<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sleight of Hand?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/</link>
	<description>The Naval Institute’s taken its independent forum to a new level - with you in the middle of it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:43:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: UltimaRatioReg</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131319</link>
		<dc:creator>UltimaRatioReg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131319</guid>
		<description>&quot;I don’t think distracting the US form its network security is one of them.&quot;

Me either, Chuck.  The PLAN is exactly what they intend it to be.  

As for their cyber capabilities, they have had a goal of cyber disruption for more than a decade, and have some truly worrisome capabilities and functional knowledge of critical US infrastructure and business systems.  &quot;Unrestricted Warfare&quot; was written in the late 90s by a couple of PLA colonels.  Don&#039;t read it at bedtime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I don’t think distracting the US form its network security is one of them.&#8221;</p>
<p>Me either, Chuck.  The PLAN is exactly what they intend it to be.  </p>
<p>As for their cyber capabilities, they have had a goal of cyber disruption for more than a decade, and have some truly worrisome capabilities and functional knowledge of critical US infrastructure and business systems.  &#8220;Unrestricted Warfare&#8221; was written in the late 90s by a couple of PLA colonels.  Don&#8217;t read it at bedtime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Hill</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131315</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131315</guid>
		<description>URR, I would not disagree, but considering the Chinese rationale for procuring carriers, they probably have multiple objectives. I don&#039;t think distracting the US form its network security is one of them. 

The Chinese will be patient, use intimidation against its neighbors, and probably won&#039;t do anything until we are distracted by something else then quickly sail four carriers, land on some rock of no apparent value (surrounded by a 200 nmi EEZ), feat accompli and we will see reason to fight over it. After all, we&#039;re friends.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>URR, I would not disagree, but considering the Chinese rationale for procuring carriers, they probably have multiple objectives. I don&#8217;t think distracting the US form its network security is one of them. </p>
<p>The Chinese will be patient, use intimidation against its neighbors, and probably won&#8217;t do anything until we are distracted by something else then quickly sail four carriers, land on some rock of no apparent value (surrounded by a 200 nmi EEZ), feat accompli and we will see reason to fight over it. After all, we&#8217;re friends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UltimaRatioReg</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131311</link>
		<dc:creator>UltimaRatioReg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131311</guid>
		<description>Chuck,

I would submit that a good deal of those you refer to as China&#039;s potential enemies are our allies.  You are likely correct about the South China Sea and China&#039;s quest for energy.  There has been increasing opinion that the PLAN and its planned expansion is far more suited for Indonesian waters than for the Straits of Taiwan.  Which makes them resemble Japan ca. 1940 in some ways...  Japan had the Mandate bases and a world-class Navy to be the bulwark against interference to their expansion.  China&#039;s maritime denial capabilities just might be filling the same bill.  

Anyway, probably prudent to build to meet their capabilities, and not try and guess their intentions....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chuck,</p>
<p>I would submit that a good deal of those you refer to as China&#8217;s potential enemies are our allies.  You are likely correct about the South China Sea and China&#8217;s quest for energy.  There has been increasing opinion that the PLAN and its planned expansion is far more suited for Indonesian waters than for the Straits of Taiwan.  Which makes them resemble Japan ca. 1940 in some ways&#8230;  Japan had the Mandate bases and a world-class Navy to be the bulwark against interference to their expansion.  China&#8217;s maritime denial capabilities just might be filling the same bill.  </p>
<p>Anyway, probably prudent to build to meet their capabilities, and not try and guess their intentions&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Hill</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131261</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131261</guid>
		<description>Why assume these are pointed as us? They have lots of other uses. China has several potential enemies they may want to intimidate.

They need energy. They think they can get it from the South China Sea. They think the South China Sea is theirs and they have on going disputes with about a half dozen nations in that area.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why assume these are pointed as us? They have lots of other uses. China has several potential enemies they may want to intimidate.</p>
<p>They need energy. They think they can get it from the South China Sea. They think the South China Sea is theirs and they have on going disputes with about a half dozen nations in that area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike M.</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131259</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131259</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately too true.  It is worth remembering the similarities between modern China and Imperial Germany.

Both are rising powers.

Both demand &#039;respect&#039;, frequently in terms that annoy existing powers.

Both tend toward hamfistedness in foreign policy.

Both have significant sea trade.

Both have sea lanes that go past either a major potential opponent or an ally of a major potential opponent.

If I sound worried, I am.  It&#039;s not that China would deliberately start a war...but I&#039;m a pretty serious student of the Dreadnought era, and recollect that the Great War was fueled by a combination of causes.  Everybody had a reason to fight for four months...but when those reasons were combined, the result was a four-year bloodbath.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately too true.  It is worth remembering the similarities between modern China and Imperial Germany.</p>
<p>Both are rising powers.</p>
<p>Both demand &#8216;respect&#8217;, frequently in terms that annoy existing powers.</p>
<p>Both tend toward hamfistedness in foreign policy.</p>
<p>Both have significant sea trade.</p>
<p>Both have sea lanes that go past either a major potential opponent or an ally of a major potential opponent.</p>
<p>If I sound worried, I am.  It&#8217;s not that China would deliberately start a war&#8230;but I&#8217;m a pretty serious student of the Dreadnought era, and recollect that the Great War was fueled by a combination of causes.  Everybody had a reason to fight for four months&#8230;but when those reasons were combined, the result was a four-year bloodbath.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UltimaRatioReg</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131212</link>
		<dc:creator>UltimaRatioReg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131212</guid>
		<description>Mike,

Great observations.  Hope you didn&#039;t mistake my light tone for dismissal.  The very points you raise, the PLAN willingness to learn the best and worst lessons from others, makes them a force to be reckoned with, regionally at least.  

Your allusion to comparing the High Seas Fleet with PLAN is also very astute.  Two major differences that work in China&#039;s advantage.  They are one heck of a lot farther away than Kiel was from Scapa Flow, and the US is not, nor projected to be, in a shipbuilding flurry to maintain superiority over our foes&#039; fleets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,</p>
<p>Great observations.  Hope you didn&#8217;t mistake my light tone for dismissal.  The very points you raise, the PLAN willingness to learn the best and worst lessons from others, makes them a force to be reckoned with, regionally at least.  </p>
<p>Your allusion to comparing the High Seas Fleet with PLAN is also very astute.  Two major differences that work in China&#8217;s advantage.  They are one heck of a lot farther away than Kiel was from Scapa Flow, and the US is not, nor projected to be, in a shipbuilding flurry to maintain superiority over our foes&#8217; fleets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike M.</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131210</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:52:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131210</guid>
		<description>I would not discount either Varyag or a new-build Chinese CV.

Remember, Soviet carriers were always an odd hybrid, with considerable displacement alloted to defensive and offensive missiles.  The Chinese have probably stripped the SS-N-19 tubes out of Varyag.  This in itself will substantially increase space on the hangar deck.  Add a deck park that the Soviets were not willing to use due to sub-Arctic weather, and you have a pretty decent air wing.

And the Chinese bought Varyag as a study.  Even if the ship design lessons are How Not To Do It, they are invaluable.  And the Chinese learn fast.

Finally, we like to think that the USN has 80 years of experience operating carriers.  This is deceptive.  Really, we have more like 20 years of experience...repeated four times.  A better comparison is the fact that the Navy started experimenting with carrier operations in 1923.  A decade later, carriers were an integral part of the battle fleet.  And the Chinese don&#039;t have to make the Really Silly Mistakes we made in the early 1920s - they can watch our TV shows, download our unclassified manuals, hire a few contractors...and come away with a solid foundation that will clip several years off the time required for proficiency.

The PLAN is serious.  As serious as the High Seas Fleet a century earlier...and THEY damned near beat the Royal Navy in World War I.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would not discount either Varyag or a new-build Chinese CV.</p>
<p>Remember, Soviet carriers were always an odd hybrid, with considerable displacement alloted to defensive and offensive missiles.  The Chinese have probably stripped the SS-N-19 tubes out of Varyag.  This in itself will substantially increase space on the hangar deck.  Add a deck park that the Soviets were not willing to use due to sub-Arctic weather, and you have a pretty decent air wing.</p>
<p>And the Chinese bought Varyag as a study.  Even if the ship design lessons are How Not To Do It, they are invaluable.  And the Chinese learn fast.</p>
<p>Finally, we like to think that the USN has 80 years of experience operating carriers.  This is deceptive.  Really, we have more like 20 years of experience&#8230;repeated four times.  A better comparison is the fact that the Navy started experimenting with carrier operations in 1923.  A decade later, carriers were an integral part of the battle fleet.  And the Chinese don&#8217;t have to make the Really Silly Mistakes we made in the early 1920s &#8211; they can watch our TV shows, download our unclassified manuals, hire a few contractors&#8230;and come away with a solid foundation that will clip several years off the time required for proficiency.</p>
<p>The PLAN is serious.  As serious as the High Seas Fleet a century earlier&#8230;and THEY damned near beat the Royal Navy in World War I.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Tan</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131164</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Tan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131164</guid>
		<description>Amen!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UltimaRatioReg</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131065</link>
		<dc:creator>UltimaRatioReg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131065</guid>
		<description>&quot;Now I’m worried. They’re on to us.&quot;

Look on the bright side.  Think how many there&#039;d be if they wanted to be Catholic!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Now I’m worried. They’re on to us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Look on the bright side.  Think how many there&#8217;d be if they wanted to be Catholic!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grandpa Bluewater</title>
		<link>http://blog.usni.org/2009/07/29/sleight-of-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-131021</link>
		<dc:creator>Grandpa Bluewater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.usni.org/?p=3851#comment-131021</guid>
		<description>&quot;If you are a patriotic Chinese, you have to be a Christian.&quot;

Lordy!

Now I&#039;m worried. They&#039;re on to us.

At least we have a couple of million secret weapons left. Jewish sailors (Rickover),and those with other non-Protestant  (Basilone, Dilboy, Sullivan, Inoye, Ivonovich, Wai...) religions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If you are a patriotic Chinese, you have to be a Christian.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lordy!</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;m worried. They&#8217;re on to us.</p>
<p>At least we have a couple of million secret weapons left. Jewish sailors (Rickover),and those with other non-Protestant  (Basilone, Dilboy, Sullivan, Inoye, Ivonovich, Wai&#8230;) religions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

