"China’s Rear Adm. Luo Yuan [said] the key for Chinese domination in those hotly contested waters could lie in the sinking of two U.S. aircraft carriers. 'What the United States fears the most is taking casualties,' the admiral said, before adding that such an attack on two of the U.S. Navy’s steel behemoths would claim upwards of 10,000 lives."

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see...

I do think this is hyperbole.

Sinking a US aircraft carrier would be a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States.

It would e like sinking Rhode Island(slightly bigger).

Retribution would be overwhelming.

Yeah nukes would fly I imagine.

I'm not sure countries would nuke each other to death over that.

It's hard to imagine whatever war that started ending without nukes.

Retribution with what? If the carriers are taken out the US has no way to project any kind of meaningful force in that region.

Any scenario (unlikely as it may be) that involves china successfully destroying 2 US carriers would also involve their confidence in being able to destroy the rest in their coastal region.

That's untrue, plenty of bases in the area, and plenty of airdrop capabilities.

We have 10 carriers and air bases all over the world...

If there is clear attribution for the sinking of a US carrier the offenders would get glassed with a Trident D5.

Mutually assured destruction.

The initial attack likely never takes place.

If there is clear attribution for the nuking of a country, the offenders will be glassed by multiple warheads. Nukes aren't ever a sane response to escalating traditional tensions.

ICBMs

> "What the United States fears the most is taking casualties"

That's also a good way to piss off rank and file Americans who normally don't give a damn.

Want the US to go cold turkey off of Chinese imports? That's how you do it.

Agreed. History certain supports your statement.

I doubt they'll stop at their home waters. What they consider home waters will just move more and more towards the US west coast. Right now the conflict is closer to them than it is to the USA but things may change rapidly.

They definitely won't be parking their navy off the west coast. They have nothing to gain and the cost will be huge.

China is being aggressive in the South China Sea because they're insecure about the US navy being so close. If things escalate then the US navy can start a blockade and stop virtually all trade between China and the outside world.

China wants to get control of the surrounding seas so its shipping routes aren't vulnerable to the US. That's also why they're investing so much in huge train networks through Asia and the Middle East – it means the US navy can't economically cripple them at will.

> west coast [...] South China Sea

Or to use Occam's Razor: There's a greater density of assets to control, nearer at hand.

Yep that's correct. And the main asset that navies protect are trade routes. So you can see that they would want to protect the South China Sea since that's their gateway to the world. But the West Coast really only connects to America, who wouldn't trade with them anyway if they took over the West Coast. So it would be totally counter-productive to send ships there.

China can be many things, 'insecure' is not one of them. Maybe try 'patient'.

Edit : From a Chinese perspective, the Pax Americana has been a blip in history.

Edit : Downvotes are fine, but would like to hear the arguments against the facts of the region.

China hasn't been a single govt or people, they have had very different ones over time, of course many different regional languages over time before the 20th centry. They aren't one single culture than went x thousand years. Of course they do have an ancient and proud culture with many achievements and led the world at various times but they weren't just one group. Just like there were dozens maybe 100s of different political entities and countries and philosophies going from Greeks to Rome to modern America and European countries. There wasn't one continuous 'people' for more than 2k years there either.

Doesn't seem likely to me if history is anything. China doesn't seem interested in ruling over its neighbours, as long as they're friendly. I'm no expert but for all I've read on its history, it seems to traditionally be interested in commerce and be content with that.

China has a long history of imperialism. They even tried attacking Vietnam after its war with the US and failed.

Agreed.

Over time, China will be looking to guarantee its SLOC(Se Linea of Communication(Control) for all of it’s global trade.

China is very vulnerable to economic harm from sea trade disruption.

> I don't see any reason to panic.

These guys got pretty close:

https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/11/providing-common-d...

What is the H in BATH?

I've never seen them referred to as BATH before, but it likely corresponds to Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei.

Huawei

Bullseye:

Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei

I think they collectively represent a far bigger long term threat to relative US superiority than some Chinese warships.

Something has to pay for that military capability.

I wonder what scared the Soviets more?

The US Navy or the Marshall Plan?

Marshall plan was $100B One Belt, One Road is multi trillion.

Use debt trap diplomacy, nudging, and a decent value proposition to get everyone on BATH

One Platform, One Network

Bye bye US Dollar.

Bye bye US Navy capability and capacity.

Yes, those companies are a thread. Our leaders in the us think because we are christians or something god chose us to have military power. In reality, we have economic power that let the us have the ability to get all this military power. The source of the ability (economic might) seems to be almost deliberately being reduced at this time by a certain leader.