Re: Chinese Carriers Again

PaPaPeng wrote:


After reading China navy floats three-carrier plan on January 8 by
Russell Hsiao, the inquisitive may ask why China needs aircraft
carriers. Clearly, any large warships will be sitting ducks from
missile attacks in a large scale conflict across the Taiwan Strait.
Taiwan is well within range of any aircraft from the eastern part of
the Chinese mainland, which indeed is the unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Similarly, a hypothetical comprehensive blockade of Taiwan will not
call for aircraft carriers. Unlike the policeman of the world, the US,
China does not need to ferry aircraft to distant places. So are
aircraft carriers vainglorious white elephants for China? Perhaps not.
It seems that the critical function of aircraft carriers will be to
escort oil tankers on their routes to and from China. Like the US,
China takes it energy supply extremely seriously. It will not merely
accept the open market for energy but aims for strong influence at
multiple sources. This is certainly a basic economic interest. Being
hounded at from multiple fronts (justly and otherwise), China
naturally feels insecure about its energy supply and will do its
utmost to secure it. Moreover, Beijing likely realizes that, after
another couple of decades of accumulating greater comprehensive
advantages over Taiwan, harassing the island's energy supply, with
gradually increasing intensity as necessary but always with little
actual force, is a natural part of patient peaceful coercion. For each
decade that the sovereignty issue remains unsettled, with uncertainty
particularly on energy supply, Taiwan's economy will increasingly
suffer markedly. Hence, Beijing plans to bolster protection of its oil
supply with aircraft carriers. I think that this is merely an
insurance policy, as beginning circa 2030, Washington would likely
decline to thwart Beijing's design of peaceful coercion on Taiwan.
First, Washington will be concerned about the eventual, even distant,
mainland Chinese alternative to peaceful coercion if it fails. How
much longer will the Taiwan predicament have to last, with the whole
world waiting in suspense? Contrary to some suggestions, Taiwan does
not have any net significant strategic interest to the US, only
increasing liability. Second, Taiwan becoming another Hong Kong
(likely with the right to bear some agreed-on arms) serves American
interests quite well. Under this arrangement, Taiwan, much like Hong
Kong, will have the greatest positive impact on all of China. Third,
such an arrangement would likely be the best that Taiwan will ever
get; thus honor to an old ally will be accounted for. Fourth, the
auspicious circumstances in East Asia, with cordiality between China
and Japan, unlike in the Middle East and without the religious and
ideological mental traps, will guide the US toward the best policy.
Observe that the US's China policy has been remarkably consistent for
three decades. Fifth, the process of peaceful coercion is too mild and
lackluster to create lasting newsworthiness in the rating-obsessed
American media. The mainland Chinese leadership seems to understand
the US and the Chinese advantage, as preliminary talks on US-China
cooperation on strategic petroleum reserves have started. Thus, all
and all, the mainland side can afford to appear magnanimous and to
demonstrate forbearance because it has the final ace of all trump
cards, that it can use in rather mild manner. As suggested by Seung Li
(Letters Jan 7), the mainland strategy versus Taiwan better contains
both sticks and carrots, not just for putting Taiwan on ice, but for
actual social integration after many decades. It does, irrespective of
what the current Taiwan president gestures or declares.
Jeff Church
USA (Jan 9, '08) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Letters.html

Those Chinese carriers would be sitting ducks to any submarines lying in wait along the chokepoints such as the Straits of Malacca. To defend the carriers, the Chinese are going to have to expend much more money on escorts and updating weapons/sensors that can actually engage subs.

Dean
.