Of course you can't be a real superpower without a powerful military. For example China has started building aircraft carriers, which Khruschov called the instruments of imperialist aggression.
It is obvious that China is rapidly investing in its military power-projection capabilities in order to protect and enforce its interests in her "neighbourhood" and further on.
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21 Party Bureaucrat
The USSR invested in its submarines rather than in aircraft carriers. Russian submariners can still stand 6 months under the sea.
![]() "Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred "Loz, you are like me" Yami "I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 3872
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo
And the modified Varyag that China has as an aircraft carrier, is pretty light. It's basically a cruiser that carries some planes. Not remotly comparable to the american carriers.
It's mostly to defend the China sea, with all the problems they have there, rather than to project power. Che Burashka wrote: America used to be like that. We had a large navy that couldn't possibly match britain's but worked well securing our immediate influence, but was still formidable and able to grow into a superpower's navy. ![]() Quote: That's why the Soviets classified it as a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser" - тяжелый авианесущий крейсер. Quote: Of course the Varyag was bought for training and research-development purposes, to help with indigenous designs. But China is already building two new carriers.
Soviet cogitations: 3872
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo Conscript wrote: So? China should just let Japan and the USA control the China sea, because otherwise in 20, 50 or 100 years China might become imperialist? Sometimes it seems people just want China to be as bas as the USA or the UK...
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21 Party Bureaucrat
Also, the fact that you have the force to "project power" doesn't mean that you will do it. The possibility to attack is also part of deterrence, just as preemptive strikes are part of war strategy.
![]() "Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred "Loz, you are like me" Yami "I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
But isn't that the whole point of carrier fleets? With carriers you can bully small nations into submision without even firing a gun. The Chinese carriers are most likely not being made to counter the American ones, but first of all to help guard China's interests and project power in her neighbourhood and perhaps beyond it.
China, just by having these two carriers, is already projecting power. Quote:
Soviet cogitations: 3872
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo
They might use it to project their power, they might not. They're getting the hardware to do so if they choose to do it, but then it's a political decision.
The USSR had many ways to project their power, yet many agree they weren't imperialists. And carriers not always can bully a small nation. When we held the Summit of the Americas in 2005, Bush came to Mar del Plata in an aircraft carrier. Still, Kirchner, Lula and Chavez told Bush we were burying the FTAA for good. Threats are only as good as your will to fulfil them. Quote: And that is already an "argument" against Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippnes and so on. Quote: Well Serbia didn't back down in 1999 until half of its infrastructure got bombed. Point is, carriers are weapons of power projection and with carriers China has leverage over its neighbours. Besides, China has already proven that it is more than willing to fulfill her threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_So ... f_Skirmish
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17 Ideology: Other Forum Commissar
What evidence is there that China has no interest in projecting force abroad? At the very least in Asia?
Quote: Source: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/war/military/120109/musharraf-china-military-pakistan-bases-wen-jibao So where is the evidence that China is not seeking to expand its strategic position? Maybe this is only a defensive measure to secure their position.
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21 Party Bureaucrat
China has already a base in Pakistan and next to Inda. These bases are useful to resupply their ship going through Suez, and to protect them from piracy which is very active on the eastern African coast. India is a danger for China. In 2020, they plan to have 4 aircraft carriers.
![]() "Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred "Loz, you are like me" Yami "I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo Political Interest wrote: The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. The correct question to ask is, what evidence is there to show China has any interest in projecting force abroad? The correct answer is quite little - only what is necessary to defend itself from U.S./Japanese and Indian imperialism and to deal with any future conflict with Taiwan. Power projection capabilities do not equate to imperialism. It's as simple as that. If it did, The USSR and even Cuba before the end of the cold war would have been imperialist, which is obviously not true to everybody except the most crazy Maoists and Hoxhaists out there. The Trotskyist page Loz linked to is very wide of the mark. Anyone who's spent any amount of time researching the Chinese military and speculations on future trends knows that China's main and most immediate goal is to develop area denial capabilities. In other words, China wishes to have the ability to prevent an aggressor from projecting its' military assets within reach of striking China or any area it wishes to defend, such as holding Taiwan in the event of a war with the U.S. for example. The power projection capabilities being developed are an extension of this overall defensive philosophy. As OP correctly said, the Chinese have an interest in protecting shipping lanes which bring vital imports into China. The development of an aircraft carrier is really only a message to the world intended to say "China is an advanced nation capable of defending itself. Don't mess with us". All imperialist nations have power projection capabilities to some degree, but it is a fallacy to say all nations with power projection capabilities are imperialist. Che wrote: Yep. China's development doesn't fit into a classical Marxist analysis. Certain people can't seem to understand that when a model no longer fits with observations of reality, the model needs to be adapted or replaced with one which is consistent with observation. They desperately try to explain reality in a way which fits in with their model instead of the other way around. It's like how creationists try to explain scientific evidence in a way which supports their religious ideology instead of accepting that the evidence better supports a theory of evolution based on natural selection with the Earth being billions on years old. It's completely the wrong way to go about it. Quote: It's really funny how you claim that China isn't an imperialist country and then bring up the dreaded Indian imperialism. Quote: Oh boy, looks like we got a serious new theoretical development right there! Now would you kindly explain to us, for start, what exactly is this "model of a classical Marxist analysis" (?) you talk about and secondly, how and in what way does China's development not fit into it. Quote: What model? Since when do Marxists speak of some "models" of analyses?
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo Loz wrote: India is presently a client of U.S./Western imperialism. But if you want to talk about a nation which has a real chance of becoming imperialist in its own right, India is it. Scientists talk about models. Last time I checked, Marxism considers itself a scientific ideology. Quote: Why, and why does China not "have a real chance of becoming imperialist in its own right" ? Quote: I've never heard anyone talk about "Marxist models" of this and that, i've heard of for example the Marxist method and so on. Maybe i just misunderstood you or maybe i'm not informed enough. Anyway, answer the main point, how and in what way does China's development not fit into this "classical model of Marxist analyses" you speak of? |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||