Because when all that is in place, and it will be in place to support their first carrier, it will be quite easy (but costly) to simply make more carriers.
You're talking about the pinnacle of human science here. Under no stretch of the word is it "easy" to make a modern nuclear air craft carrier.
Remember, back in the day America only had one carrier. And people said the exact same things then : that it was an impotent gesture and ineffective in the light of the vast, overwhelming power of conventional battleship based fleets.
That was over 50 years ago. Things have changed.
Firstly, not all aircraft carries are nuclear powered, nor do they need to be. While it has significantly huge advantages in range and versatility, for the purposes of an advancing fleet, an expanding fleet for a nation such as China that has no need to project its military power around the world in that manner, a nuclear powered carrier is far beyond what they need or want. So when they fall short of that it is disingenuous to claim that is a failure.
Secondly, you are right. Things have changed. Which is specifically why China is investing in carriers. Furthermore I was responding to the assessment that one carrier alone was insufficient and ineffective, with a counterpoint that one carrier alone can be fairly seen as merely the beginning of a long term carrier based plan for naval expansion. Which is exactly what the US did in the beginning.
But let's not get hugely bogged down in the intricacies of carrier design and implementation. Few nations have carriers and one aircraft carrier alone is not a fighting force. However, it can be easily seen that this is just the first of many, and the roadmap for China's future military development.
So it is perfectly reasonable to apply the ramifications and changing attitudes of a carrier equipped Chinese navy to political views even though they only have one. If anything, a nation with only one carrier without the limitations on its use is more dangerous than the US with its dozen and stricter attitudes toward military application. In a sense, perhaps we should be more wary of the country that only wants one aircraft carrier than the one that builds ten.
So, is it too obvious to joke that this is just their training vessal and that they'll put the crews to real work when they call in some of that massive US debt to be paid off in the form of, say, an actual carrier fleet?
Emphasis on the word Joke, lest we get bogged down in 2 pages of debate over whether or not China could actually go Repo Man on some of the US's prized shit.
Edit: Though it'd probably make for a reasonably passable cartoon panel. The US stumbling out of the house, torn housecoat barely covering a bottle of whiskey while China loads up a carrier group onto the back of a truck.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
This. I'm actually hoping that China DOES get to the point where it can pose a credible military threat to the US, just so there will be some sort of check on US foreign policy.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
This. I'm actually hoping that China DOES get to the point where it can pose a credible military threat to the US, just so there will be some sort of check on US foreign policy.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
This. I'm actually hoping that China DOES get to the point where it can pose a credible military threat to the US, just so there will be some sort of check on US foreign policy.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
Go ask the North Vietnamese if they'd be better off if the US had been able to bomb them with impunity like we did in South Vietnam. Or ask the Indians how they felt about letting the British Empire have complete undisputed control over their country.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
Cold War.
For all the little brush fire wars, global conflicts were contained. A lot of global hotspots - and not so hotspots like Yugoslavia - didn't get nasty until after the Soviet Union fell.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
This. I'm actually hoping that China DOES get to the point where it can pose a credible military threat to the US, just so there will be some sort of check on US foreign policy.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
Go ask the North Vietnamese if they'd be better off if the US had been able to bomb them with impunity like we did in South Vietnam. Or ask the Indians how they felt about letting the British Empire have complete undisputed control over their country.
That's just a dodge. Ask Afghanistan how they felt about being the side for a proxy war.
More or less armies don't fix bad foreign policy. Good foreign policy fixes bad foreign policy.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
This. I'm actually hoping that China DOES get to the point where it can pose a credible military threat to the US, just so there will be some sort of check on US foreign policy.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
Go ask the North Vietnamese if they'd be better off if the US had been able to bomb them with impunity like we did in South Vietnam. Or ask the Indians how they felt about letting the British Empire have complete undisputed control over their country.
That's just a dodge. Ask Afghanistan how they felt about being the side for a proxy war.
More or less armies don't fix bad foreign policy. Good foreign policy fixes bad foreign policy.
When you ask "where in history has this ever happened" and I give you two examples, it's not really a dodge. But whatever.
The Afghanistan war was terrible, yes, but it's not clear that they'd be better off if the Russians had been completely unopposed there. That certainly didn't work out well for any of the USSR satellite states.
Ideally, the US would come to its senses and stop committing atrocities in its foreign policy. But realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, so having China to occasionally stop us is the best we're going to get.
When you ask "where in history has this ever happened" and I give you two examples, it's not really a dodge. But whatever.
I asked where 2 armies made something better and you gave me a list of an army beating on a weaker opponent. Do you think Vietnam would have been better with China going whole hog in there too?
Lets take a hypothetical. America invades North Korea. China gets involved on the other side. What happens? Depends on motivation. In the last korean war neither side cared enough to bother continuing, but you also risk escalation. Hell mcArthur wanted nukes.
The premise that a second large army in the world would cause peace is a strangely optimistic one. it carries just as much risk of escalation and the sort of confrontation that really stacks up the body count.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
No kidding. As far as undisputed world super powers go you could do a whole lot worse. Its also a lot easier for a government to behave better when it doesn't have the power to behave badly.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
Cold War.
For all the little brush fire wars, global conflicts were contained. A lot of global hotspots - and not so hotspots like Yugoslavia - didn't get nasty until after the Soviet Union fell.
Oh yeah, the Cold War was GREAT for all those proxy countries...
When you ask "where in history has this ever happened" and I give you two examples, it's not really a dodge. But whatever.
I asked where 2 armies made something better and you gave me a list of an army beating on a weaker opponent. Do you think Vietnam would have been better with China going whole hog in there too?
I'm not saying they made it better absolutely, but that they prevented it from being worse. Having the soviets (and to some extent China as well) support North Vietnam prevented the US from using the saturation bombing and chemical warfare there that we used in South Vietnam. As it was, it was bad, but without any sort of counterweight the American hegomony, it would have been even worse. Bad > worse.
Lets take a hypothetical. America invades North Korea. China gets involved on the other side. What happens? Depends on motivation. In the last korean war neither side cared enough to bother continuing, but you also risk escalation. Hell mcArthur wanted nukes.
This isn't a hypothetical at all, it's the entire reason why we never invaded North Korea during the 60's and 70's. The American generals aren't idiots, they knew that fighting against China there would be a bloodbath. The presence and support of the Chinese army prevented a war.
The premise that a second large army in the world would cause peace is a strangely optimistic one. it carries just as much risk of escalation and the sort of confrontation that really stacks up the body count.
There is definitely the risk of preventing small wars by risking a bigger one. But when you look at the history of warfare since the end of WW2... almost all the deaths have been from major powers fucking up 3rd world countries where they were unopposed. The number of deaths from wars between equal powers have been small in comparison.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
Cold War.
For all the little brush fire wars, global conflicts were contained. A lot of global hotspots - and not so hotspots like Yugoslavia - didn't get nasty until after the Soviet Union fell.
Oh yeah, the Cold War was GREAT for all those proxy countries...
Plus those proxy wars got us a lot of today's ills.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
I'd rather not have one single super-power that can do whatever the fuck it wants.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
I'd rather not have one single super-power that can do whatever the fuck it wants.
See I'd rather have ultimate military authority on the planet rest with a country that has a relatively healthy democracy rather than splitting it between a dictatorship and a democracy with economic and political stress thrown in the mix.
The best way to improve our foreign policy is to support the sort of changes we can via advocacy and voting, not to empower terrible governments.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
I'd rather not have one single super-power that can do whatever the fuck it wants.
Yes, we already know you, for some strange reason, love the proxy wars generated by multiple super-powers. I suppose it's easy to love them when you aren't one of the pawns.
But really, that's missing the point. Complaining about China doing what the US is doing is perfecty valid because:
1) it wasn't good when the US did it and we'd all rather no one else tried
2) I'd rather have the super-power that's proved itself less horrible then all the previous ones then a new one we already know does horrible shit
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
I'd rather not have one single super-power that can do whatever the fuck it wants.
The US isn't my ideal choice either but it is far, far superior to China. At least with China's current overall attitude and ability to do what it likes.
It's ironic in a sad kind of way that all the hand-wringing in the OP boils down to Americans wanting China to stop acting more American than America. Rapidly expanding military-industrial complex? Check. Exploitative neoliberal economic policies in Africa? Check. Addiction to nonrenewable fuels? Check. Too bad the OP didn't go for the hat trick and remind us about their corrupt, inhumane prison-industrial complex.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
I'd rather not have one single super-power that can do whatever the fuck it wants.
The US isn't my ideal choice either but it is far, far superior to China. At least with China's current overall attitude and ability to do what it likes.
Also that carrier is adorable.
I'm dreading the thought of the U.S. relaxing labor laws, including child labor laws, to compete with China. Ridiculous, I know, but I feel like American industries secretly crave such a scenario.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
Oh yeah, the Cold War was GREAT for all those proxy countries...
There has been an explosion of wars since the end of the Cold War, especially in those proxy countries. Cold War wasn't a good thing, but the aftermath has had a high cost.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
When you ask "where in history has this ever happened" and I give you two examples, it's not really a dodge. But whatever.
I asked where 2 armies made something better and you gave me a list of an army beating on a weaker opponent. Do you think Vietnam would have been better with China going whole hog in there too?
I'm not saying they made it better absolutely, but that they prevented it from being worse. Having the soviets (and to some extent China as well) support North Vietnam prevented the US from using the saturation bombing and chemical warfare there that we used in South Vietnam. As it was, it was bad, but without any sort of counterweight the American hegomony, it would have been even worse. Bad > worse.
Lets take a hypothetical. America invades North Korea. China gets involved on the other side. What happens? Depends on motivation. In the last korean war neither side cared enough to bother continuing, but you also risk escalation. Hell mcArthur wanted nukes.
This isn't a hypothetical at all, it's the entire reason why we never invaded North Korea during the 60's and 70's. The American generals aren't idiots, they knew that fighting against China there would be a bloodbath. The presence and support of the Chinese army prevented a war.
The premise that a second large army in the world would cause peace is a strangely optimistic one. it carries just as much risk of escalation and the sort of confrontation that really stacks up the body count.
There is definitely the risk of preventing small wars by risking a bigger one. But when you look at the history of warfare since the end of WW2... almost all the deaths have been from major powers fucking up 3rd world countries where they were unopposed. The number of deaths from wars between equal powers have been small in comparison.
1st, we didn't invade North Korea in the 60s and 70s cause we were already fighting in Vietnam.
I'd contend that both Vietnam and North Korea(Esp North Korea) would be better off now had the US won those wars in a quick and clean fashion. Unless you think Vietnam benefited immensely in the trade of a decade of sustain war, for their current communist utopia.
The reason win haven't had wars between the Large powers post WW2 is nukes, no some bizzaro counter balancing of global military power projection, by your logic we should have had a major-powers war by now since there's been no one to balance the US for 20 years. Except of course there isn't a major power for the US to fight now so....
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
Sorry Germany, your grandparents were in charge of the Holocaust. China can continue to send Han Chinese in to Tibet to eventually overtake the indigenous people there and none of you can say a thing.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
China is continuing to do many terrible things.
America is too
American didn't magically turn into the land of rainbows and unicorns as soon as the cold war ended. We've continued fucking shit up all around the world. So far about a million people have died since the Iraq war started, and there's no end in sight to that. I really don't understand why people think that the US is some sort of moral paragon, and that the rest of the world is better off just letting America rule it with supreme force.
American didn't magically turn into the land of rainbows and unicorns as soon as the cold war ended. We've continued fucking shit up all around the world. So far about a million people have died since the Iraq war started, and there's no end in sight to that. I really don't understand why people think that the US is some sort of moral paragon, and that the rest of the world is better off just letting America rule it with supreme force.
I don't think America is some sort of moral paragon. I specifically said it's not my ideal choice for a world super power. But to compare the stupid shit that America does with the actively evil shit China does is intellectually dishonest to say the least.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
China is continuing to do many terrible things.
America is too
American didn't magically turn into the land of rainbows and unicorns as soon as the cold war ended. We've continued fucking shit up all around the world. So far about a million people have died since the Iraq war started, and there's no end in sight to that. I really don't understand why people think that the US is some sort of moral paragon, and that the rest of the world is better off just letting America rule it with supreme force.
Yes that is kind of a given.
But this quote tree was based on internal conditions. America by and large has strong and intact human rights. So do most of the western European countries. China does not.
That's why I don't want china being a world military super power.
Also we didn't annex Iraq and then ship people over there to displace the locals.
Nor are tea partiers being send to iron mines in Manchuria.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
China is continuing to do many terrible things.
America is too
American didn't magically turn into the land of rainbows and unicorns as soon as the cold war ended. We've continued fucking shit up all around the world. So far about a million people have died since the Iraq war started, and there's no end in sight to that. I really don't understand why people think that the US is some sort of moral paragon, and that the rest of the world is better off just letting America rule it with supreme force.
Right but your contention is that somehow China gaining an equal ability to impose military might onto other countries will fix this. An idea that has 0 logical backing.
Oh yeah, the Cold War was GREAT for all those proxy countries...
There has been an explosion of wars since the end of the Cold War, especially in those proxy countries. Cold War wasn't a good thing, but the aftermath has had a high cost.
Well yes ... because we started all sorts of shit and armed and trained all these people during those proxy wars.
You act like the aftermath wasn't effected by the proxy wars or something.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
China is continuing to do many terrible things.
America is too
American didn't magically turn into the land of rainbows and unicorns as soon as the cold war ended. We've continued fucking shit up all around the world. So far about a million people have died since the Iraq war started, and there's no end in sight to that. I really don't understand why people think that the US is some sort of moral paragon, and that the rest of the world is better off just letting America rule it with supreme force.
Right but your contention is that somehow China gaining an equal ability to impose military might onto other countries will fix this. An idea that has 0 logical backing.
I never said it would fix it. I only said that it would be better than the alternative of just letting the US do whatever it wants. Which is what's happening now.
American democracy has always been hit and miss, widespread persecution of communists during the cold war, apparently america doesn't tolerate other viewpoints than their own. Imprisoned Japanese nationals during world war 2. Ignored a democratic election in Vietnam and opted to invade to avoid communist influence there, because again, if you're not with us you're against us.
And today there's widespread allegations of electoral fraud, abuse of power in Wisconsin and you have a very low election turnout not to mention voter disenfranchisement. Then there's the whole bit about internet regulation infringing on freedom of speech and propping up brutal dictators in the name of stability.
America is not a land of milk and honey, its an ugly beast with that just happens to look pretty from the outside.
You know if our second hypothetical super power was the UK or France or Germany, or even some sort of idealized EU I could get behind a balancing effect, but China?
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
China is continuing to do many terrible things.
America is too
American didn't magically turn into the land of rainbows and unicorns as soon as the cold war ended. We've continued fucking shit up all around the world. So far about a million people have died since the Iraq war started, and there's no end in sight to that. I really don't understand why people think that the US is some sort of moral paragon, and that the rest of the world is better off just letting America rule it with supreme force.
Yes that is kind of a given.
But this quote tree was based on internal conditions. America by and large has strong and intact human rights. So do most of the western European countries. China does not.
That's why I don't want china being a world military super power.
Also we didn't annex Iraq and then ship people over there to displace the locals.
Nor are tea partiers being send to iron mines in Manchuria.
The thing about human right is... it's easy to enjoy them when you're rich and secure. Not so easy when your country is on the brink of starvation, and under constant threat of invasion.
China's human rights record is bad, but at least it's getting better. America's is getting worse.
Again, I'm not saying that I want countries to be run by China. I never said that. But I would prefer a military standoff between China and the US that allows countries to run themselves, rather than giving either side control over 3rd world nations.
Well to be fair recall elections are under way, so system working as intended.
But yeah America is messy. We're a big rich diverse country of people who have ruled the world for 70 years and are raised to refuse outside ideas on reflex.
But we've also had largely peaceful transfers of power for what, 230 years? No one is arguing America is perfect. But I'm a whole lot more comfortable with us in charge than China.
Oh yeah, the Cold War was GREAT for all those proxy countries...
There has been an explosion of wars since the end of the Cold War, especially in those proxy countries. Cold War wasn't a good thing, but the aftermath has had a high cost.
Well yes ... because we started all sorts of shit and armed and trained all these people during those proxy wars.
You act like the aftermath wasn't effected by the proxy wars or something.
Does anyone have any actual cites on war activity during / after the cold war?
I'm not ready to agree to the 'fact' that there are more wars now than during the cold war.
The one site I can find(not reliable) lists only 4 wars between countries since 91, Ethiopia vs Eritrea, India vs Pakistan, and the 2 Iraq wars.
Again, I'm not saying that I want countries to be run by China. I never said that. But I would prefer a military standoff between China and the US that allows countries to run themselves, rather than giving either side control over 3rd world nations.
Its a false set of choices. Our options aren't 1) Treat all countries like shit because we're the sole super power or 2) Have China with all its shittiness also be a super power.
Again, I'm not saying that I want countries to be run by China. I never said that. But I would prefer a military standoff between China and the US that allows countries to run themselves, rather than giving either side control over 3rd world nations.
Except for all those probable proxy wars that would strip all of them of any real independence.
Posts
Firstly, not all aircraft carries are nuclear powered, nor do they need to be. While it has significantly huge advantages in range and versatility, for the purposes of an advancing fleet, an expanding fleet for a nation such as China that has no need to project its military power around the world in that manner, a nuclear powered carrier is far beyond what they need or want. So when they fall short of that it is disingenuous to claim that is a failure.
Secondly, you are right. Things have changed. Which is specifically why China is investing in carriers. Furthermore I was responding to the assessment that one carrier alone was insufficient and ineffective, with a counterpoint that one carrier alone can be fairly seen as merely the beginning of a long term carrier based plan for naval expansion. Which is exactly what the US did in the beginning.
But let's not get hugely bogged down in the intricacies of carrier design and implementation. Few nations have carriers and one aircraft carrier alone is not a fighting force. However, it can be easily seen that this is just the first of many, and the roadmap for China's future military development.
So it is perfectly reasonable to apply the ramifications and changing attitudes of a carrier equipped Chinese navy to political views even though they only have one. If anything, a nation with only one carrier without the limitations on its use is more dangerous than the US with its dozen and stricter attitudes toward military application. In a sense, perhaps we should be more wary of the country that only wants one aircraft carrier than the one that builds ten.
Emphasis on the word Joke, lest we get bogged down in 2 pages of debate over whether or not China could actually go Repo Man on some of the US's prized shit.
Edit: Though it'd probably make for a reasonably passable cartoon panel. The US stumbling out of the house, torn housecoat barely covering a bottle of whiskey while China loads up a carrier group onto the back of a truck.
This. I'm actually hoping that China DOES get to the point where it can pose a credible military threat to the US, just so there will be some sort of check on US foreign policy.
Where in history has two massive armies instead of one resulted in more peace?
Go ask the North Vietnamese if they'd be better off if the US had been able to bomb them with impunity like we did in South Vietnam. Or ask the Indians how they felt about letting the British Empire have complete undisputed control over their country.
Cold War.
For all the little brush fire wars, global conflicts were contained. A lot of global hotspots - and not so hotspots like Yugoslavia - didn't get nasty until after the Soviet Union fell.
That's just a dodge. Ask Afghanistan how they felt about being the side for a proxy war.
More or less armies don't fix bad foreign policy. Good foreign policy fixes bad foreign policy.
When you ask "where in history has this ever happened" and I give you two examples, it's not really a dodge. But whatever.
The Afghanistan war was terrible, yes, but it's not clear that they'd be better off if the Russians had been completely unopposed there. That certainly didn't work out well for any of the USSR satellite states.
Ideally, the US would come to its senses and stop committing atrocities in its foreign policy. But realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, so having China to occasionally stop us is the best we're going to get.
I asked where 2 armies made something better and you gave me a list of an army beating on a weaker opponent. Do you think Vietnam would have been better with China going whole hog in there too?
Lets take a hypothetical. America invades North Korea. China gets involved on the other side. What happens? Depends on motivation. In the last korean war neither side cared enough to bother continuing, but you also risk escalation. Hell mcArthur wanted nukes.
The premise that a second large army in the world would cause peace is a strangely optimistic one. it carries just as much risk of escalation and the sort of confrontation that really stacks up the body count.
And?
I mean seriously, as a non-American, who would you rather have as your belligerent military and economic super-power?
Cause I'd pick the US over China any day of the week.
No kidding. As far as undisputed world super powers go you could do a whole lot worse. Its also a lot easier for a government to behave better when it doesn't have the power to behave badly.
Oh yeah, the Cold War was GREAT for all those proxy countries...
This isn't a hypothetical at all, it's the entire reason why we never invaded North Korea during the 60's and 70's. The American generals aren't idiots, they knew that fighting against China there would be a bloodbath. The presence and support of the Chinese army prevented a war.
There is definitely the risk of preventing small wars by risking a bigger one. But when you look at the history of warfare since the end of WW2... almost all the deaths have been from major powers fucking up 3rd world countries where they were unopposed. The number of deaths from wars between equal powers have been small in comparison.
Plus those proxy wars got us a lot of today's ills.
See I'd rather have ultimate military authority on the planet rest with a country that has a relatively healthy democracy rather than splitting it between a dictatorship and a democracy with economic and political stress thrown in the mix.
The best way to improve our foreign policy is to support the sort of changes we can via advocacy and voting, not to empower terrible governments.
Yes, we already know you, for some strange reason, love the proxy wars generated by multiple super-powers. I suppose it's easy to love them when you aren't one of the pawns.
But really, that's missing the point. Complaining about China doing what the US is doing is perfecty valid because:
1) it wasn't good when the US did it and we'd all rather no one else tried
2) I'd rather have the super-power that's proved itself less horrible then all the previous ones then a new one we already know does horrible shit
The US isn't my ideal choice either but it is far, far superior to China. At least with China's current overall attitude and ability to do what it likes.
Also that carrier is adorable.
I'm dreading the thought of the U.S. relaxing labor laws, including child labor laws, to compete with China. Ridiculous, I know, but I feel like American industries secretly crave such a scenario.
There has been an explosion of wars since the end of the Cold War, especially in those proxy countries. Cold War wasn't a good thing, but the aftermath has had a high cost.
This would be your pro-western bias. Yes China has done many terrible things, but so have all those European countries.
China is continuing to do many terrible things.
1st, we didn't invade North Korea in the 60s and 70s cause we were already fighting in Vietnam.
I'd contend that both Vietnam and North Korea(Esp North Korea) would be better off now had the US won those wars in a quick and clean fashion. Unless you think Vietnam benefited immensely in the trade of a decade of sustain war, for their current communist utopia.
The reason win haven't had wars between the Large powers post WW2 is nukes, no some bizzaro counter balancing of global military power projection, by your logic we should have had a major-powers war by now since there's been no one to balance the US for 20 years. Except of course there isn't a major power for the US to fight now so....
:?
Really?
America is too
American didn't magically turn into the land of rainbows and unicorns as soon as the cold war ended. We've continued fucking shit up all around the world. So far about a million people have died since the Iraq war started, and there's no end in sight to that. I really don't understand why people think that the US is some sort of moral paragon, and that the rest of the world is better off just letting America rule it with supreme force.
I don't think America is some sort of moral paragon. I specifically said it's not my ideal choice for a world super power. But to compare the stupid shit that America does with the actively evil shit China does is intellectually dishonest to say the least.
Yes that is kind of a given.
But this quote tree was based on internal conditions. America by and large has strong and intact human rights. So do most of the western European countries. China does not.
That's why I don't want china being a world military super power.
Also we didn't annex Iraq and then ship people over there to displace the locals.
Nor are tea partiers being send to iron mines in Manchuria.
Right but your contention is that somehow China gaining an equal ability to impose military might onto other countries will fix this. An idea that has 0 logical backing.
Well yes ... because we started all sorts of shit and armed and trained all these people during those proxy wars.
You act like the aftermath wasn't effected by the proxy wars or something.
And today there's widespread allegations of electoral fraud, abuse of power in Wisconsin and you have a very low election turnout not to mention voter disenfranchisement. Then there's the whole bit about internet regulation infringing on freedom of speech and propping up brutal dictators in the name of stability.
America is not a land of milk and honey, its an ugly beast with that just happens to look pretty from the outside.
China's human rights record is bad, but at least it's getting better. America's is getting worse.
Again, I'm not saying that I want countries to be run by China. I never said that. But I would prefer a military standoff between China and the US that allows countries to run themselves, rather than giving either side control over 3rd world nations.
Well to be fair recall elections are under way, so system working as intended.
But yeah America is messy. We're a big rich diverse country of people who have ruled the world for 70 years and are raised to refuse outside ideas on reflex.
But we've also had largely peaceful transfers of power for what, 230 years? No one is arguing America is perfect. But I'm a whole lot more comfortable with us in charge than China.
Does anyone have any actual cites on war activity during / after the cold war?
I'm not ready to agree to the 'fact' that there are more wars now than during the cold war.
The one site I can find(not reliable) lists only 4 wars between countries since 91, Ethiopia vs Eritrea, India vs Pakistan, and the 2 Iraq wars.
Good thing no one said it is!
Oh bullshit.
Its a false set of choices. Our options aren't 1) Treat all countries like shit because we're the sole super power or 2) Have China with all its shittiness also be a super power.
Except for all those probable proxy wars that would strip all of them of any real independence.