Chinese Naval Power!

[Typhoon]

. . . Not the other one named 'Foch' after a guy who publicly said in 1914 that aircraft will always be useless toys unsuited for the purpose of war operations...)

Well, that is an amusing way of saying "Foch you" to his pronouncements.

[FG Lurker]

a major world crisis, involving the US and Japan.

Well, that's how we got out of the last worldwide depression...

[Coligny]

Well, that's how we got out of the last worldwide depression...

/eistein

//WWIV

///stick stones

[Russell]

[Kuang_Grade]

Hmmm...
Forced down US surveillance plane after ramming it
Tested crude Anti-Satellite Weapon in space
Making rather outlandish territorial claims on neighbors and backing them up by interfering with other nations activities around said disputed areas.
Chinese flagged fishing vessel ramming a Japanese military ship.
Constant backing for batshit crazy nuke armed ally.
Significant uptick in military spending and offensive capabilities despite no real enemies outside of India, which only poses a small regional threat.
Yep, nothing here that would cause the US or anyone else in Asia to wonder about China's intentions

[Coligny]

It's the same as North Korea, it's just to get some attention... If you really want to attack... you do it... you don't show off making everybody nervous and getting ready...

The more chinese neighbourgs spend on their army the weaker their economy will stay... Unlike wars were you have to constantly buy new gear to use and provide lots of works, in stands of like this you buy once, but have to pay endlessly for training, fuel, personnel and maintenance... For that matter, that second hand russian flat top boat was a real bargain, scaring everyone for the price of a rusty hull...

[matsuki]

Be careful what you wish. If Taiwan needs to fire its missiles at China's carrier, there will be a major world crisis, involving the US and Japan.

I think you give the Chinese too much credit but I don't think there is need for Taiwan as much as they would love to make a statement like that.

[damn name]

Hmmm...
Forced down US surveillance plane after ramming it
Tested crude Anti-Satellite Weapon in space
Making rather outlandish territorial claims on neighbors and backing them up by interfering with other nations activities around said disputed areas.
Chinese flagged fishing vessel ramming a Japanese military ship.
Constant backing for batshit crazy nuke armed ally.
Significant uptick in military spending and offensive capabilities despite no real enemies outside of India, which only poses a small regional threat.
Yep, nothing here that would cause the US or anyone else in Asia to wonder about China's intentions

I would wager that most of the world is more worried about batshit American politicians ginning up another war and boogeyman to "help" their economy.

[matsuki]

[quote="damn name"]I would wager that most of the world is more worried about batshit American politicians ginning up another war and boogeyman to "help" their economy. ]

Hey now hey now, American politicians are no more batshit than other politicians...they just have more boom boom to back up their crazy ideas.

[FG Lurker]

Hey now hey now, American politicians are no more batshit than other politicians...they just have more boom boom to back up their crazy ideas.

Between the tea baggers and the fundies the US has more than their share of crazies.

[Russell]

Hmmm...
Forced down US surveillance plane after ramming it
Tested crude Anti-Satellite Weapon in space
Making rather outlandish territorial claims on neighbors and backing them up by interfering with other nations activities around said disputed areas.
Chinese flagged fishing vessel ramming a Japanese military ship.
Constant backing for batshit crazy nuke armed ally.
Significant uptick in military spending and offensive capabilities despite no real enemies outside of India, which only poses a small regional threat.
Yep, nothing here that would cause the US or anyone else in Asia to wonder about China's intentions

The problem seems to be that China follows America's example. For every incident you mention above, there is one committed by the US that is at least as outrageous. Talking about defense spending, did you know that the US spends more on it than the rest of the world combined? You and I may be comfortable about that, because you and I are supposedly on the "right" side, but how would you feel if you were from a country at the "wrong" side? How do you think China views this huge US defense budget?
Not trying to defend China, but I did notice that its foreign policy has become increasingly assertive over the last decade. That coincides with the openly aggressive foreign policy (shoot first, ask questions later) of the US since G.W. Bush. It may be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.

[Russell]

Hey now hey now, American politicians are no more batshit than other politicians...they just have more boom boom to back up their crazy ideas.

You are just assuming that American politicians are in charge of this policy. Ever heard of the Military Industrial complex?
[YT]8y06NSBBRtY[/YT]

[matsuki]

The problem seems to be that China follows America's example. For every incident you mention above, there is one committed by the US that is at least as outrageous. Talking about defense spending, did you know that the US spends more on it than the rest of the world combined? You and I may be comfortable about that, because you and I are supposedly on the "right" side, but how would you feel if you were from a country at the "wrong" side? How do you think China views this huge US defense budget?
Not trying to defend China, but I did notice that its foreign policy has become increasingly assertive over the last decade. That coincides with the openly aggressive foreign policy (shoot first, ask questions later) of the US since G.W. Bush. It may be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.

You don't need to convince me about US military buildup and aggression, I'm with you on that. My problem with China is that, unlike the U.S., they have some pretty insane territorial claims and seem dead set on destroying some their neighboring cultures.

You are just assuming that American politicians are in charge of this policy. Ever heard of the Military Industrial complex?

Once again, with you on this, was just saying this kind of crap goes on in every country. Look at all the amakudari crap that goes on here under the guise of tradition. You're either in on it or out. Then there's the J-gov with TEPCO right now.

[Coligny]

Once again, with you on this, was just saying this kind of crap goes on in every country. Look at all the amakudari crap that goes on here under the guise of tradition. You're either in on it or out. Then there's the J-gov with TEPCO right now.

Actually... not everybody is doing it at the same scale... Our military industrial complex guy, namely Serge Dassault (family codename from the resistance, original name was 'Bloch'). Couldn't even get himself elected mayor of some lost shithole without getting cought for election fraud (sort of free camemberg with every vote, nobody could resist...)

[matsuki]

Actually... not everybody is doing it at the same scale... Our military industrial complex guy, namely Serge Dassault (family codename from the resistance, original name was 'Bloch'). Couldn't even get himself elected mayor of some lost shithole without getting cought for election fraud (sort of free camemberg with every vote, nobody could resist...)

Yeah, of course there are varying scales of shitty dealings and some are so greedy they are doomed to get caught with their hand in the public cookie jar.

[Kuang_Grade]

The problem seems to be that China follows America's example. For every incident you mention above, there is one committed by the US that is at least as outrageous. Talking about defense spending, did you know that the US spends more on it than the rest of the world combined? You and I may be comfortable about that, because you and I are supposedly on the "right" side, but how would you feel if you were from a country at the "wrong" side? How do you think China views this huge US defense budget?
Not trying to defend China, but I did notice that its foreign policy has become increasingly assertive over the last decade. That coincides with the openly aggressive foreign policy (shoot first, ask questions later) of the US since G.W. Bush. It may be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world spends more combined on military spending than the US...if this pageis to be believed, the US is spending about the same as the next 18 countries on the list of 150 or so nations. And given the US is a bit busy fighting a couple of wars at the moment, a lot of the increased spending in the 2000's hasn't been on new hardware/new platforms unlike the increases in Chinese spending....Actual US offensive capable hardware counts (planes, tanks, nukes, ect) have been going down for the last decade...The count of active US naval ships were going down for most of the 2000's but they have gone up a couple ships over the last few years. And there are those who argue that once you factor in the disparity in cost structures (such as solider pay and cheaper hardware) between the US and China (purchase price parity) as well as China's murky accounting standards, China's military budget is only $150 billion or so off the 'standard' (ie, non-Iraq-Afghanistan spending) US military budget, which would be quite large given that China has no military commitments outside protecting its own borders.

US foreign policy lately hasn't really been all that more active than last 30 years (although the scale of that activity went off the charts with Bush2)....Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 had no problems sending in the troops/bombing the shit out various places/launching cruise missiles when it suited them...and the Chinese can be thankful that 'John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now' and we're not regularly threatening to nuke them on regular basis like we did 60 years ago. Nor has the US been sticking their nose in Asian affairs that much over the last decade, outside of the times when China's vassal state North Korea starts to cause problems and the occasional Aircraft Carrier Battle Group cruise as a reminder to China that the US is still buddies with Taiwan. If China was making nice with their neighbors and increasing their military spending in orderly way, that would be one thing. Going around and all but threatening China's neighbors (and US allies) over territorial claims AND pumping out a lot more ships, that's not going to go over well with either the US or anyone else in Asia, esp the other Asian nations China has attacked over the last 60 years. With China jacking up their capabilities, so is everyone else (well, maybe not Japan since they can't really afford it) in Asia as a direct result. That just increases the probability of conflict and raises the stakes at such time discourteous events should occur.

The thing of it has been the stability that US military domination has brought over the last twenty years that has allowed China to grow from an economic basket case to one of the larger economies in the world....or as one writer at slate.com put it, the US made the world safe for China. To have an export based economy, you have to have safe shipping routes, otherwise shipping capacity can dry up in a matter of hours given that few cargo runs are lucrative enough to replace entire ships. If China actually gets in a navel tussle with Vietnam, Japan, Korea, the Chinese economy is going to tank (if not implode) and that's going the give the PLA's benefactors some serious problems that will likely require significant PLA resources to contain which will likely result in further pull back of foreign demand of Chinese goods. What did last year's China's temper tantrum over rare earth mineral exports result in?....the creation of new competitors and further exploration for non-Chinese dominated supplies.

[Samurai_Jerk]

You and I may be comfortable about that, because you and I are supposedly on the "right" side, but how would you feel if you were from a country at the "wrong" side? How do you think China views this huge US defense budget?

Who gives a fuck? All that matters is that my side wins.

Not trying to defend China, but I did notice that its foreign policy has become increasingly assertive over the last decade. That coincides with the openly aggressive foreign policy (shoot first, ask questions later) of the US since G.W. Bush. It may be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.

I doubt that's the main cause but regardless of the reason, the West needs to knock China's (little Asian) dick in the dust before they actually become a real threat.

[Russell]

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world spends more combined on military spending than the US...if this pageis to be believed, the US is spending about the same as the next 18 countries on the list of 150 or so nations.

The figures quoted in the Wikipedia page above do not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA. Link is here.

This link also contains the following interesting quote:

The US Government Accountability Office was unable to provide an audit opinion on the 2010 financial statements of the US Government because of 'widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations'. The GAO cited as the principal obstacle to its provision of an audit opinion 'serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable'.

In FY 2010 six out of thirty-three DoD reporting entities received unqualified audit opinions.

Chief Financial Officer and Under Secretary of Defense Robert F. Hale acknowledged enterprise-wide problems with systems and processes, while the DoD's Inspector General reported 'material internal control weaknesses ... that affect the safeguarding of assets, proper use of funds, and impair the prevention and identification of fraud, waste, and abuse'. Further management discussion in the FY 2010 DoD Financial Report states 'it is not feasible to deploy a vast number of accountants to manually reconcile our books' and concludes that 'although the financial statements are not auditable for FY 2010, the Department's financial managers are meeting warfighter needs'.

And given the US is a bit busy fighting a couple of wars at the moment, a lot of the increased spending in the 2000's hasn't been on new hardware/new platforms unlike the increases in Chinese spending....Actual US offensive capable hardware counts (planes, tanks, nukes, ect) have been going down for the last decade...The count of active US naval ships were going down for most of the 2000's but they have gone up a couple ships over the last few years.

So, they spend more and get back less for it. Now I understand why the audits of the DoD have been disasters.

And there are those who argue that once you factor in the disparity in cost structures (such as solider pay and cheaper hardware) between the US and China (purchase price parity) as well as China's murky accounting standards, China's military budget is only $150 billion or so off the 'standard' (ie, non-Iraq-Afghanistan spending) US military budget, which would be quite large given that China has no military commitments outside protecting its own borders.

As I stated before, China appears to have the wish to imitate US foreign/ military policy. If that looks threatening to us, what does that tell about US policy? Even with regard to hidden budget items, China appears to have a similar policy as the US's.

US foreign policy lately hasn't really been all that more active than last 30 years (although the scale of that activity went off the charts with Bush2)....Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 had no problems sending in the troops/bombing the shit out various places/launching cruise missiles when it suited them.

Even in the past US foreign policy was quite aggressive (South and Central America, anyone?) With Bush2 this became even more extreme, and (most importantly) more open, in which no explanations/excuses were deemed necessary for any outrageous policy. That openness was actually a kind of a blessing in disguise, since it exposed the underlying foreign policy goals. Undoubtedly, it also did make China reconsider its foreign policy options for the coming decades.

..and the Chinese can be thankful that 'John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now' and we're not regularly threatening to nuke them on regular basis like we did 60 years ago. Nor has the US been sticking their nose in Asian affairs that much over the last decade, outside of the times when China's vassal state North Korea starts to cause problems and the occasional Aircraft Carrier Battle Group cruise as a reminder to China that the US is still buddies with Taiwan.

You did notice that Iraq and Afghanistan are in Asia, did you? The focus of US military strategy is exactly around this area. Afghanistan sits at an important geostrategic location that connects the Middle East with Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. It has borders with China, Iran, Pakistan, and three lesser-known countries (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Iraq is also quite a strategic location, bordering with Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Syria, and Jordan.

If China was making nice with their neighbors and increasing their military spending in orderly way, that would be one thing. Going around and all but threatening China's neighbors (and US allies) over territorial claims AND pumping out a lot more ships, that's not going to go over well with either the US or anyone else in Asia, esp the other Asian nations China has attacked over the last 60 years. With China jacking up their capabilities, so is everyone else (well, maybe not Japan since they can't really afford it) in Asia as a direct result. That just increases the probability of conflict and raises the stakes at such time discourteous events should occur.

Again, I am not trying to defend China, but its foreign and military policy is not irrational, given the current geopolitical situation.

[Kuang_Grade]

The figures quoted in the Wikipedia page above do not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.

Didn't you forget the funding for fluoridation/brainwashing efforts and the secret UN re-education camps patrolled by the black helicopters? Or what about the Pell grants for education for US folks, some of which become scientists, some of whom then work for defense contractors? If your argument is the US spends so much on arms and thus China feels threaten, then costs for US pension plans for military folks and VA hospitals really don't fit that argument and are not relevant...Money spent on artificial limbs for veterans are not force multipliers....Lets just say your initial assertion that the US directly spends more on its military than the rest of the planet combined was wrong and leave it at that...I don't have time to fractionate out the costs the 30 year space shuttle program for the small number of military satellites it has launched...nor would anything but said incremental launch costs of said program been avoid if the military hadn't used the shuttle a couple of times (indeed, while it was initially planed for for quite a bit of military payload use, the military ultimately felt it it was ill suited for most of their needs due to it unreliability/lack of reliable schedules and relatively low orbit)....Feel free to workout the how much EU taxpayer support given EADS for Airbus projects works out to as indirect overhead subsidy for their military products and then try to fractionate that out among the various member countries defense budgets...likewise, feel free to work in how much of the NHS costs in the UK would be counted under the VA in the US if you want an apples to apples comparison. Given that China is communist dictatorship, one can only imagine where they are stuffing their goon squad and Tibet 'counter terrorism' costs in their state budget.

You did notice that Iraq and Afghanistan are in Asia, did you? The focus of US military strategy is exactly around this area. Afghanistan sits at an important geostrategic location that connects the Middle East with Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. It has borders with China, Iran, Pakistan, and three lesser-known countries (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Iraq is also quite a strategic location, bordering with Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Syria, and Jordan.

As you say, those are CENTRAL Asian areas (that's also what the US state department calls them as well)....Maybe it is just my age, but I consider that China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines to be Asia (the State Dept would call them east Asia) and those other areas to be something else....Iran and Iraq are in the middle east. For the most part, the US has not been messing with any vital Chinese interests for quite a while beyond the occasional admonishment that maybe they should let that noble peace prize winner out of jail long enough to collect his prize. If your point is that US is trying to encircle China, well, I guess you missed out on that whole 'containment' strategy from the 50s to about sometime in the 80's...This isn't anything new for China.

Again, I am not trying to defend China, but its foreign and military policy is not irrational, given the current geopolitical situation.

Yeah, nice that you are avoid the whole last bit of my post that points out being increasingly militaristic is likely to disrupt many of their recent gains, which given the nature of their current social contract (make us rich and we'll let you rule your way), isn't likely to be good for their long term stability. Likewise, China claiming that entire South China Sea is theirs all the way down to beyond Bunai isn't rational nor justified by anything the US had done. That would be like the US claiming that half of the North Atlantic was exclusively theirs.

[Russell]

Didn't you forget the funding for fluoridation/brainwashing efforts and the secret UN re-education camps patrolled by the black helicopters? Or what about the Pell grants for education for US folks, some of which become scientists, some of whom then work for defense contractors? If your argument is the US spends so much on arms and thus China feels threaten, then costs for US pension plans for military folks and VA hospitals really don't fit that argument and are not relevant...Money spent on artificial limbs for veterans are not force multipliers....Lets just say your initial assertion that the US directly spends more on its military than the rest of the planet combined was wrong and leave it at that...I don't have time to fractionate out the costs the 30 year space shuttle program for the small number of military satellites it has launched...nor would anything but said incremental launch costs of said program been avoid if the military hadn't used the shuttle a couple of times (indeed, while it was initially planed for for quite a bit of military payload use, the military ultimately felt it it was ill suited for most of their needs due to it unreliability/lack of reliable schedules and relatively low orbit)....Feel free to workout the how much EU taxpayer support given EADS for Airbus projects works out to as indirect overhead subsidy for their military products and then try to fractionate that out among the various member countries defense budgets...likewise, feel free to work in how much of the NHS costs in the UK would be counted under the VA in the US if you want an apples to apples comparison. Given that China is communist dictatorship, one can only imagine where they are stuffing their goon squad and Tibet 'counter terrorism' costs in their state budget.

It is this way of thinking that got the US defense budget bloated in the first place. Of course you have to include costs for veterans etc, because you wouldn't have these costs in the absence of military efforts. Artificial limbs for veterans are not force multipliers, but the need for them is directly derived from fighting a war. Did you know, BTW, that the total costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has been calculated as a couple of trillion US$ if such costs are included. The costs mentioned in my previous post are costs that are usually considered military expenses in other countries.
Regarding your remarks about so-called fluoridation/brainwashing efforts and secret UN re-education camps, I do not know what point you are trying to make, but you wouldn't mind if I ignore this part of your reply, wouldn't you?

As you say, those are CENTRAL Asian areas (that's also what the US state department calls them as well)....Maybe it is just my age, but I consider that China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines to be Asia (the State Dept would call them east Asia) and those other areas to be something else....Iran and Iraq are in the middle east. For the most part, the US has not been messing with any vital Chinese interests for quite a while beyond the occasional admonishment that maybe they should let that noble peace prize winner out of jail long enough to collect his prize. If your point is that US is trying to encircle China, well, I guess you missed out on that whole 'containment' strategy from the 50s to about sometime in the 80's...This isn't anything new for China.

Well, if you refer to Asia, I mean Asia, and that includes Afghanistan and the middle east. Since both the US and China have a major interest in these areas, that is a potential source of conflict.

Yeah, nice that you are avoid the whole last bit of my post that points out being increasingly militaristic is likely to disrupt many of their recent gains, which given the nature of their current social contract (make us rich and we'll let you rule your way), isn't likely to be good for their long term stability. Likewise, China claiming that entire South China Sea is theirs all the way down to beyond Bunai isn't rational nor justified by anything the US had done. That would be like the US claiming that half of the North Atlantic was exclusively theirs.

I did not quote that last part, because it came across as a collection of sentences without much consistency. Your point seemed to be that China could only develop because of the benevolent efforts of the US. It is difficult to see, however, how a different scenario would have played out if the US would not have been the self-appointed policeman of the world. I think the main reason China could develop so rapidly is that many countries opened their markets for them. Why did they do that? Because of profits. It may have been a short-sighted policy to do that, but there also could have been the expectation that China's political system would change once they got a taste of capitalism. I think that even if China drops communism (or whatever they call their current undemocratic political system), they will still be increasingly assertive in the future. That will not play well with the US, which has got accustomed to its role as the sole power in the world.

Finally, I agree with you that China's claims in the South-China sea at the cost of countries like Vietnam and the Philippines are ridiculous. Again, I am not trying to defend China. The point I am trying to make is that a "kick-their-ass" attitude will not be effective in containing China. The US accepting a smaller role in future world affairs may be part of the solution.

[Kuang_Grade]

It is this way of thinking that got the US defense budget bloated in the first place. Of course you have to include costs for veterans etc, because you wouldn't have these costs in the absence of military efforts. Artificial limbs for veterans are not force multipliers, but the need for them is directly derived from fighting a war. Did you know, BTW, that the total costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has been calculated as a couple of trillion US$ if such costs are included. The costs mentioned in my previous post are costs that are usually considered military expenses in other countries.

Your argument was the US military was upping their spending/spending so much that China needs to somehow up their military as defensive measure and then it shifts to, 'golly, the US government doesn't do good cost accounting', which isn't remotely relevant. The fact that some spending isn't immediately accounted for (such as life long VA benefits) and some small amounts are shifted over to the DOE and the like isn't relevant either because this is nothing new. Yes, the US spends a lot on the military, but as of late a very large chunk of that has been going down various rat holes in the middle east. It is not like the increase spending is for another carrier task force that is going to be stationed on China's doorstep. If anything, the US is a weaker military position in regards to China now than it was a decade ago

The Chinese are upping their forces because they can now afford to do so, not because of any US has done anything to China recently. Nor am I arguing that China should be standing still...as China's becomes more dependent on imports, they have their own supply lines to worry about, but then again investing in lots of attack submarines isn't a great way to accomplish that goal (although extremely handy to fuck up other countries shipping) vs. investing, in say, destroyers and cruisers.

Regarding your remarks about so-called fluoridation/brainwashing efforts and secret UN re-education camps, I do not know what point you are trying to make, but you wouldn't mind if I ignore this part of your reply, wouldn't you?

You need to get out more.
[yt]Qr2bSL5VQgM[/yt]

Your point seemed to be that China could only develop because of the benevolent efforts of the US. It is difficult to see, however, how a different scenario would have played out if the US would not have been the self-appointed policeman of the world.

Well, if that wasn't the case, I'm fairly confident Russia and China would have gone to war at some stage, quite likely nuking each other in the process. And that would have likely been not so great for China's future business growth potential, don't you think?

The Sino-Soviet split aside, markets only grown steadily when there is stability. Like it or not, the US has provided that stability in East Asia. As it is, China still effectively runs 2 minute hate sessions against Japan when it suits them (you can expect to hear more along these with the 80th anniversary of the invasion of Manchuria comes up next month). If you didn't have the US backing up Japan, you'd have a re-armed Japan, which would go over very poorly in China and South Korea (who also doesn't great big warm fuzzies for China either)...Ultimately, you'd have a lot more diplomatic problems and probably military skirmishes and shit ton less trade coming out everyone (not unlike the way Brazil, Chile and Argentina used to be when they were all military dictatorships and deeply distrustful of one another). That's not a good business environment nor does that sort of situation prompt much foreign investment, esp in countries that have historically outlawed the private ownership of the means of production...without foreign investment, China would be still stuck in the 1970's economically.

[Mike Oxlong]

Commercial US satellite snaps photo of China's 1st aircraft carrier at sea

A commercial U.S. satellite company said it has captured a photo of China's first aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea off the Chinese coast.

DigitalGlobe Inc. said Wednesday one of its satellites photographed the carrier Dec. 8. A DigitalGlobe analyst found the image Tuesday while searching through photos.

Stephen Wood, director of DigitalGlobe's analysis centre, said he's confident the ship is the Chinese carrier because of the location and date of the photo. The carrier was on a sea trial at the time.

DigitalGlobe, based in Longmont, Colorado, sells satellite imagery and analysis to clients that include the U.S. military, emergency response agencies and private companies. DigitalGlobe has three orbiting satellites and a fourth is under construction.

The aircraft carrier has generated intense international interest because of what it might portend about China's intentions as a military power...

[matsuki]

Surprised it hasn't sunk or been taken apart to copy yet.

[Coligny]

Surprised it hasn't sunk or been taken apart to copy yet.

Is it still the second hand Russian leftover ?

[Doctor Stop]

Surprised it hasn't sunk or been taken apart to copy yet.

Especially considering it's a junk.

[Russell]

I like their second Aircraft Carrier even less.



Imagine having to stay in that rat hole...

[Coligny]

I like their second Aircraft Carrier even less.
Imagine having to stay in that rat hole...

Dooooooodddd...

That stuff is awesome, the best kick ass James Bond Villain sea base...

With chinese seks slaves...