Why China’s ‘unstoppable’ £175billion military is now the biggest threat to world order – and the West can’t keep up

[Mushroom]

So what are the two keels that were laid in the last 8 months with special Slideways ?

You tell me. You are the one that has a history of making unfounded claims. You give us some verifiable reference to show what they are building.

Now I know they are building a Type 075 LHD. But an LHD is not a carrier, it is an amphibious warfare ship. And the Type 076 LHD is still in development and not under construction.

Do not demand that others back up your claims, you need to back them up yourself. Of course, I have already seen you have this habit of spouting off things with no references at all, that largely seem to be made up from your own imagination.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

China has three carriers on duty China currently has three aircraft carrier, the third carrier, named CNS Fujian, recently completed its maiden sea trials and will be commissioned soon1.

As for the keels laid, the Type 003 aircraft carrier (which Fujian belongs to) had its keel laid down between March 2015 and February 2016 at the Jiangnan Shipyard2.

 

[martybegan]

I know people in the military who don't agree with you.

They could slag the island with missiles and such, but I doubt they could pull off an amphibious landing, as long as the US jumps in.

 

[Donald H]

Actually, that is far from true.

The US is the number 1 exporter of China for raw materials (specifically copper and iron), as well as all other goods (especially high in the high tech goods they can not make themselves). In excess of $150 billion dollars worth. The US is also the largest importer of finished goods, at over $500 billion.

We can easily find other nations to import from, which is what we did for decades. The large shift to importing from China is actually fairly recent, and a lot of nations would jump at the chance to take their place (or resume their former place). Especially Vietnam, Indonesia, India, and Philippines.

But tell me, if the US cuts off their exports, where is China going to get their raw materials? They get about 26% of their raw materials from the US. And if the US companies pull out, what in the hell are they going to make? You are aware that most of their most profitable exports are not actually "theirs", right? They do not actually design much of anything, a hell of a lot of their exports are simply manufactured there, they are not actually designed there. That is why China is insignificant in the global market for things like cell phones, computers, game systems, and just about anything else.

The simple fact is, China actually ranks really low in the tech industry when it comes to domestic products.

The Brics countries are now able to rely on their member countries exclusively. China, Russia, and others have prepared for the US attempts to isolate them. The Brics countries are now a bigger economic force than the G7.

Neither the US or China have acted against their best interests because both know it's counter-productive. It would just become tit for tat, and not be helpful to the US goal of destroying China.

MSN

 

[Mushroom]

Neither the US or China have acted against their best interests because both know it's counter-productive.

shakes head sadly That has absolutely never stopped it from happening in the past. It never fails to surprise me that people actually believe such nonsense.

 

[Donald H]

shakes head sadly That has absolutely never stopped it from happening in the past. It never fails to surprise me that people actually believe such nonsense.

America waited too long to conquer the world. The Brics alliance has eclipsed the G7 both in economic clout and military strength.

America's option before the Brics was limited to nuclear war and perhaps it should have risked it?

America isn't finished yet; it's still attempting to neutralize Russia's power in the Ukraine on the prospects of only needing to face China.

Shake your head over the facts, but don't try to involve me in your armchair war.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I do find this concerning. The West is spending their time and resources with Ukraine while China continues to beef up their military arsenal to a point they may be reasonably unstoppable. Xi Jinping has already stated he intends to take back Taiwan. It's not an if, it's a when, and when that happens then what? The United States can't fend off Russia and China. Plus, throw Iran into the mix and who knows what will be going on with Israel at the time. Even with the help of Europe, who have been underfunding their military capabilities for years, this can turn into a very serious global threat. We need to sever ties with China completely. Our trading with them is funding this threat.

China's 'unstoppable' military is now biggest world threat & West can’t keep up

CHINA has crafted an unstoppable military under Xi Jinping’s ruthless dictatorship which poses the greatest threat to the world order, experts have warned. As the West steels itself for globa…

www.thesun.co.uk

The US spent $876.94B on its military last year, why are we worried about China when they are spending 5 times less than we are?

 

[Donald H]

The US spent $876.94B on its military last year, why are we worried about China when they are spending 5 times less than we are?

It probably has a lot to do with China and Russia getting a bigger bang for the bucks. Russia alone is out producing the US in weapons by a large margin.

I suspect that air craft carriers don't bring much bang anymore.

We'll have to wait and see for when those ships become a part of America's war against Russia and perhaps China too?
Maybe they will pay off, but we all should be realistic on the question.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It probably has a lot to do with China and Russia getting a bigger bang for the bucks. Russia alone is out producing the US in weapons by a large margin.

I suspect that air craft carriers don't bring much bang anymore.

We'll have to wait and see for when those ships become a part of America's war against Russia and perhaps China too?
Maybe they will pay off, but we all should be realistic on the question.

Also, neither of them wasted a trillion dollars trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan

 

[BrokeLoser]

I do find this concerning. The West is spending their time and resources with Ukraine while China continues to beef up their military arsenal to a point they may be reasonably unstoppable. Xi Jinping has already stated he intends to take back Taiwan. It's not an if, it's a when, and when that happens then what? The United States can't fend off Russia and China. Plus, throw Iran into the mix and who knows what will be going on with Israel at the time. Even with the help of Europe, who have been underfunding their military capabilities for years, this can turn into a very serious global threat. We need to sever ties with China completely. Our trading with them is funding this threat.

China's 'unstoppable' military is now biggest world threat & West can’t keep up

CHINA has crafted an unstoppable military under Xi Jinping’s ruthless dictatorship which poses the greatest threat to the world order, experts have warned. As the West steels itself for globa…

www.thesun.co.uk

The US spent $876.94B on its military last year, why are we worried about China when they are spending 5 times less than we are?

The bigger question is…
Why do so many of you continue to buy into the "RUSSIA" and "CHINA" narratives? Our politicians have you distracted, focused on far-fetched potential existential threats (Russia and China) while Mexico shreds us at our core.
Don't you think we should leave existential threats to the Pentagon and those with intelligence data? Shouldn't we be worried about those countries sending their people to destroy our local communities, our social services system, our education system, our healthcare system, our job markets...those unauthorized foreigners raping, maiming and murdering our sons and daughters on our soil daily?
Shouldn't we reject the deflection attempts made by our own politicians and pay closer attention to the actual THREAT(s) affecting us NOW and in real-time?
Don’t you think you should speak up about shit that matters?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The bigger question is…
Why do so many of you continue to buy into the "RUSSIA" and "CHINA" narratives? Our politicians have you distracted, focused on far-fetched potential existential threats (Russia and China) while Mexico shreds us at our core.

I don't, thus my question. Do try to pay attention.

Shouldn't we reject the deflection attempts made by our own politicians and pay closer attention to the actual THREAT(s) affecting us NOW and in real-time?
Don’t you think you should speak up about shit that matters?

Good plan, when are you going to start voting for someone that will do something about it and not just give you empty words?

 

[BrokeLoser]

I don't, thus my question. Do try to pay attention.



Good plan, when are you going to start voting for someone that will do something about it and not just give you empty words?

What are people privy to information on the front lines and in the trenches saying?
Aren’t they saying Trumps border policies were effective and working?
Or should we listen to TDS’ing purple hair wokesters in cyberspace?

 

[Donald H]

It appears that Biden is covertly relinquishing operation control.

Both sides are playing to the voters, but it's still not clear which side is pursuing the popular solutions for voters?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What are people privy to information on the front lines and in the trenches saying?

You listen to people talk, that is all you need.

I look at the data, words are meaningless without action supporting them.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You listen to people talk, that is all you need.

Like listening to the LibTarian Party when they claim they’d do things so differently?

I look at the data, words are meaningless without action supporting them

Show us the immigration data from 2020 when Trump was finally able to rollout ‘remain in Mexico’.

 

[Mushroom]

It probably has a lot to do with China and Russia getting a bigger bang for the bucks.

Actually, as has been seen in the last two years in Ukraine as well as a great many conflicts since the 1970s, their equipment is largely marginal at best against the equipment of the West. That was seen in the multiple Arab-Israeli wars when they would take on up to a dozen other nations at once, all the way to the trouncing of Iraq twice. Iraq had the third largest military in the world and among the best aircraft and armor in the world in 1991, and were soundly defeated two times in a row (and at most fought a stalemate with Iran before that).

And despite claiming to have the best equipment and military in the world, they have been held at a stalemate in Ukraine for years now. And remember, when that conflict started they had the third largest military in the world while Ukraine had the sixth largest. In the over two years of conflict, Russia has lost over 3,000 tanks and over 600 aircraft which they also claimed were the best in the world. And if anything it has shown the world that their equipment is nowhere near as formidable as they had been claiming for over half a century. And this must be seriously taken into consideration when the vast majority of Chinese equipment is essentially a copy of Soviet and Russian designs.

There is an old saying, "You get what you paid for". And numbers can make a difference, but not unless there is a huge disparity between the two sides. Like in WWII, where Germany had less than 50,000 tanks. And was facing the Soviets with over 102,000 tanks and the US with over 86,000 tanks. Those two nations alone had Germany outnumbered by almost 4 to 1, that is the kind of disparity that Stalin was meaning when he quipped "Quantity has a quality all it's own". But when the numbers are not that overwhelming, quality starts to make a huge difference.

And once again, experience. Russia has not really fought a serious war against an opponent that was a serious threat since WWII. Mostly using their almost overwhelming force against nations that they already controlled and were actually nominal allies of theirs. Since the Korean War the only real conflict China had was against Vietnam in 1979. And of the three major powers (Russia, China, US), only the US has actual experience in naval operations. Neither Russia nor China has ever taken their Navy seriously, and it shows.

You talk about my being an "armchair quarterback". Then tell me what you can about the capabilities of the three nations when it comes to the sealift and airlift capabilities of the three nations. Or about fleet operations and UNREP. Ask any who is familiar with naval operations, and they will tell you how critical each of those is when it comes to naval capabilities. You got it wrong, you are the one trying to "armchair quarterback", because you really do not seem to understand what is important when it comes to a navy. And I bet if there ever was a conflict, they would both get trounced. Primarily because they lack any real experience using their ships as a navy, and would be unable to keep them supplied and operational. Both of them have had ships that never saw combat that spend years or decades at the wharf and almost never put out to sea. The US on the other hand has had ships that were severely damaged returned to port, repaired, then sent back to the fleet and continue to serve for another decade or more.

Such as the USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58. A Perry class Frigate damaged in the Persian Gulf when she struck a mine in 1988. Most of the world simply assumed she was a total loss because the keep was broken and both engines were destroyed. But she was returned to the US, and after 16 months returned to service and served for an additional 26 years until she was finally retired in 2015. You also have the USS Stark FFG-31 and sister ship to the Roberts, which was hit by two anti-ship missiles in 1987. It was also believed to have been a total loss, but was back in service a year later and served another 11 years until retired in 1999.

And those were both frigates, at just over 4,000 tons considerably smaller than the Slava class Cruiser Moskva at over 9,000 tons. And many believe the poor damage control is the main reason why the Moskva was lost, a problem that has plagued the Russian Navy since the Russo-Japanese War over over a century ago.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Show us the immigration data from 2020 when Trump was finally able to rollout ‘remain in Mexico’.

Illegal immigration slowed in 2020 due to COVID, not Trump.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I do find this concerning. The West is spending their time and resources with Ukraine while China continues to beef up their military arsenal to a point they may be reasonably unstoppable. Xi Jinping has already stated he intends to take back Taiwan. It's not an if, it's a when, and when that happens then what? The United States can't fend off Russia and China. Plus, throw Iran into the mix and who knows what will be going on with Israel at the time. Even with the help of Europe, who have been underfunding their military capabilities for years, this can turn into a very serious global threat. We need to sever ties with China completely. Our trading with them is funding this threat.

China's 'unstoppable' military is now biggest world threat & West can’t keep up

CHINA has crafted an unstoppable military under Xi Jinping’s ruthless dictatorship which poses the greatest threat to the world order, experts have warned. As the West steels itself for globa…

www.thesun.co.uk

Potentially the Ukraine is part of the whole thing.

The food the west would have to help feed oil rich countries is important. Without it, the west might just be a fragmented loads of countries and the EU

 

[Donald H]

Actually, as has been seen in the last two years in Ukraine as well as a great many conflicts since the 1970s, their equipment is largely marginal at best against the equipment of the West. That was seen in the multiple Arab-Israeli wars when they would take on up to a dozen other nations at once, all the way to the trouncing of Iraq twice. Iraq had the third largest military in the world and among the best aircraft and armor in the world in 1991, and were soundly defeated two times in a row (and at most fought a stalemate with Iran before that).

And despite claiming to have the best equipment and military in the world, they have been held at a stalemate in Ukraine for years now. And remember, when that conflict started they had the third largest military in the world while Ukraine had the sixth largest. In the over two years of conflict, Russia has lost over 3,000 tanks and over 600 aircraft which they also claimed were the best in the world. And if anything it has shown the world that their equipment is nowhere near as formidable as they had been claiming for over half a century. And this must be seriously taken into consideration when the vast majority of Chinese equipment is essentially a copy of Soviet and Russian designs.

There is an old saying, "You get what you paid for". And numbers can make a difference, but not unless there is a huge disparity between the two sides. Like in WWII, where Germany had less than 50,000 tanks. And was facing the Soviets with over 102,000 tanks and the US with over 86,000 tanks. Those two nations alone had Germany outnumbered by almost 4 to 1, that is the kind of disparity that Stalin was meaning when he quipped "Quantity has a quality all it's own". But when the numbers are not that overwhelming, quality starts to make a huge difference.

And once again, experience. Russia has not really fought a serious war against an opponent that was a serious threat since WWII. Mostly using their almost overwhelming force against nations that they already controlled and were actually nominal allies of theirs. Since the Korean War the only real conflict China had was against Vietnam in 1979. And of the three major powers (Russia, China, US), only the US has actual experience in naval operations. Neither Russia nor China has ever taken their Navy seriously, and it shows.

You talk about my being an "armchair quarterback". Then tell me what you can about the capabilities of the three nations when it comes to the sealift and airlift capabilities of the three nations. Or about fleet operations and UNREP. Ask any who is familiar with naval operations, and they will tell you how critical each of those is when it comes to naval capabilities. You got it wrong, you are the one trying to "armchair quarterback", because you really do not seem to understand what is important when it comes to a navy. And I bet if there ever was a conflict, they would both get trounced. Primarily because they lack any real experience using their ships as a navy, and would be unable to keep them supplied and operational. Both of them have had ships that never saw combat that spend years or decades at the wharf and almost never put out to sea. The US on the other hand has had ships that were severely damaged returned to port, repaired, then sent back to the fleet and continue to serve for another decade or more.

Such as the USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58. A Perry class Frigate damaged in the Persian Gulf when she struck a mine in 1988. Most of the world simply assumed she was a total loss because the keep was broken and both engines were destroyed. But she was returned to the US, and after 16 months returned to service and served for an additional 26 years until she was finally retired in 2015. You also have the USS Stark FFG-31 and sister ship to the Roberts, which was hit by two anti-ship missiles in 1987. It was also believed to have been a total loss, but was back in service a year later and served another 11 years until retired in 1999.

And those were both frigates, at just over 4,000 tons considerably smaller than the Slava class Cruiser Moskva at over 9,000 tons. And many believe the poor damage control is the main reason why the Moskva was lost, a problem that has plagued the Russian Navy since the Russo-Japanese War over over a century ago.

I didn't say anything about you being an armchair quarterback. I told you that I won't get into an armchair war with you, and that's exactly what you're trying to do.

Do you understand that being an armchair quarterback is something totally different?
That would be like you telling the captain of an aircraft carrier how to avoid being sunk by a dozen hypersonic missiles. That's quarterbacking your navy.

 

[Mushroom]

I told you that I won't get into an armchair war with you, and that's exactly what you're trying to do.

No, I am discussing actual facts. You are going almost entirely based on your beliefs and things that really do not matter.

And really, a dozen hypersonic missiles? And what is the rest of the fleet around that carrier doing? In fact, how in the hell do the missiles even find the carrier and get within range of it in the first place?

See, that is why you keep failing. You simply can not comprehend the real world is much more complex than you seem to believe.