It does as a matter of fact, not a big line though. All the engines used in J-6, J-7 and J-8 fighters are made completely domestically, as well as for its JL-8 trainers. It already has stationary gas turbine designs used for power plant generation. More ominously, it also makes miniture gas turbine engines for its anti ship missiles, cruise missiles and drones.
China Naval Modernization (Implications for US Naval Capabilities)
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
If you want to find out who is getting rich in China today, you can get a list from Forbes.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-10/30/content_488834.htm
Forbes to publicize new China richest list
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2005-10-30 11:34
The American business magazine Forbes Global is to publicize its new rich list in China next Thursday, and the number of people listed may be doubled to 400.
Forbes magazine, having compiled China's richest persons lists for ten years, was reported as saying the wealth threshold for thelist this year will be 500 million yuan (61.7 million US dollars).
In the first Forbes China rich list ten years ago, the wealth of the No. 1 rich, the brothers of Liu Yongmei, Liu Yongyan, Liu Yongxing and Liu Yonghao, was only 600 million yuan.
The 200th richest person in China this year has 1 billion yuan,350 million yuan more than his peer last year.
Many of those on the list this year are engaged in Internet services, and half of the first ten richest are aged below 40, according to the Beijing Daily.
The newspaper said 25 women are to appear on the list, accounting for 6 percent of the total, compared with 4 percent last year.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sounds more like internet geeks to me instead of the CCCP members.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-10/30/content_488834.htm
Forbes to publicize new China richest list
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2005-10-30 11:34
The American business magazine Forbes Global is to publicize its new rich list in China next Thursday, and the number of people listed may be doubled to 400.
Forbes magazine, having compiled China's richest persons lists for ten years, was reported as saying the wealth threshold for thelist this year will be 500 million yuan (61.7 million US dollars).
In the first Forbes China rich list ten years ago, the wealth of the No. 1 rich, the brothers of Liu Yongmei, Liu Yongyan, Liu Yongxing and Liu Yonghao, was only 600 million yuan.
The 200th richest person in China this year has 1 billion yuan,350 million yuan more than his peer last year.
Many of those on the list this year are engaged in Internet services, and half of the first ten richest are aged below 40, according to the Beijing Daily.
The newspaper said 25 women are to appear on the list, accounting for 6 percent of the total, compared with 4 percent last year.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sounds more like internet geeks to me instead of the CCCP members.
I base most of what I said on what I have observed with my own eyes.hesidu said:
I am glad that you and others are experiencing improving conditions. I hope and pray that continues. There will be, as I stated, some of that no matter what.
In my estimation, the CCP will not giove up the reigns of power easily. I feel that they are walking a serious tight rope and that they will deal with the masses of citizens as best they can while holding on to power. It is possible for them to do so and still minimize the freedoms and economic benefits the people experience. I hope they are wholly unsuccessful in that effort.
If they are...it is quite likely at some point to lead to upheaval as the people desire (and naturally so) more liberty.
As I said, if they are successful (and I hope they are not) it is likely to lead to upheavel externally, which in the end, would be worse for everyone involved.
Actually, what I spoke of has nothing to do with trickle down capitalism or a trickle down economy. What you refer to is something people like Reagan talked about in the US with respect to a free society based on a true free market...that is not something the Chinese on the maibnland have yet.crobato said:
As to being well read, I do. Refer to my post 23 for my feelings in this regard.
We may well disagree on current conditions in CHina...I believe we probably agree on our hopes for the people there coming into economic prosperity and liberty. I believe as long as the CCP holds to the reigns of power and continues its one party policy (which is its very nbature) that will not happen.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
ATTENTION all members. This is not an ECONOMIC thread. If you want to discuss economic issues you can go to our sister site www.globaltalknetworks.com . Please stay with the topic.
thank you !
thank you !
Last edited:
I quite disagree a lot. I have been in mainland China many times and done business there quite lot. The lot of the average person there imiproved tremendously in the fifteen years of so, and often there are marked changes noticeable even after a year or so when you travel to the same region. The average growth rate if computed using power consumption and trade figures rather than using official government data should be closer to 10 to 13% annually. No economy beats that kind of growth and I dare say, nothing in this century has uplifted more individuals from destitute to a livable condition.Jeff Head said:
You have a free market in China. In many ways, it's a lot more free than in the US in respect you can do a lot more things and is less encumbered by the rules than in the US. Economies in Asia feel a lot more free and dynamic than in the US as they are not encumbered by unions, stacks of regulations like the EPA, liability lawsuits and all that. Why do you think multinationals are moving factories en masse to China and other parts of Asia? Because they can get away scott free on things and issues you're not going to get away with a plant in the US.
In respect, China is not just a free market, it is also become, the ultimate capitalist society. Everything is extreme capitalism. Everything is extremely competitive. There is actually so much defacto economic freedom due to the lack of regulation and regulation enforcement that it leads to such abuses of freedom, such as rampant piracy and neglect for employees and the poor. It's become extremely Darwinistic. The abuses in China is actually the result of the abuses of free markets---true Darwinistic Capitalism---as opposed to the lack of it. The strong hand of the government is needed at times to counter the abuses of one of the most aggressively mercantile and Darwinistic cultures on Earth that is Chinese culture.
Politically free societies does not breed free markets. India is an example of a politically free society with a highly socialist market and suffered for it. So are many Latin American countries such as Brazil. On the other hand, in Asia, it's not just China, but also Singapore, S. Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan that created successful free markets while they were under authoritarian regimes. China actually looks at Singapore for its model of growth. Hong Kong created its envious economy while under a colonial regime, which is not democratic the least. The funny thing is, its free markets that tend to create politcally free societies and not the other way around. That's why political authoritarianism in China is eroding away just like it did in S. Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia when these countries prospered.
Out of respect for the owners and moderators of this forum, who have made their wishes very evident regarding this topic of economics that you continue to discuss...I decline to respond.crobato said:
If you would like to discuss the military/naval issues raised by this thread, I will be happy to do so. You can find my views on that at the following site:
The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia
and, more general, clinical information about aircraft carriers specifically at:
World Wide Aircraft Carriers
Thanks in advance for discontinuing the drift to the economic issues which we clealry disagree on.
:uk The implications in general for the US navy will be that the US will be more and more involved with the navies of other nations around China. India will be provided more and more US weapons for it naval arm. This process has already begun. The Taiwanese, Japanese, S Koreans, Thais and possibly Vietnamese will be given a more of an offensive capability and increased compatibility with the US navy. The US is now trying to checkmate China.
At the same time the US has expressed a desire for the Chinese to get involved in international peace keeping duties through the use of the Chinese navy. This may be a desire by the US to use China's growing military muscle to benefit the strategic policies of the US administration. This is strange but true (refer to CNN). I however don't think this will wash down well with the Chinese especially when the US is arming all of China's traditional foes.
The other scenario the the US navy has to prepare for is a full fledged naval conflict with China in the not too distant future around the South China Sea.
The US has no desire to invade China but merely stop its growing military, economic and political growth around the region and world. The US is at present in a position to launch a pre emptive attack on the Chinese navy using its aircraft carriers . Similar to what the Japanese did in Pearl Harbour. The naval air arm will have a massive advantage over the Chinese in terms of the technolgy on its F18 Hornets . The US will also have advantage, at this moment in time anyway, of the numbers of high tech naval warplanes it has at its disposal . The Chinese with the further induction of the F10 willl begin to close the technological gap, as recent US defence documents have highlighted.
Reason for the US to attack China:
The EU has been getting very close to China and the British especially are keen for the Chinese to have more access to the British econonomy, henceforth the red carpet welcome for the Chinese premiere recently. The Europeans realise that the Chinese are the big koi of the ever smaller world pond. The Europeans also see US technology and goods as in direct competition with their own products in the growing economies of the world and especially in Asia. Airbus must have been very happy to see a multi billion dollar order from China.
What must be of great concern to the US is sale of dual technology equipment being sold to China via the EU as laws on dual technology transfers are open to interpretation, with each EU state having its own interpretation (particularly the French). As time goes the EU may start supplying the Chinese with sophisticated military technology in order to expand the western European defence industry and also to have further access to the massive Chinese economy. This will abe at the cost of the US economy and military standing in the region. Will the US stand by? I doubt it very much.
At the same time the US has expressed a desire for the Chinese to get involved in international peace keeping duties through the use of the Chinese navy. This may be a desire by the US to use China's growing military muscle to benefit the strategic policies of the US administration. This is strange but true (refer to CNN). I however don't think this will wash down well with the Chinese especially when the US is arming all of China's traditional foes.
The other scenario the the US navy has to prepare for is a full fledged naval conflict with China in the not too distant future around the South China Sea.
The US has no desire to invade China but merely stop its growing military, economic and political growth around the region and world. The US is at present in a position to launch a pre emptive attack on the Chinese navy using its aircraft carriers . Similar to what the Japanese did in Pearl Harbour. The naval air arm will have a massive advantage over the Chinese in terms of the technolgy on its F18 Hornets . The US will also have advantage, at this moment in time anyway, of the numbers of high tech naval warplanes it has at its disposal . The Chinese with the further induction of the F10 willl begin to close the technological gap, as recent US defence documents have highlighted.
Reason for the US to attack China:
The EU has been getting very close to China and the British especially are keen for the Chinese to have more access to the British econonomy, henceforth the red carpet welcome for the Chinese premiere recently. The Europeans realise that the Chinese are the big koi of the ever smaller world pond. The Europeans also see US technology and goods as in direct competition with their own products in the growing economies of the world and especially in Asia. Airbus must have been very happy to see a multi billion dollar order from China.
What must be of great concern to the US is sale of dual technology equipment being sold to China via the EU as laws on dual technology transfers are open to interpretation, with each EU state having its own interpretation (particularly the French). As time goes the EU may start supplying the Chinese with sophisticated military technology in order to expand the western European defence industry and also to have further access to the massive Chinese economy. This will abe at the cost of the US economy and military standing in the region. Will the US stand by? I doubt it very much.
Hussain >> those are rather careless remarks .. saying the US is trying to checkmate China . mind you , such words could be used by undesirous factions in their efforts to advance their own biased agenda .
the US has every reason to be concerned abt China , what with it's growth potential and all . but concern need not translate into distress . good thing both sides enjoy rather robust diplomatic ties . ^^;
the US has every reason to be concerned abt China , what with it's growth potential and all . but concern need not translate into distress . good thing both sides enjoy rather robust diplomatic ties . ^^;
Their first line, if there is to be such a confrontation, will be political. They will wait to see who is in the White House because, sadly, depending on who is there, they may feel that their prospects of forcing the issue of Tawian will fair better. They may evern try to influence it to whatever extent because it is in fact...again, IMHO, sadly, probably the option with the most potential for them.PhillTaj said:
Outside of that, in terms of pure military, it will be their sub force, their large numbers of land based air, their growing surface action capability, and their many ballistic missiles with which they will hope to force a conclusion to the matter before the US can effectively respond.
That's just my opinion as well and I hope it does not come to that.
As to their carrier designs and plans, that is more of a long term issue for later influence outside of their littoral waters. It is also a prestige and piolitical tool. If they do get the Varyag operational, I would expect to see it make a presence during the Olympics purely for a political statement. It will be years before they are proficent enough, or have the numbers, the logistics, and the maintenance issues worked out to the point of hoping to challenge the USN in that regard directly.
Please explain what you mean by 'advance their own biased agenda.'tonbo said:
Furtheremore, some of what I have stated in my original quote is based upon recent American documents regarding China's miltary and economic growth. So I have taken into account the opinions of others that have some sort of influence in the US. My opinion is neither pro/biased against the US or China.
Last edited:
Hussain >> point taken . the first line of your post already stated that all things are implied and ought to be taken as such . rest assured that my thots were not directed solely toward you but more a reflection of future trends , considering how we can be misquoted , misunderstood ( as i did you ) or how our words can be misused by others ( may it never happen ) .
as i see it , the US Navy has a tough job ahead of them , what with budget-cuts eating into proposals for a future fleet , one that maintains its lead in technological advancements and war fighting capabilities ahead of other navies of the world ... regardless who the adversary may be . nowadays , every step that is taken is done with close reference to the amount of dollars that they have ; so it has been mooted that the Navy and the Marines operate as one ... one of the myriad of changes within the services .
the rise of China might have actually given new relevance to the US Navy . should China go rogue ( i would hate that ) , who can and will reign em in ? and by what means ... ? so we see the US rapidly adopting a '' Prepare for the worst , 'strive' for the best '' mindset toward China's rapid advancements
as i see it , the US Navy has a tough job ahead of them , what with budget-cuts eating into proposals for a future fleet , one that maintains its lead in technological advancements and war fighting capabilities ahead of other navies of the world ... regardless who the adversary may be . nowadays , every step that is taken is done with close reference to the amount of dollars that they have ; so it has been mooted that the Navy and the Marines operate as one ... one of the myriad of changes within the services .
the rise of China might have actually given new relevance to the US Navy . should China go rogue ( i would hate that ) , who can and will reign em in ? and by what means ... ? so we see the US rapidly adopting a '' Prepare for the worst , 'strive' for the best '' mindset toward China's rapid advancements
Last edited:
Why would you people assume that China would go rogue? Peoplare passing judgement on China just because it has been expanding its navy after years of neglecting it. Only in the past 10 years has China really expanded its military. It's just making up for lost time. If America looks at PLAN's expansion in that manner, then it would not be so alarmed. After all, is there anything wrong with China wanting to have the 2nd best navy in the world? It drives Chinese people crazy to see that the Japanese navy is so much more advanced. I just don't like how America is only commenting on PLAN's modernization when Japan and India are doing expansion of their own. It's natural for a country's navy to grow as its economy grows.
China is an authoritarian dictatorship, while India and Japan are liberal democracies, that is why the US supports them. If China was a free society, and India was not, the US would support China.tphuang said:
Im not saying its that black and white, but yes, thats the gist of it.
China, whatever its government is now, has historically been a great power and is used to being one. It makes perfect sense for the US to be concerned with China's growing power; the biggest fish in the ocean wouldn't be happy to see a potential rival emerge, would it? It also makes sense for China's neighbors to also be concerned; after struggling to shake off western imperialisim they'd fear being dominated by a resurgent china.
As China's navy grows, it becomes more likely for the US to get greater cooperation from SE asian countries, as the latter would seek to balance the powers in the region. The paper states that part of the new ASW strategy of the USN would be to deploy a networked sensor field; presumaby a next generation SOSUS that would enable a few weapons platforms to cover a large area. This system of that magnitude will presumably need cooperation from the countries they are deployed near. Whether covert or open, this arrangement will be attractive especially for countries that have limited ASW assets.
To counter this threat of isolation, China's fostering regional ties. Military expansion in the Spratleys and bellicose statements are giving way to investments. China's building a railway in the Philippines for example. The statement is that only the US and Taiwan need fear China, that China intends to be a benign power.
How the south east asia reacts to this will greatly affect the US plans. The paper states that basing closer to China will enable it to maintain a credible force using less assets since its ships would spend less time going to and from the area. If China's sub force does increase to the number expected (50+) and if China does intend to be a "first class submarine power", the US would have to increase it's ASW in the area. In this case the US would be at a disadvantage because it's 5O submarines an its ASW forces have to cover both the atlantic and pacific sies of the US, while China can concentrate its forces in the south china sea and the pacific. Furthermore, the region has lots of littoral areas which may be favorable for SSKs. There are crowded congested shipping lanes, and there are national airspaces to consider. IMHO (I'm no defence professional), China's thrust towards submarines is very clever. It can project power, it can maintain assets in sensitive areas without being detected (or at least publicly detected; a sonar picture of a PLAN sub near Taiwan for example wouldn't be as good on the newspaper headlines as a photo of a surface ship). And the regional geography seems to allow SSKs to be used optimally. Since SSKs are relatively cheap and can be fitted with dangerous weapon systems, this undersea arms race might not be as expensive for china as was the cold war submarine arms race was for the Soviets. It might not bankrupt China.
My last observation is on the US's perception that China would be willing and able to use its submarines as a "access denial" force in the event of a war with Taiwan. It is clear from the paper that the US regards this to be a suicide mission. I'm sure that the PLAN planners have no illusions about this either; they'd be confronting a navy with a huge amount of experience and a huge budget. But historically, submarine forces have been willing to accept atrocious odds: The U-boat force had an 80% death rate but kept operating; the US Silent Service had the highest loss rate in WW2; and the soviet submariners confronted the US navy in the cold war with admittedly inferior and dangerous ships.
All my observations for now. Please forgive the rambling. And if i got anything wrong about submarines I'd appreciate finding out.
As China's navy grows, it becomes more likely for the US to get greater cooperation from SE asian countries, as the latter would seek to balance the powers in the region. The paper states that part of the new ASW strategy of the USN would be to deploy a networked sensor field; presumaby a next generation SOSUS that would enable a few weapons platforms to cover a large area. This system of that magnitude will presumably need cooperation from the countries they are deployed near. Whether covert or open, this arrangement will be attractive especially for countries that have limited ASW assets.
To counter this threat of isolation, China's fostering regional ties. Military expansion in the Spratleys and bellicose statements are giving way to investments. China's building a railway in the Philippines for example. The statement is that only the US and Taiwan need fear China, that China intends to be a benign power.
How the south east asia reacts to this will greatly affect the US plans. The paper states that basing closer to China will enable it to maintain a credible force using less assets since its ships would spend less time going to and from the area. If China's sub force does increase to the number expected (50+) and if China does intend to be a "first class submarine power", the US would have to increase it's ASW in the area. In this case the US would be at a disadvantage because it's 5O submarines an its ASW forces have to cover both the atlantic and pacific sies of the US, while China can concentrate its forces in the south china sea and the pacific. Furthermore, the region has lots of littoral areas which may be favorable for SSKs. There are crowded congested shipping lanes, and there are national airspaces to consider. IMHO (I'm no defence professional), China's thrust towards submarines is very clever. It can project power, it can maintain assets in sensitive areas without being detected (or at least publicly detected; a sonar picture of a PLAN sub near Taiwan for example wouldn't be as good on the newspaper headlines as a photo of a surface ship). And the regional geography seems to allow SSKs to be used optimally. Since SSKs are relatively cheap and can be fitted with dangerous weapon systems, this undersea arms race might not be as expensive for china as was the cold war submarine arms race was for the Soviets. It might not bankrupt China.
My last observation is on the US's perception that China would be willing and able to use its submarines as a "access denial" force in the event of a war with Taiwan. It is clear from the paper that the US regards this to be a suicide mission. I'm sure that the PLAN planners have no illusions about this either; they'd be confronting a navy with a huge amount of experience and a huge budget. But historically, submarine forces have been willing to accept atrocious odds: The U-boat force had an 80% death rate but kept operating; the US Silent Service had the highest loss rate in WW2; and the soviet submariners confronted the US navy in the cold war with admittedly inferior and dangerous ships.
All my observations for now. Please forgive the rambling. And if i got anything wrong about submarines I'd appreciate finding out.
Anyway this is just a talk about "Implications for US Naval Capabilities", why so many people talking about war between China and US. Nobody in China and US want such war happen.
If this war happens unfortunately, there will be no "actual winner". I think both Chinese and US government are recognize of this.
If this war happens unfortunately, there will be no "actual winner". I think both Chinese and US government are recognize of this.
China isn't a dictatorship , certainly not when power rests on the party , not any one man alone . there are rules to be followed , and no one is above the rule of law . the selfish whims of any one man that might affect the course of the country's future will most certainly not go unpunished . but let us stay on topic .
what the US has repeatedly asked for is greater transparency in the way China goes about modernising its forces , while at the same time encouraging China to participate more actively in UN missions . China , on its part , has not publicly refused ... not when the general public has access to Google Earth ... ^^;
tho the short term goals for the US Navy may be largely centered around the question of China : questions like how , if need be , it could hold China's forces in check ... but that need not be an end in itself .
with the advent of China , along with other up-and-coming nations , the US may have finally realized it cannot rest on its laurels and become complacent , thus we see renewed efforts at R&D and force modernisation , despite the much publicised '' budget cuts '' . oddly enuf , its all these efforts that make the world , not just China , pay greater attention to the US and have cause to imitate , follow suit or learn frm and seek self-improvement , even conduct exchanges with ...
what the US has repeatedly asked for is greater transparency in the way China goes about modernising its forces , while at the same time encouraging China to participate more actively in UN missions . China , on its part , has not publicly refused ... not when the general public has access to Google Earth ... ^^;
tho the short term goals for the US Navy may be largely centered around the question of China : questions like how , if need be , it could hold China's forces in check ... but that need not be an end in itself .
with the advent of China , along with other up-and-coming nations , the US may have finally realized it cannot rest on its laurels and become complacent , thus we see renewed efforts at R&D and force modernisation , despite the much publicised '' budget cuts '' . oddly enuf , its all these efforts that make the world , not just China , pay greater attention to the US and have cause to imitate , follow suit or learn frm and seek self-improvement , even conduct exchanges with ...