| Should China build its own aircraft carrier? | |
|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2007 13:14 | #11   |
 | "Wouldn't the money be better spent on the poor people or hospitals? In this sense I wonder if China is really rich enough yet." Health care and Military care are two different things. And, of course, if we want these hospitals to be CHINESE we have to take care for our army. Otherwise the hospitals will be NATO's, INDIA's, JAPAN's or RUSSIA's , but not CHINA's. Don't think that without army the main competitors of China will stay calm. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON TO RESPECT CHINA IS ITS ARMY. Without good army China=Iraq, China=Yugoslavia, China=Panama, etc. |
| Apr 15, 2007 13:21 | #12 |
| "I agree, Paul, there are higher priorities here." The priority is to keep the country WHOLE. Otherwise: Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang have to say "good bye". Without these territories have to say : "Hello, dear invadors!" and "We are happy to build "democracy"!" and "We are proud to be part of NATO", etc. **** AND SOME FACTS - according to CIA: 1. Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.3% (China). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONLY 4.3 % of the GDP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2. Some statistics from the World: 1 Rwanda 13.30 2006 est. 2 Oman 11.40 2005 est. 3 Jordan 10.60 2006 est. 4 Qatar 10.00 2005 est. 5 Saudi Arabia 10.00 2005 est. 6 Israel 9.00 2006 est. 7 Eritrea 7.80 2006 est. 8 Iraq 7.50 2006 est. 9 Yemen 7.00 2006 est. 10 Mauritania 6.70 2006 est. 11 Angola 6.60 2006 est. 12 Macedonia 6.00 2005 est. 13 Burundi 5.90 2006 est. 14 Syria 5.90 2005 est. 15 Kuwait 5.90 2006 est. 16 Brunei 5.80 2006 est. 17 Maldives 5.50 2005 est. 18 Turkey 5.30 2005 est. 19 Morocco 5.00 2003 est. 20 Bahrain 4.90 2006 est. 21 Singapore 4.90 2005 est. 22 Swaziland 4.90 2006 est. 23 Chad 4.60 2006 est. 24 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.50 2005 est. 25 Pakistan 4.50 2006 est. 26 Congo, Republic of the 4.30 2006 est. 27 China 4.30 2006 est. 28 Greece 4.30 2005 est. ------ DO YOU still think that China spend so much about army? |
| Apr 15, 2007 13:32 | #13 |
| "Aircraft carriers are about imposing military control, via air superiority, over areas far beyond a country's own land borders. It is a tool of global 'empire' and I should not think this is a priority for China." But China posses some areas FAR BEYOND COUNTRY'S OWN LAND. Also - just imagine (it is a "psychologeme" - I AM NOT SURE IF I AM SPELLING IT CORRECTLY - may be psychologame?...) Well: An Evil country "XYZ" is coing to fight China. We are succesful and make this Evil "XYZ" unsuccessful. We win here. BUT WHAT? If we have to be satisfied of this victory? No! We have to chease it AT LEAST to their own borders. Adn why not to give them a good lesson on their territory, following the Chairman's Mao lessons. The same as the history: Japan---------> USA; USA------------->Japan. Or GERMANY -------------> USSR, FRANCE, ENGLAND; USSR, FRANCE, ENGLAND -------> GERMANY. I.e. I mean the aircraft carriers are useful for a GOOD ANSWER in case of INVADER'S PROBLEMS. |
| Apr 15, 2007 22:04 | #14 |
| of course we should build not only for our national defense, but also to show our power ! |
| Apr 15, 2007 22:29 | #15 |
| "1. Rich. If the country is poor even can produce some tanks and guns. How it will produce aicraft carriers? SO - this is a base to produce/buy them." Singapore, Australia and Norway are rich. How many aircraft carriers do they have? None. I can afford to buy a bottle of baijiu. I could drink it for lunch. I won't. Why? Having enough money to do something is not a reason to do it. Having enough money does not prove China needs an aircraft carrier or should build one. "2. Strong. China is not a pity country like some small countries which like/must to obey to NATO/USA, etc and of course have to follow the "Big boss"." How many countries are currently blindly obeying either NATO or the USA? How many small countries are currently following their own independent policies even though they can not match NATO's or USA's military might? Again, this is not a reason to build an aircraft carrier. "3. Powerful. If China is not powerful, the foreign countries will make it the same pity as China in the 19th century." Prove it. How many countries are currently trying to dominate China? How could any of them succeed? No, modern China is radically different from the China of the end of the Qing Dynasty. This reason does not stand, anybody with a basic knowledge of Chinese history can see that. "Why not? Do you know how far from the mainland are situated some of the Chinese islands and islets?" Wow, all of tens of kilometres. Alright, I'm understating that. China's most far flung territories are very, very close to China's coast. Compare with New Zealand or any other Pacific country if you need some perspective. The Spratly's are not a reason for China to build an aircraft carrier. The Spratly's are a reason for China to build airbases in Hainan.... but China already has airbases in Hainan, so they're covered already. Same principle applies to China's "far-flung" territories in the East China Sea- they're so close to the mainland aircraft carriers are a completely unnecessary waste of money. |
| Apr 15, 2007 22:33 | #16 |
| "Health care and Military care are two different things. And, of course, if we want these hospitals to be CHINESE" What's the use of territorial integrity if you're people are poor, uneducated, and diseased? China will not get strong by building useless and irrelevant weapons, it'll get strong by building up its people. Priorities, please. "1. Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.3% (China)." How is this even remotely relevant to the discussion? "I.e. I mean the aircraft carriers are useful for a GOOD ANSWER in case of INVADER'S PROBLEMS." No. Aircraft carriers are for projecting power. If China built aircraft carriers, they would be used to protect China's supplies of energy and raw materials, most of which are shipped through the Indian Ocean, Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea, and therefore vulnerable to the Indian and US navies. "not only for our national defense, but also to show our power !" So China should behave like arrogant, bully boy America? Sorry, but that strategy would backfire and guaruntee China's isolation from the world. And don't try to pretend China doesn't need the world. Qianlong did that, and although China was strong under his reign, look what happened later on. |
| Apr 16, 2007 04:43 | #17 |
| "of course we should build not only for our national defense, but also to show our power !" This is useful as well! The same as the nuclear power. If you have it, the respect is bigger! |
| Apr 16, 2007 05:27 | #18 |
| "Singapore, Australia and Norway are rich. How many aircraft carriers do they have? None." The are rich, but they are not strong and powerful. Do you know what is a COBINATION OF QUALITIES? Only one is not enough. Also: a/ Norway is in NATO. NATO can provide to Norway MANY carriers every time if they need. Believe me! b/ Australia is in the sphere of the influence of England and USA. English and American nuclear submarines are everytime around Australian borders and from the history we know that Australia is just like a part of the military machine of USA - for example - Vietnam war. c/ Singapour is potentialy unsafe. "I can afford to buy a bottle of baijiu. I could drink it for lunch. I won't. Why? Having enough money to do something is not a reason to do it." If you are living in a dangerous country you HAVE TO buy some gun or, at least, knife, if you CARE of your life. The TRADUCTION "Baijiu-aircraft" is not right. "WEAPON-aicraft" is OK. "Having enough money does not prove China needs an aircraft carrier or should build one." IT IS A POSSIBILITY, WHICH IN THE CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER REASONS AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT POLITICS SITUATION IN THE WORLD MAKE THE NEED OF CARRIERS OBVIOUS! "How many countries are currently blindly obeying either NATO or the USA? How many small countries are currently following their own independent policies even though they can not match NATO's or USA's military might?" OH, YEAH? :D:D:D:D:D C'MON! -North Korea (very difficult and under very big pressure!) -Iran (potentially in trouble already) -Belorussia (thanks to the good neighbourhodd with Russia and , anyway, under USA pressure) -Zimbabwe, Syria (potentially dead after the solution of the "Iran problem") Do you want China to be like them? I don't. " Again, this is not a reason to build an aircraft carrier. " IT IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT REASONS. OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE SURPRISED HOW CHINA IS LOSING TERRITORIES. I HOPE YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE SEPARATISM! "Prove it. How many countries are currently trying to dominate China?" "OH, YOU DON'T KNOW?! OH MY GOD! READ, PLEASE: 1. USA + JAPAN ------- trying to support TAIWAN. Do you remember what happend when China made some military education close to Taiwan? CLINTON SEND 2 AMERICAN AIRCRAFT CARRIERS CLOSE TO THERE. AND WHAT WE DID? 2. INDIA + USA ------- supporting Dalai-Lama and TIBETIAN SEPARATISM. DO YOU REMEMBER INDIAN-CHINESE WAR? DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPEND WITH SIKKIM? WHAT ABOUT BHUTAN? INDIA ALSO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SOME ANOTHER PARTS OF CHINA. CHECK THE CIA-WEBSITE (the Indian claim) 3. TURKEY + USA ------ supporting the Xinjing "East Turkestan", they would like to take away 1/4 of China and to make it like a Turkish province! "How could any of them succeed?" It is another question. But anyway they are hard opponents - Turkey is wise and a memeber of NATO. India is more than 1 000 000 000 people+ nuclear power. USA are, probably, the strongest at the present time. |
| Apr 16, 2007 05:55 | #19 |
| " No, modern China is radically different from the China of the end of the Qing Dynasty. This reason does not stand, anybody with a basic knowledge of Chinese history can see that." You need soe BASIC knowledge about the: a/World's history b/ Geopolitics Then you will know WHY THE MODERN USSR WAS (yes - WAS!!!) RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE RUSSIA IN 1905, BUT...What happend with USSR? BTW, WHAT HAPPEND WITH YUGOSLAVIA? "Wow, all of tens of kilometres. Alright, I'm understating that. China's most far flung territories are very, very close to China's coast." DO YOU THINK THAT MALAYSIA IS "very, very close" to China's cost? Because ACCORDING TO THE CHINESE MAPS THE CHINESE BORDER IS GOING TO MALAYSIA AND BRUNEI. IT IS THE SAME AS F-R-O-M BEIJING T-O XIAMEN or F-R-O-M BEIJING T-O WEST XINJIANG. "VERY" CLOSE, HUH? "Compare with New Zealand or any other Pacific country if you need some perspective. The Spratly's are not a reason for China to build an aircraft carrier." MAY BE FOR YOU THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT. MAY BE FOR YOU CHINESE SECURITY IS NOT IMPORTANT, BUT FOR ME THEY ARE, AND AS I CAN SEE FOR OUR GOVERNMENT THEY ARE, SO I AM HAPPY THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT DO NOT SHARE YOUR POINT OF VIEW. OTHERWISE WE HAVE TO SAY "BYE-BYE" NOT ONLY TO SPARTLEY, BUT ALSO - TIBET, XINJIANG and may be - MANCHURIA, TAIWAN, HONGKONG, MACAO? "The Spratly's are a reason for China to build airbases in Hainan..." NOT ENOUGH. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HAPPEND WHEN CLINTON SENT 2 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS CLOSE TO TAIWAN? OR YOU WAS VERY YOUNG AND HAVE NO MEMORIES? "so they're covered already." NOT AGAINST MODERN ARMIES. FEW DECADES AGO VIETNAM WAS COVERED BY CHINESE FORCES, BUT WHAT HAPPEND IN THE CONFLICT BECAUSE OF THE KAMPUCHEA? WE WERE NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS BATTLE, RIGHT? "Same principle applies to China's "far-flung" territories in the East China Sea- they're so close to the mainland aircraft carriers are a completely unnecessary waste of money." IF YOU DO NOT LIKE TO WASTE SOME MONEY FOR IT LATER YOU WILL WASTE ALL YOUR MONEY FEEDING THE FOREIGN ARMIES ON YOUR TERRITORY. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY US BASES ARE ALREADY SITUATED IN THE FORMER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES AS : -FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS -ROUMANIA -BULGARIA ..................? The Chinese government is one of the most wise in the World. So, I am happy that they realised the need of Chinese aircraft carriers! Cool! ~ |
| Apr 16, 2007 06:15 | #20 |
| "What's the use of territorial integrity if you're people are poor, uneducated, and diseased?" The use is that if the foreigners come again here the people will be MORE POOR, MORE UNEDUCATED AND MORE DISEASED. And they will have to use opium/drugs again! You can see how it happend in the former socialist countries. Now there appeared new ills and diseased, the minority problems, etc. "China will not get strong by building useless and irrelevant weapons, it'll get strong by building up its people." Hehehe. If it is useless the USA and RUSSIA - the best military experts of the World will not build them! Just trust them - they know how to take control under foreign countries and people and how to won. So I think we can copy their expirience. Otherwise - Welcome to the 19th century and ...$^%&*$#@@... ;) "How is this even remotely relevant to the discussion?" You can't understand? Well, I will help you: China spent only 4.3 % of the GDP for army. It is not so big spending, I.E. we have enough money for the hospitals. By the way the hospitals are so expensive here. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THEY CAN NOT RECEIVE A GOOD MONEY?! "No. Aircraft carriers are for projecting power." IT IS A PART OF THE ABILITY FOR A GOOD ANSWER. Just have a look how USA are using them last years in the Yugoslavian war, Taiwanese problems, Iraq, close to Iran, North Korea. Follow the best, man! "So China should behave like arrogant, bully boy America?" NO, MAN! WE CALL IT "ADEQUATE ANSWER". LET ME EXPLAIN IT: The guy "X" is bad and arrogant. He like to kill people and to sell drugs. Well, the policemen have to be polite with him or to be adequate to the reality and to take the measures. "Sorry, but that strategy would backfire and guaruntee China's isolation from the world." Hehehehe. Do you think that Russia and USA are isolated from the World? China everytime is a little bit isolated, but we don't care. AT LEAST we would like to be FREE, not to welcome the foreign armies here and to lose China on its parts like: Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan... ALSO - the foreigners are doing business here, so they REALLY don't mind do you have aircraft carriers or not. "And don't try to pretend China doesn't need the world. Qianlong did that, and although China was strong under his reign, look what happened later on." WHAT HAPPEND LATER? THE OPIUM WARS - THE LESSON WAS: No modern weapons - No freedom! So TRY TO UNDERSTAND - CHINA HAVE TO BE STRONG - otherwise: 1. Welcome "Theocracy of Tibet"! 2. Welcome "Islamic republic of Turkestan" (Xinjiang)! 3. Welcome "Indipendant Taiwan"! 4. Welcome.......few other parts, I really can't imagine what can happend - at least Guangxi can be "liberated" by INDIA, NATO, etc. So, pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaseeeeeeee, be clever and REALISE that China is China, because of the power, not because of the culture, medicine or agriculture! |
Post a Reply to: Should China build its own aircraft carrier?
Copyright © 1998-2025 All rights reserved.