4 ms·

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 clos

by est31 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  China has a long history of imperialism. They even tried attacking Vietnam after its war with the US and failed.
geowwy 8y 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_ 8y ago
  > west coast [...] South China Sea Or to use Occam's Razor: There's a greater density of assets to control, nearer at hand.
  - geowwy 8y ago
    Yep that's correct. And the main asset that navies protect are trade routes. So you can see that they would want to protect the South China Sea since that's their gateway to the world. But the West Coast really only connects to America, who wouldn't trade with them anyway if they took over the West Coast. So it would be totally counter-productive to send ships there.
- Ultramanoid 8y ago
  China can be many things, 'insecure' is not one of them. Maybe try 'patient'. Edit : From a Chinese perspective, the Pax Americana has been a blip in history.
  - Ultramanoid 8y ago
    Edit : Downvotes are fine, but would like to hear the arguments against the facts of the region.
    - NotSammyHagar 8y ago
      China hasn't been a single govt or people, they have had very different ones over time, of course many different regional languages over time before the 20th centry. They aren't one single culture than went x thousand years. Of course they do have an ancient and proud culture with many achievements and led the world at various times but they weren't just one group. Just like there were dozens maybe 100s of different political entities and countries and philosophies going from Greeks to Rome to modern America and European countries. There wasn't one continuous 'people' for more than 2k years there either.
      - 8y ago

by est31 8y ago

chriselles 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
China has a long history of imperialism. They even tried attacking Vietnam after its war with the US and failed.

geowwy 8y 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_ 8y ago
> west coast [...] South China Sea Or to use Occam's Razor: There's a greater density of assets to control, nearer at hand.
- geowwy 8y ago
  Yep that's correct. And the main asset that navies protect are trade routes. So you can see that they would want to protect the South China Sea since that's their gateway to the world. But the West Coast really only connects to America, who wouldn't trade with them anyway if they took over the West Coast. So it would be totally counter-productive to send ships there.
Ultramanoid 8y ago
China can be many things, 'insecure' is not one of them. Maybe try 'patient'. Edit : From a Chinese perspective, the Pax Americana has been a blip in history.
- Ultramanoid 8y ago
  Edit : Downvotes are fine, but would like to hear the arguments against the facts of the region.
  - NotSammyHagar 8y ago
    China hasn't been a single govt or people, they have had very different ones over time, of course many different regional languages over time before the 20th centry. They aren't one single culture than went x thousand years. Of course they do have an ancient and proud culture with many achievements and led the world at various times but they weren't just one group. Just like there were dozens maybe 100s of different political entities and countries and philosophies going from Greeks to Rome to modern America and European countries. There wasn't one continuous 'people' for more than 2k years there either.
    - 8y ago