I’m guessing that a nuclear sub costs about $1 billion…and they are not cheap to maintain. So why does China want one?
Also, I understand it is a SSBN type-does China have miss;les capable of long ranges?
It just makes no sense.
Apparently, yes. Submarines and submarine lauched missiles, nuclear missiles in general
For a while China has been working toward building a blue-water Navy. That is, a navy capable of fighting from long distances as opposed to a coastal defense force. While Diesel-electric submarines might be sufficient for a nation to protect a coast or geographic choke points, you really need a nuclear-powered submarine to operate at long ranges and long missions.
It’s the next card in their Superpower bid.
A nice little popup nuke platform would reduce China’s concerns over America developing first strike capability.
Bush is president. He has a history of waging unprovoked wars of aggression. He got re-elected despite that history. Who can blame other nations for wanting to have some major reasons why the U.S. shouldn’t want to invade them?
Simple answer - A blockade of Taiwan, who imports almost everything.
Why doesn’t it make any sense? The US upgrades its submarine (and general) fleet every opportunity. Along with its Air Force, Army, etc. Why wouldn’t China do the same if they think they can afford it?
Not likely. A missile sub isn’t a particularly suitable platform for blockading. A missile sub is a nuclear deterrant, and not much else.
That’s not to say that the Chinese don’t want to have a navy capable of effectively blockading Taiwan, but to do that they’d have to be able to take on a US carrier group or 3.
My take is, if you want to be a world power, you need to be able to project force. A boomer is one way to do that.
No way the U.S. is going to get involved in that dispute. Sorry, Taiwan, but China is the future for U.S. business interests. We will back Taiwan loudly, but when push comes to shove, China represents our best interests as a nation.
Alrighty there Mr. Rumsfeld…
I’d at least hope for some credentials in your sig, ya’ know?
Until you realize that some of our first missles fired into afghanistan during the war on terror were fired from submarines (with the very first from ships). Having a capable navy is a very, very powerful asset. Monetarily,
the CIA fact file guesses that China spent 60 billion on their military in 2003. Upping it to 61 billion for a strategic long term investment doesn’t seem like a big deal.
An aside: That budget number, in retrospect to our spending in Iraq alone, seems very, very pale…pretty amazing.
Since when does the US NOT have a first-strike capability? We have our own boomers, plus B-2s and F-117As.
Under MAD, first strike capability refers to being able to take out the other guy without him being able to do the same to you. The most devastating blow we can strike China will avail us nothing if the Chinese have invulnerable launchers floated 200 miles off our coastlines.
Well, China wants to be in the big boys club. Why not a nuclear sub? China can afford it (although IMHO that money is better spent on development) and to a layman seems the most practical way to project force in a blue water navy.
Wouldn’t the answer to that be using fast-attack boats as counterforce? I’m not familiar with the technological development of Chinese submarines, but I find it hard to believe that the US Navy could not find and shadow a single boomer the entire time is at sea. Especially given the number of boats we have.
Yeah, and there isn’t anything that is going to sit 200 miles off our coastline undetected…
Also, I suppose it wouldn’t be very cynical of me to ask hopefully:
“Has the Air Force held any bake sales lately?” 
I’d still be more concerned about a fundamentalist with a truckfull of explosives.