From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: Chinese Carrier Sunk
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:06:20 GMT

In article <92Aug11.111345edt.147@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>In article <NIGEL.92Aug11101611@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov> nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.111702.12094@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY) writes:
>>
>Firstable, I really doubt the US will sit idol while China goes shopping
>in the ex-USSR, some muscle twisting against the "republics"  will stop
>the carrier deal dead in the track.
>
Hard currency speaks volumes. Unless the US is willing to match China's
offer or better it, the CIS will make the deal. We actually have very little muscle that we are willing to use against any of the republics.
>
>>[Chinese carrier sunk...film at 11 deleted]
>>
>>>At whoever suits their situation best. Remember the Maine. Besides the number
>>>of subs in that area can probably be accounted for rather easily.
>>
>>Well...we had a Navy other than one BB.  Sink the carrier and you've
>>gutted the offensive power of the PLAN.  They can't very well attack
>>Taiwan, Japan or the Phillipines (assuming they've spent all their
>>Naval money on outfitting 3 CVs) without amphib capability.  Attacking
>>Vietnam is an iffy proposition.  India and China hardly need a real
>>excuse with the convenient border dispute.  Attacking the CIS would be
>>idiotic and the US even worse.  Besides...they hardly need an excuse
>>anyway...after TAM world opinion is obviously not a major
>>consideration and they certainly do not need to worry about
>>re-election problems...
>>
I do not forsee China doing any muscle flexing until such time as it can field
more than just one carrier for very much the same reasons that you have given.
A look at there overall economic strategy now shows that the PRC will experience a good deal of the growth over the next few years as its exports increase.
This will allow the military a growth rate of around 4-5% per year over the
next few decades (a guess I admit but not an unreasonable one) This is nearly
the same amount of growth the US had in the eighties. (7% per year for 6 years).This should bring them up to, at least, a full 2 carrier group (1 CV, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, large number of smaller PT type boats). It would be interesting
to see whether or not they try to purchase any Udaloy or Sovremenny class ships.They could probably get some Kilden class ships at bargain basement prices.

>India and China is too far away for a sea-battle for their respective
>naval forces.

You're never to far away.

  At best some land-crashes, but in recently years 
>they started to sit down & talk.  Besides, India has the Pakis to
>worry about, both China & India don't have the stomach for anything
>big.  As for Taiwan, Japan, they and the Chinese communist Cadres
>are happy business partners now, all they think of is how to make
>money, not war.

True. That plays more for China than the other 2. This is more for the
Vietnamese and others in the region. (the weakest is the Philipines).
  
>>As for the number of subs...how do you account for ships that are by
>>nature rather stealthy?  Anyone who is sufficiently annoyed at the PRC
>>could send a sub there and no one would really know the difference...
>>heck the CIS may simply be drumming up another billion rubles worth of
>>business ;-)

Well, Cameras work pretty good for knowing when subs leave port. The Vietnamese,however, have 2 submarine docks at Can Ranh Bay that can be entered by a
submerged submarine. In any case, the number of subs in the world is rather
finite. I credit the chinese with enough intellegence that they will give
the carriers some ASW coverage.

I don't have my subscription to Jane's Defence any more so I am out of touch
with their satellite capabilities.

>Who wants to annoy PRC other than the Russians and the US?  What's
>in it for them?  Even Vietnam has been very quiet and normalize ties 
>with PRC.  A billion rubles doesn't mean much these days, and I doubt
>Vietnam has the money.   
>>
Vietnam is no longer on good terms with the CIS or the US. The point here
is that no one wants to annoy the chinese to any large extent at all. No
one. It (pardon the line) wouln't be prudent. Over the next few years, China
can extend this cushion outward through a combination of economic and 
military posturings. At no point do I believe that they will militarily
attack anyone in the next few decades. They will however become much more
vocal in the region and much less isolationist. They have a very real
chance of becoming the linchpin of Asia, even more so than Japan.

>>>Charles Buckley
>>
>>Nigel
>>--
>>Nigel Tzeng
>>.sig under construction
>
>Y. Liu 
>
Charles Buckley