They do not have old destroyers, but in fact, they are expanding their surface fleet as we speak, with ships equivalent to our Arleigh Burke class ships. They have bought the Russian Soveremmny class and are building their own: link No bombers, eh? That is not correct. If the Chicoms have no bombers, then what is this? That's an H-6 bomber, which can carry the Silkworm anti-ship missile. I've got more where this came from....
most of your post agrees with mine most of their bombers are pretty old, they got nothing compared to the US bombers. I know you may think that all other countries are enemies to the US, your whole black and white arguement, but all the stuff you have just given only shows that they are a growing military power but not even close to where the US is. If you think their army is anywhere near ours, it sounds more like you are only trying to provoke people to want to go to war, as a military person yourself, you know they are no where close, nor are they even preparing their military for a fight with the US.
But let's think about this for a second. Guess how many tactical fighter wings we have within realistic range of helping the Taiwanese if the Chinese launch a full-scale aerial assault. We have two fighter wings in Japan, but their time on station would be severely limited since the tanker support would require an escort of fighters also needing fuel. The Chicoms have over 500 tactical aircraft roughly equivalent to our top of the line F-15C air superiority fighters and F-15E Strike Eagle fighter/bombers not but a stone's throw away. Add their massive short-range ballistic missile arsenal plus cruise missiles and Taiwan is a disarmed state (despite their high-quality armed forces) before we can even lodge one protest. Buying destroyers with Mach 2.5 anti-ship missiles designed to kill aircraft carriers, fighter-bombers with precision weapons capability and increasing the number of tactical Scud-type ballistic missiles within a crow's flight of their renegade province are not the actions of a power that means us and our interests no harm. We have no way of threatening them in that area, so you can't blame "our evil military" for their buildup. They are up to something and have been for a loooooooooooooooong time. Their military is obviously preparing to confront us on the world stage. We need to make damned sure that they realize that it would be in their best national interests to not pull on Superman's cape.
I guess its a lot easier to label others as enemies instead of trying to understand them. Whatever makes you feel big.
From China's point of view, China wouldn't want to go to war, which only hurts her import/export oriented economy, for economy resource(oil) that can be substituted(with fusion, natural gas, LPG etc.). China has one of the richest reserves of natural gas that can be used to power automobiles and power plants, and one of the richest reserves of hydro-electricity in the world. To fight wars for oil would be like risking her life for steaks when there's other food lying around. Granted, China's current energy facilities can't keep up with China's energy needs, but the lack of it doesn't equate to the lack of energy resources. China also has rich reserve of oil in her south ocean. To suggest there's a possibility for China to fight a war over oil sounds far fetched.
Guess you didn't read a word I said, huh? They're spending untold billions of hard currency on Russian weapons and developing their own......to be our friends? Sure.....right, okay.
You are blowing China's military buildup in order to maintain leverage in her domestic territorial problem way out of proportion. China doesn't even wanna fight a war against Taiwan because she doesn't need to and a war works against her priority in developing her economy, unless some Taiwanese want to pull a stunt first. China's army upgrade is intended to maintain her leverage in a specific potential regional conflict, and as deterrants to challenges against her territorial rights, not to actually fight a war. Heck, Taiwan spent dozens of billion of dollars buying weapons from all over the world. You are just hyping up China as a phantom threat. What you are saying is in coincidence of what the arms dealers and war service companies want to hear. They have made a forutne by making a phantom threat out of Iraq and they sure wouldn't mind making another bundle by making a phantom threat out of another country. Oh wait a minute, didn't you make a phantom threat ouf Iraq before?
Several points: 1. I don't think you purchase the sort of weapons they have for "leverage in a domestic territorial problem." Sound like SU-30 fighter bombers, cruise missiles, new super-silent subs and that sort of equipment can be used for a mere "domestic territorial problem?" Sure.....right. 2. You state that China does not want a war with Taiwan. But why is that their language toward what they consider a "renegade province" so bellicose and why do they continually threaten to invade if they declare independence? Is that just tough talk or a real threat? It is better for U.S. national interests and the Taiwanese people to take that threat seriously. 3. Taiwan has no offensive capability. All of her weapons are designed to defend against a massive air and sea assault by the PLA. I'd spend billions on new weapons too if I had a nation 100 miles off my coast with a massive military that told me that if I so much as think about independence, they will invade. 4. Lastly, in defense policy, it is far better to be safe than sorry. You build your military to the point where no one is foolhardy enough to risk a war, a war that they'd lose badly. And if they are, you clean their clocks so badly they can only sue for peace. China is a legitimate threat to our vital interests and we must maintain a sharp eye on their present buildup. Bury your head in the sand all you want, but when the proverbial stuff hits the fan, you heard it here first. Chinese Navy Prepares to Invade Taiwan Charles R. Smith Monday, July 9, 2001 The Chinese navy is designed not to win at sea but to enable the army to take Taiwan. The navy is intended to neutralize a U.S. fleet deployed in distant waters, while supporting a PLA war on Asian soil. "All they have to do is go 100 miles, not 10,000 miles," stated one intelligence official who asked not to be identified. In support of the land-based strategy, the People's Liberation Army navy recently acquired two Russian-made Soveremenny Destroyers armed with nuclear-tipped SS-N-22 Sunburn cruise missiles. In addition, China has added two newly built Luhu and two Luhai destroyers, armed with C-801 cruise missiles. However, U.S. intelligence officials all agree that the future Chinese threat will come from under the sea. In May, a PLA navy Ming-class attack submarine conducted secret underwater operations for more than a month without being detected by U.S. forces. The Ming submarine left the port of Qingdao on the Yellow Sea, opposite South Korea, and was observed by satellite returning 31 days later. The diesel-electric Ming-class boat is equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles and can lay advanced torpedo homing mines. Chinese Subs Threaten U.S. More disturbing is the fact that the Ming-class subs will soon be replaced by a new generation of Chinese nuclear attack submarines designated Type 093. Chinese Type 093 atomic subs could easily prowl off the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts of the United States. Intelligence officials confirmed the first Type 093 nuclear attack submarine becomes operational in 2002. "Looks like the [Type] 093 is an 02 operation," stated the intelligence official. "The [Type] 094 might be an 04 job." "The 093 will be a potent attack sub," noted the Pentagon source. "Armed with LACMs [Land Attack Cruise Missiles], the 093 will also be capable of limited power projection." The Chinese navy is also building a new class of Type 094 ballistic-missile submarines. These much larger submarines are similar to the Russian Delta-class missile boats that patrolled off the U.S. coasts during the Cold War. Each Type 094 is armed with 16 long-range DF-31 missiles, capable of showering any city inside the United States with nuclear bombs. "They will be potent platforms when they emerge," asserted the Pentagon source. "The 094 SSBNs will likely be designed to operate from the Yellow Sea area, which will force the PLAN to focus on the surface ships and aircraft to defend a 'Bastion' in the Soviet sense as developed by the late Admiral Sergei Gorshkov." Chinese Navy Inc. The Chinese military is not the only seaborne force being upgraded by Beijing. China is also seeking to dominate the commercial waves globally. China has nearly 20 percent of all export orders for new ships. By 2010, China State Shipbuilding Co., or CSSC, will triple yard output and claim more than 50 percent of global ship commercial construction orders. Yet the Chinese navy owns and operates CSSC. There is no question that Western technical and financing assistance given to CSSC commercial yards directly improved Chinese warship production. Since 1990, 10 of China's largest yards have acquired Western computer-aided design and manufacture software. CSSC is using Western-built "TRIBON" software to design and produce warships. Since 1990, CSSC has introduced a whole new generation of capable Chinese warships including the Luhu- and Luhai-class destroyers. CSSC reports to directly to the PLA unit known as COSTIND or the Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. It is worth noting that in 2000, COSTIND declared shipbuilding a "strategic industry." COSTIND acquired advanced technology from Europe for the PLA navy such as French anti-aircraft systems and German engines for warships. In fact, German-designed diesel MTU-EV493 engines power all PLA navy Song-class submarines. The engines are being built and installed on the advanced Chinese submarines without license by CSSC. Advanced U.S. Ship Technology COSTIND intelligence operations during the 1990s also included access to advanced ship technology from the United States. According to 1995 Chinese military documents, signed by COSTIND commanding Gen. Ding Henggao, China sought to import a vast array of amphibious U.S. ship building technology. The documents were obtained by federal court order from the U.S. Commerce Department. The PLA documents were distributed through Ding's personal contact inside the Clinton White House then-Defense Secretary William Perry. According to the COSTIND documents, China wanted to buy a "large scale ocean air cushion vessel with side walls in sea (about 400 passengers)", a "large-scale ocean hydrofoil boat with twin-hull and surfing boat (with about 300 passengers)" and a "aerofoil boat and ram wing boat." It is obvious that China's planned attack on Taiwan requires amphibious assault vehicles. U.S. defense analysts are alarmed because the PLA navy is now producing large numbers of amphibious carrier ships very similar to U.S Navy's LCAC air-cushion ship. In 1998, COSTIND and CSSC engineers worked successfully with Moscow on advanced air cushion technology for the Chinese navy. COSTIND signed a $4 billion deal with Russia to produce 100 high-speed amphibious ships annually from Chinese shipyards. One such Chinese navy air-cushion landing-ship now in production is called the "Swan." Chinese Aircraft Carrier U.S. defense officials assert the Chinese navy resembles the 1941 German Kreigsmarine, relying on fast, heavily armed, surface raiders and attack submarines. It does not have to win to be victorious. However, to invade Taiwan and beat the United States the Chinese navy will have to fight at sea. Will it become a true blue-water fleet? "They have no need for a blue-water surface fleet for years," noted the intelligence official. "The PLA could indeed build a blue water fleet, but do they want that now, and do they want it enough to spend the money," stated another defense source. "My guess is that after Taiwan is consumed, then they will spend the money for a blue water fleet. Still, it may not resemble a U.S. fleet, but perhaps more of a late Soviet fleet, with aircraft carriers designed to support submarines as the main strike force." Is China capable of building an aircraft carrier? Defense and intelligence analysts agree that China can build a medium-sized aircraft carrier similar to the Russian Kuznetsov. Such a carrier would be equipped with a naval version of the SU-27 Flanker strike fighters and helicopter anti-submarine units. "There are rumors that a carrier designed by the Russkies is being built in China, but I emphasize 'rumors'," stated the intelligence official. "Sure, they could build one, but the question is whether they have the real need for one and are ready to commit the resources necessary for the task?" asked the Pentagon source. "For these questions the answers are unclear. But we know they have been studying the carrier, both to attack and to build, for decades. The PLAN wants carriers and their attendant escorts. But for the Taiwan war, the PLA's first priority, they do not need a carrier. Fujian Province is enough of an aircraft and missile carrier." link
Like I said, Taiwan spent dozens of billions of money on their weapons. Including the most advanced French made stealth destoyers(or cruiser?), and quality American weapons such as F-16s. Taiwan has been developing ground missiles to hit Chinese cities in case of armed conflict. Actually, you mentioned that Taiwan has a high quality armed force. The world, including the U.S acknowledge Taiwan as part of China, therefore, China has the right to defend herself with force when she is to be dismembered by pockets of renegades. China's stance is completely passive, what she will do depends on what the Taiwan seperatists do. The U.S. desires no unilateral action from either side to change the status quo, and without China's military presence, the Taiwan separatists will enforce unilateral actions. Therefore, it's better for the U.S interests, the pro-unification Taiwanese and the interests of 1.3 Chinese, the interests of world economy for China to keep pockets of renegades in check with her regional military prowess. Not so, many Taiwan civilians love China and wish to go back. Many Taiwanese civilians, even some of those pro-independence, don't want their money being sucked out by the Taiwan seperatists in charge of the government now to buy overpriced weapons. The U.S. has already reached that point where there isn't a country that risks a war against her territory, but Taiwan isn't the U.S. territory. In fact, the U.S. acknowledges it belongs to China. China is a stablizing force in Asia right now. A stablized Asia works in the favor of the U.S.. China and the U.S. have many areas to work together in trades, terrorism, and regional matters such as NK. You can maintain a sharp eye on China's military buildup intended to protect her sovereignty, but to conclude that she is a threat merely based on her military growth is premature. There's military buildup in all other countries surrounding China. China's No.1 priority is to develop her economy, and that goal won't change in generations. Whether China becomes a threat depends on how many people like you who view her as an enemy, if all Americans treat her as an enemy, she will be. What does this article prove other than some Chinese military growth? Well, that's no news any more buddy. If the U.S. treat China as an enemy it will only spur her to accelerate her growth in military buildup. To adopt a friendly stance will let China do what she wants to, spend more money in the economy. There will always be efforts from the U.S. to keep her weaponry ahead of any other country. That I understand, but it's ill-minded to twist military competition into national rivalry. When there's no police around and your neighbor got a shotgun, you might want to get a machine gun, because you have to be your own police, but that neighbour isn't a threat unless he has the intention to be one. For if not then every American citizen that owns a gun would be a threat to other gun-free citizens.
China's current GDP is only about 1/4 of that of Japan's. It will take decades for China to catch up. Japan has more advanced weaponries than China. Japan has over 150 millions people crammed in a small island without natural resources. Japanese prime ministers, including the current one, have openly paid respect to the WWII war criminals that slaughtered Asians and Americans. Japanese are re-writing and glorifying their WWII history, amending her peace oriented constitution, developing stronger armies, and beginning to engage in military actions abraod. Given Japan's track record, I worry about Japan more than I do than about any other country.
Does anybody find it hilarious how Panda and Bamaslammer are both singing the exact same song, yet neither can hear the other?
Yes I love it. It's propaganda vs. propaganda. I'm really enjoying this. Maybe in 10 years both will somehow reread this thread and see the irony.
Y are people talking about a war between china and the US? there will never be a war between China and the USA . Do you idiots know how many people would die if such a war was to happen? sure USA will win but let just say your ass in texas and the whole west coast of the USA and 1 billion chinese would be blown to pieces. for the sake of humanity i hope that the future leaders of USA and China are not as stpuid as sum of you are. Nukes makes everything including the raptors the aircraft cariier tanks obsolete so its irrelevant to ccompare which country got better what.
China is wrong. China is not allowed to build up its aggressive military force. Only US is allowed to do that. Because we all know that US by default has a responsible aggressive military force which only attacks on the grounds of morality and not because of oil. All other countries are not good guys and are supposed to have "defensive" weapons only. Okay, whatever. Grow up. If they could, every other nation in the world WILL try to do what China or US is doing. It is human nature. Stop complaining. Oh, by the way, the classification of weapons as either "aggressive" or "defensive" is just bullsh*t. Anti-aircraft-carrier misiles are "aggressive"? China should not have them? What if an enemy's aircraft carrier parks 30km from China's beach? China must not attempt to attack the carrier, and is only allowed to intercept all the jets coming from the carrier. Let the jets come and throw bombs at China, but do not take out the carriers. You like that, don't you? China should start building bunkers (no pikes sticking out) as thick as Shaq's a** and then hope that future enemy's firepower doesn't penetrate? That's defensive. Anyone expecting any other nation to have only "defensive" weapons is naive. G.W. Bush Jr: "Preemptive strike!".
I don't know about Panda but I'm pretty sure bamaslammer's irony detector was the victim of an unintentional wardrobe malfunction at some point in the early 80's and hasn't recovered since....
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0129/p14s01-wogi.html Has global oil production peaked? By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Today's civilization depends on an abundant and relatively cheap supply of oil. It fuels most of our vehicles, aircraft, ships, and trains. It provides the raw material for fertilizer, some clothing fabrics, most plastics, and many chemicals. Oil heats many of our homes and businesses. So when experts discuss when oil production will begin to decline, the world pays heed. The question now making the rounds in energy circles: Has production already peaked? If it has - or if a peak lies only a few years away - the repercussions would be huge. It could intensify a scramble by oil importers to tie up existing reserves. Decline could lead to scarcity and higher prices, possibly recession, while prompting an urgent push to alternative fuels and conservation. For at least one analyst, the scenario has already begun to unfold. "World production is flat now," says Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University geology professor. But that's a controversial view. Other pessimists talk about 2010; many analysts see no change until 2035. Of course, various "experts" have been predicting the end of the oil age for more than 100 years. And even now, no one really knows how much oil is left in the ground. Estimates involve guesses of not only future oil finds but future world economic output and oil consumption. These numbers are typically highly imprecise. Even calculating current reserves is tricky. The Royal Dutch/Shell Group, one of the world's largest oil producers, shocked the financial community earlier this month when it announced it had overbooked its proven reserves by 20 percent - an indication of the fragility of such estimates. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) puts yearly world consumption of oil today at about 30 billion barrels. That comes out of known or proven world reserves of 1.1 trillion barrels, according to IHS Energy, an oil and gas information-gathering group in Tetbury, England. By adding in Canada's oil sands, the Oil and Gas Journal in Houston raises proven reserves to 1.266 trillion. "It is not an issue in which there are absolute answers," says Robert Tippee, editor of the Houston trade journal. Much depends on advancing technology and the economics of production, as well as how much oil the ground really holds . . . In any case, major oil importers aren't waiting around to find out who's right. The US, Japan, Europe, and China, are scrambling to tie down petroleum resources in the Caspian Sea region, Russia, West Africa, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Japan and China are competing for access to Russia's little-tapped Far East oil resources. China, which expects a quintupling of its oil needs by 2030, wants a new pipeline to go from Angarsk in Russia to inland Daqing in its northeastern industrial heartland. Japan proposes the pipeline go rather to Vostochny, on the shore near Vladivostok. One reason Japan is sending 500 soldiers to Iraq this month is to stabilize Middle Eastern oil, the source of 90 percent of Japan's oil, Japan's defense minister, Shigeru Ishiba, told the Financial Times last month. Pundits say the US has been especially interested in the recent election in Georgia to replace President Eduard Shevardnadze because that nation, though not having reserves itself, is the corridor for a $3 billion pipeline through which huge supplies in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan must pass through to reach the West. A Chinese oil firm last month embarked on its first international venture by buying a 50 percent stake in a Kazakhstan oil field. . . .
