The slide's authenticity was confirmed by a Navy spokesperson, who cautioned that it was not meant to be an in-depth analysis.
The slide shows that Chinese shipyards have a capacity of about 23.2 million tons compared to less than 100,000 tons in the U.S., making Chinese shipbuilding capacity more than 232 times greater than that of the U.S.
The slide also shows the "battle force composition" of the countries' two navies side-by-side, which includes "combatant ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, major amphibious ships, and large combat support auxiliary ships." The ONI estimated that China had 355 such naval vessels in 2020 while the U.S. had 296. The disparity is expected to continue to grow every five years until 2035, when China will have an estimated 475 naval ships compared to 305-317 U.S. ships.
Another section of the slide provides an estimate on the percentage each country allocates to naval production in its shipyards, with China garnering roughly 70% of its shipbuilding revenue from naval production, compared to about 95% of American shipbuilding revenue.
Because of China's centrally planned economy, the country is able to control labor costs and provide subsidies to its shipbuilding infrastructure, allowing the Chinese to outbid most competitors around the world and dominate the commercial shipping industry, Sadler said.
Alternative title - "Central planning is more efficient than markets" confirms US Navy
the shocking confidence of someone who doesn't have the barest outline of the subject repeating the canned lines they learned in what, middle school? like its fucking gospel. you literally can't follow what you said in this comment chain, your first response to me was asserting the lack of US progress after being defeated by China and Korea in the North was out of a desire for peace. i have refuted this with the evidence of warfare continuing for two years after that and now you're acting like this fact is inadmissable.
and is there anything different in say, who the south was allowed to trade with in contrast to the north? any country with military bases in the south that gave it a lot of economic aid perhaps?
Lmao I think you’re just arguing with yourself at this point. Do you think there was 2 years of fighting after the ceasefire or something? Nothing I said was outside of literal historical records, but I guess if you view recorded history as “gospel” I can understand why you are so historically inept.
Yea, people they weren’t at war with genius. Like holy shit a child would have better understanding of geopolitics
you didn't know the war didn't end after the US was removed from the north at the beginning of this thread, or you profoundly misunderstood the character of the later stages of the war. now you're attempting to cover for this by claiming i don't grasp the chronology and moving around 2 years of warfare i was never confused about the location of. check my first comment, lmao dork
what i want to know is what makes someone so fundamentally incurious and foolish that when they discover something they thought was true might be untrue, instead of investigating or listening to people eager to educate them, they dig in their heels and deploy all the tricks in their (quite insubstantial) rhetorical arsenal to insist upon the falsehood. it's okay to be wrong about things, it won't kill you
You’re arguing with yourself again lol
Never once did I say the war ended when the US was getting pushed back. The war “ended” with the signing of the armistice and it’s been a ceasefire ever since. The Korean War timeline is not that complicated.
you know this isn't going to work on anyone who can read, but whatever you need to write to protect your fragile baby ego