Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just some more news about how China has really been ramping itself up as a major military power.

(Reuters) - China is building some "fairly amazing submarines" and now has more diesel- and nuclear-powered vessels than the United States, a top U.S. Navy admiral told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, although he said their quality was inferior.

Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for capabilities and resources, told the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee that China was also expanding the geographic areas of operation for its submarines, and their length of deployment.

For instance, China had carried out three deployments in the Indian Ocean, and had kept vessels out at sea for 95 days, Mulloy said.

"We know they are out experimenting and looking at operating and clearly want to be in this world of advanced submarines," Mulloy told the committee.

U.S. military officials in recent months have grown increasingly vocal about China's military buildup and launched a major push to ensure that U.S. military technology stays ahead of rapid advances by China and Russia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-usa-china-submarines-idUSKBN0LT2NE20150225

More at link.

China needs 'just enough' weapons and tech to get its neighbours tetchy and squeamish about siding with the US in the event of hostilities or diplomatic crises.

a modern quiet diesel sub based on a the kilo or recent german designs could prove a useful addition alongside nuclear boats.

China can also sell them.

Submarineinvestment are a sign of a local power fleet, not a global power.
Hwever Chinas primary global power is through economic means, and is flexing military muscles only locally, but is doing so concentrically.

China demands total hegemony rather than a thinner wider spread of global power. China aims to annex local ocean zones, even area classified under current law as international waters, and thereby dominate territories neighbouring 'Chinese seas'. They will likely get their way.

Its also easy to police as it allows control of sea and airspace but doesn't require boots on the ground. Phillippines, Vietnam etc can be 'free' but if they want to go anywhere other than by overland route they will have to pay obesience to China.
Taiwan probably wont remain free long term.

This can only be enacted once the west is sufficiently in Chinas pocket that western powers esp the US wont intervene. China i well on the way to achieving this too, but can only do so with our short term political and economic thinking as complicit help.

Submarines are half of stage 2 of this, the other half of the requirement being local air supremacy, which China already has AFAIK and is the hidden power behind stage 1, the annexation of oceanic territories, which is ongoing.

If we didn't have the Chinese or the Russians, military leaders would almost certainly reference the Crab People as a clear and present danger that requires a response of additional military spending.

Too bad most of those chinese subs suck eggs.

News Flash:

Skaven outnumber Warriors of Chaos.

Panic!

There are some who would think that submarines don't matter:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-submarines-about-become-obsolete-12253

Hypersonic Missiles - Meh...
Rapid increases in military funding - So what?
New aircraft carrier, with intent to build more - But it's so tiny
Sub-fleet sized rapidly increasing, and already outnumbers our own - But their diesel.


Eventually folks are going to see the writing on the wall... probably will be the same time missiles are falling on Taiwan/Korea/Japan...

Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

Who says we are? Our military forces are forward staged to serve our nations interests. Not just to keep one idiot from killing another. We have forces in Japan and Korea because our interests in that part of the world necessitate it.

That's a pretty good answer actually.

 Ouze wrote:
That's a pretty good answer actually.

Well... thank you.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

When you forget that existential defensive wars are much better fought overseas than on US territory.

NEVER FORGET!

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

Who says we are? Our military forces are forward staged to serve our nations interests. Not just to keep one idiot from killing another. We have forces in Japan and Korea because our interests in that part of the world necessitate it.

What interests are there beyond generalised power projection? There aren't pirates surfing the China sea anymore, the trade ships will keep sailing regardless of if there's a US base next door or not, and South Korea/Japan are unlikely to become aggressive hostile enemies at this stage.

The only reason those bases still exist is because they're a historical legacy combined with America's desire/structural need to have the biggest military genitalia substitute in the world.

Which I for one am fine with, but handwaving it away as 'because US interests' is just a bit vague.

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

Wow I agree with Ouze. I'm scared.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

Sounds like an opportunity to sunset our treaties and be out of there in the next five years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

When you forget that existential defensive wars are much better fought overseas than on US territory.

Unless you don't have enemies of course.

 djones520 wrote:

Eventually folks are going to see the writing on the wall... probably will be the same time missiles are falling on Taiwan/Korea/Japan...

That's more than a bit hyperbolic.

At any rate, what would you have the US do that it is not already doing?

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

I think the Japanese are under the impression that the states will back them up should they be invaded or bombed/ect due to the U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement

If any us troops were caught up in it, as is quite likely, I think the states would care.


also, korea makes most of the internet "stuff" that telcos and so on use to make the internet work, losing them would have severe impacts globally, south korea is a huge player in advanced electronics


dont get me wrong, I dont like the US playing world police either, and I dont approve of the involvement in many wars, but responding to china bombing those countries would be appropriate, IMO at least.

 Alpharius wrote:
NEVER FORGET!

Not enough coffee in my blood yet. Not getting it unless referencing Pearl Harbor?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Eventually folks are going to see the writing on the wall... probably will be the same time missiles are falling on Taiwan/Korea/Japan...

That's more than a bit hyperbolic.

At any rate, what would you have the US do that it is not already doing?

Not cutting our military to the point that we can't stand up to them anymore? Our involvement in the middle east is not ending anytime in the foreseeable future, and our military right now is incapable of fighting a full scale war on another front, and there are just more shrinkages on the way. While China has done nothing but make their military grow, we've been making ours smaller and smaller.

Oh-no, better increase funding to the US armed forces! It's only 55% of our tax revenue!


*sigh*


The idea that china would ever attack Korea or japan is rediulous. Japan in the 3rd largest economy in the world, and is going to almost definitely have America behind it (unless there is some severe fallout between the governments). It would be stupid for China to delare war on anyone that would stop trade to and from china).

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

Clearly we need more military nearby to defend the military we have nearby defending things.

Soooo you want us to make sure that our military has the capability to continuously waste vast amounts of resources in the middle east while simultaneously fighting a full-scale war on the other side of the planet?

Nah. You get to pick one.

It cost money to keep an edge on US Military forces. What good is a military if they just sit in the barracks soaking up pay. Training cost money and since we have a lack of funding quite a bit of training has to be postponed to provide funding to prep a unit rotating in Afghanistan.

Only in America is "We are no longer spending more on defense than the ten most powerful countries below us" somehow equivalent to "we are no longer spending any money on defense- let the military rot lol".

Lack of funding isn't the issue with our military. Misappropriation of funding is the issue with our military.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Only in America is "We are no longer spending more on defense than the ten most powerful countries below us" somehow equivalent to "we are no longer spending any money on defense- let the military rot lol".

While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

I think the point isn't advancement, but size.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Only in America is "We are no longer spending more on defense than the ten most powerful countries below us" somehow equivalent to "we are no longer spending any money on defense- let the military rot lol".

While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.