US Deploys Three Carrier Battle Groups To Face-Off Against Chinese Aircraft Carrier In South China Sea

Last week, we reported that satellite images had captured China’s only aircraft carrier in deployment, the Liaoning, flanked by 40 other warships and submarines, conducting unprecedented live-fire drills in the South China Sea. This massive Chinese naval exercise was observed for the first time, with China watchers pointing out that such a forceful display of deterrence was highly unusual for the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Perhaps in light of recent events, it was merely a warning.

Li Jie, a Beijing-based naval specialist, said, “it was the first time the Liaoning had taken part in live-fire drills. This will test the Liaoning’s real combat strength as well as joint-operations skills between the aircraft carrier and warships from other fleets.”

“China wants to show the outside world its determination to defend the fruits of its economic reforms over the past 40 years,” Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming said.“Like the US, China’s military might is one of the government’s political tools to protect the country’s national interests.”

Now, according to the South China Morning Post, as Beijing flexes its naval war muscle, the US is preparing for its own "show of force" naval drill in the Asia-Pacific region, and in close proximity to the Liaoning. The Pentagon is reportedly sending an unprecedented three aircraft carrier battle groups to the region, with the USS Theodore Roosevelt flotilla arriving in Singapore sometime early next week.

Separately, the USS Carl Vinson and its fleet have just paid a first visit to the Vietnamese coastal city of Da Nang since the end of the Vietnam war, a move Chinese military experts said was aimed at countering Beijing’s influence in the region.

Meanwhile "China is believed to have deployed the DF-21D, dubbed the “carrier killer”, in the East and South China seas to fend off any possible US aircraft carrier battle group attacks on coastal cities, the country’s economic heartland," according to the SCMP.

Overlapping naval war drills could be a symptom of diplomatic and economic relations between the United States and China rapidly deteriorating with the onset of a rapidly expanding trade war. Both countries announced tit-for-tat tariffs this week, which sent shockwaves through global markets.

President Trump maintained his aggressive approach to trade policy on Friday and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin warned there is the possibility of a trade war with China. For anyone who missed it, in just the span of 72 hours, on Wednesday China reacted to Trump’s $50 billion tariff threat by declaring matching tariffs of its own on 106 U.S. exports including aerospace, autos, defense, and even soybeans. Then in a tit-for-tat retaliation on Thursday, Trump slapped China with an additional $100 billion in tariffs.

Here is what Mnuchin said Friday on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” about the Trump administration’s trade dispute with China:

“Our objective is still not to be in a trade war with [China],” Mnuchin said on CNBC’s “Power Lunch.” “I’m cautiously optimistic that we will be able to work this out.”

But, he added, “there is the potential of a trade war.”

Mnuchin said the U.S. is in “communications” with China, but he didn’t want to comment on the progress of the talks.

“Right now we have initiated a plan. The tariffs will take some period of time to go into effect. There will be public comment, while we’re in the period before the tariffs go on. We’ll continue to have discussions,” he said. “The president wants reciprocal trade.”

America’s last full-blown global trade war was ignited by the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, as the U.S slid into a Great Depression — all in attempt to protect struggling American farmers by increasing tariffs on agricultural imports. The global reaction was short and quick, after that, a trade war ensued. These protectionist and nationalist economic policies severely disrupted global trade, facilitated the rise of fascist leaders, and ultimately some years later contributed to the outbreak of World War II.

The lesson from history is clear: trade wars have no winners and generally damage the economies of the world, raising tensions and increasing the risk of an international shooting war. If anything, trade wars serve to accelerate some pre-designed systemic "reset."

In the context of recent events, and a world which both Goldman and Bank of America recently admitted has too much debt to be sustainable, it is starting to emerge that a reset is precisely what the endgame here is, especially the final "hot war" outcome.

Is the catalyst for this grand  escalation currently preparing for a face-off, somewhere in the South China Sea?

Comments

veritas semper… Lore Sat, 04/07/2018 - 13:09 Permalink

The nuclear option for China is made of:

-deny any rare earth minerals(90% in China) ;this will make the US army,whose technology is based on them,irrelevant

-sell US T bills(all at once or big chunks,they will know which option is best;in terms of losing $ ,this is inconvenient,but it's only paper after all,China and the rest of the world are losing value each day they use the paper $)

-the petro-yuan backed by Gold is what will be offered after the dust settles on the AAZ empire

In terms of carriers ,the logistics of supporting those mammoths at thousand miles from US ,near hostile environment are impossible to overcome.

And then,there is the overlooked alliance of Russia and China. And together ,they have better,bigger guns.

US is just bluffing,thinking(like a bully does) that this show of "muscles" is going to impress and frighten China/Russia.

But China and Russia and the rest of the world have seen what lies beneath this  facade of cowboy-maverick-superman Hollywood bravado . We've  all seen it with the Skripal fiasco : a dying empire,throwing tantrums.

As for the Skripal case: US not only expelled 60 diplomats,closed the Seattle consulate,put the stupid bimbos at UN and State Department to say that 'Russia is guilty even without proof,but now the Donald just gave fresh sanctions against Russia.ALL THESE BASED ON FAKE NEWS AND A FALSE FLAG.

 

In reply to by Lore

Lost in translation I hate cunton Fri, 04/06/2018 - 20:41 Permalink

“Li Jie, a Beijing-based naval specialist, said...”

Yeah, whenever the subject of military power at sea is discussed, I immediately think of Communist China and wonder what the Chinese “experts” on the subject might have to say.  The Chinese have such a long history of successful, worldwide naval operations demonstrated time and again, down through the centuries - I mean, how could two world wars have ever been won without the skill and courage of the Chinese Navy?

AhahaHAHA ... L M F A O !

In reply to by I hate cunton

veritas semper… Lost in translation Sat, 04/07/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

They don't need a lot of maritime success,they are at home. US is thousand miles away and the logistics of maintaining all those carriers are a bitch.It can be done during peace time,not so much at war.

And as for US "superiority" look at this last fiasco:

Within just 48 hours this week, four military aircraft crashed — unrelated incidents, but a cluster of disasters that is becoming depressingly familiar.

Four Marines died when their CH-53 Super Stallion crashed during training. A Marine AV-8B crashed during take-off and a Marine CH-53E was damaged during a landing in Djibouti. And then an Air Force F-16 Thunderbird crashed, killing the pilot.

read the whole thing here:

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-aviation-is-in-a-full-blown-crisis/…

Who laughs last ,laughs louder.

In reply to by Lost in translation

Justin Case Lost in translation Sat, 04/07/2018 - 18:32 Permalink

Communist China

Some people just can't understand that China now employs capitalist and socialist economic policies! Its ridiculous! How can people be so stupid! China has been reforming from communism for 30+ years now. So many people never change their mind, but never over something so stupid! its not like this is up for debate, 10 minitues on google will show anyone that China is no longer 100% communist.

China is, indeed, going through a transition, but it is not a transition from capitalism to communism. The evidence supports a conclusion that feudal appropriation has prevailed in both agriculture (during the commune-era) and industry (during the SRE-era) in the recent past and is now being displaced by capitalism in industry and increasingly in agriculture. In other words, China is going through a transition from feudalism to capitalism. I just don’t see calling such a transition socialism.

In reply to by Lost in translation