China building world’s largest navy as U.S. sea power is in 'absolute decline'

Schmed

I'm a corpse without a soul...
Nov 4, 2002
2,356
0
0
Shitsville, NY
#1
Analyst: China building world’s largest navy as U.S. sea power is in 'absolute decline'
By Cliff Kincaid Did you know that China could become the world’s leading naval power by 2020? That’s the verdict of military analyst Tony Corn. This may help explain why the U.S. Navy thinks a piece of paper called the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty provides some sort of protection for American forces on the high seas. It offers no such protection, of course, but it creates the impression that Navy leaders are doing something about our increasing weakness and vulnerability. However, like so many other U.N. treaties, including the 19 anti-terrorism treaties in effect on 9/11, this one offers a false sense of security. It will mask a dramatic decline in our military power.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will be the subject of a September 27 hearing before Senator Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee. All of the witnesses are pro-treaty. Another hearing is scheduled to follow and a quick Senate vote on the pact is then predicted. This process is better known as a railroad. Like the illegal alien amnesty bill, our Senate leaders, in cahoots with Bush Administration officials, are trying to rush it through. It remains to be seen whether the American people will wake up in time. Can we count on the media to blow the whistle? The betting here is that talk radio and the Internet will have to carry the load. Also In This Edition





Before the Senate rushes into an embrace of this treaty, it might be advisable for our media to tell the complete story of the decline of the U.S. Navy and attempt to explain how and why this has happened. But that would require that major news organizations pay less attention to O.J. and Britney. And that may be too much to ask. Corn explains what is happening right before our eyes. “Though globalization has increased the importance of maritime affairs, there has been both a relative and an absolute decline of U.S. sea power, with a U.S. Navy today at its lowest level in the post-World War II era,” he notes. “For the first time in 20 years, the U.S. is in the process of drafting a new maritime strategy, but with a considerably reduced force that went from 600 to fewer than 300 ships, and with new responsibilities in terms of nonmilitary maritime security. Hence the concept of the Thousand Ship Navy, which is meant to create a global maritime partnership with foreign navies.”
According to the Navy’s June 2007 Playbook, this 1,000-ship Navy is one that traverses the high seas under “hundreds of flags.” This plan depends on using foreign Navies, which are called “partner countries,” for our defense. Perhaps a U.N. Navy will even be involved. The Playbook declares, “A groundswell of support from military leaders around the world has allowed us to move forward with this concept and make it a reality.”
Military leaders around the world? They have “allowed” us to move forward with this concept. Since when did U.S. Navy officials look to foreign officials and leaders for guidance on what to do about U.S. national security? It apparently started sometime after the decline from 594 Navy ships under President Reagan, who rejected UNCLOS, to only 276 today. We are headed down to only 180 ships in 17 years.
Protecting U.S. national security has given way, according to the Playbook, to securing the “global community.” That’s on page 8. It also declares that “Diversity is a strategic imperative for the U.S. Navy” so that it can be “more relevant.”
Our Navy has not only been infected with the disease we all know as political correctness but it has come under the influence of international lawyers who pay homage to the U.N. Asked why U.S. Navy officials were supporting UNCLOS, one Navy Commander, with an important position in the Department of the Navy, told me, “The political leaders don’t really understand the issue, and they all listen to the lawyers. And the lawyers are all liberal. It is absolutely the problem. The Navy JAGs and the OGC [Navy’s Office of General Counsel] are liberal. It is a tragedy.”
We should have had some inkling of the problem when, in 2001, a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane was brought down and the crew made hostages by the Chinese. The Chinese regime detained the crew for 11 days and the plane for more than three months. The crew was released after a U.S. statement that China interpreted as an apology.
The U.S. military response was to dispatch Admiral William J. Fallon, then-commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, to China to kiss the butts of Chinese officials. According to press reports, he got excited on a 2006 visit because the Chinese allowed him to sit in the cockpit of a Chinese warplane. Fallon, who has since been made the head of U.S. Central Command, said he wanted U.S.-China ties to be more “open and transparent.” This constituted nothing less than groveling to officials of an outlaw regime.
Although the U.S. said the Navy plane was in international airspace, the Chinese charged that the flight was a violation of UNCLOS, which its government had ratified. As one analyst noted, the U.S. and China interpreted the treaty text differently. But because the U.S. had not ratified the treaty, we were free to ignore it, as well as the Chinese interpretation. The U.S. didn’t have to grovel. But we chose to do so.
Meanwhile, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Mullen has just completed his own trip to China and has indicated he would improve ties with China when he takes over as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff next month.
Mullen is said to be the brain behind the 1,000-ship Navy concept. One story notes that Mullen’s concept is “to build on existing international security agreements to extend the global reach of sea power.” That power, he says, includes the ability to “share and unite” nations.
Sounding like a U.N. Secretary-General, rather than a U.S. military leader, Mullen says, “Our vision is to extend the peace through an interconnected community of maritime nations working together.” That includes UNCLOS.
There is one big problem with Mullen’s “vision.” What happens when a country like China violates the treaty? It is clear, based on the EP-3 incident, that the U.S. doesn’t have the political will or military capability to confront China. So what happens when the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea rules for China and against the U.S.? It can only mean further surrender by the U.S. in the face of Chinese military power.
This is just one of several questions that occur to those wondering why the U.S. is so eager to ratify a treaty that most certainly will be interpreted to go against American interests.
If anyone doubts that decisions of the tribunal or its subsidiary panels will go against America, one only has to note that the so-called Group of 77, which includes China, is now the largest intergovernmental organization of developing states in the U.N. Despite its name, it has increased to 130 countries. It not only dominates the U.N., it dominates the membership of UNCLOS.
The handwriting is on the wall. Or, rather, the treaty. The U.S. is walking into a trap. What’s worse, Navy officials should know it.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,693
9,691
848
#2
these treaty's are in effect to protect THEM not us, if some one fires on an american war ship they are in deep deep trouble, we dont use even 1/10 of our weapons.
 
Aug 10, 2007
156
0
0
#3
So do the terrorists take a backseat when the chinks invade? Thats usually how these things work..
 

stillbornstew

blogging loser
Jul 26, 2005
8,834
1
273
NOLA
#4
i can atest to the validity of our surface force declining. a typical warship is manned w/ 300-400 sailor is going to be reduced to a crew of 75-100, whereas everyone does everyones job. the antiquated ships are going to be replaced w/ ships that have more automated sysytems thus reducing the need for a large crew (thats the theory at least). the only problem i see if being able to run effective damage control and maintaining ships operation in the process. if you have 15-20 people (your standard hose team and repairing locker manning), that leaves the other 80 or so to run the rest of the ship. i think it could be a dicey gamble and i'd not want to serve on a ship w/ that little manning. but china's made it perfectly clear that they mean to beef up their military while we continue to downsize ours.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#5
This is why we need to stop invading countries, pull our troops home, and build up a strong defensive force. Not only would we save money, but our military enrollment would definitely go up.

But we're so concerned about fighting terrorists that we forget how fucked we really are. It seems like the current government's plan is going perfectly :(
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,336
37,393
628
In a porn tree
#6
Bigger doesn't mean better... the Rooskies learned this lesson back during the cold war. Even though they had a much bigger navy, they wouldn't have dared fire a shot at a U.S. warship... we would have murdelized them.

Same with the chinks... a navy without carriers and effective submarines is no threat to the U.S. Navy at all... their ships are just a bunch of targets, sitting ducks, no matter how many they have.

Not that we shouldn't keep an eye on what those slippery slopes are up to... we most certainly should, but their navy doesn't pose any threat to us currently, or even in the immediately foreseeable future.
 

sniper2323

The true north Idaho P.O.W.
Aug 3, 2006
809
52
388
Far North Idaho is Home
#7
I would suggest reading a book that has a simular situation take place.

Ghost force by Patrick Robinson.

He is a great author, and in this book it is England, and not the U.S. but I see the same thing happening here.

Just a thought.
 

sniper2323

The true north Idaho P.O.W.
Aug 3, 2006
809
52
388
Far North Idaho is Home
#8
Bigger doesn't mean better... the Rooskies learned this lesson back during the cold war. Even though they had a much bigger navy, they wouldn't have dared fire a shot at a U.S. warship... we would have murdelized them.

Same with the chinks... a navy without carriers and effective submarines is no threat to the U.S. Navy at all... their ships are just a bunch of targets, sitting ducks, no matter how many they have.

Not that we shouldn't keep an eye on what those slippery slopes are up to... we most certainly should, but their navy doesn't pose any threat to us currently, or even in the immediately foreseeable future.
There is a quote that I will always remember.

"Yes, we have quality, but they have quantity, and that has a quality all it's own".

Lets make it simple. You have 10 missles that can hit and destroy what ever they are fired at. But I have 20 ships. Now what are you going to do?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,336
37,393
628
In a porn tree
#9
There is a quote that I will always remember.

"Yes, we have quality, but they have quantity, and that has a quality all it's own".

"Quantity has a quality all its own."


It was Josef Stalin who said that, and that philosophy worked against the Nazis in WWII... just barely, but when the Russians tried to stick with it during the cold war... not so much.


Lets make it simple. You have 10 missles that can hit and destroy what ever they are fired at. But I have 20 ships. Now what are you going to do?
Take on an additional 100 missiles. It's not like there's a shortage.

The rope-a-dope strategy doesn't work in modern warfare.

We're talking a 1:100, or even higher, kill/loss ratio for any nation foolish enough to tangle with U.S. carriers and submarines with a non-carrier based surface fleet. It'd be like Ron and Fezzie's hypothetical, "How many second graders could you take?" The answer being... "How many you got?"
 

sniper2323

The true north Idaho P.O.W.
Aug 3, 2006
809
52
388
Far North Idaho is Home
#11
"Quantity has a quality all its own."

It was Josef Stalin who said that, and that philosophy worked against the Nazis in WWII... just barely, but when the Russians tried to stick with it during the cold war... not so much.




Take on an additional 100 missiles. It's not like there's a shortage.

The rope-a-dope strategy doesn't work in modern warfare.

We're talking a 1:100, or even higher, kill/loss ratio for any nation foolish enough to tangle with U.S. carriers and submarines with a non-carrier based surface fleet. It'd be like Ron and Fezzie's hypothetical, "How many second graders could you take?" The answer being... "How many you got?"
Ok, true. Now lets use that same logic.

China population, est as of July, 1,321,851,888 people (all)
U.S. Population, est as of July, 301,139,947 people (all)

So they have 4:1, now we are not even looking at anyone who joins the battle. Now granted, both sides have alot of allies, but with the whole world going, "NO MORE WAR!" and wanting everyone recalled to thier own nation, which sounds great, it doesn't work. What happeneds if one of our allies are attacked. Do we look the other way? Get the oh so effective U.N. to put sanctions on them? Wouldn't work very well concidering The Security Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.

If only we could solve all the worlds problems on Wackbag..

Really, I do enjoy the debates.
 

Treat_Yourself

Registered User
Nov 17, 2006
548
0
0
#12
Ok, true. Now lets use that same logic.

China population, est as of July, 1,321,851,888 people (all)
U.S. Population, est as of July, 301,139,947 people (all)

So they have 4:1, now we are not even looking at anyone who joins the battle. Now granted, both sides have alot of allies, but with the whole world going, "NO MORE WAR!" and wanting everyone recalled to thier own nation, which sounds great, it doesn't work. What happeneds if one of our allies are attacked. Do we look the other way? Get the oh so effective U.N. to put sanctions on them? Wouldn't work very well concidering The Security Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.

If only we could solve all the worlds problems on Wackbag..

Really, I do enjoy the debates.
The number of citizens makes no difference. The US military is pretty good at wiping out other conventional military forces even when outnumbered. After all, it was built to take on the Soviets, who had more tanks, planes and troops than us all through the cold war. And let's be realistic. If a war broke out between China and the US and either group put troops on the other's land it would go nuclear immediately.
 

sniper2323

The true north Idaho P.O.W.
Aug 3, 2006
809
52
388
Far North Idaho is Home
#13
The number of citizens makes no difference. The US military is pretty good at wiping out other conventional military forces even when outnumbered. After all, it was built to take on the Soviets, who had more tanks, planes and troops than us all through the cold war. And let's be realistic. If a war broke out between China and the US and either group put troops on the other's land it would go nuclear immediately.
Well that is true, but the problem, as I see it, the U.S. has been reducing the military, while China has been increasing.

As for nuclear... I honestly don't know, maybe after time.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,336
37,393
628
In a porn tree
#14
Ok, true. Now lets use that same logic.

China population, est as of July, 1,321,851,888 people (all)
U.S. Population, est as of July, 301,139,947 people (all)

So they have 4:1, now we are not even looking at anyone who joins the battle. Now granted, both sides have alot of allies, but with the whole world going, "NO MORE WAR!" and wanting everyone recalled to thier own nation, which sounds great, it doesn't work. What happeneds if one of our allies are attacked. Do we look the other way? Get the oh so effective U.N. to put sanctions on them? Wouldn't work very well concidering The Security Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.

If only we could solve all the worlds problems on Wackbag..

Really, I do enjoy the debates.
Yeah... because China's huge population proved such a decisive advantage when the tiny island nation of Japan went about kicking 14 shades of shit out of them in WWII.

And just look at what a ferocious resistance those six millions Jews put up against the Nazis... their strategy of clogging up the ovens by lining up and diving in as fast as they could was incredibly effective.
 

Balogny Tits

It's not that were better, were just less worse
May 26, 2005
1,049
2
236
Canada
#15
The US is rushing to ratify this treaty not because of china, but because of Canada, Russia and Greenland. The North will provide a passage across the oceans in the coming years due to global warming. Further, 20% of all energy reserves are in the artic. The US wants to lay claim to the energy and shipping routes, but needs to rely on the treaty to do so.
 

Sprite

permanent case of the Moooondays
Apr 27, 2005
3,834
2
0
Jersey
#16
[Opie]The Chinese are coming![/Opie]
 

stillbornstew

blogging loser
Jul 26, 2005
8,834
1
273
NOLA
#17
what get's me, and maybe sniper can confirm to this, we have RULES when confronting an enemy (unless you are operating in specop warfare). it's telling to see division (grunts, ground pounders) marines being tried for murder when they are operating in a warzone. if our soldiers can't operate w/o scrutiny in combat, what chance do we have in a real confrontation. war is messy and the children doing the job that BMW/MERCEDES driving politicians dictate as necessary yet are so ready to string up is an insult. get the media out of warzone's and let our fighters do their job.
 
Aug 10, 2007
156
0
0
#19
what get's me, and maybe sniper can confirm to this, we have RULES when confronting an enemy (unless you are operating in specop warfare). it's telling to see division (grunts, ground pounders) marines being tried for murder when they are operating in a warzone. if our soldiers can't operate w/o scrutiny in combat, what chance do we have in a real confrontation. war is messy and the children doing the job that BMW/MERCEDES driving politicians dictate as necessary yet are so ready to string up is an insult. get the media out of warzone's and let our fighters do their job.

You're comparing an unnecessary occupation to a country(Iraq) with an all out war with a nation that has nuclear capability and one billion citizens(China). If the US, its Allies and China go to war then we're looking at WW3, not like our current playtime in the sandbox.
 

Glenn Dandy

THE ONLY WHITE PRESIDENT LEFT.
Mar 21, 2005
19,758
35
298
Wackbag Whitehouse.
#20
We have about 20 years before we are diggin ditches for the slopes.... Enjoy yourself while yacan.
 

stillbornstew

blogging loser
Jul 26, 2005
8,834
1
273
NOLA
#22
You're comparing an unnecessary occupation to a country(Iraq) with an all out war with a nation that has nuclear capability and one billion citizens(China). If the US, its Allies and China go to war then we're looking at WW3, not like our current playtime in the sandbox.
no, i touched on china briefly (to say they are beefing up their military). i was merely commenting on what our fighting forces are facing in the middle east...............based on friends that have been there or are in there have experienced.

EDIT: have you ever been shot at or targeted in combat? if not, please refrain from posting.
 
Aug 10, 2007
156
0
0
#23
what get's me, and maybe sniper can confirm to this, we have RULES when confronting an enemy (unless you are operating in specop warfare). it's telling to see division (grunts, ground pounders) marines being tried for murder when they are operating in a warzone. if our soldiers can't operate w/o scrutiny in combat, what chance do we have in a real confrontation. war is messy and the children doing the job that BMW/MERCEDES driving politicians dictate as necessary yet are so ready to string up is an insult. get the media out of warzone's and let our fighters do their job.
no, i touched on china briefly (to say they are beefing up their military). i was merely commenting on what our fighting forces are facing in the middle east...............based on friends that have been there or are in there have experienced.
I understand but people always seem to complain about press scrutiny along with politicizing war. Im just bringing up that I believe a full fledged war, for instance a war with China WW3, would probably allow more leeway with our military. Im comparing that to Iraq an arguably unnecessary unprovoked war, similar to Nam.

A conventional war (WW2/3) is a little different then an occupation with a side of peacekeeping(Nam/Iraq2)
 

stillbornstew

blogging loser
Jul 26, 2005
8,834
1
273
NOLA
#24
A conventional war (WW2/3) is a little different then an occupation with a side of peacekeeping(Nam/Iraq2)
granted, but the similarites of nam and iraq is that we're facing an enemy that hides among it's civilian populace. iraqi's know exactly who and what we are there, we aren't sure who the enemy is. it's doesn't give us the authority to terrorize, **** and pillage at will while we're there. but those serving have had their time extended, and are mentally drained from the combat stress. killing innocent people is hard to justify but in war, and against an enemy that may/may not be you can't condemn our marines/soldiers. my friends have seen children punch in the code on a cell phone to detonate on IED.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#25
The Kitner Boy (among others) is right. The Chinese Navy (or, officially, the People Liberation Army's Navy, I shit you not), is a shitload of cruisers and some shore patrol vessels. They're very much a brown water navy, with minimal force projection in "blue" water.

That means they're something of a threat to South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. If they got really nuts about the Spratley's, they could get ugly with the Phillipines. But they're not going a whole lot outside of their "home" territory.

The Chinese Navy doesn't have aircraft carriers. They don't even have decent helicopters. Translation: no OTH targeting. If their radar mast is 30 feet in the air, that means their effective distance to the horizon is about 6.5 nautical miles. Since a US Navy ship is higher than wave-height, they can spot a USN ship from maybe 10 NM away (and that's a pretty big fudge factor).

At 10 NM, an Arleigh Burke destroyer will have already sunk a dozen surface ships from any Navy stupid enough to be at war with the US. A Zumwalt destroyer will have taken out 2-3 dozen, and don't even get me started on what an aircraft carrier would do.

For the nautically challenged, a destroyer is about as small a ship as the US Navy will put onto the ocean (the Zumwalts are replacing the old FFG frigates, which were smaller, but even an FFG could take out about 8 ChiCom ships out to 100 miles away).

And UCFGavin, if you're already out of college you need to go back to Orlando and demand a return on any tuition you spent in a history class. Isolationalism, or even isolationalism disguised as a citadel "strategy" is the consistently the dumbest fucking choice made by major powers throughout history. You give up the strategic offense, and you give your enemies the power to decide when and how to attack you.

Like it or not, and most American are too damn ignorant to understand it let alone like it, strategic offense/tactical defense is consistently the best disposition of military forces when you decide to fight.

The problem with Americans these days, of course, is that we don't decide to fight. We want our frappachinos without having to worry about that shit.