Wary of Trump unpredictability, China ramps up naval abilities

[rooster59]

Wary of Trump unpredictability, China ramps up naval abilities

By Ben Blanchard and Michael Martina

 

FILE PHOTO: China's Liaoning aircraft carrier with accompanying fleet conducts a drill in an area of South China Sea in this undated photo taken December, 2016. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

 

BEIJING (Reuters) - The PLA Navy is likely to secure significant new funding in China's upcoming defence budget as Beijing seeks to check U.S. dominance of the high seas and step up its own projection of power around the globe.

China's navy has been taking an increasingly prominent role in recent months, with a rising star admiral taking command, its first aircraft carrier sailing around self-ruled Taiwan and new Chinese warships popping up in far-flung places.

Now, with President Donald Trump promising a U.S. shipbuilding spree and unnerving Beijing with his unpredictable approach on hot button issues including Taiwan and the South and East China Seas, China is pushing to narrow the gap with the U.S. Navy.

"It's opportunity in crisis," said a Beijing-based Asian diplomat, of China's recent naval moves. "China fears Trump will turn on them eventually as he's so unpredictable and it's getting ready."

Beijing does not give a breakdown for how much it spends on the navy, and the overall official defence spending figures it gives - 954.35 billion yuan ($139 billion) for 2016 - likely understates its investment, according to diplomats.

China unveils the defence budget for this year at next month's annual meeting of parliament, a closely watched figure around the region and in Washington, for clues to China's intentions.

China surprised last year with its lowest increase in six years, 7.6 percent, the first single-digit rise since 2010, following a nearly unbroken two-decade run of double-digit jumps.

"Certainly, the PLA Navy has really been the beneficiary of a lot of this new spending in the past 15 years," said Richard Bitzinger, Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Military Transformations Programme at the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

"We don't how much they spend on the navy, but simply extrapolating from the quantity and the quality of things that are coming out of their shipyards, it's pretty amazing."

To view a graphic on the military balance in the Asia Pacific, click http://tmsnrt.rs/2kY3K8B

RAPID DEVELOPMENT

The Chinese navy, once generally limited to coastal operations, has developed rapidly under President Xi Jinping's ambitious military modernisation.

It commissioned 18 ships in 2016, including missile destroyers, corvettes and guided missile frigates, according to state media.

Barely a week goes by without an announcement of some new piece of equipment, including an electronic reconnaissance ship put into service in January.

Still, the PLA Navy significantly lags the United States, which operates 10 aircraft carriers to China's one, the Soviet-era Liaoning.

Xu Guangyu, a retired major general in the People's Liberation Army now senior adviser to the government-run China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said China was keenly aware of the U.S. ability to project power at sea.

"It's like a marathon and we're falling behind. We need to step on the gas," Xu said.

Trump has vowed to increase the U.S. Navy to 350 ships from the current 290 as part of "one of the "greatest military buildups in American history", a move aides say is needed to counter China's rise as a military power.

"We’ve known this is a 15-20 year project and every year they get closer to being a blue-water navy with global aspirations," said a U.S. administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

"What you have seen this last year and what I think you will see with the new budget is that they are moving ahead with the short-term goal of being the premier naval force in the South China Sea and the East China Sea, with the mid-term goal, of extending all the way to the Indian Ocean."

In January, China appointed new navy chief, Shen Jinlong, to lead that push.

Shen has enjoyed a meteoric rise and is close to Xi, diplomatic and leadership sources say.

"The navy has gotten very lucky with Shen," said a Chinese official close to the military, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Now they know for certain their support goes all the way to the top."

Recent PLA Navy missions have included visits to Gulf states, where the United States has traditionally protected sea lanes, and to the South China Sea, Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, in what the state-run website StrongChina called Shen's "first show of force against the United States, Japan and Taiwan".

Last month, a Chinese submarine docked at a port in Malaysia's Sabah state, which lies on the South China Sea, only the second confirmed visit of a Chinese submarine to a foreign port, according to state media.

The submarine had come from supporting anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, where China has been learning valuable lessons about overseas naval operations since 2008.

Chinese warships have also been calling at ports in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, unnerving regional rival India.

"It's power projection," said a Beijing-based Western diplomat, of China's navy.

($1 = 6.8640 Chinese yuan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-26

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

This quote "first show of force against the United States, Japan and Taiwan" is showing that China is the aggressor.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

            Sometime in the near future, Trump's staff is required to submit their budget request to Congress for approval.  Already, Trump's people are determined to cut funding for the arts, including museums, PBS, NPR, Sesame Street, etc.  Those arts & information projects account for a tiny fraction of the Federal budget.  In contrast, Trumpsters want to fatten up the military.

 

       He and Bannon want to shovel money at the military which even the military top brass aren't asking for.  That's what Romney/Ryan said they wanted to do 4.5 years, and thankfully they weren't voted in.  Trump is far worse than R&R.

 

        Trumpsters, in their infinite wisdom, are probably thinking, "Well, runaway spending on an arms race during the Cold War debilitated the USSR. Wow great!. Now we can debilitate China with a new multi-trillion dollar arms race."

 

         At least during the Cold War, Soviet and US leaders were spooked by the awesome destructive power of nukes.   With Trump, nukes are just another chess piece in his game of; "Screw everybody. I'm going to do whatever I want, ha ha ha ha ha ha."   The first song played at Trump's inauguration ball:  "My Way."

[rijb]

12 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Trumpsters, in their infinite wisdom, are probably thinking, "Well, runaway spending on an arms race during the Cold War debilitated the USSR. Wow great!. Now we can debilitate China with a new multi-trillion dollar arms race."

Trumpsters?  Doesn't Congress decide budgets/spending?  

[Enoon]

26 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

This quote "first show of force against the United States, Japan and Taiwan" is showing that China is the aggressor.

 

 

 

I tried to find the website "StrongChina" from which this quote is obtained but had no success.

 

Maybe it is a Chinese language only website, in which case the statement may have "gained" something in translation (I believe that Chinese-English translations frequently lose/develop nuance).

 

Does anyone have a link?

[Enoon]

24 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

            Sometime in the near future, Trump's staff is required to submit their budget request to Congress for approval.  Already, Trump's people are determined to cut funding for the arts, including museums, PBS, NPR, Sesame Street, etc.  Those arts & information projects account for a tiny fraction of the Federal budget.  In contrast, Trumpsters want to fatten up the military.

 

       He and Bannon want to shovel money at the military which even the military top brass aren't asking for.  That's what Romney/Ryan said they wanted to do 4.5 years, and thankfully they weren't voted in.  Trump is far worse than R&R.

 

        Trumpsters, in their infinite wisdom, are probably thinking, "Well, runaway spending on an arms race during the Cold War debilitated the USSR. Wow great!. Now we can debilitate China with a new multi-trillion dollar arms race."

 

         At least during the Cold War, Soviet and US leaders were spooked by the awesome destructive power of nukes.   With Trump, nukes are just another chess piece in his game of; "Screw everybody. I'm going to do whatever I want, ha ha ha ha ha ha."   The first song played at Trump's inauguration ball:  "My Way."

 

I believe that battlefield tactical nuclear weapons were regarded as usable "pieces" by the Soviet Union during that perod.

 

That may have been bluff.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Enoon

[ezzra]

 

China is in shock, no more the golf playing eloquent talker, let's do nothing Obama,

now they have an unpredictable mad man..... sometime you have to have to

be a madman so keep the other madmen at bay....

 

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, rijb said:

Trumpsters?  Doesn't Congress decide budgets/spending?  

As I predicted after the elections, this administration is not going to get much done.  Trump and team can not just do what they want.  It needs approval and support from congress and many others.  And this administration has shown it doesn't like to build bridges, just tear them down.  Bannon's specialty.  The overturned travel ban is an excellent example.  Tough times for the US now.

[IAMHERE]

Do they still teach 'duck and cover' in the schools of America?

[Cynical Sailor]

During the Cold War MAD meant Mutually Assured Destruction and was a legitimate deterrent.

Now it just describes the occupant of the Oval Office.

[ExpatOilWorker]

53 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Do they still teach 'duck and cover' in the schools of America?

 

If they do, then Secret Service will have to say "Donald....Duck" to the President.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, ezzra said:

 

China is in shock, no more the golf playing eloquent talker, let's do nothing Obama,

now they have an unpredictable mad man..... sometime you have to have to

be a madman so keep the other madmen at bay....

 

 

China is very experienced with mad men. 

[hawker9000]

Whatever saber-rattling Beijing intends to do, Liaoning certainly isn't going to inspire much fear.  Their naval aviation is so fledgling, it's practically a training carrier.  That said, both sides do appear to be "ramping up".  I said back when the island squatting first started that letting it fester was a really bad idea.  I've kept repeating that because after a point I knew it would be impossible for China to step down, and the potential for conflict would simply and unavoidably auto-escalate.   Well, we're there.  Doves will want to continue a policy of appeasement and simple-minded glad-handing, and history tells us where THAT will lead.  The bilateral "ramping up" can't possibly be leading to a very peaceful place.  Get ready.

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 minute ago, hawker9000 said:

Whatever saber-rattling Beijing intends to do, Liaoning certainly isn't going to inspire much fear.  Their naval aviation is so fledgling, it's practically a training carrier.  That said, both sides do appear to be "ramping up".  I said back when the island squatting first started that letting it fester was a really bad idea.  I've kept repeating that because after a point I knew it would be impossible for China to step down, and the potential for conflict would simply and unavoidably auto-escalate.   Well, we're there.  Doves will want to continue a policy of appeasement and simple-minded glad-handing, and history tells us where THAT will lead.  The bilateral "ramping up" can't possibly be leading to a very peaceful place.  Get ready.

 

 

The US could impose a soft embargo and limit access to US-$ for any company that are remotely involved with the islands in the South China sea. This would include Chinese airlines, shipping companies, ship yards, marine construction companies, all of which have global ambitions and are partly state owned companies.

This could hurt Beijing very hard without fire a single shoot.

[IAMHERE]

3 hours ago, Cynical Sailor said:

During the Cold War MAD meant Mutually Assured Destruction and was a legitimate deterrent.

Now it just describes the occupant of the Oval Office.

MAD was a western civilization concept; China isn't buying into that myth. With over a billion people and knowing your enemy isn't targeting your population I think they are right.

[williamgeorgeallen]

maybe the yanks can spend their way out of their 20 trillion dollar debt. officially america says it spends less than 1 trillion per year on their military but it is believed to be significantly more than that.

[Grubster]

All the while the US public is paying for the Chinese military via all the jobs we sent there.

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Whatever saber-rattling Beijing intends to do, Liaoning certainly isn't going to inspire much fear.  Their naval aviation is so fledgling, it's practically a training carrier.  That said, both sides do appear to be "ramping up".  I said back when the island squatting first started that letting it fester was a really bad idea.  I've kept repeating that because after a point I knew it would be impossible for China to step down, and the potential for conflict would simply and unavoidably auto-escalate.   Well, we're there.  Doves will want to continue a policy of appeasement and simple-minded glad-handing, and history tells us where THAT will lead.  The bilateral "ramping up" can't possibly be leading to a very peaceful place.  Get ready.

The post above has my vote for 'Best Post of the Day.'   I also knew, from the get-go, that the US Navy should have got tough with China re; China's territory grabs in the S.China Sea.  Because of the US's wishy washiness, China has upped the stakes.  Armed conflict is inevitable.  And it doesn't help that Phil's Duterte is a wart on a penis.

 

5 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The US could impose a soft embargo and limit access to US-$ for any company that are remotely involved with the islands in the South China sea. This would include Chinese airlines, shipping companies, ship yards, marine construction companies, all of which have global ambitions and are partly state owned companies.   This could hurt Beijing very hard without fire a single shoot.

Maybe so, but Chinese aren't dummies.  They also have ways to hamstring the US.   Trade Wars, here we come.

 

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

All the while the US public is paying for the Chinese military via all the jobs we sent there.

        Trump Inc. buys all its steel and most other metals from China.  Trump probably buys 95% of its appliances (and lots of other items relating to the hotels and buildings) from China.  Trump has also borrowed lots of money from Chinese banks, so it would be surprising if he clashes with China.  Business is #1 for Trump.  America and the 1st Amendment are further behind in his priorities.

[anon4546543]

The US spent 16 trillion dollars in the cold war against the Soviets. What is that now in todays terms? It does not really matter as China owns much of US debt. (used to be Japan) If China firesales this debt, the US is in extreme trouble. The US military mostly understands that THEY are not the only superpower anymore. While the US has been fighting armed conflicts for the past 20 years, china has been spending big money in Africa and lesser amounts elsewhere to gain a cheap commodity supple line. Small nations now trust in China to deliver infrastructure and food for their raw materials. US still waves its battle fleet, China wins hearts and minds. And China is learning quickly about navy capabilities. It has up to six military aircraft near completion that will have air superiority over most US aircraft. Look it up. I dare you 

[sandrabbit]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Whatever saber-rattling Beijing intends to do, Liaoning certainly isn't going to inspire much fear.  Their naval aviation is so fledgling, it's practically a training carrier.  That said, both sides do appear to be "ramping up".  I said back when the island squatting first started that letting it fester was a really bad idea.  I've kept repeating that because after a point I knew it would be impossible for China to step down, and the potential for conflict would simply and unavoidably auto-escalate.   Well, we're there.  Doves will want to continue a policy of appeasement and simple-minded glad-handing, and history tells us where THAT will lead.  The bilateral "ramping up" can't possibly be leading to a very peaceful place.  Get ready.

 

 

But it seems they're not relying on naval aviation, just AA missiles. Also if you look at exercises attacking carrier forces the submarines take out the carrier easily even with 2 hunter killer subs riding shotgun. There is a video from a British attack submarine filming the US aircraft carriers screws (propellers) for about 20 mins undetected and the carrier group didn't even know they were there. I wouldn't want to be a sailor on an aircraft carrier. 

[Dumbastheycome]

4 hours ago, Grubster said:

All the while the US public is paying for the Chinese military via all the jobs we sent there.

I think the  correct statement should  read ! jobs that were given  away by greedy Corporate Americans".

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

The US spent 16 trillion dollars in the cold war against the Soviets. What is that now in todays terms? It does not really matter as China owns much of US debt. (used to be Japan) If China firesales this debt, the US is in extreme trouble. The US military mostly understands that THEY are not the only superpower anymore. While the US has been fighting armed conflicts for the past 20 years, china has been spending big money in Africa and lesser amounts elsewhere to gain a cheap commodity supple line. Small nations now trust in China to deliver infrastructure and food for their raw materials. US still waves its battle fleet, China wins hearts and minds. And China is learning quickly about navy capabilities. It has up to six military aircraft near completion that will have air superiority over most US aircraft. Look it up. I dare you 

No, if China firesales the debt they hold, it won't be much of a problem at all.  Back when they held a lot of U.S. debt, the party that would have been hurt most by a mass selloff of bonds, would have been China since that would have devalued the dollar and made Chinese exports much less competitive.And China has been a net seller of US bonds for a long time now. And over that period, the dollar has risen.  So now, if China were to sell off what's left of its holding in US Treasury notes, it would lead to a yuuge, yuuge "eh."

[anon4546543]

Want to bet who would win in a currency, trade or bond war. It will not be US. They owe so much and have a total artificial dollar value. If every one calls in the chips, should such a "war" erupt (as other countries will) the US will be forced to look at other measures such as real war. They no longer have an assurance that they will win such a war. Trump is right to ask other countries to start to pay up. If the US closed most of its unnecessary global bases surrounding Russia, many trillions of dollars would be saved. Then he could afford to build some fences.

[boomerangutang]

            MAD (mutually assured destruction) was never a realistic factor (in assuring non-use of nukes).  It wasn't in the 60's/70's and isn't now.   If one or more stupid leaders want to unleash the awesome power of nukes, a notion like MAD isn't going to stop them.   

 

        People like Al Gore spent large portions of their careers in trying to lessen # nuclear weapons, with the goal of zero ww.  They've had some success. The proof being: there are less nukes now then in the 1970's.   

 

              Yet now there's Trump and Bannon, and we're seeing a new arms race.  Thanks Trump voters, we love you (just kidding).

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

Want to bet who would win in a currency, trade or bond war. It will not be US. They owe so much and have a total artificial dollar value. If every one calls in the chips, should such a "war" erupt (as other countries will) the US will be forced to look at other measures such as real war. They no longer have an assurance that they will win such a war. Trump is right to ask other countries to start to pay up. If the US closed most of its unnecessary global bases surrounding Russia, many trillions of dollars would be saved. Then he could afford to build some fences.

Really? Many trillions? The entire U.S. defense budget in 2016 was about 600 billion. Try to get a grip...on some facts.

As for foreign nations selling off en masse their US treasuries...they would be shooting themselves in the foot. The value of the dollar would fall so their products would become much more expensive for US buyers. In addition, China only holds about 1 trillion of the debt. They used to hold much more but have been selling it in an attempt to prop up their currency. The "artificial dollar value" has been holding up just fine despite this selloff.

Edited February 26, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[anon4546543]

Yes, many trillions over the term of Trump. And who bought up the debt that China sold. It was not US, you were too busy producing phoney money. You need to look at the total debt that the US owes. This time, starting another phoney war will not get you out of debt. And soon the American taxpayer may start to question why so much money is spent creating wars that the US loses. Not to mention all the unnecessary military deaths and the cost to maintain vets (not that the US does much here) You should ask yourself what has 600 billion done for you. You keep losing incursions, you keep losing troops, you keep obsolete bases around the world where no one wants you. And you are losing or have lost the respect from the rest of the world. But keep chanting to yourself, freedom, freedom. You lost that a long time ago

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

Yes, many trillions over the term of Trump. And who bought up the debt that China sold. It was not US, you were too busy producing phoney money. You need to look at the total debt that the US owes. This time, starting another phoney war will not get you out of debt. And soon the American taxpayer may start to question why so much money is spent creating wars that the US loses. Not to mention all the unnecessary military deaths and the cost to maintain vets (not that the US does much here) You should ask yourself what has 600 billion done for you. You keep losing incursions, you keep losing troops, you keep obsolete bases around the world where no one wants you. And you are losing or have lost the respect from the rest of the world. But keep chanting to yourself, freedom, freedom. You lost that a long time ago

Really? The USA will save trillions of dollars over Trump's term by closing bases situated close to Russia?  This is just nonsense.

And are you aware that Trump wants to greatly increase the military budget?

[bangon04]

if it sounds like an arms race, and it smells like an arms race, and it looks like an arms race.........

[craigt3365]

8 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

Want to bet who would win in a currency, trade or bond war. It will not be US. They owe so much and have a total artificial dollar value. If every one calls in the chips, should such a "war" erupt (as other countries will) the US will be forced to look at other measures such as real war. They no longer have an assurance that they will win such a war. Trump is right to ask other countries to start to pay up. If the US closed most of its unnecessary global bases surrounding Russia, many trillions of dollars would be saved. Then he could afford to build some fences.

You need to research the state of the Chinese economy.  It's not good.  The US will be hurt, China would be devastated.  And they know it.  US debt is highly sought after.  Plenty of buyers out there and China doesn't own as much as it use to.

 

China knows better than to try a "real" war with the US.  No comparison at all. 

 

But I sure understand China's concern.  Hard to know what Trump's going to try and do.  Luckily, it's not 100% up to him or his crew of nuts.  He has to work with congress, luckily.

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

Yes, many trillions over the term of Trump. And who bought up the debt that China sold. It was not US, you were too busy producing phoney money. You need to look at the total debt that the US owes. This time, starting another phoney war will not get you out of debt. And soon the American taxpayer may start to question why so much money is spent creating wars that the US loses. Not to mention all the unnecessary military deaths and the cost to maintain vets (not that the US does much here) You should ask yourself what has 600 billion done for you. You keep losing incursions, you keep losing troops, you keep obsolete bases around the world where no one wants you. And you are losing or have lost the respect from the rest of the world. But keep chanting to yourself, freedom, freedom. You lost that a long time ago

Please provide credible links to prove what you are saying.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/16/investing/china-japan-us-debt-treasuries/

 

Quote

 

China is no longer the biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt

Beijing has been dumping U.S. government debt to prop up its currency. China uses the dollars it gets from selling U.S. Treasuries to buy the yuan, which has sunk to an 8-year low as the world's second largest economy slows.

 

China's huge holdings of U.S. debt fell to $1.12 trillion at the end of October, their lowest level in more than six years, according to U.S. Treasury Department data. Japan held $1.13 trillion.

 

Both countries offloaded Treasuries during the month, but China dumped far more: its holdings dropped by $41.3 billion, while Japan's fell by just $4.5 billion.

 

 

Let's focus on the topic: China, Trump, Navy, etc.  This isn't about obsolete bases around the world.