> the lack of visible improvement in their naval fleet beyond one Aircraft carrier
Their fleet is expanding rapidly. Usually the discussion from experts is about how quickly China's naval power is growing. China happens to have two carriers now, and one more under construction.
Regarding aircraft carriers:
China doesn't need an aircraft carrier for Taiwan, which is ~100 miles off the mainland; air force bases on the mainland work much better.
Also, the relevance of aircraft carriers to high-end warfare is now in doubt: Accurate anti-ship missiles can hit carriers at much greater range than carrier planes can attack. China in particular has spent decades building a military that keeps US carriers too far from Taiwan to join the fight.
Generally, carriers may only be good for symbols of power (perhaps China's purpose for building a couple) and against less capable enemies - the Houthi's, for example, not China. They also enable you to have an airbase without local permission - if the US wants to bomb Somalia (as they currently are doing), and nobody nearby wants to be involved and let the US use their airbases, the US can put a carrier in international waters. It's a floating, mobile bit of domestic territory.
> That and the highly internally facing quality of the rhetoric: Talking up Taiwan is seasonal politics as people jockey for control of the structures. It's not preparatory to invasion.
Such talk can create a movement that takes on a life of its own; wars have been fought because someone inflamed the population and the leaders had no choice (or, being human, were inflamed themselves). One way to look at it is that such talk increases public support for war.
Their fleet is expanding rapidly. Usually the discussion from experts is about how quickly China's naval power is growing. China happens to have two carriers now, and one more under construction.
Regarding aircraft carriers:
China doesn't need an aircraft carrier for Taiwan, which is ~100 miles off the mainland; air force bases on the mainland work much better.
Also, the relevance of aircraft carriers to high-end warfare is now in doubt: Accurate anti-ship missiles can hit carriers at much greater range than carrier planes can attack. China in particular has spent decades building a military that keeps US carriers too far from Taiwan to join the fight.
Generally, carriers may only be good for symbols of power (perhaps China's purpose for building a couple) and against less capable enemies - the Houthi's, for example, not China. They also enable you to have an airbase without local permission - if the US wants to bomb Somalia (as they currently are doing), and nobody nearby wants to be involved and let the US use their airbases, the US can put a carrier in international waters. It's a floating, mobile bit of domestic territory.
> That and the highly internally facing quality of the rhetoric: Talking up Taiwan is seasonal politics as people jockey for control of the structures. It's not preparatory to invasion.
Such talk can create a movement that takes on a life of its own; wars have been fought because someone inflamed the population and the leaders had no choice (or, being human, were inflamed themselves). One way to look at it is that such talk increases public support for war.