6 ms·

I don't see any reason to panic. In raw numbers the US Navy is technologically and numerically dominant. But China will increasingly be able to surge "mass" i

I don't see any reason to panic. In raw numbers the US Navy is technologically and numerically dominant. But China will increasingly be able to surge "mass" in terms of both technology and numbers to dominate its near shore and achieve theatre level superiority. China is building out it's military in a way that is akin to the US Reagan led 1980's. But what concerns me the most is not PLAN versus US Navy, but China/BATH versus US/FAANG+. We are not likely to see a single navy dominate the world's oceans ever again. But what about a single country dominating the world's geodigital platforms?

T-A 7y ago
> I don't see any reason to panic. These guys got pretty close: https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/11/providing-common-defense https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/11/providing-common-d...
myroon5 7y ago
What is the H in BATH?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vsnf 7y ago
  I've never seen them referred to as BATH before, but it likely corresponds to Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei.
- yegle 7y ago
  Huawei
  - chriselles 7y ago
    Bullseye: Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei I think they collectively represent a far bigger long term threat to relative US superiority than some Chinese warships. Something has to pay for that military capability. I wonder what scared the Soviets more? The US Navy or the Marshall Plan? Marshall plan was $100B One Belt, One Road is multi trillion. Use debt trap diplomacy, nudging, and a decent value proposition to get everyone on BATH One Platform, One Network Bye bye US Dollar. Bye bye US Navy capability and capacity.
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      Yes, those companies are a thread. Our leaders in the us think because we are christians or something god chose us to have military power. In reality, we have economic power that let the us have the ability to get all this military power. The source of the ability (economic might) seems to be almost deliberately being reduced at this time by a certain leader.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
est31 7y ago
I doubt they'll stop at their home waters. What they consider home waters will just move more and more towards the US west coast. Right now the conflict is closer to them than it is to the USA but things may change rapidly.
- chriselles 7y ago
  Agreed. Over time, China will be looking to guarantee its SLOC(Se Linea of Communication(Control) for all of it’s global trade. China is very vulnerable to economic harm from sea trade disruption.
- AYBABTME 7y ago
  Doesn't seem likely to me if history is anything. China doesn't seem interested in ruling over its neighbours, as long as they're friendly. I'm no expert but for all I've read on its history, it seems to traditionally be interested in commerce and be content with that.
  - gonyea 7y ago
    China has a long history of imperialism. They even tried attacking Vietnam after its war with the US and failed.
- geowwy 7y ago
  They definitely won't be parking their navy off the west coast. They have nothing to gain and the cost will be huge. China is being aggressive in the South China Sea because they're insecure about the US navy being so close. If things escalate then the US navy can start a blockade and stop virtually all trade between China and the outside world. China wants to get control of the surrounding seas so its shipping routes aren't vulnerable to the US. That's also why they're investing so much in huge train networks through Asia and the Middle East – it means the US navy can't economically cripple them at will.
  - Terr_ 7y ago
    > west coast [...] South China Sea Or to use Occam's Razor: There's a greater density of assets to control, nearer at hand.
expressrunning 7y ago
"China’s Rear Adm. Luo Yuan [said] the key for Chinese domination in those hotly contested waters could lie in the sinking of two U.S. aircraft carriers. 'What the United States fears the most is taking casualties,' the admiral said, before adding that such an attack on two of the U.S. Navy’s steel behemoths would claim upwards of 10,000 lives." https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see-how-frightened-america-is-chinese-admiral-says-sinking-us-carriers-key-to-dominating-south-china-sea/ https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see...
- chriselles 7y ago
  I do think this is hyperbole. Sinking a US aircraft carrier would be a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States. It would e like sinking Rhode Island(slightly bigger). Retribution would be overwhelming.
  - kuzehanka 7y ago
    Retribution with what? If the carriers are taken out the US has no way to project any kind of meaningful force in that region. Any scenario (unlikely as it may be) that involves china successfully destroying 2 US carriers would also involve their confidence in being able to destroy the rest in their coastal region.
    - chriselles 7y ago
      If there is clear attribution for the sinking of a US carrier the offenders would get glassed with a Trident D5.
      - shdh 7y ago
        Mutually assured destruction. The initial attack likely never takes place.
      - Sabinus 7y ago
        If there is clear attribution for the nuking of a country, the offenders will be glassed by multiple warheads. Nukes aren't ever a sane response to escalating traditional tensions.

T-A 7y ago

> I don't see any reason to panic. These guys got pretty close: https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/11/providing-common-defense https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/11/providing-common-d...

myroon5 7y ago

What is the H in BATH?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vsnf 7y ago
I've never seen them referred to as BATH before, but it likely corresponds to Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei.
yegle 7y ago
Huawei
- chriselles 7y ago
  Bullseye: Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei I think they collectively represent a far bigger long term threat to relative US superiority than some Chinese warships. Something has to pay for that military capability. I wonder what scared the Soviets more? The US Navy or the Marshall Plan? Marshall plan was $100B One Belt, One Road is multi trillion. Use debt trap diplomacy, nudging, and a decent value proposition to get everyone on BATH One Platform, One Network Bye bye US Dollar. Bye bye US Navy capability and capacity.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    Yes, those companies are a thread. Our leaders in the us think because we are christians or something god chose us to have military power. In reality, we have economic power that let the us have the ability to get all this military power. The source of the ability (economic might) seems to be almost deliberately being reduced at this time by a certain leader.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

est31 7y ago

I doubt they'll stop at their home waters. What they consider home waters will just move more and more towards the US west coast. Right now the conflict is closer to them than it is to the USA but things may change rapidly.

chriselles 7y ago
Agreed. Over time, China will be looking to guarantee its SLOC(Se Linea of Communication(Control) for all of it’s global trade. China is very vulnerable to economic harm from sea trade disruption.
AYBABTME 7y ago
Doesn't seem likely to me if history is anything. China doesn't seem interested in ruling over its neighbours, as long as they're friendly. I'm no expert but for all I've read on its history, it seems to traditionally be interested in commerce and be content with that.
- gonyea 7y ago
  China has a long history of imperialism. They even tried attacking Vietnam after its war with the US and failed.
geowwy 7y ago
They definitely won't be parking their navy off the west coast. They have nothing to gain and the cost will be huge. China is being aggressive in the South China Sea because they're insecure about the US navy being so close. If things escalate then the US navy can start a blockade and stop virtually all trade between China and the outside world. China wants to get control of the surrounding seas so its shipping routes aren't vulnerable to the US. That's also why they're investing so much in huge train networks through Asia and the Middle East – it means the US navy can't economically cripple them at will.
- Terr_ 7y ago
  > west coast [...] South China Sea Or to use Occam's Razor: There's a greater density of assets to control, nearer at hand.

expressrunning 7y ago

"China’s Rear Adm. Luo Yuan [said] the key for Chinese domination in those hotly contested waters could lie in the sinking of two U.S. aircraft carriers. 'What the United States fears the most is taking casualties,' the admiral said, before adding that such an attack on two of the U.S. Navy’s steel behemoths would claim upwards of 10,000 lives." https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see-how-frightened-america-is-chinese-admiral-says-sinking-us-carriers-key-to-dominating-south-china-sea/ https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see...

chriselles 7y ago
I do think this is hyperbole. Sinking a US aircraft carrier would be a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States. It would e like sinking Rhode Island(slightly bigger). Retribution would be overwhelming.
- kuzehanka 7y ago
  Retribution with what? If the carriers are taken out the US has no way to project any kind of meaningful force in that region. Any scenario (unlikely as it may be) that involves china successfully destroying 2 US carriers would also involve their confidence in being able to destroy the rest in their coastal region.
  - chriselles 7y ago
    If there is clear attribution for the sinking of a US carrier the offenders would get glassed with a Trident D5.
    - shdh 7y ago
      Mutually assured destruction. The initial attack likely never takes place.
    - Sabinus 7y ago
      If there is clear attribution for the nuking of a country, the offenders will be glassed by multiple warheads. Nukes aren't ever a sane response to escalating traditional tensions.