Everyone wonders: What's the purpose of China's new aircraft carrier?

The United States is asking questions and isn't happy with what it's hearing. Late last night, a spokeswoman for the US State Department sought to clear the air about China's intentions surrounding the Ukranian aircraft carrier they purchased, the Varyag:

We welcome any explanation from China about why it needs this kind of equipment. This is part of our larger concern that China is not as transparent as other countries. It is not as transparent as the US about its military acquisitions or its military budget."

The issue of transparency is most likely due to the fact that despite world-wide news coverage of the Varyag's first sea trials, the Chinese government remained silent, barred foreign and domestic reporters from photographing or taping, and had no fanfare whatsoever surrounding the launch of China's most important piece of military equipment to date.

In the past, China has been forthcoming about its intended use for the Varyag. The official party line remains that the vessel will be primarily used for research and training.

However, as the realization of "holy crap, we have a carrier" sinks in among China's higher-ups, no doubt some alternate uses will be spilling out, causing further anxiety among China watchers. The first of these alternate uses bubbled up yesterday in an opinion piece published in the state-run military newspaper, PLA Daily. In the commentary, a top level reporter made some bold assertions that would most likely not be published if they did not receive some support from Chinese leadership.

Why did we build it if we don’t have the courage and willingness to use the aircraft carrier to handle territorial disputes? It is reasonable to use the aircraft carrier or other warships to handle disputes if there is any need. The reason why we built a carrier is to safeguard China’s maritime rights and interests more efficiently. We will be more confident and have more determination to defend our territorial integrity after we have carriers.

No country has specifically responded to this assertion as of yet, but countries that currently have maritime territorial disputes with China such as the Philippines and Vietnam have naturally been concerned about the carrier since it was announced. Taiwan similarly had a strong reaction to the Varyag by unveiling a "carrier killer" missile set against a backdrop of a burning Varyag.

Around the world there are currently 22 aircraft carriers operated by nine countries. Half of those carriers belong to the United States, Italy owns two carriers, and Spain, Britain, Brazil, France, Russia, India and Thailand own one a piece.

China's entrance into the carrier club seems lessened by the fact that India and Thailand already own carriers. However, India's carrier is currently the oldest in operation (60 years of service) and Thailand's carrier is so small it is often considered the Thai Royal Family's Yacht.

Despite all of this foreboding, the fact still remains that China is the only nation on the UN Security Council that doesn't have a carrier. The US Navy's supercarrier, the USS George Washington is docked long-term in Japan. China has been a responsible nuclear power for 55 years and is signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (India is not). China's military expenditures as a percentage of its GPD is 2.2% compared to the United States' 4.7%.

No matter how slowly China develops its military, or exerts influence over South-East Asia, ~~the world~~ the United States will complain and fearmonger. It's 2011, and China is still years away from being able to get any use out of the Varyag. If anything, the United States should be encouraging China to hurry up and modernize their navy, because just as Chinese warships were trusted to secure shipping lanes off the coast of Somalia, the United States can't be everywhere at once.

If the world doesn't expect China to actually use the Varyag, then what do they expect? Another hotel?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@shanghaiist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

Mya Sshole

Keep kidding yourselves. All the dog eating, female infant killing, BO stinking, tiny penis, mongols think that they can take on the United States? Bring it on. Let's throw down over Taiwan. Good luck with your used, Soviet made boat, and good luck to the tiny penised pilots when they try to land shitty Chinese airplanes on it, if they even survive long enough to get back to the carrier. That dumb curve on it will help them get some time to eject after they miss all the catch wires.

PeteMaverickMitchell

Tower, this is Ghost Rider, request permission for a fly-by.

BBC_Redux

Check out this video of the US government spokesperson talking about China needing to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier and it shud be more transparent etc and getting a severe smackdown by a journalist.

http://images.56.com/flashApp/...

This US government spokesperson needs to be canned, just as the Chinese rail ministry spokesman was canned.

Ahahahahahahahaha!

BBC_Redux

The look on the US government spokeswoman was priceless when the Journalist challenged her: Do you mean the Carrier is is invisible? LMAO!

China_dragon

LMAO! The journalist asked "You basically don't trust the Chinese with this kind of equipment, is this correct?" Well said.

Andrew Max

actually that list is incorrect, the US currently operates 20 aircraft carriers; 10 Nimitz class, 1 Enterprise class, 8 Wasp class and 1 Tarawa class. the wasp and Tarawa are not classified as carriers by the US navy but they are still larger than all the other carriers operated around the world except for Russia and China's boats.

nanheyangrouchuan

The Viagra can only serve as a trainer for carrier pilots, at best a battleship to provide cover for shore activity or to push around small ASEAN navies.

One little carrier can't do anything against SLOC, the Thai, Singaporeans and Indians have the gear and skills to take out this training ship.

A fight against US ships or worse, a sub, would be a no-brainer. Viagra down!

The Russians have been advising the Chinese and have advised them many times that it will take 10-15 years to not just get the 3 carriers needed to have a basic CBG capability but also to get the ship crews and pilots skilled enough to put up a fight.

The US invented the aircraft carrier almost 100 years ago. We've got the skills covered.

BBC_Redux

That's true, if I remembered right, an obsolete Ming class sub from the PLAN surfaced next to the Kitty Hawk without being detected. It wasn't even a Yuan or Kilo class sub, which is way more quiet and deadly.

nanheyangrouchuan

The Japanese had been tracking the Ming, and I'm sure there was a JDF or US submarine behind the Ming. At the time of the alleged incident, Congress was refusing to give the USN more money for anti-submarine warfare.

So your stunt, while not undetected, helped fuel more funding to beat up the chinky navy.

What makes you think that a country that cannot build or successfully operate a nuclear boat, and has a safety record worse than the USSR, successfully creep up on a US carrier?

Here is another piece of info that 50 cent chinkers don't know. It is international submarine protocol to surface your sub when you have been caught.

BBC_Redux

You were sure of what? Stop talking out of your butt. American carriers, are very much vulnerable to quiet diesel/electric boats operated by the PLAN, which is expected to operate up to 50 of such boats within a decade. The noisier US Virginia class subs are even more vulnerable in the shallow Taiwan straits. The fact that the Chinese D-41D could take out a US carrier meant the USN is forced out far at sea. Can you provide figures to suggest the PLAN sub fleet safety figures are any worse than the Soviets? Chinky strategy using cheap weapons to sink high value assets like US carriers is the smart strategy. Just as Taliban use a cheap RPG to shoot down the Chinook with 30 highly trained seals, LOL!

Yes, get more funding!!! Go follow the trap that the Soviet Union got caught in, go increase your defence budget even more, China encourages you to so so!

Yeah, the sub got caught close enuff to say: Hi, your arse is sunk, kitty pussy. LMAO.

China's strategy is smart, get a training carrier, build up your knowledge. No point in engaging in a self defeating arms race. China has all the time in the world.

Zhabei

"Yes, get more funding!!! Go follow the trap that the Soviet Union got
caught in, go increase your defence budget even more, China encourages
you to so so!" You do understand our strategy then as it is now, is to out spend everyone, it creates jobs and forces the other guy to keep up. China now wants to play our game, and we will destroy them at it just like the Soviet Union. Massive military spending creates social chaos in a nondemocratic regime.

BBC_Redux

What is the debt clock now??? 14+ Trillion and counting. You know, there is a US base at Garmisch Parteken in the Bavarian Alps. What the heck is an American base doing in an expensive German Resort??? To protect from whom??? Who's paying for the holiday of the hundreds of US troops based there, spending their time skiing in the expensive resort and watching table dancing at local cabarets set up for them? You, the US taxpayer fools.

You are drowning in your own hubris, so will the US.

There is a saying by Monroe, I think, which says something like this:

When a Govrnment fears its people, there is freedom, but when the people fears the government (or if the Government takes its people for granted), there is tyranny. The US is addicted to the Military-Industrial complex. Wars are fought on behalf of small political and financial interests. Iraq and Libya were driven by the control of Oil. Afghanistan the need to contain a perceived enemy. The US electorate is taken for granted by the US government, as the American poor dies for the interests of the few rich (as in their wars), while the Middle Class pay the taxes to fight the wars. All the while, big corporations, the rich and special interests groups pays less taxes than a normal individual and the whole American electorate fooled and manipulated by their government's lies. Just look at Wisconsin and Ohio, where voters voted in idiots like the T-baggers who not only cut taxes for big corps and rich individuals, but cut benefits to the lambs that voted them in. In China, there are lots of riots and protests. Just look at Dalian. Chinese people don't fear their government,so the Government has to act in their interests. That's why there is truer freedom in China than in the US. The Pew global attitudes poll validates this.When I read something from the People's daily or watch a certain program on CCTV, I can discern propaganda from fact. Folks like you believe many things your papers tell you, without even questioning the reporting. I lived in America for a long time, I understand your self belief in your own hubris.

Massive military spending creates social chaos in all regimes, if you spend more than your earn, you are kaput. It is just simple math, it doesn't matter what political systems you run.

nanheyangrouchuan

China's anti-ship ballistic missiles have not had one single test flight, because everyone will be watching and learn just how maneuverable the warhead is, if at all.

And China's supposed quiet boats get ran out of Japanese waters all the time by the JDF.

BBC_Redux

The DF-41D is based on a proven platform. It's performanance and trajectory can be simulated by computers. LOL! That's why sometimes anti-ballistic missiles work for the first time.

As for the JDF, the Chinese subs were not run out of Japanese waters, since Chinese subs operate in International waters. The ones the JDF detected are old noisy first generation nuclear powered subs. But Kilos and Yuans on battery power, JDF will miss them most of the time.

nanheyangrouchuan

The boost phase is proven, no biggie there, a fully autonomous warhead that can independently seek a moving object in the ocean, clustered with other objects, whose movements are unpredictable, is not.

Granted that carriers aren't the most agile things, but your miracle warhead will have little time to compensate when the captain is using hard rudder turns and radar jamming.

Chaff clouds are about as big as carriers btw.

And plenty of Chinese subs have been run out of Japanese waters, especially when they are hounded by P3s, destroyers and attack subs.

China is just using recycled Russian tech. Battery power still gives off EM fields.

Oh, you didn't know that EM signatures are sub hunting techniques? The Russians tried using titanium hulls and plumbing to mask EM signatures, but between the expense and brittle nature of titanium, it didn't hold.

BBC_Redux

A slow moving carrier is a huge sitting duck (they work OK against Libya, Saddam and the Taliban). And the J-20s, they are optimized to knock out your P3s. I doubt the Japanese have managed to hound and run Kilos out of the international waters (anything 12 miles out is International waters) . US nuclear subs emit an even higher signature, they could also be targeted.

dxcjt

tifo
*I can assure that southeast asia/Japan/South Korea prefer to have a US presence in asia pacific than China.*

it doesnt matter if the japanese like it or not
a lapdog has no choice ;-)
http://tinyurl.com/3laxwte

denk

China_dragon

Lapdog? You're an idiot! America is already bankrupt from maintaining 700 military bases around the world. You think the debt of $14 trillion is high now? Wait until it hits $40 or even $400 trillion. China really either should stop lending money to those American pigs, or ask for higher interest rates for buying their T-bills.

dxcjt

sori for the double posts

denk

dxcjt

http://tinyurl.com/3sdacml

dxcjt

http://tinyurl.com/3sdacml

Balkingpoints.com

It probably would have been easier to build it than ship it from Ukraine... ;^)

RUSHOUR1

Carriers for US and China: 14:1.
I guess China has 14 times the right to ask US about its purpose, especially when the China is the America's greatest debtor.If I owned a shotgun like a redneck, I'd be too ashamed to ask other guys' purpose to own a kitchen knife.

ReaverZ

Yoda makes more sense then you.

defiantroa

It probably makes more sense reading the words backwards.

defiantroa

How about we fish out the jet that went down in the South China Sea?! There is a thought!

RUSHOUR1

Love to see true colour of a loser like Deafvoa and give my hottest regards to your dearest redneck mom who is heavier than her 5000cc truck engine but still swifter than a cat when climbing on her leaking roof top, lol!

defiantroa

Sorry that fat fuck isn't mine, you should already know since you called her "sweetie pie."

ReaverZ

how witty of you

Jerry Jacob

Can they be modified? Sure. If someone wants to pay a gazillion dollars to do it. That won't happen.
http://page2rss.com/page?url=a...

terroir

Joel, as you love reading ChinaDaily and ShanghaiDaily I thought it was weird you didn't include this into the article: "definitive" proof that China's aircraft carrier isn't a threat. From a westerner.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/c...

The hilarious part (isn't there always) is that there's another guy from this same place (Brookings) that's arguing the opposite over on ESWN. They must get into fights about everything at Brookings; hate to see how they dole out parking spaces there.

ReaverZ

Brookings is a think-tank, it is all about disusing and arguments.

Zhabei

While, I think it could temp the Chinese Navy to try and use the carrier for force projection, I really don't think there is much to worry about with this carrier, it is relatively small (1/2 the size of the US Carriers) and carries less than 1/2 the air wing of the US Carriers. It only has about a 45 day endurance compared to a 20 year endurance.

BBC_Redux

Owning carriers is not a given right for the USA, France, UK etc

China shud tell the US, "it's our money bitch, we can spend it anyway we like."

China's primary use of a carrier is to protect its sealanes, so vital to its development and interests, and with a tangible tool to protect its investments abroad. Carriers are sitting ducks against modern firepower, including US carriers, which are also vulnerable. It is vey obvious the Chinese carrier was not built to confront US Naval Power.

On the other hand, the Varyag is a test vehicle for China, as the refit provided valuable experience in building a carrier. China's ship building techniques are much more advanced than Russia, it's the system integration, training etc that is key. I would not be surprised if the 3 or 4 Chinese indigenous carriers will be nuclear powered or has longer endurance, or even higher tonnage.

It's time for the US to come down from its high chair. It's a declining power and in no position to lecture others, since it itself is an irresponsible agressor fighting 3 wars as we speak.

China_dragon

Too bad it's basically useless in a war!

From here http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

"The ex-Varyag was acquired by China from Ukraine without engines, and must be outfitted with new engines before going out to sea. China lacks indigenous steam turbine or gas turbine engine capabilities, and absent purchase of such engines from foreign sources, the ex-Varyag would have to be equiped with marine diesel engines. Such engines are larger than turbine engines, so the ex-Varyag outfitted with marine diesel engines would be underpowered relative to the original design, and consequently slower than the original design. With a best speed in the neighborhood perhaps 20 knots [the standard speed for American amphibious ships], ex-Varyag would be considerably slower than the 30-knot standard for American aircraft carriers and escort ships. As such, ex-Varyag would seem far more suited as an aviation training ship than as an operational tactical combat unit, though it might have some combat utility under some circumstances."

And it's all thanks to the pressure put on Ukraine by the hyenas USA and Japan!
They don't want China to be Number 1.
Never forget that!

Zhabei

Owning carriers IS a given right for the USA, France, UK etc. It is also a given right for China. And it is China's money they can spend it anyway they like. However, decisions have consequences and now that China wants to play in the big leagues they better remember that.

RUSHOUR1

Yes not only "owning carriers is a given right for France and UK" but also sharing a carrier as well, to make possible a stingy strike on Libya by Anglo-French army, lol!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho...

Zhabei

RUSHOUR1 what does this even mean? How does it have any connection to to what we are talking about? At least BBC_Redux makes a coherent argument.

RUSHOUR1

--"what does this even mean"? Its called sarcasm that you never know.

Zhabei

Please enlighten me. Explain you thinking and how this is sarcasm?

RUSHOUR1

Obviously you hate to be well informed of how your greatest ally or bully UK and France are sharing same carrier on month basis. You dont know how I hate to tell joke or enlighten people a second time.

BBC_Redux

Yes, this exactly my point, China has every right to build a carrier, and China shud tell the US to stop whining and fuck off. The US, is an example of powerful nations who use their power that had terrible consequences, like the tragedy in Iraq and engaging in 3 wars now. China will use its carrier in a more responsible manner and the USA IS NOT A GOOD ROLE MODEL..

Zhabei

Agreed. China can tell the US to fuck off. However, what I am saying is that if China wants to be an international player, they have to realize telling the United States to fuck off comes with consequences. A) If China is perceived as a REAL threat by the American people, they will not buy Chinese made goods. They will move production to other countries. This would be a $364.9 Billion dollar loss to the Chinese economy. Not something it could easily recover from. B) Do you really want to tell a country that "use[s] their power that had terrible consequences" to fuck off? What is one more war? The United States has 700 bases in 130 countries outside the United States. Half the worlds military spending. Has shown its willing to go to war with three countries in the last 10 years. Do you really want to tell them to go "fuck themselves?" That is what I am talking about consequences of actions.

BBC_Redux

Many countries have told the US to fuck off without consequences, like Iran, for example. In this case, China is entirely justified to tell the US, which has 14 super carriers and another 10+ lesser carriers to shut up, before requesting another sovereign country to explain why it needs 1 carrier. The fact is, whether American people buy Chinese products or not, is not determined by China being perceived as a real threat. Americans can whine all they like about walmart, but at the end of the day, they still buy from walmart. The Chinese market is actually becoming more important for Chinese manufacturers and FOREIGN manufacturers as well. China does more trade with Europe than US, is more important to Korea and Japan's trade vis a vis the US.

Yes, thanks for reminding me the USA has 700 bases around the world, even in an expensive Germine alpine resort of Garmisch (why the heck do they need a bse there? to defend from whom?). And this is the reason the US is all fucked up, flat broke. LOL! And yes, Ahmadenejad has told the US to fuck off many times, so did Kim Jong Il. The USA, afterall, has only beaten the likes of Saddam, Panama, Grenada etc since WW2. As we speak, the Talibs are giving a bloody nose to US GIs, and Iraq is most certainly a lost cause too. If I were you, I wouldn't be bragging as you do. Yeah right, largest defence budget, you folks as tax payers pay for it, while the corporate titans and rich folks profit from it. Talk about a frog looking out of a well, that's you.

Zhabei

There are plenty of consequences, that are not military. Iran has told the US to fuck off. The United States does not have diplomatic relations nor trade with Iran. Also, Iran doesn't have a carrier AND tell the US to fuck off. That is my point from before, please try to follow.
China may do more trade with Europe than the US but it cannot afford to lose the trade it does with the United States, the US can afford not to trade with China.
Its true the United Sates has only beaten the likes of "Saddam, Panama, Grenada et, since World War II". That is because they are the only ones who would fight us. We did not do so well against Vietnam is true, although as I remember China was beaten by Vietnam's second string with the first team was away in Cambodia.
As for your attack on USAG Garmisch, its a rest resort for US Army soldiers and their families. they are not protecting anyone from anything. Its in a alpine region because it snows there and you need snow to go skiing.

BBC_Redux

It doesn't matter whether China has a stake in relations with US or not. If need be, China can blast the US. It has already done so very vocally on the way the idiot congress had delayed the approval of the debt ceiling. China lectured the US on managing the economy too. I am sure many Chinese people do not regard the US as their enemy, but Americans certainly do, even making a Red Dawn 2. Yes, it seems Americans are content to buy well made and cheap Chinese products, while they rage on the internet about boycotting China, LMAO.

To tell someone to fuck off does not require the need or possession of a Carrier. Fuck-offs can be achived by words. China fought you in Korean war, and inflicted a humiliated retreat on your Marines and got McArthur sacked by Eisenhower. China fought Vietnam in 79 with a army that was poorly equipped, while the Vietnamese were fresh from beating America and armed with modern weapons. Yet China pushed into Langson and proved the USSR was a paper Tiger. China was not defeated by Vietnam in 79 (I hope you didn't get your hhistory from Lonely Planet, LOL!). It achieved its objectives. China also fought India and inflicted a huge defeat on them in 1962. It also confronted Soviet forces on the Ussuri River in 69. Meanwhile, America was defeated by Vietnam, and will most likely leave Iraq and Afghanistan defeated. Yet, Has America taken on the likes of India and the Soviet Union since WW2??? The PLA has not lost a War. It beat the KMT, fought the Americans to a draw in Korea. Crushed India, gave the Soviet bullies a bloody nose, and achieved its objectives in Vietnam, inflicted a one-sided defeat on Viet naval forces in 87 etc. Meanwhile, poor America just beats up tiny Grenada and Panama, invades an Iraq where its army surrenders at the first shot, got its butts kicked in Nam, and getting bogged down by ragged guerillas in Afghanistan using simple weaponry.

Well, if the US collapses from debts, don't expect any sympathy from me. Good skiing, pal. LOL!

Zhabei

Red Dawn 2 is a movie. They are fiction. Unlike in China, the government has no control over what movies are put out there and they do not reflect official government position.

In Korea we did not want to have a nuclear war so we did not press the issue and MacArthur was "sacked" because he wanted to nuke China. He was fired for this letter, which was released to the general public, inappropriate for a gerneral to do:

"It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is
where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for
global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the
battlefield; that here we fight Europe's war with arms while the
diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to
communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe
most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed
out, we must win. There is no substitute for victory."

Regarding the Sino-Soviet Border conflict, China may have given the Soviet union a bloody nose but it was at best a stalemate for china. Chinese forces numbered 814,000 and had 600 killed. Soviet forces were 658,000 and only had 58 killed. China failed to make any gains. How is this a victory?

Regarding the Sino-Indian war. This was not a war it was a border conflict involving less than 100,000 soldiers, no airplanes, and no ships. And again there was no territorial Change.

"achieved its objectives in Vietnam" is a nice way of saying lost.

You say China never lost? What about the the Chola incident in 1967?

BBC_Redux

Zhabei, Red Dawn was made precisely because of the anti-China and China is the enemy undercurrent of American mindset. And I am cofused with your Chola vrs Sino-Indian conflict. Chola was a minor incident involving no more than a few scores of border troops which the Indians claimed to be a BIG victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.... The 62 Sino-India war involved hundreds of thousands of combatants, and this is not real war??? It was fought in the interior, why ships??? And yes, there was territorial change, ever heard of Aksai Chin in Kashmir?

And in the the 1969 Amur incidents, there were not over 800000 Chinese troops involved. Get your facts rights. Only a few hundred or a few thousand were involved in the various skirmishes. The wikipedia article quotes the total of Chinese troops based in Manchuria vrs total number of Soviet troops based in the Soviet Far East. It seems you are not aware of this distinction.

China's objectives in Vietnam were to prove to the Soviet Union that it is a paper Tiger and will not have the guts to protect its client state of Vietnam, and the secondary objective was to relieve pressure on the Cambodians by drawing the Viet troops. These objectives were supported by US foreign policies under the Carter administration. The immediate outcome of the invasion was to give pause to further Vietnamese expansion in SE Asia.

Please study up before you come back.

defiantroa

Who said China was following a good model or following any model? R U another dumb-ass, rambling idiot who has no life but surfs the Internet in cafe with a bunch of other China student loser, while you surf of foreign porn and jerk on your bed after the cafe close and make it home. You really need to get a life and stop wasting your time commenting of stuff that does not matter shit to you when you should be getting job and making money so you get purchase one of those overprice China apartment where they kick of bunch of peasant farmer who live there several generations in order to build that fuck of apartment complex you live in with your mommy and daddy. Why do you know do something with your, yes you!...the overeducated numskull sitting on his computer reading this. Does your parent know they have spent so much money on your education so you can jerk off on Shanghaiist.com and post your undeveloped opinions about USA, China, women? Do not worry about the USA using their aircraft carrier in a more responsible manner, go be responsible and take out the trash or clean the dishes for your parents. We have enough wining Chinese student complaining about shit they cannot do nothing about because you are damn bored with your own life!

BBC_Redux

You can't even read or follow a discussion, that is pretty symptomatic of the education stateside. LOL! And BTW, a trailer trash like you writing over 20 lines, with zero substance. LOL!

Zhabei

FYI: defiantroa is most likely not American. At least not educated there. The grammar while not horrible is indicative of a native Chinese speaker.

defiantroa

Frankly, you really to do know jack. Barmy , I guess Chinese are still very uneducated. That above is indicated of a native Chinese speaker????... What the fuck you people still learning Chinese special English or something? Well I least I know you do live in China. Fucking Chinese wankers people here. What native Chinese speaker uses the word "numskull?"

BBC_Redux

I guess even Americans can't stand folks like you. Defiantroa, you are really at the bottom of the trash heap. LOL!

BBC_Redux

How do you know he is Chinese? He could be an immigrant to America, like a Vietnamese American or even Taiwanese, for example.

RUSHOUR1

Given DefiantVOA's outstanding stupidity and super stubbonness to show it, he has to be an American, well, redneck who Santa Claus refuses to let sit in his lap. I feel extremely disappointed why America couldnt send somebody less stupidER.

Zhabei

I surmise you are both 50 cent army, that you are working together to make Americans look racist and stupid. The fact that he is commenting on Shanghaiist makes it more likely that he is Chinese than Vietnamese. Also the incorrect use of pluralization is indicative of Chinese-English. Also please note I did not say he for sure wasn't American only that he was not educated there. And sure he could be Taiwanese, but I thought Taiwan was part of China? I'm confused:)

RUSHOUR1

I have every reason to believe you and idiot DefiantVOA are same "sock puppets" on the shabby payroll of either NED or US army playing Janus. When he is screwed, you'll sing aloud carol for freedom of screwing. lol!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech...

Ivan Shi

Kudo's to you for a job well done, lil detective.
But then, this is an imaginary 'matrix' of cyberspace and we’re all figments.
Like they say, at the end of the day, the one who gets serious loses out. 認真你就輸了。

defiantroa

God, you are stupid. Love bit to you.

ReaverZ

China sees itself as the next superpower. An aircraft carrier is one the symbols of being a superpower. Yes they have it, but does anyone know how to operate it correctly?

defiantroa

Good thing there is only one aircraft carrier that way there is no possible way two of them crashing into each other because of a lighting strike.

tifo

I can assure that southeast asia/Japan/South Korea prefer to have a US presence in asia pacific than China.

Kurutoga

Assured by you or the 11 aircraft carriers? Small countries have no choice but "like" the overwhelming world power. Let's just hope USA continues its dominance for another 100, 200 years.

Joseph Tan

Of course, the presence of US without any costs is welcome. But speak to the Filipino and the Okinawan where the airbase or naval base is at your door-steps and the servicemen raped, bullied your women, daughters and even men, then you start telling me whether US presence is welcome! Worst these idiots do not need to submit to your country legal jurisdiction.