China ?

[+OverSword]

So does that mean that David "Cameron"'s mega-carrier project means that he has ambitions for global domination?

NO, it means he's getting ready to defend his country in what he knows is not going to be some touchy feely peaceful world of the future. Pobably he is more informed and has a better idea of this than we pleebs do.

[skookum]

The scary thought of another cold war looms. Not now but in the next ten years I think it will heat up.

The difference is that unlike Russia who simply ran out of money China has most of the worlds money. I think our children will grow up in a world with even more tension than ours.

I have nothing against Chinese people, however I find it uneasy that a country with appalling human rights to it's own people could dominate and carry on it further than its own borders.

[Space Commander Travis]

NO, it means he's getting ready to defend his country in what he knows is not going to be some touchy feely peaceful world of the future. Pobably he is more informed and has a better idea of this than we pleebs do.

is that David Cameron we're talking about here?

[+OverSword]

is that David Cameron we're talking about here?

Good come back.

[SHaYap]

the fear mongering market just went bullish ... what a way to start a new year .... in the same old persistent mind ruts

[stevewinn]

So does that mean that David "Cameron"'s mega-carrier project means that he has ambitions for global domination?

in a word No, way back in 1997 under the labour government under a major strategic defence review was when these two carriers were first proposed. it wasn't until 2007 after much delay by the government when the decision was made to proceed with the carrier program. when in 2010 under a defence review the decision was made to decommission fixed wing aircraft on HMS Illustrious leaving us without a true carrier and strike capability until 2020 - the error of this judgment by the politicians was laid bare for all to see when the Libya conflict kicked off. we had to use land bases in allied countries this meant we had to fly spares and munitions from the UK to these operating bases ( were you have to pay leasing fees and transiting airspace fees' having a supply line stretching all the way back home. embarrassing, but because of our NATO and UN commitments we continued. this resulted in us delivering less than half of what the USA did, but we were paying a higher price than anyone else all this extra cost was due to us not having carriers. using land bases and a massive supply line.

So its clear, if you want to protect British interests and future prosperity around the globe you need to be able to project force this is the key to remaining a great power. our new carriers cost 3billion each included in that cost is research and development. they'll cost £70 million a year to put to sea. in 2015 another defence review will be taken to see if its viable to put both to sea at the same time or one might be mothballed but still giving us a 365 day a year capability, one at sea while the other is in refit or readiness if the need arises. - personally, i'd like to see the two of them put to sea. £140 million is a drop in the ocean. we've just spent vast amounts of money on two land wars with little in return in prosperity, national interest or standing in the world, anyway we are now going to see a shift in real terms back to the Navy because if the truth is known the government as neglected the Navy so much so we have manning problems and ships put to sea with shortages, we have a £1billion destroyer being deployed on anti piracy. when such a major ship should not be doing this type of work. we cannot fulfill our commitments around the world if we reduce the Navy in the coming 2015 defence review. the Royal Navy right now and throughout 2014 is in charge of NATO's maritime assets. under our command is 350 ships and 80,000 personnel.

What was contributed and what the cost - compare the assets deployed and the money spent. especially between the UK and France. very similar until you look at the price.

Edited December 31, 2013 by stevewinn

[spud the mackem]

In Birmingham England the Indians have a Curry take-away shop on every street corner, to stop Chinese Curry shop domination,so we have nothing to fear.

[andy4]

I wonder how we'll all feel when china sends a new carrier group heading towards the USA. Then we will all find out why they don't like it when we do it to them.

I don't think they will go to war, but I do believe they want us out of their hair. They don't want us messing around near japan, because they feel as if it's just between them and japan, and we should go away. We probably should as it would save us a lot of money, and in the future, lives. Going to war with china would be near impossible to us if we would butt out, but we are bound in Asia to other countries. I mean, they can't bring 50,000,000 troops over in boats.

And so they chose to get revenge through the back door, economically.

I personally think they will go to war, eventually. But the USA will have to somehow no longer be involved, and until then, we are safe.

Edited January 1, 2014 by andy4

[Frank Merton]

Don't be silly; if China does anything whatsoever in any way hostile to the Japanese, the Americans will instantly and totally be in it up to their armpits.

[SHaYap]

I wouldn't be so sure Frank ... if the Politburo throws something immensely tempting on the table ... along with the Soviets giving a little for a little take ... US might just be sitting on the hands for a while ... till popular opinion and media pressure gathers enough of a fecal storm to make the Congress drag the feet a little more ...quicker

[Peter B]

Has China ever started a conflict ?.They are the guys who sit behind the scenes and supply the equipment.They were dragged into the Korean War because Nth Korea was losing and had to have back up,but they (the Chinese) didn't start it.

Yes. The Sino-Indian war of 1962, skirmishes with Soviet forces in 1968 and the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979, followed by another decade of skirmishes with the Vietnamese.

[SHaYap]

Yes. The Sino-Indian war of 1962, skirmishes with Soviet forces in 1968 and the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979, followed by another decade of skirmishes with the Vietnamese.

Isn't this a case of who who want to believe ?

Six of one and half dozen of another seems to me ...

~

Reason China don't start conflicts is because there's nothing in it for them in fact it just makes matter complicated for practical trade/merchant leaning interests ... everything the world wants has always been centered on the middle kingdom since the trade routes of the Silk Road ... and very little that China wants is monopolized by any singular market player ... diplomacy was always the first initiated mode of solutions in terms of practicality ...

But in coveting what China provides the world ... the World has always been trying all sort of tactics to slice a piece of China for themselves ... The Mongols and Manchus succeeded because it was the lesser of two evils for the merchants tired of conflicts when compared with the Despotic Emperor and corrupt court aristocrats of the day ... as long as its business as usual ...

The Spice route along South China Sea was innocently free from conflicts and trade was top for the longest time ... till the first 'Discoverers' of the WOrld came along that is .... The Portuguese ~ SPanish ~ Dutch ~ Britannia ~ things just went down hill for the East from then on ... still is to many ... though some things did change for the better, it took a drastic change of attitude to change the fortunes of all involved ... though some do believe the fortunes of many Western Estates is from looting the 'East' for hundreds of years under the guise of a bringing a better standard of 'life' ~ to save 'souls'

~lucky we kept our souls to ourselves ... most of us anyways ...

~

~

[Frank Merton]

I wouldn't be so sure Frank ... if the Politburo throws something immensely tempting on the table ... along with the Soviets giving a little for a little take ... US might just be sitting on the hands for a while ... till popular opinion and media pressure gathers enough of a fecal storm to make the Congress drag the feet a little more ...quicker

I can't imagine anything they might offer that would wean the States from Japan. There are three countries in the world the States sees as essential to American vital interests, Japan, Canada and Britain.

[SHaYap]

I can't imagine anything they might offer that would wean the States from Japan. There are three countries in the world the States sees as essential to American vital interests, Japan, Canada and Britain.

Maybe that's why some in Canada is muttering Viva Le France, some in BRitain is screamin' ruddy b******s and some in Japan is politely whispering NO more Yanks ?

~

[Frank Merton]

I think the American treatment of its three closest allies has been fairly smart and has raised the sorts of protest you mention only in a minority of people, much the same types as behave that way in the States itself.

[SHaYap]

Well you know how politcos scratches each others back Frank ... same old same new ...

[Frank Merton]

I sometimes wonder what might happen if Quebec got serious about separating itself from Canada. It's hard to see how the US could tolerate that, but what could they do?

[Space Commander Travis]

I think the American treatment of its three closest allies has been fairly smart and has raised the sorts of protest you mention only in a minority of people, much the same types as behave that way in the States itself.

Well, since Tony Blair's adventures doing whatever America wants, Mr. David Cameron couldn't even get enough of his loyal party apparatchiks to support following America in another military adventure, as you may remember, so I'm rather afraid that the combined forces of Bush and Blair have rather tested that loyalty beyond breaking point.

[Mr.United_Nations]

The real question is, how will China's neighbors will respond?

[Frank Merton]

Well, since Tony Blair's adventures doing whatever America wants, Mr. David Cameron couldn't even get enough of his loyal party apparatchiks to support following America in another military adventure, as you may remember, so I'm rather afraid that the combined forces of Bush and Blair have rather tested that loyalty beyond breaking point.

Short term and trivial divisions. The States would defend Britain if there were real difficulties, and probably the other way round. Geography and culture and history.

[Frank Merton]

The real question is, how will China's neighbors will respond?

Respond to what? A Chinese attack on a few unimportant islands -- they will tut and sit on their hands, and begin building their army. I suspect even the States would refrain from anything more than sending more -- lots more troops -- troops to Okinawa, but now with Japanese welcome. That the Chinese would do so to gain so little and lose so much would be beyond my understand.

[Just Dave]

Very interesting opinions but for my mind very old school...

We live in modern times maybe you folks are unaware but there already are wars... Cyber wars with many countries involved.

Soon this will not be about money, economics, resourses... based on human nature it will be for power. Yes they do control pretty much everything in trades, but when one becomes too powerfull he might loose it... examples were all other wars, some were fought from pure non/sense.

Even the article ( again i dont like the website at all ) gave an insight that Chinese are more and more worried about military build up right there in their backyard.

Again there is human nature... they will break under pressure.. if pushed to that point, which US is doing covertly.

How does that saying goes ~ Dont be affraid of the dog that barks, be affraid of that one who is silent.~.

Anyway i just wanted to see what people think. No war has ever started with direct attack or declaration of war... Always via some conspiracy which led others to war by choosing sides.

Oh and i Wish all of you good people of UM much love, health and prosperity in 2014!

[coolguy]

China won't start no war.they mind there own bees wax.they don't want to bud in to the worlds problems.

America needs to start doing this.why do we have to police the world its a shame America does this

[Orcseeker]

Contentment of the populace isn't exactly high due to living conditions. They've got enough problems of their own, although that hasn't stopped countries like the US. I just don't see this happening.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Orcseeker

[TheSpoon]

China owns 8% of our debt, our own government owns about 32% while individual investors, corporations and other foreign governments own about 60%. China would not be in a good situation if they provoked the u.s.a now. Kinda stupid this is even being discussed, I find it infuriating that we as a species are even contemplating war, something nowadays that brings the automatic rifle's intentions to a unfathomable level. Combine the fact we are in a phase of de-evolution, I have no hope.