Posted on 07/16/2007 7:06:41 PM PDT by JACKRUSSELL
KAOLAO, China -- On one side of a rocky promontory jutting into the Yellow Sea here sits a ramshackle fishing village, its wooden boats pulled up on the beach. On the other, lie well-guarded berths that are home to some of the most advanced vessels in the Chinese navy: heavily armed attack submarines.
The stealthy subs, their black conning towers and tail fins rising above the water, are one of the most potent signs of China's ambitious effort to modernize its armed services, particularly its long-neglected navy.
......"The oceans are our lifelines. If commerce were cut off, the economy would plummet," says Ni Lexiong, a fellow at the Shanghai National Defense Institute and an outspoken proponent of Chinese sea power. "We need a strong navy."
......But as China's navy becomes better equipped and farther ranging, it is causing alarm bells to ring in Washington, Tokyo and Taipei. The U.S. is strengthening its forces in Asia, partly in response to China. It is also encouraging Japan to boost its own military and naval capabilities, and is even cultivating ties with Mongolia, on China's northern border.
......At the submarine base here in eastern Shandong province, there are signs of the naval shift. Submarines shelter behind breakwaters between sea patrols. Chinese subs have been detected in the waters around Japan and as far into the western Pacific as Guam, site of important U.S. military installations.
......"If we develop a strong navy with more advanced weapon systems, we have more choices. It's possible that China will join in a cooperative system headed by the U.S.," says Mr. Ni of the Shanghai National Defense Institute. "But we would also be ready to fight if we have to."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
To most of the dumbasses who write for the WSJ, they look at it as a good thing that China is getting so economically strong. Idiots.
Not just idiots, that would be useful idiots..
Yep. never seems to be a shortage, even on the “conservative” side.
ChiPing.
You know, without the Chinese name at the end of that, I'd say that statement exactly fits Japanese thinking of the 1930's...!
Oh, wait...
Do they need scrap iron?
LOL, all their moored subs are open to view for all to see on Google Earth
Let’s make them into sunken scrap.
Much of the goals of Japan of the 1930's were not bad. So, we shouldn't mix the means in which they carried it out with their goals (e.g., greater co-spherical prosperity).
A good example would be the European Union. They are continually uniting the continent over there. However NAZI Germany wanted the same thing. Should we now make the EU politically incorrect simply because Hitler had a goal of a United Europe? Should people equate the EU with the Swastika?
Opportunity of trade does include the vast potential of shipping goods via the oceans. That in of itself is not a bad thing.
China should continue to build her navy. Yes, they should be more transparent with the US. And hopefully, along with that transparency, may even play a supportive role with the US in securing the oceans. And someday, through cooperation and through the continued growth of China, it will be the US who will be in the supportive role. That's an unthinkable and politically incorrect thought TODAY (the fact that the US could play a secondary role), but I believe if it happens, it will be accepted by the generation of tomorrow.
We will have to sink their boats before that ever happens. Then, post-communism, they can be our security partners.
Well, that isn't the preferable route I was looking at. But lets say that did happen (US sinks China's current navy). And China, all the while, continued to industrialize their country. And in their post communist era, rebuilt a navy that would dwarf any countries, including the US. Would you be accepting of a security partnership in which China is the senior partner? Much the same way the US is a senior partner to the British today in security issues.
What I'm asking (and have been asking on this board many times before), is it communism you oppose, or an alternative paradigm?
I oppose those that seek to damage the USA. The Chicoms are our enemies. And yes, they may not be pure marxists (none are) but they are dictatorial and dangerous. We give them generous trade deals while they prepare for war against us.
I'm not on this board to defend the "Chicoms". But my clarification was a "post communist China".
Are you opposed to a potential future paradigm in which China, and not the United States is the world's leading power? A future China with a democratically elected government.
I am in favor of a post communist china that is an ally, not an enemy, if that is what you mean.
However, it is my fervent belief that the USA must maintain military superiority over all nations.
I'm glad to hear that. However, I don't believe the current China is an enemy. She isn't a full fledged ally, but neither an enemy.
However, it is my fervent belief that the USA must maintain military superiority over all nations.
Okay, lets say that remains true throughout the remainder of the 21st century and that China doesn't seek an arms race and does not compete with the US in that area (militarily). Would you be comfortable with a global setting in which the US pays for global security (both financially and with the lives of men and women) while China continues to grow economically? A China that I believe will be democratic in the not too distant future. Similar to a setting during the time between the Civil War and the first world war, where the US became the leading economic power but Britain was still the leading military power. A China that may one day consume more energy and build more infrastructure than the entire Western world. A China that may lead in all other areas except the military. Is that acceptable?
I do not believe China will be such a powerhouse, though they certainly will continue their rise for some time. India has every bit as much potential as China, FWIW. If not for our technology, the chicoms would still be an agrarian country of rice pickers. They have played us for fools. Smart them, stupid us. But I do see them as an enemy. They support every single enemy of ours: Iran, NoKo, Venezuela, Cuba, not to mention clandestinely selling nuclear technology, arming terrorists in Iraq, and stealing our technologies.
Britain was able (and needed) to be the world’s #1 military due to the money it extracted and favorable trade it extracted from its empire around the world. But alas the empire collapsed. We are not an empire. We do not have the same obligations as the Brits had. Our free market economy will afford us the luxury of maintaining the most Robust and advanced military in the world for the foreseeable future.
Noted. But I believe they will be.
though they certainly will continue their rise for some time. India has every bit as much potential as China,
Potentially yes, but as of today, the road appears, to me, to point to China.
If not for our technology, the chicoms would still be an agrarian country of rice pickers.
To some degree you are right. More accurately, if the US had forceably led a global trade sanction, China would be be an agrarian country. China does do trade with Europe and Japan as well. Nearly 40% of China's exports come to the US, however, the rest goes elsewhere in the world. And technology does come from other parts of the world as well. In fact the US actually restrict some technologies to China that are filled by European and Japanese companies.
In 1979, China starting to pursue a free market economy, and the world did not collectively oppose it. China's rise is due primarily to their energy (and their economy of scale) in participating in an existing global trading system in which the US is a big part of.
They support every single enemy of ours: Iran, NoKo, Venezuela, Cuba,
It may appear that way. But China is after the natural resources of the world. And that may include some bad apples. The goal isn't to antagonize the US, but simply that resources trump all goals. It may not necessarily make the best neighbors, but China is rather desparate for resources. Keep in mind, they also have good relations with countries that are friendly to the US, such as Australia, Japan and S. Korea.
But alas the empire collapsed.
Actually, Britain gave up much of their Empire due to world condemnation during the 20th Century. Predominently from America after World War II. It's highly doubtful that a small poorly armed African country or a disorganized India could rebel against the British.
We are not an empire. We do not have the same obligations as the Brits had.
No, but they nonetheless maintain a powerful military while the US focused on economics during that time period (between the Civil War and WWI). And there was good relations between the two countries while America pursued economic interests and the British maintained an Empire that required military expenditures.
Our free market economy will afford us the luxury of maintaining the most Robust and advanced military in the world for the foreseeable future.
Yes, for the forseeable future. But would it be okay for China to maintain a close second? The US has 12 carriers, the UK and France each have 2. Would it be okay for China, to say, someday maintain 6 or 8 carriers?
Would it be okay for China, to say, someday maintain 6 or 8 carriers (assuming a China governed by a democratically elected government)?
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.