No lah, they cannot use UN without nod from Russia and China. Much of Asia was the big communist vs democracy argument - the Cold War (Taiwan vs PRC, N vs S Korea, Vietnam). The Brits after WW2 was a spent force and a non-entity clinging on to HK and trying to reap as much $ as they could. You are correct, many countries benefits from the communist vs democracy. America opened its markets to Taiwan and S Korea and that brought their economy to where it is today.
But contrary to what many think, Soviet threat was their nuclear weapons. But once you push use of such weapons aside (thankfully, they realize that it cannot be used), then Soviet economy could not fund a conventional arms build up to match the Americans. The Chinese, however, have a strong capitalist economy, that is a mfg superpower. So they have the $$ as well as the ability to weapon up if needed. In effect they have the ability to match US military investments or actually US has to match Chinese military investments given the 10to 1 ratio.
BTW cost of a US carrier is not just $5B. You must factor in planes, submarines, Ageis Ships, Frigates, supply ships, tankers and the whole infra to support a carrier group. 20 years ago, carriers are difficult to detect. In fact they still can be hard to detect.
However, many countries can launch their own satellites and the Chinese probably have a few of these looking at their coastline (not a power projection type spying on other countries which cost $$$). They can easily see a carrier moving to within 2K of their coast line. Once a carrier can be seen then it become vulnerable. This is why all that sophisticated radar jamming equipment is made useless by a $100M spy satellite.
There is actually no need to sink a carrier. I believe a 1000kg bomb on the flight deck would render it unusable. And if they have fighters in the air, these top of the line fighters could very well be rendered useless as they run out of fuel.
But contrary to what many think, Soviet threat was their nuclear weapons. But once you push use of such weapons aside (thankfully, they realize that it cannot be used), then Soviet economy could not fund a conventional arms build up to match the Americans. The Chinese, however, have a strong capitalist economy, that is a mfg superpower. So they have the $$ as well as the ability to weapon up if needed. In effect they have the ability to match US military investments or actually US has to match Chinese military investments given the 10to 1 ratio.
BTW cost of a US carrier is not just $5B. You must factor in planes, submarines, Ageis Ships, Frigates, supply ships, tankers and the whole infra to support a carrier group. 20 years ago, carriers are difficult to detect. In fact they still can be hard to detect.
However, many countries can launch their own satellites and the Chinese probably have a few of these looking at their coastline (not a power projection type spying on other countries which cost $$$). They can easily see a carrier moving to within 2K of their coast line. Once a carrier can be seen then it become vulnerable. This is why all that sophisticated radar jamming equipment is made useless by a $100M spy satellite.
There is actually no need to sink a carrier. I believe a 1000kg bomb on the flight deck would render it unusable. And if they have fighters in the air, these top of the line fighters could very well be rendered useless as they run out of fuel.
US and UK are never interested in peace in Asia per se. Some kind of wars must be stirred up now and then to keep their positions as self-appointed global police commissioner and police inspector, using UN as their rubber-stamp parliament. That's strategically and economically beneficial to them in both direct and indirect ways. In fact, many countries know that but play along because they'd benefit along the way too. These are their global police conscript reservists who now and then show up for show so that they'll get a share of the spoils. Singapore is one.
Russia and China have been trying to dislodge that for decades without much success, especially after the collapse of USSR. The other one with any say in this is France, which is caught in between neither here nor there deep enough to commit in any sense of commitment to either side.