Page 15 of 41 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 807

Thread: China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

  1. #281
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    New Report from The Lowy Institute Interpreter:


    Understanding China's world-view

    One of the keys to understanding the implications of China's rise will be assessing the degree to which China and the West understand the motives behind each others actions. Given the high degree of economic interdependence and geographic distance between the US and China, it is much more likely that misunderstanding rather than malice will be the cause of any future conflict. (links to Lowy Institute Report - Crisis & Confidence: Major Powers and Maritime Security in Indo-Pacific Asia)
    Understanding China's world-view - The Interpreter - June 29, 2011.

  2. #282
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Maybe I mentioned this before in SWC...


    U.S.shipbuilding 2010 - deliveries
    http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today...tivity2010.htm

    16 Large Deep-Draft Vessels and Structures
    (= actual "ships", including five for the USN)

    29 Offshore Service Vessels

    9 Crew Boats

    81 Towing Vessels

    23 Passenger Vessels > 50 feet in Length

    8 Commercial Fishing Vessels > 50 feet in Length

    19 Other Self-Propelled Vessels > 50 feet in Length

    14 Large Oceangoing Barges (> 5000 GT)

    Without Great Lakes, Mississippi/Missouri and the Gulf of Mexico oil industry there would be almost no shipbuilding industry left in the nation that produced insane quantities of ships and warships in 1942-1945 and won the Pacific War that way. The current shipyard capacity of the United States would be hard-pressed to meet the peacetime shipbuilding program of the early 1900's.

    -------------------------

    The global shipbuilding share of the United States in 2009 was 0.4%, less than Croatia's, Denmark's and Poland's (individually!!!). China: 28.4%.
    (source: http://www.sajn.or.jp/e/statistics/S...s_Mar2010e.pdf PDF page 5)

  3. #283
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    The Koreans, among others, build ships cheaper.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  4. #284
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Posts moved

    Moderator's Note

    A number of recent posts in this thread on disorder / insurgency / terrorism in China's far west provinces have been moved to a more appropriate thread, re-titled as 'China's Far West provinces: a Small War':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=246

    That thread is the Central Asia area, not Asia-Pacific as this is.

    There maybe similar posts in other threads yet to be found.
    davidbfpo

  5. #285
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default owner of a ronery heart

    Tell me Sister, all men are (not) brothers?

    China losing Asian popularity contest
    By Jian Junbo

    LONDON - Though China purses a "good neighbor policy" in Asia, it faces increasing criticism from regional officials, media and populations. It seems the time is ripe for Beijing to review and improve its Asia strategy.
    China losing Asian popularity contest - Asia Times - Aug 17, 2011.

    Water Margin (All Men Are Brothers) - Wikipedia

    Special Bonus Link

  6. #286
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backwards Observer View Post
    owner of a ronery heart
    Not the only one...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  7. #287
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default yuan is the roneriest number

    Dream of the Red Flattop?

    Make Money Not War -- China's Other Aircraft Carrier
    China launches second aircraft carrier after a £9.6m refit... as a luxury hotel

    Days after sea trials for China's first aircraft carrier Varyag caused heightened tension in the South China Sea, a second carrier is stirring up interest in the country. But the Kiev, although like the Varyag a former Soviet aircraft carrier, is welcoming guests in its new role as a leisure facility.
    Former Soviet heavy aircraft carrying cruiser Kiev has been part of a military theme park since 2004. Now it is a luxury hotel
    Make Money Not War - China's Other Aircraft Carrier - China Defense Blog - Aug 14, 2011.

    Dream Of The Red Chamber - Wikipedia
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Backwards Observer; 08-16-2011 at 11:42 AM.

  8. #288
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    A power shift in Asia

    Washington is obsessed with decline: the upshot of the worst economy since the Great Depression, the prospect of massive defense cuts that could signal the end of the American military’s imperial-like reach, the collapse of Arab regimes with which the Pentagon and CIA closely cooperated. But nothing of late quite captures what is going on in terms of a global power lift as much as the U.S. refusal to sell Taiwan new F-16 fighter jets.......

    By 2020, the United States will not be able to defend Taiwan from a Chinese air attack, a 2009 Rand study found, even with America’s F-22s, two carrier strike groups in the region and continued access to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa. Moreover, China is at the point of deploying anti-ship ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. surface warships, even as Taiwan’s F-16s, with or without upgrades, are outmatched by China’s 300 to 400 Russian-designed Su-27 and Su-30 fighters. Given that Taiwan is only 100 miles from China and the U.S. Navy and Air Force must deploy to the Pacific from half a world away, the idea that Washington could permanently guarantee Taipei’s de facto sovereignty has always been a diminishing proposition. Vice President Biden’s recent extensive talks with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping (who is poised to succeed President Hu Jintao), may have reinforced the notion inside the administration that Taiwan is better defended by a closer American-Chinese diplomatic understanding than by an arms race.......

    Decline is rarely sudden: Rather, it transpires quietly over decades, even as officialdom denies its existence and any contribution to it. The Royal Navy began its decline in the 1890s, Princeton University professor Aaron L. Friedberg writes in “The Weary Titan,” even as Britain went on to win two world wars over the next half-century. And so, China is gradually enveloping Taiwan as part of a transition toward military multipolarity in the western Pacific — away from the veritable American naval lake that the Pacific has constituted since the end of World War II. At the same time, however, the United States pushes back against this trend: This month, Obama administration officials — with China uppermost in their minds — updated a defense pact with Australia,giving the United States greater access to Australian military bases and ports near the confluence of the Pacific and Indian oceans. The United States is making room in Asian waters for the Chinese navy and air force, but only grudgingly.

    Decline is also relative. So to talk of American decline without knowing the destiny of a power like China is rash. What if China were to have a political and economic upheaval with adverse repercussions for its defense budget? Then history would turn out a lot more complicated than a simple Chinese rise and an American fall.

    Because we cannot know the future, all we can do is note the trend line. The trend line suggests that China will annex Taiwan by, in effect, going around it: by adjusting the correlation of forces in its favor so that China will never have to fight for what it will soon possess. Not only does China have some more than 1,500 short-range ballistic missiles focused on Taiwan, but there are 270 commercial flights per week between Taiwan and the mainland, even as close to a third of Taiwan’s exports go to China. Such is independence melting away. And as China’s strategic planners need to concentrate less on capturing Taiwan, they will be free to focus on projecting power into the energy-rich South China Sea and, later, into the adjoining Indian Ocean — hence America’s heightened interest in its Australian allies.....

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...jrK_story.html
    So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?

  9. #289
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking Heh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?
    In reverse order, that may or may not be true; it's been predicted -- wrongly -- before but it's bound to happen sooner or later.

    It has been my experience that Mr. Kaplan, his namesakes and other authors who attempt as 'impartial observers but not participants' to describe the international political and military scene make at least as many erroneous calls as those that are even somewhat correct...

    All that said, I do not get your sensing out of that quote -- and I cannot read the entire article, your link doesn't work...

  10. #290
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    I think it is irrefutable that the U.S. is in decline, but not because we're becoming weaker, but because others are becoming stronger (the rise of the rest). If we strive to maintain the same level of dominance we had during the Cold War over the entire globe we may end up destroying ourselves economically.

    Just to be provocative, how big a deal is it if the U.S. can't defend Taiwan? If we're assessing our global strength on that one scenario that is only important because we say it is important, then I think we may be grossly underestimating our residual global power.

    Furthermore, it is assumed that just because China "may" have greater air capability than Taiwan, and that China "may" develop the means to keep our ships at bay that all is lost. Hardly, war is much more complex than that and there are many options for the Taiwanese and those who may want to help the Taiwanese that will make the objective of taking Taiwan too expensive for China. It is hard to believe that after 10 years of asymmetrical warfare (take the term for what's it worth) that we still think largely conventionally, and are only examining this as a head on confrontation (that may never happen to begin with).

  11. #291
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?
    The article might also be seen as evidence that a certain form of recurring hysteria is alive and well in the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    It is hard to believe that after 10 years of asymmetrical warfare (take the term for what's it worth) that we still think largely conventionally, and are only examining this as a head on confrontation (that may never happen to begin with).
    Exactly. Given China's dependence on trade and the quantity of merchandise exports and commodity imports that could be interdicted without coming anywhere near China's geographically limited force projection range, why would we want to confront them in the Taiwan strait or the South China Sea?
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  12. #292
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    All that said, I do not get your sensing out of that quote
    I too am not sure as to the implications of what Mr Kaplan has implied.

    Hence, I thought maybe those who are more qualified here, having interacted within thinktanks in the US could throw some light.

    Here is the link:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...jrK_story.html

    In case, it does not work, Google 'Power shift in Asia Kaplan' and you will get the above article.

    Thanks.

  13. #293
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thank you for the link.

    Reading the entire article, I now see where you drew your inference...

    There's no doubt we are in one of our many periods of decline. A few have been major, most were minor. How this one will end remains to be seen. Neither friend Kaplan or I can predict that but from my vantage point of 20 more years than he's amassed (and my oldest son about his age isn't worried at all...) and having lived through other periods of gloom and despair, I'm not particularly worried at this point. But then, I'm not trying to sell articles...

    We'll see...

  14. #294
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Still unable to grasp that what kind of resistance these odd 66 F-16s were to provide in case of war. But the refusal is likely to dent American image and will definitely boost China's.

    On the topic of US being as "has been", militarily US is at least 2-3 decades ahead of China but economically not so much.

  15. #295
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blueblood View Post
    On the topic of US being as "has been", militarily US is at least 2-3 decades ahead of China but economically not so much.
    2-3 decades ahead?

    I'd say they aren't even going on parallel courses, so there's no point in comparing it like this.

    I do believe that you create a false impression though.
    The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind.


    In regard to the highly technicized air-sea warfare for island chains etc I'd like to point out that there were only 16 years between Germany's navy being a backwater navy with a handful of colonial cruisers and being a rival to the Royal Navy, exceeding it in competence and design quality.
    Germany did not have a 150:1 shipbuilding capacity ratio, nor had the Royal Navy become too incompetent to develop a new ship type in less than 15 years (without cancelling it)!

  16. #296
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Wrong targets, Gentlemen...

    Quote Originally Posted by blueblood View Post
    But the refusal is likely to dent American image and will definitely boost China's.
    Images mean little -- and the US has never worried overmuch about theirs (regardless of the occasional sniveling in our rather pathetic news media who must sell something)...
    ...economically not so much.
    Economic cycles are unpredictable and can change abruptly -- the sines cross in interesting patterns. As I'm sure the Chinese are quite aware...
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind...nor had the Royal Navy become too incompetent to develop a new ship type in less than 15 years (without cancelling it)!
    Better to keep in mind that the US did not even try to defeat the Chinese or even the North Koreans 60 years ago. That was a political decision and far from a military issue -- as are the cancellations of ships (and as is the poor performance of our shipyards...).

    The US foreign efforts of all types including wars are always a reflection of US domestic politics -- even in WW II -- and the amount of effort we expend is quite cyclical due to that factor...

    Political will by the US will only be shown in an existential case, we haven't really had one of those since 1865 -- even World War II was a war of choice for the US but there were reasons for a better than usual effort. Every war since was a minor, "we'll do it but it's not a big concern to us, not really..." sort of effort. In WW II, we mobilized the nation and spent about 35+ % of GDP on the armed forces annually (~50% for Germany, 45% for the UK); for the US in Korea it was 11%, for Viet Nam 8% and has been 4-6% since. While those figures are not totally conclusive, they are broadly indicative of the amount of effort.

    Perhaps a better indicator would be major Shipyards in the US. In 1938 there were 8 government and 8 civilian. By 1945 there were 9 government and 132 civilian yards. Capacity ramps with need.

    Existential and choice have differing parameters, amounts of effort -- and qualities of overall performance. Most US Wars started because someone thought the Americans were to lazy, narcissistic and inconsequential to fight (and that includes the current set). That has always been a mistake...

  17. #297
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blueblood View Post
    On the topic of US being as "has been", militarily US is at least 2-3 decades ahead of China but economically not so much.
    Some choose to see China's economy as an unstoppable juggernaut (some once chose to see Japan's the same way) but in reality it has significant vulnerabilities and is as likely to be a cause of crisis as a driver of dominance. All of China's greatest vulnerabilities are domestic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind.
    The US certainly couldn't conquer China, in any lasting sense, but there's no earthly reason why the US would want to. The US could certainly defeat China in any number of military scenarios. All of these are of course unlikely, since neither side has any great incentive to initiate conflict.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  18. #298
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    2-3 decades ahead?

    I'd say they aren't even going on parallel courses, so there's no point in comparing it like this.

    I do believe that you create a false impression though.
    The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind.


    In regard to the highly technicized air-sea warfare for island chains etc I'd like to point out that there were only 16 years between Germany's navy being a backwater navy with a handful of colonial cruisers and being a rival to the Royal Navy, exceeding it in competence and design quality.
    Germany did not have a 150:1 shipbuilding capacity ratio, nor had the Royal Navy become too incompetent to develop a new ship type in less than 15 years (without cancelling it)!
    Germany was a European industrialized nation much before WW2 and Germany's shipbuilding was not outright inferior to that of the British.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese..._ship_Zhenyuan

    This is one such example. It was superior to any warship that Japan or Russia had in the late 19th century.

    In the case of China, they became industrialized and created their shipbuilding industry in less than two decades. They are still no where near the western designs nor implications in their naval vessels.

    As for the victory of China during Korean War. You might not agree with me but the fact is Americans get involved in a war but they find it difficult to sustain it. Despite of all the gung ho attitude of US citizens and its military, there were itching to get out of Astan merely 3 or 4 years after it started.

    Korea was just another example. Europeans lost more troops in many single battles during WW2 than the combined US casualties since 1776.

    For the technological gap between West and China, let's leave it for another day.

  19. #299
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Some choose to see China's economy as an unstoppable juggernaut (some once chose to see Japan's the same way) but in reality it has significant vulnerabilities and is as likely to be a cause of crisis as a driver of dominance. All of China's greatest vulnerabilities are domestic.
    .
    Thank you. From a western point of view they are not very wrong. Japan was China of yesterday but only in economic growth. Today's China is a different beast altogether. You can compare it to pre WW2 Imperial Japan. Strong economy, strong armed forces and capable of doing something very big and unfortunate.

    As a citizen of the so called next big thing after China and a supposed counterweight, I know the ground realities. Unlike US, Australia etc Asian countries have a lots of historical baggage to carry and have a lion's share of problems and China is no different. Neither there is a hope that somehow these countries will learn to get along.

  20. #300
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    The strength of China's economy is debatable. High growth is not necessarily an indication of strength or resilience, and China has some serious and intractable economic issues looming, as well as all manner of other domestic problems.

    I'm looking at China from fairly close range, across a body of disputed water, and I'm not at all convinced that I need to be terrified. Concerned, possibly, but there are always things to be concerned about. I don't see any point at all in the US embarking on a budget-busting arms splurge to "counter" some prospective Chinese threat, and I don't think any massive adjustments to current policy are really called for.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

Similar Threads

  1. Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)
    By Beelzebubalicious in forum Europe
    Replies: 1934
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 07:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •