"China May Build Six Carriers, Ten Overseas Bases" Topic

"In an editorial published Friday to mark the anniversary of China's navy, the official military outlet PLA Daily suggested that the nation needs six aircraft carriers, an enlarged marine corps and ten naval bases in friendly foreign nations.

"In the long run, China needs to develop its own aircraft carrier battle teams, with at least six aircraft carriers, maritime forces led by guided missile destroyers, as well as attack submarines," said Xu Guangyu, a senior advisor to the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association. "China will build about ten more bases for the [carriers] . . . Hopefully, China could have bases in every continent, but that depends on countries which would like to cooperate with China."

The PLA Daily said that the purpose of the enlarged carrier fleet would be to enable the PLA(N) to "break through" the first island chain (Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines) to exert its power in the Western Pacific…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Good for them.

Good luck with that.

How would the United States react if China or even Russia was to make an agreement with Mexico or some S American country for not only a Navy base, but also a large scale full military base -- much like the ones we keep all around the world ?

I can't imagine that going over to well ??? 🤔

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Fine. Let them spend themselves into bankruptcy with this military splurge so we can have some company in the Poorhouse.

'How would the United States react if China or even Russia was to make an agreement with Mexico or some S American country for not only a Navy base, but also a large scale full military base -- much like the ones we keep all around the world ?'

How could America object to others doing what the US does? Quite simply, the US doesn't have that right – nor should it. We may not like the idea of Russia or China having lots of overseas bases – but until countries like the US continue to have theirs then it's a case of 'live with it.'

Wargame this Strategic scenario: US pulls back to the USA and leaves Europe to fend for themselves against Russia. The USA realizes at least 1 trillion dollars in savings over the next 3 years! With Europe not able to even agree to a common currency, Russia seizes the moment and we see the Fulda Gap scenarios from the 1980s actually happen.

What does NATO and UN do? With Russia breathing down the highways of Europe at breakneck speed, hundreds of KM of territory succumbs to the Red Menace! Can UN and NATO stem the tide and if so, how long will it take to overcome the deficits of years of not needing to spend on defense due to the USA shouldering the burden anymore? Without some of the major bases, how long would it take for the US to react/intervene supposing they even had an inkling to?

I suggest that none of the players could secure public support for and see results of Defense plans in time to prevent the Russians from vacationing on the shores of Normandy Beaches on down to Spain and Portugal. Time for us to stop being where the world looks to be the police force.

Game out what would happen….

Nations complaining about American bases in their backyard strikes me as a bit like a kid fresh out of college complaining to their mates about Mom coming over to their place to do their laundry. There's nothing really stopping you from telling your mom that you don't want her doing that any more, but she always uses those dryer sheets that make your clothes so incredibly soft, and she sometimes brings over a delicious pot roast so you don't have to cook. Sure she nags you about not settling down and getting married or doing enough in the fight against Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but that seems like a small price to pay in the scheme of things for having neatly pressed shirts when you go to work on Monday morning.

That said, the US can't complain if other nations enjoy having their laundry done by their own designated moms as well.

… succumbs to the Red Menace!

Hello? The '80s just called. They want their Cold War back.

The current Russia, even with Putin in charge, isn't the old Soviet Union. Russia has ambitions of creating its own Eurasian alliance to counter the western "Atlantic" globalist empire because it doesn't want to be on the periphery of Europe, forced to play by its rules.

And because Russia is no longer the weak helpless crumbling mess that it was for nearly 20 years in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and no longer kowtows to the west's military (Nato) and economic (EU) expansion, it must be labeled "resurgent" and "expansionist," bringing back the specter of the Cold War.

Ah-Hem…. It was a scenario suggestion, not a history lesson! It does deal with current reality , real world situations and suggests one possible scenario.

And for you folks who live outside the USA, having a Chinese base in Central or SouthAamerica would violate the Monroe Doctrine….which all the countries in the Americas have signed/adhered to. Big difference here, Chaps!

Now, let the red menace meet Dennis the destroyer! (or sit back and enjoy the kool-aid….it's cold y'know…) />)

Dye4minis said:

And for you folks who live outside the USA, having a Chinese base in Central or SouthAamerica would violate the Monroe Doctrine….which all the countries in the Americas have signed/adhered to.

Please elaborate. The Monroe Doctrine applied to the possible interference of European powers in American affairs. When did China or India become European powers? I am not aware of any Latin American or Canadian consent to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 or its subsequent iterations since then. Are you arguing that the Pan-American Union and following Organization of American States are affirmations of the Monroe Doctrine, because they are not. The terms of the creations of these organisations was that the US would not interfere with the independent and sovereign states of the Americas if they in turn avoided European imperial power attempts to move back in force to the Americas. This is a committment which the US has repeatedly violated throughout the last two centuries. Post-revolutionary Cuba even justified its close ties to the USSR as a direct response to the US violating the terms of the Union and the OAS throughout the Americas and the Carribean.

So, I am very interested in any evidence or authority you can offer that other countries in the Americas signed or adhered to the Monroe Doctrine.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

I question two core assumptions that are widely held:

1) That Russia is somehow always inherently expansionistic and untrustworthy, while the USA is just the opposite.

2) That the Monroe Doctrine is something handed down by divine fiat and unarguably binds the Western Hemisphere forever within the USA's sole control, oversight, and exploitation.

Who maintains 800 military bases across the globe? link

When was the public ever engaged on a debate about this establishment of an American Empire?

Always believed that the Monroe doctrine was to keep outside powers from meddling into the business of western hemisphere countries. In alliance to keep them out. The idea.

Dye4minis:

Ah, fair enough, so long as we both acknowledge that neither your nor my beliefs make historical fact. I was taught and still believe a very different interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine (one wrapped in the purple robes of manifest destiny and American expansionism/imperialism) and I imagine the same is true for hundreds of millions of Latin Americans and Carribeans south of the USA.

To All:

The type of carriers China is producing are best suited for anti-submarine warfare and as an augmentation to littoral defence capability. China is endeavouring to build a capacity to protect and control what it sees as its own marine near-abroad. These are not power projection carriers like those of the USA. They are smaller, weaker and much less threatening then the massive US carriers which steam so close to China's zone of interest. China is rising and short of starting a ruinous war, there is very little the USA can do about it. Better to manage and slow the desire for militarisation in China which is largely driven by US action in the area by diplomacy and economic incentive to demilitarise the rise of China as a global player.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Is it just a figure of speech when you say our "carriers which "steam" so close to China's zone of interest?"

Regards
Russ Dunaway. 🤔

Yeah, I recall seeing a satellite photo a couple of years ago showing a ship already at the Chinese port base in Namibia. I'm sure they've made a lot of headway since then.

Weird how just 20-30 years ago having China there in the South Atlantic would have made the West go into panic. Now we are so afraid to offend them that we barely mention it, and only do so when they are so far ahead in their construction projects that our objections won't change a thing, an empty gesture just "to save face".

Dan

Old Glory asked:

Is it just a figure of speech when you say our "carriers which "steam" so close to China's zone of interest?"

I don't know what other term to use. These ships don't have sails so 'sail' is anachronistic. Nuclear propulsion systems use steam-powered turbines to power their electrical systems. So 'steamed' seemed the most appropriate term. I suppose I could have written, 'carriers which fissed so close …' But that just sounds weird and few would understand that 'fissed' related to nuclear fission. Is there a better term? 'Navigated' perhaps? Well as they say, it's all Chinese to me; or soon will be! :-)

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

@ Dan

This goes to show that the era of Pax Americana is behind us. The unipolar world order in the wake of the Soviet collapse with the US being the world's only superpower is over.

The sooner we accept this new reality the better. We can coexist and cooperate with countries even if they don't share our liberal democratic ideals. It's called Realpolitik or transactional politics in foreign policy circles.