SinoDefence Forum

kalim2010

As time passes China's economy and manufacturing infrastructure will gain the high ground. In any modern total war, whether WW2 or whatever, it is economic and manufacturing strength (in addition to population size) that matters in the end. We can debate all night long about this, but any potential conflict will be years into the future, when both sides will have enough nuclear capability to wipe the other off the map.

One can only hope events will be ruled by logic and the understanding of mutual destruction (or the closest to it), not emotional tantrums precipitated by rash actions.

Wolverine

Good God, "years" into the future? And here I thought we were talking about the here and now. Well in that case I should concede the fact that years into the future China will surely have enough phasers and plasma weapons to deter American planetary dematerialization bombs. :P

FriedRiceNSpice

Wolverine don't be delusional.... How much will losing 200 of your most important cities be:

Its game over for both sides and the world. Nuclear weapons detonating in Northeastern China almost guarantees a Russian response as well.

On the other hand, I do consider a Chinese nuclear attack on any US assets, even on the tactical level with a smaller device to be implausible, impossible, and unthinkable. The results cannot be tolerated by either side.

Wolverine

I'm the delusional one? lol please tell me where China has 200 nukes that can reach American cities? And do you mean to tell me the US has only 200 nukes that can hit China? And please don't give me a futuristic scenario, it's boring. We are talking about war with the current balance of power, not 50 years in the future.

That is one of the most preposterous things I've read this whole month.

williamhou

That's common sense no one should use nuke on any other nuclear power

Wolverine

This is not about whether any country should have the sense to not use nukes against another nuclear power. This is about what the US response would be if China nuked one of its carriers.

FriedRiceNSpice

There is something called MIRV. Go do some research. It is a CONFIRMED capability on the DF-31 and DF-31's. Also, there is something called the JL-2....

kalim2010

Why would we be talking about JUST the here and now? It's useless idle chitchat because there is about zero probability war would start this year, or even next. On the other hand, the probability of a "mistake" probably grows higher as time passes into the 3-5 year period and beyond.

People with short term memory may look only at the here and now and get lost when tomorrow comes (hello GM), but to be truly effective one must look at current trends and extrapolate to future potential situations. It always amazes me to think that in the 1960s Japan was mocked as the manufacturer of cheap and shoddy goods, and a short 2-3 decades later were bringing detroit to its knees. Sound familiar?

If you've ever been to China, as I have, you would be amazed at the extremely rapid modernization going on over there. Less than 10 years ago, bicycles filled the streets of its main cities and cars were scarce, but now China is the largest car market in the world and BMWs, Mercedes, land cruisers, and various models and makes clog its roads - while skyscrapers grow like flowers (Shanghai has the best skyline in the world probably) and maglev trains zip along at incredible speeds. China's per capita income is 108 times higher today than it was in 1949 when the Communists took over. To put that into perspective, it took Great Britain almost the entire 9th century to raise its per capita income 2.5 times, 60 years to raise its per capita income 3.5 times in the U.S. from 1870 to 1930, and Japan took 25 years, from 1950 to 1975, to increase its per capita income 6 times.

It would be a major mistake to just focus on the here and now and be blind to the fact that China is modernizing and expanding at a rate that is probably unprecedented in human history.

To get back to the subject, as I said, the days of lumbering Carrier fleets are probably over (at least against major powers with ballistic and space capabilities) as the major powers gain ever more accurate ballistic missile technologies and the surrounding space infrastructure to direct those missiles - just as the days of battleships ended with the coming use of deadlier warplanes.

Anyone care to debate THAT instead of engaging in useless jingoism?

williamhou

China would not be stupid enough to go that. USN and USAF would sink a lot of PLAN ships, by conventional weapons, with the option of using nuclear weapon if necessary. However it seems achieveable without using nukes.

Wolverine

Really? Confirmed by who? How do you know capability has become actuality? How many MIRV's could fit on a DF-31? And how many DF-31 does China have? And JL-2/094? How many does China have? Do you know and can you provide evidence for ANY of these things?

Then you must be accusing kalim2010 of being stupid, because that's EXACTLY what he thinks China would do.

No need to lecture me about China's progress. I know it quite well. Your point fails regardless. Unless we are talking about decades into the future, China is likely to be on the losing side of any war, whether conventional or nuclear, and the fact that you so flippantly dismiss a destruction of a carrier by a Chinese nuke as essentially non-retaliable by the US makes it all the more clear that you perceive a kind of equality of lethal deterrance where none exists.

No, I think the jingoism is all on your side. The standard response of the desperately hopeful PLA fan is the jingo that the US wouldn't trade LA for Taiwan, which is essentially what you are claiming.

Violet Oboe

Without doubt the US currently has the advantage of nuclear escalation dominance over PRC and this will likely stay this way for the next decade. Nevertheless Second Artillery is making steady progress and possibly around 2020 PLA could achieve strategic parity (i.e. assured second strike capability threatening unacceptable destruction; note that what actually is unacceptable is not an absolute term) if the US and Russia continue to reduce their arsenal as both countries have currently pledged.

@Wolverine:
May be you did not perceive the ultimate irony that the US would actually threaten the destruction of her primary lender..., not that some bankrupt debtors would have indeed sinister daydreams about blowing up their bank and shooting their arrogant bank manager but we all know that fortunately this does not happen in reality.

Jeff Head

You are absolutely correct. Anyone that thinks the US would stand idly, turn tail, or respond "lightly" in such a scenario is deluding themselves. I pray to God that no one with such delusions ever gets into power. That is what, IMHO, is so dangerous about some of the Iranian leaders and their comments. They may be deluded and fanatical enough to actually try it. I pray I am wrong.

kalim2010

Exactly. We will surely come to a point (perhaps in the next few years) where each country would have the capability to inflict enough damage to the other that it would make no sense to escalate the conflict beyond tactical nukes away from the continental land masses of either country (where no strategic nuclear response will be triggered). It would be foolish and short-sighted (again, hello GM!) to think this would not happen soon, especially given China's relatively robust economy even in this global recession (and therefore economic considerations of quickly expanding its nuclear arsenal are not a problem). This will obviously favor China since she has no carrier fleets away from the continental land mass to maintain and service and hide, whereas any Taiwan conflict would pull in at least one US carrier task force that would be vulnerable to conventional weapons and tactical nukes.

Jeff Head

Sorry Kalim. This is not the first time these scenarios have been examined and examined very very carefully and thoroughly, where two large, competing nations, had massive arsenals of both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

Evey war game scenario conceivable was looked at and studied by both side ad infinitum. In every conceivable case, the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battle field (land or at sea) to gain a local advantage invariably led to a full scale nuclear exchange, usually with days, if not weeks.

No nation will use tactical nuclear weapons against the other without having considered the results of a full scale nuclear war. In essense, the tactical nukes become part of the MAD deterrent doctrine themselves and tend to hold one the competing superpowers geographic gains static, except through proxy, conventional warfare, or economic competition to gain the advantage. That is where it ultimately leads for any rational nation.

Violet Oboe

@Jeff Head:
Actually the Iranian leadership is completely rational and they play their strategic game in a very shrewd way driving the Israelis almost nuts by slowly tormenting them by a plethora of allies and proxies like Syria, Hizballah, Hamas, Jihad Islami (...after the upcoming US withdrawal shiite led Iraq will probably join the club!). Tehran is exactly aware where the red lines are but unfortunately Israel appears to be more and more confused...

The situation in Pakistan is in my POV much more dangerous for US interests since Islamabad already owns a rather potent nuclear arsenal (up to 120 nukes, some of them on 2000 km range Shaheen II MRBM's) and the current regime is threatened by an determined islamist insurgency. Moreover Pakistan's all powerful military intelligence ISI is permeated by Taliban/islamist sympathizers giving credibility to the scenario that jihadist control over nuclear weapons is only a successful coup by renegade colonels away.

P.S: Being a fanatic does not mean being ´undeterrable´; just ask ´little Kim´ if he is not currently busy holding small talk will Bill Clinton.