Posted on 03/04/2016 1:23:50 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
China is building aircraft carrier battlegroups and plans to deploy them not only in the disputed East and South China seas, but also to protect the country’s overseas interests.
Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, who served as a national political adviser and sits on the navy’s advisory board on cybersecurity, told the state-run Xinhua News Agency that building aircraft carriers served to “defend China’s sovereignty of the islands and reefs, maritime rights and overseas interests”.
The defence ministry confirmed this year that China was building its second aircraft carrier, its first wholly home-made one.
Xinhua mentioned China’s growing interests overseas, including the increasing numbers of nationals travelling abroad and its direct investments. It also noted a need to protect overseas ethnic Chinese.
“Protecting the economic, political status and occupational safety of overseas Chinese is paramount to safeguarding China’s domestic economic development and its reform and opening-up,” Yin said, adding that such protection required strong naval power like aircraft carrier battlegroups.
Xinhua said since the opening up programme began in 1980s, overseas Chinese accounted for 60 per cent of total foreign direct investment in China.
Beijing’s relations with some Southeast Asian countries was strained in the early years of the People’s Republic, with some wary of Beijing’s support for local Communist movements as well as suppression of ethnic Chinese who commanded the domestic economies of some countries in the region.
With China now having outbound investments in 155 countries and 120 million citizens travelling abroad last year, Yin said aircraft carriers were needed to protect China’s overseas assets and its nationals abroad.
Yin said China’s aircraft carriers were to safeguard its rights and sovereignty, not to invade or threaten its neighbours. China’s doctrine of “proactive self-defence” would not change.
The Liaoning, China’s first and so far only aircraft carrier, has conducted drills in the South China Sea on a few occasions since it was commissioned in 2012.
But so far the carrier has been used mainly for training purposes rather than playing any practical combat role.
Ni Lexiong, a Shanghai-based military analyst, said Chinese aircraft carriers were unlikely to visit the South China Sea in the near future.
“Sending aircraft carriers would be a strong diplomatic statement. It is a demonstration of a country’s power and strong will to use force,” said Ni.
Oh, I’m sure there’s a lot more to the history than just this fact.
Other major facts (that led to Dec 7th...):
1. The Japanese getting their a$$es kicked by the Soviets in 1940 in an almost secret little war.
2. The might—as perceived—of an unstoppable Germany, an ally, that was taking on the Soviets and pushing them back almost 1,000 miles.
3. Perceived American weakness.
4. America putting all their eggs (ships in one Pearl Harbor basket.
5. Britain on the ropes due to the Germans.
6. The idea that a weak America would grow stronger with time along with the belief that the Soviet Union would grow weaker with time—or cease to exist (East Wind, Rain, rather than North Wind, Cloudy).
7. The false belief that Western powers would give up if they’re handedly beaten early on, as in Tsarist Russia’s fleet of 1905. They failed to see the Americans as worthy opponents with a huge advantage in staying the course—and eventually winning.
8. Finally, your point: US economic sanctions.
That's a fair point. But looking back, what other options did FDR have? Should he have continued to supply the oil Japan needed to wage war against China? Because the occasional US destroyer sail-by won't do much to change anything.
Fast forward to today. Should we consider pressuring China using trade sanctions? Or should we just concede that maritime region to them?
I suppose it's something like finding a nest of vipers in some back region of your property. Should you attempt to carefully clear it out, or is best to just leave it be?
Should have been at the end of the second paragraph in post #22. Computer gremlins at work again.
“So how do you create a carrier that works?”
order one from the U.S. or U.K.-
What? they won’t build?- just ask for the detailed plans-
Barak -Hussein, or Hitlerly will gladly give you the plans for a little cash.
An hour later, you have to re-float them.
Well... The Chinese are not engaged in slaughtering people all over Asia, and we don’t have any desperate need to control that area any more.
Our ‘allies’ there have not been very friendly so we don’t have much in the way of bases. To put it mildly, IMHO, our logistics in that area of the world stinks on ice.
And, given our recent military history, we shouldn’t commit to any fight we’re not willing to win.
If we had better leadership or a better electorate, I might support trying to hold on, but, as things stand...
Any bets on whose carriers get blown up first in a China v. US war?
I was just thinking how I’d like to read a sukhoi-30mki post this morning. Keep them coming.
They cannot sell skill, training, experience or know how to carry out damage control. Several times in WWII, the Japanese assumed they had sunk our carriers, because they had blown the heck out of them. But not only did we keep them afloat, but we got them reconditioned in record time.
Whereas, in their case, they lost carriers.
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.