Whether it is a domestic or a defense utility, China started outsmarting other nations in cost of production and hence it could automatically enhance the quantity to quell the enemies in number.In the era of cold war, USA could compete with the Soviet Union and in the era of AI & Robotics,USA has been forced to worry about China's 'asymmetric capability'.
If so,I could expect that China has made a step ahead of USA in its 'design of defense capability' of the future and the USA has to think of expanding its vessel's sea power without making apparent wake wash. Is it possible to sail a vessel without wake wash?
7
Piece by piece, Communist China has been placing itself, Militarily, where they have NO business being. The CCP's phony reef-Islands in the South China Sea are nothing more than expanded Military Outposts. On the Chess-Board of War, that's a brilliant move, but that area does not belong to China, and nobody really does much to stop that aggression from continuing.
This is just like China claiming Islands off the Coast of Japan as being theirs. Or the CCP's murdering thousands of their OWN citizens, peacefully protesting for Democratic Reform, in Tiannamen Square. This is just like China's Red Guard, under Chairman Mao, invading and taking Tibet at gunpoint in 1959, murdering many thousands, and claiming the land was their's. Tibet was a peaceful, non-aggressive neighbor. Their Nation is now in ruin. Their people imprisoned for flying their Flag, or showing a picture of the Dali Lama.
To this day, Chinese can travel without impunity, anywhere in America. In BIG contrast, Americans are not free to travel anywhere in Tibet. The inequity of that stinks.
While I see goodness in all People, of all Nations, the track record of the Chinese Communist Party is truly horrifying. Xi's "One Belt, One Road" is nothing more than a power grab on all of Asia. Xi's Global Vision is even worse.
Until Xi quits his blatant and bloody aggression, I will continue to BOYCOTT CHINESE GOODS, at all times.
54
Commentators here point out US military budget is 3 times higher vs China. China can build a top line fighter for $30 mil, US $100 mil.
The US price includes R D costs and higher labor $. China stole much of the research or learned it at our Universities resulting in savings in $ and time. Their top fighter is likey 90% as effective as the F 35..they are learning fast.
36
China intends to diminish US influence in the Far East. To that end they need to decrease the relevance of our Navy and Air Force through technological means. They'll act incrementally at levels not meant to provoke a significant counter reaction. They'll test our resolve periodically by threatening freedom of navigation and the autonomy of its nearby neighbors like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Viet Nam.
It sure would be nice to have the Trans Pacific Partnership to help counter the Chinese. Instead, we have an incompetent and perhaps treasonous president more interested in fighting with allies and pivoting to Mar a Lago, Bedminster and Moscow.
73
America Naval power is still unmatched and nothing the Chinese have deployed pose any real threat. New laser antimissile defenses being deployed, slowly. by the US Navy have the potential to render any anti-ship, even hypersonic missiles, a nonfactor.
China more aggressive and outrages claims and threating in the Asian theater will awaken a sleeping naval giant, Japan. Japan is already in the process of converting its two helicopter carriers to accommodate the US F35 vertical launch jets. Japan will soon relax its pacifist constitutional mandate and begin to build and expand its navy to include aircraft carriers and forward deployment of naval assets.
China may be making headlines but the combined forces of USA, Japan, Korea, Inda, and Australia stand in stark contrast to what appears a threat from China, who stands alone in the region.
23
OK, I've read the article and skimmed the comments, and the same question I asked my Fox-watching neighbor 20 years ago remains unanswered:
What bad thing do you fear they will do?
Do you think they will invade and attempt to somehow enslave countries that are richer than them (per capita) and are their customers? How? Why?
Do you think they will prevent other countries' merchant ships from conducting trade? What would that accomplish?
I invite anyone to supply a plausible specific answer (not including words like "trample" or "dominate" unless you're laying out a clear sequence of events). Assume before you open your mouth that my response will be "Yeah? Then what?", and have an answer ready.
Then once you've laid out your plausible worst-case scenario, explain to me why it's worth thousands of dollars out of pocket every single year, for me and my children and their children.
I've never heard an answer. Have you?
62
Outstanding reporting. This piece clearly comes from a very well-read, current journalist with genuine expertise on the subject.
20
Seems to me the biggest point here is that the Chinese have recognized ways that technology can change the military equation. In most of the examples given, it was technology that was decisive. All that asymmetrical stuff is just playing smart.
Our core technology will determine our military strength. That’s not just for cyberwarfare, it’s for everything.
11
If on its proper guard, the Pentagon should now begin to build highly sophisticated defenses against the Chinese navy in the state of Hawaii and other US properties across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
It is classically sound naval doctrine that any national fighting fleet should push well out into blue water in order to relieve pressure on its own on- and near-shore defensive capabilities.
Thus, China's best hope for keeping its newly fortified islands in the South China Sea free from US attack by sea and air might be to mount shows of Chinese naval force in the international waters around Hawaii.
Over the long haul, China's fortifications on the islands that it claims in the South China Sea may well be submerged by rising seawater levels due to global climate change, change that will do significantly less damage to Hawaii.
If I were a US war planner, I would prefer not to engage in hostilities where China has created fortress islands that are likely set, over time, to be overwhelmed by oceanic waters that hold far more destructive potential than any naval power on earth.
As with the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China also suffers from a number of other systemic problems that will reduce its growing might.
Thus, playing for time, which favors the US, is far better than allowing China to draw us into a naval war in which no less than several perilous rounds of escalation might allow the US to declare victory--among the ashes.
16
While the US has been distracted in the Mideast, China has been quietly ramping up.
Time is not on our side. Either we figure out a strategy to coexist with an expansionist China, or an outcome will be thrust upon us.
11
Hey everyone, look over there, other countries are building lots of ships so we should too! It's super important that nobody has more stuff from the last century than we do! Never mind that with just a button press, cyber weapons can destroy an entire country's infrastructure - leaving no water, power, food or economy to sustain her people. Everyone, please stay focused on who has the most floating toys! /sarcasm
11
I fail to see what "interests" China needs this force for. Some country doesn't pay back a loan? Send in the carriers? (Watch out for those investments Malaysia). If America were planning an attack on China it would have happened years ago - and didn't. Why militarize all these artificial islands? Why "challenge" passage of ships? To show how big you are? Well, so what? Does China have other plans - to block access to the South China Sea? And if so, why? Want a really big trade embargo? Other nations will counterarm (such as Japan). Then what? All of this seems needless and only stirs the pot.
10
The irony is that the challenge our military will face has been financed by us. Once we started to help the Chinese economy by sending our manufacturing jobs there, did it not occur to anyone that financing a Communist regime would someday come back to bite us in the backside? Guess what, that day's arrived.
44
and who do you think paid for China's expansion?
The $$ wasn't earned selling goods domestically.
So..the next time you are in walmart..and buy something from China..think of it as another link in their armor to protect what they think is theirs....just as James Monroe declared the Americas off limits to European influence (ie the Monroe Doctrine)
But.it is probably time, sooner vs later, to push back.
if those missiles are the threat the article says (and i have no reason to doubt it)...then some allances with Vietnam and the Philippines to station anti-missile missiles may be in order.
China took advantage of 9/11 to start this expansion..and we missed the boat (pun intended) on protecting our interests in that area w/2 unfunded wars.
15
For all the hype about China's purported military strength, modern-day strategists ignore a single issue that is the most salient of all: it vulnerability. The detonation of a single low-yield nuclear bomb near the base of China's giant Three Gorges Dam -the biggest single body of man-made freshwater on the planet - will result in about a third of China's population and roughly half its industrial output being washed into an already badly-polluted China Sea.
There is no other major power quite as vulnerable. And if Beijing believes that future wars are going to be fought by a real or imagined set of rules, they need to carefully reconsider their options. As one of the oldest homilies goes, 'all is fair in love and war'.
Al J. Venter
15
China is currently a paper tiger. Carrier and many navy operations that have become standard fair for us will take them generations to get skilled at. Our carrier operations that include cyclic ops with 40 planes flying sorties every 90 minutes were honed over 50 years of blood on the deck. UNREPs (Underway replinishments) while traveling within 120 feet of our ships traveling at 15 knots took the same lessons learned and a lot of blood to perfect. China can't move more than 4 planes around their flight deck at a time much less launch a large war at sea strike package. This is laughable.
16
@Purity of
That's about as an accurate comparison has a unicorn is to a squirrel.
3
Any one with a good friend-or-foe identification system will see that while China is not a friend, the real and far more vicious enemy lies within. Republicans.
24
All the Best!
when the next typhoon strike those Sea of china sand islands at 200 plus MPH.
3
The Chinese can't match us in quality, so they are going for quantity. They will clone the Russian Carrier until they match us with over a dozen, no doubt about it. They'll also crank out subs, planes, and missiles "like sausages". It's not complicated. The Pentagon is hostage to a few hyper-bloated, inefficient, ossified defense monopolies. Take a tourist boat tour of Newport News harbor, where you can see the $13 billion Gerald Ford class carrier under construction. The Chinese will match us for 1/10th the cost. We can never win this arms race.
76
@Epicurus
Sorry, but we already have a dozen carriers — and strike groups to go with them. We actually have twenty, depending on how you count carriers.
Any one of our carrier strike groups has more firepower than the rest of the world’s navies combined. Moreover, the Japanese Navy is superior to China’s in just about every metric. Thus, it is difficult to appreciate your irrational apprehension.
15
@Epicurus
Oh, I wouldn’t worry too much:
China’s 1st home-made carrier a minnow versus USS Ford
http://www.atimes.com/article/chinas-1st-home-made-carrier-a-minnow-vers...
@Epicurus: A Chinese physics academy built a superconducting tokamak experimental nuclear fusion reactor for $55 million. China is positively deflationary.
3
This makes sense in a way. We build s navy for world dominance. China has built one for regional dominance. The strategic difference is vast. China figured out what its interests are - its real interests - and planned accordingly. We didn’t. We just ranted and screamed, “We must be number one everywhere!” Our allies never picked up the slack, even in their own regions. Look at the UK as an example. What happened to all their carrriers?
We also got too carrier group oriented... a concept that most nations don’t even attempt! You can build a navy for the cost of a carrier group. We have long lost that strategic way of thinking.
It wouldn’t matter so much if we actually had a larger strategic plan with our allies. But Trump figures we don’t need allies, or we can just scream them into submission. We are only alienating ourselves from everyone everywhere. “We can go it alone: to heck with you” is Trump’s credo, and his only approach. “I’ll tariff you to death” is not a strategy; it’s mindless idiocy. Our nation is in perpetual crisis by the political and internal choices we are making - disasters and destruction of our own making, born from our own inability to coral profit making corporate media with a deluded, hateful, nation dividing RightWing agenda. We’re so busy thinking ourselves exceptional, that we’ve pushed ourselves to the brink of rogue nation internationally - and civil war at home!
When will we pull it together and unite? When will Congress begin to govern again?
85
An offshoot of this development, is the militarization of Micronesia. The U.S. adding 5,000 Marines to Guam, transferred from Okinawa. The U.S. controls nearly 30% of Guam's land area on three military bases.
The U.S. plans to turn Pagan Island, an 18-square-mile island in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, into a live fire bombing range. It has plans to greatly expand the use of Tinian for military training.
We have been abusing this region ever since we forced people off Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Island for nuclear testing. I suspect the Chinese buildup will encourage the U.S. to increase its military presence in this region ever more.
And very few people in the US mainland understand what is going on here.
34
Although I’m an Obama supporter and am against Trump, Obama was too soft on China and Russia and Trump has stumbled onto an aggressive posture toward China with which I agree.
When China was first reclaiming land to terraform the island in the Spratlys during Obama’s administration, Obama should have bombed it or tore it down as an illegal structure/territory in international waters. Now it is a military base and airport.
Make no mistake, Xi Jinping wants to restore China to her former position as a world leader. It would be different if China was a democracy and basic rights were protected. But they are instead a dictatorship.
48
Perhaps it's time for the US government to accept the fact that in today's world, the role of hegemon of the seas which the US took over from Great Britain is no longer tenable and instead make the change in nomenclature which took place between 1947 and 1949 from Department of War to Department of Defense one that reflects reality rather than a mere fiddling with a name. As far as I know, China is not building naval bases in the Caribbean or off the US West Coast. Were it to do so this would no doubt be regarded as an unbearable provocation and a casus belli by many in the US ; yet a glance at a map of US naval bases in China's vicinity (https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/nintchdbpict00028691... suffices to show that this is precisely the situation imposed by the US on China....
The United States has long acted according to the precept that quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. That precept can no longer serve as a basis for policy in an increasingly multipolar world. Let us hope that the US - and we others ! - will be blessed with a leadership that is wise enough to recognise this fact, in the event we are fortunate enough to survive the Trump interregnum....
Henri
46
"The DF-26, which made its debut in a military parade in Beijing in 2015 and was tested in the Bohai Sea last year, has a range that would allow it to menace ships and bases as far away as Guam, according to the latest Pentagon report on the Chinese military"
The latest US carrier cost $13 billion. Add to this the $95 million cost of each F35 that will be aboard the carrier and then of course all the maintenance cost to keep this equipment running with trained people.
A relatively cheap missile makes a carrier , any carrier , an easy target and a floating death trap for 3000 people. Ten missiles and the vaunted US carrier groups are out of business.
Time to think in 21st century terms.
10
"A relatively cheap missile makes a carrier , any carrier , an easy target ..."
"... the vaunted US carrier groups are out of business."
You don't seem to understand that a carrier group is not a carrier. The main function of other ships in a carrier group is to *defend* the carrier.
"The principal role of the carrier and her air wing within the Carrier Strike Group is to provide the primary offensive firepower, while the other ships provide defense and support."
Source: "Carrier Strike Group" at public.navy.mil
2
The colloquial American expression Between A Rock and A Hard Place should be replaced by Between Mexico and China.
1
Get real, surface ships are just targets for missiles and submarines. Instead of spending a gazillion dollars on more aircraft carriers, put those resources into cyber security.
7
Reminds me of the interpretations of Nostradamus: "and the eagle and the bear shall unite against the dragon ..."
Now who could this mad monk have been referring too.
1
Less than 100 years ago in the 20th Century American gunboats patrolled Chinese territorial waters including the Yangtze River over a distance inland of 1300 miles, about the same distance as New Orleans to St. Louis. Ostensibly, their role was to protect American interests within China. The Yangtze Patrol was disbanded in 1949 when Communist forces defeated the Nationalists.
Today United States Navy patrols all the oceans of the world ostensibly to preserve “Freedom of the Seas” and to protect vital trade routes. The Pentagon has established more than 100 military bases that surround China.
China is both a major export and import economy and has made major investments in its “Belt and Road” New Silk Road initiative. By 2050 Africa Will have 2 billion people and the largest volume trade routes will be through the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. China has legitimate vital interests in protecting its nearby trade routes and has deployed naval forces in the Indian Ocean to combat Somali pirates who threatened shipping.
A Republican president, General Dwight D Eisenhower, once warned against the United States engaging in a “Land War in Asia.” If he were alive today, Eisenhower would also warn against a “Sea War in Asia.”
The United States and China have many mutual interests and a common threat from global warming and climate change. As the World’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, they can work together to prevent climate catastrophe.
War is not the answer.
23
I suppose they need to spend all that wal Mart money on something.
5
Don't worry America, you still spend almost 300% more on Defence every year than China and Double what China and Russia spend combined each year.
You own the most Nuclear Bombs on the planet and have 800 ++
Bases spread across the planet in 75% of countries and have a permanently occupying military presence in Germany, Japan, South Korea , Guam for 60+ years and Cuba for over 100 years.
And you are aiming to be the only country to militarise Space with the new U.S.S.F( United States Space Force)
Don't feel threatened or the need to increase your defence budget any further...it remains ridiculously high and I can virtually guarantee that no other Nation on Earth will EVER spend as much on defence as you already do and will continue to do, until you can't.
Fear not America, You have the weapons and means to destroy Humanity 10 times over...assuming as you must that after the first salvo of Nuclear bombs launched and Civilisation ends and most of Humanity is dead or dying, you can do it all again 9 times over!
Don't Worry...Be Happy...no one will ever be bigger and better than your Military Might and spend all the Money that you dedicate to defending yourselves.
10
Just let it go America, gosh you know your 50 year imperialist expansion to the mantra ‘territory is safety’ while perhaps true enough also requires the economic and infrastructure destruction of competitors, which you’ve done well in the Middle East but somehow you loved cheap stuff more than safety. So by all means defend now your mainland but give up imagining you should rightly be able to sail through the South China Sea like you own it or sail through it any more than China imagines it should rightly be able to sail down the California coast. Try to get along more, if China gets uppety, we’ll all help but it really doesn’t look like they’re doing anything more than keeping U.S imperialist at bay and I mean the U.N offers a brilliant replacement ideology, we’re all in this together kind grown up idea.
13
It’s probably the Philippines and Vietnam that China has its sights set on. Taiwan will devolve in their favor in any case.
3
@RjW Never going to happened. Vietnam defeated both French and Americans as well Chinese incursion in the late 70s. By the way in all their history the Chinese never invaded nor colonized any other nation.
5
Our number threat to national security continues to be Climate Change. But we refuse to do anything about that.
Mass migrations, shifts in national resources, increasingly extreme weather, and potential pandemics are going to be one more and more costly in both blood and treasure.
No. Let's ignore all that and focus instead on dominating outer space and the seven seas, the Boogeyman dujour the rising naval power of our number one trading partner who can't improve their lot without us.
With our vision-less, feckless, so-called leadership, we are doomed to hide behind our walls and wait to get what's coming to us.
And the way we vote, boy do we deserve it!
9
Every carrier group on every ocean is impossible to hide, constantly targeted, and in the event of war, guaranteed to be eliminated in the opening salvos. It's the invisible wars we ought to cover, the so-called "unrestricted" ones that are real, not hypothetical, and that are happening right now.
http://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf
1
Congratulations Donald Trump -- this happened on your shift.
What did you do about it?
Too busy giving speeches about "where is the collusion?"
How about "where is the delusion?"
Get a grip and Make America Strong again.
1
China is slowly, but surely, going to overtake the USA economically and militarily. They certainly have the numbers. The question is this: how will we react? Seems almost like the Cold War is happening again. And the guy in the White House is so worried about little ol' podunk North Korea.
4
Eventually, China will control the entire South Pacific, and no one will be able to stop the Chinese Empire. Already, English in Hong Kong is being suppressed. The Phillipines is in distress; North Korea in transition, and Taiwan ripe for the plucking. Everyone east and south of India will some day speak Chinese.......Australians, also?
1
I'm surprised that this ocean grab by the Chinese didn't happened much earlier. "Stay off my property," is what the Chinese are saying and this puts the US in a bind with the protective agreements with the Philippines,Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan and ,of course, Guam. The Chinese equivalent of Israel's "Iron Dome" over the Yellow, East and South China, and Philippine Seas has forced the US to contend with a much bigger and more powerful Asian dragon while, at the same time, it tries to pull the fangs off another smaller Asian dragon that is much smarter because it has been fighting for survival all of its life.
2
While Obama slept, China built. Appeasement, aka letting China build a military base on a South China Island, never works.
Now we are back to playing catch up, like we always have to do after a Democrat president, see Jimmah Carter.
4
You know what would have been really smart to counter Chinese hegemony in the Pacific? Some manner of free trade agreement with those nations to serve as an economic bulwark. Wouldn't that have been something, if Obama had tried something like that...
2
How can a supposedly better educated society make the same dumb mistakes the US and Russia have made? I guess they are just as dumb and have to meet their illogical jingoist desires.
3
My only consolation is that a naval battle would likely result in fewer deaths than a land battle. As horrific as the Battle of Midway was, it paled in comparison to the nauseating body count of the Battle of Stalingrad.
I hope world and regional leaders can work together to avoid an actual armed conflict from ever happening in the western Pacific (or anywhere in the world).
2
On the one hand, China is likely to see a sharp uptick in military spending due to the increase in maintenance needed for such a massive, aging fleet. Salt water is very unforgiving to most ship materials. And the technological escalation will increase.
On the other, China lacks two of the additional military burdens the U.S. has. First, they don't have over 1,000 military bases around the world fueling local economies with taxpayer dollars. Second, they don't have defense contractors plying politicians (at least not even close to our level) with $$ so that the country continues to buy over priced and unneeded equipment and services.
6
"Beijing’s defense budget now ranks second only to the United States: $228 billion to $610 billion..."
The US spends far, far more:
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&a...
August 29, 2018
Defense spending was 58.8% of federal government consumption and investment in April through June 2018. *
$772.5 / $1,312.9 = 58.8%
Defense spending was 22.0% of all government consumption and investment in April through June 2018.
$772.5 / $3,505.5 = 22.0%
Defense spending was 3.8% of GDP in April through June 2018.
$772.5 / $20,411.9 = 3.8%
* Billions of dollars
3
@Nancy
"Beijing’s defense budget now ranks second only to the United States: $228 billion to $610 billion..."
According to today's data on GDP, US defense spending is now at a $772.5 billion annual rate, and this level will quickly increase with the just passed defense budget:
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&a...
3
@Nancy
The U.S. DoD budget is always grossly underestimated in most "official" figures.
1
Do you expect the rest of the world to just sit by and do nothing? With Russia and the US armed to the teeth it's of course a challenge to other nations - regardless whether they have "good intentions or not". If we stopped spending so much on military, wars (declared, undeclared or by proxy), destroying cultures etc then sending our contractors to re-build (partially) to gain huge profits - maybe if we along with other nations pulled back a bit we wouldn't all have to spend so much of our resources destructively instead of addressing the needs of ALL citizens the country and the challenges facing the planet. If you make a gun it's bound to be used some day and not for peace. We need new leadership not just in this country.
12
“Last year, the Chinese Navy became the world’s largest, with more warships and submarines than the United States, and it continues to build new ships at a stunning rate.”
Well, who knew? Looks like they wouldn’t build it if they weren’t going to use it. What might their military and geopolitical desires be?
They rightly reckon that if they can expand their capabilities fast enough, it will be game over, without a shot fired. We’ll be left wondering if we should have stopped them at the Spratly Islands.
2
Times: "... high-speed ballistic missiles designed to strike moving ships."
That is very misleading. Conventional ballistic missiles are unsuited to moving targets.
Times: 'The latest versions, the DF-21D and, since 2016, the DF-26, are popularly known as “carrier killers,” ...'
Those missiles can maneuver to the target for greater accuracy. Unfortunately, the military doesn't seem to have a standard name for them. See:
Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat
by the Defense Intelligence Ballistic Missile Analysis Committee
June 2017
(Google to find the PDF.)
1
Sunburn missiles
Here's all one needs to know, from deep in the article, to put its headline and lead warmongering scare in real world context:
"Beijing’s defense budget now ranks second only to the United States: $228 billion to $610 billion," and further, "Military spending in China is a manageable percentage of a growing economy."
We outspend China 2.7 to 1. That's the problem when one nation pursues a global imperial agenda on the backs of its taxpayers. Other nations can greatly under-spend an imperial power and still achieve parity or even dominance in their region.
Better start thinking alliances and treaties, because I, for one, don't want to pay for what it would take for the U.S. to recapture overwhelming ship superiority in the South China Sea. An arms race with China for regional superiority would break us, and they surely know it.
12
Whoever controls the seas control the world.
This is a huge military problem for the US. It seems that China is expanding militarily such as when Japan did during the 1920-1930's.(We know how that turned out).
If the US were to get involved in an attrition it will be spread too thin. The US military is already spread too thin in the middle east. (We need to get out of the Middle East. It's a lost cause)
8
Make a lot money then buy a fancy car, or a fancy military if you're country.
2
Clearly the Chinese agent that acquired this vessel from the Russians was lying. The Russians smugly find this charming. We should see it as a precursor of Chinese naval strategy in the South China Sea.
3
The United States sat by and watched as China militarized islands, under the watch (or sitdown) of President Obama. No deterrence. Our enemies are encouraged. Thugs around the world arming and running rampant.
For peace, we need deterrence.
3
@Joe yohka
We have enough to deal with in the Middle East. Any conflict with China, regardless of any technical advantages the U.S. Military has, would prove costly. I don't see Trump making any attempts to stop Beijing from expanding their military into Africa and South America.
3
Who cares? Other than members of the Military Industrial Complex, of course. At least China never dropped atomic bombs on civilians, nor created firestorms of even greater deaths in Tokyo with napalm. The Chinese appear more benign that Americans.
11
Should we even care about this? After all, the MSM, and especially this publication, have been hectoring the American public for almost two years the the number one existential threat to the United States, bar none, is RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA. So everyone can just chill.
3
A military industrial complex ,shill article,promoting further arms buildup for the US ,whose military budget ,official at 650 billion....with foreign support "budget allocations" included....is in REALITY ....I TRILLION.
China with a budget of ,less than, 300 billion is no threat at all in the the "weapons balance" scare implied in this article..........besides ,the fact that the "real balance of war power" in the world is the ,literally,MAD strategy of security.......through the "mutually assured destruction" of nuclear weapons...........all other weapons and armaments are MOOT and are produced ,mainly, to o maintain the,ubiquitous and destructive world arms market and its profits ...............please NYT no more free advertising and PR for the war industry !
7
The future China seeks is clear, who says so? China says so, and one only need listen to or read what the government of China has said and continues to say about their future; there is no maybe, no might be, there is no confusion about China’s intents, goals, desires, wishes, or dreams. China is clear, very clear, and has been very clear for a very long time about what it views as both its place in the world today and tomorrow.
The headline of this article suggest China has the capability to challenge America’s hegemony in the region via the ocean. That China has risen to challenge America economically should give us call to pause and ask what does China seek? We need not look far as China as told anyone willing to listen what it seeks and how it will obtain its goals. As our sphere of influence has diminished so China’s has risen. That of itself is not a bad thing, what is a bad thing is China’s view of the world is far different than ours. China seeks to dominate the Globe, as do we, but China’s goal of world dominance does not include freedom for the rest of the world; they seek dominance economically and militarily without the freedom we want. China buffet has no options but many choices.
5
@NorthXNW Gee, I didn't realize that the US view of the world included freedom for all. Freedom for US capitalists, sure. But freedom for all? How do you square that with our deposing of elected leaders and replacing them with hand-picked thugs who will do the bidding of our capitalists? Iran and Chile are just two examples in very different parts of the world. There are plenty of others.
You cannot actually believe that "freedom for all line, can you?"
5
Trump will only bond with China to become bedfellows and for lessons in dictatorial repressive style. His 717 billion military budget will likely address the Naval forces balance.
The inevitable has happened. China is now an equalized opponent. The Chinese have us on every facet of competition. Population, economy, and an autocratic government to clear the way for faster response to perceived threats from the United States and others. Our best approach is to maintain equal pressure.
3
It might be helpful to remember that a global power like the US is able at need to concentrate its forces against a regional power like China. Since we are still in the centennial of World War I, that might be the best historical example. Wilhelm I has been said to name his greatest regret as all the money poured into a deep water navy that left port only once or twice during the whole conflict.
Anyone can challenge anyone else, but in an actual fight with the US Navy, the Japanese Navy, or for that matter the French Navy or Royal Navy, the Chinese navy would be very quickly sunk. No one knows that better than China, which is why they put so much effort into stealing technology from countries that actually know what they're doing on the water.
5
Gary Hart (yes, that Gary Hart) was prescient in his 1986 book, "America Can Win," in which he predicted the eventual obsolescence of surface warships and the coming dominance of submarines. Looks like we're now there.
When there are billions of anything (people, insects, molecules, etc.) they inevitably will need to move from their high-energy states to lower energy. This is about expansion. Eight years of Obama made the US weak. All these other countries are filling the voids.
3
Yes..weak, now strong ugh
2
@Pilot
No, eight years of George W. Bush and his decision to invade Irag for no good reason made the US weak.
7
As China rolls along stamping out new new vessels at an alarming rate, the USA with its contractor system continues to be stuck in the mud with too expensive to lose weapon systems. Iran has Boghammer
Boats, small nimble armed with anti-ship missiles, if we tried to build a fleet of those we would end up with a fleet of trillion dollar battleships. We can’t build fast enough to keep up with the Chinese. It’s a pity.
1
China, by most economic measures, already is the worlds largest economy and it can easily afford to become the World's largest military power, should it wish too.
And Mr. Xi just might . He has done an excellent job upgrading the PRC's military, to the joy and pride of the Chinese people.
To the US : time to get used to become #2
3
"China’s military has encountered some growing pains. It is hampered by corruption." Sound familiar? Wonder if they pay 35,000 Yaun for a hammer or toilet seat like the U.S. does.
On Sept. 10, 2001 - the day before Saudi terrorists attacked the Trade Center - then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference telling the press that $2.3 trillion in Pentagon funds had gone missing.
During the years following Rumsfeld's announcement the U.S. hemorrhaged several more trillion dollars on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recently, a bipartisan committee on wartime contracting produced a report saying they had found many more billions of dollars of waste and fraud during those years as well.
China has actually shrunk The People’s Liberation Army in order to free up resources for a more modern fighting force. Imagine that. They actually cut spending in one defense area to build up their overall capabilities (asymmetrical as they may be) rather that borrow the money like the U.S. does.
The Soviet Union drained its coffers during the Cold War arms race as well as in Afghanistan fighting an asymmetrical war wonderfully detailed in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War".
The U.S. appears not to have learned lessons from the Soviet Union's experience. While China holds military spending to a manageable percentage of a growing economy.
And all the unfettered defense spending has contributed greatly to our annual deficits and current national debt.
4
The modern Chinese navy has been directly funded by China’s trade surpluses with the United States.
The least they can do is name some ships after the U.S. supporters of the deal, including Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, Koch Brothers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 10% Investor Class.
That way our navy ships will be sunk by the same names that sank our manufacturing economy.
11
@John You left out Richard Nixon who helped China is the most unimaginable ways.....Nixon started the Chinese growth through liberal trade agreements.
3
@John this is quite funny.
1
The prospect of a decisive full-blown non-nuclear clash between US and Chinese naval and air forces in the Pacific holds out great and exciting promise for a true renewal in the US, for a fresh start for an utterly exhausted, totally demoralized US. Rendered invincible in every conceivable military category save for nuclear (where everyone is a loser) by the fact of its immense industrial base --shipped across the Pacific directly to them by the American investor class--and technological prowess, also courtesy of the American investor class e.g. Apple, IBM, et al-as well as their gigantic reserves of cash (trade surplus) and a population of one billion three hundred million and counting, China will defeat the US. Stabilizing an otherwise wildly unstable country, the price of peace with the Chinese will be to cut back defense spending to $50 billion per year, forgive ordinary Americans' debt to extortionate US banks, wipe out student loan debt, cap CEO and manager salaries to 15:1, raise the minimum wage to $35/hr, extend university education and vocational training to all who desire it, and undertake a 4 trillion dollar infrastructure repair/improvement scheme, all for the purpose of making it possible for Americans to once again afford --that is, pay for, not use a credit card-- the rubbish pouring out of Chinese factories. That's right --a Chinese Marshall Plan for Americans. Wouldn't that be great?
1
@Gerhard and others say that the Trump administration is making up for Obama adminstration's timidness in the Pacific. They are wrong.
Obama's political and military "pivot" to the region for which he got ridiculed by the right. Clinton would have continued that policy.
1
Misleading. The title is more properly: "With the few ships China has it can now can sail around a very small patch of the Pacific near it's own coast"
I kind of doubt that the Chinese will go to war with their biggest customer, that would be us. They will push their neighbors around, as they are currently doing. If the neighbors want our military umbrella, they need to say so.
The best tool we had for dealing with China economically was the TPP, which Trump cancelled as one of his first moves.
August 29, 2018
A great victory for the international military naval community and its expertise to share the burden of peace thru strength for all the world.
jja Manhattan, N.Y. ( A Vietnam Veteran 1967 )
It will take another 100 years to be equal to USA in modern avionics and ship building technology or infrastructure to build those aircraft carriers. Besides China does not have MIT or Harvard/ Yale/ Stanford. Even current Chinese President Xi send his daughter to Harvard. What is the reason do you think?
2
This article does not substantiate the claim that the Chinese Navy surpasses the capabilities of the US Navy. But the ocean and seas are not the battlefield of the future either. Learning how to cooperate to stop and reverse the effects of global warming and climate change far surpass the pissing contest over some man-made atolls soon to disappear under rising seas.
1
When I was stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Manila in the late 1990s, the U.S. Pacific Fleet was the protector of the sea lanes through the Western Pacific. The Chinese had already signaled their interest in the Spratlys and Paracels. The Philippines had asked us to quit Subic Bay, one of the finest natural harbors in Asia and one capable of containing our entire Pacific fleet. It had long been a service base for our ships during and after the Vietnam War. We also gave up Clark Field, our major air base in on Luzon, just ahead of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. We returned these bases after nearly a century to the Philippine government in "as is" condition, leaving behind significant oil and other fuel and toxic waste dumps. At one point the Philippine government was considering building a major transshipment harbor for container ships to compete with Singapore, and Subic would be the location. Near Subic Bay Federal Express had built a new hardened runway for its long-haul jets that carried cargo all over Asia and to and from the U.S.
So, now that China has accelerated its military force projection in the region, where are we with the Philippine government of President Duterte in trying to work out a new basing agreement?
2
China is by far the greatest military and economic competitor to the U.S. Most of this anti-Russian talk is a relic of the Cold War.
One prominent defense industry journalist says the PLAN is churning out new ships like it's on war footing. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21602/if-you-still-dont-think-china...
The U.S. can't afford to keep up and will eventually fall behind, especially given China can concentrate all its forces in its own backyard. We'll probably need to fall back on our fast attack submarine force to deter aggression in the Pacific.
China's claims on the whole South China Sea are ridiculous but it's boiling the water so slowly that they're successfully pushing everyone else out without triggering a conflict.
3
@Mmm
I would hardly call Russia a non-strategic competitor of the U.S. While its navy may not be anything to worry about (except for submarines carrying nuclear missiles) its land forces pose a serious threat to our NATO alliance, especially to the Baltic states.
2
China is getting to powerful. Obama didn't see this coming - now Trump has to figure out how to solve it.
3
@rudolf Yeah Trump will just do another Singapore with no real results
1
Until we wean ourselves from all the meticulously manufactured products of Chinese slave labor, which in turn weans China off of trade with the US, neither of the countries is in any position to go to war with the other. It's a lot of swagger and big talk among little men.
1
Others have cited this example, specifically Graham Allison in "Destined for War", but the the closest historical parallel seems Germany's naval race with Great Britain prior to WW1.
1.) A young, rising power, whose strength is traditionally drawn from its land forces, attains a level of economic development that fuels global ambitions and the desire to be seen as a great power. It feels constrained by "imperialist" powers, specifically their navies, and invests heavily in its own navy.
2.) An aging superpower, currently distracted by internal conflicts, has enjoyed near total dominance of the seas since its last major military conflict. The superpower sees itself as the neutral guarantor of the existing order and maintains its maritime dominance through military spending and economic power.
3.) The rising power's naval ambition stems, in part, from a perceived humiliation at the hands of the superpower in a previous international incident.
4.) The rising power knows it cannot defeat the superpower's force head on, so it designs a naval force with enough firepower to render any intervention by the superpower too costly. This "fleet in being" poses enough of a danger, theoretically, to protect the rising power as it projects influence through economic investment and infrastructure development in areas like Africa, Turkey, Central Asia, and islands in the Pacific.
There are plenty of differences between the two moments, but the similarities are hard to miss.
8
Perhaps a year ago, DJT christened America's eleventh aircraft carrier. The news article, at that time, stated that no other country had more than one!
So I'm dubious of the alarm this article is trying to raise with it's title. We Americans are the highest taxed for war of all people, with the possible exception of a couple of countries like Saudi Arabia, a major customer of American defense companies.
As a life long anti-Republican, I'm sensitive to their war-mongering messages.
2
Mattis and the Pentagon must be getting antsy about their budget. The Great White Whale of the Pentagon and the military industry requires feeding, it’s feeling neglected - time to drum up a few threats.
Quick bet: They’ll want more nukes soon - gotta preserve that post-1945 global dominance, gotta feed the whale and Wall St.
2
These intellectually backward, counter-productive scare mongering articles are tabloid stuff.
You cannot hit a moving aircraft carrier with a ballistic missile, and if you do you have to do it knowing that you just put a city with a large military presence at risk, because the retaliation for the loss of a carrier must be so large as to make sinking it not worth the trouble. So NO you will not sink a carrier to save some tiny airstrip on a reef. That is how war works, you get nuttin' for nuttin' and you get payback in spades for huge mistakes. That is unless of course you are a broken power like Iraq, then you must lie in place as the Big Power boots kick you to death. China is simply not about to be treated like Iraq. Bravo China!
In fact as long as reasonably peaceful nations have strong military, the world will be safer for everyone (although not without military conflict). The NYT should be training Americans to appreciate and respect the Chinese, so that our government is free to follow up with diplomacy geared to enduring good relations. Instead they fan national angst.
3
"You cannot hit a moving aircraft carrier with a ballistic missile, ..."
The term "ballistic missile" is dangerously misleading. In fact, modern "ballistic" missiles are not ballistic. They can be *maneuvered*. The Times needs to get better informed. See:
Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat
by the Defense Intelligence Ballistic Missile Analysis Committee
June 2017
(Google to find the PDF.)
Slip sliding away, to quote Paul Simon. The erosion of hegemony stings to the core, but hey, you reap what you sow. Exit Pax Americana, enter Pax Sino. We actually signed up for this when we fixed our eyes on the Jerry Springer Minimalist Lowest Common Denominator prize. That's what you get when you value multiple choice over essay & fill-in-the-blank. The waves are lapping our shores.
1
All these Republican businesses that have sent millions of jobs to China have been responsible for China to have the biggest navy in the world now. That is treason and to think otherwise you are brain washed. All the politicians who allowed this to happen all the jobs leaving to China are just as guilty. I did not feel safe in America with Trumps watch and I sure don't feel safe with this news. When a country like China only pays 2.00 a day and no health benefits they can have the money to put towards a Navy . Very sad our GOP politicians let this happen.
3
It seems to me that if China develops an asymmetric navy to counter the USN in local waters, then the USN could develop a counter force of ships, sensors and weapons designed specifically to defeat the Chinese Navy. Keep the more general purpose USN in port and let the counter-China forces give the PLAN a whole new set of worries.
Good thing DARPA developed electromagnetic rail guns which can be mounted to the deck of a large enough ship, and launch projectiles at a speed of Mach 5 or so.
Oh, China has those, too? That’s not great. Why can’t we all just get along, again?
1
#1. Let's get real: if there were a conflict, the US Navy would smash the Chinese navy like what Israel did to Gaza
2. Face the reality: We cannot run the world anymore
3. Face the reality: Our greatest weakness is within our own borders and within our own people -- that's why Trump won: uneducated and desperate citizens.
4. Where I live the Navy has squads of rarely used jammers that cost 100 million a piece. They will love this story, because it feeds American paranoia. But as Eisenhower reminded us, and he should know, every jet means less medical care, education...
5. Our priorities obviously should be taking care of our own people, feeding, housing, educating -- rebuilding our infra structure -- not trying to trump every shadow of a military threat, be it Hussein, Isis, the Chinese Navy. Haven't we learned enough from the recent roads we've gone down?
6. When we are healthy and smart we won't be putting the largest share of our wealth into the military and endless wars. Hey NY Times, run a story about this: Just how much have we now spent on the ill-advised wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? (I was opposed to them, unlike W, you and Hillary.) And please ask one, just one of your 20 columnists to explore the ramifications if Israel made peace with its neighbors?
7. And the most important priority I will end with: We must stop committing our country to global suicide, one degree at a time.
8. Pardon my passion. I have grandchildren.
7
Well it was only a mater of time before a country started doing what the united states does.
3
So China has a whole bunch of Admirals all dressed up in their spiffy uniforms covered with fruit salad screaming the nasty imperialists are gonna get us so build us aircraft carriers for us to sail around in because it’s no fun commanding just missles. Sound familiar?
This “King of the Hill” game makes me dispair for the race. Everyone sounds so serious and talks about “controlling the seas” and about all of the great toys to have and we end up with tens of millions dead. Perhaps a planet somewhere else can do better.
1
China wants to take the U.S. place as the top dog...and we just let it happen inch by inch. Welcome to free trade.
2
It's not China's navy.
It is the Chinese Communist Party's navy.
Pirate ships, owned by well dressed pirates and murderers who deserve neither respect or elbow room.
@Objectivist: modernly, a distinction without a difference. akin to saying america is not a democracy.
Hysteria to get more money to arms dealers.
3
Ominous. The next logical step is for Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Korea and Vietnam to unite and prepare militarily...or give up now and prepare for assimilation.
Militarily, the point seems to be that missiles obsolete carriers. Strategically, the underlying point is that China is leveraging its economic power to forge a confrontational path; in particular, it wants to dominate the east and south china seas and has no concern for intimidating its neighbors. China continues to practice a new form of colonialism that uses loans to prop up bad governments to make them dependent, facilitating China's takeover of assets (like ports, oil and minerals) and to insert its military. These actions raise the risk of war. Confronting China's dominance of Asian shipping lanes is necessary, even as a symbolic gesture. That said, at any moment, China may sink one of these ships under the bet that the U.S. will not respond to avoid war. Once done, China has established its dominance. Like Putin, Xi's increasingly confrontational tactics may step too far, however.
It's odd that China has chosen to behave so aggressively because it raises the long-term cost of projecting it's power. If it courted, rather than intimidated, its neighbors, they would gladly swim in China's orbit. China could have militarily dominated the east and south china seas without declaring them Chinese territory. Compromising and sharing with neighbors in oil exploration would've lost little, especially since the age of oil is nearing an end.
In 1980 I spent some time in Djibouti where the French had a small fleet of ships as well as a desalinization plant and a military presence on land. French officials told me that their primary mission was to keep watch over the Red Sea, the island of Socotra, and to guard that railroad from Djibouti to the Ethiopian border. How times have changed. At that time Djibouti had no year-round fresh water supply; hence the desalinization plant. Addis Ababa relied upon rail for shipments from and to the port of Djibouti. It's strategic significance has only increased.
Instead of a military parade and instead of trade wars, Trump should be tending to this.
11
@Jean Tending to what, exactly? Do we need the biggest, most powerful navy in the world, capable of defeating any enemy even when operating in their own backyard?
Or is this Trump Derangement Syndrome?
1
"Only three years ago, Mr. Xi stood beside President Barack Obama in the Rose Garden and promised not to militarize artificial islands it has built farther south in the Spratlys archipelago. Chinese officials have since acknowledged deploying missiles there, but argue that they are necessary because of American “incursions” in Chinese waters." So, China lied and Obama bought it. Or, maybe he had no choice but to believe it. It's naive at best to look at China as anything other than an enemy of Asia, Africa, and the rest of the planet. Of course, were DC try to do anything, the NYTimes would condemn it - part of what has been their agenda of resistance. And I'm sure they will blame Trump for this as well, but while consumed with whatever one can lob at Trump, the globe is suffering and our security and freedoms are waning. NYTimes, do you realize you are a part of the destruction of the free world?
4
@Ma, Is this planet too small for both China and the US?
1
@Ma With respect, your last sentence is risible. And China isn't doing anything that the US hasn't been up to for the last 150 years. Military might with a global reach to protect its interests around the world. Is it your expectation that the global geopolitical landscape remains static forever?
4
We financed this navy by shipping our jobs to China. And just how much of their technology was stolen from us?
They sold us enough rope to hang ourselves.
11
@Spudbert Mao Zedong seems to have been a very perspicacious judge of character. He promised China that capitalists would be hanged with their own rope, eagerly sold.
2
That won't stop the Trump-Deranged from condemning his crackdown on supposed "free trade" that allows them to steal American technology with China and the tariffs he wants to impose.
So first 45 lets N. Korea get and then keep its nukes. And now he's allowed China to overtake U.S. naval capabilities. Trump's just killing it.
5
Every so often, the US gets a wake-up call. Pearl Harbor was one where we were caught with our pants down. The first wake-up moment I recall in my lifetime was when the former USSR, now Russia, lunched the Sputnik into space and their leader, Nikita Kruschev, banged his shoe on a desk at the UN. Another wake-up moment was Vietnam when we realized the North Vietnamese had achieved victory and we needed to get out of town ASAP. The situation with the Chinese Navy as detailed in this article is perhaps the latest wake-up moment so let's all wake-up! Trump, while wrong on a number of things, is correct in that our military capabilities need to be extended into space whether administered by the US Air Force or a new service branch. Let's never again be caught with our pants down!
1
@Mike, The US doesn't seem to have a clue about what being on yellow alert all the time does to its own mind.
2
@Mike I'm not sure we were caught with our pants down. 2 things:1 why was the entire carrier fleet out to sea and 2, we knew that the embargo on fuel to Japan left them with only enough fuel for their fleet just short of the end of that year.
Regarding China, I'm not sure what to say except that when it comes to netcentric security, having your computer chips manufactured by "the enemy" basically makes all the hardware unsecure.
2
@Rick Tornello The incoming Japanese aircraft were mistaken for a flight of planes scheduled to arrive from the US when they appeared on radar.
1
Lets not forget one US boomer sub can destroy all of China’s major cities in a matter of minutes. Naval strategists correctly anticipated in the 1930’s we would be at War with Japan. And we prepared with the Long Range Sub and converted aircraft carriers. Now the only outcome is the actual date of sea conflict with China. Once again our nuclear subs will secure victory. Surface ships project the image of “sea power”. But the “kills” are done by subs which form the mainstay of the US Navy’s “kill power”. Our subs are for the foreseeable future invincible. Whether and when China truly catches up remains unknown. Lets remember Japan underestimated the US Navy. Why should we expect China to not do the same ?
The NYTimes would have done better to have this article vetted by Naval Analysts.
7
The boomers are a formidable strategic force but all successful wars require securing control over the adversary’s territory to assure that the conflict is ended. The surface fleet is crucial for doing this. To have a credible deterrent includes the ability to project power through to victory. The threat posed by missiles requires the means both to use them offensively and to defend against them. We have the offensive capability but the anti-missile capabilities are limited. It’s going to require at lot to close that gap.
2
@Peter I Berman
The US cannot win any kind of engagement in the South Pacific because it would trigger economic retaliation that would wipe out every politician in office. A modern democratic country cannot win a prolonged engagement against a country that has no voters to be accountable to.
The article writer is correct. The Chinese military strategy is about bleeding any intruding army enough that the voters will call for an end to hostilities.
2
@Peter I Berman absolutely correct. There is no Navy in the world like the United States Navy. 10 carriers. 14 Ohio-class submarines, more Los Angeles-class submarines than anybody knows what to do with... Add superiority in air power,. With real stealth airplanes.. and you simply have the best and the biggest military machine in history.
US Navy 19741-1980.Will be a long time before they can pull off carrier operations like we do.A very long time.
2
So the Vietnam War was a mistake? The real mistake was listening to those clowns that called and still call themselves "Protesters for Peace". They should all be put on trial for treason. The U.S. has just become a second-rate power.
2
@Kenneth Casper, The US seems to be very uneasy about any kind of co-equality with China. Why? Are we not a mandarinate too?
@Kenneth Casper Viet Nam was a mistake beginning at the end of WWII. The French recolonized a nation that had fought the Japanese and then defeated the French. They expected to be granted the status of a free nation. The West and their racist attitudes, and they were along with the fear of the Soviet Union, reimposed the old colonial rule. You can't close that barn door once its been opened especially by blood.
3
I want to see trump visit our troops in harms way and I don’t mean at Camp Pendleton. He needs to visit the troops in the Middle East. Trump jr and Eric need to enlist rather than offer their services killing wild animals in Africa for $1 million fee per trip. Melania is the only trump supporting the troops with her British Esquire photos which are available online.
4
I hope someone will explain why this is such a threat.
No, seriously. We have been telling the world that it should accept our aircraft carrier groups sailing around just off their coasts since the end of world war II. "We're just sailing here, nothing to worry about," we told them all, as we maneuvered within hailing distance of their shores, never mind close enough to threaten their shores with aircraft and missiles capable of reducing entire cities to radioactive dust in seconds.
And now we're supposed to poop our shorts when someone else finally gets large enough and capable enough to join us sailing off their own shores, "threatening" our navy while it is 3,000 miles away from our shores ... my god, how would we react if they got within loud hailing distance of San Francisco?
13
@Charles trentelman with regards to China, there is concern over the South China sea, which has been declared by international groups to be international waters but China has deliberately and openly decided to ignore, which has a very large amount of trade going through it and an increasing number of illegal Chinese military bases. The US is trying to ensure free and fair trade remains the norm.
1
@Charles trentelman ... maybe not a big worry for us, but critical worry for Japan; all of whose oil and substantial amounts of international trade flow through the South China Sea. Consider ... China blockades South China Sea to force Japan's acquiescence to China's economic and geopolitical goals. Japan asks their U.S. ally for help as specified in mutual defense treaties. What do we do? ... Your move Charles.
1
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&a...
August 29, 2018
Defense spending was 58.8% of federal government consumption and investment in April through June 2018. *
$772.5 / $1,312.9 = 58.8%
Defense spending was 22.0% of all government consumption and investment in April through June 2018.
$772.5 / $3,505.5 = 22.0%
Defense spending was 3.8% of GDP in April through June 2018.
$772.5 / $20,411.9 = 3.8%
* Billions of dollars
[ I think we are spending quite enough on the military to be completely secure, though we will soon be spending more. ]
4
@Nancy
We seem to be spending quite a lot on education too but most of us in public schools didn't learn much. We're certainly not completely educated.
What reasons do you have to think that the fortune we are squandering on the military, in which basically 1% of the population "serves", while the top 1% rages about having to pay for everything BUT the military, is doing anything to make us secure?
And by the way, the other half of every tax dollar that doesn't go to the military but goes to "The War on Poverty" isn't doing much to make poverty go away, either.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
3
Aircraft carriers are the battleships of the 21st century. Battleships entered the 20th century as the supreme expression of naval power, but were shown to be largely obsolete by the end of the WWII, and have since gone out of active service. The same fate awaits large aircraft carriers in the 21st century, which are rapidly being reduced to juicy targets for million-dollar missiles. That is why, other than the fact that a carrier task force is insanely expensive to build and operate, China will concentrate for the foreseeable future on carrier killers and area denial weaponry, in order to secure the ocean areas around their own country. They will eventually have a blue-water navy that can compete with the U.S. around the world, but it will be very different from the kind of navy the U.S. currently deploys. It will have to be, since the Chinese will most likely be up against a U.S. Navy that will also look very different. If the U.S. Navy is to retain its preeminent position, it will have to change radically and grow significantly.
3
@James, Once upon a time, China built a vast armada to explore the world. It quickly lost interest and abandoned the project.
These Chinese ships need to look out; the USNavy's been crashing into vessels lately.
14
Seems as we are always fighting the last war. In WWI they started out fighting as in the civil war with infantry charges.
In WWII they did not have much idea how tanks and airplanes were going to make trenches and surface ships of less value and how much civilians were going to part of the war. Except Poland attached German tanks with cavalry charges. Great bravery, but not very successful.
In the next war carriers will be setting ducks. How many missiles the first day can they stop before one gets through.
If an all out war -- Three nuclear missiles above our horizon and no electricity, no digital anything so no water, no food, no heat, not cars, no trucks.
Everything we do depends on digital something and the electromagnetic pulse created by a nuclear explosion at the right altitude zaps the tiny circuits in unprotected digital devices which run almost everything including our cars and trucks.
Scary thought, but I just try not to think about it and don't worry about it.
I thinking next generation's problem. Some people will survive the long terms effects of losing food and water.
5
@altair
our president is right own top of all this...
1
@altair - Thank you, right wing scare monger.
@altair, They did cavalry charges on machine gun nests.
We have to counter the Chinese military by building more weapons. More weapons. More weapons! MORE WEAPONS!!!
I feel safer now.
8
An aircraft carrier is just a slightly bigger target for an attack submarine. In any major modern conflict, all aircraft carriers (at sea) will be lost or disabled in mere minutes - including this second-hand Russian joke.
6
This is a truly scary picture.
Perhaps Trump is not nuts after all. Perhaps he is finally addressing a National Security issue that previous administrations, too timid face reality, ignored.
Kind word on trade got them nowhere
9
@Gerhard Nah! Trump IS nuts.
3
@Gerhard
" This is a truly scary picture. "
Don't be scared, its ok...you can destroy China 100 times over and the entire world at least 10 times, you have nothing to worry about...except worry itself.
Yeah...OK...Maybe you will feel better spending another $200 Billion to comfort you.
Then America will be spending 400% more every year than China on defence...instead of the 300% it already does.
1
We are paying for their navy. Why are we being dumb? China's goal is to supplant us on the world stage, why are we enriching an enemy with our trade? There are many other countries that would want our business (Although less now since we have such a wacko as a President). We should be moving our trade to more friendly nations and let China enjoy the consequences of their actions.
15
@Bruce1253 The bigger problem is that there are over a million Chinese nationals, excluding green card holders, at US universities and companies, siphoning off trade secrets and research. Just how many professors with DoD contracts have Chinese nationals working in their labs? Sure, they work on unclassified projects, but there is always cross pollination. Hi tech companies want complacent labor (not necessarily cheap, but immobile), which results in a flood of foreign nationals occupying nearly all spots in post graduate programs in so called STEM fields.
8
@True Norwegian, Physics is a secret that cannot be kept.
1
@Bruce1253
Trump is doing a great job supplanting America off the World Stage, anybody who has that goal realises that they could not do as good a job at it than he is doing!
And China has never shown or acted as if it wants to own the world stage anyway. Nobody wants to own it either... besides America.
Also, why are you even referring to China as your Enemy? Nobody else does , why do you think America does?
What have they done to America to earn such a title? Who have they invaded recently? Which wars waged?
No need to make another Enemy...hasn't America made enough?
2
One missile in a twenty missile swarm can kill a surface ship.
That would assume a 95% kill rate for the anti missile team, a percentage not yet achieved or promised.
You've lost a 13 billion dollar carrier, the cost of 60 air craft at 100 million each. and air crews along with 6000 other people.
Roughly 736,000,000,000. Call it a trillion with other costs not accounted for. Will there be other losses in the carrier group as well?
20 of the ship killing batteries are less than 100 million.
1,000,000,000,000/ .
100,000,000 .
10,000 times more bang per buck.
War is all about logistics. You won't be able to rapidly replace the 6000 dead on a carrier.
Anti missile crews yes in a nation awash with engineers.
Trust an accountant before an admiral. An accountant would tell you that this business plan is a bust.
19
This article mostly a propaganda advertisement for the military industrial complex. There will be no full-scale war between the conventional forces of China and the United States. Both have the capability to destroy each other many times over with nuclear armaments. To assert China has some sort of hegemonic ambitions for world dominion and that due to this threat our navy and military forces must have the capability to completely destroy their navy in the South China Sea is little short of a Dr.Strangelove-like bunker mentality or just a naked attempt to increase military spending. Keeping everyone terrified and spending lavishly on new weapons is assuredly the path to peace and prosperity...isn't it?
29
@gowan mcavity Forever and ever, amen...!
While we fight over "diversity" and "inclusion" China is bothered by no such nonsense and is culturally and militarily ascendant
15
@tigershark In the end it is not technology. It is the society's belief that it is worth fighting for. A vast wave of revulsion many people now voice for the late Sen John McCain reflects a widespread belief that we should not even have soldiers in the first place.
Success in our fight to build a society that includes all of us will make us more cohesive, more confident in any military defense. It will also make it more liklely that military decisions will themselves better reflect the will of the people instead of a small cabal of Texas oilmen. for example.
4
@Robert, perhaps the best defense of the US is that every nation has some of its people living here.
@Robert The "culture war" in our country is being fought over your assertion. Regrettably diversity is not associated with social cohesion. Or any other kind of cohesion. I wish it were otherwise. Respectfully
At the end of the article, that photo of aircraft on the carrier deck looks like a computer generated cartoon.
2
The whole thing with China sounds an awful lot like the conflict with Japan in the 1930s. Strategic issues, trade issues, and a heavy overlay of cultural misunderstanding and distrust. I hope it doesn't end the same way.
9
interesting and at the same time worrying article.
if the United States and China go fight, will they be harmed even a bit? absolutely not.
it is South Korea, Taiwan, Okinawa (annexed by Japan in 1870's and now used as a US military base) which are lethally affected. yes, the great powers always do their jobs at the expense of the small countries. these nations are nothing, but playing cards for the greater ones.
freedom and peace ? merely rhetoric.
4
This is alarmist. We've known they've been doing this for years. I wrote a paper about this back in grad school in like 2008. They don't want us sailing a carrier group into their backyard. Big surprise! So they've focused on basically being able to shoot a ton of missiles from a bunch of places to deter us from bringing big ships in near them.
Their navy is bigger because it has more ships. Small ships. Ships that mostly don't function well. Ships with comparably low-skilled enlisted personnel and subpar NCOs.
9
I remember reading articles in The Atlantic back in the 90s talking about most of this, certainly China's focus on developing aircraft carrier-busting missile systems.
And we still rely on 1% of our population to carry the burdens of military "service".
We are a delusional people, unable to pull ourselves away from our obsession with taking selfies of our food, possessions, and lifestyle activities, desperate to impress and convince ourselves and others that we have "made it". That most of those possessions are now made in China or that our food prices are rising so rapidly because China, with all our money, is out-bidding us for it, fuel too, not only seems to be lost on most Americans but worse, there are forces actively working to keep those things from becoming widely known.
Bush told America the best thing we could do after 9-11 was go shopping. Not that we needed to be encouraged. Our ancestors are spinning in their graves to see us, here at the end of our "run", arrogant, self absorbed, ignorant, apathetic, obsessed with gaudy trappings of glamour and glitz, with a president who embodies all of that and a congress standing by, half apoplectic that their cherished disruption of the patriarchy can't be pushed through fast enough and the other drunk with the aesthecstasy of rage and vengeance, ready and able to continue down the path to civil war.
We are divided. Russian trolls are picking and infecting that wound. But it is China, silently, poised to conquer.
18
The USA has something of vital importance that China lacks: many excellent allies all around the world. Why we are choosing to alienate them now is beyond me.
35
China belongs to Asia, but inside some military circles and conservative media in the U.S. it's rather considered as an outsider, challenging the needless to say «natural» presence of scores of USS warships and dreadful USS carriers in the Pacific and lately around the South China Sea and the far east. The same logic dictates that the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea and Okinawa, Japan, should be permanent. But this reality is being challenged lately by the locals (South Koreans and Japanese) and could eventually finish as the abandonment of this 'advances - defence' positions in the East.
3
Ok, but add Japan, Taiwan, UK, France, Australia, Italy. Canada - etc., and there is no match. Provided, however, that the current administration stops treating our longtime allies worse than our longtime adversaries, of course.
18
All this talk about bigger navies and who has the best and strongest. Here we go again shoring up for war....we have not learned anything from past history and apparently never will. Sad.
7
@Diane Thompson
Yes. Will America ever calm down and devote its resources to its own people, god knows how many are in need and could do with some help.
1
"While all-out war between China and the United States seems unthinkable"
With Trump as president, nothing is unthinkable. But given his penchant for cuddling up with America's non-allies, he's more likely to start an all out war with Denmark. (Just look at the horrendous trade balance with Denmark! Sad!)
5
As paradoxical as it can be, the modernization of weapons somehow has meant that humankind may never see a 'classical' war as those ones fought in the 20th century, with infantry invading the enemy land, etc.
Concerning China, even a limited war as fell in with by someone in the article, could easily crop up deep traumas from the so called Century of Humiliation, so if the Chinese officials as slightly as it can be, think about to engage in a war, for their own good (and for the political regime...) it must be a complete and conclusive victory, otherwise China would deepen in another traumatic time...
Let's hope China can develop the uttermost lethal weapon, say, ICBMs endued with hypervelocity technology to dissuade potential enemies who may attempt to revive the century of Humiliation to undermine China...you know, unfortunately, China is a terrific booty in which whatever country may push itself with heart and soul to conquer it...
2
@Little Panda "you know, unfortunately, China is a terrific booty in which whatever country may push itself with heart and soul to conquer it..."
Phrasing.
1
Last year China has a single carrier and maybe a few under constuction. None were as advanced.
A year later, China's navy is bigger than a nation that spends 7-10 times the rest of the world's combined defense budget?
Is @NYT counting skiffs?
3
The only thing missing from this article is the disclaimer: "Paid for by General Dynamics."
10
Good news is, we have McHale's Navy representing the Trump Administration. The "wrong-way" 7th Fleet can be found most days living it up on the country's dime, just like Trump and his buddies... when they're not running into each other or anything else floating on the 7 seas.
China has the biggest fleet? Hah! We have the biggest EVER in history; bigger than Obama's. AND the biggest button. What's not to like? Stormy, slither on over here and break another bottle of champagne on the bow of this baby. I got your fleet right here! Whoa! Anchors away my boys...
9
Having a military whose chef is Donald Trump gives you shivers. Like a cancer, Trump's decadence will spread into every single institution of America -including the military-. This is not an "if" but a "when". Having other military power that might be able to match a roten military american power is a relieve for the world.
7
This story is brought to you courtesy of the holy trinity of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Huntington Ingalls. There should be a link to their purchasing site with a 15% discount code when you order a dozen fleet carriers and how to redeem the kick back reward program if you're a rear admiral.
33
Corporate profit of influential and well connected big American companies are equally responsible for it. Those companies lobbied US and many other western governments to turn a blind eye to Chinese rise in that part of the world and elsewhere. It emboldened directorial state of China to expand its military and political hegemony using its new found prosperity, aided by western companies. All its war and other imperialistic colonial efforts are financed by its export based huge profit, without being much innovative and without undertaking any democratic reform to establish an internal control mechanism for its political leaders. China is enjoying the benefit of an open society that promote innovation without actually being one. Intellectual property theft, currency manipulation by China only made the situation worse.
In reality, Globalization, in its present form, did not help global economy so far interest of common people of most countries are considered. It actually exported poverty and corporate exploitation. It consolidated wealth and income inequality almost everywhere. Few instances of prosperity is aided by our ability to extract and exploit natural and other resources to an unprecedented level, jeopardizing our own future and future of our next generations. Now every $4 wealth created, $3 goes to the pockets of top 1 percent.
Corporate profit of western companies soared but it did not help its own citizens while engendering global & our national national security.
4
Surface warships are becoming obsolete, due to modern missile technology. In a real war, they wouldn't last very long. This will inevitably lead to a new and probably very expensive paradigm in naval warfare. Perhaps it's time to focus on peaceful coexistence, instead of spending billions on technological fixes which would likely be transient at best.
51
Corporate profit of influential and well connected big American companies are equally actually responsible for it. Those companies lobbied US and many other western governments to turn a blind eye to Chinese rise in that part of the world and elsewhere. It emboldened directorial state of China to expand its military and political hegemony using its new found prosperity, aided by western companies. All its war and other imperialistic colonial efforts are financed by its export based huge profit, without being much innovative and without undertaking any democratic reform establish an internal control mechanism for its political leaders.
In reality, Globalization, in its present form, did not help global economy so far interest of common people of most countries are considered. It actually exported poverty and corporate exploitation. Corporate profit for many western companies soared but it did not help our own citizens and engendered our national security by helping a dictatorial regime as in China.
5
Correct. Globalization has been promoted by the elites (billionaires and big bankers) from the start.
A one-world government would amount to a political-economic global monopoly.
2
1984
The rise of China's Navy is in part due to the cutbacks to defense spending in the USA over the last decade, which are now being restored by President Donald J. Trump, in an effort to catch up to and eventually surpass China. Thank you.
3
The US military has been the most well-funded fighting force on the planet since World War II, regardless of who was in the Oval Office.
But alternative facts seem to credit the current occupant with much more than he actually deserves.
7
This may come as a surprise to you (actually, I'm sure of it), but China has had antiship missile technology that can shred most of our surface fleet for at least five years. But let's waste more money building ships to fight WWII style naval battles
7
The article made it very plain that the Chinese are catching up with us- not the other way around.
We have 11 nuclear powered carrier groups- they are building their first one. The other carrier they have is a used (diesel?) former Soviet ship built in '88.
Ah numbers, a useful tool to get bigger military budgets, but which cry out for context. Military analysts consider total displacement to be important, as also experience at sea. More importantly, we currently have military treaties with at least five of the ten most powerful fleets in the world. China has none. It is "friendly with Russia. Maintaining NATO as a trustworthy member has some bearing, eh? As for the IRBM's and cruise China is deploying, assuming they are as effective as claimed cannot be assumed. Note Mr. Putan's violation of the cruise treaty which seemingly has gone unchallenged (and unproven except for some animations).
So, in the words of Douglas Adams: Don't panic.
3
@Lisa, I suppose the proof of these things is in their use. Do you think nobody wants to know if these systems work under real combat conditions?
1
We keep talking about potential conflict with China as if it would likely consist of skirmishes in the South China Sea. Western fear of losing any conflict with China that draws significant blood would likely cause it to rapidly escalate into a full-scale, thermonuclear exchange. Would a Trump-like President be able to emotionally resist responding to a sunken carrier by impulsively pushing the nuclear button? The west would likely prevail in today’s world, if you consider hundreds of millions of deaths on both sides and a crippled planet as “victory”. This situation is really no different from the extremely costly and risky cold war. If China is wise, it will leave itself open to negotiating limits on the scale of its military expansion in exchange for reductions or limits on western forces. If the west is wise, it will substitute practicality for paranoia and start proposing talks now.
7
@AndyW The US inferiority to China as a mass manufacturer of military equipment for sustained war guarantees that whatever war goes into runaway will be brief.
2
@AndyW
It's true, an aircraft carrier is in reality useless against a fully nuclear armed country. Any sea conflict with China would have to be fought under some sort of weird Marquess of Queensbury rules in order that it didn't go fully nuclear (and good luck with that if one side feels it's getting humiliated). Heck, even the Korean War had its own rules--China knew, for instance, that America was provisioning in Japan--yet didn't attack there, and Truman of course, kept MacArthur from invading China.
@AndyW
Please substitute the word America everytime you refer to the West.
We are your allies but do not share your fears or thoughts on who are considered Enemies despite none that have actually shown themselves as such , let alone waged war, attacked, invaded or permanently occupied other countries in the region with their military.
That's America's role...as it has been carrying out for the last 75 years...
...don't worry, I'm sure another Enemy will rear its head somewhere down the line... America has always been so good at finding as well as making them.
I was in the U.S. Navy and was taught repeatedly that it's purpose was to keep the sea lanes open. I do believe that's still it's primary task. Yet, according to this article and others, it seems that there is an idea "being floated" that we must be able to sink a foreign navy and be able to subsequently invade it's homeland as well. When it comes to Russia, China or even Iran, good luck with that.
I have news for y'all - the Navy's raison d'être is still to keep the sea lanes open for sea-going commerce. Anything else is gravy. I do believe that is China's goals are the same as ours. In my opinion, we need not fret.
If I'm wrong, we are not alone. Our allied navies from Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and even India are also at our disposal should China become aggressive. China has few allies in it's neighborhood that would be willing to come to it's aid in a major conflict - because no one wants to be jack-booted.
This is all huff-and-puff. The U.S. Navy has recently gotten more money that it asked for in the GOP tax giveaway. Let that be a potato in the war hawk bugle call.
100
@WillyD It seems to me that the rules of free passage over the high seas have to be negotiated equitably by international consent.
China Navy is up against not only the US Navy, but also combined Japanese, Taiwanese, S.korean, Australian in addition to the US Navy. That puts Chinese Navy at a decisive disadvantage, should they decide to pisue hostile course of action with one of these countries. The combined naval assets of the allied naval power is enough to forcr unacceptable level of loss to the Chinese navy, as is the case vice versa.
5
China’s military expansion is a cause of concern for the world. Chinese misleading promises of peaceful and non-military operation of the erected islands to Obama administration underscores our naïveté.
The US must build up its Space force, with the ability to neutralize Chinese satellites that provide guidance to cruise missiles and their ships.
The times of peaceful and undisrupted growth of worldwide prosperity are over.
4
@Frank Savage, Maybe Trump has a secret plan to sink these islands with the rising seas of climate change. He is said to be a genius by his followers.
4
If the Iranian practice swam attacks didn't get thru to top brass this should.
A million dollar rocket can sink a billion dollar ship in a swarming attack.
Surface craft are floating coffins in the next war.
They will exhaust their anti missile stores, and then there will be more missiles.
14
@Lawrence Something similar to what you described was shown in movie called "Sum of all Fears". It was a Tom Clancy movie where in a particular scene an American aircraft carrier was attacked by a large number of Russian aircraft that fired an overwhelming number of anti-ship cruise missiles at the carrier from stand off range. The sheer number of missiles overwhelmed the carrier's anti-aircraft/missile defenses.
China is asking for trouble. This will not end well. China is violating the fundamental paradox of all naval strategic thought: My access is your denial and your access is my denial. Historically, these disputes almost always lead to war. That's why we have international laws limiting ocean jurisdiction. If China is provoking the issue, internal thinking must believe China is capable of winning a war. That's a bad sign.
The process is essentially target obsession. When a country goes through all the motions of achieving a certain goal, they generally act to prevent anything from frustrating that goal. Conveniently, the country already has a plan and the resources to prevent such frustration. They tend use them. We watched the Japanese Imperial Navy go through the same thought process from Commodore Perry all the way up to Pearl Harbor. The outcome was tremendously predictable.
Anything short of war is unilateral surrender. The question isn't "if" but "when." The US may very well surrender. I don't know. If they do though, I suspect politicians to surrender slowing while calling it something different. Let's try "honorable peace." Oh wait, that one's taken. In truth, the term refers to two separate appeals to surrender already. Fortunately one never happened. You should look it up.
2
@Andy: Do you think Trump's conduct contributes to international negotiation of a global law of the sea?
@Steve Bolger
I'm assuming you mean international re-negotiation of sea law? If not, this response is going to sound way off.
Short answer: yes and no. The issue in the South China Sea began before Trump. So there's only so much blame we can assign.
However, the economic solution to China's territoriality aggression was the TPP. Isolate China regionally and align willing partners more closely with US interests. Done. Simple.
Except of course Trump torched the TPP.
The US still has options though. We could alternatively exert a more aggressive military force in the region and begin reinforcing our regional allies and territories.
Except of course Trump has publicly insulted every western ally in the region and needlessly diverted our military and diplomatic efforts towards North Korea with the necessary economic cooperation of China.
We might still salvage the Chinese expansion through economic efforts.
Except Trump just enlisted them as an ally against North Korea so we have no leverage.
And then he started a trade war...
I therefore wouldn't call Chinese territorial expansion a "negotiation" of maritime law. They seem willing to take whatever they want and Trump is powerless to stop them.
2
@Andy, I find that there is one characteristic essential to successful negotiations: mutual empathy.
Spain controlled the seas until England defeated it. Then England controlled the seas until WWII. We were convinced that Japan was going to attack the Philippines. They struck pearl harbour. A number of commentors here under estimate China's determination and capibilities. This is a mistake.
4
@L'historien
I don't think so: the "mistake" is to think that military confrontation and war in the Pacific is comparable to anything that happened in any previous century.
Once a couple of carrier task forces go down, and tens of thousands of sailors have been lost, the risk of nuclear weapons use will be extremely high.
Both nations are currently throwing away national treasure and the health of their citizens for weapons that cannot possibly gain them any more than negotiations and economic co-operation would.
NOBODY can occupy large nation states and "rule" them against their will. Iraq surely taught us that, at least. While it is reasonable to have some military forces, it is unreasonable to mortgage your future in a weapons race for a war that can never be won. Alliances, co-operation, economic trade: those policies work. An arms race based on ancient imperial obsessions is a primitive and dangerous regression. There will always be hawks and doves, it is an evolving, healthy discussion. But we must never lose sight of the cost, danger and risk of using modern weapons.
14
@Blair There is nothing more stupid than putting chips on the table you cannot afford to lose.
2
China is aggressively flouting internationally recognized borders and trying to annex and militarize large swathes of territory. This behavior, together with their increasing capabilities and communist rule, is a real threat that needs to be countered. The U.S. needs to systematically undermine China. Unfortunately, the dummy in the white house is not up to the challenge.
4
Yeah, countering China is hard to do when they control much of our currency. It also sounds like you don’t think China is entitled to influence in the areas contiguous to them. Thats naive.
1
There's an instructive tale in the US high tech development of pens that could write upside down for use in by astronauts in space capsules. The Russians, our inferiors or course, used pencils.
The technology only has to be good enough. And the Chinese dongfeng missiles are now good enough to sink every multi-billion US aircraft carrier before they even get close to range.
Now the Pentagon et al. will demand billions more to protect their obsolete new fleet. Maybe the US needs to drop the belligerence (i.e. tariffs, more military "total spectrum dominance" spending) and start working on peaceful and equitable trade agreements with the rest of the world.
17
Nothing that China will be putting on the water will be a threat to anything we can do for a long time to come.
The carriers China is buying and building today are smaller than the ones we launched in the 1950s.
The firepower we have, inclusive of submarine launched conventional missiles, will continue to dominate the oceans for decades, even without the unnecessary build up advocated by conservatives and trumpanzees.
5
This is an important and scary article. Things are even worse than the article describes. Equally worrisome to China’s growing military power is Chinese prowess in manufacturing. Today, many, in some cases most, of the products on which we and our economy depends are made in China. There are some things essential to our infrastructure such as power transformers, that are only made in China – there is no domestic supplier.
Incidentally, most of the rocket engines the US uses to launch satellites are Russian.
We can peacefully co-exist with China. But it must be from a position of strength. China is not a democracy, and the country’s record is human rights is worrisome. The US needs a strong military, and we must acknowledge, a strong and effective military is expensive.
The US effectively funds the lions’ share of the costs of defense for many of our allies. The European democracies can afford many of their social programs because we cover many of the costs of military defense. It’s probably time for the burden to be more equally shared.
President Obama did not take concern over China’s growing military capability as seriously as he should have. President Trump is likely doing a better job. Yes, compromises must be made as we balance funding social programs with arms and capable fighting forces. But we must remain militarily strong, lest we wake up one morning to find China is threatening Japan, Taiwan, India, the Philippines, or another country.
1
@Alex
Think about nuclear subs. Soviets never mastered US capabilities. Why expect China to do so near term.
For now, China is a threat to commerce by sea in The Southwest Pacific. It’s navy probably would be defeated in a conventional fleet to fleet encounter with what the ships can bring to battle. However, the war with Japan was about controlling the Southwest Pacific commercial sea lanes and material resources from the lands in that region. This is a strategically important area which the U.S. has kept free for commerce and China could interfere if it chose. So it cannot be ignored.
The most powerful warships in ship to ship battles remained the big gun platform dreadnoughts in WWII but aircraft from ships out of range of these battleships could sink them and so the aircraft carrier became the dominant ships and the decisive form of naval warfare of WWII along with submarines. These missiles will do to aircraft carrier fleets what aircraft did to dreadnoughts, destroy them before they can get in striking distance of and adversary’s fleets. There needs to be missiles and anti-missile forces ready to project naval power and defend our forces.
4
Anybody remember Obama's "pivot" to East Asia and the
hidden agenda of the TPP to curb China's influence? Sure looks like he had the foresight to start preparing for China's
rise as a military and economic power.
40
Credible regional check to China's naval strenths and ambitions comes from India - not Japan or Australia whose naval assets are relatively very insignificant. The US periodically conducts naval exercises in the region jointly with India. Strengthening this alliance is the best bet for the US to stop China's regional/global ambitions.
5
@Raghavan Parthasarthy
Sorry, but the Japanese Navy is the regional naval power in that part of the world. India’s imported Russian subs keep sinking in port. The Indian Army on the Chinese border is the only check it has against Chinese aggression — assuming it is prepared.
Econ 101
Q: Where did China get all the money for that ?
A: By trading with the US that sent $ 375 Billion over there
just in 2017
Economists that advocated trade as mutually beneficial overlooked that China might use the dollars to militarily challenge the US
12
@Woof Econ 102: Cheap labor always wins.
China sits on the South China Sea, with a long coastline on the Pacific Ocean. It has a huge population and major economic power. Given the size, wealth and geography of China it has every right to a Navy commensurate with those realities. Best that we stay strong and make China our partner in peace.
12
@Sad former GOP fan
Neville Chamberlain tried that approach with the Germans in 1939. Didn't work out too well. Some people still feel that it was a mistake and that a robust response at that time could have blunted German territorial ambitions.
3
@Parrhesia Chamberlain did that in 1938 because he knew the RAF was not strong enough to hold off the Luftwaffe at that point. Still, I understand your point.
1
@Parrhesia
Or started a war that the UK was not yet prepared for.
I would like to believe that nations understand that any conflict between nuclear capable nations is unthinkable. Even an accident or misfire would be catastrophic. I would like to believe this to be the case but seeing how we continue to seek a nonexistent advantage, and as more nations have the ultimate weapons I am convinced, as many are these weapons will be used and MAD. will follow.
1
Great book about this is "Crashback" by Michael Fabey.
Maybe it's time to spend more money on infrastructure instead of poking the Chinese into their eyes all the time.
15
This Chinese build up shows how China fooled Obama and globalist Republicans. China used American markets to amass wealth to build its military to challenge America. The current President at least understand what China has been doing and is trying to stop China from taking advantage of us by pressing it to open its market, reduce tariffs, reduce trade deficits and to stop stealing of intellectual properties. But to Obama supporters and globalist Republicans, it is a stupid actions by an ignorant President. For them Stormy Daniels is more important. No wonder Trump had to use the slogan MAGA instead of China and EU.
9
@Alex E
Alex, you cannot pin 30+ years of growing trade with China on Obama. Most Favored Nation (MFN) status was granted to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1979 and has been renewed on a yearly basis ever since by GOP and DEM alike.
So, tell us why you singled out Obama.
7
@Sad former GOP fan
I included globalist Republicans as well along with Obama and think about why Trump in his first year itself is seeing the danger and trying to do something about it, though it may not be possible to do much now other than recognize the realty and try to deal with it in a sensible way.
2
Recall that American warships started intruding in China, Japan and other parts of East Asia in the 1800s. China has a right to control and defend its waters. Taiwan is part of China. But if we had wiser leadership, the U.S. and China would negotiate limits on naval spending, which would benefit both nations.
6
@William Meyers, Winding up a hair trigger to lead to nuclear war out of desperation sure is a stupid idea.
"Taiwan is part of China" ?! -- this opinion greatly diverges from what its aboriginal peoples and 17th-century, largely Hoklo migrants to Taiwan know to be true. Even before Nationalist RoC refugees from the mainland landed en masse in 1949, Chinese claims to the island were tenuous at most. Now, in the 21st century, the PRC claims are fabrications at best, as any Taiwanese not allied with pro-blue/KMT factions, or under the age of 50, understands.
4
A"Space Force', the Navy, Army Air Force Marines, National Guard, Eric Prince's mercenaries and private contractors, Homeland Security, JSOC, FBI, CIA, Lockeed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grummond, General Dynamics, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, United Technologies. and so many more. We are getting our nuclear arsenal revitalized. China's Silk Road, deals in Africa, new trade deals with European and local farmers. We have gutted our State department. We have set up bases in Africa, and a few hundred established all over the world. IS THERE A GOAL?
5
Why does anybody even need real armies and navies anymore? Can't there just be an app for them and we can sit stooped over our iPhones fighting wars? What good is technology if it isn't applied to to what it should be?
6
the usa still spends more money on its military than god knows how many of the next big spenders combined.
but trump will still whine about the rest of the world taking advantage of the poor, meek, unaggressive and helpless united states of America.
and an incredible amount of his countrymen/women will believe it.
9
"..the Chinese Navy became the world’s largest.... Though the American fleet remains superior qualitatively,"
This article reminds me of a quote heard in the attack on Pearl Harbor, "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant". China now has the lead in manufacturing capacity, we lost that edge decades ago.
And the above statement from the article reminds me of the U.S. at war with Nazi Germany. The German Tiger tank was far superior to the American Sherman at every level but one. Numbers of tanks, thousands more than the Tiger, and ultimately destroyed them with shear numbers.
We've lost the lead in the Pacific, so might as well admit it, and go from there.
11
While the numbers game matter, the more important factor in Nazi surrender was the opening of the second front by the allies. Strategy matters more than the military budget or the number of tanks. What’s the US strategy going forward?
5
@Frank Savage
Probably the same as ever : find an enemy (whether they like it or not) kill as many of them as possible, spend lots of money doing it, then after achieving very little, leave without cleaning up the mess you have made and hope that the resentment and anger you nurtured...leads to more reasons to buy more weapons of warfare.
Hopefully it won't take too long to use them (so can buy more) and that enough potential enemies (previously made so they can become the excuse or official reason to justify the new conflict ) will cause a big enough conflict to maximise more money spent so that others can make more money by selling them.
1
Yawn. This story is just catnip for conservatives. Now they can relive their glory years from the cold war by having a new "scary evil empire" to demonize for their intellectually passive followers. Play with your expensive boats while the decent people try to fix the actual problems in the world.
7
Imagine what would happen if they had enough self-awareness to realize America is as much an 'evil empire' as China or the old USSR
3
Keep this in mind, a land war with China or the USA is nearly impossible.
5
If the Chinese quality control reflects the junk they sell here their ships and planes will be in the shop or worse early and often.
9
In case anyone was curious what one of the main motivations of China's interest in the South China Sea was: it's the highway that 30% of maritime crude oil runs on.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36952
5
The objectives are not only military show but global presence and protection of blue water shipping interests well beyond the South China Sea: as of late 2017 Chinese state-owned enterprises own or operate deepwater 40 ports capable of receiving any of their navy fleet in 22 countries, including Greece at Piraeus, Sri Lanka at Columbo and the Netherlands at Euromax. Chinese state-owned global shipping companies also have investments in deepwater ports at Miami and Houston in the U.S. plus at Perth and Darwin in Australia. Planned Chinese-backed projects, under negotiation or in bidding, include port investments in Arkhangelsk in Russia, Lithuania, Norway, and a deep-sea port in northern Iceland.
11
@S. E. Donaldson
Oh No! What will America and its 800 + Military Bases virtually everywhere on the planet not to mention its large permanent Military forces ensconced in Japan and South Korea for the last 60+ years going to do?
Buying up ports for a country that has the largest share of global trade due to the fact it is the largest market with the largest population which is 4 times larger than the U.S, is of no concern...
America will always spend the most and have the biggest and best Military than anybody ever will... no country wants to play that game...
1
Not to worry. We have the biggest tax cuts in history. How we spend our money has nothing to do with what the Chinese choose to do with theirs. Right?
13
Good article but it glosses over one significant US advantage, its allies in the region. If you include, Japanese, Australian, South Korean and even Singapore naval assets, China is not only readily outnumbered but vastly qualitatively overwhelmed. Not to mention that Taiwan itself is not bereft of defensive capability. Note that while China has one carrier and another on its way, Japan has 3 already in operation slyly named helicopter carriers but which will easily allow F35 operations. In addition, our allies also posses dozens of the most advanced diesel submarines in the world plus dozens of surface combatants of the same caliber as US assets in the region. So yes, China is an emerging naval power. However, if they think they are anywhere close to being able to 'rule" any portion of the Pacific to their whim they would be greatly deluded. With its allies in the region, the US navy will be the powerbroker in the region for the foreseeable future.
8
@Ed Is that why Trump backed out of TPP, because he wanted to keep our allies close?
3
@Ed
Given our President's penchant for insulting anyone and everyone, all around the world, I'm not sure we'll have many allies in the region, or any other region.
4
@Ed Ed, I gotta tell ya', given the bellicosity of the current presidential office holder, I'm not sure how many allies in the region we're likely to have.
3
There is really no comparison between the Chinese aircraft carriers, which are basically frigates with ski jumps on the front, and US super carriers. In fact no nation has anything really close to what the US has in terms of force projection, aircraft capacity, range, etc., and for some reason we plan on building 11 of the latest design, the Ford class, at tremendous cost. No other nation has even one, and we need eleven.
The question is at what point we give up on the idea of a carrier fleet being able to dominate the seas around it. Yes Chinese A2/AD capabilities are largely hypothetical and incompletely tested at this point, but that will change. China is playing a different game than we are, and they appear to be winning at it. Neutralizing our carriers' ability to dominate the South China Sea and possibly the Indian Ocean at some point, is within their capabilities if not now in the near future. Instead of investing in technologically advanced versions of last century's fleets, perhaps we should look to change the game as well, with the cooperation of our regional allies.
35
@Tom: The vessel in the photo is a flat-top with catapults.
2
@Tom You're right Tom. The day of the carrier battle group is close to finished. Time to set a new game based on Chinese A2/AD technologies. They can deter our carriers? We need to be able to do the same.....and right now!!! We need to be able to track a good percentage of their navy on a continuous basis and be ready, willing and able to send them to the bottom.
5
@Tom
Switch out a few terms and that's pretty much what the French were saying in 1939 about the Maginot Line. Then the Germans unleashed their "new" term-- Blitzkrieg, backed up with a revolutionary new kind of weapon-- fast tanks.
The Greeks had a pretty good thing going with that phalanx of theirs too, that is until the Romans came up with a formation that jacked it's strengths up and turned them into weakness.
If you have an army on land backed up by a fleet projecting air cover, and if the other guys don't have a fleet but have missiles that cost a few tens of millions that can take out your carriers that cost a few billion, then you lose your fleet AND your ground forces.
Who was it wrote that book 'The Art of War' again?
China is an authoritarian country that combines a ruthless leadership with growing technical prowess and a thirst for power. They wish the US no good as they view us as a threat. They are, in fact, our enemy.
The US is foolish in the extreme to continue to allow the Chinese to execute their well thought out plan to subvert our technological advantage by theft, forced licensing and technology transfer agreements as well as illegal tariff and non tariff barriers that force manufacturers to move production to China.
Contrary to what our foreign policy establishment thought, China has not become more democratic and less authoritarian as it has grown economically but has, in fact, done the opposite.
With their growing military prowess they present a clear and present danger to US interests and should be treated as such.
32
@Steve W, China is a country with an ancient tradition of rule by a more or less meritocratic mandarinate capped by an Emperor who mystically legitimized it all.
2
@Steve W
And I suppose that you don't think China has had or has any reason to think the U.S presented and presents a clear and present danger to Chinese interests?
Read some History and look at who has been doing the damage , waging the wars and doing the threatening by the bases , nuclear weapons deployed and countries with permanently occupying U.S Military forces deployed and entrenched since WW2/Korean War.
Don't create or make yet another Enemy. Haven't you got enough? Chill.
2
In order to become a military superpower, you need to be an economic superpower first. The USA with its massive debt will at some point no longer be able to sustain itself under so much debt. The top 1% wealthy will keep their money in offshore bank accounts and the rest of the US citizenry will continue to struggle to make ends meet till something gives.
China has successfully stolen our jobs, trade secrets, manipulated its currency, and sent its students to our universities.
In the meantime, Trump and the Republicans are worried about brown colored people working in our farms and hotels.
58
@mrpisces I get you, but Please, Oh please, enough with the crybaby "China stole this, China stole that." Corporations moved their factories overseas for cheaper labor. They abandoned you! They abandoned American workers! China didn't come here and put guns to their heads and force them to move their factories and share their technologies in order to pocket bigger profits and get an early stake in the China market. They did it themselves. And how dare any non-US citizen go to a University in the US! Shame on them for trying to get an education!! Shame!
1
China built 317 vessels. Half of ‘em are toys compared to our assets. And that floating Russian hunk of junk is no match for or dozen or so Gerald Ford class nuclear aircraft carriers.
3
While you might be correct, but let’s not fool ourselves with the feel-good grandstanding.
China is a threat and we better take it seriously and plan accordingly.
No more Obama style roll-over when Chinese “promise” to have “peaceful” military buildups etc.
2
@New World: Combat ships engage with missiles now. They level the playing field for different sizes of boats to launch them from.
1
@New World It's the missiles...
1
The cost of fighting a war with China is not on military front but on economic side. If a war breaks up between US and China, the stock market crashes. A severe economic pain will raise questions in US, is that little island Taiwan important to us? As US airlines fallen in line on China demand by changing the name from ‘Taiwan’ to ‘China Taiwan’ despite White House urging otherwise. It is economy stupid. Having said that, we need to increase funding significantly for research in basic sciences and that is our insurance policy For longevity of superiority.
7
@Kodali, China now has more industrial capacity to sustain war than the US does. This makes it more likely that war will go nuclear if it does break out.
7
China may not want to intimidate the US, but more likely impress the Asia Pacific region, which they will soon call theirs. It's not their navy we should be worried about, but the Pacific Trade deal, which Trump killed.
23
China is moving to 2050 and they are sanguine as a toad stool regarding today. They could care less about current capabilities as they build technology and financial mass and wonder why the west is tactical and not strategic. They have more engineers and scientist, workers and citizenship alignment with leadership and watch the West strangle itself in discord.
14
China has built the only navy to challenge the US since Brittania ruled the waves
They have won the conventional missile war
They are winning the cyber war
Our response is to raise a wall on immigration and tariffs.
Remind me, was it the US or China that is the Hermit Kingdom?
17
Well, since you asked, neither: Originally, and more frequently, the term has been invoked to designate Korea.
1
@H P B: They're sure psyching the US.
1
There is never a happier time in the life of Chinese, North Korean or Russian apparatchik than when Donald Trump, or anyone one of our generals, is speaking tough tones and issuing ultimatums.
Then they know they have got our goat, that they're nearer the target, and that there is literally nothing we can or will do about it.
The South China Sea, like the Koreas, is gone.
There is not a thing we will be willing to do about the Chinese takeover. Nothing we will be willing to do to defend our erstwhile allies, because like South Korea, the prospect of any action at all suggests consequences too horrible to contemplate.
We spent years mumbling threats about China's developments there, we sent our ships on what were supposed to be provocative or warning sail-bys. But everybody, including our own military, knew it was empty theatrics.
Now, with Trump running away from the world, China is firmly ensconced in Africa, moving on the Middle East, and soon will have bases in South America.
We wrecked our country and our people via insane military spending designed to make Republicans look like Real Men. Its sad, though not in any way surprising, that it all means nothing. Literally nothing.
Big ships, fancy planes, lots and lots of bombs, and nothing constructive to do with any of it.
Once again, Mission Accomplished.
43
Why does the New York Times continue to publish this kind of trash. First, the individuals do not identify themselves. Second, the opinions are nothing but rants against Donald Trump. Who, had very little to do with the China policies put into place by the first Bush administration and perpetuated since by succeeding administrations. But I know the answer, the New York Times is absolutely obsessed with Trump bashing, to the point of being completely irrational. One has to wonder why I continue to subscribe as the paper turns itself into a rag that resembles the National Enquirer.
1
@oogada, Maybe the US should have traded Taiwan for North Korea while it had the chance.
1
Wow, Bill, talk about rants.
I believe the comment "We spent years..." acknowledges this is not exclusively a Trump issue.
The rap against Republicans and their profligate and ineffective defense splurges is well earned, and backed by mountains of data.
Trump alone goes out of his way to alienate and instill doubt in every one of our erstwhile allies, established an undying aura of untrustworthiness about our military adventures, and abandoned key strategic areas and relationships around the world with pointless bluster and bullying.
You may not have noticed but China has been gracefully sliding into critical locations around the world as we abandon them, using their money and influence to create a global network of potential bases and resources that would be extraordinarily damaging to the US in event of actual fisticuffs.
He gets all the credit for that one.
What makes this worse is it was all done for the sake of his fragile ego.
I, by the way, am oogada. All you need to know.
So, what, William is your real name?
2
Nice to see the mainstream press is finally reporting on this. I've been reading about China's growing military prowess, in ships but more in carrier-busting missiles, in the Chinese press and on niche military sites for years. It's not a secret. China is quite proud of it.
I read my first story about the upcoming launch of the first Chinese aircraft carrier in China Daily a few months after an Internet myth-debunking site put stories about China building three aircraft carriers in the same false reports list as sightings of Bigfoot.
Asymmetric may be the word of the moment. The old fashioned like me prefer "Agincourt." When high tech of the day, the long bow, defeated a larger superior traditional power.
Just my opinion.
5
@SpartacusNJ: Even Vlad Putin feels compelled to announce new hypersonic missiles from Russia.
1
@SpartacusNJ, The heavily armored knights of the French foundered in the mud of Agincourt. They were sitting ducks for the archers.
What's the sense, point, or purpose of contesting Chinese control over the sea lanes? The only cargo being transported anywhere is stuff coming out of Chinese factories, and the only place it's going is the shelves at Walmart or in Amazon warehouses etc etc. It has been decades since Americans had a stake in this sort of thing. When the Chinese send the US Navy to the bottom of the ocean and force their terms on the US, we'll be paid the same miserable wages as we're paid now, we'd still be unable to afford an education, we'll still be without health care, etc etc etc, so... we could not care less who "rules the seas".... If it's that important, let Walmart build a battle fleet to take on China...
19
I guess the $900 dollar toilet seats and the 500 year supply of spare parts for soon to be obsolete jets is beginning to pay off.
6
@Dave: the best thing that can happen with weapons is further expense to dispose of them safely.
If conflict breaks out between the U.S. and China, it will be a conflict the U.S. and its allies must win, whatever the cost.
A new world order presided over by a militarily unchallengeable and technologically dominant one-party state that by its conduct has already given abundant proof of its contempt for the very concept of rule of law will plunge the world into a dark age that hitherto has been the stuff of dystopian fiction.
The fight to prevent China's rise to world dominance must begin in earnest now, before it's too late. The need for co-operation by the leaders of the free world to achieve a common goal is more urgent than at any time since WWII.
4
@Paul Yeah, welllllllll, that cooperation by the leaders of the "free world" ain't gonna as long as the orangutan does everything he can to destroy our relationships with all of our allies. Who does he really work for? Putin or Xi?
1
The stakes just keep rising in the game of Risk, eh?
1
@Paul
A one party state similar to the one in Germany that also believes itself to be the master race. Witness the subjugation of peoples of different ethnicities in “autonomous” regions
The buildup of Chinese naval forces has been accomplished by the dominance of China in producing cheap goods that the rest of the world wants and buys. Every dollar spent at Walmart contributes to this military buildup.
62
Logically, it then follows that China plans not to fight us but to continue to profit from us by profiting WITH us.
The Chinese have had thousands of years to learn that good and successful governance is not a zero sum game.
If only our leadership were as wise.
7
@D.A.Oh, generally speaking, the mandarinate maintained its credibility by giving a convincing rationale to the public that its policy was the best available option.
1
@Alan from Humboldt County - Cheap goods? How about those Apple iPhones?
2
This is a big problem. The advantages of missile warfare against the kind of man piloted aircraft warfare that is the basis of aircraft carrier warfare that has been the center of naval power since the middle of the last century is fundamental. Missiles can traverse great distances quickly and be launched in great numbers and strike at great speeds, and controlled electronically from great distances. We are going to have to expend a lot of resources to counter this threat. From where are we going to get those resources?
4
I foresaw this 20 years ago when the US and Europe were happily transferring their manufacturing and technology to China. But who am I?
46
Xi Jinping has proven to be a very astute leader. China has taken a very calculated, methodical approach to their military buildup, and in many ways they are America's equal in the region they care about.
China doesn't want a two-ocean navy. They don't care about having ships roam the Atlantic ocean, or want the ability to attack the U.S. mainland. That was never their goal.
China does care about intimidating Taiwan, and to a lesser extent, Japan, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia. They want to dominate the South China Sea, and they now do. With ballistic and supersonic anti-ship missiles, they could repel the United States Navy if necessary.
However, their own tactics could be used against them. The United States is developing stealth anti-ship missiles, as well as hypersonic weapons. American submarines would also be able to strike Chinese naval ships without fear of ballistic missiles.
The artificial islands in the South China Sea are great for intimidating the Philippines or Vietnam, but might as well be giant bullseyes for the Americans.
They can deny us passage. We can take them out at will. So it is basically a stalemate. Which was probably their goal in the first place. What the U.S. needs is strong relationships with Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. to counter Chinese aggression in the region.
58
@Steve Acho
The best thing the US could do is place Marines and warships in Taiwan. The ROC is the true China, not the communist.
2
Well, we could also benefit from a strong relationship with China, our largest trading partner.
It is not a zero sum game. Trump needs to go.
6
@Steve Acho
If U.S. attacks islands in SCS, then China responds with destroy of U.S. bases in Korea, Japan and Quam. Then
what comes after?
Our military spending is four times larger than that of China. Where has our tax dollars go? Probably more new weapons and military exercises that were unsaid in this report. So don't use "China threat" as an excuse to raise military spending again. Now the sixth force in space will further increase our spending and national debt. Why can't we use our soft power to bring China into our arms. That will be much cheaper and easier to do.
7
Why are we so concerned about maintaining the balance of military power in the South China Sea along with the huge economic costs that go along with it? It was only a matter of time before China would redirect the billions of dollars in surplus it acquired each year towards becoming the Asian superpower. Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia and India should be more concerned about Chinese influence in their region. If they are not willing to establish alliances and spend the money necessary to maintain the balance in their own region why should the U.S. taxpayer pick it up. Instead, let's focus on maintaining the economic balance of power. Didn't the war in Vietnam teach us anything?
15
@BilllZord If the VietNam War taught us anything we never would have gone into Iraq. We have learned nothing from history and are therefore continually forced to re-live history.
13
@BilllZord
" Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia and India should be more concerned about Chinese influence in their region. "
Why?
For most of us , they are our main trading partner and are helping to make us richer.
Except for limited border incursions with Vietnam they have never invaded, attacked or shown the least amount of hostility or malevolent intent to hurt, harm or hinder us.
I'm sure America will maintain enough concern for everybody else as it does whether we have it or not.
China has been the Asian Superpower for years and would remain as such even if its navy was a single Dinghy! Its market size, population, economic importance and the growing wealth of its people make it a Superpower alone.
2
Ever since the end of WW2, the U.S. has relied for its dominance of the seas on a lack of competition, more than on inherent superiority. China's growing wealth and ambition have now rendered that approach obsolete. Out-building China's Navy is no longer an option, and the asymmetry in economic power that enabled Reagan to effectively bankrupt the Soviet Union is not available against China.
We need technical solutions, most urgently to the challenge posed by "carrier killer" missiles. Losing ships that require a decade of construction and cost $15 billion to replace is a price that China knows we will not pay, for any cause short of self-preservation. This hard truth hamstrings the U.S. response to Chinese aggression. Without a credible deterrent, we can only stand by and make diplomatic noises, while they execute their plans to own and control the South China Sea.
Or, perhaps, we should simply adapt to the new balance of power, with China being an equal on the world stage. Europe has shown us an alternative approach to lasting peace: the more completely our economies are interdependent, the more costly it becomes to engage in anything but diplomacy. Before that can happen, we need to elect a President with the necessary intelligence and ability.
89
@James Demers Right on every point!!!!!!
4
This article is a great example of how the press falls for military propaganda designed to promote their own interests.
The Chinese navy is no match for the US navy and will not be in the lifetime of any adult living today. The idea that China can rival the US as a blue water navy is farcical, and the Chinese know it. While advances in area access denial will make it difficult for the US navy to operate near the coast of China, these capabilities have nothing to do with Chinese naval forces, but are solely the result of land-based missile system. In a war, the US navy would rapidly destroy the Chinese navy.
As always, howver, the US military establishment has found a bogeyman with which to scare Congress into more funding, and in this case it is the burgeoning Chinese "carrier force." It consists of two carriers, both of which are already obsolete. Neither is equipped with catapults, reducing the payloads of their aircraft to virtual uselessness in a modern combat environment. Furthermore, the US has 11 carriers and 8 Tarawa and America class amphibious assault ships whose air complement and warfare capacity is superior to either of the Chinese vessels.
But our admirals and generals want more, and the press is happy to spread the word.
29
Capital ships are finished. They won't be attacked by one missile at a time. A dozen or two will swarm in from all different directions supersonically to strike simultaneously.
The next world war the US gets involved in will begin with another Pearl Harbor.
9
@Steve Bolger
And the next world war will finally be the last.
3
It's interesting that China's defense budget comprises about a third of the U.S. defense budget; a major part of the difference surely is payroll and military/veteran benefits. In a different vein, the U.S. has a presence worldwide; China's has been (until fairly recently) limited to its own region of the world. But its navy is patrolling in the Indian Ocean, partly to guarantee oil supplies through the Strait of Malacca, partly to fight pirates off the Somali coast, and partly to mitigate U.S. Navy dominance there. Or maybe to induce the U.S. to reduce its presence in the East Pacific.
2
The Liaoning reminds me of the Yamato, the largest battleship ever built and the pride of the Imperial Japanese Navy. As with the Yamato, the Liaoning has a huge bulls-eye painted on it. Thirty minutes after the commencement of any hostilities, the Liaoning and it’s crew will join the Yamato in Davy Jones Locker.
As for China’s vaunted “asymmetrical weaponry to blunt America’s advantages”, those remain highly theoretical and will likely prove to be as effective as the Maginot Line, whose strength relied on the enemy’s acting predictably.
The Chinese military has an unbroken string of brilliant victories against its own, unarmed civilians, but it has not faced an armed adversary since it invaded Vietnam in 1978. As we all know, in that three month conflict against militia, the PLA lost more men than the US did in ten years in Vietnam. China’s neighbors are probably better prepared now.
22
@NorthernVirginia the better analogy is that the newest U.S. carrier Gerald Ford is like Yamato.
10
@biolook
Hmm. Not really:
China’s 1st home-made carrier a minnow versus USS Ford
http://www.atimes.com/article/chinas-1st-home-made-carrier-a-minnow-vers...
So how has China been able to build all these ships and missiles?Through their massive trade throughout the world.China will continue to grow their military and build their weapons as long as they have a steady flow of money.If this flow was cut back drastically then China would not have the monies to build its war machine.No money means they will not be able to purchase items to manufacture ships and missiles.Simple answer to a serious problem.
11
China, from the time of Mao's "Long March" has followed the rules of a favorite game there. It doesn't follow the western models of win/lose, its objective is to dominate the board. Domination doesn't mean obliterate opponents, it means being of such a presence that opponents must do as the stronger power insists. The long game, as with Formosa and Hong Kong allows the main player to keep applying pressure without direct military action, as that is the last option, but seen by opponents as an option to be reckoned with.
13
The day will come when the rest of the world will pine for the gentle hegemony of the US as it suffers under the boot of China.
44
@Jon FGentle hegemony? Is that what Afganistan, iraq, Libya and Syria was?
9
Great. Another excuse to increase the defense budget while ignoring (or diminishing even further) our infrastructure, education and health needs.
172
@B.R. Ultimate that is the name of the game and what it's all about. If China or anyone else puts a musket on a fishing boat, the war hawks wants to build 10 fleet carriers and accompanying battle group to counter it. I'm surprised the author didn't call for the building of 100 new ICBM for every new fishing boat armed with a musket.
It's simply good business for America's war industry and for America's generals at the expense of infrastructure, education, health care and everything else you mentioned.
There's an old adage that says if you don't have real enemy, invent one. And boy are we working hard to invent one to justify spending over $600 billion dollars a year on the military and let everything else in America rot.
11
@B.R.
The amazing thing is that we can actually do both. Have a strong defense and spend domestically. We just have to stop the idiotic tax cuts geared to the already filthy rich.
5
@Concernicus You and I know that, AND the GOP knows that but they are in the pocket of those filthy rich.
3
Can we finally accept that we cannot control the world. 120 years ago the US was a rising power and Britain had to learn that it would have to work with the US. We don't have to work with China nor are we obliged to work against them. Be we cannot control all possible threats. So time to accept the growth of China which we partly paid for with trade. We shouldn't ever believe them regarding intentions, but complaining that we ought to spend even more money on guns is outright ridiculous.
153
120 years ago, Britain and the US -- among others -- used their naval power to extract as much wealth as they could from China.
In the following century of misery, the Qing collapsed and the communists rose to power.
China knows where it belongs and has clawed its way back to prominence.
What have we learned?
7
@Terry McKenna Beg pardon, it was never about controlling the world, just the resources necessary to prosecute and win wars. And when the time comes to defend the ROC, Taiwan, we need to do what has to be done to win. But as you may have read in earlier posts, the real war is being waged in our minds. In the PRC this war is intensified by far greater stresses than what we feel here. Aside from controlling war making materiel it is the duty of the USA to uphold, defend, and spread democracy to any people who desire it. Personally, I feel this goal may be obtained by granting citizenship to any individual who can pass the exam and be vetted. If enough people in a sovereign nation want US citizenship, that State becomes a US State.
1
We are obliged to work with or against China if they enforce their Nine Dash Line, threatening the coasts and ports of our allies and choking off our Pacific shipping routes.
While mounting risk of military conflict on the seas is obviously concerning, I'm starting to suspect that the new battleground between Superpowers is the mind of its citizens. The new weapons of relevance are those which allow for the manipulation of media and information, leading to political rot from the inside.
We can build as many aircraft carriers as we want; but as long as we allow Superpowers to toy with our democracy and score victories from the inside, we won't stand a chance.
205
Point we’ll taken Brian. We seem prone to acquire this infection and have little experience and no antibodies to fight it off.
Only our independent cognitive abilities have a chance at organizing an immune response.
Sounds like a screenplay. Go for it.
2
Maybe instead of a "space force" which really isn't needed, we ought to channel our military resources into the Pacific Fleet / theater; not just in ships, but in terms of Air Force as well.
At the rate things are progressing, it's a matter of time before Taiwan becomes part of the People's Republic of China.
I just wanted to add one more thing:
This is an example of short-sighted policies destroying the long-term. Starting with Nixon's visit to China in 1972, the US has gradually been engaging with China not just diplomatically, but economically. 40 years ago, we were complaining about "Made in Japan". Now, it's all "Made in China". Why? Because US foreign policy, goaded by business hungry for new markets, channeled our money and jobs overseas.
What did our leadership during those 4 decades think was going to happen? China, a country four times our size in population and slightly larger than the US in area, has been using our money and technology to become the adversarial power that it is. During that time, instead of our money remaining at home or with allied democratic countries, that money is arming a potential enemy. We wasted 4 decades of time and money on a strategic foreign policy that simultaneously weakened our country and strengthened its enemies.
The People's Navy, paid for by the United States.
Kids: Learn Mandarin.
121
@VJR My kids did learn Mandarin- 谢谢! A couple of clarifications: one, Taiwan was a done deal from China’s perspective from day one. We knew that then and we know that now. Two, China was going to become powerful whether we liked it or not. And military power did not and will not change that. It’s called the South *China* Sea and it is very far away from the US. Our only hope was the last administration’s Pivot to Asia as to be backboned by the TPP, a strategic foreign strategy to align the less powerful Asian countries in a trade framework with the US as final arbiter. But we punted it away. It is gone. It is deceased. It is no more. It has gone to meet its maker. It is an ex-TPP.
No, the waste has been the investment in rusting steel tubs and gunpowder- a welfare system for Amurca’s security elite. The flags they wave are made in China and if waving them distracts God fearing Christian patriots, how much to the better.
8
@VJR
This didn't happen because American leadership was so benevolent and/or innocent - but because the executives of American Corporations were greedy, short-sighted and singularly focused on profit, and American "leadership" is so easily bought.
I'm not sure anything is changing...
12
@VJR
You must admit, though, that from the US perspective, things have been pretty peaceful overall in the Pacific region for those same 40 years.
3
It didn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the downsizing of the US navy by recent US presidents was not a good idea. A version of robbing Peter to pay Paul in our budget process. Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that as we withdraw into an isolationist posture China and Russian influence will flow in like water to fill the vacuum. By downsizing non-nuclear military capabilities, we increasingly rely on a simile dangerous weapons.
6
@Harriet Katz, all this driverless car stuff is spinout from driverless missile development.
6
One must be careful with the "383" ships number that has been cited. At least half of these "ships" may be smaller, coastal type vessels that can hardly stay out overnight. It may also include the Chinese Navy's absorption of their erstwhile coast guard ships, which have practically no combat capability. When I count the number of Chinese navy "major combatants" (including submarines) that the Congressional Research Service periodically reports, I have persistently gotten up to only around 180 vessels. That's well short of the U.S.'s 272.
91
@H Gaffney
I couldn't agree more with your post. To put things into perspective the US has 11 Carrier Strike Groups and 9 Amphibious Ready Groups that are currently operational.
Just one CSG has more air power than most countries are able to launch. China may have improved their capabilities but lets not kid ourselves.
10
@H Gaffney- sorry. That’s not the right way to see it. We have built for an outmoded view of world dominance everywhere, while China has built with regional strategic dominance. Far better to look at what ships we have permanently on station in the Northern Pacific Theatre- which is far less than what we have.
You fight wars (and naval engagements) based on the power at hand. Ships in the Mediterranean are useless in a China engagement. We also build for the carrier group concept, which has its strengths - but weaknesses too. Most large world navies have moved away from carrier groups, as they are mind blowing to build and then maintain. We need to build with smaller flotillas, tactical attack forces, and mass ship killing and neutralization in mind, with more attack subs.
Our two endless campaigns in the Mideast didn’t help either. Wars are meant to be fought and won, not fought endlessly, even if on a reduced scale. We have to stop think about nation building, and world dominance, and start building for the realities of the 21st century - which means China, China, and more China...
7
@H Gaffney
Your right, numbers are a chimera here. Significant difference in abilities and size.
The articles main point and real significance is the ability to attack and repel american carriers abd aur power. Asymetrical defenses. That is the real issue, if you can destroy a 15 billion dollar carrier and its planes with a dozen 1 million dollar mobile missile launchers this becomes a conundrum.
The articles title pretends the numbers are real, the article itself is more realistic pointing at the Chinese asymetrical defensive measures. This is the real debate, spending billions on a technology that can be threatened in the millions?
3
Did Bilbo Baggins teach us nothing?
Don’t poke the dragon.
37
@ubique
The PRC is not the dragon she thinks she is. Not yet. I have seen the writing, however and the pattern fits other disturbing periods in the past. I think there is a silent consensus in ASEAN that the PRC must be subdued, but not destroyed. A boycott of Chinese products should become a a grassroots practice, which will encourage less investment in PRC instruments and that means less capital for SOEs and predatory loans for their One Debt One Road, I mean One Belt One Road project. This will also hopefully cause more capital flight from the mainland and hopefully more emigration. The less population the mainland has the greater the pressure will be for it to take in more and more diverse refugees, diluting Party solidarity and forcing more expenditure on cultural conditioning. American people need to be united when the time comes to defend Taiwan. The USA and our Allies must be committed to destroying the PRC Navy and its corsair fishing boat fleets. The illegal build up in the SCS is a matter for ASEAN and probably the UN.
2
Why China’s navy buildup would this be a surprise to anyone in this country is beyond me. What did we think that China was going to do with all the money we were sending over there? Give it to their people? Really?
We do have a very strong weapon against China and that’s our trade imbalance. I don’t want to be confused with an advocate of Trump economics, but we got ourselves into this mess by chasing big profits based on low cost products from China and are still doing so. Maybe it’s time for our manufacturing giants to find another source for our product and restart our industries to do this domestically again. We tend to forget that the strength of this nation came from what we produced not from what we purchased.
China’s new navy is a wakeup call. If we want to continue to be a great nation we must rely on ourselves not countries that can produce low cost products at the expense of the abuse of their workers.
163
@VMG
You can't have it both ways. American corporations actively sought to place their factories in China to take advantage of much lower production costs and "abuse" Chinese workers for greater profits for American Corporations and stockholders.
10
@VMG
You are preaching to the choir. Try taking that message to the billionaires and investor class. They consider themselves citizens of the world who just happen to have six or eight mansions and a corporate HQ here in the USA.
Rely on the American worker? You must be mad! That would cost too much. They place profit before country.
6
@VMG.
I understand your point of view. It seems to be shared by many people in our forgotten middle and working classes.
But the strength of a country in any sustained military, and I would include economic, engagement depends on its underlying economic strength.
Unfortunately, we have an interconnected world, and participating in international trade is essential for our competitiveness. It also ensures productive engagement with our friends and allies, all of whom we'll need to prevail.
I understand the sentiment, but isolationism will decrease our strength and influence. Instead, we should use some of the fruits of global trade and ample corporate profits to improve life for the 90% of Americans left behind since the 1980's.