What does China's aircraft carrier face in the Pacific?

What does China's aircraft carrier face in the Pacific? Wen Yang China's first aircraft carrier has been officially unveiled. There are different opinions on its mission and role. …

What do Chinese aircraft carriers face in the Pacific? Wen Yang China’s first aircraft carrier has been officially unveiled. There are different opinions on its mission and role in the public opinion circles. As a special armament of the navy, aircraft carriers inherently belong only to the ocean, not to the offshore. Because the aircraft carrier's weapon is carrier-based aircraft, it is meaningless to operate within the combat radius of local shore-based aircraft. Only when it enters ocean waters can it be used as a sea take-off platform for aircraft to exert its long-range strike power. Therefore, the first message released by China's first aircraft carrier to the world is that the Chinese have begun to have a sea-based strike force across the world's oceans. Now it's just the beginning, one aircraft carrier, several nuclear submarines, and some ocean-going auxiliary ships. It can be predicted that there will be more in the future, such as 3-4 Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups that are similar in size to the American aircraft carrier battle group, conducting strategic cruises in the Western Pacific all year round. To use geopolitical terms, this means that China has a "sphere of influence" in the Pacific. Further imagine, if this sphere of influence covers the "first island chain", spans the Japanese mainland, and then approaches Hawaii. What if China's sphere of influence in the Pacific overlaps with that of the United States?/FONT> The question arises. Now China's first experimental aircraft carrier has just begun its trial voyage, and the United States has not reacted much yet. So when the day comes when the combat radius of China's aircraft carrier covers the territory of the United States, will the United States still sit back and remain indifferent? If the United States says that this is not possible, only the United States can expand its sphere of influence to the entire Pacific, but China cannot; only the United States can allow its aircraft carrier combat radius to cover the territory of any other country, but China cannot; only the United States can deploy 11 aircraft carrier battle groups around the world to control all important areas, but China cannot; then, a new question arises: Where does the specialness of the United States come from? Where does the legitimacy of the United States’ role as the world’s police come from? William Eng, who served as the U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1997 to 2001, said this about the forward deployment of U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups: "If the United States did not have forward deployment, the United States would not have such a big say and influence as it does now." It's a good point, but it's not explained thoroughly, because if it is just for "voice" and "influence", then this reason is unlikely to apply only to the United States and not China. It cannot be said that only the United States can have "voice" and "influence" issues, but China cannot have them. Further investigation, the question boils down to this: Why is it that only the United States’ “voice” and “influence” are considered orthodox, legitimate, just, civilized, progressive, and bright, while other countries are not eligible for this honor? As early as the end of the 19th century, when the United States was only ranked third in the world's maritime power rankings, and had not yet completed the development of its western frontier at home, Mahan's maritime strategic thought was born very early. The strategic concept of deploying overseas defense in the Caribbean and the Pacific had already emerged. It already understood that "whoever controls the ocean controls the world." Why is this kind of "maritime imperialism" that is justifiable and taken for granted, and is not a problem when it is reflected in the United States? Why do countries around the world also acquiesce? Investigators will find that behind Mahan’s maritime strategy, there is another larger ideological resource called Manifest Destiny. This is a unique geopolitical belief with religious overtones in American culture. Simply put, it is: the expansion of the United States is the expansion of liberal democracy, and therefore is orthodox, legitimate, just, civilized, progressive, and bright. It is the sacred mission given to Americans by God. Although the term Manifest Destiny is no longer used publicly, it actually continues to exert influence as an idea that has played an important role in history. After all, the United States today is still a country with a strong Christian faith, its maritime power is still a reflection of Mahan’s thought, and its foreign policy still carries the overtones of “just expansion” and “holy expansion.” Sooner or later, China's navy will eventually enter the depths of the Pacific Ocean and its scope of activities will eventually overlap with that of the U.S. Navy. When the two aircraft carrier battle groups of China and the United States meet on the ocean, what they face each other, how they recognize and understand each other will directly determine their respective actions. My message to the captains of Chinese aircraft carriers is that in addition to naval technology and tactical knowledge, there are many things they need to know. August 22, 2011