4 ms·

They’d need to switch to aircraft carriers and fast. The US has 11. China has 2. They are expensive, require specifically trained crews, and air superiority cou

by tyre 2y ago

They’d need to switch to aircraft carriers and fast. The US has 11. China has 2. They are expensive, require specifically trained crews, and air superiority counters all of that shipyard capacity.

blackoil 2y ago
Third is in sea trial and fourth under construction. Also, China doesn't pretend to be global police, so it needs them only in South China sea, while US need to be present in Middle East, Europe and USA also.
- kurthr 2y ago
  Ummm, who's going to make sure all the oil comes from the middle east? It's not like the US needs to import light sweet crude from there since the refineries are made for heavier oil than comes from Saudi or fracking.
- hollerith 2y ago
  That great, so the US, which produces all the oil it needs within its borders, needs to be present in the Middle East, but China, which produces some oil, but not enough to run its current fleet of cars and trucks, let alone fight a war, does not need to be in the Middle East. Interesting analysis :) Note that Russia's oil does not help China here: the infrastructure in Russia only allows export via European ports, not Asian ports and not over the Russia-China border, though with the construction of a few 5,000-km-long pipelines, I guess that could change in a few years if Russia cares enough.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - DeathArrow 2y ago
    US isn't in Middle East to protect their oil sources in case of war. US is in Middle East to control oil prices, do policing, help Israel and threat Iran and other regional actors. I believe Russia and China signed agreements for building gas and oil pipes.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      I agree with your "control oil prices" only if it means making sure Iran or some other country does not close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers.
  - lossolo 2y ago
    > though with the construction of a few 5,000-km-long pipelines, I guess that could change in a few years if Russia cares enough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipeline-could-run-alongside-planned-new-gas-link-china-2024-05-17 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipel...
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Interesting. From the second link: "Russia currently sends gas to China through the Power of Siberia 1 pipeline, which began operating in 2019 and runs through eastern Siberia into northeast China. Experts say that as China is not expected to need additional gas supply until after 2030, Beijing could drive a hard bargain on price for a second pipeline via Siberia."
anigbrowl 2y ago
Why though? China's building drone carriers instead. Taking down aircraft carriers is of course no simple matter, but hardly infeasible for a super power. The problem with capital ships is that they're just as expensive to replace as they are to build. Also, blowing one up eliminates 9% of the US' AC fleet at a stroke, which would be a big psychological blow. I don't think China is as emotionally invested in its aircraft carriers and built them primarily to show that they could. That said, in any military conflict with China an opponent would be well advised to target their nearest aircraft carrier as early and powerfully as possible for the humiliation factor.
- cj 2y ago
  > Why though? I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Speed. Honestly (and unfortunately) if anyone actually did destroy a US aircraft carrier, the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating.
  - thriftwy 2y ago
    > the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating. The thing is, not many things in the world cost more than an aircraft carrier. What's you're going to blow up? Also, how, short of strategic nuclear war.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      Quite. It's hard to see retaliation against a civilian target in a direct response to a military loss, and if an aircraft carrier is sunk in theater there might not be sufficient capacity to respond immediately against military targets.
  - DeathArrow 2y ago
    >I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Why? ICBMs are good enough and much cheaper. Also, launching missiles from submarines can be very effective.
maxglute 2y ago
[flagged]
- panick21_ 2y ago
  What China is really after is slowly pushing out and slowly increase its control in seas around China and its neighborhood. While slowly pushing out and giving itself more options. China is playing the slow game and they will continue to play it for a long time to come. But of course the slow game also has lots of issues for them as well. Issues with their population, with India, with the regime and so on. China is in a position not that different from Germany pre-WW1, but arguably even better. But unlike Germany they are not controlled by complete war glorifying idiots. China believes the future is going their way, unlike the Germans who basically believe they would lose out in the long term. They don't have a insane collapsing Austro-Hungary as an ally constantly dragging them into conflict. And nuclear weapons exist.

by tyre 2y ago

They’d need to switch to aircraft carriers and fast. The US has 11. China has 2. They are expensive, require specifically trained crews, and air superiority counters all of that shipyard capacity.

blackoil 2y ago

Third is in sea trial and fourth under construction. Also, China doesn't pretend to be global police, so it needs them only in South China sea, while US need to be present in Middle East, Europe and USA also.

kurthr 2y ago
Ummm, who's going to make sure all the oil comes from the middle east? It's not like the US needs to import light sweet crude from there since the refineries are made for heavier oil than comes from Saudi or fracking.
hollerith 2y ago
That great, so the US, which produces all the oil it needs within its borders, needs to be present in the Middle East, but China, which produces some oil, but not enough to run its current fleet of cars and trucks, let alone fight a war, does not need to be in the Middle East. Interesting analysis :) Note that Russia's oil does not help China here: the infrastructure in Russia only allows export via European ports, not Asian ports and not over the Russia-China border, though with the construction of a few 5,000-km-long pipelines, I guess that could change in a few years if Russia cares enough.
- maxglute 2y ago
  [flagged]
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  US isn't in Middle East to protect their oil sources in case of war. US is in Middle East to control oil prices, do policing, help Israel and threat Iran and other regional actors. I believe Russia and China signed agreements for building gas and oil pipes.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    I agree with your "control oil prices" only if it means making sure Iran or some other country does not close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers.
- lossolo 2y ago
  > though with the construction of a few 5,000-km-long pipelines, I guess that could change in a few years if Russia cares enough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipeline-could-run-alongside-planned-new-gas-link-china-2024-05-17 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipel...
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Interesting. From the second link: "Russia currently sends gas to China through the Power of Siberia 1 pipeline, which began operating in 2019 and runs through eastern Siberia into northeast China. Experts say that as China is not expected to need additional gas supply until after 2030, Beijing could drive a hard bargain on price for a second pipeline via Siberia."

anigbrowl 2y ago

Why though? China's building drone carriers instead. Taking down aircraft carriers is of course no simple matter, but hardly infeasible for a super power. The problem with capital ships is that they're just as expensive to replace as they are to build. Also, blowing one up eliminates 9% of the US' AC fleet at a stroke, which would be a big psychological blow. I don't think China is as emotionally invested in its aircraft carriers and built them primarily to show that they could. That said, in any military conflict with China an opponent would be well advised to target their nearest aircraft carrier as early and powerfully as possible for the humiliation factor.

cj 2y ago
> Why though? I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Speed. Honestly (and unfortunately) if anyone actually did destroy a US aircraft carrier, the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating.
- thriftwy 2y ago
  > the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating. The thing is, not many things in the world cost more than an aircraft carrier. What's you're going to blow up? Also, how, short of strategic nuclear war.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Quite. It's hard to see retaliation against a civilian target in a direct response to a military loss, and if an aircraft carrier is sunk in theater there might not be sufficient capacity to respond immediately against military targets.
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  >I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Why? ICBMs are good enough and much cheaper. Also, launching missiles from submarines can be very effective.

maxglute 2y ago

[flagged]

panick21_ 2y ago
What China is really after is slowly pushing out and slowly increase its control in seas around China and its neighborhood. While slowly pushing out and giving itself more options. China is playing the slow game and they will continue to play it for a long time to come. But of course the slow game also has lots of issues for them as well. Issues with their population, with India, with the regime and so on. China is in a position not that different from Germany pre-WW1, but arguably even better. But unlike Germany they are not controlled by complete war glorifying idiots. China believes the future is going their way, unlike the Germans who basically believe they would lose out in the long term. They don't have a insane collapsing Austro-Hungary as an ally constantly dragging them into conflict. And nuclear weapons exist.