China's SCS Strategy Thread

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.

I want to give this post 10x Likes if I can, also its absolutely incredible what China has pulled off in SCS without firing a shot, I think China picked a very good time to do this, they know US have just done Iraq and they were not in a good mood to counter. I also give China credit for smart diplomacy, they were able to buy off half of the ASEAN nations to their side to fight the other half.

China also got very lucky when Trump beat Hillary and Duarte come to power, fortune is smiling on China's side.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
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

According to this article, it's 10% for defense (in both manufacturing and services).

Defense Jobs Make up 10 Percent of U.S. Manufacturing Demand
more-than-800-000-defense-jobs-have-resulted-from-security-co_16000452_800594251_0_0_7045720_300-175x150.jpg

Leaders from the aerospace and defense industry recently came together to promote the impact of their business on the economy at a summit in Washington, Reuters reports. For the nation's military contractors, the event was an important public relations push as Congress looks to reduce the budget deficit by cutting spending in many avenues, including to defense spending.

Industry experts highlighted that approximately 800,000
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and other occupations are tied to the defense industry. In addition, more than 10 percent of U.S. manufacturing demand in the U.S. is dependant on aerospace and defense spending with contractors including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, wage and salary employment in the federal government is expected to increase by 10 percent through 2018 and demand is projected to be particularly strong for workers with skills in specialized areas that require
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, including financial services, scientific research and information security. Job growth is also expected in employment through defense contractors as long as government spending remains consistent.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

B.I.B.

Captain
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.

You don't think those SCS bases could be sitting ducks, vulnerable to cruise missile attacks launched from subs etc?
 

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
As for how will this be defended, plawolf has already address it here in a few dozen pages back, you might want to look for it. Basically those islands are a lot bigger than you would imagine, so to take all of them out you would literally need thousands of missiles, and those islands are not defenseless as well, they are build close enough that they can protect each other.
 

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-437#post-443292
Anyway here is his original post

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is another US source website that shows you the scale of those islands, they are absolutely enormous, some of them are bigger than navy station in San Diego, or Hawaii.

One of those islands is a circular shape and its the size of Washington DC!!!

I really want to know how much China spend on those islands, it must be in the ranges of tens of billions.
 

advill

Junior Member
I don't envisage the US or China would enter into a major War in the South China Sea. There will be continued posturing, but I believe both the US & China's Military would have plans in place to deal with accidental encounters. Maritime trade must continue to flow freely thorough the South China Sea, as well as the Straits of Malacca, Indian Ocean & Western Pacific for China, US & the rest of the world. Security and trade are intertwined, & they will be seriously considered before attempts to create hostilities.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
The whole protecting shipping lanes from China is a lie. China just has to stop making things for foreigners to have the same effect. And remember the US said nothing about China's reclamation for a year before protesting. It's like The Project for a New American Century back in the 1990s writing a paper that said the US needed to control the world's oil supply starting with an invasion of Iraq but they needed some incident to happen in the world to exploit as an excuse to invade. And who were the people behind the Project for a New American Century? Many of the cabinet members of the George W. Bush Administration.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-437#post-443292
Anyway here is his original post

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is another US source website that shows you the scale of those islands, they are absolutely enormous, some of them are bigger than navy station in San Diego, or Hawaii.

One of those islands is a circular shape and its the size of Washington DC!!!

I really want to know how much China spend on those islands, it must be in the ranges of tens of billions.

Let's say the cost of construction is $10 Billion. That compares to trillions of trade passing those islands every year.

That's 3 islands each hosting 24 fighters + support aircraft.

And each airbase requires about 5000-6000 personnel to operate. That would also justify the presence of an infantry battalion of 700.

So the US would need multiple MEU in order to invade and occupy all those islands.

But if China bases an infantry brigade on each of those islands (so a division in total) , the US simply doesn't have enough amphibious assets to invade all those islands, given the distance from mainland China and ability to resupply/interfere.
 
Last edited:
Top