^ I think he was referring to Obama.

Yup! Although I suppose it could refer to any number of governments that have not fulfilled promises to its people… in other words, every government through all of history 😀

I think GDP per capita and standard of living is the smallest variable, as not all countries may allocate budget which allows for said higher standard of living. Nominal overall GDP and perceived threat is probably much more influential.

I think the essential problem with this is that your Corvette then becomes a sitting duck to anyone that can put a Helicopter in the air with a decent anti ship capabilty like Sea Skua/Penguin or even something in the class of Hellfire/Brimstone.

It’s okay for chasing pirates, smugglers, even Mine counter measures etc, but I don’t think that’s what the thread starter was after.

Going over the requirements in the thread starter, I think that is exactly the kind of ship its after? Relatively mundane capabilities that can hold its own against a weak opponent, and act as a capable light combat auxiliary against a more powerful foe to free the bigger ships for important duties.

Peacetime roles include: shipping protection, pirate hunting, homewater patrol, maintaining presence
Wartime roles include: mine counter, possible ASW depending on design, convoy guarding (with other ships), and simply having more ships on hand for lower intensity interdiction or patrols

Also if your bare bones corvette is being targeted by an enemy with any form of air power, then chances are it will also be supported by more capable frigates and destroyers (no reason to send a weak corvette in alone against a known enemy). The only danger would be a surprise attack against your small corvette, in which case that is up to high brass and intelligence to decide what ships they want to send into hazard zones with competent enemies.

But I agree that manpower is a large factor. Western navies may not be able to simply muster enough men to staff a line of new corvettes even if they could build them.

what are you talking about, China has sent lots of naval ships into the islands.

Um no. They’ve sent lots of coast guard/maritime surveillance/fisheries ships to the islands, not naval. Sending in naval ships would be a dramatic escalation of posture. Do some research please

Chinese don’t simply seem to understand the perspectives of its neighbors.
The Chinese are trying to re-claim its perceived loss of territories in history
Neighbors see China as trying to re-live its imperial power days by rebuilding the gains of its past empires (which came at their cost to begin with)
then the Chinese get offended and don’t understand why its neighbors begin drifting towards its enemies.
duh.

Well I personally agree with you to an extent. Chinas economic and military rise over the last decade has been astronomical and even scary for many of its smaller neighbours that it has disputes with.
It’s posture towards disputes territories hasn’t changed, only its power to reinforce those claims if push comes to shove.
And what imperial power days are you specifying? Because there is a sense in the nation that china should “reclaim” the territories it lost over a century ago, but no imperialistic style adventurism ala imperial Japan. I am sympathetic to how that perception can be maintained however, and I think that’s more down to the medias filtering of china and its intentions rather than what they actually are

I think the emphasis here is a lack of low end combatants in western navies, yes?

Mass produce some K130, sigma or 056 type corvettes. China’s got smaller shipyards churning them out like dumplings. I’m sure western countries can do so too even if they have smaller building capacity, just don’t stick in too many new bells and whistles. Use existing proven technology and give it a very modest arms loadout.

I am making a point that China’s current policies from Defense Spending to it’s more and more aggressive tone is having a negative effect. Which, is leading to an Arms Race and heighten tensions with several of it’s neighbors. (FACT)

Like thobbes said, china hasn’t changed its stance towards the islands, it’s only now that the world and the media is paying more attention to it, partly because its economy is rising.

No, trying to keep the discussion on topic.

There doesn’t seem much to discuss though, you seem to have already concluded that there is indeed an arms race going on and it’s all china’s fault? Unless you want a circlejerk thread…

Wrong Defense Spending is increasing in ASIA and it’s because of China vastly increased Defense Spending and it’s aggressive tone and actions with several of it’s neighbors.

See, you’ve already reached the conclusion.

Anyway, your claim in the first couple of posts in this threaad regarding a formal alliance is still a long ways off regardless of whether the rising defence spending is unilaterally due to china or not.

I doubt the Nations of Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc. etc. etc. See it as you do. Which, is the point. While you may not agree with it and think China is in the right. Most of China’s Neighbors totally disagree!

Most of china’s neighbours have disputes with each other as well lol. Yes China has disputes with many countries, but it also shares borders (maritime and land) with many countries too. An unfortunate result of geography.

Besides, there hasn’t been a naval confrontation in SCS between china and other countries for decades, and china is not stupid enough to start one now (most of the SCS countries would be completely pummeled, but it’s the geopolitical fallout which goes against china’s interests completely). China’s stance towards the SCS hasn’t changed, it’s only its power which has risen (combined with media and geopolitical jockeying for a new bogeyman since the soviet union disintegrated)

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/07/national/japan-eyes-two-new-aegis-destroyers-to-counter-n-korea-missile-threat/#.UeiKeXHD-M8

Thanks. Will be interesting to see if it’s actually purused, and if it’s a pair of new atagos or a new build ship completely.

—

Yo scooter, how about replying with something other than :rolleyes: every now and then?

Poverty level, define what that is.

World bank’s definition: living below $1.25 a day.

A person living “below poverty level” but owning property is worse off than one whose government takes their property?
Bloomberg said it merely moved people from the country owning property, to cities, trying to pay rent in shanty towns.
Boy what an advance.

Lol let’s stop for a moment. I’m not going to challenge you on the shanty town thing, because I haven’t read the article myself.
But the statement preceding makes me think you believe that without a reduction in poverty, the government would have been unwilling or scared to take their property.

–Give me proof that the general populace is being lifted out of povery.

google “china poverty since 1978” or do any kind of article search. Check their credentials yourself.
The lifting of millions out of poverty in “red china” has been one of the big news stories of the decade before last, you can’t have missed it.

That people rode bicycles before and now many drive cars has nothing to do with poverty. The U.S. switching from horses to cars had zero to do with poverty, just a change in technology. It was balanced by which was cheaper, fueling the car or feeding the horse.

I’m not sure if you’re serious. Of course the US switched from horses to cars because it was a revolution in technology, cheaper etc.
Are you saying in China the change from bicycles to cars was a “revolution in technology”? Um no, China’s had cars for decades. It was because people could now afford to buy cars, implying an overall rise in income, implying an overall shift in the bell curve.

If you want to read Bloomberg articles look them up, I will not do it for you.

Could you at least give me some key words to put in? Bloomberg puts out a lot of articles, many of which are about China and many of which are probably not the small handful you are using as the bedrock of your argument.

As I said you made the bold statement about poverty going away because of the government; give an absolute that defines Chinese poverty and that the government is the reason it is changing.
You made the statement PROVE it.

The global poverty line is living off less than $1.25 per day. Do a search of the statistics yourself. That is the absolute which I’m using (and the rest of the world is using) to define poverty.

Have you done any reading on Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms of the late 1970s, and the rise in FDI immediately following it? I dont’ think you need a degree in economics to understand investment is generally a good thing for the host country.
We can take it step by step if you wish.
Reforms of late 1970s = initiated by government Y/N?
Reforms of late 1970s, led to rise in FDI and accelerated economic growth Y/N?
Economic growth, led to reduction in poverty and rise of the average per capita income Y/N?

—

Let’s take a step back. You (or someone else) last page accused China of overspending on its military or something along those lines, and that it should instead focus on raising the living standards of its populace. So the last part shoudl be the focal point — whether China has or has not raised the living standards for its population.
I think you’re the only fellow that has denied the reduction in poverty since the 1970s economic reforms, but one can only lead another to water. You are also countering that the rise in GDP hasn’t benefitted everyone in the country, and it has led to some abuse of governmental power, yes? I completely agree with that, and those are among other challenges which a developing country must face. The rising inequality, the rising urban poverty level, unequal education etc are all problems that will need to be solved.
But if you’re claiming that those problems somehow negate the benefits of economic growth which has been brought to the rest of the country then you’re delusional. If you’re claiming that economic growth and a rise in GDP for the overall population is not equivalent to “raising the living standards of a nation’s populace,” then let’s have a discussion about that and let’s apply your definition of living standards to the rest of the world too and let’s see how many hits the benchmark.

And it probably won’t happen.

Asia is more about just China v the rest. There is a lot of old yet still simmering tensions. E.g. South Korea is distrustful of Japan – in fact most Asian nations are opposed to Japanese rearmament.

There’s also a number of unresolved issues in SE Asia.

+1
Unless China does something completely batsh*t crazy, a westpac NATO is still very much beyond the horizon.