7 ms·

Construction of the 4th Chinese aircraft carrier has reportedly started

23 points by belter 2y ago

borisk 2y ago
Very interesting. Wonder what does building an aircraft carrier fleet say about China's military priorities. Are they more focused on occupying Taiwan, or on keeping the Malacca Straight open for commerce, or on power projection across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
- simonblack 2y ago
  Probably more about keeping distant sea lanes like the Malacca Strait open in the short term, until the overland routes are more developed. After which, carriers are a waste of resources. Otherwise I'd say it's just as silly for China to build obsolete carriers as it is for the US to keep building them. Missiles outrange carriers which in turn outrange battleships. The battleships became obsolete in 1941. The carriers became obsolete in the early 2000s.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    Why do you think aircraft carriers are obsolete?
    - JohnBooty 2y ago
      Note how Ukraine sunk much of Russia's Black Sea fleet... without having a navy of their own to speak of. No carriers involved but it's a harbinger of what's to come. Missiles and drones. Carriers are increasingly vulnerable against things like missiles and drones that are multiple orders of magnitude cheaper. Think about how a carrier group would defend itself against, say, a heterogenous attack of 100-200 combined simultaneous ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, and/or manned aircraft. Obviously carrier groups have multiple layers of missile defense: CWIS, combat air patrols, etc. But you only need one missile to get through and that carrier is quite possibly going to be unable to launch planes for quite a while. And even if you don't hit the carrier, the carrier is going to be undertaking evasive maneuvers during the attack. That means no planes taking off and landing. For a very early example of this, look at the Battle of Midway. The American air attacks were disorganized and sporadic. And yet, they largely kept the Japanese carriers from flying planes for much of the day, leading to a crushing American victory just as their window of opportunity closed. None of this exactly means carriers are "obsolete." Against non-peers, that is still a whole lotta force projection.
      - skhunted 2y ago
        There are no missiles capable of loitering. (And if there were then they be essentially like airplanes and air dominance is what matters.) As such land launched missiles are mostly useless against carriers in open seas. By the time the missile reaches the carrier group the group will have moved position. It’s hard to find a specific ship in open seas. The Russian navy suffers from a lack of combined arms and force protection. A carrier battle group is far more capable of defense than the Russian navy in the Black Sea. I don’t believe you are well versed in modern naval operations. I’m not either but the fact that France, UK, Brazil, India, and China have aircraft carriers suggests they aren’t obsolete. Carriers are well protected. Not invincible. The reference to Midway is odd because without aircraft carriers the U.S. would have lost the battle. Likewise, without carriers the Japanese would not have stood a chance.
        Someone 2y ago
        Ukraine apparently uses remotely operated drone boats that are cheap, can loiter, and aren’t easily detected because they need not be high above the waterline (Theirs probably are noisy, but only when moving) If all you want is defense against an enemy deploying an airfield (aka aircraft carrier) close to your border, I think you could build thousands of them for the price of an aircraft carrier. A bit like a minefield with mines that can target ships passing by. An attacker would have to use mine sweepers to destroy them, protecting them with their carrier further out, but, these things being mobile, you could keep replacing them. Not invincible, but I think it is something planners are looking at.
        skhunted 2y ago
        In the future such things as you describe will be a problem but not at this time. China can’t invade Taiwan because it doesn’t have the ability to deal with carrier fleets.
        simonblack 2y ago
        China can’t invade Taiwan because it doesn’t have the ability to deal with carrier fleets. (No such animal as a country called Taiwan. However there is an island called Taiwan.) China doesn't need to invade the Republic of China. They just need to blockade it, just like Britain blockaded Germany in WW1 and WW2. The island of Taiwan would be out of fuel and food within weeks. China invading the Republic of China would be like the US invading Hawaii. Why would you blow up your own stuff? You'd only have to spend perfectly good money to replace it.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Even if we accept the premise, carriers are still formidable force projection against non-peer adversaries. Imagine for instance a chinese carrier vs the Philippines, not vs the US.
  - daniel-thompson 2y ago
    carriers can be used to project power in scenarios short of all-out war, which is the common case, at the moment
  - jowea 2y ago
    Will overland routes ever be as cheap and used as sea routes? And I feel the better comparison is does "missile on aircraft on carrier outrange hostile missile?"
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    Carriers outswarm long-range missiles and out-loiter long-range air patrols. But more to the point if you can't defend a mobile ocean-going fortress, what can you defend?
    - lmm 2y ago
      > if you can't defend a mobile ocean-going fortress, what can you defend? Underground bunkers (I believe Sweden has a decent history of converting caves into aircraft hangers). Just as we don't really have conventional fortresses on land any more, only trenches and bunkers, as munitions get better we're reaching a point where the only way to keep anything safe is to bury it.
  - YZF 2y ago
    Missiles out-range carriers but the cost of hitting a target in Yemen with a Tomahawk missile launched from afar (2 million dollars, range 2500km) is much higher than the cost of dropping a bomb (~ 16k dollars) from a jet on said target. Even after amortizing all the other costs. The firepower an aircraft carrier brings with it to any location it gets to is really hard to match with missiles. More than the "bandwidth" and cost of that, there's also latency. Drones are another thing to compare to.
    - bbor 2y ago
      Yeah I am far from an expert in actual academic military studies (?), but I think there’s a lot of theory still riding on “big boat capable of deploying a variety of aircraft”, even if they’re not used exactly how they were in past wars, cold and hot. Just, like, from a million miles up: planes and drones are a lot more useful than missiles alone, and the economic angle you highlight is just one of the basic differences in tactical affordances. …”weaponry studies”? Now I’m curious to what extent there exists an academic commentary on stuff like this, separate from internal researchers/stakeholders…
    - simonblack 2y ago
      much higher than the cost of dropping a bomb (~ 16k dollars) from a jet on said target If you can operate a jet fighter-bomber for less than (say) $200 K an hour* I'd be very surprised. And that doesn't take into account the servicing time on modern 'hangar queens' to get them ready for their next sortie. And what's the cost per hour of operating a carrier?? Try to include ALL your costs in working out the cost-efficiency. * Let's be really generous and say you get 10,000 hours of service life out of a fighter jet. (The designed service life is only 8,000 hours.) The F-35 costs around 130 million bucks so over 10,000 hours that cost comes out to $13,000 per hour in just amortising the purchase cost, without adding in the operating costs themselves.
      - YZF 2y ago
        A jet can also carry a lot of bombs and you might need the jet for other missions anyways. I agree completely but I think the economics still favor the jets, especially if you need any precision or control, if you just want to lob explosives as cheap as possible maybe the equation is a bit different (though lobbing a lot of them over very large distances is still expensive).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 2y ago
    We found out that the battleship had become obsolete because of a world war. We aren't going to know for sure whether the carrier is obsolete till the next major naval war.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Taiwan is just 150 miles / 250km from the Chinese mainland. You can just use a regular airfield. When talking about the island chains around Taiwan you get a bit further out, but nothing you can't handle with one midair refueling. On the other hand if China were to prepare for a war in the South China Sea aircraft carriers would be very useful. They have a couple airstrips there, but they are vulnerable and not as flexible as bringing a couple carriers to the coast of your enemy. It's also a good deterrent as a pure show of force. Keeping the Malacca Straight open might also be a big part of it.
- Andaith 2y ago
  I think it says they aspire to being a global power, not just a regional power. They want the ability to project power anywhere, just like the USA.
- maxglute 2y ago
  IMO slow acquisition = still playing around / PLANavy brass + CPC big bois thinks it's nice for dick measuring contest, with some limited peacetime use to wag said dick for diplomacy/"presence"/propaganda. The reality seems to be that PRC is profoundly not serious about building carriers. They now have ~300x ship building capacity vs US, and outputs in one year as much tonnage as entire US WW2 5-year ship building program, yet is building up carriers at extremely slow rate (2.5 in ~15 years - with 01/liaoning rebuilt from USSR Varyag hull), when they can be spamming 2-3+ carriers PER year. For reference US was laying/building/launching/commissioning a Forrestal class and other large displacement carriers almost every year post WW2. It would be fairly easy for PRC to build 10+ carriers within a few years, but they don't, nor do they seem to be prioritizing building out requisit airwings. Relevant carrier programs are moving along, but it seems far from urgent. This is not the aquisition posture of a force that prioritizes / values carriers. Compare to say PRC subsurface... they had shit subs until recently, but have consistently tried to close gap and built a lot of boats. Now that latest gen PLAN subs within 1ish generation of USN, they're expanding sub shipyards to build 6-8s simultaneously, i.e. 3-4x than US. Good sign they really care about subs. TLDR is I don't know if PRC sees expansive role of carriers for future priorities, but it's still worth hedging / building up capability just in case. Real question is, why is PRC building so few carriers, why do most major carrier operators maintain minimal carrier fleet, which includes USN, whose minimum carrier #s are constrained by law (11+10 operational carriers/amphibious assault ships from 10 USC. 8062) and therefore we don't really know what USN priority would be if planners have freedom pursue any force composition. We do know USN insists it needs to build up against PRC but future navy force design is hedging on distributed lethality of more smaller hulls while maintaining the LEAST amount of carries they are legally obligated to operate, which to my knowledge they've never exceeded.
- baybal2 2y ago
  [dead]
lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
I'm not an expert or anything, but don't modern day drone capabilities mean that aricraft carriers are easy to destroy or incapacitate?
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  I think it's too early to tell. Carriers can carry drones, too.
  - lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
    What's your point? If I'm going to blow up a carrier with a drone, the fact that the carrier can also carry drones makes no difference.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      Well those drones could be counter drones right? With EM, explosives, nets, chaff or what have you.
- dmurray 2y ago
  People keep saying this, but the trend in warfare these days is for limited wars, not superpower against superpower. A modern carrier group has plenty of air defences and anti-drone capabilities to hold off a small- or medium-sized enemy, and it would still provide a very useful mobile platform to bomb them from.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  What kind of drones? People keep saying this but they don't specify the kind of drones. The small drones that are being used to drop grenades in Ukraine are useless in naval warfare, they fall into the ocean after few miles. The Houthis are using medium range Iranian drones to attack ships, but they have mostly been failures since they are easier to shoot down. Also, being controlled from land limits the numbers and makes vulnerable to jamming. They also don't have range to catch carriers out at sea. The longer range "drones" that Iranians have developed could change things. They are basically slow cruise missiles, not drones. But they could be used in large numbers because they are cheap. There is no indication they have developed anti-ship guidance which would bump up the price. However, they haven't had much effect in Ukraine, Israel, or Red Sea. Also, we haven't seen what counters to drones look like. The same guidance for autonomous drone could lead to accurate cannons taking them down. Cheap missiles could mean cheap defensive missiles to shoot down all the drones.
486sx33 2y ago
[flagged]
Animats 2y ago
Construction of the first new Type 004 Chinese aircraft carrier has been rumored to be under way for years now. Is this supposed to be a new Type 004, or another Type 003 like the Fujian? With the Fujian completed and in sea trials, it would make sense to keep the production line going and crank out a few more. The US suffers from on and off warship production. Some years ago, after winning a carrier order, the head of Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock announced, in a letter to Congress, that if the Navy would order two at once, Newport News would throw in a third one for free. The Navy declined.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  AFAIK 004 will be larger than 003, having the same general systems like EMALS and IPS, but will be nukular in äddishun.
ineedaj0b 2y ago
There’s credible rumors China is planning to make moves on Taiwan 2028ish. I feel bad for the Taiwanese, similar to how I felt about Hong Kong. I was hoping we’d offer Hong Kong citizens aslyum (you’d make great US citizens!) but I realize we’d probably also get a few… dissidents caught in our net with that program. I even debated marrying a Hong Kong girl for citizenship but couldn’t find any online, also what a weird offer to make, no one took me up on it (couldn’t find where Hong Kong people posted to advertise even). Anyhow, I do support strengthening our military. I was younger and thought our military budget was silly but after more reading and more nuance in my worldview, I realize our military is source of consistency - a necessary evil that’s helped to avoid larger wars. Still wish we had better healthcare though.
- mofoteam 2y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 2y ago
  What are credible rumors? With all the evidence it seems the “threat of Chinese invasion” may also just be the US imperial coalition trying to increase defense spending again. Just like Ukraine and Israel.
  - ineedaj0b 2y ago
    The rumors started after covid, when Biden was in office (not a political party that wants to increase defense spending). The rumors are from our guys… you can’t really say where you hear credible rumors but I attest it’s from not easily spooked people.
- yongjik 2y ago
  Meh, I've been hearing "credible rumors" that North Korea would start a war (or, alternatively, collapse) any day soon, pretty much my entire life. Somehow, NK has failed to do either. I'd trust these rumors about China about as much.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

23 points by belter 2y ago

Very interesting. Wonder what does building an aircraft carrier fleet say about China's military priorities. Are they more focused on occupying Taiwan, or on keeping the Malacca Straight open for commerce, or on power projection across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

simonblack 2y ago
Probably more about keeping distant sea lanes like the Malacca Strait open in the short term, until the overland routes are more developed. After which, carriers are a waste of resources. Otherwise I'd say it's just as silly for China to build obsolete carriers as it is for the US to keep building them. Missiles outrange carriers which in turn outrange battleships. The battleships became obsolete in 1941. The carriers became obsolete in the early 2000s.
- skhunted 2y ago
  Why do you think aircraft carriers are obsolete?
  - JohnBooty 2y ago
    Note how Ukraine sunk much of Russia's Black Sea fleet... without having a navy of their own to speak of. No carriers involved but it's a harbinger of what's to come. Missiles and drones. Carriers are increasingly vulnerable against things like missiles and drones that are multiple orders of magnitude cheaper. Think about how a carrier group would defend itself against, say, a heterogenous attack of 100-200 combined simultaneous ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, and/or manned aircraft. Obviously carrier groups have multiple layers of missile defense: CWIS, combat air patrols, etc. But you only need one missile to get through and that carrier is quite possibly going to be unable to launch planes for quite a while. And even if you don't hit the carrier, the carrier is going to be undertaking evasive maneuvers during the attack. That means no planes taking off and landing. For a very early example of this, look at the Battle of Midway. The American air attacks were disorganized and sporadic. And yet, they largely kept the Japanese carriers from flying planes for much of the day, leading to a crushing American victory just as their window of opportunity closed. None of this exactly means carriers are "obsolete." Against non-peers, that is still a whole lotta force projection.
    - skhunted 2y ago
      There are no missiles capable of loitering. (And if there were then they be essentially like airplanes and air dominance is what matters.) As such land launched missiles are mostly useless against carriers in open seas. By the time the missile reaches the carrier group the group will have moved position. It’s hard to find a specific ship in open seas. The Russian navy suffers from a lack of combined arms and force protection. A carrier battle group is far more capable of defense than the Russian navy in the Black Sea. I don’t believe you are well versed in modern naval operations. I’m not either but the fact that France, UK, Brazil, India, and China have aircraft carriers suggests they aren’t obsolete. Carriers are well protected. Not invincible. The reference to Midway is odd because without aircraft carriers the U.S. would have lost the battle. Likewise, without carriers the Japanese would not have stood a chance.
      - Someone 2y ago
        Ukraine apparently uses remotely operated drone boats that are cheap, can loiter, and aren’t easily detected because they need not be high above the waterline (Theirs probably are noisy, but only when moving) If all you want is defense against an enemy deploying an airfield (aka aircraft carrier) close to your border, I think you could build thousands of them for the price of an aircraft carrier. A bit like a minefield with mines that can target ships passing by. An attacker would have to use mine sweepers to destroy them, protecting them with their carrier further out, but, these things being mobile, you could keep replacing them. Not invincible, but I think it is something planners are looking at.
        skhunted 2y ago
        In the future such things as you describe will be a problem but not at this time. China can’t invade Taiwan because it doesn’t have the ability to deal with carrier fleets.
        simonblack 2y ago
        China can’t invade Taiwan because it doesn’t have the ability to deal with carrier fleets. (No such animal as a country called Taiwan. However there is an island called Taiwan.) China doesn't need to invade the Republic of China. They just need to blockade it, just like Britain blockaded Germany in WW1 and WW2. The island of Taiwan would be out of fuel and food within weeks. China invading the Republic of China would be like the US invading Hawaii. Why would you blow up your own stuff? You'd only have to spend perfectly good money to replace it.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Even if we accept the premise, carriers are still formidable force projection against non-peer adversaries. Imagine for instance a chinese carrier vs the Philippines, not vs the US.
- daniel-thompson 2y ago
  carriers can be used to project power in scenarios short of all-out war, which is the common case, at the moment
- jowea 2y ago
  Will overland routes ever be as cheap and used as sea routes? And I feel the better comparison is does "missile on aircraft on carrier outrange hostile missile?"
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  Carriers outswarm long-range missiles and out-loiter long-range air patrols. But more to the point if you can't defend a mobile ocean-going fortress, what can you defend?
  - lmm 2y ago
    > if you can't defend a mobile ocean-going fortress, what can you defend? Underground bunkers (I believe Sweden has a decent history of converting caves into aircraft hangers). Just as we don't really have conventional fortresses on land any more, only trenches and bunkers, as munitions get better we're reaching a point where the only way to keep anything safe is to bury it.
- YZF 2y ago
  Missiles out-range carriers but the cost of hitting a target in Yemen with a Tomahawk missile launched from afar (2 million dollars, range 2500km) is much higher than the cost of dropping a bomb (~ 16k dollars) from a jet on said target. Even after amortizing all the other costs. The firepower an aircraft carrier brings with it to any location it gets to is really hard to match with missiles. More than the "bandwidth" and cost of that, there's also latency. Drones are another thing to compare to.
  - bbor 2y ago
    Yeah I am far from an expert in actual academic military studies (?), but I think there’s a lot of theory still riding on “big boat capable of deploying a variety of aircraft”, even if they’re not used exactly how they were in past wars, cold and hot. Just, like, from a million miles up: planes and drones are a lot more useful than missiles alone, and the economic angle you highlight is just one of the basic differences in tactical affordances. …”weaponry studies”? Now I’m curious to what extent there exists an academic commentary on stuff like this, separate from internal researchers/stakeholders…
  - simonblack 2y ago
    much higher than the cost of dropping a bomb (~ 16k dollars) from a jet on said target If you can operate a jet fighter-bomber for less than (say) $200 K an hour* I'd be very surprised. And that doesn't take into account the servicing time on modern 'hangar queens' to get them ready for their next sortie. And what's the cost per hour of operating a carrier?? Try to include ALL your costs in working out the cost-efficiency. * Let's be really generous and say you get 10,000 hours of service life out of a fighter jet. (The designed service life is only 8,000 hours.) The F-35 costs around 130 million bucks so over 10,000 hours that cost comes out to $13,000 per hour in just amortising the purchase cost, without adding in the operating costs themselves.
    - YZF 2y ago
      A jet can also carry a lot of bombs and you might need the jet for other missions anyways. I agree completely but I think the economics still favor the jets, especially if you need any precision or control, if you just want to lob explosives as cheap as possible maybe the equation is a bit different (though lobbing a lot of them over very large distances is still expensive).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 2y ago
  We found out that the battleship had become obsolete because of a world war. We aren't going to know for sure whether the carrier is obsolete till the next major naval war.
wongarsu 2y ago
Taiwan is just 150 miles / 250km from the Chinese mainland. You can just use a regular airfield. When talking about the island chains around Taiwan you get a bit further out, but nothing you can't handle with one midair refueling. On the other hand if China were to prepare for a war in the South China Sea aircraft carriers would be very useful. They have a couple airstrips there, but they are vulnerable and not as flexible as bringing a couple carriers to the coast of your enemy. It's also a good deterrent as a pure show of force. Keeping the Malacca Straight open might also be a big part of it.
Andaith 2y ago
I think it says they aspire to being a global power, not just a regional power. They want the ability to project power anywhere, just like the USA.
maxglute 2y ago
IMO slow acquisition = still playing around / PLANavy brass + CPC big bois thinks it's nice for dick measuring contest, with some limited peacetime use to wag said dick for diplomacy/"presence"/propaganda. The reality seems to be that PRC is profoundly not serious about building carriers. They now have ~300x ship building capacity vs US, and outputs in one year as much tonnage as entire US WW2 5-year ship building program, yet is building up carriers at extremely slow rate (2.5 in ~15 years - with 01/liaoning rebuilt from USSR Varyag hull), when they can be spamming 2-3+ carriers PER year. For reference US was laying/building/launching/commissioning a Forrestal class and other large displacement carriers almost every year post WW2. It would be fairly easy for PRC to build 10+ carriers within a few years, but they don't, nor do they seem to be prioritizing building out requisit airwings. Relevant carrier programs are moving along, but it seems far from urgent. This is not the aquisition posture of a force that prioritizes / values carriers. Compare to say PRC subsurface... they had shit subs until recently, but have consistently tried to close gap and built a lot of boats. Now that latest gen PLAN subs within 1ish generation of USN, they're expanding sub shipyards to build 6-8s simultaneously, i.e. 3-4x than US. Good sign they really care about subs. TLDR is I don't know if PRC sees expansive role of carriers for future priorities, but it's still worth hedging / building up capability just in case. Real question is, why is PRC building so few carriers, why do most major carrier operators maintain minimal carrier fleet, which includes USN, whose minimum carrier #s are constrained by law (11+10 operational carriers/amphibious assault ships from 10 USC. 8062) and therefore we don't really know what USN priority would be if planners have freedom pursue any force composition. We do know USN insists it needs to build up against PRC but future navy force design is hedging on distributed lethality of more smaller hulls while maintaining the LEAST amount of carries they are legally obligated to operate, which to my knowledge they've never exceeded.
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]

lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago

I'm not an expert or anything, but don't modern day drone capabilities mean that aricraft carriers are easy to destroy or incapacitate?

actionfromafar 2y ago
I think it's too early to tell. Carriers can carry drones, too.
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
  What's your point? If I'm going to blow up a carrier with a drone, the fact that the carrier can also carry drones makes no difference.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Well those drones could be counter drones right? With EM, explosives, nets, chaff or what have you.
dmurray 2y ago
People keep saying this, but the trend in warfare these days is for limited wars, not superpower against superpower. A modern carrier group has plenty of air defences and anti-drone capabilities to hold off a small- or medium-sized enemy, and it would still provide a very useful mobile platform to bomb them from.
ianburrell 2y ago
What kind of drones? People keep saying this but they don't specify the kind of drones. The small drones that are being used to drop grenades in Ukraine are useless in naval warfare, they fall into the ocean after few miles. The Houthis are using medium range Iranian drones to attack ships, but they have mostly been failures since they are easier to shoot down. Also, being controlled from land limits the numbers and makes vulnerable to jamming. They also don't have range to catch carriers out at sea. The longer range "drones" that Iranians have developed could change things. They are basically slow cruise missiles, not drones. But they could be used in large numbers because they are cheap. There is no indication they have developed anti-ship guidance which would bump up the price. However, they haven't had much effect in Ukraine, Israel, or Red Sea. Also, we haven't seen what counters to drones look like. The same guidance for autonomous drone could lead to accurate cannons taking them down. Cheap missiles could mean cheap defensive missiles to shoot down all the drones.

486sx33 2y ago

[flagged]

Animats 2y ago

Construction of the first new Type 004 Chinese aircraft carrier has been rumored to be under way for years now. Is this supposed to be a new Type 004, or another Type 003 like the Fujian? With the Fujian completed and in sea trials, it would make sense to keep the production line going and crank out a few more. The US suffers from on and off warship production. Some years ago, after winning a carrier order, the head of Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock announced, in a letter to Congress, that if the Navy would order two at once, Newport News would throw in a third one for free. The Navy declined.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
AFAIK 004 will be larger than 003, having the same general systems like EMALS and IPS, but will be nukular in äddishun.

ineedaj0b 2y ago

There’s credible rumors China is planning to make moves on Taiwan 2028ish. I feel bad for the Taiwanese, similar to how I felt about Hong Kong. I was hoping we’d offer Hong Kong citizens aslyum (you’d make great US citizens!) but I realize we’d probably also get a few… dissidents caught in our net with that program. I even debated marrying a Hong Kong girl for citizenship but couldn’t find any online, also what a weird offer to make, no one took me up on it (couldn’t find where Hong Kong people posted to advertise even). Anyhow, I do support strengthening our military. I was younger and thought our military budget was silly but after more reading and more nuance in my worldview, I realize our military is source of consistency - a necessary evil that’s helped to avoid larger wars. Still wish we had better healthcare though.

mofoteam 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 2y ago
What are credible rumors? With all the evidence it seems the “threat of Chinese invasion” may also just be the US imperial coalition trying to increase defense spending again. Just like Ukraine and Israel.
- ineedaj0b 2y ago
  The rumors started after covid, when Biden was in office (not a political party that wants to increase defense spending). The rumors are from our guys… you can’t really say where you hear credible rumors but I attest it’s from not easily spooked people.
yongjik 2y ago
Meh, I've been hearing "credible rumors" that North Korea would start a war (or, alternatively, collapse) any day soon, pretty much my entire life. Somehow, NK has failed to do either. I'd trust these rumors about China about as much.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]