As Sino-US relations become more and more tense, the topic of the comparison of military strength between the two countries has reappeared. There is no doubt that this time it is the topic of the United States. According to an article published on a related U.S. news website, a U.S. naval analyst Christopher Carlson has recently reached a "reassuring" conclusion: Although the Chinese navy is expanding, this growth rate will Slow down, and its strength will not exceed the US Navy.
Whether the analyst's remarks are true or false, it is certain that these remarks have been "praised" by most Americans, including US officials, and they are very pleased with the conclusions of Carlson's analysis. Perhaps in their opinion, this conclusion can beat most people who think that China will surpass the United States in power. Carlson pointed out in the report that the scale of the Chinese Navy is getting bigger and better, and the speed of construction is getting faster and faster. This is indeed an indisputable fact. After more than ten years of major investment, the Chinese naval fleet currently has the largest number of main battleships in the world, but they do not believe that this is the only criterion used to measure naval power.
At present, the Chinese Navy has 360 main battleships, more than 60 more than the US Navy's battleships. This obviously proves the data of the military strength of the two sides, but Carlson completely "upside down". He said that although there are many Chinese ships, American ships are much larger than Chinese ships. At the same time, American ships are better equipped. The analyst's remarks are obviously sour grapes. If the size of a ship can really be used to measure a country's naval strength, why does the US "Roosevelt" aircraft carrier have problems one after another? The problem of clogged toilets on aircraft carriers has not been solved yet? During the epidemic, it was once more "squatting".
Furthermore, the "big" of the aircraft carrier is a "living target" in the eyes of the missile. If my country's naval development in recent years is not enough to be a "threat", then American experts and American officials will not frequently compare the U.S. Navy with the Chinese Navy. And this just proves that the rapid development of our navy has made the United States afraid. Although Carlson also admitted in the report that in the past 11 years, my country has made remarkable achievements in ship construction and maintenance, and its total working hours have increased by nearly five times compared with the previous 11 years. "Compliment" is just a foreshadowing.
Earlier, some American diplomats predicted that China’s naval power would almost double from the 21st century to the beginning of the 30th century. This time Carlson refuted this. In his view, to achieve such a large expansion, 93% of the working hours must be increased, and more importantly, a huge amount of capital must be added. Maintaining a large fleet requires a lot of manpower, time and money, but since the speed of China's economy is much lower than in the early days, it is almost impossible to achieve such a significant growth. "At the same time, this does not include the burden of a larger fleet on shipyards and budgets." In short, the analyst believes that China's resources are limited and cannot carry out such a large expansion. Therefore, it wants to surpass the US Navy. It's too possible. It is impossible to say this separately. From the perspective of Carlson's analysis, he made a fundamental mistake from the beginning. What is the ultimate goal of China's national defense construction? We just want to build a safe development environment, and all military construction is carried out around this goal. As for the fight for global supremacy, it is just the anxiety of the United States itself. No matter whether it is in this position or not, our country does not care and has no intention to fight with the United States. So far, the Chinese people's reaction is flat. After all, the conclusions drawn by the analyst are not valid at all.
