China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific • Hacker News Board

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#71

Post by sbjustin » Thu, May 02, 2019, 1:53 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #66

expressrunning wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"China’s Rear Adm. Luo Yuan [said] the key for Chinese domination in those hotly contested waters could lie in the sinking of two U.S. aircraft carriers. 'What the United States fears the most is taking casualties,' the admiral said, before adding that such an attack on two of the U.S. Navy’s steel behemoths would claim upwards of 10,000 lives." https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see...

> "What the United States fears the most is taking casualties" That's also a good way to piss off rank and file Americans who normally don't give a damn. Want the US to go cold turkey off of Chinese imports? That's how you do it.

Agreed. History certain supports your statement.

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#72

Post by AYBABTME » Thu, May 02, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #49

chriselles wrote: post #40

I don't see any reason to panic. In raw numbers the US Navy is technologically and numerically dominant. But China will increasingly be able to surge "mass" in terms of both technology and numbers to dominate its near shore and achieve theatre level superiority. China is building out it's military in a way that is akin to the US Reagan led 1980's. But what concerns me the most is not PLAN versus US Navy, but China/BA…

I doubt they'll stop at their home waters. What they consider home waters will just move more and more towards the US west coast. Right now the conflict is closer to them than it is to the USA but things may change rapidly.

Doesn't seem likely to me if history is anything. China doesn't seem interested in ruling over its neighbours, as long as they're friendly. I'm no expert but for all I've read on its history, it seems to traditionally be interested in commerce and be content with that.

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#73

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:08 AM UTC

myroon5 wrote: post #48

chriselles wrote: post #40

I don't see any reason to panic. In raw numbers the US Navy is technologically and numerically dominant. But China will increasingly be able to surge "mass" in terms of both technology and numbers to dominate its near shore and achieve theatre level superiority. China is building out it's military in a way that is akin to the US Reagan led 1980's. But what concerns me the most is not PLAN versus US Navy, but China/BA…

What is the H in BATH?

[deleted]

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#74

Post by geowwy » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:10 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #49

chriselles wrote: post #40

I don't see any reason to panic. In raw numbers the US Navy is technologically and numerically dominant. But China will increasingly be able to surge "mass" in terms of both technology and numbers to dominate its near shore and achieve theatre level superiority. China is building out it's military in a way that is akin to the US Reagan led 1980's. But what concerns me the most is not PLAN versus US Navy, but China/BA…

I doubt they'll stop at their home waters. What they consider home waters will just move more and more towards the US west coast. Right now the conflict is closer to them than it is to the USA but things may change rapidly.

They definitely won't be parking their navy off the west coast. They have nothing to gain and the cost will be huge.

China is being aggressive in the South China Sea because they're insecure about the US navy being so close. If things escalate then the US navy can start a blockade and stop virtually all trade between China and the outside world.

China wants to get control of the surrounding seas so its shipping routes aren't vulnerable to the US. That's also why they're investing so much in huge train networks through Asia and the Middle East – it means the US navy can't economically cripple them at will.

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#75

Post by th1nkdifferent » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:14 AM UTC

kuzehanka wrote: post #60

chriselles wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think this is hyperbole. Sinking a US aircraft carrier would be a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States. It would e like sinking Rhode Island(slightly bigger). Retribution would be overwhelming.

Retribution with what? If the carriers are taken out the US has no way to project any kind of meaningful force in that region. Any scenario (unlikely as it may be) that involves china successfully destroying 2 US carriers would also involve their confidence in being able to destroy the rest in their coastal region.

ICBMs

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#76

Post by Terr_ » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

geowwy wrote: post #74

est31 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt they'll stop at their home waters. What they consider home waters will just move more and more towards the US west coast. Right now the conflict is closer to them than it is to the USA but things may change rapidly.

They definitely won't be parking their navy off the west coast. They have nothing to gain and the cost will be huge. China is being aggressive in the South China Sea because they're insecure about the US navy being so close. If things escalate then the US navy can start a blockade and stop virtually all trade between China and the outside world. China wants to get control of the surrounding seas so its shipping route…

> west coast [...] South China Sea

Or to use Occam's Razor: There's a greater density of assets to control, nearer at hand.

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#77

Post by boomboomsubban » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #65

Jedi72 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah nukes would fly I imagine.

I'm not sure countries would nuke each other to death over that.

It's hard to imagine whatever war that started ending without nukes.

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#78

Post by forkLding » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

“For Southeast Asian neighbors, China’s navy may be intimidating, but its prowess is limited to waters near the country’s shores.”

- A retired PLA officer

^This quote from the article basically summarizes the whole article. The rest of the content is speculation or facts that prove the Chinese navy isn't as powerful as the US navy, except for anti-ship missiles.

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#79

Post by dflock » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #54

dflock wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you owe the bank $10k, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $10b, you own the bank. Sanctions against China would be fairly painful for the rest of the world, too.

Sanctions are always painful to both sides. But it's usually one coutry vs most of the rest of the world. Each country only cuts off ties with that one country, so the relative impact of that action is small. The sanctioned country has its ties cut off by most if not all trading partners, culminating negative effects and adding some synergies on top, yielding a big impact for that country.

> Each country only cuts off ties with that one country, so the relative impact of that action is small

Right... that's my point: the relative impact of cutting off ties to China would be pretty large, given that it's the worlds factory. They would be worse for China, but more painful for everyone else than existing sanctions.

Re: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

#80

Post by SapporoChris » Thu, May 02, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #24

ilaksh wrote: post #17

I guess it's probably not very realistic but to me the only way to get to real security that you can count on to last is to change the whole paradigm. I mean the basic premise is that the bottom line for control is deadly force. Maybe there really is no alternative but I think it's worth mentioning that as long is that is the operating mode, there is no real security for human life. You can certainly have extended pe…

the basic premise is that the bottom line for control is deadly force Yes. That's actually enshrined in international law. Sovereignty is pretty much defined as whomever has enough force in that place to get their way. the international operating mode is that serious conflicts are resolved with machines designed to destroy property and lives CGP Grey puts it this way: Sovereignty == Bigger Army Diplomacy. Actually th…

Thank you so much for the introduction to CGP Grey. Watching 'The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

The line, "While you can call them all British it's not recommended as the four countries generally do not like each other." hooked me, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Rest of my day is gone watching these videos, I'm down the rabbit hole.