Cain on Foreign Policy

[sirs]

It IS a HUGE asset, otherwise our country wouldn't have perfected the use, and already answered the why a Nuclear Chinese Carrier is by far a better military asset to China, than a non-nuclear version

And to claim that Carriers and their battle groups are "obsolete", you best hide that level of ignorance, if you find yourself around anyone, such as the President, who's ususal 1st question, when a global crisis occurs, is where's our nearest Carrier??

And here's an FYI, you can stop with the straman of China attacking the U.S.  No one ever claimed such, be it Cain or myself.

[BT]

The U.S. should be less concerned about China's economic potential than by the military threat it poses. Three Chinese spies were recently indicted in the U.S. for conspiring to steal numerous naval warship technologies. This summer China and Russia participated in a week-long joint military exercise. China's build up of nuclear, military and space technologies to rival the U.S., and its saber-rattling over Taiwan's independence, signals a commitment to more red, not green.

http://www.economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-120305.asp

[Plane]

  An oil fired Carrier would cost less than half as much as an atomic powered carrier , and be just as usefull for supporting operations near the homeland.

   The advantage of nuclear power is range, China wants to have more projectable power.

     Not likly that they will build the ten to sixteen carriers needed for a serious threat to the US fleet , they could be a bigger threat, to the US fleet, with a set of long range stealthy bombers.(somebody look into that?)

    Likely the need for a carrier is prestige and projected power, just like ours. They don't need to equal the US fleet in order to become usefull , they will overmatch 80% of the worlds navys by having one nuclear carrier.

[BT]

Assuming this is accurate, or even mostly accurate, then Cain couldn't possibly have not known China was a nuclear power, and was just misspeaking (as usual).

   

Herman Cain spent the Vietnam war evaluating the capabilities of the Chinese to deliver a nuclear weapon onto the heads of our forces in South Vietnam.

    He examined the test launches of the Dongfeng 1 (SS-1) and plotted out the trajectories for a 500kg warheads.

    When China started testing the Dongfeng 2 (CSS-1) Cain plotted out the trajectories and capabilities of it’s delivery of 15 kiloton nuclear weapons.

    Both of these missiles were provided to the PRC by the Soviets, Cain analysed data from the Russian test launches and determined the risk to U.S. troops in SE Asia.

    Cain also observed the development of China’s first domestically produced missile, Dongfeng 3 (CSS-2) and plotted out it’s use with China’s 15-20KT fissile devices as well as China’s new thermonuclear devices.

    Finally, Cain was involved in the determination that China’s Dongfeng 4 (CSS-3) was capable of delivering both fissile and thermonuclear devices to both Moscow and Guam as well as cover the entire deployment of U.S. forces in SE Asia.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323293.php

[Xavier_Onassis]

They don't need to equal the US fleet in order to become usefull , they will overmatch 80% of the worlds Navies by having one nuclear carrier.

=====================================
That is indeed true. As a weapon of war between major powers, aircraft carriers are obsolete. But most world crises involve piddly little countries.

China projecting her power is a threat to the US projecting its power.If there is an earthquake, tsunami, volcano, typhoon or hurricane problem and the US sends a hospital ship (or a carrier), it serves us as a propaganda tool. But suppose China sends one as well. Then the US loses some of that prestige. But I still fail to see why a Chinese nuclear carrier is better in any way, other than perhaps operating expense, than an oil-fueled one. The question was NOT "asked and answered" It was not answered at all in any way that makes sense.

[Kramer]

Assuming this is accurate, or even mostly accurate, then Cain couldn't possibly have not known China was a nuclear power, and was just misspeaking (as usual).

   

Herman Cain spent the Vietnam war evaluating the capabilities of the Chinese to deliver a nuclear weapon onto the heads of our forces in South Vietnam.

    He examined the test launches of the Dongfeng 1 (SS-1) and plotted out the trajectories for a 500kg warheads.

    When China started testing the Dongfeng 2 (CSS-1) Cain plotted out the trajectories and capabilities of it’s delivery of 15 kiloton nuclear weapons.

    Both of these missiles were provided to the PRC by the Soviets, Cain analysed data from the Russian test launches and determined the risk to U.S. troops in SE Asia.

    Cain also observed the development of China’s first domestically produced missile, Dongfeng 3 (CSS-2) and plotted out it’s use with China’s 15-20KT fissile devices as well as China’s new thermonuclear devices.

    Finally, Cain was involved in the determination that China’s Dongfeng 4 (CSS-3) was capable of delivering both fissile and thermonuclear devices to both Moscow and Guam as well as cover the entire deployment of U.S. forces in SE Asia.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323293.php

Dave heard what he heard so none of that matters. According to Dave, Cain doesn't have a clue about China or foreign affairs.

It's truly amazing how people can educate themselves with truth but so often rely on the wrong sources of information. Google is a good start.

As in the X Files, the truth is out there.

[BT]

I guess perception really is the key:

Did Cain mean by developing "building up" or did he mean by developing "initiating".

His record shows that he meant building up.

The records of those folks at MSNBC who had great fun at his expense shows they wanted it to mean initiating, because that better fits their narrative.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Cain does not appear to know rather a great deal of the truth. Not only that, he seems proud of his ignorance.

[Plane]

But I still fail to see why a Chinese nuclear carrier is better in any way, other than perhaps operating expense, than an oil-fueled one. The question was NOT "asked and answered" It was not answered at all in any way that makes sense.

   Consider this , oil fired carriers could be ready sooner and cost less to operate near China, the main advantage of atomic power for a carrier is range.

     To me this means that this is not being built to support the invasion of Tiawan or to defend the homeland or to intimidate Japan or to grasp the Spratley Islands. These purposes would be well served with a brace of smaller , cheaper carriers that could be numorous and usefull soon.

      Atomic powered carrier means long term and long range goals. It will pull into port all over the world looking impressive, it will be present at every crisis of any kind, it can impress allies , but if it were oil fired and a large number I would think Tiawan.

[Kramer]

I guess perception really is the key:

Did Cain mean by developing "building up" or did he mean by developing "initiating".

His record shows that he meant building up.

The records of those folks at MSNBC who had great fun at his expense shows they wanted it to mean initiating, because that better fits their narrative.

That's why anything they say I won't believe. The MSM could say Cain raped his dog and I would still vote for him. And clearly many people are thinking like me. We know he's a bright go so they can parse he words all they want but it only makes them look like idiots.

[Plane]

I guess perception really is the key:

Did Cain mean by developing "building up" or did he mean by developing "initiating".

His record shows that he meant building up.

The records of those folks at MSNBC who had great fun at his expense shows they wanted it to mean initiating, because that better fits their narrative.

That's why anything they say I won't believe. The MSM could say Cain raped his dog and I would still vote for him. And clearly many people are thinking like me. We know he's a bright go so they can parse he words all they want but it only makes them look like idiots.

     Indeed!

      It can't be that Clinton can get a pass on all that he was accused of and then another Presidential canadate gets a much milder accusation with much less evidence and is supposed to be troubled.

      Hey Herman , tell them to bring proof or get ignored.

[Xavier_Onassis]

A hospital ship with a helipad is more useful for any sort of humanitarian service, and far cheaper than a carrier. Fighter jets are useless in dealing with natural disasters.

No one who is rescued and treated on a carrier gives a crap about the mode of propulsion of the carrier. No one cares if the taxi that takes them to the airport is a gasoline powered car, an Diesel powered car or even an electric one. Nor do they care whether it is FWD, RWD or AWD.

Who actually gives a flying eff about the Spratley Islands? Six countries claim them. I suppose if they decide to drill for oil there someday, they can work out some arrangement. But a nuclear carrier would be of no greater advantage there that the cheapest alternative, a reconditioned Soviet one.

[Plane]

But a nuclear carrier would be of no greater advantage there that the cheapest alternative, a reconditioned Soviet one.

That is my point.

Range and prestige.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Do you think someone whose life was saved after a natural disaster on a reconditioned Soviet carrier in China's navy would discount the fact that they were saved on a ship propelled by bunker oil? Would they feel more impressed had the carrier been equipped with nuclear propulsion?

I don't think I would actually care. It would be like saying "Dr. Chen saved my life, but it was not a big deal, because he drives a Yaris and not a Lexus/Mercedes/Audi/Beemer."

[Plane]

Do you think someone whose life was saved after a natural disaster on a reconditioned Soviet carrier in China's navy would discount the fact that they were saved on a ship propelled by bunker oil? Would they feel more impressed had the carrier been equipped with nuclear propulsion?

I don't think I would actually care. It would be like saying "Dr. Chen saved my life, but it was not a big deal, because he drives a Yaris and not a Lexus/Mercedes/Audi/Beemer."

     Range
   Range    Range
              Range  Range
   Range    Range
             Range             Range
   Range    Range
              Range  Range
   Range    Range
          Range     Range
   Range    Range
              Range  Range
   Range    Range
             Range             Range
   Range    Range
              Range  Range
   Range    Range
          Range


      Note that word!

      An oil fired carrier would stay in Chinas home neighborhood.