# So China wants an aircraft carrier force **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 21, 2009, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586 "2009-10-21T07:53:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/21 "2009-10-24T03:35:15Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > I’ve read estimates that it will take about another 40 years for China to catch up with the US military, but they are dead serious about building a strong defensive force. Bearing in mind that “defensive” includes defending those parts of the world that have been Chinese from time immemorial and only _appear_ to be outside of China now due to recent unfortunate circumstances in the past two centuries or so. Taiwan and the South China Sea, certainly. And bits of northern India. And Mongolia? And northern Vietnam? And nearby tracts of Siberia? Hmm, what else is there to “defend” . . . ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/22 "2009-10-24T12:46:06Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > I totally disagree. You think the Chinese don’t have the money? They have ALL of the money. They absolutely have the funds to build a few aircraft carriers. > > I’ve read estimates that it will take about another 40 years for China to catch up with the US military, but they are dead serious about building a strong defensive force. It’s late and I just had a glass of wine, but if you really care, I’d be happy to provide some numbers tomorrow. (I’m taking a class on international security this semester, and we just had a section on East Asia, so I have lots of papers readily available.) Yes, the Chinese CERTAINLY can build a blue-water navy/carrier force if they want to; but why would they want to? They own us, and they have no interest in killing the golden goose. Also, they see Russia in decline-they see Siberia as falling into their lap. As the Chinese extend their influecne over Africa, they see no confrontation with the West-why would they? We are not doing much in Africa (we prefer to waste our strength in pointless wars in the ME). So why spend upwards of $200 billion for a carrier force? To show the flag in Manila? To awe the Japanese? Wars of conquest are NOT in China’s future-they do much better by driving America out of manufacturing (which they have done a great job of). I fuly expect the USA to cease manufacturing cars-they will be made in China. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/23 "2009-10-24T13:35:19Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Yes, the Chinese CERTAINLY can build a blue-water navy/carrier force if they want to; but why would they want to? They own us, and they have no interest in killing the golden goose. Also, they see Russia in decline-they see Siberia as falling into their lap. As the Chinese extend their influecne over Africa, they see no confrontation with the West-why would they? We are not doing much in Africa (we prefer to waste our strength in pointless wars in the ME). > So why spend upwards of $200 billion for a carrier force? To show the flag in Manila? To awe the Japanese? Wars of conquest are NOT in China’s future-they do much better by driving America out of manufacturing (which they have done a great job of). I fuly expect the USA to cease manufacturing cars-they will be made in China. Meanwhile, off the coast of [Somalia . . .](http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE59L12E20091022) They’ve got one interest in common with the US, Imperial Japan and Imperial Britain: keeping the sea lanes open and ensuring access to vital raw materials. Or having the option of closing certain sea lanes, such as the [Strait of Malacca](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Malacca), if it would give them leverage over certain rivals. The idea of a “war of conquest” doesn’t enter this calculus at all. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/24 "2009-10-24T13:43:30Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > The idea of a “war of conquest” doesn’t enter this calculus at all. Missed edit window to add this: Nor does an overarching goal of “rivalry” with America. Americans are still crippled by a bipolar worldview left over from the Cold War; but China isn’t positioning itself to be the world’s great “other” power locking horns with Washington. China looks out for China and really only wants the US to get out of the way: and a blue water navy is a means to that end. Believe it or not, Americans, China actually doesn’t care that much about you one way or another, so long as you get out its neighborhood, keep buying its stuff and don’t cause a foolish collapse in your own currency. That probably hurts most of all, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/25 "2009-10-24T13:46:29Z")
The money angle holds no water: France was a major trading partner of Germany in both 1914 and 1939. Militarily, in the medium term, there’s a danger of a conflict between China and India. A blue-water navy allows China to project power. There’s an old adage along the lines of ‘if you draw the line at your doorstep, that’s where the battle will be’. They don’t want America or India or whoever parking battle groups off their coastline But in the shorter term, it’s about trade. Someone has to step in to ensure global peace - and therefore profitable trade - as the US declines, and China has decided to do it. Just as America took over from Britain. We can already see Chinese efforts in Africa, for instance. And they don’t really care if it takes 40 years. They, like Napoleon planting trees so his troops could march in the shade, are planning for the long term. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/26 "2009-10-24T15:57:25Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Yes, the Chinese CERTAINLY can build a blue-water navy/carrier force if they want to; but why would they want to? They own us, and they have no interest in killing the golden goose. Also, they see Russia in decline-they see Siberia as falling into their lap. As the Chinese extend their influecne over Africa, they see no confrontation with the West-why would they? We are not doing much in Africa (we prefer to waste our strength in pointless wars in the ME). > So why spend upwards of $200 billion for a carrier force? To show the flag in Manila? To awe the Japanese? Wars of conquest are NOT in China’s future-they do much better by driving America out of manufacturing (which they have done a great job of). I fuly expect the USA to cease manufacturing cars-they will be made in China. Because military might is one of the important features of a major world power. It’s not necessarily about any specific conflicts that they foresee, but they want the physical force to back up their rising political and economic power. It is also possible that they do, in fact, want to have the power to go up against: 1. Japan. While still an officially pacifist nation, it is not at all impossible that Japan may change its constitution to allow it to have an army again. In fact, if it does, it will very likely be over China’s rise. So that would be a bit of a self-fulfilling arms race. But China and Japan have a LONG LONG history of enmity and distrust and that would play a key role in any buildup of arms. 2. The US, if the situation regarding Taiwan ever changes. It’s also important to remember that China is the key backer of North Korea, and no one know what the fuck they are doing. It is in no way impossible that the US could get into it with China over North Korea, and they’ll want to have equivalent force in that situation. And those are just potential military situations in which an aircraft carrier would be useful. They have a whole bunch of other things going on in which a powerful military would come in handy on its western edge - which abuts the highly unstable and Jihadi-and-poppy-filled Central Asian countries. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/27 "2009-10-24T15:59:17Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Aw, come on. Even when I was a kid growing up in the 70s, “Made in Japan” was a punchline implying lousy quality, for toys, autos, or anything else. Fair or unfair, that was the perception in some quarters. (And as in the case of China now, probably a defensive reaction to disparage and belittle something that’s feared as a potential threat.) :rolleyes: Chalk up to Jingoism what is more logically explained by the fact that a lot of Chinese products actually ARE of lousy quality. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/28 "2009-10-24T16:09:25Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Yes, the Chinese CERTAINLY can build a blue-water navy/carrier force if they want to; but why would they want to? They own us, and they have no interest in killing the golden goose. Also, they see Russia in decline-they see Siberia as falling into their lap. As the Chinese extend their influecne over Africa, they see no confrontation with the West-why would they? We are not doing much in Africa (we prefer to waste our strength in pointless wars in the ME). > So why spend upwards of $200 billion for a carrier force? To show the flag in Manila? To awe the Japanese? Wars of conquest are NOT in China’s future-they do much better by driving America out of manufacturing (which they have done a great job of). I fuly expect the USA to cease manufacturing cars-they will be made in China. Do you like not read economic reports like at all? The dollar is declining causing the price of manufacturing overseas and importing into the US to rise thus making it more cost-effective to produce locally thereby increasing manufacturing, which BTW, we are still the largest manufacturing nation in the world. Here’s the actual facts on the topic: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=2#us](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=2#us) Our GDP is almost twice that of number two China’s. Come on people, stop treating China superstitiously and look at the ACTUAL facts. Talking about America’s decline in manufacturing is like talking about Michael Phelps decline if he only wins 6 gold medals next year. What America is declining from is an overwhelmingly, mindbogglingly vast superiority gap. We have a long way to go before anyone outstrips us in manufacturing, wealth, intellectual capital, or militarily. We’re not falling behind China, we’ve just only lapped them once, as opposed to 100 times like we had 40 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/29 "2009-10-24T18:19:55Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Yes, the Chinese CERTAINLY can build a blue-water navy/carrier force if they want to; but why would they want to? They own us, and they have no interest in killing the golden goose. Also, they see Russia in decline-they see Siberia as falling into their lap. As the Chinese extend their influecne over Africa, they see no confrontation with the West-why would they? We are not doing much in Africa (we prefer to waste our strength in pointless wars in the ME). > So why spend upwards of $200 billion for a carrier force? To show the flag in Manila? To awe the Japanese? Wars of conquest are NOT in **China’s future-they do much better by driving America out of manufacturing (which they have done a great job of).** I fuly expect the USA to cease manufacturing cars-they will be made in China. In addition to **mswas** ’s points, this is about the most popular myth that you couldn’t possibly be more wrong about. If it is China’s goal to drive out US manufacturing, they’re doing an abysmal job. As a matter of fact, the US today manufactures roughly twice as much as it did when Nixon first visited China. See below, the post I made in August for the cites and interpretation. > [@Paul Craig Roberts: The economy won't recover because there is no more economy left.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-craig-roberts-the-economy-wont-recover-because-there-is-no-more-economy-left/505785/7): > > [Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization](http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm) in the US, compiled by the Federal Reserve. Look, especially, at [Chart 1](http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg1.gif), which shows the manufacturing output out the United States over the past 40 years. If you look at the chart\*, even after accounting for the damage done by the current recession, we’re still manufacturing roughly twice as much as was manufactured in 1970. The [population in 1970](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_United_States_Census) was about 200 million, which means the US is now manufacturing roughly 33% more **per US citizen** than it did it 1970. > > The graphs are constructed from source data measuring physical output of each industry, then combined in a weighted average. The weights are “derived from their proportion in the total value-added output of all industries” (from the [explanatory notes](http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ip_notes.htm)). Notice that neither the physical output, nor the weights are affected by inflation, and thus the graph itself automatically corrects for inflation. > > What is true is that manufacturing _employment_ is dropping. Part of this is probabily because other countries are increasing their manufacturing employment, but it is also because the manufacturing workers that remain are becoming increasingly more productive. Basically, we don’t need as many manufacturing workers because the ones we have are so damn good at what they do. > > \*The Federal Reserve should update the report to include data from July in about five days, so what I say will be a bit out of date soon… ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/30 "2009-10-24T20:43:26Z")
in our trade with China? Take a walk through your local department store-over 90% of the clothes you see will be made in China. How about Home Depot? Just about everything is Chinese-made. Or, see what GM does-most of the vehicle lectronics are made in Mexico or China. Yep, if the Chinese decide to build a blue water navy, they will do so courtesy of the American consumer! ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/31 "2009-10-24T22:36:56Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > in our trade with China? Take a walk through your local department store-over 90% of the clothes you see will be made in China. How about Home Depot? Just about everything is Chinese-made. > Or, see what GM does-most of the vehicle lectronics are made in Mexico or China. > Yep, if the Chinese decide to build a blue water navy, they will do so courtesy of the American consumer! Because the little labels that say “made in \_\_\_\_” present a tragically oversimplified view of the world. My iPod says “Assembled in China” on the back (as distinct from “Designed in California”), but why not look at an [actual analysis](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/business/worldbusiness/28scene.html?_r=1)? The money-quote of the article > [@New York Times](#): > > The researchers estimated that $163 of the iPod’s $299 retail value in the United States was captured by American companies and workers, breaking it down to $75 for distribution and retail costs, $80 to Apple, and $8 to various domestic component makers. Japan contributed about $26 to the value added (mostly via the Toshiba disk drive), while Korea contributed less than $1. > > \ > > This value added calculation illustrates the futility of summarizing such a complex manufacturing process by using conventional trade statistics. Even though Chinese workers contribute only about 1 percent of the value of the iPod, the export of a finished iPod to the United States directly contributes about $150 to our bilateral trade deficit with the Chinese. The parts of an iPod are made in many different countries, and the raw materials can come from other places still. Think this is an extreme example? Take a look at where a [cup of Starbucks comes from](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/.a/6a00d8341c66b253ef0120a60d0328970b-pi). Take a look at [these charts](http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg3.gif), documenting the explosive growth of high-tech manufacturing in the United States, even within the last 10 years. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/32 "2009-10-24T23:54:52Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > in our trade with China? Take a walk through your local department store-over 90% of the clothes you see will be made in China. How about Home Depot? Just about everything is Chinese-made. > Or, see what GM does-most of the vehicle lectronics are made in Mexico or China. > Yep, if the Chinese decide to build a blue water navy, they will do so courtesy of the American consumer! Trade deficit just means that we receive more in trade from China than they receive from us, but China is not even our biggest trading partner though I believe it’s at least in the top 5. We export more to Mexico and Canada than we do to China if I am not mistaken. China isn’t the whole world. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/33 "2009-10-24T23:58:52Z")
**Dr. Love** Interesting, looks like we took a pretty big hit over the last year. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/34 "2009-10-25T00:04:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Dr. Love** Interesting, looks like we took a pretty big hit over the last year. Yes, this recession has been particularly hard on manufacturing. But, industrial output has grown for two months now, and I haven’t heard of any compelling reason why it won’t eventually recover. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/35 "2009-10-25T01:08:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m amazed that people think that carrier technology is somehow beyond Chinese capability. China is not some technological backwater. They’ve built nuclear weapons and launched men into space. Why wouldn’t they be able to master the sixty year old technology of launching a jet plane from a ship? Probably because the last time China tested a nuclear missile submarine launching, they lost depth control and bobbed to the surface, demonstrating a “Mr. Bean” level of competence with advanced naval technology. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/36 "2009-10-25T06:26:42Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > Yes, this recession has been particularly hard on manufacturing. But, industrial output has grown for two months now, and I haven’t heard of any compelling reason why it won’t eventually recover. I’ve actually heard that it will benefit greatly from the declining dollar, and that right now inflation is official policy, so we’ll see. Inflation is an unfortunate tax on the poor but it can benefit the economy as a whole. I think this is partly why Obama kept that extra stipend on top of Social Security in place. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/37 "2009-10-27T06:57:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Probably because the last time China tested a nuclear missile submarine launching, they lost depth control and bobbed to the surface, demonstrating a “Mr. Bean” level of competence with advanced naval technology. And we’ve lost a couple of space shuttle crews. Does that mean we’re a technological backwater? ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/38 "2009-10-27T07:04:19Z")
Not to mention the two [nuclear submarines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)) we’ve lost outright. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/39 "2009-10-27T20:15:08Z")
I, too, would not be quite so eager to chortle at Chinese naval blunders: [The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586/40 "2009-10-27T21:24:33Z")
And a great compilation of our advanced sea-launched ballistic missile technology! [Grab the popcorn.](http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80759391/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-china-wants-an-aircraft-carrier-force/514586.md?page=3)