[Enlightened1]

[Michael.SF.]

That is the entire Chinese team vs. our one strike force.

How quickly could we transfer other ships to the area?

[skeeter]

I think the US could afford to devote more naval assets to this region than this chart indicates if it came to blows.

Whether the nance in the white house would is another matter.

[VanDeKoik]

Well if this was 1899, then I would say we are screwed.

But this is China, a nation that couldn’t project military power if it was inside a movie theater. Those ships would be sitting ducks, and those jets would be tracked the moment they left the hanger, if we let them.

But then again, look at who is the C-in-C over here, so who knows.

[blueunicorn6]

In the big chess game of diplomacy in the Pacific, we can always send in our welfare queens.

[central_va]

“Free” Trade dies, and that is good.

[WayneS]

Sharks & crustaceans would be the big winners.

[Shadow44]

Good thing it’s solely not a numbers game.

The IJN and US Navy can take care of the Chicoms. They’re stuck in the 1970s still.

[Shadow44]

Good thing it’s solely not a numbers game.

The IJN and US Navy can take care of the Chicoms. They’re stuck in the 1970s still.

[kidd]

1. Why is Taiwan excluded?
2. Which is better, 2 submarines that no one can find or 58 submarines that are sitting ducks?
3. How well will China do once we cut off trade with them and we freeze all their accounts/bonds/etc?

[Marko413]

I’d wager we have more than 2 subs in the entire Pacific. Are those just the ones that are part of the carrier group?

[Sir Napsalot]

You can’t graph the will powers of these two nations/people.

[piroque]

The U.S. never talks submarines or there positions.

[AppyPappy]

All we have to do is wait for a typhoon to fix the problem.

[lonestar67]

Here’s a question for the creators of this silly chart:

How many aircraft carriers does the US have and how many does China have?

Correct answer: We have 20 they barely have 1.

And who decided to leave Taiwan off the list?

Are they allies with China? not the last time I checked and they are heavily armed for this scenario

[onedoug]

The highly questionable element is ø himself.

[texas booster]

Ping to someone who actually knows a thing or two about the subject of naval warfare.

[reed13k]

Hmmm - no ROC or South Korean assets. How about the Aussies - think they might have a say in the matter? I’ll spot the PRC the NORKS in return.

Quality over Quantity - disparity isn’t what it used to be, but it’s still there.

[G Larry]

None of this matters with our CIC caving at the first chance.

[greeneyes]

If this chart is comparing the entire Chinese forces to just one strike group, that’s comparing raspberries to watermelons, and pretty misleading.

What value is there in misrepresenting our strength and inflating theirs?

[aegiscg47]

I'm not sure where to even start with this as obviously this graphic has been designed to show a certain point of view. For one, the number of CVBGs can fluctuate and more can be added to that theater in a matter of weeks, especially if tensions have been building. Air strength could rise significantly in just a few days by basing to Japan and South Kore with existing squadrons from other parts of the globe. There are far more submarines available and they are a magnitude in quality difference from their Chinese counterparts.

As far as the Chinese go, their CVBG is nowhere near ready for wartime operations, their fleet assets are fairly spread out, and the combat aircraft listed are based all over the entire country. It's not like one CAG would be facing all 2100 at once. Also, as stated above, the readiness of many of these units needs to be questioned. I'm not saying that this is not a major buildup of Chinese forces or that it does not present a threat, but the U.S. and its allies in the theater are hardly defenseless or outclassed.