US Navy Issues Warnings on Russia, China’s Submarine Fleets

[gambit]

Does the US have any plans to stop China from building weapons? More and more advance ones? Short of that I can't see how this containment works.

Economically we are actually far more involved in the region than when the pivot started, so that's off the table.

militarily, I fail to see how having bases would limit China, seeing as how we wouldn't have had access to those bases anyways and we are building our own islands. Currently Chinese fishermen already refuel and resupply at some of those islands.

So the only thing that I can think of is somehow the US limits China in the building of weapons, but you are already sanctioning us on weapons, and I don't know how much more you can do here.

What is your view, how will the US limit China? Militarily?

That is because you have a limited understanding of the military-political relationship in the first place.

The issue is not how the US can limit China's weapons development. That is an immature view of the issue. Military expansion is not solely about the extent of your ability to deploy your forces, how quickly can you do so, and the overall military capabilities of each deployment, even though those factors set the limits on the scope of your expansion plans. But before you can expand militarily, you need the necessary geopolitical environments in your favor and that is what China do not have at this time and probably will not have for at least another 20 yrs.

Are foreign basings a component of military expansionism ? Absolutely because it allows you to more rapidly defends your foreign interests, whether those interests are purely political or economics or more likely the usual blend of both. A military presence is both a symbolic and physical assurance of your fidelity to the cause, whatever that cause may be. You can say to your potential ally: 'I can send a fleet to your aid in 7 days.' Or you can say: 'I can station a fleet 24/7/365.' Which is more reassuring to this potential partner ? Right now, the US can offer this kind of political-military assurance to anyone in any part of the world. China cannot.

This is the kind of containment we are talking about.

 

[Genesis]

That is because you have a limited understanding of the military-political relationship in the first place.

The issue is not how the US can limit China's weapons development. That is an immature view of the issue. Military expansion is not solely about the extent of your ability to deploy your forces, how quickly can you do so, and the overall military capabilities of each deployment, even though those factors set the limits on the scope of your expansion plans. But before you can expand militarily, you need the necessary geopolitical environments in your favor and that is what China do not have at this time and probably will not have for at least another 20 yrs.

Are foreign basings a component of military expansionism ? Absolutely because it allows you to more rapidly defends your foreign interests, whether those interests are purely political or economics or more likely the usual blend of both. A military presence is both a symbolic and physical assurance of your fidelity to the cause, whatever that cause may be. You can say to your potential ally: 'I can send a fleet to your aid in 7 days.' Or you can say: 'I can station a fleet 24/7/365.' Which is more reassuring to this potential partner ? Right now, the US can offer this kind of political-military assurance to anyone in any part of the world. China cannot.

This is the kind of containment we are talking about.

Well yea, that much is obvious, but what I'm saying is we can't do that now anyways even if US wasn't there.

Our budget, prestige, political reach, capability wise and more.

So what exactly is the US doing to stop us from getting the necessary capabilities like. Budget, economic power and thus political clout, and capability.

Cause now US is stopping us from something we can't do anyways.

 

[gambit]

Well yea, that much is obvious, but what I'm saying is we can't do that now anyways even if US wasn't there.

Our budget, prestige, political reach, capability wise and more.

So what exactly is the US doing to stop us from getting the necessary capabilities like. Budget, economic power and thus political clout, and capability.

Cause now US is stopping us from something we can't do anyways.

The PLA can be the largest land army in the world, the PLAAF the most numbers of aircrafts, the PLAN can have as many carrier fleets as the US, and the US would still be at an advantage if we have foreign basings. We can negotiate them to preempt China's own attempts. For the foreseeable future, as in at least the next 20 yrs, the rest of the world do not see China as benefactor for all the major reasons that usually compels countries into alliances, even if China proposes a subordinate role for herself.

This is like a sales competition for a lucrative business contract. Why should I (US) put you (China) in a positive light ? May be not a negative light, but why should a potential partner go with a neutral when he could go with a positive ? So no, while I (US) may not portray you (China) as an evil to avoid, all I (US) have to do is portray myself as a better alternative than you (China) in any partnership and let the potential client do the rest.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

They started cosying up to China in 60s eventually they got the infrastructure investments starting from that point.

Try 90s, 60s is not the correct figure.

 

[Genesis]

The PLA can be the largest land army in the world, the PLAAF the most numbers of aircrafts, the PLAN can have as many carrier fleets as the US, and the US would still be at an advantage if we have foreign basings. We can negotiate them to preempt China's own attempts. For the foreseeable future, as in at least the next 20 yrs, the rest of the world do not see China as benefactor for all the major reasons that usually compels countries into alliances, even if China proposes a subordinate role for herself.

This is like a sales competition for a lucrative business contract. Why should I (US) put you (China) in a positive light ? May be not a negative light, but why should a potential partner go with a neutral when he could go with a positive ? So no, while I (US) may not portray you (China) as an evil to avoid, all I (US) have to do is portray myself as a better alternative than you (China) in any partnership and let the potential client do the rest.

I think we are talking past each other. What you are suggesting I understand, the Roman and pretty much all imperial dynasty's strategy of divide and conquer. Except for a few problems.

The thing I'm talking about is that US having bases in Asia is next to useless, for one thing we are in Asia, and thus the use of bases in the Philippines and Japan isn't that useful for us. With refuel planes coming our way in the hundreds, we will be covered for all of South and East China Seas.

Second, even if we wanted bases, with out budget, capabilities, we can't anyways.

So right now, US is draining its own resources for bases it doesn't need.


Now why did I say it doesn't need.. Right now even if Philippines fire on our fishermen or coastguard, it's highly likely we will not respond with war. We are an old imperial power too remember. We know how to wait for our time. We won't go at your pace. Vietnam also know how this game is played, so while the rhetoric is high, the actions are limited.

Philippines being what it is, is jumping up and down and not really knowing how to play.


Regarding bases, we don't really need them now or in the foreseeable future, to need bases in North America, we would need our strength to be greater than yours, which we won't have, at least not for a while, on the other hand, having a few thousand men in Asia will do nothing to deter a China that will have absolute advantage.


Besides, when our economy doubles again in 10 years, what nation in Asia will risk the economic super power that is China. Even today there is considerations given.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

Translation; Keep the money flowing into the military Industrial complex.. be afraid of those evil Chinese and Russians.

 

[ice bomb]

Militarily speaking, of course we can. Trade is a two-way street. Military expansion is one-way.

No country is going to passively agree to another country's military expansion. Note I said 'passively agree'. You can at least lodge a public protest with my expansion if you cannot do anything else. Mutually beneficial agreements/treaties, like NATO for example, are for a different discussion, where the US takes the lead in this military-political alliance.

On the other hand, trade demands permission for access and expansion. I cannot force trade upon you, especially if I do not have anything you want. I can advertise as loud and as often as I want but if you are not interested, there is nothing I can do to force you to buy/trade with me.

We, meaning the US and other Asian partners, can certainly limit China's military expansion while conducting financially profitable deals at the same time.

"The sinews of war are infinite money." - Marcus Tullius Cicero
There is a close link between chinese military expansion and growth in economy. You can not claim to "contain" her while giving her the means to challenge you in the same time. That is an oxymoron.

Headging? yes, containing? no way.

They started cosying up to China in 60s eventually they got the infrastructure investments starting from that point.

I assume history is not taught at your school.

Ping-pong diplomacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention the fact that US FDI is negligible.

• United States: direct investments in China 2000-2013 | Statistic[/quote]