The United States, a regional hegemon, is seeking to prevent the rise of a peer competitor. It’s Realpolitik.
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
The Chinese have always played their cards close to the vest and we really never know what they’re holding. Supposedly their Navy strength will soon surpass ours if it hasn’t already.
About those jets… if you’re going to provoke those rice paddy-wading smog-choking zipper heads, go with a B-52.
Rob[/quote]
Your assessment of Chinese naval strength is off. Way off. America’s navy is vastly superior to those of its peers.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
The Chinese have always played their cards close to the vest and we really never know what they’re holding. Supposedly their Navy strength will soon surpass ours if it hasn’t already.
About those jets… if you’re going to provoke those rice paddy-wading smog-choking zipper heads, go with a B-52.
Rob[/quote]
Your assessment of Chinese naval strength is off. Way off. America’s navy is vastly superior to those of its peers.[/quote]
Naval strength yes. The United States still rules the waves. As for air power…the Chinese Air Force has a great numerical superiority. Certainly they don’t have the technical advancements that we do on say our F35s or stealth fighters, but technical superiority counts for only so much when you are fighting a cloud of aircraft near their home country, and you are far from yours.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
The Chinese have always played their cards close to the vest and we really never know what they’re holding. Supposedly their Navy strength will soon surpass ours if it hasn’t already.
About those jets… if you’re going to provoke those rice paddy-wading smog-choking zipper heads, go with a B-52.
Rob[/quote]
Your assessment of Chinese naval strength is off. Way off. America’s navy is vastly superior to those of its peers.[/quote]
Naval strength yes. The United States still rules the waves. As for air power…the Chinese Air Force has a great numerical superiority. Certainly they don’t have the technical advancements that we do on say our F35s or stealth fighters, but technical superiority counts for only so much when you are fighting a cloud of aircraft near their home country, and you are far from yours. [/quote]
Absolutely. Travel across vast bodies of water stymies force projection. Are you familiar with Mearsheimer’s theory of the stopping power of water? I am inclined to agree with his assessment.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
The Chinese have always played their cards close to the vest and we really never know what they’re holding. Supposedly their Navy strength will soon surpass ours if it hasn’t already.
About those jets… if you’re going to provoke those rice paddy-wading smog-choking zipper heads, go with a B-52.
Rob[/quote]
Your assessment of Chinese naval strength is off. Way off. America’s navy is vastly superior to those of its peers.[/quote]
Naval strength yes. The United States still rules the waves. As for air power…the Chinese Air Force has a great numerical superiority. Certainly they don’t have the technical advancements that we do on say our F35s or stealth fighters, but technical superiority counts for only so much when you are fighting a cloud of aircraft near their home country, and you are far from yours. [/quote]
Absolutely. Travel across vast bodies of water stymies force projection. Are you familiar with Mearsheimer’s theory of the stopping power of water? I am inclined to agree with his assessment. [/quote]
Yes, and I have detected a strong leaning in your other posts toward Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. The United States is unique in being the only continental empire with command of two oceans, and this more than anything has contributed to its having been able to develop into a superpower relatively unscathed by global wars: it simply costs too much to launch an attack on the North American continent from East Asia or Europe. Japan literally ran out of gas before it could reach the West Coast, so a limited attack on an outlying naval base on a territorial possession was the best they could muster. A 1941 Japanese navy equipped with nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers capable of reaching San Diego would have caused the Pacific war to go very differently than it did.
But the ultimate end of acquiring power is power itself, and China clearly sees itself as the rightful hegemon of East Asia. Whether the United States is willing, or indeed able, to credibly challenge the Chinese bid for hegemony, while simultaneously trying to remain a relevant force in North Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East, is the big question. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Incidentally, Bismark, I will recommend to you a book that I recommend to everyone on this site with an interest in theories of history and military expansion: it is Dr Paul Colinvaux’s The Fates of Nations: A Biological Theory of History. It’s been out of print for some time, but is still available on Amazon.
Colinvaux looks at the rise and fall of the great empires as a function of our species’ never-ending quest to carve out more and better ecological niche-space for its members, and postulates that all history is a direct result of ever-increasing populations competing for a finite resources.
Colinvaux is a biologist, not a military theorist or historian, and his book should be read with this in mind. I gave a copy to my good friend Dr Skeptix, and he was a bit put off by some of the rather dated ideas (the book was written in 1984) and the odd geographical error (Phnom Penh was mentioned as being in Laos, if I recall correctly) but if you can get past that, I think you might find the book to be an interesting addition to your library.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
The Chinese have always played their cards close to the vest and we really never know what they’re holding. Supposedly their Navy strength will soon surpass ours if it hasn’t already.
About those jets… if you’re going to provoke those rice paddy-wading smog-choking zipper heads, go with a B-52.
Rob[/quote]
Your assessment of Chinese naval strength is off. Way off. America’s navy is vastly superior to those of its peers.[/quote]
Naval strength yes. The United States still rules the waves. As for air power…the Chinese Air Force has a great numerical superiority. Certainly they don’t have the technical advancements that we do on say our F35s or stealth fighters, but technical superiority counts for only so much when you are fighting a cloud of aircraft near their home country, and you are far from yours. [/quote]
Just to clarify, you were talking about Chinese air superiority on their home soil. The USAF has close to as much air combat aircraft as all other countries in the World combined.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, Bismark, I will recommend to you a book that I recommend to everyone on this site with an interest in theories of history and military expansion: it is Dr Paul Colinvaux’s The Fates of Nations: A Biological Theory of History. It’s been out of print for some time, but is still available on Amazon.
Colinvaux looks at the rise and fall of the great empires as a function of our species’ never-ending quest to carve out more and better ecological niche-space for its members, and postulates that all history is a direct result of ever-increasing populations competing for a finite resources.
Colinvaux is a biologist, not a military theorist or historian, and his book should be read with this in mind. I gave a copy to my good friend Dr Skeptix, and he was a bit put off by some of the rather dated ideas (the book was written in 1984) and the odd geographical error (Phnom Penh was mentioned as being in Laos, if I recall correctly) but if you can get past that, I think you might find the book to be an interesting addition to your library. [/quote]
Thanks for the recommendation. That sounds very interesting indeed. Friedrich Ratzel, the father of modern political geography, was a biologist by training himself before he made the transition to political geography.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
“Chinese flies jets into disputed defense zone”
People who doesn’t understand verbal agreement writes headline for CNN web article.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
“Chinese flies jets into disputed defense zone”
People who doesn’t understand verbal agreement writes headline for CNN web article. [/quote]
Huh?
Subjects and verbs must agree in number.
The word “Chinese” can be either singular or plural, so we determine the number of the subject by the verbal inflection.
How many Chinese? Just one? Then it should have been “Chinese flies jet…” But there were multiple jets, so that’s impossible.
More than one Chinese? Then it would be “Chinese fly jets”.
Best would have been “China flies jets…” No ambiguity.
But what should one expect from a copywriter named “Jethro”?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A 1941 Japanese navy equipped with nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers capable of reaching San Diego would have caused the Pacific war to go very differently than it did.
[/quote]
At the start of WWII Japan had 10 aircraft carriers which were the most sophisticated in the world and capable of reaching San Diego or anywhere else on the planet. However their strategic plan did not involve an attack on the US mainland. The US for all intents and purposes had no battle worthy modern carriers(mostly converted colliers and cruisers) and had to build them at break neck speed. For a short period after Pearl Harbor the US only had 2 operational carriers.
Obviously no one had nuclear subs in WWII however Japanese subs roamed the Pacific and Atlantic. They even shelled Sydney from a mini-sub.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Subjects and verbs must agree in number.
The word “Chinese” can be either singular or plural, so we determine the number of the subject by the verbal inflection.
How many Chinese? Just one? Then it should have been “Chinese flies jet…” But there were multiple jets, so that’s impossible.
More than one Chinese? Then it would be “Chinese fly jets”.
Best would have been “China flies jets…” No ambiguity. [/quote]
Ha! Grammar and writing is not a strong point for me, so I was looking at your post and thinking you must be drunk. Now that you brought that to my attention I see it.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Subjects and verbs must agree in number.
The word “Chinese” can be either singular or plural, so we determine the number of the subject by the verbal inflection.
How many Chinese? Just one? Then it should have been “Chinese flies jet…” But there were multiple jets, so that’s impossible.
More than one Chinese? Then it would be “Chinese fly jets”.
Best would have been “China flies jets…” No ambiguity. [/quote]
Ha! Grammar and writing is not a strong point for me, so I was looking at your post and thinking you must be drunk. Now that you brought that to my attention I see it.[/quote]
Ha! They edited the article. Used your recomendation
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Subjects and verbs must agree in number.
The word “Chinese” can be either singular or plural, so we determine the number of the subject by the verbal inflection.
How many Chinese? Just one? Then it should have been “Chinese flies jet…” But there were multiple jets, so that’s impossible.
More than one Chinese? Then it would be “Chinese fly jets”.
Best would have been “China flies jets…” No ambiguity. [/quote]
Ha! Grammar and writing is not a strong point for me, so I was looking at your post and thinking you must be drunk. Now that you brought that to my attention I see it.[/quote]
Ha! They edited the article. Used your recomendation
[/quote]
Who says I have no influence over the media?