3 ms·
> it obviously makes sense to invest into continental infrastructure because it does not control the sea. Easier and cheaper to pursue a Blue Water Navy than p
by factsaresacred 8y ago
> it obviously makes sense to invest into continental infrastructure because it does not control the sea.
Easier and cheaper to pursue a Blue Water Navy than pump money into questionable projects in corrupt States -- projects who's success is anything but assured (See Malaysia PM planning to cancel all Chinese projects and the mess in Pakistan as recorded by WSJ recently).
> someone needs to build infrastructure, after all, I don't think we've somehow transcended the need for transportation.
It's more about the opportunity cost and ROI than the need, right?
- oblio 8y agoThe money also buys you influence and good will from the locals (usually), which I imagine China also probably wants. And when did a Blue Water Navy become cheap? It's one of the most expensive military investments, especially if your plan is to break a potential US blockade.
- factsaresacred 8y ago> influence and good will from the locals No good deed goes unpunished. And in this case, the deeds often aren't even good. Locals from Ghana to Bangladesh complain about how China brings in their own workers rather than employ locals, and how the end result is shoddy work and more money in the pocket of corrupt officials. Now it may buy influence from the goverment, but as I mentioned, governments are fickle things and power changes hands frequently. All the same, I don't think this is irrational behavior from China -- they need to win friends and influence people. > And when did a Blue Water Navy become cheap? You'd have to compare the payback period for investing in slum upgrades in Indonesia vs investing in one's own Navy. In many cases it's never vs some intangible number of years.