09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[AndrewS]

Arihant project started as SSN design but then Indian's wanted second strike capability so they added missiles compartment what took time. If they had gone with SSN like originally planned i'd wager Indian Navy would already have few attack submarines on their fleet by now.

True, but the fact remains that India did change the Arihant from an SSBN to a SSN programme.
So they won't have any SSNs for a long time yet.

Plus I would disagree against your categorisation that China has a lot more enemies with submarine fleets than United States.

Most people and decision makers don't want or see China as an enemy. See the Pewglobal surveys or the Singapore ISEAS think tank surveys.
In Japan, 53% of people in 2015 still think China's growing economy is a good thing.
In the US, there are almost equal numbers of people to think China will never replace the US as a superpower versus the same number who believe China will replace the US.
A majority of ASEAN decision makers already rate China as much more influential.
A majority of the European public also believe China will surpass the US.

So you can see the world is really split when its comes to China, because China is simultaneously a huge opportunity but it is also seen as a fearsome and powerful competitor.

 

[Blitzo]

True, but the fact remains that India did change the Arihant from an SSBN to a SSN programme.
So they won't have any SSNs for a long time yet.

Plus I would disagree against your categorisation that China has a lot more enemies with submarine fleets than United States.

Most people and decision makers don't want or see China as an enemy. See the Pewglobal surveys or the Singapore ISEAS think tank surveys.
In Japan, 53% of people in 2015 still think China's growing economy is a good thing.
In the US, there are almost equal numbers of people to think China will never replace the US as a superpower versus the same number who believe China will replace the US.
A majority of ASEAN decision makers already rate China as much more influential.
A majority of the European public also believe China will surpass the US.

So you can see the world is really split when its comes to China, because China is simultaneously a huge opportunity but it is also seen as a fearsome and powerful competitor.

This is off topic, but of the survey topics you listed they aren't really asking whether they see China as an enemy or whether they want to see China as an enemy or not.

Rather they are asking about the extent of Chinese influence or the strength of the Chinese economy or the overall power of China relative to that of the US.
One is perfectly able to believe that country XYZ is going to become more powerful or even the most powerful in the world, while actively disliking them or fearing them.

 

[AndrewS]

This is off topic, but of the survey topics you listed they aren't really asking whether they see China as an enemy or whether they want to see China as an enemy or not.

Rather they are asking about the extent of Chinese influence or the strength of the Chinese economy or the overall power of China relative to that of the US.
One is perfectly able to believe that country XYZ is going to become more powerful or even the most powerful in the world, while actively disliking them or fearing them.

True, let me expand on the surveys.

The ISEAS surveys show that ASEAN has accepted that China is more influential than the USA.
And logical conclusion from that is that none of those countries actually want China as an enemy.
That is borne out in all the official documents and statements that we see coming out.

---

The Pew Surveys also measure favourable/unfavourable views of China.

That is not the same as asking whether China is an enemy, but it means:

1. the "favourable" response definitely rules out China being viewed as an enemy
2. only part of the "unfavourable" response does view China as an enemy

But we can see that most countries in the world have a significant percentage of the population with a favourable view of China.
It typically looks like 4 in 10, which probably means they significantly outnumber the people who view China as an enemy.

Survey below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Plus we only have to look at the deep engagement we see between China and the rest of the world, which wouldn't have happened if the consensus view is that China is an enemy.

 

[Blitzo]

True, let me expand on the surveys.

The ISEAS surveys show that ASEAN has accepted that China is more influential than the USA.
And logical conclusion from that is that none of those countries actually want China as an enemy.
That is borne out in all the official documents and statements that we see coming out.

Accepting that China is more influential than the US does not mean that they do not want China as an enemy or that they do not view China as an enemy.

Acknowledging greater power or influence of one entity doesn't mean one feels less threatened by them.

The Pew Surveys also measure favourable/unfavourable views of China.

That is not the same as asking whether China is an enemy, but it means:

1. the "favourable" response definitely rules out China being viewed as an enemy
2. only part of the "unfavourable" response does view China as an enemy

But we can see that most countries in the world have a significant percentage of the population with a favourable view of China.
It typically looks like 4 in 10, which probably means they significantly outnumber the people who view China as an enemy.

Survey below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Plus we only have to look at the deep engagement we see between China and the rest of the world, which wouldn't have happened if the consensus view is that China is an enemy.

Your overall argument would be stronger if you only included this part without the prior bit.

 

[AndrewS]

Accepting that China is more influential than the US does not mean that they do not want China as an enemy or that they do not view China as an enemy.

Acknowledging greater power or influence of one entity doesn't mean one feels less threatened by them.

True, but as a generalisation, you wouldn't actively want to be the enemy against someone you think is bigger and/or more powerful.

Your overall argument would be stronger if you only included this part without the prior bit.

I found that Pew actually asked the question "Is China an enemy?" in 2013

The graph below does show that a minority of people in all the survey countries do not see China as an enemy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And given that younger people have much more positive views of China (see below), we can say with reasonable certainty that less people in the world see China as an enemy in 2019.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Anyway, I think that's enough on the topic.

 

[Blitzo]

True, but as a generalisation, you wouldn't actively want to be the enemy against someone you think is bigger and/or more powerful.

I think history has shown that such a generalization can not be said to be the norm. There are countless instances of less powerful nations having poor relationships and being hostile towards nations which are much more powerful than they are due to the usual reasons of national interests and history.

 

[AndrewS]

I think history has shown that such a generalization can not be said to be the norm. There are countless instances of less powerful nations having poor relationships and being hostile towards nations which are much more powerful than they are due to the usual reasons of national interests and history.

I would disagree on that historical interpretation.
Yes, there are countless instance of less powerful nations having poor relationships with bigger powers.

But there are so many more instances where countries accept that they are less powerful or part of a less powerful grouping.
Then the realist and pragmatic position is to avoid conflict where possible.

Plus national or ethnic or tribal allegiances were so much more powerful in past, when compared to the comparative peaceful world today and the significantly higher amount of contact with foreign countries.

That further dilutes the notion (particularly amongst the younger generations) of other countries being implacable enemies.

 

[Blitzo]

I would disagree on that historical interpretation.
Yes, there are countless instance of less powerful nations having poor relationships with bigger powers.

But there are so many more instances where countries accept that they are less powerful or part of a less powerful grouping.
Then the realist and pragmatic position is to avoid conflict where possible.

Plus national or ethnic or tribal allegiances were so much more powerful in past, when compared to the comparative peaceful world today and the significantly higher amount of contact with foreign countries.

That further dilutes the notion (particularly amongst the younger generations) of other countries being implacable enemies.

I think you've just described yourself that there are additional factors beyond merely relative power/influence that determines whether a less powerful nation has a good relationship or a poor relationship with a more powerful nation, which is my point as well. Relationships between any two countries have to be seen with their own merits and unique history and each side's national interests.

That is why I believe it is incorrect if not irresponsible to suggest that merely because one nation is less powerful than another, that we can assume the less powerful nation will move to seek a good relationship with the more powerful nation.

Instead, no assumptions should be made about whether the relationship between a less powerful and more powerful nation would be positive or negative, and instead each relationship should be judged on its own characteristics.

 

[Nutrient]

I think you've just described yourself that there are additional factors beyond merely relative power/influence that determines whether a less powerful nation has a good relationship or a poor relationship with a more powerful nation, which is my point as well. Relationships between any two countries have to be seen with their own merits and unique history and each side's national interests.

That is why I believe it is incorrect if not irresponsible to suggest that merely because one nation is less powerful than another, that we can assume the less powerful nation will move to seek a good relationship with the more powerful nation.

Instead, no assumptions should be made about whether the relationship between a less powerful and more powerful nation would be positive or negative, and instead each relationship should be judged on its own characteristics.

What if the less powerful country (let us call it V) sees that it is still poor, though its neighbors, equally feeble, are getting rich from working with the stronger country? If all of those neighbors have been uplifted, and none of them have been attacked by the big guy, would V continue to think it's smart to be hostile?

 

[Blitzo]

What if the less powerful country (let us call it V) sees that it is still poor, though its neighbors, equally feeble, are getting rich from working with the stronger country? If all of those neighbors have been uplifted, and none of them have been attacked by the big guy, would V continue to think it's smart to be hostile?

Each circumstance is unique, I won't comment on individual relationships real or hypothetical.

My key point is that it is very flawed to assume a weaker nation would automatically seek to be friendly with a more powerful nation without considering other factors that may influence the course of a relationship