China's SCS Strategy Thread

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
Typical greedy and mafia style 'trade' from America, seeing how there would be no SCS flashpoint if not for their own active and relentless shitstirring.

Create a problem and then offer to 'help' by stopping sustain it, in exchange for real painful consessions from China.

Would be like if China gave public and vocal support to the likes of Black Panthers in the US, and secretly funnelled military grade weapons, munitions and communications equipment to such extremist groups, as well as funding and organisational support to create a race war in the US and then offering to 'help' the US solve that problem if America helped China reunite with Taiwan.

Real great trade that would be for China!

You mean Tibet?
 

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tibet is already a part of China, why would China need to reunite with it?

No I mean, Tibet is firmly part of China since 1949, then US send CIA teams and give training to opposition to destabilize Tibet, while at same time they make it a popular cause internationally to make Tibet an issue, then China has to ask US to reaffirm its position on Tibet which US says of course they don't support Tibet Independence, but this situation won't happen in the first place if US didn't create it.

Kinda like your black Black Panthers analogy,
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
No I mean, Tibet is firmly part of China since 1949, then US send CIA teams and give training to opposition to destabilize Tibet, while at same time they make it a popular cause internationally to make Tibet an issue, then China has to ask US to reaffirm its position on Tibet which US says of course they don't support Tibet Independence, but this situation won't happen in the first place if US didn't create it.

Kinda like your black Black Panthers analogy,

Yes, pretty close, but sadly far from the only such example.

It has pretty much become standard practice for America to be covertly engaged in these sorts of highly illegal activities all over the world, causing suffering and death on a sickening scale.

And so what if they get caught red handed, as has happened numerous times even just in recent years? Who dare or can hold America to account? That is the reality of the 'rules based' world order we live in today. So please excuse my blatant cynicism whenever American high officials and media drones bleet on and on about international law. But I digress.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Article below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There are a number of hyperlinks in the original article which are worth reading.

My comments would include:

1. The general population in China needs no convincing of the importance of the SCS as it is seen as part of China's national territory.
2. China is the world's largest trading nation and most of that trade runs through the SCS. So business, the military and the government all agree that China must be able to dominate the SCS and protect that trade.
3. Which leads to the point that trade and investment flows in Asia look like a hub and spoke arrangement with China at the centre. And this trend will only intensify as the Chinese economy is still growing far faster than the USA which is all the way across a distant Pacific Ocean.

China would call America’s bluff in the South China Sea
By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

July 21, 2017

It seems to be widely agreed that Washington’s current policy of well-worn talking points and low-key FONOPS in the South China Sea [SCS] isn’t working. Ely Ratner and I have been debating how to do better. Ely
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a more robust approach. He suggests that Washington could deter China from further provocations by warning that it would respond by encouraging and supporting the other claimants among China’s neighbours to develop, fortify and if necessary defend the islands and features which they occupy.

I
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that this would not work, because Beijing is unlikely to believe that its smaller neighbours would risk provoking it in that way, nor that America would really support them if they did. Beijing would therefore view America’s warning as a bluff, and would be seriously tempted to call it, which would leave Washington with a choice between confrontation and probable conflict, or back-down and humiliation.

Ely has responded with two cogent points that go to the heart of the SCS issue, and of the much wider and more momentous questions of regional order which underlie it. First, he argues that China’s neighbours would be willing to stand up to China if America helps to reduce their economic dependence on China. And second, he argues that America can easily convince China not to test its resolve by calling its bluff.

But I remain unconvinced. First, Ely’s argument that America can encourage other Asian countries to stand up to China in the SCS by offering them alternative economic opportunities via a revived TPP or something like it underestimates the depth and strength of China’s economic position in Asia, and overstates the power of US economic statecraft.

Neither the TPP nor anything like it could ever offer China’s neighbours economic opportunities comparable to those provided by China’s still-rapid economic growth and the huge initiatives like BRI and AIIB that promise them a share in it. The reality is that whatever Washington does, China is going to be seen by all its East Asian neighbours as the principal driver of their economic prospects. And Beijing knows that. Any US policy towards China which wishes that away will fail.

Second, Ely’s confidence that China wouldn’t test US resolve overlooks the way US policy in Asia over recent years has emboldened Beijing. Certainly the Chinese do not want a war with America, but their recent conduct suggests they are increasingly confident that they do not need to fear one, because America can be relied upon to back off first from any confrontation.

As long as China believes this, then it is very likely that they would try to call the bluff if Washington tried to implement Ely’s proposals. And why wouldn’t they believe it? Ely himself does not envisage that his proposal would include clear US commitments to defend other claimants’ SCS possessions from any Chinese military response.

He quite fairly chastises me for wrongly assuming that it did, but I think my assumption was understandable. If America didn’t make such a commitment, how could his proposal possibly work? Why would the other claimants risk provoking China, and why would China refrain from hitting back?

This brings us to the heart of America’s policy problem in the SCS. To understand that problem we have to be clear about nature of the contest there. Beijing is not just trying to take control of an important body of water. It is trying to take control of East Asia. It hopes to use the SCS dispute to do that by demonstrating there that America is no longer willing to risk a military confrontation with China to sustain its own leading position in the Asian strategic order, and thereby concede that leadership to China.

It has done that with a series of overt military moves which directly challenge the interests of US friends and allies, to which Washington has made no effective response. So far that has worked very well for Beijing, and that has reinforced their confidence in America’s loss of resolve.

And that in turn has increased the risk that Beijing would respond to any more robust US policy – like the one Ely proposes - by pushing back rather than backing down. And that in turn increases the risk that a policy like Ely’s would lead straight to a confrontation in which Washington could avoid humiliation only by running a really grave danger of a major war.

This does not mean that America has no alternative but to acquiesce in China’s take-over. But it means that the effective reassertion of America’s strategic role in Asia requires a clear reaffirmation of America’s willingness to use force to defend it. And that is a process which must happen at home in America. Ely and I agree about the need for this, but we differ over what must come first.

I think this is the essential first step. Nothing Washington can do in Asia will convince Beijing – or others – that America is really serious about preserving its leadership, or indeed any significant strategic role in Asia, unless American political leaders first clearly articulate to Americans at home why that is necessary in America’s interests, and why America should be willing if necessary to fight a war with China to do so.

That may sound melodramatic, but it simply reflects the harsh logic of the kind of power politics that is now underway in Asia today as the regional order adjusts to the new distribution of wealth and power. The roles of the major powers in Asia in future will be determined by the issues that they can convince one another they are willing to go to war with one another over. That is how power politics works.

If US leaders cannot convince Americans that its leading role in Asia is worth going to war with China to defend, then they cannot convince the Chinese. And if they cannot convince the Chinese, then the Chinese will not be deterred from the assertive behaviour which is so effectively undermining US leadership in Asia today.

And of course there is no chance of this happening under Donald Trump. That must weigh in the strategic calculations being made in every capital in Asia today.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Article below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There are a number of hyperlinks in the original article which are worth reading.

My comments would include:

1. The general population in China needs no convincing of the importance of the SCS as it is seen as part of China's national territory.
2. China is the world's largest trading nation and most of that trade runs through the SCS. So business, the military and the government all agree that China must be able to dominate the SCS and protect that trade.
3. Which leads to the point that trade and investment flows in Asia look like a hub and spoke arrangement with China at the centre. And this trend will only intensify as the Chinese economy is still growing far faster than the USA which is all the way across a distant Pacific Ocean.

Good article, but it's author makes an understandable but fundamental error or paramount importance - he assumes that America could easily win any conflict with China, presumably at minimal to modest cost.

That assumption is rapidly becoming less and less realistic in an increase number of scenarios and locations.

He also seemed to have been in for the the last few years, because America has already tried exactly what he and his buddy was debating about, when Hillary jetted in and sabotaged China's planned historic agreement with the other claimants on the issue by giving official cover and unofficial encouragement for the other claimants to go on a land grabbing frenzy in the SCS.

The Vietnamese were particularly aggressive and prolific in their island grabs, but America turned a complete blind eye to that and only made statements condemning Chinese reactions to those land grabs.

The main reason Hillbama chose the SCS as the location to create a major flashpoint was twofold.

Firstly, it is a vital shipping lane, for China. An inconvenient fact is diligently censored by the western 'free' press.

Secondly, at the time of the Hillbama moves, China only had a few token holdings that were more liability than asset in a real serious conflict, and its primary bases were so far away that Chinese forces operating from them would not have any meaningful home field advantage.

Thus the SCS was the ideal place to enforce a naval blocked to try and cut China's sea lanes of communications with minimal military risk.

Unlike the Indian Ocean or Malacca Strait, through which international shipping for most of world flows (thereby creating a near unmanageable logistical and intelligent burden to figure out which ships are bound for China), the lion share of shipping in the SCS are heading to or from China.

Shipping to and from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan can go the slightly longer route around the Philippines and Indonesia to avoid the SCS (shipping trying to sneak to China via this route would be very easy to spot). Thus leaving all shipping in certain parts of the SCS exclusively for China, and this making it possible to surgically intercept and/or interdict those ships without breaking world wide free trade.

That, and not the resources as the western media have been instructed to endlessly repeat, is the fundamental reason why China declared the SCS a core national interest.

The problem with that strategy was that America was completely and utterly caught cold by China's engineering capabilities and political will to create vast man-made islands pretty much literally out of the blue.

Those islands have now fundamentally changed the balance of military power in the region, which is why the US has now backed right off the whole venture - with those islands in play, not only has the costs of any American military adventurism in the SCS increased exponentially, the very outcome of any military clash between China and the US in the SCS is now very much balanced in China's favour.

The US has no military bases in the SCS and surrounding region worth mentioning in a clash against China. Without the islands, they USN would hold the overwhelming advantage with its carriers, subs and major surface combatants against the PLAN and PLAAF elements running on fumes by the time they get to the engagement area.

Before, sinking a few key ships, like the Liaoning and a few 054C/Ds would pretty much have neutralised China's ability to effectively resist an US naval blockade in the region.

However, with those islands, the US would need significant boots on the ground to be able to operate with any measure of safety in the SCS in a conflict scenario. That will only guarantee massive US combat casualties, with the outcome of any such attempted landings very much in doubt.

Unfortunately, despite all the pretty speeches and talk of high ideals, the only thing the American government really respects and accepts is raw power.

The US is dropping the SCS issue, with only a few token face-saving FONOPs for show now because China took away its military advantage in that region, plain and simple.

China, unlike America or Russia, doesn't bluff. When it makes a stand, it does so on the twin pillars of political will and raw capabilities.

As such, it would be a colossal mistake for the US to try and call China's bluff in the SCS when China isn't bluffing or playing around.

China isn't looking for a conflict with America, and would indeed actively try to avoid a direct military clash. However, that does not mean China will be afraid of, or shy away from giving a good slap if America goes out of its way to try to corner China by offering up a cheek for China to spank.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
What makes Americans think China will be easier than North Korea that has the US frozen in fear? Yes, no sugar coating it because as Trump shows he's a lot of talk and no action. This Ely guy obviously still lives in a fantasy of a time that Americans thought the US can easily win in Iraq and Afghanistan. China doesn't want a war but will fight one if it has to. And no amount of propaganda that China is no match for the US will change the fact that lesser countries have proven you don't need to be hardly a match to make Americans feel nowhere being the victors. A war is not going to keep US allies unscathed and China should remember that when US allies don't have all the toys the US has that makes Americans think they're invulnerable.

I was watching a Vice News special today called A World in Disarray. It concentrated on four regions of the showing the world in chaos. Ukraine, Syria, the South China Sea and North Korea. The message was the world needed American leadership. What it didn't mention especially since Vice News is suppose to give an alternative view from the mainstream is the US started or made these situations worse. All of the sudden the world is going decide to be organized over the South China Sea? Sorry it will end up in a war just like how Obama miscalculated China's reaction to the Pivot to Asia which is why these tensions are happening in the first place. Obama thought China would quickly bow down and he could put that feather in his cap that he took on China and won unlike the previous Presidents who promised and failed to follow through. The theme seems to be arrogance that caused all this mess and they haven't learned from history.

What is paying off China's neighbors going to do? That doesn't stop China in its own economic engine that is more and more domestically driven. Don't need the West or export-dependent Asian neighbors soon. So the only way they can stop China is to be the bad guy. They would have to directly undermine China and that would be an act of war. The US can't protect all of China's neighbors when they take the brunt of war while Americans sit pretty on the other side of the world hence why the US needs to outsource this fight. So what's bribing China's neighbors going to do? And if you haven't noticed the biggest China haters in the neighborhood are whining for China to not mix economics with politics. Meaning their own greed is what's preventing them from dropping all relations with China.

Many in the US want China to be treated like the Soviet Union was during the Cold War hoping China will go bankrupt trying to counter every US move. They have it wrong. It's the US that will go bankrupt taking this action. How many countries will the US have to let steal American jobs in order to accomplish this plan? I bet Americans will still expect China to buy US treasuries to pay for all of this too. The US doesn't have enough jobs to give to all the countries it needs to contain China. That's why Trump was elected. If they could do it, they would've already done it.
 

delft

Brigadier
It's the US that will go bankrupt taking this action. How many countries will the US have to let steal American jobs in order to accomplish this plan? I bet Americans will still expect China to buy US treasuries to pay for all of this too. The US doesn't have enough jobs to give to all the countries it needs to contain China. That's why Trump was elected. If they could do it, they would've already done it.
The US felt themselves going towards bankruptcy during the war against Vietnam. That problem was "solved" by Nixon converting the dollar into a soft currency, i.e. not selling gold against a legally determined price, and next by inventing the concept of the "petrodollar". US continued to spend excessively on armaments, nearly as much as all other countries together, also because converting arms factories to civilian production proved very difficult - think of the Vertol plant producing very expensive trams that were initially very unreliable. Now that so much manufacturing has left the US the problems have only gotten worse.
 

FactsPlease

Junior Member
Registered Member
Does anyone have, or can offer some link about how many jobs in USA arms manufacturing, please. I'm keen to read about it even I understand it could be a quite ambiguous figure considering the complexity in logistics and global sourcing today. Only it's been clarified we can talk about exactly how much USA economy relies on and how sustainable its economy can run on current situation. Thanks
 
Top