Communist China will Try to Copy Giant Soviet Aircraft Carrier in Attempt to Expand its Naval Power

The London Times | March 5, 2002 | Oliver August

[Rebelbase]

Bump your #40.

[Rebelbase]

"I thought they had enough access to us that they could copy the good stuff, and they're going to crib off the Red Fleet instead? "

Maybe they are just interested in heating their harbours. ;-)

[Seydlitz]

So, you think that without American help, 1,000,000,000 Chinese people could not manage to build a smallish (60,000 tons versus 97,000 tons for US carriers), low-tech aircraft carrier? Wow. Speaking of free trade, I might just have a bridge to sell you.

You also assume that with almost no naval tradition, that China would be able to build a fleet superior to that of the combined US, Japanese, Taiwanese and South Korean fleets? That would be quite a feat. Historically unprecedented, to say the least.

The Buchananite calls for no free trade (a.k.a the Supreme Corporate Welfare - No Foreign Competition & Fat Profits) are interesting, too. Somehow, letting American consumers buy cheaper goods, thereby leaving them with more money to save and invest in America's future, makes us a poorer country. Interesting. I wouldn't suppose you heard of a fellow named David Ricardo?

[Poohbah]

Ya, ya. Warlordism, my eye. Same sort of wishful thinking was projected about the Nazi's. Didn't happen.

Oh, really?

I don't recall anything like that being proposed in the 1930s. However, Chinese history is nothing but a series of ascents and declines--and they're coming due for another decline. When China declines, it usually declines into warlordism and banditry.

And won't with nukes at their beck and call.

That's what will make the future of China so interesting! A civil war with nuclear weapons, YEE-HAW!

Further, we are looking at a cohesive IDEOLOGICALLY united heirarchy running multiple disinformation campaigns while racing in a military build-up of staggering proportions.

China is four nations united at gunpoint. Unfortunately for the "ideologically united hierarchy," if they were to engage in overseas adventures, the manpower pool for said adventures would be those same people who are currently holding "China" together at gunpoint. They can't be everywhere at once.

And you continue to misunderstand the inherent dynamic weakness for deterrence, not to mention war-winning, for that matter, of the continuing erosion of the US Fleet capability, while the PRC is on the way to becoming a first-rank Navy.

Anyone who talks about the US Fleet suffering from "erosion" of capability knows about as much about real navies and what they do as Hillary Clinton knows about heterosexuality.

China will be building several aircraft carriers at just about the point in time where the aircraft carrier really starts suffering from its limitations as a single platform. Kinda like building monster battleships in 1941.

[Poohbah]

If the great Establishment in all it's pointy head wisdom, actually has come to unanimity in terms of how to use the Red Trade for subversion, there is still the very likely event that....IT WON'T WORK.

My argument has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with how China is actually four different nations, united at gunpoint. Said unification would not survive any overseas adventures.

[Sid Rich]

I'm new to the China threads. What are the 4 different nations you reference (ie--I'd like to hear your theory). Thanks.

[monday]

"ALL OF YOUR FREE-TRADERS WILL BE TO BLAME FOR THIS AND WILL JOIN BUSH AND CLINTON IN THE HALL OF TRAITORS!!!!!"

Thank you for this thought provoking tirade. And after you have reduced the American economy back to 1940's levels will you be happy then?

[New Zealander]

That looks a bit like a carrier designed for VTOL aircraft - do the Chinese have any VTOL aircraft?

[Sid Rich]

Will GW slapping tariffs on imported steel get him out of the hall of traitors or is it a "once in, never out" arrangement?

[Poohbah]

Four nations of China--the $1.98 tour...

First, there is Agrarian China, where folks live as they have for years. They LOVE the central government, because they're a net drain on China's economy.

Then, there are the smokestack industries in Manchuria. They want policies that benefit them at the expense of everyone else. They'd vote for Buchanan's Chinese cousin if they could.

Third, there's the "Third Wave" China centered around Shanghai. The ambitious want to drag China into the 21st Century. The less ambitious simply want the other three Chinese nations to go fornicate themselves and let the Greater Shanghai area make LOTS and LOTS of money.

The fourth China ain't even really part of China--they are Tibetans, Muslims, and other subject peoples. They don't want the Chinese to go away mad--they just want them to go away.

[Sid Rich]

Thanks.

[Seydlitz]

I would agree with your assessment. The danger is that the central gov't launches a war for Taiwan in a desperate move to rally support under the banner of nationalism.

[Poohbah]

Yeah.

No need to worry about carriers for that scenario; worry if they're building a LOT of amphibs...

[Honcho]

Indeed FREE-TRADE is a LEFTWING POLICY! Just as FREE-IMMIGRATION! and OPEN BORDERS!!

While I agree that Free-Immigration and Open Borders are a policy of the left, I've got to disagree with you on the issue of Free Trade. Freetrade is not a Leftwing Policy. One of the reasons the founders revolted against England was because of the tariffs that were being imposed for doing business outside the English Empire. Ever since the Guilded age, the rise of the Industrial Revolution, and the build up of the unions, the left have turned Free Trade into the "demon working against the working class". Now don't get me wrong, I don't belive for a heartbeat that we should be doing business with the Commies, not for economic reasons, but because you should do business only with people you can trust. Ronald Reagan gave the formula for dealing with the Commies in the Cold War and that's to cut them off and oppose them at every turn. Free Trade with China is clearly a bad policy, but not because free trade is bad.

[Poohbah]

Why do you find David Ricardo's religious affiliation to be relevant?