PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Holt_Allen

New Member
Registered Member
Pretty inept article . Taiwan Strait is no place for carriers . US could of course put their CVBGs there, but what would they do ? In case of shooting war between China and Taiwan, US would have to decide would they join the fray . If they start firing at Chinese forces, there is no question Chinese would return fire - in that case placing US carriers so near Chinese coast would be equivalent of suicide . and of course China would not use their single training carrier to face US fleet, they have other forces for that .

I fail to see whats so inept about it?

The article clearly states that the aircraft carriers are valued not for their conventional capabilities, but the strategic ramifications that would come with attempting to sink one. In other words, the US would deploy a carrier(s), or carrier battle-group(s) as a form of strategic deterrence. China acquiring a carrier of its own neutralizes this advantage, and forces the US to seek methods of deescalation to prevent an all out war.

The Diplomat said:
"In the 1996 crisis, the U.S. “carrier monopoly” neutralized the Chinese tactical advantage over Taiwan by highlighting the U.S. strategic dominance. China’s leadership saw the potential destruction that an attack against U.S. carriers would unleash. However, in a renewed Taiwanese crisis today, China could pass the ball to the U.S. side. Its single carrier has delivered strategic risk parity in the straits. As the Chinese carrier would face-off against the U.S. carriers, a war of nerves would begin... As China would enjoy the advantage of playing on its own doorstep with Chinese public opinion fiercely opposing any retreat, and is it would be willing to dance with the U.S. closer to the edge, the U.S. would have to deescalate and take the conflict to the UN or risk a nuclear confrontation.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Agreed. Carriers are useful in limited warfare or facing foes with much lesser capabilities otherwise it is mainly a strategic asset for deterence purposes when facing a much larger force like you said. In the case of the Taiwan Straights they will serve more of a strategic purpose and it'll be a matter of who parks their carrier there first for power projection and intimidation. If an actual shooting war is declared, US carriers would not be anywhere on the straights or even near the Chinese coastline PERIOD!
If it's some sort of a sneak attack or an unannounced first strike that obviously that would escalate into total war.
Also the US military (and probably PLAN as well) considers the carrier a piece of US territory so striking one would be akin to striking the homeland not to mention the lost of over 6000 sailors and airmen assuming one is totally sunk and destroyed.
Last but not least why are we talking about this? I thought that's against the rules of this forum not to mention totally unproductive.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
I fail to see whats so inept about it?

The article clearly states that the aircraft carriers are valued not for their conventional capabilities, but the strategic ramifications that would come with attempting to sink one. In other words, the US would deploy a carrier(s), or carrier battle-group(s) as a form of strategic deterrence. China acquiring a carrier of its own neutralizes this advantage, and forces the US to seek methods of deescalation to prevent an all out war.


Let us suppose that relations between China and Taiwan deteriorate to a point where war seems inevitable . US could declare that they would intervene on behalf of Taiwan if hostilities begin , but in such scenario it would be foolish to place carriers well in range of Chinese missiles because China may decide not to back off .

Other option would be not to declare anything but to attempt show of force in Taiwan Strait . But in that case, Chinese may decide to ignore US forces and attack Taiwan anyway . What would US do ? If they decide to intervene, it is perfectly clear China would strike those carriers with everything they have .

Main logical fallacy in article is expectation that China is somehow afraid to attack US carriers, even if US forces start shooting at Chinese forces . That could be true for some small, poor and week country , but in case of China you better not count on that .
 

Holt_Allen

New Member
Registered Member
Main logical fallacy in article is expectation that China is somehow afraid to attack US carriers, even if US forces start shooting at Chinese forces . That could be true for some small, poor and week country , but in case of China you better not count on that .

The article clearly articulates that the point of deploying the carrier to the Taiwan Straight is strategic deterrence, not conventional capability! The US isn't going to start shooting, its a game of brinkmanship, to see who can push it the furthest before blinking. Look at the Cuban Missile Crisis and how the implications of going to war brought both parties to the table for negotiation.
 

Player99

Junior Member
The article clearly articulates that the point of deploying the carrier to the Taiwan Straight is strategic deterrence, not conventional capability! The US isn't going to start shooting, its a game of brinkmanship, to see who can push it the furthest before blinking. Look at the Cuban Missile Crisis and how the implications of going to war brought both parties to the table for negotiation.

Well, if that's the case that China would play by the rule made by the USA, China of one backward carrier would not be able to deter the USA of so many advanced carriers at all... And that table for negotiation would pretty much be percieved by the Chinese people as a table for humiliation as happened some one hundred years ago.
 
Last edited:

Player99

Junior Member
The Cuban Missile Crisis is so different. It was between two equals, conventional weapons or nuclear weapons. And the Russians had pushed to the doorstep of the Americans. Between the USA and China, the US would have pushed China to a corner of its own frontyard, and China would not have enough weapons of any kinds to match what the US has (including something like Japan) to throw at it while keeping its own homeland at a perfectly safe distance. If China blinks, it would surely lose Taiwan and lose control of everything around it. So to sink any barged-in American carriers that have started shooting at anything Chinese would be the only choice before nuclear exchanges start…… or hopefully, before the Americans blink and therefore give a chance to the negotiation table... if China wants to maintain a deterrence at all. Of course, that's just from the point of view of an ordinary Chinese who happens to be educated in the US, the higher-ups might think differently.

People need to understand, today is not 1996 where China had nothing of much of a threat to use, and Taiwan wasn't so much on route to independence... And the Chinese people's opinions do have much more infuence on the government than before. Therefore, China, or shall I say, CCP, can no longer afford to allow others to decide its course of action regarding Taiwan.
 
Last edited:

LesAdieux

Junior Member
a guy registered in 2006, and starts to post eight years later, the repeated message is: does China have the guts to fight the US?

the Soviet and the US never went to war against each other, but China battled the US for three years in Korea, there's no uncertainty on China's commitment.

as for if the US will honour the treaty or treaties it signed with JP and Taiwan, we don't know, the track record is: it may not. in 1958, China called the bluff of the US- Taiwan defense treaty shortly after it was signed.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
The article clearly articulates that the point of deploying the carrier to the Taiwan Straight is strategic deterrence, not conventional capability! The US isn't going to start shooting, its a game of brinkmanship, to see who can push it the furthest before blinking. Look at the Cuban Missile Crisis and how the implications of going to war brought both parties to the table for negotiation.

In game of brinkmanship so close to China, Chinese planes will buzz over US carriers, Chinese frigates would go within few hundred meters from US ships and if someone blinks US carriers would be on wrong end of hundreds of missiles. Obviously completely different situation then Cuban Missile Crisis where Soviets could deploy just a few subs against massive US armada .

Author of article clearly does not understand modern naval technology, hopefully people like him donžt have much influence on US policy making, otherwise it could lead to catastrophe.
 

Holt_Allen

New Member
Registered Member
In game of brinkmanship so close to China, Chinese planes will buzz over US carriers, Chinese frigates would go within few hundred meters from US ships and if someone blinks US carriers would be on wrong end of hundreds of missiles. Obviously completely different situation then Cuban Missile Crisis where Soviets could deploy just a few subs against massive US armada .

Author of article clearly does not understand modern naval technology, hopefully people like him donžt have much influence on US policy making, otherwise it could lead to catastrophe.

So you're agreeing with me then? I really don't understand the point you are trying to make? Yeah, brinkmanship is risky and the article even points that out. I don't really see how its different than the Cuban Missile Crisis, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction brought the Soviet Union and the United States to the table. In the case of the US and China its very much the same thing, both have too much to risk to not settle the issue diplomatically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top