https://southfront.org/china-makes-first-step-shifting-naval-balance-power-pacific/
Written and produced by SF Team: Brian Kalman, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson; Voiceover by Oleg Maslov
If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront
The Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) launched the first Type 055 Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) on June 28th, 2017. The vessel represents a major technological step forward for China’s navy. The Type 055 meets and likely exceeds the capabilities of the U.S. Arleigh Burke Class DDG, the Japanese Atago Class DDG, and just about any other DDG in service in the world today.
Word first surfaced of China’s intention to field a large surface warfare ship in late 2013, and photos of a full size test mock-up of the vessel first appeared in March of 2014. The test mock-up located at the Wuhan University of Science and Technology gave hints to the general size and displacement of the new vessel, and possible general arrangement. Additional satellite imagery appeared online in late November of last year that seemed to show one vessel in advanced stages of hull construction, as well as the early stages of construction of a second vessel, at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai. The Type 055 DDG was designed and constructed in roughly a three and a half year period, quite an accomplishment in many respects. The Type 055 DDG program highlights the rapid pace at which China has been able to envision, design and construct complex warships.
Built to supplement the smaller, yet very formidable Type 052 Class DDG, which is already fielded in significant numbers in both the South and East Sea Fleets, the new vessel will provide the PLAN with a larger, more capable surface combatant than ever before seen in the ranks of the PLAN. Envisioned as a fleet or task force command ship, a powerful ASW/AAW platform for aircraft carrier strike group escort duty, or as a powerful stand-alone naval power presence asset, the Type 055 will add one more powerful tool to the PLAN’s toolkit.
Although the PLAN has publicly disclosed that the vessel has a loaded displacement of 10,000 tons, she is probably closer to 12,000 tons fully loaded. Weapons systems include two 64 cell VLS quad-packed with a mixture of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), land attack cruise missiles (LACM), anti-aircraft missiles (SAM), and anti-ship missiles (ASM). A dual-purpose 130mm deck gun is also fitted, as well as anti-submarine rockets and torpedoes, and close-in defense weapons comprising of FL3000N and 30mm CWIS. Most analysts agree that the Type 055 is most likely fitted with an updated Type 346A active phased array radar (APAR) as well an X-band radar. The integrated mast atop the forward superstructure most likely carries radar panels used in friend-or-foe identification (FFI), fire control and electronic countermeasures. While the Wuhan test bed mock-up had an exposed electronic support measures (ESM) mast, the finished vessel has a much more low-profile, radar masked mast.
This Type 055 DDG will most likely be the first of at least six vessels in class. Although there is a second vessel currently under construction at the Jiangnan Shipyard, the vessel now launched must undergo lengthy sea trials and will not be commissioned until early 2018. These sea trials should reveal any design flaws or shortcomings that need to be rectified in follow-on vessels. If the PLAN intends to equip future aircraft carrier strike groups (CSG) with one Type 055 each, six vessels will be required at a minimum, with one vessel active while another is ashore for repairs/refit or training. The second PLAN aircraft carrier, and the first 100% indigenously built, the CV-17 Shandong, should be commissioned at the beginning of 2018, with a third and totally new design to follow. The third aircraft carrier will most likely be of an entirely new design, of larger dimensions and displacement, and will be a catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) design. If the Type 055 DDGs serve a similar function in the CSG as the U.S. Ticonderoga Class CGs, six vessels will be required to support three PLAN CSGs (1 active, 1 ashore). With the first PLAN aircraft carrier, the CV-16 Liaoning, serving as a training platform for the foreseeable future, the most likely date of the PLAN fielding three combat capable CSGs is 2025 at the earliest, unless a major global conflict occurring before that time necessitates an expedited aircraft carrier construction program.
SouthFront has been closely monitoring the development of the Type 055 DDG for at least the past year and a half. An early review of the vessel appeared in a detailed analysis of the Type 052D destroyer, followed by an analysis of next-generation destroyers being designed by both China and Russia, as well as an in depth update on the progress of the vessel’s construction at the beginning of this year. It is significant to note that although Russia is a few years away from building the Lider (Leader) Class destroyer (Project 23560), the Russian Defense Ministry has purportedly adopted the draft design of the vessel proposed by the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC). This announcement was made on the very same day that the first Type 055 was launched in Shanghai.
Experience and expertise is what makes a good navy, not they toys they play with! Furthermore, with network combat, the US is taking it to a whole new level connecting all the toys together!
Which makes me wonder how it is then, that with all this fabulous wealth of experience in attacking and bombing and occupying other peoples’ countries reflecting the US addiction to warfare. why it is they never win a single war and everything they touch turns to shit?
not only that, take the recent fiasco of the US destroyer smashing into (or got smashed by) a slow moving giant container ship……must be super abundance of combat experience and training…
The 21st century is the Chinese Century. China won’t need to use its military might to take over the world since America is already bankrupted and progressively collapsing within its own borders (socially, politically, economically, like the Soviet collapse version 2.0). In the end, the United States will become a protectorate of People’s Republic of China.
the u.s.s zumwalt stealth destroyer broke down on its maiden voyage in the panama canal, and had to be towed. I think it costed 4 billion.
Vainglory and arrogance is what destroys a good navy. And China doesn’t understand electronics?
Dream on!
Not only in the military sphere but in the equally important area of social development China has the power to help.
The US has nothing any normal person would ever want for their country.
Quote below from:
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201707111055449904-china-syria-geopolitical-interest/
“China is intending to invest $2 billion in the creation of an industrial park in Syria that will initially bring together 150 Chinese companies, Qin Yong, the deputy chairman of the China-Arab Exchange Association, announced Sunday during the first Syria reconstruction projects fair in Beijing.
The project is being enthusiastically discussed by the government of Syria and the country’s diplomats in China. On the same day, Syrian Ambassador to China Imad Moustapha confirmed that China, Russia and Iran will have priority over other participants in implementing economic initiatives and projects in Syria.”
A single F-18 Hornet carrying 2 AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER missiles can take a chinese carrier out in no time.
Why the Chinese are following the US in building these floating targets is not clear to me.
Do they plan to send them to Persian Gulf or will they roam around the South China Sea ?
In the end its about power projection I guess, but it is a pretty expensive one if you ask me.
That F-18 has to take off from a carrier. The Chinese can sink the US carriers from 1000 miles away. Since 2006.
Next?
Still, he poses a valid question. If carriers are sitting ducks, why should China rely on such platforms at all?
C assumes that the world is ruled, or about to be ruled, by the land powers of the Heartland. This is the deal – the rule by the sea people is ending, or has ended.
Yes, CV ships, surface ships altogether, are BFT (big fat targets) – true of all surface ships.
Is therefore evident that C R and A all design to share the marine arena. Thus carriers and DDG’s and so forth.
Also evident that C and R do not care whether A maintains a navy.
F 18 therefore matters not one bit…
@Harry_Red. Apparently you have not heard and/or do not understand asymetrical warfare. I hope for its sake, the USA is still not thinking that it will be fighting an opponent similar to the Jap Navy at Mid-way during WW2. Even then The Japs were the USA with one hand, the other already stuck in China. Its Navy was also split trying to protect its newly conquered raw material base (especially oil supplies) in South East Asia, after having been depleted fighting China since 1937.
Also by now, the USA is in no position to compete in an arms race with both Russia and China. It’s economy cannot support and likely will collapse.
So the USA should cease and desist its trouble-making/war-mongering around the world and join in the multi-polar world order now quickly emerging and quickening due to Eurasian integration and China’s BRI initiative.
If you have read my comments, you will know that I am an enemy of the US-Western Zionist alliance.
First of all, anyone can conduct asymmetrical warfare…..even Somali pirates.
Secondly, do you know what it takes to protect an aircraft carrier, whether it is American, Chinese or whatever ?
– Do you know it requires a complete carrier strike complex ?
– It would require multiple redundant systems of surveillance and communication.
– You have to prevent submarines from attacking, you would need carrier-borne anti-submarine aircraft, helicopters launched from escorts, land-based aircraft, and escorts themselves (including both surface ships and submarines).
– You have to prevent cruise missiles striking from air-borne, ship and land bases.
– You have to prevent small boats attacking
– You have to protect from ballistic missiles.
You need a total of 5000 to 8000 people, destroyers, cruisers, sub-marines, support and logistical ships.
I am sure China is eventually capable of all this to project power and for other purposes. My point is, how useful will it be strategically and is it worth the costs ?
@Harry_Red. I rest my case about you having not understanding asymmetric warfare!
hr
“A single F-18 Hornet carrying 2 AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER missiles can take a chinese carrier out in no time.”
Sure dood. Those harpoons pack less than 300 lbs of explosives each. When was 50k ton warship destroyed by such a small warhead. This assuming the carrier’s point defense would be incapable of knocking out just 2 missiles traveling slower than an obsolete exocet.
A squadron or two of attacking aircraft would fit your scenario much more realistically, why resort to this sort of exaggerated nonsense?
In Chinese blog recently actually talk about that the navy is always a weak point, we not only need to have hardware, but also need to use them effectively. So there is awareness of the navy is not only about hardware.
However, I am also worry right now about the Chinese army is serverly out numbered at hostile south and south west border.
@J, Numbers by themselves do not confer any military advantage – Sun Tzu.
Simon, do you read Chinese? It look like the government determine to put a stop to routine nonsense at border. If there is no withdraw, there will be a fight, I hope we take back south Tibet and break off the north east.
J, I can translate to read Chinese. But if the fight starts, it won’t be at Donglong i.e. at the tri-junction with India and Bhutan. Actually its a quad-junction if you include Sikkim. It will be somewhere else. I am not telling what my analysis tells me. The fight could likely end with the dismemberment of India, which after all is a British colonial construct masquerading as a unified country. But China won’t dismember India – too much instability in her southern borders which is not in her interests. But some of India’s territories could be shown off and given independence.
Simon. Yes, Indians are in luck. Chinese do not even has a slight interest in India. Get back South Tibet, let independent of North East who were independent countries to begin with, are mistreated for their different looks, and also break off Kashmir is the will of the people.
Sikkim has been overran by lower plain Indians, many of those found in hills of north east as well. They are also trying to convert locals to Hindu.
It will not be cake walk, Indian Army has been preparing for the fight for 50 years. There are many times we almost went into war. The problem now is that they emboldened by their new found “great power” status, and great friendship in Zionist, there hardly are going to be peace from here on as they itch to get back the defeat of 1962. So there maybe a need to make sure peace on the border for 50 more years now.
But as the article point out in antiwar.com, the irrational Indian government may very well use nuke. Chinese need to prepare for it.
India using nukes? This is exactly what the USA wants. They have been trying to make Asians fight one another for years. E.g. Japan against China, Vietnam against China, North Korea against South Korea and now India against China. They prevented both India and Japan from making peace with China. They also did not want to talk peace with North Korea. They are hoping that these tensions will morph into full-blown war that will make the adversaries destroy one another. Its a Machiavellian trick. But it will help them eliminate potential competitors and leave them on top for the foreseeable future.
I am sure China is prepared for India to use nukes. In fact India had been obliquely threatening nukes against China ever since China took off and eclipsed India economically. But China’s nukes are more powerful (India don’t yet has a hydrogen bomb), more accurate and reliable, even though the USA is supporting them in nuclear technology. The possibility of being nuked is just a fact of life for China (and for everyone else in the entire world). The former USSR, US and now India have been threatening nukes against China for a long time.
China can survive and recover from India’s nukes. Can India survive China’s nukes? So any future war with India will start off conventional and likely ends conventional as well.
Did you miss the antwar.com piece I posted before:
Indian Hegemonism is on the march
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/06/sikkim-stand-off-china-india-collide-himalayas/
Every time I thought the government is going to tune it down, it come right back up a little later. people’s daily is taking the lead. It is office government new paper, so it is all official: http://en.people.cn/index.html. Global times as usually posts article from all angles: http://www.globaltimes.cn/
Sina also has a lot of news about this too. Yesterday, there was a video of long list of equipment moving on train, and high speed train can move from a list big cities to Tibet under 12 hours.
So it looks like Chinese had enough. Either they move out unconditionally, or there going to be a fight. If there is a third way out, I do not see it yet.
What happening in the foot hills of Himalaya is similar to what happened to Serbia at Kosovo. What happening at southern borders is the people from plains demanding the land from people of hills because their white master once send a surveyor to survey the land.
We will see what is going to happen.
Hi Simon,
Here is what come out today about India’s nuclear strategy:
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-planning-missile-to-target-all-of-china-from-south-bases-us-report-1724096
“An article published in the July-August issue of the digital journal – After Midnight – has also claimed that India is now developing a missile which can target all of China from its bases in South India.”
….
“Based on available information about its nuclear-capable delivery force structure and strategy, we estimate that India has produced 120-130 nuclear warheads, the article said adding that the country will need more warheads to arm the new missiles it is currently developing.
Kristensen and Norris said that the two-stage, solid-fuel, rail-mobile Agni-2, an improvement on the Agni-1, which can deliver a nuclear or conventional warhead more than 2,000 kilometres is probably targeted on western, central, and southern China.
Although the Agni-4 will be capable of striking targets in nearly all of China from northeastern India (including Beijing and Shanghai), India is also developing the longer-range Agni-5, a three-stage, solid-fuel, rail-mobile, near-intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a warhead more than 5,000 kilometres (3,100-plus miles), it said.
“The extra range will allow the Indian military to establish Agni-5 bases in central and southern India, further away from China,” the research article said.”
Same report on their right wing TOI:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-modernising-nuclear-arsenal-with-eye-on-china-us-experts/articleshow/59571996.cms
Let’s not even talk about usual points about how irrational these people are, let me list a few points just from back of my head:
1. Indian capital of new Delhi is about 200 KM (not miles) from Chinese border according to map.
2. The bombs will first fly over dense Indian population, and any sane person would not think Chinese will let the bomb gets to China before trying to shot them done
3. the part of China face India is scarcely populates, and high altitude, and provide more possibility to shot it done if it gets to that.
4. Indian’s water is from China. Chinese really only need to divert the water to put them on their knees.
All these points to how irrational the thinking is (you will love their comments on TOI).
here is another bit of information:
Sikkim standoff: China’s economic stakes in India is no worry for Beijing
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/sikkim-standoff-china-s-economic-stakes-in-india-is-no-worry-for-beijing-117071300210_1.html
So we got investment angle covered here as well. There is very little chance for China to have a war with America, but very likely chance to have war with India. If not this year, it will be soon enough with their right wing Hindu fundamentalist in power.They seems has a system of consistence elections, so the need of stir up trouble some where.
J, India’s war against China will be a proxy war fro the USA. Trump likely licensed the war when Modi embraced him in Washington. As for India’s nukes, India won’t survive if it uses them. It will be atomic bombs (India’s) against hydrogen bombs (China’s) with over 100 times the energy released. As you pointed out, China’s missiles need only to travel 200-500 Km to reach India’s main cities in the Indo-Gangetic plain, against India’s 2000-5000 km to reach China’s. Also China’s cities already have nuclear shelters dating back to China’s preparation for nuclear attacks from the former USSR.
I wouldn’t lose sleep over a nuclear exchange between India and China. China will survive, clean up and rebuild in double quick time. But can India do the same?
As I have pointed out, the Indians are basically rational but insecure and fearful. The USA played on this and sold them the vision of a grand Hindu hegemonic empire with only China in the way. If a half-educated corporal like Hitler can deceive the highly advanced Germans when they were still not reconciled to defeat in WW1, it is easy to deceive the Indians who are still not reconciled to 1962. The USA is taking advantage of this.
/china-makes-first-step-in-shifting-naval-balance-of-power-in-pacific/?replytocom=377976#respond
And in the wake of India’s nuclear defeat, the USA wants to nuke China, the 15,000 Km range Chinese DF-41s multiple warheads (no need for the war with India) will keep them at bay.
The USA is basically seeking to use allies like India as cannon-fodder (nuclear or otherwise) for their objective of eliminating potential competitors.
Thermopylae, Salamis….dadada…Vietnam…dadada… Master Sun Tsu is on the top line…Liddell Hart and Comrades Trotsky and Mao, all say true stuff.
I have my favorite
I am particularly interested in how the Commandante raised the Cuban Militia in the run up to Bay of Pigs. Local people with high motivation plus basic (very basic) training… And a well planned Bay of Pigs attack and landing (it was) was foiled, turned to a massive defeat for, ah, some people, and a massive gift to the Revolution – and the strategy of the Militia, and the methods of raising it – these strike me as characteristics of a very great military genius.
Simon, I just read the stats for 1967 border skirmish:
Chinese record: 33 Chinese, 65 Indian
Indian record: 400+ Chinese , 88 Indian
I have always wondered why I did not hear anything about it.
I do remember the near war in 1980s, because one of my friend went to a soldier’s wedding before he was about to go to a war. The war did not happen because Soviet back off supporting Indans.
After 1962 conflict, Indian looks for rematch instead looking in ward and face the fact. So there may be a rematch to resolve the constant threat and the need of putting a lot of army to secure the border.
J I have replied on the 1967 conflict and commented on the future conflict, but for unknown reasons, the moderator did not like my comments and therefore not allowed to be posted.
The only reply to J I saw was posted. If there was another one I haven’t see it.MOD
It seems they came in gun blazing and kill the head of army unit that was at the front line. The fight was mostly conducted with artillery. Of all people, it mention specially about a army couple that was in love died in the conflict. Now I am wondering if I read about it before.
I am seriously disappointed that there are pro-Chinese folks that are duplicating the same mistakes and attitudes of the idiot American Exceptionalists: the contention by some of the supposed pro-China commenters here is no different than the kind of rhetoric spewed by warmongering Fox News Neocons.
However, I’m also pleased to see that not a single Vietnamese, Korean, Indian, Japanese or serious Russian responded this article during the time it was active nor wasted their time responding to the infantile machismo jingoistic nonsense of non-existent Chinese military superiority by commenters that are utterly clueless in military affairs.
Seriously, anybody that is ignorant or deluded enough to think that the Chinese navy would survive even a few days against the might of the US Navy needs to be patted on the head and spoken to in very gentle tones. This is the kind of irrational overly emotional bombast that one expects from armchair military “experts” in underdeveloped failed states or regions like Somalia, Pakistan, Anatolia, and Sudan; it is not the kind of of cool-headed rationalism you expect from true Chinese mainland thinkers.
It must be pleasing to China’s enemies that there are American style Chinese supremacist jingoistics (and their non-Chinese fans and hanger-ons) and that recklessly think that China can win a military conflict against any major Asian power -let alone defeat the United States Navy- Just look at how severely Vietnam trounced China in 1979. China can’t even get tiny little North Korea to do their bidding (being humiliated by North Korea’s refusal to comply with beijings demands)! Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here regarding Chinese military capacity.
The Chinese navy is no match for the Japanese navy leave aside the far more powerful US Navy. China is an amateur in Naval operations and no amount of China fielding poor quality (Chinese quality) rip-offs of Russian warships is going to shift the balance of power on high seas.
China’s strategic situation on the Asian land mass is just as bad: they are surrounded and hemmed in by very powerful countries (Russia, Vietnam, Korea, India and Japan), unstable or hostile countries (North Korea, Myanmar and Pakistan) and geography. Just as by sea they are hemmed in by the second chain of islands and the straits of malacca.
You need to change that screen name it certainly doesn’t fit. As I recall China went toe to toe with the US in Korea and didn’t come out a loser. And that was way back in the 1950’s. She is also a major nuclear power today. Which any neighboring country minus India and Russia can’t match. Pakistan as a ally of China’s isn’t a problem to them.At the “very ” least China could field an army 4 times the size of the US’s entire potential force if need be.And unlike the US they would be available right when needed and not have to travel thousands of miles to the battlefield.You far overestimate the US navy’s ability to stay afloat in a shooting war with China.It is true that at “present” the US navy is stronger than China’s.But the handwriting is on the wall that the future will hold different results.
ad hominem statement removed …. mod
Note the topic of the southfront article/report was an irrational contention that fielding a new Chinese warship was tilting the naval balance in China’s favor (vis a vis the USN) Note the point I made was a critique of jingoistic nonsense and wishful thinking of blind China Exceptionalism commenters and those non Chinese commenters pretending to be Chinese and projecting their own jingoism onto China (trying childishly to ride on to China’s coattails due to the insignificance or impotence of their own country).
Your point regarding Korea (with Soviet support) is irrelevant to the point I was making. Please brush up on how severely China was crushed by Vietnamese forces when Deng xiao peng launched a dirty sneak attack of 300,000 Chinese infantry against only 60,000 Vietnamese border security force: the Chinese were trounced. Again, this is just a detail, the main point is, is that the Chinese navy is no match for the US Navy -no matter how many poor quality rip-off clones of Russian warships and planes they churn out.
2nd ad homimen comment removed … note to Reality Check … we are here to discuss ideas and events .. not our other commentators … mod
rc
“no match for the US Navy”
LOL, the recent battle between the usn destroyer Fitzgerald and the Philippine container ship Crystal showed how superior the usn is.
oh come on Vot Tak ;-) Get serious and provide a real military example. Yes I admit the example you provide is quite funny. However, stop substituting wishful thinking for real analysis. That’s the core of what I’m getting at.
Contempt or hatred of the United States is not going to change the fact the United States Navy outclasses the Chinese Navy and Chinese Airforce outright – not only in hardware, technology, logistics, etc and size, but in operational experience and responsiveness.
I realize southfront are enthusiastic hobbyists and volunteers and are apt to let emotions color objective analysis, leading to gaps in logic, so we need to make allowances for that, but Saker (Andrei) is a professional military analyst, so one expects realistic military analysis from this site.
China is in a very difficult strategic environment – surrounded by powerful Asian nations that have defeated her repeatedly in the recent past or can engage the Chinese military to a standstill. China can’t challenge Russia to the North, Japan to the East, India to the South West, and Vietnam to the South. Their Navy and trade routes are ihemmed in by a second chain of islands that can turn all the China Seas into a turkey shoot against the PLAN Navy. Compare that to the unchallenged Strategic environment the USA enjoys: a non-entity puff-ball and servant, Canada, to the North, and a dysfunction, dependent military non-entity, Mexico, to the South. In addition they have free unchallenged access to the Pacific, huge naval bases in Asia pacific (like Japan), and the force multiplier of the Japanese Navy (itself a well run and formidable force).
China has dug itself into this hole by carrying out aggression against its immediate neighbors or arrogantly tried to browbeat them into line. Asians are fed up with hegemonies be that the USA or China, they will not tolerate the substitution of one over the other – the USA’s hegemonic influence over Asia is receding slowly however, due to bitter experience of suffering Western Hegemony, Asia is not going to allow China to takeover that role either.
@Reality Check. You believe the Chinese propaganda that Vietnam trounced China in 1979? Hahaha! That was likely deliberately floated by China to prevent the Vietnamese from getting sympathetic world opinion and being seen as the victim of China. After all Vietnam is much smaller than China.
But the Vietnamese knew who won the war. Vietnamese casualties were several times more than China’s. China smashed through all their defences, destroyed their border cities especially their infrastructure and were only about 50 or so kilometers from Hanoi and could have deposed the Vietnamese Communist regime. But it was not China’s policy to do so.
The subsequent continuous bombardment of the border areas and the threat of a second invasion led to the tying down of the cream of the Vietnamese divisions in the border with China. This made it impossible for the Vietnamese to hold on to and consolidate their conquest of Cambodia and caused their eventual withdrawal.
So the Vietnamese ‘won’ the war according to Chinese propaganda which they hook on to save face. But in reality they suffered a irreversible defeat and subsequently lost their entire conquest of Laos and Cambodia. It was a bitter defeat without the benefit of world sympathy. Having claimed to have given the Chinese a bloody nose, they can no longer claim sympathy as ‘victim’ of bullying by China!
So the Vietnamese soldiers died in vain in Laos and Cambodia. Their dreams of an Indo-Chinese empire (consisting of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and likely eastern Thailand, were ruined. But China’s victory changed the course of East Asian history.
Dear Simon,
Regarding the unprovoked Chinese attack on Vietnam -Vietnam won and China lost: Chinese troops were decimated (despite having a 5 to 1 advantage), even China admits that it was a stupid blunder and it explains why the turned tail and ran so rapidly out of Vietnam: it was a military route for the PLA. You yourself admit that China admitted this (although you inexplicably term this Chinese propaganda; strange? since when does China issue propaganda against itself?).
Peace and harmony to you.
This is in response to “Reality Check on July 13, 2017 · at 3:03 pm UTC”, the reply button has been removed from that post, but not any others, for some odd reason.
The Fitzgerald example is maybe humourous to you, but I doubt it was to the 7 men who drowned because of their commanding officer were either asleep or deeply involved in one of those “don’t ask, don’t tell” parties, a common occurrence with the neocon take over of the us military initiated big time during the raygun regime.
What sort of navy allows one of their frontline vessels to collide with a merchant ship? What sort of navy can’t even master basic map reading, the usn cry babies captured by the Iranians recently.
The us military has been thoroughly neoconned, exactly as you israelis worked for.
@Reality Check. Can you please argue your case coherently instead of ranting? As it is, any imbecile can launch into a hubristic rant.
@Reality Check. Here is a real life example: In 1968, the North Koreans captured the US ship Pueblo.
@Simon Chow
Re:
In 1968, the North Koreans captured the US ship Pueblo.
Yes and so what? That doesn’t change one thing regarding the Chinese navy being totally outclassed by the US Navy and even outclassed by the Japanese Navy.
The US home base, North America, is totally secure, allowing the US freedom to focus on haranguing and containing China and projecting power against other areas of the world. The US has free and open access to the Pacific and huge resupply infrastructure in East Asia (Japan, Guam, Australia, Korea, etc). China helps finance the US military by buying US Treasury Bonds allowing the US to continue to print its fiat currency which continues to have real buying power.
Let’s look at the Chinese situation. China’s homebase, Asia, is a security nightmare for Chinese military planners (thanks to bad decisions and the ego driven incompetence of past Chinese leaders: they created unnecessary antagonisms with China’s neighbors and thanks to geography). China does not have free and secure access to its own vital sea lanes nor to the Pacific due to the second chain of islands and the crowded fenced in South China Sea. This makes power projection for China extremely difficult and leaves China vulnerable and distracted with the hornets nest of mainstaining stability in its immediate neighborhood and playing constant defense to the regular offense carried out by the US.
The US, Russia and Japan are leagues ahead of China technologically (even Korea is). China should focus on improving the standard of living of its struggling people, repairing the demographic disaster of its brutal and ill- conceived one child policy (a brainchild of the demons Kissinger and brezinski) and give up on the fantasy of both regional and global overt military power projection. They also need to drop the strange backward impulse they have that other nations must kowtow to Beijing, nobody kowtows to China, not even North Korea let alone China’s peers such as Russia, Japan, India and the US. Once, they drop this bizarre imperial anachronism, Asia will engage with China from a position of trust.
Peace and harmony to you.
OK Reality check. Good advice for China although I think that China is not as backward technologically as you think. Nor is China deliberately dominating others. But China’s huge size will by itself cast a long shadow.
But your advice for China is also relevant for the USA, perhaps even more so. All the wars – I call them wars of USA’s hegemonism – in the world now, is linked to USA’s ambition, exceptionalism and exacerbated by its increasingly rapid decline.
Dear simon chow,
Wonderful to hear from after such a long time.
Re:
As it is, any imbecile can launch into a hubristic rant.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
I’m glad you are coming around to a more sanguine reflection on this topic and are wise enough to understand that it bad for outsiders to encourage reckless behavior on the part of China. The war hawks in the Chinese establishment need to be brought to heel because they are playing right into the neocon agenda of getting Asian powers to destroy each other.
China is currently trying to become sort of a USA wannabe. Unfortunately (or fortunately) China is doing a poor job of cloning the American model of doublespeak, sabre rattling and attempting to steal land and resources based on crude threats. The Chinese attempts to copy Western statecraft and geopolitical duplicity are unsophisticated.
We have seen that being a global hegemon eventually leads to bankruptcy (look at where the US is headed under PNAC). I am heartened by your introspection, that is Jesus Christ’s spirit speaking through your heart rather than the war mongering and destructive carnal Qin emperor’s spirit.
Regards.
Your rude remarks about China have been removed.Your unsubstatiated comments in your post should be backed up by facts. Mod
Hi Simon,
No need to waste you effort on it. We all can guessing where he come from.
I was in high school when the sino-Vietnam war started, and the school even invite a old student back to spoke to us about the war he took part in. He was not act anywhere nearly like he lost war. Many of those roamers were confirmed true by him, such as the Vietnamese women took off cloth in front them, so the Chinese soldiers turned around, and the women started shooting. After it happen once or twice, that trick stopped to work. They also treated the POW according to Mao’s book, as Indians found out in 1962. Of course there were hardship.
I remember the waves and waves boat people of Chinese decent picked up by Chinese coast guards at the sea before the war, the daily bombing of border villages.
Chinese government warned, and warned, as before Korean war, and as it is now toward Indians, the Vietnamese did not stop. So as it happened many time in history, Vietnamese has tradition of feeling too full of themselves every certain years also, and need a good beating to maintain peace for next 100 year also. I never heard Chinese government said or even remotely admit we lost the war. There was no indication of that in anywhere. I would not read too much into foreign propaganda. Last time after the riot in Vietnam that killed some Chinese, and there was a lot of movement at borders. Some full armed Chinese soldier was in full public view and pictures were posted all over the internet. A few days later, Vietnamese apologized.
East and south east Asia have very strong relation with China, sometimes good, sometimes bad. It is only natural. Many of them have Chinese blood, heavily influence by Chinese culture and historically benefit from strong and prosperous China. That is not some one from out side can comprehend.
Last time Trump commented that Xi said Korea was part of China, and Korean was very upset. Chinese side put out a message, said Since Trump said it happened, Korean need to ask Trump about it, not China. Korean should also feel good and confident of them self for the great achievement the have made in recent years, and the past has past.
East and south east Asia are big family, and there is no outsider can change that. Outsider as powerful US may make some one do things against their best interest for some time, but outsider like India is a laughing stock.
Abe is losing grip, Moon is well liked; Vietnamese is not surprising, and rest south Asia just how they are. The past has past and we are moving forward for harmony and prosperity.
However, the Indians is asking for a good beating so the can remember to stop bother us and the small neighbors for another 50 years. Chinese army and government need put together a sound strategy to take care of this threat, the sooner the better.
J, in 1967, China was taken by surprise at the Sikkim border. They did not expect trouble because it was an agreed and well demarcated border.
If you look at the topo map of the area around Nathula where the fight took place, the Indians have the advantage of the high ground. The Chinese, not expecting trouble, were stationed in full view of the Indians including the Chinese command bunker. It was a chance for the Indians to draw blood and exact some revenge for the defeat of 1962. I suspect it was the USA via the CIA who alerted them of the opportunity for vengeance.
The Indians first prepared for the fight by carefully surveying all the Chinese positions and targeted them with their artillery. They also reinforced their troops. Then they likely initiated the hostilities by trying to remark the boundary. The Chinese of course were upset since the border was already demarcated.
I am not sure which side fired the first shot. But the Chinese were imprudent by engaging in a fight for which they were not prepared and which were deliberately provoked (unlike now in Donglong where the Indians are now provoking a fight which they are likely well prepared for as well). The Chinese lost the fight between the troops and more crucially, the artillery duel, including their command bunker. I believe the Indians’ casualty figures were more accurate.
But the Chinese learnt crucial lessons from the battle. They do not allow the Indians to observe their activities, especially in Aksai Chin. Also, the Chinese do not allow the Americans to survey and gather intelligence in the area around their submarine base in Hainan Island.
The Americans have the habit of ‘innocently’ surveying other countries territory, including in their exclusive economic zones – a habit I suspect, the Indians copied from them.
As for the current Donglong area confrontation – I suspect that the Indians have been preparing for this since this is the only area along the entire border where they have the high ground and therefore believe that they also have the military advantage.
But I suspect that if the shooting starts, it will not be initiated in the Donglong area. It will start simultaneously in multiple places somewhere else. The choice of where these areas are is with China since at everywhere else along the LAC, India will have to attack uphill – a military no no according to Sun Tzu.
In this sense, India, by not having the initiative and awaiting China to make the move towards a shooting war, has already lost the war i.e. if the Donglong confrontation deteriorates into full scale war. And towards the end-game of the war, there will likely be a fight in the Donglong area if India don’t fold by then.
China’s objectives in the war are likely the demoralisation of the Indian armed forces and the enforcement of a final settlement of the major border issues (unlike in 1962 when Mao ordered a retreat from Tawang, desiring to get back Tawang by negotiation and not through war; in this Mao likely misread the Indian mindset). The Assam region will likely revolt with China’s help and gain independence. Other Indian territories will likely gain or opt for independence.
Simon,
The there was 3 or 4 skirmish in 1967, not just one. I highly doubt PLA will put 400 people in one small geographically disadvantage location and let them be over powered with canon fire. I highly doubt Indian account.
Second train of thoughts is it is not right time for the war right now, but a wake up call to access the strategy and reaffirm who are the true friends. The conflict with India is going to be a long one and many ways to precede.
By this, India is likely in luck this time. The result of this incident is at least Bhutan’s and Nepal’s independence.
J, yeah, not the right time for China to fight a war even though her territory is being brazenly invaded. The Indians probably knows this otherwise they would not dare invade even with the encouragement of Trump. Their forward policy was inspired by and supported by the USA in 1962. It did not help them because when the USA was involved in the confrontation with the USSR over Cuba, Mao chose this time to react to Indian provocations and virtual declaration of war by Nehru. The swift and decisive defeat suffered by India despite the fact that China was suffering from a severe famine (my parents repeatedly sent rice and cooking oil to our relatives in China at that time) belied Nehru’s hubris and machoism.
In the same way, Vietnam conquered Cambodia and provoked China due to the military support and its alliance with the USSR. This was despite the fact that China supported the North Vietnamese since from the time of their fight with the French. Without China’s support in terms of logistic, food and military supplies and military advice including specialised manpower and artillery support, the North Vietnamese would not be able to defeat the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1955, much less conquer South Vietnam.
Nixon during his visit to China in 1972, raised the question of China’s support of North Vietnam in the Vietnam war. Zhou En Lai refused, indicating that China’s support to Vietnam in the war was not negotiable.
But we all know how Vietnam show its ‘gratefulness’ to China.
In short, countries like Vietnam and India dared push their envelopes with China because they think that their big brother will help them – which of course is not true. Their big brother wants to use them as cannon-fodder to destroy their enemies on their behalf. They would not want to be cannon-fodder themselves since they themselves are not under an existential threat.
Vietnam seem to have learnt her lesson. India should also learn from Vietnam’s ‘victory’ in 1979 and not only from her own defeat in 1962.
Hello Simon
Thank you for providing us with insight on the extreme nationalist impulse that runs in China. From an outsiders point of view this hurray patriotism is no different than American Exceptionalism we see from neoliberal and neocon circles in the US.
Although I did not read your entire posts, I did notice you wrote the following:
yeah, not the right time for China to fight a war [with India] even though her territory is being brazenly invaded [allegedly by India]. The Indians probably knows this otherwise they would not dare invade
… [just like] .Their forward policy was inspired by and supported by the USA in 1962
So this a tacit admission by you, that you hold the opinion, that China is so scared of the United States that it will not dare attack India militarily because the US allegedly supports India. So that means you admit that China is no match for the US, and is so intimidated by the US and India that they will meekly back down militarily expelling foreign troops that have allegedly occupied a portion of mainland China. This is the exact point of view you have conveyed.
Of course, the whole premise that this territory is Chinese is disputable since Bhutan has proof that it is theirs and were ignored by both the Qing and British Empire in the negotiations of 1890 (neither the Qing nor the British had the right to barter this territory without consulting Bhutan). It is only fair India defend Bhutans claim and pay China back in their own coin of unilaterally grabbing territory (which China has done to all its neighbors).
You are right that China will be defeated if they make the stupid mistake of resorting to a miltary solution. The very fact that China is making threats to support color revolutions and violent insurgencies in the Indian state of Sikkim and India’s northeast reflects China’s frustration that they cannot take this territory militarily, so they will use other means (such as supporting insurgencies and Soros/US style color revolutions) to pressure India to cede this parcel of Bhutanese land.
If you are correct and China backs down in attempting a military attack, it must be partly due to the severe lesson they learned after being defeated so thoroughly by the Vietnamese in 1979 as well as their defeat at the hands Indian forces in 1967. One hopes that they have learned their lesson.
@Reality Check. Every war or battle has its lessons for both the winner and loser. Its the ability to discern the correct lessons that counts. If not, the victor may not be able to repeat the victory and the loser will repeat the defeat. I hope both China and India learn the right lessons which ultimately put war away in any discourse between nations. But the USA is instigating wars all over the planet by playing on nations insecurities with visions of grandeur. Hitler deceived the Germans with the delusion of Aryans being the Master race. The Japs also deceived their own people with a narrative of Japanese being the master race of the East. The USSR did the same to arouse the militancy of the Vietnamese.
The USA took over their playbook in fostering wars between and within nations. Not only India, but Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia. As a result, the majority ethnic groups in these countries massacred their own ethnic minorities in exerting their racial superiority over others. The evidence is that the CIA instigated all these racial wars and massacres. Almost certainly in Indonesia in 1965-66.
At a time when a declining global trouble-maker is going full charge in making trouble, it is best for nations not to fall into its traps, especially now between India and China.
Simon,
Vietnam have been for 1000s years now. Nothing they do is new. They did not totally withdrew from Cambodia, Vietnam still hold 2 Cambodia provinces.
Vietnam was the the toughest of the SE nations, always looking for fight and expansion. There fore the need of lesson once a while. I’d love to see Myanmar and Vietnam switch places, and they will keep those Indians from the north east.
As for India, the short history is not in their favor. They manage to inherent worst of British rule, and hell bending hate Muslim while citing accomplishment under their rule. They annexed those 1000 year old kingdoms, and looking for a fight with China. They are asking for a lesson, and we will give it to them at time and place of our choice. I hope they are smart enough to mend their way or we will grant their wishes.
By the way Simon,
Chinese public is totally support breaking off north east and Kashmir, have Indian taste their own medicine and get ride of this nuisance at our borders.
Look like the last straw has broken the camel’s back. Now lets see how the political masters carry it out.:-) and see who play the game better…
Interesting report.
But, Oleg sounds like a robot or a mechanized voice simulator.
Bring back the nice British lady.
Katherine
LOL.
here are some Jokes I am reading in Chinese blog about an American analysis of the possible war. Which pretty much says Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China will together take a part India if there is another sino-india war, I hope you enjoy it as well:
1. Even US do not dare to stop China from building island, but Indian stop us from building a road…
Because Indians are special, they also think their one soldier can fight 10 of ours.
2. Indian has nuclear weapons, what if they drop them on our cities.
I would not even try to stop them, their missile mostly fail on their own land any way.
3. India is a nuclear giant, need to be careful
If they dare to drop a nuclear bomb, india would be cleaned up and made a province of empire.:-)
4 No wars, lets use tanks to chase elephants in new Delhi.
5.This one is the truth. The little brother figured out that US is using India to distract (put is mildly) the big brother, so he sent US a big birth day gift on July 4th, and I believe the two brothers are now made up. All thanks to India.:-)
6. We fully trust communist party’s political talent…
7.Why argue, finish building road already, any good food in Bhutan?
8, Road building everywhere in Tibet, Indian can not let it happen…
9, PLA finally get Indian Army where they want them. They have been training for so long without them.
10. Why is Indian mad at us building a road? Well, it is like you are doing good business with your super market, then I open a whole sell store right next door…
11. Mao’s big country policy was if you do not hurt me, I will not hurt you, if you hurt me, I will destroy you…
J, Hahaha. I am sure China can easily position their thermonuclear capable missiles and missile defences and armed them within days if so required. Maybe already had done so. Russia did warn India several years ago that China can easily nuke India from Tibet. How long would it take a ballistic missile to travel 200 to 500 Kms? At the press of a button, an Indian city can be vapourised within seconds. That’s why Kennedy nearly went to war with the USSR when they put their missiles in Cuba in 1962.
India has 120 to 130 atomic bombs. Assuming they are twice the yield of the USA’s Hiroshima bomb (20,000 tonnes of TNT), the total arsenal of India would not be more than two of China’s hydrogen bombs with yield of 3 million tonnes of TNT each i.e. 3 mega tonnes. And China’s hydrogen bombs may be more than 3 mega tonnes in yield each.
This is what India is up against if they use nukes against China. That’s why I think the confrontation in Donglong if it deteriorate into war, will unlikely be nuclear.
Simon, If only they are rational.
here is surmised Chinese description of 1967 events:
After defect of 1962, Indian doubled their man on the borer to 7 mountain division.
in 1963, Chinese army moved back according to their no contact policy, only Sikkim (still a seperate kingdom at the time) area where two army was as close as 20 to 30 meters. There were 3 Indian mountain brigade in Sikkim. Chinese control the rout to north, and Indian control the one to south. Indian also control two more important ground in the area.
From 1963 on, Indian MSM started to broadcast news small conflicts at the border constantly, Chinese government complaint that Indian army for enter the our side of border, move the boundary mark (same thing that Nepal is complaint right now where their border villages gradually finding them no longer inside Nepal), build bunkers, and jets routinely fly into Chinese side for spying.
On 1967 Aug 13th, Chinese army started building bunkers. Indian think Chinese was building in Sikkim side of border.Ask Chinese to leave, and Chinese ignored them. So Indian decide to build wire fence.
on Aug 18th, Indian force to raise fence to fence in more land, Chinese soldier was angry, but did not open fire.
Sept 7th, Indian started to put up another fence, when Chinese soldier got the news, and went to the location, demanded Indian stop. Indian Soldier ignored Chinese, and also wounded two Chinese soldier with swords. After hearing the situation, Indian army higher up decide to probe Chinese, and order its soldier to put up another fence in the center of the pass.
On Sept 11, 7:30 am (Wow about same time as 9/11) Indian mount army #112 battalion with 110 soldier came out of barrak 103, along the road way, and divide to two and moved north and south. Chinese army firmly observed “do not fir first shot policy” and gave then server warning. But Indian army, fired first and even throw the hand bomb(sorry I can not think of name in English), Kill the head of the company and wounded 6 Chinese soldiers.
What followed was 3 day of canon fire. Indian Army forced to stop bomb at Sept 13 22 pm. Following Zhou En Lai’s Enemy stop canon, will stop canon policy, Chinese stopped canon at Sept 14:46 pm. The two army solider who are in love died in this fight.
It also list Indian’s account of this event, as flashy as Bollywood movie:
“9/11 morning, Indian soldiers was building a fence, Chinese demand them to stop. the verbal altercation escalated into physical altercation. After Chinese left, Indian return to build the fence. Minutes later, a sound of whistle was heard, and Chinese started fire with middle size machine. Because lack of cover, Indian lost was severe. after a while Chinese start canon, then Indian started too. Because Indian’s higher point advantage, Indian destroyed many Chinese bunkers..”
After above fight, Indian can not put it to rest. On Oct 1st (Chinese national day) 11:20 am, I Indian platoon brought 7 soldier with him and entered Chinese side and waving his sword at Chinese soldier, Chinese soldier giver them warnings, the Indian soldier ignored him, and swoop in trying to take him hostage. Upon hearing the news, the nearby soldiers come and got the soldier back, pushed the platoon back to Indian side. Indian army started fire, killed on and wound on Chinese soldier. At meantime, Indian side started canon fire.
On 11:58, Seeing their comrade got killed, and Chinese soldier s opened fire and killed the 8 Indian soldier. At 12, Chinese side started canon killed and wounded many of they two offending companies, destroy 29 bunkers. Indian side can not withholding the canon file, stopped at 19:55 PM.
Stats from Chinese side: 32 Chinese, 65 Indian in first fight. The second one, only listed 36 Indians.
From Indian side: 340 Chinese died, 450 wounded; 88 Indian died, 163 wounded.
Sikkim was swallow by Indian in 1975, the border has been peaceful since the 1967 fight.
I also have what happened to Nov 14 1962, and why it happened:
Nov. 14th, 1962 was a Indian Indian prime minister Nehru’s 73 birthday. The Indian generals prepare a big win over Chinese as their birthday gift. However, “this fight over a small high ground made them laughing stock of the world”.
Since Oct 20, Indian was losing badly, and make Indian look very bad as Supreme leader of south Asia. All over Indian, people want a big win to wash off this shame. So it comes Nehru’s birthday.
The generals hope they can tell the repeat leader of world biggest democracy that they finally win a big battle. (it is impossible for me to translate names and ranks here). Chinese soldiers took notice of their movement.
On Nov 13, Indian started offense despite long term transport, the generals ordered soldier to fron line.
There was only one company at this position. It is a very important location. the company was strong and well know and has roots in original red army.
So indian started in 3 to 5 soldier group, under canon fire support, Chinese soldier pick them out with gun shot and hand grenade. Under very difficulty the company hold back one major battalion, and precious canon army for 6 hours. Indian general was helpless seeing Chinese soldier running back and forth taking out his soldiers. at about the end of this fight, a Chinese division arrived, With heavy casualties, Indian had to withdrew. This time, Chinese started offense, follow them, and broke Indian’s defense line. Indian already exhausted all the canon fire in the hour fight. so as if open a bamboo (a Chinese expression, if you have ever opened bamboo, you know if you start it, it will be little effort to open it all the way) Indians can only watch Chinese soldier mopping up the battle field.
On Nov 16, Chinese soldiers started offense, and the Indian defensive was totally over ran.
The Indian general desert his solders, and fled in a transport plane. Chinese made special note on Indian general’s character here.
I hope you all enjoy reading history here.:-)
Hi Simon, I found this gem on scmp:
THIS IS INDIA’S CHINA WAR, ROUND TWO
BY NEVILLE MAXWELL
http://m.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2102555/indias-china-war-round-two
I hope you enjoy the reading:-)
Thanks J. My perspective on the 1962 and 1967 conflicts are constantly changing as new facts and expert evaluations are available. Yeah, I enjoy reading those links.
Simon,
More from our favor author M K Bhadrakumar:
1. India-China Standoff Sets Precedents in Regional Security
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/11/india-china-standoff-sets-precedents-in-regional-security.html
Analog of Indian army action, and this so called Chinese Bhutan dispute is new and Indian design:
“An analogy could be that China’s People’s Liberation Army units come down to the Siachen area, which is under India’s control, to advance Pakistan’s territorial claim, which Beijing also considers to be of strategic significance due to its proximity to Karakorum Highway and Xinjiang region. This needs some explanation.
For a start, the location of the standoff is Doklam Plateau, which has been in China’s control on which Bhutan made a territorial claim only in 2000. (India drew Bhutan’s maps in the sixties, including the portion showing Doklam as Bhutanese territory.)…”
So the more we read, the more we find out what India is.
2. India’s foreign policy is in dangerous drift
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/07/14/indias-foreign-policy-is-in-dangerous-drift/
So now China has abandoned their long standing policy of Kashmir is a issue between between India and Pakistan. Now it needs international attention.
Chinese had many cards to play India, and had refused to do so until now. I suspect Chinese will do what they do best, win without firing a shot. However, when Indian is involved, rationality is not a virtue. So military preparation along the border will be strengthened as well.
The India problem can not be wished away, China need to face the fact, and dealt it effectively.
@Simon & J
Simon Chow version is correct, in 1967 the Indians defeated Chinese forces it is undisputed and Simon is also correct that the Indian figures are more accurate. We had friendly relations with both India and China and our military sources concur that Indians won that fight outright and it was started by a reckless move by chinese soldier. Here is a good summary I find on internet:
The Indian military, overcoming the loss in 1962, had dealt a severe blow to PLA in 1967 in Nathu La sector that resulted in the death of 400 Chinese soldiers, a fact neither debated in Beijing nor Delhi. The Vietnamese Army had dealt a similar blow to PLA in 1979 along the Sino-Vietnam border merely four years after unification of Vietnam.
The Nathu La and Cho La clashes, (September 11-14, 1967 for Nathu La; October 1, 1967 for Cho La) were a series of clashes between India and China along the Sikkim border. According to an Sino-Indian expert, the conflict ended with the defeat of China. Indian troops drove back the attacking forces. Many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were destroyed.
Starting from August 13, 1967, Chinese troops started digging trenches in Nathu La across the Indian border. After Indian troops observed that some trenches were inside Sikkim, it asked the local Chinese commander to withdraw from the then Indian protectorate state.
On October 1, 1967, another clash between India and China took place at Cho La, a few km north of Nathu La. According to the Indian government version with which neutral experts concur, the clash was initiated by the Chinese troops after a scuffle between the two, when the Chinese troops infiltrated into Sikkim, claimed the pass and questioned the position of Indian troops.
According to the defence ministry, 88 Indian Army personnel were killed and 163 wounded while China lost 340 soldiers and 450 were wounded during the two incidents.
China, however, claimed a lower number of casualties. According to s cholar John Garver, Professor Emeritus in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology after the Nathu La incident, Indian concerns were roused about China’s intentions regarding Sikkim.
Garver also said that India was “quite pleased with the combat performance of its forces in the Nathu La clashes, seeing it as signaling dramatic improvement since 1962 war”. According to another scholar, Taylor Fravel, these incidents demonstrated the effects of China’s “insecurity” on the use of force..
I see.
According to BHADRAKUMAR “Sikkim is the only segment of the border with China where India enjoys military superiority”,
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/11/india-china-standoff-sets-precedents-in-regional-security.html
And Chinese have to start fight at that very place, not once, but twice!
Anything is possible, but does not make it logical…
So, Bhadrakumar indicated, correctly to my thinking, the tri-junction is sensitive to both China (access to Ihasa the capital of Tibet) and India (access to the Siliguri corridor). And India had been carrying out provocations for the past 3 years i.e. since Modi/BJP CE yo power. It is ironical that Modi was helped to power (despite his pariah status due to his involvement in the anti-Muslim massacres in Gujerat state where he was the Chief Minister) by China through investment in Gujerat which boosted its economy. So China should in future choose her friends carefully focusing on the person’s character and not just because (as Mao said) “the enemy of enemy is my friend”.
I believe Chinese had high hope with Modi because he was actively attract Chinese investment, and engaging China when he was CM. Chinese thought he will be good for the relationship.
I think Chinese government should try to more accurate assess foreign politicians characters, and I think they are doing great job with Trump.
I would not blame Chinese investment for Modi get in office. If not It is not Chinese investment, the creativity of BJP/RSS will find other way to get him in power. You can see that by Modi’s popularity after demonetization.
Modi will likely win 2019 election even if he lost face on this event. BJP/RSS’s political talent is second to none, so are the voter’s ability to choose in this world largest democracy. At end of Modi’s second term, the India as we know it now will likely do no longer exist.
Also another fact you need to know. Chinese soldiers are very disciplined and do not start fight. If anyone claim otherwise, he is/was not telling the truth. Even in current event at Sikkim border, Chinese will not shoot first. From video posted recently by Indians MSA, it shown three Indian soldiers against one Chinese at border with physical altcation. Indian spoiled for a fight, as I posted before, from 1963.
We have the height and plenty of ammo. Indian would be stupid fight any where else.
It is more logical that they saw they had advantage at the location, and instigated a fight.
I also can not see Chinese army would concentrate 800 man in the only disadvantage location of 4000 mile border and let them decimated by enemy canon fire, not once, but twice.
But of cause, Chinese Army could have be so insecure that they’d concentrate over 800 men in a 70 square km of most disadvantage section on the border where enemy looking down on them to start a fight that would decimate them, not once, but twice.
@vot tak on July 14, 2017 · at 2:47 am UTC
Re: the example you provided of a USN warship colliding with a freighter.
Dear Vot Tak,
it was you who appeared to characterize it as humorous since this incident you cited can’t be taken as a serious example of the state of the USN. You can’t project such an accident or anecdote onto the entire US Navy, not if you want to be taken seriously as an adult making a coherent argument.
The idea that a high end military ship could be crippled by a mere freighter is on the face of it ridiculous looking and, by extension, funny. The fact that there were casualties is not funny. But your whole example is irrevelant and inappropriate to judging the capabilities of the US Navy. There are plenty of screw ups, accidents and collisions in various navies, that means diddly squat regarding the overall capability of a naval force. The Russian and soviet navies had many accidents, are you going to project that Russia’s navy is incompetent and incapable because of that?
You really need to separate wishful thinking and hatred of the USA from your ability to judge facts objectively. The US Navy is currently the finest, most advanced and most powerful navy on and under the seas. You may not like it, but it is a military fact, deal with it. The Chinese navy is nowhere near the capabilities of the US Navy.
The only Navy that can rival the US Navy in terms of technology or operational experience is the Russian navy, but even they fall far short in terms of scale and power projection. Russian subs and surface ships may be better or equivalent to their American counterparts, but they are not numerous enough or tasked in a manner to rival the US Navy. Certainly Russian aircraft carriers are decades behind US designs, the best Russia can deploy is 60,000 tonne oil powered steam turbine carrier compared to the 100,000 tonne nuclear powered Gerald Ford class carriers with 2-3 times the aircraft capacity of the single Russian carrier. Conversely Russia’s latest nuclear subs are superior or more advanced than US subs. Why? Because Russia’s naval doctrine is different from that of the USN. Still overall the US Navy doesn’t have any serious rival in East Asia.
Give it a rest and…
Best wishes.
@Reality Check.
Your mindset is stuck at the Battle of Midway against the Jap navy in 1942. And like Harry_Red above, you seems to not understand asymmetric warfare.
SC
The name she selected announces that what follows it will be the standard trolling.
@Vot Tak
I take it you’re refering to me (“Reality Check”) and accusing me of Trolling.
Don’t personalize animus towards me because I’m simply stating an obvious fact that the US Navy is currently the most powerful navy in the pacific. Don’t confuse this to mean that I support the amoral nature and actions of the US govts or even the amoral nature and beligerent actions of the Chinese govt.
Peace be upon you.
Simon,
US news reporting that Chinese spy ship was about 160 km off Alaska coast when they tested the missile defense (new Delhi is about 213 km from Chinese border, and down hill). American is NOT alarmed. Chinese bloggers suggest we should sail about 12 mile away from American’s pacific islands for FON.
Oh, by the way, it seems Indian are copying as much from Chinese as they can, from border guards using yaks, to business, technical practices.
J, what was the spy ship doing there? Spying on the US testing their missile defence?
That is what American said. Chinese news had screen capture of the american news. I did not pay attention for which kind of ship it was, or why it was there at that time in the news. Too many news during the day, I lost the thread. They were there when the test happened.
How ever, in search for it, some one reported two sighting two more 055 in Dalian ship yard.:-)
I think you, harry_red, and vot tak are right. In the thread discuss about battle ship over the weekend, people asked same questions, and some one even pointed out that Qing lost the whole fleet in the first sino-japan war even we had bigger ships. There were many reasons we lost the war, ship size and sailor’s bravery was not one of them.
Chinese ship displacement was still the biggest in the world in 1800. It was 1900 hundreds we had nothing. In absent of modern navy operational experience, and one of the best shipbuilding capability, it is logical to build all the tried ships, operate them, then move on from there for more logical, and better future ships. Is the practice expensive? of cause, but Indian is paying it. We should put their generosity into good use!
J, from my history reading, the Qing Dynasty, in its later stages, was riddled with corruption. So was its navy. They bought the big warships but the Navy was not well-trained. The Jap navy was trained by the British. The budget for the Qing navy and especially its supplies for the war with Japan were siphoned off by corrupt officials. The Chinese sailors might have been brave, but no one can fight without weapons and without adequate training to operate those weapons like modern warships.
But China under Xi had been preparing for war against her by the USA and its allies since 2012. The modernisation of the Chinese military, especially in applied science and technology has been turbo charged since then.
Modern China has revived the scientific nature of pre-Qin Chinese civilisation when China’s science and technology leaped 2,000 years ahead of the rest of the world in many significant areas. E.g. in metallurgy and industrial application of modular production. The first emperor burnt all scientific books, leaving only legal tomes of the original Qin state. That’s why China stagnated for 2000 years.
But even a partial revival of its pre-Qin scientific and philosophical civilisation during the Song dynasty, enabled China to leap at least 500 years ahead of the rest of the world in science and its application. E.g. gunpowder, paper, the printing press, the weaving loom, the first steam engine and the magnetic compass.
China has eclipsed the USA economically and is eclipsing the USA scientifically in many areas, the latest being artificial intelligence. Given a few more years, I suspect China will leap another 2000 years ahead of the rest of the world. This is the USA’s worst nightmare. That’s why it is trying its best to instigate wars against China, the attempt latest using India.
The Indians under the ideological Hindus like Modi’s BJP, are easier to deceive (especially after being fed with the lies of its defeat in 1962) with visions of hegemonic grandeur than the Germans were by the half-educated corporal Hitler using visions of Aryans being the master race (implying all others are slaves).
Hindu civilisation and religion is based on its two great tomes – the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. The narratives contained therein consist mainly of the triumph of good over evil. The contests between the heroes and villains of the Ramayana and Mahabharat are laced with deception and trickery.
This is a very troubling characteristic that I find in many of my Indian friends. The lack of differentiation between absolute truth and absolute lies deteriorates into the deception where truth has many versions and lies often cannot be distinguished from the truth. And truth can be lies and lies can be truth. This explains the ambivalence shown towards the Henderson-Bhagat report which contains the truth about the 1962 war with China in favour of the official lies fed to the Indian public about China treacherously stabbing India in the back.
In any society that had suffered mass deception e.g. Germany, Italy and Japan, it will have to take massive defeat in war (or a calamitous economic collapse) in war to knock some senses back into their heads.
So I am not sure about China’s chances of avoiding war with India, nor with the declining USA (deceived into believing the special rights of US exceptionalism). But China’s possible war with the USA can be avoided with the possible USSR-like collapse of its economy.
So let’s all pray for the best from the Almighty.
Yes, your reading of Qing is correct. The navy’s effort was hampered by corruption. If I remember correct(I read it very long time ago), Chinese imported canon from Japan (some thing really shocking). At time of war, the canon would not fire, because it filled with sand, not with gun powder!
I am not aware of Qin single out science books to burn. My impressions was Qin was afraid of educated people, and hate Cong Tze, so the first empiror burned books, many of them Confucius writing.
Chinese has always been industrial center of the world even at ancient time. She took the protection of sea for granted.
China: Rise, Fall and Re-Emergence as a Global Power
The Lessons of History
http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-rise-fall-and-re-emergence-as-a-global-power/29644
I think my recollection of importing canon form Japan was wrong.
I believe the corrupt officials embezzled the money for navy procurement, so some of the canon balls on board the ships was tapered with sand. Chinese lost first sino-japan war(甲午戰爭) was because the corrupt government, not because Navy sailors, or size of battleship.
The commander of the Navy 邓世昌 still is a household name in China, his name is on one of the Chinese battle ships already. Many people want to name the first 055 after him.
The 100 year of Chinese history before 1950 was not a pleasant one. There are a lot of lesson to be learn from it, and help put everything into perspective.
From my readings, the science books were also burned. The following Han dynasty did not revive scientific learning as there was no need to. The pre-Qin scientific learning was partly driven by military needs to maximise the power of the state in the fight for superiority during the warring state period. In this the Qin, although not the most advance scientifically (the Chu were the best in this regard), was the best in engineering and most advanced in industry which showed in the superior arms of the Win armies (the same advantage Germany had and has over the other states of Europe even though France and UK are more advanced scientifically).
J, I have read the article in the link. I think the thrust of the article is a bit triumphalist. China did stagnate scientifically and philosophically after Qin Shi Huang burnt all those books except for Qin legal theory which was partly replaced with Confucian philosophy by the Han dynasty.
Pre-Qin science, maths, medicine, engineering and industry were 2 millennia ahead of the rest of the world. The sinews of 21st Century’s smart economy were already practised during the Warring State period which of course covers the later part of the Zhou dynasty(1013 BC to 221 BC). E.g. Binary mathematics which form the core of computer codes. Qin engineering produced the water-works which irrigated Szechuan Province and brought it into production. The massive and ingenius work of engineering is still there and I think still in use. Qin armaments were precisely engineered, standardised and mass produced. E.g. all the parts of the cross-bow assembly is standardised and therefore inter-changeable such that they can be used in any cross-bow produced. This type of manufacturing was not used by the West until 2000 years later. Metallurgy like chrome plating was not mastered by the West until the 20th Century.
But the China of the Han dynasty did not continue the science of the Zhou Dynasty or was unable to continue due to the destruction of almost all the scientific text by the first emperor. The engineering prowess of the Qin was continued though with the construction of the Grand Canal by the Sui Dynasty just before the Tang. But Chinese science and philosophy stagnated.
The Song Dynasty saw a brief revival of science and philosophy. That few decades were enough to put China 500 years ahead of the West. But China stagnated after that, for some unknown reasons. After the Ming Dynasty’s naval expeditions, China turned completely inward. The Qing dynasty saw a brief revival of military technology, especially in artillery. But after the Qing stabilised the Empire, China again turned sleepily inwards until the British woke her up with the roar of advanced cannons during the Opium Wars.
If the first Emperor had continued the science of the Zhou Dynasty, China would have carried the world forward much faster. China’s scientific stagnation led to mankind wasting 2000 years of scientific advancement and allowed West to dominate the world with its barbaric imperialism. For example, if the Ming Dynasty continued with its naval expeditiions, the Portuguese imperialism and subsequently the Spanish, Dutch, British and French imperialism would not be able to expand past the southern tip of Africa into the Indian Ocean.
There is still a chance that China would stagnate if she becomes too triumphalist or hubristic…like the USA is now!
Simon,
1. The article is written by a Canadian in 2012, not by a Chinese.
2. If a Chinese written something too full of him/herself, you can bet the comments will not be kind to the author.
3.Have you heard Sima Qian? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Qian He record Chinese history before him in Han Dynasty.
4. Chinese innovation/science has come from meeting every day needs, according to my learning, every dynasty has a most eye catching reform/innovation/revolution.
According to my memory:
Han: agriculture revolution
Tang: Textile
Ming: Ship building
and etc.
There are a lot more than just one industry, or one idea.
5. Did Qin’s book burning affect future science study in China? I say no. Chinese has always put emphasis on learning history and literature. Chinese industries are not lack of progress. If you blame Qin Si Huang in 200 bc for Chinese not leading math/chemistry/physics in 16th century, that is a too big of stretch. I would blame Ming for close down and not exchange ideas with rest of world.
6.The west has very different way of thinking, so they are ahead in modern science… until now. It is nature the other people are just as smart as we are, we all need to have open mind and desire to learn.
By the way, There is a salvage ship off coast of Australia looking for the lost Chinese satellite from last month’s failed launch. This ship is not hired by Chinese, but by American.
I would not be so hard about past.
.
J, If only Qin Shi Huang integrated all the science and knowledge of the states he unified into China, then China would likely reach what it is today by 1st Century AD i.e. 200 years later. In terms of social development, culture, education, industry, philosophy, science, medicine etc, China,once unified, was on the verge of taking off economically and scientifically in 221 BC, But he chose to burn, retaining only the engineering prowess of the original Qin state for the purpose of building the Great Wall and his tomb and Qin legalism for the purpose of maintaining a governing bureaucracy.
The subsequent dynasties up to the Song drew upon what’s left from the Zhou Dynasty after Han took over. What’s left was Qin’s engineering technology and bureaucracy (which the Han substituted with Confucian bureaucracy). That’s why China had always been a great engineering/manufacturing civilisation with a very efficient bureaucracy. But its science and philosophy stagnated till the Song and stagnated again after the Song. Ming ship-building is leveraged on Song technology and navigation is also based on the magnetic compass invented by the Song.
But the Song, like all the Chinese dynasties after the Han, is mainly pacifist, preferring to use its technology like gunpowder weaponry for defensive purposes only and for maintaining the security of the realm. It was up to the Mongols who used Song technology for conquest.
But it was 2000 lost years. Napolean was right about China being asleep. But for the sake of mankind, I hope to see China make up for the lost 2000 years. There is hope that it could happen. I am seeing evidence of the pre-Qin scientific genes being re-activated in the current and younger generation.
J, “ideas from the rest of the world in the 16th Century” are ideas which the Zhou dynasty already mastered and which is now slowly coming to light through archaeology. China has always generated her own unique and original ideas. Even now in terms of governance and economy. E.g. my Western economic professor taught us the canard that the boom-burst cycle is inevitable. But that’s only because of how the West ‘manages’ their economies or allowed their economies to be managed/manipulated in the name of free capitalism – which is really predatory, exploitative and cannibalistic capitalism.
Western ideas are really a regurgitation and enhancement of ideas originally borrowed or stolen from China, much like China’s high speed trains in reverse. China can adopt current ‘Western’ technology and enhanced them. But China must also be cognisant of the limitations of such ideas. The economic example I quoted above is one. The heavy reliance on chemicals in Western medicine is another. Above all, China must not neglect her tremendous civilisational capacity for generating original ideas of her own!
J, why did China not salvage the satellite herself?
Yeah, I have heard and read about Sima Qian. But his, due to constraints to please by his Han masters, is only a snap-shot of the Zhou Dynasty period. He, as far as I know did not cover the scientific, philosophical, industry and economical aspects. We can only glimpse the classical period i.e. pre-Qin history from archaeological evidence. It was a feudal period with nasty cultural practices likely life burials of servants-slaves with their dead masters. This was abolished by the Qin if I remember correctly. But the scientific and philosophical progress were necessitated by the need to win wars between the warring states and as the great minds sought to answer the questions of war and peace. Sun Tzu wrote from this period. And if his writings (also Confucius) is an indication of the intellectual fermentation and prowess of that period, we know next to nothing about the classical period due to the book burning by Qin Shi Huang!
And as far as I know (the first year of my education was in mandarin), you are right about Chinese education ‘always’ being on literature and history, especially since the Han. It was mainly rote learning. But what about pre-Qin education? Judging from how the current and younger generation took to science and technology, I don’t think Chinese education ‘always’ emphasize literature and history. If Sun Tzu’s writings were a semblance of pre-Qin intellect, then I think that pre-Qin education is more analytical and scientific due to the functional requirements of the times.
Simon,
Here is the original from CNN:
Chinese spy ship lurks off coast of Alaska during missile defense test
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/chinese-spy-ship-coast-alaska/index.html
“The same official said that the US had observed similar Chinese vessels in recent days sailing off the coast of Guam and shadowing a joint US-Australia military exercise named Talisman Sabre. ”
It is also at US, Japan, and Indian navy exercise:
http://www.news18.com/news/india/chinese-spy-ship-in-indian-ocean-ahead-of-india-us-japan-naval-drill-1452527.html
Simon. We have over ran on this thread, so I have to reply on different one.
I have to say I have never heard the argument like yours and I totally disagree.
I remember long time ago we used to say “there was not big gap at 1949, now after misgoverning, the country fell back too much” in 80s. Some 30 year later, we have a totally different situation.
Past happened in a contact, for a reason. I do not see it as waste what so ever. I see it as history, we learn from history, and reference with rest of world. Yes, we lost a few hundreds years, it is something to learn from and move on.
Qin, Qing, and Mao all burned books. With rise and fall of dynasties, there are lot more nasty things at least as bad as burning books.
I do not see it as lost years, or who is responsible. We are now actively working, learning and exchanging ideas to get ahead on all areas, so history is learned as it should be, and I am content.
By the way, if US can go after a failed Chinese satellite, I feel US still has its old spirit. It just need to learn not to waste it on healpful activities.
J, China under 27 years (1949 to 1976) of Mao’s rule was fortunate to have Zhou En Lai and then Deng Xiao Peng after Mao and Zhou. But it was 27 wasted years.
China after Qin had no such good fortune. The scientists and philosophers were either executed by the Qin or neglected by the Han.
China would also had similarly stagnated if there were no Zhou En Lai and more crucially, no Deng Xiao Peng.
Let’s agree to disagree, but it is my contention that China stagnated for 2000 years because of what Qin Shi Huang Ti did in burning the science and philosophy books. If not for this, for example, mankind through China would likely have found a cure for cancer 2000 years ago, as China found a cure for malaria 2000 years ago!
Simon,
Chinese may very well trying to do so, but the article did not say it one way or other.
J, you wrote: “The west has very different way of thinking, so they are ahead in modern science… until now. It is nature the other people are just as smart as we are, we all need to have open mind and desire to learn”.
That may be true. But China has 5000 years of civilisation and from the Qin onwards, centrlised government with an efficient bureaucracy like now. After the Roman collapse in 476 AD, the modern ‘Western’ states did not emerge from barbarism until about 1000 years ago. And ‘Western’ thoughts have a lot of limitations, blind-spots and leaps of logic. There are too any to be discussed here. But those defects are fueling their current decline.
Just imagine what can be achieved if China progress. But by burning the science and philosophical books, Qin Shi Huang Ti 1) took China backwards scientific-wise, 1000 years to pre-Zhou Dynasty civilisation and 2) stagnated China for 2000 years. The Song revival was too brief and after Song, the stagnation reasserted itself almost with a vengeance.
‘Western’ civilisation, after borrowing from China, was able to forge ahead because of this stagnation. This was consolidated indirectly by Martin Luther’s Reformation when the Western mind was released from the darkness of Papal superstition.
I mean to write: Just imagine what could have been achieved if China’s science and technology progressed continuously for 5000 years or at least continuously for 2000 years after the Qin as it did during the Zhou Dynasty and especially during the 300 years of the Warring States period!
I mean to write: Just imagine what could have been achieved if China’s science and technology progressed continuously for 5000 years or at least continuously for 2000 years after the Qin as it did during the Zhou Dynasty and especially during the 300 years of the Warring States period! But we will see what happens in the next 30 years!
Simon, I not only disagree with you, but also believe your thinking is very dangerous.
Qin barely lasted one generation, as with Mao.
Even if Qin did not burn books, it is a stretch to think Chinese will be able to leading Chemistry, Physics in 1600s. Nothing is guaranteed, and the other people and culture are just as capable.
One is a product of environment, Chinese history, science or not, is not accident.
It is dangerous to think what we could have been, I am sure same can be said about of Greeks, Arabs, and Persians also. Chinese were not without competition.
The only country does it to a psychopathic degree is India, who over exaggerate its past, and blame everyone else for its inability of today, or past a few thousand years.
I’d prefer caught died than that.
J, China just before Qin was already 2000 years ahead of the rest of the world in 221BC in many significant aspects of technology and industry. I have pointed out that by then they already invented binary mathematics – the basis of modern computer codes.
So let China think dangerously then in order to forge ahead and carry mankind with her. I am sure China will bear no danger to the rest of the world as proven by her history.
BTW, there is a news report from Pakistan 3 hours ago that China had already started the fight. Is it true or just fake news?
Simon,
Those Pakistani are just having fun. I do not believe it is true.
Here is new information from BHADRAKUMAR. Indian is no long boosting that they will win 2 and half war, and beeting a beat of retracting. What is left is only face.
Chinese social media is also turning up heat not only with view of live fire drill, but sighting of long line of logistics vehicles on Tibetan high way.
Chinese social media for first time also posted the struggle of North East. We can really hit him very bad without fire a weapon, and break the country apart.
I am not sure if India will learn though.
Indian military standoff with China was all about Bhutan
China did not intrude on India; tensions seem part of the ‘great game’ over Bhutan amid deep Indian disquiet about Beijing’s dealings with Thimphu
http://www.atimes.com/article/indian-military-standoff-china-bhutan/
“alayan kingdom of Bhutan is the site of a military standoff between its giant neighbors, India and China. Photo: iStock
A ‘consensus’ was reached at a meeting in New Delhi over the weekend between the government and leaders of India’s opposition parties that the five-week long military standoff with China in the Sikkim region should be resolved peacefully.
The headlines have begun moving away from the topic as if an unseen hand is guiding. The standoff could be inching its way toward denouement.
THE DAILY
Brief
Must-reads from across Asia – directly to your inbox
Your Email here
SUBMIT
‘De-escalation’ is the new mantra. The good part is that the clamor for war with China by hotheads in India does not reflect the official thinking (anymore).
China probably widening road in Doklam
Meanwhile, there is much greater clarity about what really happened on the ground.
First, contrary to what India media claimed, there has been no Chinese ‘intrusion’ on to India’s sacred soil. On the contrary, Indian military moved into Doklam on the China-Bhutan border, which has been under Chinese control all along.
Second, reports projected that a standoff ensued as China started building a road in Doklam. But there is evidence now that a road was already in existence for over a decade at least and China was probably widening it.
Third, India claimed that its intervention was at the request of Bhutan. China disputed the claim. Significantly, after a visit to Thimphu by the spouse of the Chinese ambassador in Delhi and her meeting with the Bhutanese king last week, Beijing maintains that Bhutan did not seek Indian military intervention.
Fourth, and most importantly, China maintains that it is within its sovereign right to build roads in an area under its control. Whereas, Indian reports sensed a ‘mission creep’ with a hidden Chinese agenda to eventually threaten the Siliguri corridor, a hundred kilometers to the south, which connects India’s restive northeast with the hinterland.”
@Simon Chow
Removed personal attack Please discuss ideas and events… … mod
In your retort to him you missed the point that Harry-Red was making: Aircraft Carriers are an increasingly obsolete and expensive system since like other surface vessels because they are vulnerable to destruction and require a huge task force just to defend the one carrier. His point was that it doesn’t make sense to him that China was investing in copying a conventional failing and expensive doctrine of the US; ie why doesn’t China think out of the box and come up with a cheaper cost effective asymmetrical solution instead of copying the US model of carrier battlegroups; afterall it’s hopeless for China to go toe to toe with US Navy. At least the above is what I seemed to glean from his comments.
@Reality Check. China’s aircraft battle groups are for different missions than a potential full-frontal ‘love-in’ with the USA navy ala battle of Midway in 1942. In the event of such a similar ‘love-in’, the fight will be asymmetrical. That’s what the Type 55 and China’s revolutionary ultra quiet submarines are for, not to mention the land and air-launched anti-ship missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, attack drones and not forgetting the anti-ship ballistic missiles – DF21D (2000 Km range) and DF26 (at least 4000 Km range) are for. This forms the latest version of China’s ‘Assassin Mace. Can the US Aircraft Carriers survive this?
SC
“China’s aircraft battle groups are for different missions than a potential full-frontal ‘love-in’ with the USA navy ala battle of Midway in 1942.”
While the usn scored a major victory in that encounter, this was mainly due to chance, and overzealousness on the part of the ijn cap, not skill on the part of the americans. The usn was still somewhat behind the ijn at that point and got lucky.
@ vot tak. Then the USN will have to have even greater ‘luck’ in a hostile encounter with the modern Chinese military.
Simon,
Everyone knows that the Chinese navy would be decimated by the US Navy in a fight. Even Chinese publications admit that the PLAN (navy) is a weak point and require more focus and improvement. However, if you have access to information that the rest of us aren’t privy to, please share with us sources for this assertion: In what way is the Chinese navy able to neutralize the US Navy in the Western Pacific?
LOL. Well, I agree Chinese is not looking to fight any one heads one. We looking to win without firing a shot. Except in situation of 1962…:-)
Let me correct you. It is Chinese consider our Navy is weak… that is compare to our ass kicking army!
The “weak” Chinese has following accomplishment recently:
Keep US away from our new islands in SCS.
Sank US Asian pivot.
Now a lot of neo-con keyboard warriors no longer take a winning a war with Chinese for granted as
mere half years ago. Of cause that is if they are remotely rational.
Make DiaoYu island Chinese a ground fact
Has a navy base on the other side of Indian ocean… right next to US base.
Our naval ship has scared the foe by Indian ocean into wasting a lot of more money on some imaginary threats, which is good for the region.
I think Chinese are very satisfy with our Navy and direction the navy is heading. The world too, at least the rational world…
@Reality Check. Please go and have a real reality check. I am not one of your “everyone” who “knows” about US navy superiority over China. From your reaction, you still don’t seem to understand asymmetric warfare! Please go and research more on the topic.
@Vot Tak
Can you substantiate your point? Can you supply the facts and places to prove this point? I am genuinely curious because from my readings I got the impression the Japanese naval strategy was too cautious, leading to bad decisions that the US wisely and efficiently capitalized on.
Still the United States won and Japanese lost, a testament to the skill and capabilities of the US Navy.
@Reality Check. Please read my post on 14/7/2017 at 5.07 UTC above. Boy, I am beginning to see that you either don’t seem to get it or just refuse to. If the USN has such attitude, it’s finish for them before the fight even starts.
SC
It’s called trolling. The websayanim is not interested in conversation, only in getting off from getting a response to the inflammatory rubish it posts. There is nothing there but a soulless advertising bot wasting your time.
Vot Tak,
rather that engaging in personal attacks calling people trolls or sayanim (whatever that is), can you substantiate your opinions on the US Navy or the Imperial Japanese Navy (re your contention about their relative performance in WW-2)?
This reminds me of debate over how Communism died and how thoroughly discredited it is. You get denial and denial despite the reality on the ground that it leads to economic collapse (just as crony capitalism, monopoly corporations, inefficient mega-corporations and Bankster controlled macro-economic policy also lead to collapse) : central banking or central planning are inefficient, totalitarian and incompatible with human society due their vulnerability to the vices in human nature (greed, corruption, lack of incentive, etc) -leading to talent rot/flight and eventually incompetence dominating the controlling levels of these systems.
The only country that made a partial success at communism was Yugoslavia, but they had a mixed free-enterprise and state controlled economy, so if a pure communist model had been adopted Yugoslavia would economically collapsed too.
Upto now you haven’t been able to substantiate a single claim you made on countering the fact that US Navy outclasses all it’s rivals.
@Reality Check. I could substantiate on behalf of Vot Tak. But I think you should do a bit more reality check as in research on the topic before you return to discuss.
@Simon Chow,
As you can clearly see, my question was directed at Vot Tak. It is for him to provide a response.
However, I do thank you for proving my previous points and understanding that China has to change is archaic expectation of its peer or even greater powers (like Russia and the US) that they must kowtow to it; as we seen recently, even tiny and China-dependent North Korea refuses to kowtow to China. This is quite a statement of far things have degraded, especially in light of the fact that Chinese request of North Korea was quite reasonable yet the North Korea response was rude and humiliating (and quite ungrateful too).
With the happiest regards to you.
@ Reality Check. China wants others to ‘kow tow’ to her? China just wants others to cooperate with her in win-win deals. Please go and have a real reality check and you will find the it is the USA and its clones who want others to ‘kow tow’ to them!
@Reality Check. If other countries want to benchmark China and want to be ‘greater’ than China, it’s their business. China would not care. China does not regard it (that nations aspire to be greater then her) as any of her business. Just leave China alone to be great according to her potential. That’s all. And I think I have capture the spirit of China.