US should destroy Chinese Navy Now!!!

I don't think even the folks in Dumbf**kistan think that's a good idea. I literally face palmed to this OP.

 

The thing increasingly present in this thread is rudeness. Can we just have a discussion, even a robust debate?

You guys might think the idea is silly but the Pentagon considers all issues and options. Is it just possible they are on the same page as my thoughts?

 

Sure. I think attacking a nuclear nation out of irrational fear about their military growing or strengthening is dangerous and would lead to a significantly worse situation for many nations. China is super important for other matters, such as trade, funding part of our debt, manufacturing, etc. It would be a lose-lose.

 

Don't get too high and mighty, the US doesn't exactly have a great history of respecting the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors either. Look into how Roosevelt got the Panama canal for instance. Or the Roosevelt Corollary generally.

There's no reason why the US and China have to conflict. Unless you go around declaring "preventive" (ie: offensive) war.

 

How in anyway is this a Liberal idea...nice try.

16 post's from you so far...It would be easy to claim this is a Trump supported stance...But even JakeJ denounced you...so I'm going with troll.

Edit: But...with Trumps election now made possible...it would only take a site like Breitbart to suggest this BS, then bam..It may be in the realm of possibility, and all opposition would be labeled fake news.
This is what America has sunk to.

 

I'll accept that as good reasons not to attack China's naval fleets. Thankyou.

Now, what will the world do about nations overthrowing other countries or creeping with territory.?

Kuwait ...the US didnt tolerate it. Britain didnt tolerate the Falklands. If these sorts of actions are now ok then you'll allow a forein nation to take Hawaii?

 

It wouldn't even take that. Just two to three well-placed 400 kt warheads detonated 85 miles above the Earth's surface would generate an electromagnetic pulse, sending the US back into the Stone Age.

 

China has road-mobile ICBMs, that would not be destroyed in such an attack.

How about the 37 dead crewmen on the USS Stark?

 

I remember the Republican Guard. I also remember getting images from US surveillance satellites parked over Iraq.

It's real easy to defeat an enemy that doesn't know where you are.

 

Road mobile missiles can be detected by satellites or aerial recon.

The U.S.S. Stark survived the attack on it. And when it was attacked none of its defenses were active.

 

EMP damage from only a handful of nuclear warheads is likely way overstated.

 

Nonsense! Wars destroy presidencies.

China is in a demographic death spiral. Their birth rates are well below replacement and their population will soon be aged as well as declining. Over 200 million Chinese people over 60 now. That will increase to 300 million by 2030, and perhaps as many as 480 million by 2050. That's a LOT of old people for a nation bent on expansion, and China has never been a particularly expansionist culture.

China will see a decline in the working and fighting age population and a rise in fiscal deficits linked to increased government spending to cope with the aging population. Healthcare spending, pensions, social welfare and long-term care will all be additional costs to China’s social system. They come at a time when China’s urban social welfare system, in terms of pensions and healthcare.

Chinese people will face increased healthcare costs as they get older, meaning that they will increasingly need to make out-of-pocket spending from their pensions, to draw down on their life savings, or sell their homes in order to pay for expensive treatments for long-term, incurable illnesses that are gradually less likely to be covered by current healthcare insurance schemes. In addition to this, they will also be an ongoing financial burden on their families.

The general lack of appropriate state healthcare means that many Chinese adults have to save heavily and plan financially to create their own safety net to deal with possible illness as they get older. This contributes to the large amounts of consumer cash locked up in savings accounts and out of the consumer economy. Chinese savers already suffer from ‘financial repression’. Low or non-existent interest rates, combined with a limited range of personal financial products available, mean that saving is a never-ending process for most Chinese and that, consequently, a secure retirement fund is difficult to achieve.

This is exacerbated by mandatory retirement ages that are low by international standards. Currently the retirement age to receive a pension is 60 for men and 50 for women. Beijing is considering raising these limits to create work for younger people but the concomitant strain on the pensions system is a concern. Worries over, for instance, ending work at 50 but not receiving a pension until the age of are 65, and therefore having to self-fund the 15 years in between, have alarmed many older people and their children.

The Confucian ethic of filial piety, expressed in caring for elderly parents, remains strong in Chinese culture. And it seems the government will largely rely on that continuing. The Ministry of Health has established a target that by 2020 90 per cent of care for the elderly will be home-based (that is, within the family largely), 7 per cent community-based and just 3 per cent provided by nursing homes or hospitals. These percentages are thought to be based on the experience of Singapore, obviously a much smaller, wealthier country that has a longer history of healthcare reform and an active immigration policy to replace lost younger workers as the demographics move upwards. Singapore has struggled to provide this amount of home-based care, indicating that China faces a massive, if not impossible, task. This places the major emphasis of elderly care on offspring, who largely do not have siblings with whom to share the burden and expense due to the one child policy.

Geriatric specialists also point to the fact that enhanced longevity among a greater proportion of the population will mean a greater incidence of health problems associated with old age. For instance, recent studies from China suggest that the country may have more than 9 million old people actually diagnosed as suffering from dementia, but that perhaps 93 per cent of cases are undiagnosed. However, at present there are fewer than 50 specialist dementia facilities nationwide in the PRC.

Chinese society does seem to be starting to respond to its ageing demographics. The government is slowly reforming the pension system while the savings rate remains high partly due to saving for retirement, or because people are setting aside funds to look after parents in their old age. Senior citizens’ homes and care facilities have started to appear, overwhelmingly in the private sector.

Old age will increasingly be a major strain on the Chinese economy. At a time when the government is seeking to boost personal consumption, increasing amounts of income and savings will have to be diverted into care for the elderly, geriatric healthcare and medicines. While the quality of life of China’s elderly will become a key ‘quality of national life’ indicator, the strain on family budgets will also see the cost of old age trickle down the system, forcing many to make hard choices between, say, paying for their child’s overseas education or their parents’ care.

China cannot escape its demographic bind. All China can do is realize it and make the best preparations possible. Providing quality of life for China’s elderly will require the current economic reforms to successfully create jobs, maintain wage rises, allow for continued savings and permit a more regulated and participatory tax base to allow for additional government spending on geriatric care.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/12/10/ageing-society-can-china-escape-its-demographic-bind/

 

Regarding the Chinese policies toward their aged population they are more likely to simply adopt a "let them die" approach.

 

What China does with its navy is none of our business.

However, if you feel that it must be destroyed, go ahead and do it yourself.

 

Ramen noodles? I hope this is satire..............why would we want more war? Not sure I even want to scroll down the rest of this thread. Is this a Soros sponsored segment?

 

In a word, no. Any other wild guesses ad to the intention kf this thread? Other than I'm concerned?. Im not pro either party eg I'm a swinging sympathiser. So just perhaps ive got a vision of what will occur in the future. Anyway thankyou everyone for you thoughts and comments.

 

Add their nuclear arsenal to that and the idea becomes pure genius!

 

We should quit worrying about attacking China's Navy and figure out how to get the Spam concession for their 200 million man army...With those huge profits we could rebuild our entire infrastructure while turning their whole army into a bunch of fat toxic slugs. Think about it!

 

I would say cripple first the capability of China in engaging a nuclear war, before sinking their fleet,
but first there should be an excellent reason to do so.

 

So if you do not like the idea is is a liberal idea

Great way to divide the world

- - - Updated - - -

Is China behind Mc Donald's and the rise in Obesity in the west - think about it. Lols

 

LOL this is obvious trolling.

That China will have a superior Navy in 7 years is laughably ignorant and further, attempting to destroy their navy with our navy would end up destroying our navy !

Rapid advances in missile technology has made current navel vessels obsolete.

 

Yeah, sounds like a great idea. Eliminate all that debt we owe them.

Great...

Should prove to work out swimmingly.

 

Laughably ignorant?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ld-be-big-trouble-china-plans-351-ships-16101

And...you aint seen nothin' yet good buddy

 

And what do you think the Chinese missile detection systems would be doing as soon as you launch? Correct; they would be telling the Chinese leadership they have an incoming attack. Guess what happens next?

 

I'm 64. So, tell us when it was that 'Europe' (not a country, by the way), surrendered, and to whom?