China's Navy Breaks out to the High Seas

[Publicus]

The aircraft carriers might be obsolete, but they may be the only technology readily available at this time. China needs to act rather quickly because Asian countries are getting their act together. The start of ASEAN is one example.

Whether they are a good technology or not, they are good for intimidating the neighbors, who have even less and must rely on the US for a significant amount of protection.

The US aircraft carrier battle group will be around for a long time and the CCP wants in on it. My question was pointed more at the poster who raised the CCP and the aircraft carrier question.

The carrier battle group was made for AirSea Battle. It fits in perfectly, submarines and all. Its defenses are state of the art sophisticated, many and formidable. The CCP with carriers will only wish they could get up to that speed, level. Even a ballistic carrier killer missile can be defeated.

The CCP-PRC obsession with carriers began because of the Taiwan crisis of 1996 when Beijing didn't like Taiwan's presidential election campaign so started firing missiles on either side of Taiwan 24/7. On the 6th day the two carrier battle groups Prez Clinton had ordered sent arrived, which immediately brought a stop to the nonsense. So on the 7th day everyone rested - everyone except the CCP, which was humiliated and furious.

That's why the CCP developed its carrier killer ballistic missile, to put the threat to the US Navy and the Pentagon. More so, however, AirSea Battle is designed to make an adversary think twice about engaging. (AirSea Battle catches criticism only as being too aggressive a battle concept.)

So now Beijing sees great utility to the carrier as a means of projecting newfound power. The sheeple of the PRC are equally fascinated by US carriers so that's a two-for in Beijing.

And things have been quiet for some time now around Taiwan.

Yes, the CCP keeps 1000 missiles across the Strait aimed at Taiwan, but all they are is a sprawling set piece.

[NeverSure]

The dictators in Beijing know that before they can become a global power in their designs to dominate the world they first need to become a regional power.

That's what the naval buildup is about, to subjugate the navies of Japan and India, Australia as well not to mention the US Navy.

Navy chief Admiral Wu Shengli is 70 years old now so he's no longer a rising star. The problem with the military there is that the PLA runs everything.

Admiral Wu for example is a graduate of the Surveying and Mapping College of the People’s Liberation Army and then of the Dalian City Naval Academy, the latter still having a curriculum much more like that of the US Merchant Marine Academy than the US Naval Academy.

This is the problem concerning Beijing's military forces, i.e., naval and air force officers come out of the army. Beijing has begun to change this severe incompetency, but it will be another two or three generations before Beijing starts having naval officers in the Navy (and Air Force officers in the Air Force).

Beijing also needs to establish a national naval academy that has a naval academy curriculum, instead of having a 'sort of' naval academy in a city, Dalian, that still has what is in fact a Merchant Marine curriculum. Yes, Dalian is a high tech center but the naval academy there needs a naval curriculum, not a merchant marine curriculum, and a modern naval academy curriculum at that.

It's only recently that the PLANavy has begun to venture out to the area of the continental shelf. It seldom undertakes drills or training exercises because no one knows quite what to do with a naval warship, much less with a battle group of 'em.. That's because it's the PLAN - the People's Liberation Army Navy.

And the only practical and best way for the PLAN to access the western Pacific is through the Miyako Strait which is controlled by Japan, so if I were the Boyz in Beijing I might want to be a bit more of a hospitable neighbor than they have been, with the Senkaku Islands and Air Defense Identification Zone and all of that.

You can have all the ships and their firepower RMB can buy but you can't do much with them when PLA officers with some naval training are in command.

Spot on observations IMO. I know a lot of people fear the military buildup of China. Like their plans to build real aircraft carriers and the like to match up to the US Navy. I don't want to come across as cocky or jingoist, but it won't happen in the next 20 years. Lots of people have tried to build and deploy aircraft carriers. Many have failed. And I'm not talking about undeveloped nations. Real first world countries with intelligent engineers and technicians find it difficult to deploy full flat top carriers capable of launching and retrieving a real air wing. At this time I believe the US is the only nation to actually have deployed carrier groups. Excepting the jump carriers with the VTOL Harrier type jets.

Same goes for nuclear submarines. Add in the training required to develop the right kind of officers and crews and China is so far away from being a legitimate military threat to the US Navy that it won't happen in the next 20 years. China is only a military power on it's own continent, and with ballistic missiles. The missiles are useless in a struggle with Japan, and they can't project their land power. This could change if they apply enough money to it and copy professional militaries from the US or UK or several others that are competent. It will take time.

And, by the time China copies what the West has, the West will have leapfrogged to something better. Who knows what the US is developing in secret?

China is trying without success to copy the US stealth fighter. By the time they do, the US will have something stealthier, and probably already has the ability to "see" stealth aircraft.

China is trying to develop stealth submarines by making diesel engines quieter. The US has nuclear powered stealth subs that can project power all over the world with the ICBM's on board that can be fired from deep under water. (Yes I know there is a slightly different acronym for the ICBMs that are launched from underwater but I can't remember it atm and am lazy.) The US subs can also take out ships, or bombard land with convention missiles.

China can only wish, and won't catch up in my lifetime either in hardware or training.

[sustento]

The dictators in Beijing know that before they can become a global power in their designs to dominate the world they first need to become a regional power.

That's what the naval buildup is about, to subjugate the navies of Japan and India, Australia as well not to mention the US Navy.

Navy chief Admiral Wu Shengli is 70 years old now so he's no longer a rising star. The problem with the military there is that the PLA runs everything.

Admiral Wu for example is a graduate of the Surveying and Mapping College of the People’s Liberation Army and then of the Dalian City Naval Academy, the latter still having a curriculum much more like that of the US Merchant Marine Academy than the US Naval Academy.

This is the problem concerning Beijing's military forces, i.e., naval and air force officers come out of the army. Beijing has begun to change this severe incompetency, but it will be another two or three generations before Beijing starts having naval officers in the Navy (and Air Force officers in the Air Force).

Beijing also needs to establish a national naval academy that has a naval academy curriculum, instead of having a 'sort of' naval academy in a city, Dalian, that still has what is in fact a Merchant Marine curriculum. Yes, Dalian is a high tech center but the naval academy there needs a naval curriculum, not a merchant marine curriculum, and a modern naval academy curriculum at that.

It's only recently that the PLANavy has begun to venture out to the area of the continental shelf. It seldom undertakes drills or training exercises because no one knows quite what to do with a naval warship, much less with a battle group of 'em.. That's because it's the PLAN - the People's Liberation Army Navy.

And the only practical and best way for the PLAN to access the western Pacific is through the Miyako Strait which is controlled by Japan, so if I were the Boyz in Beijing I might want to be a bit more of a hospitable neighbor than they have been, with the Senkaku Islands and Air Defense Identification Zone and all of that.

You can have all the ships and their firepower RMB can buy but you can't do much with them when PLA officers with some naval training are in command.

Spot on observations IMO. I know a lot of people fear the military buildup of China. Like their plans to build real aircraft carriers and the like to match up to the US Navy. I don't want to come across as cocky or jingoist, but it won't happen in the next 20 years. Lots of people have tried to build and deploy aircraft carriers. Many have failed. And I'm not talking about undeveloped nations. Real first world countries with intelligent engineers and technicians find it difficult to deploy full flat top carriers capable of launching and retrieving a real air wing. At this time I believe the US is the only nation to actually have deployed carrier groups. Excepting the jump carriers with the VTOL Harrier type jets.

Same goes for nuclear submarines. Add in the training required to develop the right kind of officers and crews and China is so far away from being a legitimate military threat to the US Navy that it won't happen in the next 20 years. China is only a military power on it's own continent, and with ballistic missiles. The missiles are useless in a struggle with Japan, and they can't project their land power. This could change if they apply enough money to it and copy professional militaries from the US or UK or several others that are competent. It will take time.

And, by the time China copies what the West has, the West will have leapfrogged to something better. Who knows what the US is developing in secret?

China is trying without success to copy the US stealth fighter. By the time they do, the US will have something stealthier, and probably already has the ability to "see" stealth aircraft.

China is trying to develop stealth submarines by making diesel engines quieter. The US has nuclear powered stealth subs that can project power all over the world with the ICBM's on board that can be fired from deep under water. (Yes I know there is a slightly different acronym for the ICBMs that are launched from underwater but I can't remember it atm and am lazy.) The US subs can also take out ships, or bombard land with convention missiles.

China can only wish, and won't catch up in my lifetime either in hardware or training.

And there speaks complacency...

[jimmybcool]

And there speaks complacency...

The members of this board might be complacent. But the people in command of the US military are not. And us members have little to do with future developments or planning. We just poke at each other over keyboards.

The real concern is that IF China's economy continues growing and IF the US continues adding debt and can not sustain it's lead in spending THEN in about 20 years the Chinese might become the dominant world military power.

Neither IF is a certainty. Well, except the idiots in DC who can't seem to live within their means.

[Lokie]

Some interesting views/points, in 20 years the world order will have changed for sure, whether China becomes the dominant naval power I dunno, the US are by far bigger and better than anyone else at the moment and as said hopefully will keep one or two steps ahead of the rest, what with drone aircraft etc the whole war thing in the future is gonna be a way differant game anyhow??

[NeverSure]

The dictators in Beijing know that before they can become a global power in their designs to dominate the world they first need to become a regional power.

That's what the naval buildup is about, to subjugate the navies of Japan and India, Australia as well not to mention the US Navy.

Navy chief Admiral Wu Shengli is 70 years old now so he's no longer a rising star. The problem with the military there is that the PLA runs everything.

Admiral Wu for example is a graduate of the Surveying and Mapping College of the People’s Liberation Army and then of the Dalian City Naval Academy, the latter still having a curriculum much more like that of the US Merchant Marine Academy than the US Naval Academy.

This is the problem concerning Beijing's military forces, i.e., naval and air force officers come out of the army. Beijing has begun to change this severe incompetency, but it will be another two or three generations before Beijing starts having naval officers in the Navy (and Air Force officers in the Air Force).

Beijing also needs to establish a national naval academy that has a naval academy curriculum, instead of having a 'sort of' naval academy in a city, Dalian, that still has what is in fact a Merchant Marine curriculum. Yes, Dalian is a high tech center but the naval academy there needs a naval curriculum, not a merchant marine curriculum, and a modern naval academy curriculum at that.

It's only recently that the PLANavy has begun to venture out to the area of the continental shelf. It seldom undertakes drills or training exercises because no one knows quite what to do with a naval warship, much less with a battle group of 'em.. That's because it's the PLAN - the People's Liberation Army Navy.

And the only practical and best way for the PLAN to access the western Pacific is through the Miyako Strait which is controlled by Japan, so if I were the Boyz in Beijing I might want to be a bit more of a hospitable neighbor than they have been, with the Senkaku Islands and Air Defense Identification Zone and all of that.

You can have all the ships and their firepower RMB can buy but you can't do much with them when PLA officers with some naval training are in command.

Spot on observations IMO. I know a lot of people fear the military buildup of China. Like their plans to build real aircraft carriers and the like to match up to the US Navy. I don't want to come across as cocky or jingoist, but it won't happen in the next 20 years. Lots of people have tried to build and deploy aircraft carriers. Many have failed. And I'm not talking about undeveloped nations. Real first world countries with intelligent engineers and technicians find it difficult to deploy full flat top carriers capable of launching and retrieving a real air wing. At this time I believe the US is the only nation to actually have deployed carrier groups. Excepting the jump carriers with the VTOL Harrier type jets.

Same goes for nuclear submarines. Add in the training required to develop the right kind of officers and crews and China is so far away from being a legitimate military threat to the US Navy that it won't happen in the next 20 years. China is only a military power on it's own continent, and with ballistic missiles. The missiles are useless in a struggle with Japan, and they can't project their land power. This could change if they apply enough money to it and copy professional militaries from the US or UK or several others that are competent. It will take time.

And, by the time China copies what the West has, the West will have leapfrogged to something better. Who knows what the US is developing in secret?

China is trying without success to copy the US stealth fighter. By the time they do, the US will have something stealthier, and probably already has the ability to "see" stealth aircraft.

China is trying to develop stealth submarines by making diesel engines quieter. The US has nuclear powered stealth subs that can project power all over the world with the ICBM's on board that can be fired from deep under water. (Yes I know there is a slightly different acronym for the ICBMs that are launched from underwater but I can't remember it atm and am lazy.) The US subs can also take out ships, or bombard land with convention missiles.

China can only wish, and won't catch up in my lifetime either in hardware or training.

And there speaks complacency...

How can saying that the US will keep "leapfrogging" China with technology be deemed complacent?

China has never been an innovator. They are copiers. They are trying to copy the US's stealth aircraft without success. So they aren't even good copiers.

Look at China as a whole. They manufacture technology that was invented in other countries. Their strong suit is in providing cheap labor, and being told how to do the job. The only quality products that come out of China are the ones where the factories are run and supervised by Westerners. China's own attempts at building cars, tractors and scooters result in crap.

The west OWNS technology in every sector. It keeps inventing technology. Look at 3D printing. Look at clothes that can be fully manufactured, folded, packaged and labeled without human intervention. What's that going to do the the cheap labor in China when no labor is needed?

China ain't shit. They aren't 20 years behind. They are more like 60 years behind.

[NeverSure]

In response, the United States in 2011 approved the New Warfare concept of AirSea Battle, which is designed to overcome Beijing's developing A2-AD systems of defense and their concomitant offensive platforms..

US AirSea Battle integrates the Navy and the Air Force into one battle group to sustain an initial A2-AD strike against it, then to conduct a robust counterattack that first, neutralizes the A2-AD forces, then launches deep into the continental mainland to destroy "the enemy's" (Beijing's) offensive capabilities. All the while AirSea Battle aggressively neutralizes and overcomes "the enemy's" capabilities in cyber warfare, satellite and inner space warfare, any possible electromagnetic pulsing weaponry and the like.

I guess the 3,000 km of underground tunnels are there to ensure the PLA have a fresh fighting force after the first wave of attack.

Is Beijing currently expanding their aircraftcarrier fleet and if so by how many and when will they go into service?

My guess is that the CCP would be crazy not to dig out a bunch of strong and durable tunnels given that other governments have long ago done the same, such as the United States, Canada, Russia, more recently Iran and a few others.

I think you know Beijing has reversed doctrine in favor of developing aircraft carriers and their battle groups. It'll be another generation before Beijing has even several so perhaps by then the PLAN can have some actual naval commanders to captain such ships, instead of naval commanders coming out of the PLA..

Still I wonder however if the CCP might be all that serious about its otherwise clear intention. After all, they've recently developed a carrier killer ballistic missile that is supposed to be able to hit a moving carrier. The US has the missile, too.

So if the carrier killer missile is supposed to make the aircraft carrier obsolete, why should we believe the CCP when they say they're going to go big time to construct a lot of carriers?

Both sides have the operational carrier killer ballistic missiles.

"So if the carrier killer missile is supposed to make the aircraft carrier obsolete, why should we believe the CCP when they say they're going to go big time to construct a lot of carriers?"

China is "trying" to build a carrier. They have the ship built, but not the technology to outfit it.

As for their killer missiles, the US can shoot them down. The US can detect and kill any of their subs, too.

China recently built and flew its first military cargo plane. It is about the size of the US's earlier piston driven (now jet) cargo planes. If the wings were removed from China's "new" cargo plane, the whole thing could be put it the bay of the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, the cargo doors closed, and the Galaxy could carry it clear around the world non-stop, with mid-air refueling.

China's fighters are crap and they don't have the pin-point accurate missiles for them.

[FDog]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

[folium]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

In many ways we are seeing what could be a rerun of the late 19th/early 20th century when the UK (then the global economic and naval superpower), lost first its economic and then military supremacy to the US. The latter were regarded as somewhat jumped-up, gauche children of immigrants whose military had little real experience save beating up "savages" and killing each other.

Underestimating your potential opponents and hubris can be hugely damaging to any pre-eminent nation. The US today is the unquestioned global power and will remain such for several decades but beyond that this cannot be taken as guaranteed.

Building aircraft carriers today is more about force projection and flying the flag than having a real strategic significance. Hence the Russian focus, as before, on submarines, as the Silent Service remains the key agent for delivering strategic impact in the real end-game scenario.

Quite agree that it is in nobody's interest for real warfare to break out in E.Asia. There will be plenty of sabre-rattling and willy-waving, with the occasional screw-up like the Hainan Island incident in 2001, but this new take on the Cold War will be fought out on economic rather than political grounds. It's not capitalist versus communist but who can deliver the goods, loans and pay the bills....

[LawrenceChee]

I am unsure why some of the posters insist in linking "inventing" something , nobel prize winners to being relevant, powerful or having a competent army / navy.

Maybe in some minds, that is the hallmark of a great nation...but in the Chinese mind they remember something more important...In recent history...no nation with technological advances have been able to subdue or conquer another. They either cause lots of civilian damage and lives with no clear objective how to win the war and eventually withdraw with no residual positive impact on the campaign.

The Chinese know they have the biggest advantage of all....the sheer amount of soldiers....you can't kill them all before wiping your own army out of the sphere or being accused of using nuclear / chemical warfare and losing the political will.

So while others are happy to dwell on their inventions as a basis of a strong army....the Chinese continue to build up on their navies, armies and not publicize their plans...that is the best deterrant.

And they are not being bullies by doing so, the 2nd biggest economy in the world needs to be protected...if you look at tiny Singapore and ask why they have so much military hardware, they give the same reasons as well...having the ability to protect their own interests reduces the need to call on Uncle Sam or anyone else to come and protect you in times of troubles ...

Where we all know most of the time in the end it brings more civil troubles later after the war is over...after all if the country is not yours, it really does not matter where you drop the smart bombs...you are not damaging your own homes.

[Publicus]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

The economic development model of Deng Xiaopeng has hit a proverbial great wall, which was inevitable as it was a specific response to a particular point in time and its unique circumstances. The CCP needs totally to restructure and reorganize their system of economics, finance, political economy.

The resistance to such radical restructuring is great, powrful. The CCP places itself above the law and there is only the CCP rule of the CCP law, whatever it happens to be on a given day in a given instance depending on the person being charged. In the CCP-PRC you are guilty unless proved to be innocent and lotsa luck with that.

The CCP's economy is in a huge bubble, from the property sector to the state owned banking sector, to include the shadow banking system, to the numerous local governments which alone account for debt equal to 40% of GDP. People all year have been taking loans to pay off loans. No bubble ever ends well. The national debit of the CCP is now 200% of GDP.

When the first bubble bursts the others will cascade after it. The CCP's economy will be no more.

It's been observed that the only greater concern to peace than a rising CCP-PRC is a falling CCP-PRC.

[impulse]

Building aircraft carriers today is more about force projection and flying the flag than having a real strategic significance. Hence the Russian focus, as before, on submarines, as the Silent Service remains the key agent for delivering strategic impact in the real end-game scenario.

Quite agree that it is in nobody's interest for real warfare to break out in E.Asia. There will be plenty of sabre-rattling and willy-waving, with the occasional screw-up like the Hainan Island incident in 2001, but this new take on the Cold War will be fought out on economic rather than political grounds. It's not capitalist versus communist but who can deliver the goods, loans and pay the bills....

Given the 20+ years of bilateral trade, and millions of containers shipped between the USA, China and Russia, I suspect that weapons delivery systems for nukes are redundant. If all out war were to happen, probably someone in DC or Beijing or Moscow will push a button and a pre-planted nuke will go off somewhere around the world.

Still, conventional weapons delivery systems will be necessary.

Anyone who believes the Cold War is over (and the west won), hasn't studied their history. Germany surrendered in 1918. They licked their wounds, refilled the coffers, re-armed and came back 21 years later- some would argue just 2-3 years before they were ready. Just how long has it been since the USSR "surrendered"? Germany had a strong man come to power who brought the national pride back and thumbed his nose at the "victors". Anyone else see a parallel in Putin?

I do agree the cold war is still being fought in lines of code and lines on balance sheets, not in costly proxy wars on the ground. But when you consider China, and look at the pictures of Mao on their money, and recall his saying that "All political power emanates from the barrel of a gun", and consider the 50 million excess (restless) males that will never find wives and have families, and see the CCP becoming less and less relevant to the livelihoods of hundreds of millions, it's scary. Once they've hit the wall on the economic front, it's hard to predict what they'll do next.

When it comes to the claims over the islands, and the South China Sea, and Tibet, and Taiwan, and... they don't have to convince anyone outside that the claims are legitimate. They just have to convince enough of their own people to pick up a gun to right the terrible wrongs inflicted on their sovereign national pride by the foreign devils.

An argument that could come full circle if you look at Iraq and WMD's. I'm not claiming China and the CCP are unique in that regard.

Edited December 2, 2013 by impulse

[Scott]

An inflammatory post deleted.

[Ulysses G.]

Anyone who believes the Cold War is over (and the west won), hasn't studied their history.

The cold war was between the West and the Soviet Union. It is over and the West won. China is a whole different matter.

[impulse]

The cold war was between the West and the Soviet Union. It is over and the West won. China is a whole different matter.

We disagree on that one. Russia is licking their wounds, getting their financial house in order and re-arming. Whether they re-engage or not is anyone's guess.

They lost the cold war like Germany lost the war to end all wars.

Edited December 2, 2013 by impulse

[FDog]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

The economic development model of Deng Xiaopeng has hit a proverbial great wall, which was inevitable as it was a specific response to a particular point in time and its unique circumstances. The CCP needs totally to restructure and reorganize their system of economics, finance, political economy.

The resistance to such radical restructuring is great, powrful. The CCP places itself above the law and there is only the CCP rule of the CCP law, whatever it happens to be on a given day in a given instance depending on the person being charged. In the CCP-PRC you are guilty unless proved to be innocent and lotsa luck with that.

The CCP's economy is in a huge bubble, from the property sector to the state owned banking sector, to include the shadow banking system, to the numerous local governments which alone account for debt equal to 40% of GDP. People all year have been taking loans to pay off loans. No bubble ever ends well. The national debit of the CCP is now 200% of GDP.

When the first bubble bursts the others will cascade after it. The CCP's economy will be no more.

It's been observed that the only greater concern to peace than a rising CCP-PRC is a falling CCP-PRC.

Quick, get on the phone to the British PM and tell him is visit to China to encourage trade is all wrong. I'm sure he will listen to you.

[jimmybcool]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

Err, not dick measuring. Adult discussion of the topic under the thread header. The Chinese Navy. Obviously in a real world it would only be an issue if one wonders what they plan and whom they might square off against in a conflict. What they intend.

Clearly, their potential rivals are Japan and S Korea. Both allies of the US therefore the US Navy is the force they should be measured against.

As to a Chinese superpower status and what the US wants (in your perception) I find that interesting. Truth is the only thing the US wants (as a government) is to allow their economy to operate openly. But either way they aren't a big enough problem to worry about yet.

The only countries that rely on China economically are those who are their customers for production of goods. Production can move to other places and rapidly in modern society. Corporations could relocate to Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, back home etc. The US is fighting no battle with China other than an internal one where we are overspending and China is ONE OF the creditors buying the debt on the national credit card. Please note that China is not the majority debt holder of US bonds. And by the way, if they were it is the US holding them hostage as they don't want those bonds made worthless if they crashed our economy. Plus the idea they can suddenly demand full payment is funny. Bonds have maturity dates and are not redeemable on demand.

China will not become the worlds next superpower IMO. In fact the concept is fading with time as warfare becomes more local and insurgent based and less national set battle stages. The US might be the last superpower in our lifetimes and will likely retain leadership in economy and military for another 20 years or longer.

Yes, eventually that will change. Every empire falls and the US is no different. It is slowly eroding from within. China next? Who knows but this temporary surge is over blown. They may be a nation of a billion people but most of them are living in farms and not a factor in national economy or future naval expansion. Predicting massive success for a nation of so many uneducated people is kind of funny really. Yeah, they are a big country even when eliminating the farmers from the equation. But their internal problems are large and many. Let's see how they survive the clamor for more of the pie from the peasants in the next 20 years.

[folium]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

Please note that China is not the majority debt holder of US bonds. And by the way, if they were it is the US holding them hostage as they don't want those bonds made worthless if they crashed our economy. Plus the idea they can suddenly demand full payment is funny. Bonds have maturity dates and are not redeemable on demand.

China will not become the worlds next superpower IMO. In fact the concept is fading with time as warfare becomes more local and insurgent based and less national set battle stages. The US might be the last superpower in our lifetimes and will likely retain leadership in economy and military for another 20 years or longer.

Yes, eventually that will change. Every empire falls and the US is no different. It is slowly eroding from within. China next? Who knows but this temporary surge is over blown. They may be a nation of a billion people but most of them are living in farms and not a factor in national economy or future naval expansion. Predicting massive success for a nation of so many uneducated people is kind of funny really. Yeah, they are a big country even when eliminating the farmers from the equation. But their internal problems are large and many. Let's see how they survive the clamor for more of the pie from the peasants in the next 20 years.

Foreign holders of US Treasury debt as of Sept 2013:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

T-bills or other debt instruments are very rarely redeemable on demand but there is a market for anything and everything, though of course the selling price is only as ever as high as the highest price a buyer is prepared to pay. Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly.

There's nothing new about local insurgencies being the mainstay of conflict, intra-state warfare has always been the exception albeit often disproportionate in its impact when it does occur. Look at US history, how many serious international conflicts has it been involved in, compared to internal or regional "police" operations (eg endless excursions to places such as DR, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia or Grenada)?

Who would have predicted that the US would become a superpower in 1890? Forecasting is a game littered with the corpses of once-wise players...

PS 53% of the Chinese population was urbanized at the end of 2012 and it is forecast to rise to 70% by 2035 (in 1990 it was a mere 26%). A number equivalent to the current population of the USA (north of 300 million) will move from rural to urban areas between 2010 and 2025. Like the US, China only deals in big numbers!

I get the feeling that it won't only be "peasants" in China that are clamouring for a larger slice of the pie as income inequality becomes a greater issue globally.

[FDog]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

Err, not dick measuring. Adult discussion of the topic under the thread header. The Chinese Navy. Obviously in a real world it would only be an issue if one wonders what they plan and whom they might square off against in a conflict. What they intend.

Clearly, their potential rivals are Japan and S Korea. Both allies of the US therefore the US Navy is the force they should be measured against.

As to a Chinese superpower status and what the US wants (in your perception) I find that interesting. Truth is the only thing the US wants (as a government) is to allow their economy to operate openly. But either way they aren't a big enough problem to worry about yet.

The only countries that rely on China economically are those who are their customers for production of goods. Production can move to other places and rapidly in modern society. Corporations could relocate to Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, back home etc. The US is fighting no battle with China other than an internal one where we are overspending and China is ONE OF the creditors buying the debt on the national credit card. Please note that China is not the majority debt holder of US bonds. And by the way, if they were it is the US holding them hostage as they don't want those bonds made worthless if they crashed our economy. Plus the idea they can suddenly demand full payment is funny. Bonds have maturity dates and are not redeemable on demand.

China will not become the worlds next superpower IMO. In fact the concept is fading with time as warfare becomes more local and insurgent based and less national set battle stages. The US might be the last superpower in our lifetimes and will likely retain leadership in economy and military for another 20 years or longer.

Yes, eventually that will change. Every empire falls and the US is no different. It is slowly eroding from within. China next? Who knows but this temporary surge is over blown. They may be a nation of a billion people but most of them are living in farms and not a factor in national economy or future naval expansion. Predicting massive success for a nation of so many uneducated people is kind of funny really. Yeah, they are a big country even when eliminating the farmers from the equation. But their internal problems are large and many. Let's see how they survive the clamor for more of the pie from the peasants in the next 20 years.

Read up on Australia's trade with China. If the Chinese economy goes belly up then Australia goes bankrupt.

You also may wish to have a look at who is currently in China trying to get more trade deals. Mr Cameron.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1e05d5a-5b31-11e3-a2ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mKVC4TMQ

Edit to add link

Edited December 2, 2013 by FDog

[jimmybcool]

Foreign holders of US Treasury debt as of Sept 2013:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

T-bills or other debt instruments are very rarely redeemable on demand but there is a market for anything and everything, though of course the selling price is only as ever as high as the highest price a buyer is prepared to pay. Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly.

There's nothing new about local insurgencies being the mainstay of conflict, intra-state warfare has always been the exception albeit often disproportionate in its impact when it does occur. Look at US history, how many serious international conflicts has it been involved in, compared to internal or regional "police" operations (eg endless excursions to places such as DR, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia or Grenada)?

Who would have predicted that the US would become a superpower in 1890? Forecasting is a game littered with the corpses of once-wise players...

PS 53% of the Chinese population was urbanized at the end of 2012 and it is forecast to rise to 70% by 2035 (in 1990 it was a mere 26%). A number equivalent to the current population of the USA (north of 300 million) will move from rural to urban areas between 2010 and 2025. Like the US, China only deals in big numbers!

I get the feeling that it won't only be "peasants" in China that are clamouring for a larger slice of the pie as income inequality becomes a greater issue globally.

Thanks for the chart. I was too lazy to look it up. And it shows China is one of many debt holders of US national debt. The largest but not a majority stake holder. And I like your phrasing - Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly. Which is why China can not become a superpower if it destroys the US economy by dumping it's T-bills.

Which of course if it tried would be worth a lot less on the open market than waiting for maturity.

I am surprised at the number of Chinese moving to the cities. If 300 million are living in urban areas that would mean 800 million in the farms. And at that point it becomes problematic for the chinese officials.

I don't see a relentless march to world superpower for China. It may happen. Or not. And the US may fade in 20 years. Or not. No clue. At this point I'd side with the US pulling away from failure as easier than china reaching success. But ya never know.

[jimmybcool]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

Err, not dick measuring. Adult discussion of the topic under the thread header. The Chinese Navy. Obviously in a real world it would only be an issue if one wonders what they plan and whom they might square off against in a conflict. What they intend.

Clearly, their potential rivals are Japan and S Korea. Both allies of the US therefore the US Navy is the force they should be measured against.

As to a Chinese superpower status and what the US wants (in your perception) I find that interesting. Truth is the only thing the US wants (as a government) is to allow their economy to operate openly. But either way they aren't a big enough problem to worry about yet.

The only countries that rely on China economically are those who are their customers for production of goods. Production can move to other places and rapidly in modern society. Corporations could relocate to Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, back home etc. The US is fighting no battle with China other than an internal one where we are overspending and China is ONE OF the creditors buying the debt on the national credit card. Please note that China is not the majority debt holder of US bonds. And by the way, if they were it is the US holding them hostage as they don't want those bonds made worthless if they crashed our economy. Plus the idea they can suddenly demand full payment is funny. Bonds have maturity dates and are not redeemable on demand.

China will not become the worlds next superpower IMO. In fact the concept is fading with time as warfare becomes more local and insurgent based and less national set battle stages. The US might be the last superpower in our lifetimes and will likely retain leadership in economy and military for another 20 years or longer.

Yes, eventually that will change. Every empire falls and the US is no different. It is slowly eroding from within. China next? Who knows but this temporary surge is over blown. They may be a nation of a billion people but most of them are living in farms and not a factor in national economy or future naval expansion. Predicting massive success for a nation of so many uneducated people is kind of funny really. Yeah, they are a big country even when eliminating the farmers from the equation. But their internal problems are large and many. Let's see how they survive the clamor for more of the pie from the peasants in the next 20 years.

Read up on Australia's trade with China. If the Chinese economy goes belly up then Australia goes bankrupt.

You also may wish to have a look at who is currently in China trying to get more trade deals. Mr Cameron.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1e05d5a-5b31-11e3-a2ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mKVC4TMQ

Edit to add link

First off do you really expect the entire nation to go "belly up"? I can see turmoil and downturn but drastic complete done and dusted?

By that standard the entire world will go bankrupt if the USA goes "belly up". I guess anything is possible but we are talking dire events.

[folium]

Foreign holders of US Treasury debt as of Sept 2013:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

T-bills or other debt instruments are very rarely redeemable on demand but there is a market for anything and everything, though of course the selling price is only as ever as high as the highest price a buyer is prepared to pay. Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly.

There's nothing new about local insurgencies being the mainstay of conflict, intra-state warfare has always been the exception albeit often disproportionate in its impact when it does occur. Look at US history, how many serious international conflicts has it been involved in, compared to internal or regional "police" operations (eg endless excursions to places such as DR, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia or Grenada)?

Who would have predicted that the US would become a superpower in 1890? Forecasting is a game littered with the corpses of once-wise players...

PS 53% of the Chinese population was urbanized at the end of 2012 and it is forecast to rise to 70% by 2035 (in 1990 it was a mere 26%). A number equivalent to the current population of the USA (north of 300 million) will move from rural to urban areas between 2010 and 2025. Like the US, China only deals in big numbers!

I get the feeling that it won't only be "peasants" in China that are clamouring for a larger slice of the pie as income inequality becomes a greater issue globally.

Thanks for the chart. I was too lazy to look it up. And it shows China is one of many debt holders of US national debt. The largest but not a majority stake holder. And I like your phrasing - Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly. Which is why China can not become a superpower if it destroys the US economy by dumping it's T-bills.

Which of course if it tried would be worth a lot less on the open market than waiting for maturity.

I am surprised at the number of Chinese moving to the cities. If 300 million are living in urban areas that would mean 800 million in the farms. And at that point it becomes problematic for the chinese officials.

I don't see a relentless march to world superpower for China. It may happen. Or not. And the US may fade in 20 years. Or not. No clue. At this point I'd side with the US pulling away from failure as easier than china reaching success. But ya never know.

The present situation of having a sole superpower is historically unusual, normally there are 2 or 3 overlapping.

You slightly miss the point re urbanization in China. There are currently almost 700 million Chinese living in urban areas with another 300 million odd forecast to join them over the next 2 decades.

Both the US and China can be superpowers simultaneously if they manage their internal and external affairs carefully.

[Publicus]

Seems a lot on here are just in a dick measuring competition. China doesn't want war, doesn't need it. The US doesn't want war with them either, would be a complete mess as China would not try and do anything to the US, they would simply bomb the shit out of other countries nearby as retaliation.

But what China IS doing is becoming an economic superpower, many nations rely on it. And that is what doesn't sit well with the US. The US wants China to open up for capitalism but China is resisting. This annoys the US as it is fighting a losing battle. Many many countries rely on China economically and that gives it great power.

China doesn't need to fight or start wars to gain territory, they will simply buy it.

The economic development model of Deng Xiaopeng has hit a proverbial great wall, which was inevitable as it was a specific response to a particular point in time and its unique circumstances. The CCP needs totally to restructure and reorganize their system of economics, finance, political economy.

The resistance to such radical restructuring is great, powrful. The CCP places itself above the law and there is only the CCP rule of the CCP law, whatever it happens to be on a given day in a given instance depending on the person being charged. In the CCP-PRC you are guilty unless proved to be innocent and lotsa luck with that.

The CCP's economy is in a huge bubble, from the property sector to the state owned banking sector, to include the shadow banking system, to the numerous local governments which alone account for debt equal to 40% of GDP. People all year have been taking loans to pay off loans. No bubble ever ends well. The national debit of the CCP is now 200% of GDP.

When the first bubble bursts the others will cascade after it. The CCP's economy will be no more.

It's been observed that the only greater concern to peace than a rising CCP-PRC is a falling CCP-PRC.

Quick, get on the phone to the British PM and tell him is visit to China to encourage trade is all wrong. I'm sure he will listen to you.

I don't have the phone number of the Right Honorable Gentleman the Prime Minister Mr. Cameron. So kindly post it so that anyone who might like to call him could, or exclusively PM it to me if you want to personalize your dubious carryings on here.

All the same I see you've failed to notice that life goes on as usual until Lehman Bros or its CCP-PRC equivalent crashes and takes the rest of it with them.

And what anyway do your ramblings have to do with the PLANavy.

The principal reason for the ADIZ is to try to establish a zone over Mikayo Island which is controlled by Japan and which oversees and thus controls the best, most direct and most efficient route of the PLAN to the open western Pacific.

I'd pointed out in a prior post that Mikayo Island has this position and power over the CCP-PRC and its People's Liberation Army Navy. Irritating Japan over the Senkaku Islands is secondary to this purpose, but the two are connected

Japan already has placed unarmed missile batteries on Mikayo and on several of its surrounding islands, just to let the CCP know to whom it must pay tribute in order to gain access to the open Pacific, outside of the US defined First Naval Perimeter Island Chain, ie. Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines.

The Second Perimeter Island Chain in western Pacific US Naval terms runs north-south from the islands of Honshu in Japan to Bonin, the Marianas, the Carolines, to New Guinea.

The Third Strategic Naval Island Chain Perimeter, the farthest out from the mainland CCP-PRC runs from the Aleutians, the Seamounts, Hawaiian Islands, the Line Islands, New Zealand, Australia/Tasmania (Australia being an island continent).

So a major reason the US has created the AirSea Battle (some say Star Wars) concept of combat is that the Anti-Access, Area Denial (A2/AD) new warfare capabilities of the CCP-PRC do in fact deny the US Navy and its allied Navies access to the First Strategic Naval Island Chain to include Taiwan and, of equal importance - if not of greater importance - Japan.

Over the horizon AirSea Battle thus enables the United States to stand off from the A2/AD capabilities of the PLA Navy and the PLA Air Force to conduct AirSea Battle warfare, whether in a general conflagration or in a particular battle, such as in the instance of the Senkaku Islands which are currently targeted covetously by the Boyz in Beijing.

Of no less importance is that over the horizon AirSea Battle enables US air and sea military forces to stand off from the reach of the PLA Second Artillery Division and its thousands of missiles based on the southeastern mainland of the CCP-PRC.

Further, AirSea Battle enables US naval surface and undersea missiles and air forces' missiles to strike hard at the Second Artillery because of their greater range over the Second Artillery's current missiles. While over time we can expect the Second Artillery to receive missiles of improved range, we can be assured US Pacific and other naval and air forces will be receiving their own missiles of improved range and delivery payloads.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Publicus

[jimmybcool]

Foreign holders of US Treasury debt as of Sept 2013:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

T-bills or other debt instruments are very rarely redeemable on demand but there is a market for anything and everything, though of course the selling price is only as ever as high as the highest price a buyer is prepared to pay. Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly.

There's nothing new about local insurgencies being the mainstay of conflict, intra-state warfare has always been the exception albeit often disproportionate in its impact when it does occur. Look at US history, how many serious international conflicts has it been involved in, compared to internal or regional "police" operations (eg endless excursions to places such as DR, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia or Grenada)?

Who would have predicted that the US would become a superpower in 1890? Forecasting is a game littered with the corpses of once-wise players...

PS 53% of the Chinese population was urbanized at the end of 2012 and it is forecast to rise to 70% by 2035 (in 1990 it was a mere 26%). A number equivalent to the current population of the USA (north of 300 million) will move from rural to urban areas between 2010 and 2025. Like the US, China only deals in big numbers!

I get the feeling that it won't only be "peasants" in China that are clamouring for a larger slice of the pie as income inequality becomes a greater issue globally.

Thanks for the chart. I was too lazy to look it up. And it shows China is one of many debt holders of US national debt. The largest but not a majority stake holder. And I like your phrasing - Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly. Which is why China can not become a superpower if it destroys the US economy by dumping it's T-bills.

Which of course if it tried would be worth a lot less on the open market than waiting for maturity.

I am surprised at the number of Chinese moving to the cities. If 300 million are living in urban areas that would mean 800 million in the farms. And at that point it becomes problematic for the chinese officials.

I don't see a relentless march to world superpower for China. It may happen. Or not. And the US may fade in 20 years. Or not. No clue. At this point I'd side with the US pulling away from failure as easier than china reaching success. But ya never know.

The present situation of having a sole superpower is historically unusual, normally there are 2 or 3 overlapping.

You slightly miss the point re urbanization in China. There are currently almost 700 million Chinese living in urban areas with another 300 million odd forecast to join them over the next 2 decades.

Both the US and China can be superpowers simultaneously if they manage their internal and external affairs carefully.

You are correct. I misread your post.

Wow. I believed that the majority of Chinese were still living in rural areas and not participating in the real economy. If that isn't true it makes a massive difference in my thought processes on Chinas future. How will they assimilate all of those people?

I see problems in China's future. Hopefully they are bumps that can be managed and don't upset the world applecart.

[Publicus]

[folium]

Foreign holders of US Treasury debt as of Sept 2013:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

T-bills or other debt instruments are very rarely redeemable on demand but there is a market for anything and everything, though of course the selling price is only as ever as high as the highest price a buyer is prepared to pay. Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly.

There's nothing new about local insurgencies being the mainstay of conflict, intra-state warfare has always been the exception albeit often disproportionate in its impact when it does occur. Look at US history, how many serious international conflicts has it been involved in, compared to internal or regional "police" operations (eg endless excursions to places such as DR, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia or Grenada)?

Who would have predicted that the US would become a superpower in 1890? Forecasting is a game littered with the corpses of once-wise players...

PS 53% of the Chinese population was urbanized at the end of 2012 and it is forecast to rise to 70% by 2035 (in 1990 it was a mere 26%). A number equivalent to the current population of the USA (north of 300 million) will move from rural to urban areas between 2010 and 2025. Like the US, China only deals in big numbers!

I get the feeling that it won't only be "peasants" in China that are clamouring for a larger slice of the pie as income inequality becomes a greater issue globally.

Thanks for the chart. I was too lazy to look it up. And it shows China is one of many debt holders of US national debt. The largest but not a majority stake holder. And I like your phrasing - Bottom line China and the US are locked in a financial embrace that neither would want to duck out of needlessly. Which is why China can not become a superpower if it destroys the US economy by dumping it's T-bills.

Which of course if it tried would be worth a lot less on the open market than waiting for maturity.

I am surprised at the number of Chinese moving to the cities. If 300 million are living in urban areas that would mean 800 million in the farms. And at that point it becomes problematic for the chinese officials.

I don't see a relentless march to world superpower for China. It may happen. Or not. And the US may fade in 20 years. Or not. No clue. At this point I'd side with the US pulling away from failure as easier than china reaching success. But ya never know.

The present situation of having a sole superpower is historically unusual, normally there are 2 or 3 overlapping.

You slightly miss the point re urbanization in China. There are currently almost 700 million Chinese living in urban areas with another 300 million odd forecast to join them over the next 2 decades.

Both the US and China can be superpowers simultaneously if they manage their internal and external affairs carefully.

You are correct. I misread your post.

Wow. I believed that the majority of Chinese were still living in rural areas and not participating in the real economy. If that isn't true it makes a massive difference in my thought processes on Chinas future. How will they assimilate all of those people?

I see problems in China's future. Hopefully they are bumps that can be managed and don't upset the world applecart.

The urbanization of China has followed a very different trajectory to most developing nations. While control systems such as the Hukou (can be compared to the Pass Laws in apartheid S. Africa) are not particularly charming, controlling access to urban services whilst retaining a stake in rural areas for rural migrants has avoided many of the slum situations found in India etc, plus enables said migrants to be shunted back to the countryside during downturns such as 2008-10.

One of our China experts was highlighting the issue of Chinese debt. Read the link below to put China's debt into a global context and a clearer understanding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24541140

If China wants to throw really big bucks at its navy it certainly has the financial ability to do so.

[folium]

Spot the difference....

Edited December 2, 2013 by folium

[NeverSure]

The urbanization of China has followed a very different trajectory to most developing nations. While control systems such as the Hukou (can be compared to the Pass Laws in apartheid S. Africa) are not particularly charming, controlling access to urban services whilst retaining a stake in rural areas for rural migrants has avoided many of the slum situations found in India etc, plus enables said migrants to be shunted back to the countryside during downturns such as 2008-10.

One of our China experts was highlighting the issue of Chinese debt. Read the link below to put China's debt into a global context and a clearer understanding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24541140

If China wants to throw really big bucks at its navy it certainly has the financial ability to do so.

"Despite all the apocalyptic pronouncements about America’s budget problems, the reality is that the U.S. has a higher credit rating than China and, unlike Beijing, has never repudiated its sovereign debt.

More important, the People’s Republic has been understating its debt for years to avoid global attention and criticism.

Indeed, China claims its debt-to-GDP ratio—the standard measure of sustainability—was a healthy 17 percent at the end of last year. Yet Beijing-based Dragonomics, a well-respected consultancy, put China’s ratio at 89 percent—about the same as America’s. Worse still, a growing number of analysts think the Chinese ratio was really 160 percent.

At that astronomical level, China looks worse than Greece." (Emphasis mine) Link

[folium]

The urbanization of China has followed a very different trajectory to most developing nations. While control systems such as the Hukou (can be compared to the Pass Laws in apartheid S. Africa) are not particularly charming, controlling access to urban services whilst retaining a stake in rural areas for rural migrants has avoided many of the slum situations found in India etc, plus enables said migrants to be shunted back to the countryside during downturns such as 2008-10.

One of our China experts was highlighting the issue of Chinese debt. Read the link below to put China's debt into a global context and a clearer understanding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24541140

If China wants to throw really big bucks at its navy it certainly has the financial ability to do so.

"Despite all the apocalyptic pronouncements about America’s budget problems, the reality is that the U.S. has a higher credit rating than China and, unlike Beijing, has never repudiated its sovereign debt.

More important, the People’s Republic has been understating its debt for years to avoid global attention and criticism.

Indeed, China claims its debt-to-GDP ratio—the standard measure of sustainability—was a healthy 17 percent at the end of last year. Yet Beijing-based Dragonomics, a well-respected consultancy, put China’s ratio at 89 percent—about the same as America’s. Worse still, a growing number of analysts think the Chinese ratio was really 160 percent.

At that astronomical level, China looks worse than Greece." (Emphasis mine) Link

Enjoyed the Aug 2011 story....

Well we will just have to wait and see who is right on this one....

[NeverSure]

Rows of dilapidated five-story dormitories in the city of Nantong, previously housing China Rongsheng Heavy Industries Group Holdings Ltd.’s 38,000 employees, were abandoned after the shipbuilder teetering on collapse cut almost 80 percent of its workers over the past two years. Most video arcades, restaurants and shops serving them have closed.

A $6.6 trillion credit binge during the past five years, encouraged by Beijing policy makers as stimulus to combat a global economic slowdown, now threatens to stoke a debt crisis.

At stake are trillions of yuan in bank loans that companies producing everything from ships to steel to solar power are struggling to repay as the world’s second-largest economy heads for the weakest annual expansion since 1999. (emphasis mine)

By Bloomberg News - Nov 18, 2013 9:17 PM PT

-------------

Let's not forget that China is communist and it is harder to separate some corporate debt from government debt than it is in capitalist Western countries.