 |
| Chinese sailors at Pearl Harbor, the place their government has publicly announced that they would drive us back to. (Official U.S. Navy Photo) EDITORS NOTE: 1/21/20 Since this post was first published China's Navy has launched its first missile from a submerged submarine, launched and is operating an aircraft carrier and has a second under Construction. None the less this is still a valid over all picture of the PLAN's state of readiness for operations beyond the Frst Island Chain. The Dragon is gaining new naval skills but is far from perfecting them. But the Dragon bears watching , his naval goals are high and he is making progress. |
THE INTERPRETER HAS PUBLISHED AN ANALYTIC ARTICLE BY REAR ADMIRAL JAMES GOLDRICK, ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY (Ret.) ANALYZING A SPEECH BY U.S. PACIFIC FLEET COMMANDER ADMIRAL SAMUEL LOCKLEAR, USN. WE URGE OUR CHINA WATCHERS TO READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND CHECK OUT THE LINKED ELEMENTS. A LEAD IN AND LINK TO THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS BELOW:
"The US Navy has formed the view that the November 2013 incident between the American cruiser Cowpens and the Chinese carrier group arose directly from the PLA Navy's lack of experience with oceanic operations and the formal and informal rules which govern interactions between foreign navies.
That's the implication in an address given by US Pacific fleet commander Admiral Samuel Locklear to the Navy Surface Association Conference in January."
Click Here For The Entire Article: THE INTERPRETER
EDITOR's NOTE: Admiral Goldrick makes two well taken points. First the Chinese don't seem to understand the international laws of open water naval operations, including within their own EEZs. Second not playing by the rules will only led to restrictions to China's own freedom of the seas. We believe that if China's flawed and blurred view of blue water international law were adopted, there would be virtually no freedom of navigation. The history of the last 600 years supports the idea that nations that believe and act according to a philosophy of closed and private seas, generally see their great fleets at the bottom of the sea. Even China could not benefit from the complete disappearance of freedom of navigation unless China held absolute dominion over the world.
Before that happens China is more likely to be reduced to a smoldering pile of rubble. China needs an opposition party and open policy debates before the thugs in charge finally push the wrong groups of nations the wrong way. If they were to actually make good on their unofficial threat of nuclear destruction of Australia (made in a military journal by a colonel) should Australia come to the aid of the United States and Japan in a contest with the Dragon, they would undoubtedly become a glow in the dark parking lot. Is this what all of the hard work and sacrifice of the Chinese people all of these decades , was for? Will they be robbed of prosperity and a respected seat at the community of nations by their present thug government? Will the Chinese government ever develop some common sense?
Its hard enough to get any common sense or effective policy out of the U.S. Government with an unofficial two party system. The Chinese one party system reinforces its own poor judgement. The U.S. system creates constant squabbling and a lot of ineffective policy but occasionally the really incredibly stupid policies have to delayed by the sponsors because it becomes politically clear that the sponsors can't carry the vote. It's at that moment that split government works. Some times the moment passes for the really stupid policy and it finally gets shelved. The acrimonious debates often alert the electorate that the government is about to do something really stupid and the phone, fax and E-mails of the representative start ringing off the wall. The refusal of Congress and the people to support administration plans to attack Syria being a recent case in point, the two party system can be an incremental improvement over a single party system. A government really needs more voices than one or two parties to drive compromise over serial revolving policy dictatorship, or in the case of China simple thug rule. At least two party systems seem to respond in extreme cases to public opinion or international opinion. There just doesn't seem to be any check or balance of the Chinese prat fall into lunacy over a bunch of sea rocks they have no legitimate interest in.
READ MORE ON THE RISING CHINESE NAVY:
Click Here For The Entire Article: THE INTERPRETER
EDITOR's NOTE: Admiral Goldrick makes two well taken points. First the Chinese don't seem to understand the international laws of open water naval operations, including within their own EEZs. Second not playing by the rules will only led to restrictions to China's own freedom of the seas. We believe that if China's flawed and blurred view of blue water international law were adopted, there would be virtually no freedom of navigation. The history of the last 600 years supports the idea that nations that believe and act according to a philosophy of closed and private seas, generally see their great fleets at the bottom of the sea. Even China could not benefit from the complete disappearance of freedom of navigation unless China held absolute dominion over the world.
Before that happens China is more likely to be reduced to a smoldering pile of rubble. China needs an opposition party and open policy debates before the thugs in charge finally push the wrong groups of nations the wrong way. If they were to actually make good on their unofficial threat of nuclear destruction of Australia (made in a military journal by a colonel) should Australia come to the aid of the United States and Japan in a contest with the Dragon, they would undoubtedly become a glow in the dark parking lot. Is this what all of the hard work and sacrifice of the Chinese people all of these decades , was for? Will they be robbed of prosperity and a respected seat at the community of nations by their present thug government? Will the Chinese government ever develop some common sense?
Its hard enough to get any common sense or effective policy out of the U.S. Government with an unofficial two party system. The Chinese one party system reinforces its own poor judgement. The U.S. system creates constant squabbling and a lot of ineffective policy but occasionally the really incredibly stupid policies have to delayed by the sponsors because it becomes politically clear that the sponsors can't carry the vote. It's at that moment that split government works. Some times the moment passes for the really stupid policy and it finally gets shelved. The acrimonious debates often alert the electorate that the government is about to do something really stupid and the phone, fax and E-mails of the representative start ringing off the wall. The refusal of Congress and the people to support administration plans to attack Syria being a recent case in point, the two party system can be an incremental improvement over a single party system. A government really needs more voices than one or two parties to drive compromise over serial revolving policy dictatorship, or in the case of China simple thug rule. At least two party systems seem to respond in extreme cases to public opinion or international opinion. There just doesn't seem to be any check or balance of the Chinese prat fall into lunacy over a bunch of sea rocks they have no legitimate interest in.
READ MORE ON THE RISING CHINESE NAVY:
No comments:
Post a Comment