Plenty are talking about India’s expansion, but it seems that we (policy makers) are unclear on that expansion’s impact. Sort of a “stay tuned” scenario, with China and India building navies suited for wide regional hegemony.

URR

China is compared with the bad guys because of their statist nature. All the countries you mentioned do not have a system of government that protects individual rights and property. Taiwan does have such a system and that is why it is an issue.

Because she thought reasons should get better of one than making wars (she was wrong!) and she was too thrift to spend on her military armament then. She must not make this mistake again.

Experts now predict that in another 18 years China economy shall surpasses US. Yet at this time China does not even possesses a single aircraft carrier to safeguard her trade or territory.

One (especially US) should not too worried in regards to Chinese ASBM. China after all is a responsible Big 5. She had a lot of head-ache – how to raise the balance millions out of poverty, how to allocate more fund to the poorer area to overcome the rich-poor gap, the desertification, lack of drinking water for millions(!), the shortage of food, oil, export, jobs, natural disaster and of course Taiwan!

She meant well when she use the DF-31 as ASBM with 1, 800 to 2, 500 km rather than a ICBM with 12 000km. She knows that if she strikes an American carrier, that means full war, which is the last in her mind. America is her largest debtor, she will not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. However the same cannot be said if the issue in regards to Taiwan, because she is left with no choice for she had to safeguard her “territorial integrity”.

Basically her ASBM is a polite reminder to others that “don’t mess with me in regard to Taiwan”. That was all.

Also I am with you Ultima on our linking Chinas naval objectives with Japans from pre WWII. I follow your line of thought on this and there are a number of parallels with Japans naval history. For one the same basic part of the ocean and Asia land mass to fight over for the same stuff. The one point I would make on this is to understand Japan, Like the USA, is a naval power for national strategic objectives. The USA (and Japan) or sea powers so we can fulfill our national security goals. That is our Grand Strategy require us to be a sea power. Although China has a naval tradition from classical history, the current PRC has no real security goals or grand strategy that require or compel her to take to the sea and take on all comers. This is some thing the CCP feels or thinks brings power or leverage to the State PRC.

One does not know how much longer the CCP can hold on to the State (PRC). China is bigger and older then the CCP. As the people and elite of the cost get rich in the world trade the hart land and back country or still poor. Big time poor. How much longer until a new Mao stands up to lead a revolution back to the rich cost? The event of 1989-1991 in Tiananmen Square are still close to many in China. A push to the south (like Japan in 41) or a move to take Taiwan by force would be motivated by these type of internal political forces. What China does with its Naval build up should be seen with these factors in mind.

The real power backing up the CCP holding the state together is the Army (PLA). The PLA navy will be used to defend the east flank, project power to bolster the CCP and keep off balance the US Pacific Fleet. The PLA Navy wins not with sea power but by taking the US Navy off its game. The PRC could lose their battle fleet in combat and still win a strategic victory if they inflicted major damage with much blood on the US Pacific fleet.

I think you may have mixed up von Scharnhorst (the Prussian General of Napoleonic Wars) with von Tirpitz, the Kaiser’s Grand Admiral and architect of the High Seas Fleet.

If I understand you and the analysis correctly, then I think you have brought up a key point in your first point, economics and hence freedom. If the Chinese government makes moves toward a freer society then the expansion of their navy could actually be a positive sign of a “defender.” But, at this time it still seems that they are sending mixed signals, such as having Google design an internet system that allows the government to watch over their citizens. In a free society a government would have no need to check up on every citizen. So, if I had to come to a conclusion right now on which way I thought the Chinese government was moving, I would say “aggressor.”

And with that said, I sure wish that the CIA still had the funding and the man power that they did have before Carter became president and started appointing people and implementing his ideas over 30 years ago.