Eh,they ripped scenes out of the movie "Top Gun" to promote their new jet fighter.

I'm willing to go on the other side of this debate.

First of all, I'd ask what the purpose of Chinese military dominance would be?  Aircraft carriers are only useful for a country engaged in intercontinental power projection (the US, separated from the world by two oceans, inherently must engage in power projection, making aircraft carriers an invaluable part of its military structure).  China's interest isn't in invading the US directly.  Rather, Chinese military expansion is built with the purpose of expanding local hegemony (controlling Taiwan again, reasserting spheres of influence in East Asia).  These types of conflicts wouldn't need the same military structure.  Emphasis would be placed on well-trained infantry and good aircraft, but a blue water navy isn't necessary for China (but let me emphasize that it's essential for the US in the region).

Second, you're only looking at the symmetrical side of warfare.  China's developing at least two forms of asymmetrical warfare which, if perfected, would be devastating to the US.

1: Anti-satellite missiles.  China already tested one anti-satellite missile in 2008, successfully destroying a defunct satellite.  Now, I'm obviously not entirely sure of the range, so it's possible China's satellites don't have full range over Earth orbit.  Otherwise, it's mainly a question of mass production.

Let's start by assuming China can successfully mass-produce anti-satellite missiles capable of shooting down military-grade satellites.  What's the effect in combat?  The US military flourishes in part due to its strong logistics network.  GPS locators, communication systems, spy satellites, full knowledge of weather patterns... these combined tools give the military the information and coordination to pinpoint and destroy targets.  The US can use spy satellites to locate enemy troop movements, then launch GPS-guided missiles and bombs to take out key portions of the military force in question.  China is building the capability to take down this most important aspect of US military supremacy.  I'm not saying this could render the US military useless, but it can curtail a good amount of US strength.

2: H4x0rz.  This is the really scary one because it can directly target economic infrastructure.  China wouldn't need to step a single soldier in the US to do more damage than the Germans could ever do to the US in two world wars.  The Internet is their troop transport.

These tools combined don't mean China will be more powerful than the US.  However, they take out one of the most important advantages the US has in long-range force projection.  Beyond that, China has advantages that allow it to win regional wars (a RAND Corporation study of US-Chinese military strength in East Asia suggested that China could successfully overwhelm US forces in Taiwan simply because it could throw more less advanced planes than the US forces have ammunition).

There may be other forms of asymmetrical warfare we don't necessarily know about.  Hell, it's theoretically possible China could have a Manhattan Project type program going on (I've read at least one article proposing they are developing this type of program using nanotechnology... I can't necessarily defend its credibility, but it's at least something to be considered, even if it's solely hypothetical).

Long story short, though, China isn't building a military meant to invade the US (for now, at least).  It doesn't need to do so.  If they did need to attack the US directly, cyberwarfare can take care of that.

One more thing.  If you were to ask about the military strength of the US in 1935, it wouldn't be a pretty picture.  The US didn't have a strong standing army.  What the US did have which tipped the scale, however, was a huge amount of factories across the country, which were converted to military facilities for a nation-wide infrastructure development.  Fast forward to 2011.  China doesn't have the military infrastructure the US has.  However, its strength is in an industrial infrastructure, which may be refitted for military production.  In short, they're developing the exact same advantage which gave the US an advantage in WW2.  Although they don't have the military forces for a blue water navy now, if the time comes when a blue water navy is needed, unless the US can swiftly overwhelm a Chinese military, the Chinese may be able to out-produce the US.

@EmperorHez

1: Don't forget my asymmetrical warfare arguments above and the argument regarding differing force needs.
2: You're forgetting the circumstances of WW2 development.  The US and USSR committed to a total warfare doctrine, in which most, if not all, production goes to the war effort.

It takes a year to produce an aircraft carrier today because the US isn't throwing 100% of its production into military development (which they shouldn't... we're not in any wars).  With total warfare military production, parts for a single aircraft carrier could be mass produced at dozens of different factories, where they would be assembled at the final port, just like how we manufacture a modern computer, aircraft, or car.

You're comparing a wartime WW2 production level to peacetime production.  That's flawed.  Instead, compare it to a theoretical circumstance under which politicians committed to total war production networks, using current infrastructure.

you forgot the 2 most important weapons zarf:
food and the bomb.

But I agree in general with your post. That is theoreticly cause neither of them can/will start a war against each other as is. An econ war is possible tough.

What's your estimate on how many aircraft carriers China could produce during a 'total war' wartime scenario compared to how many aircraft carriers the US could produce in the same scenario, Zarf?

==== FIRST: FLINT

> I would say their economy would collapse in a month if we did it just right
If the Chinese economy collapses, so does the that of the rest of the world.
Same can be said about the American economy.

If a CEO resigning can drop a company's share 5%, imagine how much a country like China or America could impact.

> Yes China is gearing up for war.
China isn't gearing for war anymore then the U.S., France, Russia or Britain.

=== NEXT: THE REST OF THE THREAD
READ CAREFULLY:

>^ "Total War", "Total War", "Total War"
>^ "War", "War", "War".

No.

The Chinese threat isn't about war, its about the possibility of war. From analysts over predicting
to an actual arms race, the possibility of war will have a longer and deeper impact then any actual
war between China and the U.S. -- total war included.

If Korea unites, we will have two massive powers at each other's border. Both will be relatively
new (both 'forming' in the past 25 years), and both will have massive arsenals. This could trigger an
arms race.

This could cause India and Pakistan to both up their arsenals. Not just at the threat of a growing China,
but at the threat of each other.

Vietnam will have to build up an army too. Thailand too. Now because of Thailand, just like Pakistan/India,
Cambodia will have to build up as well.

The U.S. will have to build up in response to this "aggressive" behavior, and the Russians will have no choice but to
follow suit or be left behind. The European countries will have to, in order to counter the Russian bear.

Etc. It snowballs, far bigger then the cold war (the Soviets and Americans were very distant, and used proxy
wars to flex their muscles).

Now military spending will increase dramatically everywhere. This will detract from other more important
areas such as health, schools, non-military infrastructure and even things like medical science.

Next what happens? War? Nope.

Next the shareholders begin to withdraw faster faster. The markets will plummet and trade will all but cease (in
relative terms to today)...

Be afraid, be very afraid.

@xeno

I wasn't going to even try to build a story regarding this, partly because I just didn't know (although Flint's story seems very plausible).  However, as I've mentioned before, carriers wouldn't even be a main weapon in the Chinese arsenal.  An aircraft carrier, in essence, is a (US) football stadium-length supply base to let short range aircraft operate in areas outside their normal range.  Now, these are incredible weapon for the US, which is separated from most potential enemies by two massive oceans.

However, if China was building up for a war, the wars for which it would be preparing are all local ones (Taiwan, Korea, India, Russia, or a general war to push the US out of East Asia).  Air missions would be required, but those would be well within Chinese air range.  Thus, there's just no reason for China to strategically even want one carrier, for now at least (for a war to escalate to the level where aircraft carriers were needed, China would have to first dominate its local sphere of influence, which would mean they already achieved their goal).

@Hez

1: Even sophisticated systems can be mass produced.  It's just a question of constructing a factory system.  Remember, the US doesn't use high-production process now, undercutting the need to develop the factories necessary for mass production.  That doesn't mean certain technologies can't be mass produced.  It just means current factory infrastructure isn't meant to crank out 5,000 stealth fighters (although I'll concede that some technologies, such as the stealth fighter, may use materials which would be more difficult to find, although I obviously can't give any definitive answer on the subject).
2: You're falling into that same trap again.  China doesn't need to outproduce the US on a symmetrical level of military production, one Chinese aircraft carrier per US aircraft carrier, one Chinese tank per US tank.  China needs to instead develop an answer to each weapon... anti-ship missiles, aircraft, etc.  Aside from aircraft, the most high-tech weapons you're talking about are weapon generally outside what China would need (there's no reason China should be focusing on aircraft carriers, for example).

@LP

Food would be an issue, no doubt.  It's probably the #1 deterrent against China doing any real military aggression.  Perhaps there are other nations in East Asia which, if secured, could provide China with food assets?  Vietnam?

As for nuclear weapons, I'd say they won't be an issue, at least from the US side.  I'm not entirely sure, but I would guess the US nuclear doctrine would prevent use of nuclear weapons unless an imminent threat existed against the US homeland (an invader on US soil, for example).  If the Chinese military's goal is to push the US out of East Asia, it wouldn't have or need the threat to the US homeland... thus, nuclear weapons wouldn't be an issue.

@Einstein.

Let's say, although it is arguable, that it is a given that China's industrial production capabilities are only 1/3 that of the US.  If its cost of production is 1/3 the cost of production of the US, doesn't that even the playing field?

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> @Zarf,

You are assuming that China would only have to wage a defensive war in its sphere of influence rather than waging an offensive campaign against a distant enemy.  In a total war scenario, the Chinese would seek not only to conduct defensive war in its sphere of influence but also offensive campaigns in distant regions, much like the US has done.  Therefore, the extent to which China would be able to mass-produce carriers in a total war scenario should be considered.

For instance, if China went to war with India, it would have to produce carriers so as to conduct military operations in the Indian Ocean.

Actually, xeno, I'm not.

If China was about to fight a war with the US, the first phases of the war would be purely within China's sphere of influence undoubtedly, as that is China's #1 goal (regional hegemony, including control over Taiwan and removing US military positions in South Korea and Japan).  We're both agreeing that in this phase of a war, long-range weapons would be unnecessary.

Now, wars don't generally escalate to a total war immediately.  Total warfare is an act of desperation after a nation realizes their standard military is insufficient to fight an adversary.  In the lead-up to a total war scenario, China wouldn't need the aircraft carriers because the war would still be limited, allowing China to obtain its interests without presenting a threat to the US itself as a sovereign nation.

Long story short, if China did need an aircraft carrier, it wouldn't be for day 1 of the war simply because aircraft carriers aren't surprise weapons.  You can't really sneak an aircraft fleet across the Pacific ocean to launch another Pearl Harbor against a nation with thousands of spy satellites all over the place.

Oh, right... in addition, if China really would need to fight the US on US soil early in the war, cyberwarfare would be much more useful than an aircraft carrier fleet anyway.

@Einstein

How much do war games between China and Russia help to offset that lack of experience? 

@ Zarf

"Long story short, if China did need an aircraft carrier, it wouldn't be for day 1 of the war"

After successfully establishing hegemony in its sphere of influence, would the US and international community just say, "Alrighty then, China" you may keep your newly conquered territories"?  No.

The war would not end there.  Instead, a long, drawn out war of attrition would ensue, with China pursuing the capability to conduct distant military operations.  It would, therefore, begin constructing carriers so as to extend and escalate its military reach.  Its aim would be to force distant enemies to sue for peace and thereby be permitted to retain territories won by its recent conquests.  The question as to whether or not China's industrial capacity to construct carriers becomes relevant at this point in establishing China's level of threat.

Can we agree then that the issue of the extent of China's capacity to construct carriers is relevant to assessing China's level of threat?