to conquer or control a nation is the leadership of the Armed Forces in your pocket--the Commander in Chief, if you will.

You don't always have to use the sorts of blunt and foolish tactics we're employing right now in Iraq. At the end of the day, though, the result is the same.

My point is only this--nothing is static. Nothing. Contingency planning to account for war with China is simply common sense. They do the same damned thing--all militaries do.

And taking note of increasing influences is simply common sense as well. The day you reach the tipping point and you are unable to control your own destiny because a foreign power controls your assets, you're too late. You're, in essence, an occupied nation, without anyone ever having fired a shot.

[yurbud]

46. contingency planning is a good idea. I get a bit jumpy about it since in the Bush years, the worst

case scenario, however remote, is assumed to be an immediate threat and then acted on.

Or at least they pretend it's a threat and act on it.

[MADem]

48. Yep, and when you have political hacks instead of country experts doing the planning, you end up

with assholes invading countries and not realizing that, say, there are three distinct politico-ethnic-religious groups in the mix, like for example, sunni, shi'a, and Kurds!!

That sharp USAF officer who retired in disgust not too long back summed that shit up pretty well, bless her heart.

[yurbud]

50. Karen Kwiatkowski? She's great

[MADem]

51. That's the young lady. I really did "feel her pain" to quote a Clintonism. NT

[yurbud]

52. yep. Bush supported the troops by ignoring their decades of experience & expertise and putting in

Doug Feith and the hack squad.

[Uncle Joe]

36. I believe, when the effects of Global Warming hit the fan, many of those

those dynamics or considerations you mention will be drastically altered to the negative. When the glaciers melt in the mountains which feed South Asia's river system, there will be wars over water and food if nothing else.

[benEzra]

45. They don't want to invade and occupy us...

1. We would be difficult to invade and occupy even for a more populous country like China.

I suspect they just want a strong enough military to deter us from intervening in a China-Tiawan war, and to get Japan and the Koreas to view China, rather than the U.S., as the major power in the region.

2. We buy a lot of the shit they make.

China, as a rule, is quite willing to play short-term-loss, long-term-gain. Europe and Asia will buy Chinese exports even if we don't, and they may see Europe as the stronger long-term export market.

3. They buy a lot of our debt.

Which gives them immense leverage in maneuvering the U.S. on the world stage (they could crash the dollar tomorrow if they chose to do so).

You are falling into the Bush fallacy of seeing military factors as separate from political realities and even Clauswitz saw them as seemless.

We don't worry about India attacking us even though they have a much larger population and nukes because of those kind of factors.

So far, China is exercising soft power and at worst, they will be an economic competitor. Judging from the last decade and a half or so since the last Cold War, we did a lot better with a competitor than without.

You are correct, but do keep in mind that this is not a bipolar China-U.S. polarization as the Cold War was. China DOES want Tiawan back, and they have a long history of tension with some of the other nations in the region, as well as with Russia to the north, and is becoming a major player in the Middle East. The economic and political competition between the U.S. and China is only one facet of the whole picture, and in truth that could become more complex than it currently is over things like Middle East petroleum, Tiawan, and the Korean peninsula.

Definitely the potential for interesting times, here.

[melm00se]

56. There is an old truism

in air combat: the plane doesn't shoot down the opponent, the pilot does.

It is not enough to have a numerically superior force. You need trained and experienced personnel to man those weapons and man those ships.

The Chinese do not have a strong naval tradition, so it will take them quite sometime to come up to speed on not only having trained folks to man these ships but to also have the tactical skills necessary to use them effectively in combat.

[meldroc]

31. Most of the world's computers are built in China.

or at least a hefty portion. You think the Chinese are going to be slouches in electronic warfare for long?

[iamjoy]

2. America's Influence Is Waning

Our "empire" is dying. It is not just our military, it is our jobs and - most frightening, our debts.

A little over 100 years ago, Europe housed the dominant world powers. The U.S. was not considered a world player. That changed and in the twentieth century, the U.S. rose to prominance, and dominance.

Perhaps in this century, it will be Asia.

OR maybe not, a little over fifteen years ago we all thought that by now we'd all be working for the Japanese.

[aquart]

4. And instead it's China.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

7. yes, our debts.

that's what will shut down the big show here in Murka.

[Lasher]

6. We're spending almost as much on our military as the entire rest of the world combined.

Hard to figure how China's going to pass us up at this rate unless you start counting sampans. But this is good material for the US military-industrial complex to use in their never-ending quest to get us to spend every last dime we don't have on wars.

[NNN0LHI]

11. I am guessing here but maybe China is getting their monies worth?

No $400 dollar toilet seats and $150 dollar hammers perhaps? Or no trillions of dollars that just disappear and can't be accounted for?

Maybe the US military-industrial complex is sticking it to us already? Our multi-trillion dollar military has proved incapable of defeating a few thousand lightly armed Iraqis. Shouldn't that tell us something?

Don

[Lasher]

25. That is a very good point.

That thought went through my mind when I read my way through this thread. I was reminded of a story about NASA spending millions to develop a pen that would work in zero gravity while the Soviets used a pencil. That story is a myth but it seems a good example of what you're talking about.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9CF01C5C-E7F2-99DF-3EEFFCD06138AEC4&ref=rss

This kind of waste is much more likely in the military. The example of our military leadership's incompetence is there for all to see but to be fair, they really didn't have much of a chance since they were blessed with the leadership of Rummy and Junior.

Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan. "He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22388

The CIA's failures also come to mind but they were torpedoed, mostly by Lord Vader.

[dysfunctional press]

29. regarding the $400 toilet seats and $150 hammers....

that stuff was just a smokescreen- the accountants had to hide the iran-contra expenditures someplace

[leeroysphitz]

37. I doubt it. The Chinese invented beauracracy and with it

bureaucratic inefficiency, fraud and corruption.

Bribery and "skimming" are institutionalized and
just part of doing business.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Exactly right.

Their Navy build up will be primarily a near coast fleet projecting their power on their front door. There may be some forays to South America, but I doubt we'll see the 3rd China Fleet visiting Boston anytime soon. They'll be our mortal enemies in 20 years, cuz we'll need to justify that $1TT/year military budget.

[Ignacio Upton]

24. If China tried sending its Navy over here

It would lead to the nuclear annihilation of Beijing is seconds.

[meldroc]

32. China has nuclear ICBMs too.

It's going to be MAD that keeps a veneer of civility on our relations.

[Old and In the Way]

40. Not really.

Our 7th Fleet is in Hong Kong every year. It's just that the Chinese aren't going to waste their defense dollars steaming 1/2 way around the world on PR maneuvers.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

8. If they build destroyers like they did . . .

. . . my toaster, their Navy is probably the least of our worries.

:silly:

[PsN2Wind]

9. I've long said

that with our export of our manufacturing and the technology to do that manufacturing, along with the willingness of our allies and our own companies to sell to the highest bidder that it was only a matter of time until China tells us that we can keep Guam but everything else the other side of the dateline was in their realm.

[creeksneakers2]

10. Other information on the web

doesn't match these sensational predictions. If China does wind up with more subs its because they are keeping old ineffective subs in their inventory. Everybody else says the Chinese buildup is aimed at becoming a regional naval power,not a threat to the United States.

[Erika]

12. The Chinese will overcome the U.S. thru trade

Military might has nothing to do with it.

[Lasher]

26. No bucks, no Buck Rogers

Without a strong economy we will not succeed on the battlefield.

[Pro2nd]

14. China is a serious threat

Due to their "one baby" policy, parents have been either aborting or flat-out murdering little Chinese girls so that they'll have a son to care for them in their old age. That's given China a 30 million surplus of males that will never find wives or have children. What do you think China will do with those 30 million expendable male bodies? I think they'll build one hell of an army out of them.

The problem is that WE are fueling China's emergence as a world power. All this crap we buy at Wal-Mart to save a few bucks goes straight into their military buildup. Not to mention the fact that we keep losing valuable manufacturing jobs to China, thus shrinking our middle-class. If we don't get our trade deficit under control, we're going to be left with 2 classes in this country, the rich, and the poor that serve them.

As for Japan's military buildup, good for them! They're one of the few friends we have left. I think they've redeemed themselves from that little disagreement in '41.

[Nevernose]

18. The surplus is more a threat to the Chinese

I think the surplus is more a threat to the Chinese themselves, though. That sleeping army may very well end up taking on their own government before they try world domination.

A friend and coworker of mine just came back from China after several years of teaching English in one of the western cities. He told me that, after Tienanmen Square, the younger generation was basically given a choice:

"You can have Democracy or you can have Capitalism, but you can't have both."

[Pro2nd]

20. Then I can think of no better reason

for their government to have them killed off in a war. It's a win-win for the Chinese government. Kill off the problem and take some new land and natural resources in the process.

[hack89]

30. A bigger threat to Russia

Russia's population is actually declining - 20 years from now all the resource rich, lightly populated areas of eastern Russia will look mighty tempting to China and it's exploding population.

[okoboji]

15. hmmmmm.....

time to learn Chinese?

[IChing]

16. A Naval Carrier Fleet is so mid 20th century--We are working on this.

No, seriously the military is going into space for world domination.
The military industrial complex in China and the USA is fueled
by hated and greed. Civilization can exist and develop without war.

[Rex]

17. Hmm...

Their high tech killing machines will be more than our high tech killing machines, gee, we better start building more death machines! In 3 years we will be looking at a high tech killing machine gap! Do you know what this means?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IChing]

23. Thank you Pro2nd for your asian slam

Your life is as meaningless as
your statement was valueless.

[Lasher]

27. I don't think Pro2nd's comment was inappropriate

Most Asian cultures value human life less than we. And they don't have a monopoly on the sentiment.

Following the 911 attacks bin Laden famously said, "We love death - the Americans love life - that is the difference between us."

[Pro2nd]

44. I will guarantee

that China will eventually invade one of its neighbors. Most likely Taiwan, maybe Russia. When they do, you won't see any hand-wringing over civilian casualties and collateral damage. Their invasion will be swift, brutal, and nobody will be spared.

Also, I'll clarify my statement on their lesser value of human life. It stems not from race, but rather culture, history, and politics.

BTW, where can I get one of those filters you have? You know the one that filters out reality, leaving only pure political correctness.

[IChing]

47. RACIST AND ETHNOCENTRIC STATEMENTS by you

The value of human life and You have to clarify your ethnocentric and racists statements?




The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 250.000 people and became the most dreadful slaughter of civilians in modern history. Beneath the center of the explosion, temperatures were hot enough to melt concrete and steel. Within seconds, 75,000 people had been killed or fatally injured with 65% of the casualties nine years of age and younger. http://ahboon.net/2007/02/07/hiroshima-the-unseen-pictures/



Children flee a napalm strike. This picture was to become one of the most iconic of the war.

The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war.



A U.S. EB-66 Destroyer and four F-105 Thunderchiefs dropping bombs on North Vietnam.
Note: Given a Vietnamese population of approximately 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the entire population. To put this in perspective, consider that the population of the US was 220 million during the Vietnam War. Had The US sustained casualties of 13% of its population, there would have been 28 million US dead


The US is not innocent of the behavior that
you are accusing the Chinese of.

[Pro2nd]

53. Ah.....Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

#1- It is my belief that the bombings of both of those cities saved more lives than they took. Can you imagine the casualties involved with an actual U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands? They would have been more than 250k. Also, keep in mind that we (Americans) were amateurs at killing compared to the Japanese, who killed about 8 million in their march through Manchuria. Also keep in mind that the Japanese drew first blood in that conflict, not us.

#2- As to Vietnam: I am quite aware that they were 2 million killed on each side. Are you suggesting that the U.S. killed them all? Both sides? That was a civil war and many of the casualties were ARVN vs. NVA and VC.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. Without a free media to report on and question their government, the Chinese government can operate with impunity when it comes to war. My point is that when the Chinese decide that they want or need something bad enough that they're willing to go to war for it, they will go to win. Their attacks will be deliberate and brutal and there won't be any squeamishness about it on their part.

[Richard Steele]

59. He's dead, Jim.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. I learned Chinese in the Marine Crotch.

Gung-ho! Ironically, the phrase originated in the Communist 8th Route Army.

Your idiocy that "he Asians don't put quite as high of a price on human life as we do" notwithstanding.

[Richard Steele]

58. Ah, racism is fun, innit?

Moran.

[On the Road]

22. The Chinese Advantage in Manufacturing

extends to armaments as well. They can turn out tons of stuff for almost nothing, and have plenty of personnel as well. For the cost of a small office and staff on Capital Hill, they can create an aerospace research facility in a newly constructed neighborhood.

[Bigmack]

34. Size matters!

It's not the size of the fleet that matters, it's the size of the ships.

For years, the militarists have been flapping and squawking about the expanding Chinese Navy. In sheer numbers, it's growing fast, but the vast majority of them are inshore vessels, like destroyers.

I'm not purporting to be an expert, but it looks to me as if China wants to secure it's own waters with a shallow-water navy.

Not a problem unless the US wants to rule all the oceans..... Oh.... wait.... maybe there is a problem.

[hack89]

35. I think that the Chinese wants a big enough Navy

to prevent US interference with Chinese actions in SE Asia. They especially want to neutralize any US assistance to Taiwan when they decide to invade. I think that China as aspirations in the region that concern many of their neighbors. Russia in particular has a lot to be concerned about - a large border with China, a declining population, lots of resources and a weak military. 20 years down the road when China needs more resources I have no doubt that China and Russia will go to war.

[Bigmack]

43. Old Russian math joke....

If shoes cost 50 rubles today and inflation in 10 percent per year.... how much will shoes cost in 8 years?

Answer.... 40 Yuan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Eeeek!!! Another bogeyman!!! Quick, give more money to the Pentagon!!

We're only spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined. $468bn (not counting the dough flushed down the toilet in Iraq) compared to China's $65bn - 7 times as much.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[mainer]

41. That figure is from the "American Shipbuilders Association"!!!

Here's the quote from the article:

"By 2010, China's submarine force will be nearly double the size of the US submarine fleet. The entire Chinese naval fleet is projected to surpass the size of the US fleet by 2015.

We should note that this quotation actually comes from the American Shipbuilders Association, with its very distinct interests in this matter."


They're hungry for good old American taxpayer cash. So they haul up the yellow peril flag.

[VTMechEngr]

42. The numbers are real though. nt

And as Oil gets scarce, we will have a conflict.

[JCMach1]

49. The ability to invade Taiwan has always been the goal of the Chinese navy

That's what they are building the capability for... whether they use it or not.

[tiptoe]

54. USA *MUST* close the 'Junk Gap' with China:

That's all there is to it!

[piedmont]

55. It's all about Taiwan.

The reason they haven't assimilated Taiwan yet is that the U.S. Navy would make an invasion utterly impossible. But given enough subs they might just be able to do it.

[porphyrian]

57. So? - n/t

[Selatius]

60. Large but technologically inferior to the US fleet.

Size isn't everything. If anything, it would simply give more targets for US naval vessels to sink.