i.e.So basically this thread is going down in flames.
Sorry for mentioning india in the first place, I never meant to challenge its military spending at all or its relationship with China but was using it (and other countries in general) as a rejection of the idea that you must have all this social welfare in place before you start spending on your navy.
not your fault.
that was a perfectly valid comparison.
They knew they don;t have a argument so they make things convoluted
they have to kill a mocking bird some how.
i.e.The reply from the average Chinese person should be “Go f–k yourself.”
lol
calm down man.
but I do think you have a valid point there.
The status quo is status quo because chinese tolerate it. status quo really has no ethical moral or even legal grounds to it.
China don’t tolerate it anymore people think they are aggressive. but in reality US japan alliance has been much more aggressive towards china.
Fairness and fair minded people in this world is extremely hard to come by.
most time it is realists who rely on strength who dictate the order of things.
I just hope this world is smart enough to avoid all of our ancestors stupidities.
Judging from the recent reactions to this “chinese carrier”, you know, “why do you need a carrier when uncle sam has a dozen” that sort of thing, things don’t look good in the future…
i.e.blue
It is your logic that is absurd & your throwing around jargon fails to impress, seems pretty sophomoric as matter of fact. Apart from race baiting, its amazing to see the amount of insecurity you have versus the US, wherein it seems to be propping up all over the place, hiding under the bed and acting as a foil for every Chinese action.
all of your blahs aside…US has moved F22s and B2s in Asia, for the expressed purpose of hedging, that’s a fact.
US has had a containment policy vs china which has its cornerstone on its security arrangements in Asia,
that is also a fact.
US militarily intervened on behave of the losing side in the chinese civil war. and still continues to do so resulting the tragic split of its people,
that is also a fact.so china has to deal with these facts, these are not insecurities.
I know, facts don’t go down well with you.
“chinese build up is nothing but a reaction to the long standing US military presence to counter china” and this includes the India northeast, how? In your fervent imagination, perhaps. India is not part of some US alliance against China. And wont be either, unless China ups the ante so much that even that comes to pass.
and that is a sign of insecurity on part of india. when has chinese building roads and cell-phone towers in its own country a threat to India? do you think china wouldn;t react when India dial up its military posturing? while same time refuse any negotiations unless it gets everything it wants?China’s investments in its border warfare capabilities, its build of military capabilities in areas facing India – are what provoked India to respond. And these have nothing to do with the US. Or Japan. Or who knows which country you’ll drag in.
Chinese build some roads in its borderlands and you are scared. I think this is a classic case of inferority complex driven paranoia, I think the best thing to do is talk over with Chinese. before you pluck down bunch money for military hardware and start a classic tit-for-tat arms race
never too late to stop a stupid arms race.
Ah, and this whole argument has nothing to do with India what’s so ever,
just classic.
I care to guess Teer is from India? judging by your passion?
i.e.blue
One of your compatriots was busy bringing up WW2 as a justification for the Chinese carrier. Which is fairly off the scale because there is no way in heck Japan can do a WW 2 since despite your claims of having flattops and a capable destroyer fleet, Japan’s force is all about protecting sea access to Japan, not about invading China!
I think Blitzo and GoldenDragon has answered you pretty well.Japan is already the pre-eminent naval power in East Asia, and they have a active alliance with the biggest, so given the history and current make up of naval power, the one should be worried about is Japan not china. is that a fair point?
And what expansionist binge or ill gotten gains are you talking about? Pretty much every country with an imperial past has had some expansionist angle or gains to boast of. When are you going to draw the line, and say enough?
let’s just use the Japanese ww2 instrument of surrender is that fair?
well, the Japanese instrument of surrender from WW2 limits Japan’s soverignty to the 4 home islands. well, those 4 home island don’t include Okinawa. And the first victim of Japan’s expanison is Okinawan, which has tragically has had its culture almost entirely wiped out, on top of which has had to bear the majority of burden in term of american troop stationing, which tragically again is aimed at china. Okinawa is still part of japan today, oh btw basis of Japan’s claim on Senkuka island is based on that Okinawa is part of japan and they think Senkuka is part of Okinawa.
pretty sick if you ask me.Japan is pretty pacifist all said and done. If it weren’t, it would be pursuing hostilities against the PRC, militarizing heavily with its own nuclear weapons programs or egging the US or other countries on to confront China, every bit of the way. Instead, its circumspect.
Besides the nuke thing, It has the biggest navy in asia and 2nd biggest destroyer fleet with 2 mini flattops. and engage in a long standing military alliance with the largest military on earth.
do you think that is consistent with the behavior of a pacificist? is this what you call pacficist?
you can only twist the argument for so long before truth catches up.Proves the point. The Koreans don’t like Japan much either. Don’t see them investing in a Ukrainian carrier, acquiring it using claims of pvt ownership, refurbishing it yet not admitting openly to intent. All this was bizarre. The PRC could have as well said what it intended to do from day one. This kind of behavior is what fuels doubts about the PRCs intent.
Yeah, their newest addition to the navy, a 18000 ton LHP is named after Dokdo. yeah and they did it to make a point. so don;t twist the argument. it is not only chinese that has a problem with Japan.
and what is PLAN’s intent? Do you think any answer will be good enough for you all? besides the one that’s already made up in your mind?
There you go again. Instead of being logical, all you have are insults about “hypocrites”. Some other dude was talking smack about “white people versus the rest” etc.
All this is ranting.
All i have asked you, is to measure China’s naval program with the same yard stick that measure others, that includes, Japan’s, Korean’s Indian’s and US’s if you are not able to do that and instead focus on this mythical “sneaky yellow *******s” stereotypes, then I must keep on throwing jeers at you.
i.e.Given how much aid dollars the US gives to Pakistan, would be nice to get some sort of goodwill back.
Can’t wait until the day not a penny from Us tax income goes to Pakistan.
when will people ever learn,
Money does not buy friendship.
i.e.Its rather funny to use India as an example to justify the PRCs spending when it is the PRC’s spending which is making India react in modernizing its military when it would rather spend on social needs, which also have a direct political benefit. Google up NREGA.
then by this (absurd) logic then India should really blame the US for drawing so much of its resources to military spending rather than meaningful social programs. after all chinese build up is nothing but a reaction to the long standing US military presence to counter china. imagined or real.
…and hedging never works because Hisenberg uncertainty principle.
i.e.oH Crap,
we dropped peices of hardware in a foreign country and that country will give access to hardware to their allies.
That’s not right!
the whole world should just do what we tell them to do!
i.e.Besides which the thought of Japan repeating a WW2 is a joke IMO. Japanese decision making is still notably pacifist besides which their Army can in no way mount an expeditionary campaign or even invade the PRC (not with any decent chance of success).
well,
Japan already has 2 mini-flattops and most capable destroyer fleet in Asia, I would argue 2nd only to USN.
If capability is their intention...the same yardstick that many of you judge the chinese naval program… then judging from Japan’s long standing naval capability they do intend to dominate East Asian waters for sometimes.
I wouldn’t call a country who still has held on to ill-gotten gains since its embarkation upon its modern expanisonistic binge, and still has substantial means to dominate the waters in its neighborhood, a “pacficist”.
Think that’s just some rant by some chink?
just ask the Koreans what their opinions is on Dokudo.
…
Is it really so hard for you all to use the same yardstick to measure China? that you use to measure others?
If you are not really capable of being fair than stop pretending to be fair. it makes you all look like really bad hypocrites.
i.e.Blue
Your so called point is totally out of place because this is not a thread about India (which Musashi points out) and second, India is a status quo power and poses no expansionist threat to the PRC. India has no allied requirements to defend Japan or Taiwan or the like, either (which also brings up the point why would the US intervene unless these nations were threatened). If you attempt to make a point, make them using the correct examples.
sorry, When Nehur pursuit its fwd policy along its borders India ceased to be an “satus quo power”.In the PRC – India case, it is the PRC investment in military infrastructure which is forcing India to react. Whether it be raising new divisions in the north-east, or modernizing new AFB or even focusing on its Navy. Its rather ironic. The PRC is the one leading the arms race, and then you turn around & claim that because India is spending, its all ok.
So China must keep its frontier desolate and poor to make India feel comfortable? inorder to compensate for some sort of inferiroty complex?
When has Infrastructure development in one’s own country a sign of aggression?!?!Its rather funny to use India as an example to justify the PRCs spending when it is the PRC’s spending which is making India react in modernizing its military when it would rather spend on social needs, which also have a direct political benefit. Google up NREGA.
He is merely to point out that the exhortation Musashi given on this subject, spending on social programs instead of the navy, is groundless given that the world community has hardly said anything on a similarly poor large of neighbor that has not one but 2 Carriers on order. and has kept a large navy with a carrier for dozens of years.
If you ask me comparison makes one sees most clearly the hypocrisy with which this subject has been debated.
i.e.No, the Chinese are actually doing provocative acts with naval ships near Japan (and elsewhere), and claiming total control (in opposition to International Maritime law) of open ocean vital to the interests of Japan and its neighbors.
Japan is merely reacting reasonably to acts of aggression and threats perpetrated BY CHINA!
When US Navy tow a mile long hydrophone near one of china biggest sub base, do I see you enboldened words?
I see them not.
And what “provacative” acts did the PLAN ships actually perform? like passing through in international waters between the islands?
Helo, I know US is tend to be hypocritical but freedom of seas?
and,
When Japan and US’s biggest air base is mere 20 minutes of after burner away from Shanghai, China’s biggest and richest city, their existence is already threatening china. are they not?
or, and territorial disputes. Senkuka Island and all that.
ok, whomever the right owner is.
Even US said it will not take active side in the dispute.
This is an “dispute”, so when has people in a dispute are not allowed to dispute anymore? or else they must shutup or else they are showing aggression?
this is somekind of joke or what?
i.e.Yes agreed. We can’t really question the need for weapons of respective countries.
But one can’t help but feel exasperated when a person goes and challenges a country’s carrier, while said country’s greatest potential challengeer has eleven times your number.
I don’t agree that one can’t question the “need” for a respective question.
for example a arms build up signals a intention and a need.
but proportion is something people has to keep in mind.
China has tremendous security challenges, irrespective of what naivety or misinformation that drove others to say otherwise.
unless those security challenges are addressed. unless china feels it is safe it will not stop.
i.e.many in US sees rise of china as a industrial-economic-military superpower as a zero sum game for them.
I would just come out and say it many in the west (including japan) think the same too.
never mind western corporations and consumers and governments has enjoyed tremendous profit, access to cheap labor and goods, and huge amounts of low interest loans to finance the rise in living standards for close to 2 decades now. because of rise of china.
but I have to say, on some level, they are right. if their goal was to dominate this planet forever by a rich and powerful minority. Rise of china would necessarily mean end of western domination of this planet. it means that for first time in 200 years a country bigger than all of them combined will be as rich and powerful as them and they can no longer dictate what direction this world will go.
Now in heart i am a democrate (small d), if the world is ran by 1-person 1-vote then I am all for it.
but I doubt West would like that arrangement, as all those poor people in China, India, and would out vote any of rich countries. and how the hell can you tell China n’ India to cut their emissions while you drive a 12 mpg Escalades.
but instead, today, the most power person on this planet is really chosen by some handful of retirees in couple of swing counties in some North American Mid Western States every 4 years.
I do not think this is democratic in any way, or even rationale in anyway.
so I go for the next best thing. Balance of power and peace through strength.
i.e.In Blue
I and 61 million other Britons shares our pies.
sharing. sounds like communism to me.
down with the ChiComs, wait…you are talkin’ about britons right?
so, who are the commies?I have no idea how that means China needs a super-modern military. Are you suggesting that if China let its spending slip, we and the French would be back into Hong Kong and Shanghai?!
Well the last time they did let their techno- military thing slip, they did end up as meat for the Brits the French, and Japanese. I donno, good luck convince them to trust ya on this one. given the circumstance and history. you know.
Sorry, are you really saying that China is going to be invaded by someone if it doesn’t keep increasing its spending? Do you know how many times someone has tried to invade the UK? You don’t see us boosting our spending out of paranoia.
but you guys did invade couple of semi-failed state for good measures and still boost a substantial offensively configured intervention force, not to mention actively engaged in bombing a north african country into smithereens at this moment.
and you wonder why people want to arm themselves in-case murdoch… I mean your elected officials guys decide for “human rights” you must invade a country.
What interests and how are they going to be at cross-purposes? Unless you’re thinking about world resources drying up so there really isn’t enough to go around, I can’t possibly think why the US and China would go to war over “interests”. Unless China invades or attacks a US ally.
or a US Ally decide that they can grab couple islands around china in a dispute, because they feel like to, and they can.
and the puny PLAN can’t do any thing about it and USN will always back them up.in another word: the very existence of an alliance with a military that is more powerful than anyone on this earth combined, for a party in a dispute, creates in-balance in a dispute. one will always attempt translate that military might as a leverage to skew result in their own favor.
China’s good neighbors have already leveraged US military might to tilt the balance in their favor.
(and I would venture argue that if it weren’t for the containment policy in past 60s years in west pac, many of these disputes wouldn’t happen as china would have already assume these possessions and there would not be any lapse in administration and these islets would not be have been in dispute) .It is bit hypocritical to argue that china have no reason to seek military strength while others are routinely resorting to leveraging military strength either through arming themselves or forge military alliances with the most powerful military state on this earth. seek to benefit themselve or hold on to those gains.
you know, I like Reagan, especially the “peace through strength” part.
i.e.You got to look at facts rather than perceptions here.
When did they ever do that.
ha.
i.e.Well one of the big selling points of aegis is the SM-3 giving the capability to intercept ICBMs and IRBMs.
You have to wonder why the Chinese would go for an AShBM if there was already a defence in place waiting for it. My explanation is first that AShBM has far greater range than anti ship cruise missiles, and second is that the PLA must believe their DF-21D is far harder to intercept compared with cruise missiles and previous ballistic missiles at this time.
BMD hasn’t exactly had a spotless record. Add to that MaRV, small RCS, decoys for the attacker…
Your the “sub munitions” don’t have to be ballistic, if you know what I mean. 😉
Sign In
