China's SCS Strategy Thread

[ougoah]

But that's assuming China has actually conceded to their demands. We have good reason to assume China has not done any such thing? They haven't issued any statements. They have not abandoned the bases or started taking down the structures and removing hardware. China will not budge because they know there are few cracks in their defense against aggressive US policies be it economic or military in nature. US cannot hope to win a military conflict and China will not take the humiliation of a total public defeat. MAD is preferable to that and we know the leaders in the US won't even entertain the idea of being on the receiving end of hundreds of warheads. They have no guaranteed way of neutralising Chinese WMDs. They are already waging economic warfare so what's left to play? Fact is China is calling the shots here. They just need to find a way of minimising the verbal abuse they are receiving from a poor loser who cannot bear the reality. If you are worried that the squeakiest wheel will be getting the oil, and any Chinese movement considered as conceding will be met with stronger demands until an ultimatum of total Chinese withdrawal from the island is made, the public will then realise how much they've been misled and any show of force made by the west (like the current French and UK destroyers sent to SCS not to mention the Australian naval activities there) will forever remain a show. Tangible victories still count more than feel good victories. If at that point, the pundits demand blood, they can have it, plenty of their's will also be shed. Who wants to play that game? No one with a shred of sanity.

 

[ougoah]

In the face of strong western opposition to China's claims re island chains, it's worth examining China's resolve in defending its claim. This situation will likely develop in two ways, China and opponents find middle ground to settle on or China gives up its claims and times it well to make a show of it so that it is viewed less as an international embarrassment and conceding to western demands, reinforcing its long held position as being not developed enough to challenge US dominance, but more as a gesture of goodwill.

It's only my personal opinion that Chinese claims are outrageously ambitious. This was done with the intention of eventually peacefully settling the matter with what they've always wanted in the first place... typical bargaining/ negotiating strategies right? Ask for an outrageous thing and insisting for a very long time, then settling for what you were always happy with getting but making it seem like both sides have won. This zone is a hedge against OBOR not working out or eventually meeting extreme resistance. Those shipping lanes are important to China. Being able to ensure their flow for Chinese operations are important. Resources in those waters are a secondary albeit important consideration. If the western powers persist and the cost benefit point tips unfavourably for China, they can consider their OBOR side alternative while making sure they get a large enough slice of SCS or at least the naval presence there prevents US interference with shipping and distances them from potential hotspots for conflict in east Asia. However it develops, shooting war is unlikely. But if it does come unprovoked, China's hand will be forced unless Xi wants to lose face for the entire Communist party. So even with all these freedom of navigation party crashers (UK, France, Australia) China will not likely be the one to shoot first even if we assume it is in a superior position to. That would be begging for trouble. The real risk here for shooting is actually how far these guys will push. They will probably continue to push further to see where China's "that's it" line is at. So far we're nowhere near it. My money is on compromise settlement in SCS with China getting what they've aimed for since the beginning. If OBOR works out well, they will abandon the rest of the disputed claims as a show of goodwill. Fortified islands are staying though. They are essentially a military base built out of the ocean away from any one nation's established sovereignty. It's a grey area where opponents will continue to say it's not right. But the informed group within these people will understand they have no political tools to dismantle those islands. Military engagement will depend on future developments in technology.

 

[Jura The idiot]

there're no posts in https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/south-china-sea-strategies-for-other-nations-not-china.t7302/ anymore, so here ...

... US B-52s again fly in contested airspace of South China Sea claims

12 hours ago

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A pair of U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

conducted another show of force near contested airspace by man-made islands in the South China Sea, U.S. Pacific Air Forces confirmed Tuesday.

The flight took place early Tuesday and involved two bombers flying from the U.S. base at Diego Garcia.

“Two B-52H Stratofortress bombers departed Navy Support Facility, Diego Garcia, on a routine mission, conducting training in the vicinity of the South China Sea prior to returning to Diego Garcia, June 5,” the command said in a statement.

The overflight was the latest by U.S. strategic bombers

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to assert that the waterways and airspace around and above a series of Chinese man-made islands in the South China Sea remain open.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on the waters and airspace surrounding its builds.

The flight comes about a week after the U.S. sent guided-missile destroyer Higgins and the guided-missile cruiser Antietam

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from a massive, multi-national Rim of the Pacific naval exercise. It also comes directly after

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

used a major security conference in Singapore to call out China for instigating “intimidation and coercion” though its militarization of the islands and economic pressures it exerts in the region.

Tuesday’s flight, which Pacific Air Forces said was a training mission, is part of the “continuous bomber presence missions ... intended to maintain the readiness of U.S. forces,” the command said.

The Air Force last flew B-52s to the South China Sea on April 24.

 

[manqiangrexue]

In the face of strong western opposition to China's claims re island chains, it's worth examining China's resolve in defending its claim. This situation will likely develop in two ways, China and opponents find middle ground to settle on or China gives up its claims and times it well to make a show of it so that it is viewed less as an international embarrassment and conceding to western demands, reinforcing its long held position as being not developed enough to challenge US dominance, but more as a gesture of goodwill.

It's only my personal opinion that Chinese claims are outrageously ambitious. This was done with the intention of eventually peacefully settling the matter with what they've always wanted in the first place... typical bargaining/ negotiating strategies right? Ask for an outrageous thing and insisting for a very long time, then settling for what you were always happy with getting but making it seem like both sides have won. This zone is a hedge against OBOR not working out or eventually meeting extreme resistance. Those shipping lanes are important to China. Being able to ensure their flow for Chinese operations are important. Resources in those waters are a secondary albeit important consideration. If the western powers persist and the cost benefit point tips unfavourably for China, they can consider their OBOR side alternative while making sure they get a large enough slice of SCS or at least the naval presence there prevents US interference with shipping and distances them from potential hotspots for conflict in east Asia. However it develops, shooting war is unlikely. But if it does come unprovoked, China's hand will be forced unless Xi wants to lose face for the entire Communist party. So even with all these freedom of navigation party crashers (UK, France, Australia) China will not likely be the one to shoot first even if we assume it is in a superior position to. That would be begging for trouble. The real risk here for shooting is actually how far these guys will push. They will probably continue to push further to see where China's "that's it" line is at. So far we're nowhere near it. My money is on compromise settlement in SCS with China getting what they've aimed for since the beginning. If OBOR works out well, they will leave the rest of the disputed claims until future as a show of goodwill. Fortified islands are staying though. They are essentially a military base built out of the ocean away from any one nation's established sovereignty. It's a grey area where opponents will continue to say it's not right. But the informed group within these people will understand they have no political tools to dismantle those islands. Military engagement will depend on future developments in technology.

I think you've ignored the most likely outcome, which is that China continues to build and become stronger. Western ships look tinier and more vulnerable every time they come back to sail another lap. Eventually, either they get tired of this stupidity and just leave by changing their stance (very easy to do for democratic countries that change presidents every 4-8 years) or possibly this charade drags out so far into the future that Chinese power grows to a point where it lays out a red line that if you come within 12 miles one more time, you get turned into a reef and from there on, China's SCS territories are enforced. In any vein, with all these islands built and developed, I don't see China compromising on anything; they're not going to abandon an island with 300 buildings, airfields, naval piers, military bases, etc... on it.

I also felt that these territorial claims so far from China are crazy ambitious, but when they were made, China was much weaker. How ambitious it is scales to how strong China is. After all, the US claims territories that are closer to China than the US. China's future can only be brighter and stronger.

 

[solarz]

I think there are 2 different groups of people here. 1. The group of people/officials who make decisions and 2. The American public which needs to be appeased by group 1. Group 1 is well-educated and understands what's going on. They know exactly who capitulated how much and that they didn't get an inch out of China with their flamboyance as China continues to build, expand, and militarize. However, this truth angers group 2 very much and that's bad for group 1. So group 1 has to make up stories for the poorly educated and not very intelligent group 2, for example, telling them that mobile launchers can be assumed to have been withdrawn just because they aren't lined up 5 on a beach in their original spots anymore. This makes group 2 happy, and group 1 can get some breathing room, but group 1, the real decision makers, know that pushing China any further is stupid because they haven't gotten anything out of the last pushes, supposedly prompting them to move forward in a measured way. Group 1 is playing a delicate balancing act between making group 2 happy by appearing to capitulate China and the reality that they can't capitulate China. They're going to want to be careful not to do anything too big that would make China react in a way that blows their cover, showing group 2 that group 1 is not succeeding in a way they claim and that China is not backing down.

Yes, that's how it worked *before*. Except now, Trump, who is quintessentially group 2, is in charge of group 1. Worse, he's surrounding himself with like-minded people.

 

[Jura The idiot]

30 minutes ago

... US B-52s again fly in contested airspace of South China Sea claims

12 hours ago

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and
China Warns US Against Provocations Following B-52 Flyby

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China lashed out at the U.S. on Wednesday after a pair of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

bombers flew past a Chinese-held shoal in the South China Sea,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from the two major Pacific powers.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying warned the U.S. against "hyping up militarization and stirring up trouble," while promising that China would take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. "doing whatever they want is risky and China will not be threatened by any military warships," Hua told reporters at a daily briefing in Beijing.

This week's flyby near Scarborough Shoal, which China took from the Philippines in 2012, came after U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis accused Beijing of "intimidation and coercion" in the South China Sea. China claims almost the entirety of the sea — resource-rich waters that include some of the world's busiest shipping lanes — despite overlapping claims from neighbors including the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan.

Speaking at a summit of top security officials in Singapore last weekend, Mattis said China has deployed anti-ship missiles and surface-to-air missiles and landed nuclear capable bombers on the disputed islands. He vowed that the Indo-Pacific would remain a "priority theater" for U.S. forces.

Last month, China announced it had dispatched warships to drive away two U.S. Navy vessels sailing close to Chinese holdings in the Paracel Island chain, where China recently announced it had landed strategic bombers on an airstrip for the first time.

That naval confrontation came shortly after the Pentagon withdrew its invitation for China to participate in multinational naval exercises near Hawaii to protest China's military moves in the South China Sea.

Despite rising tensions, Mattis is expected to visit Beijing at an unannounced date. He said last weekend he would travel soon at China's invitation.

China's Defense Ministry has said it would welcome Mattis and hoped for continued exchanges with the U.S. military.

 

[ougoah]

I think you've ignored the most likely outcome, which is that China continues to build and become stronger. Western ships look tinier and more vulnerable every time they come back to sail another lap. Eventually, either they get tired of this stupidity and just leave by changing their stance (very easy to do for democratic countries that change presidents every 4-8 years) or possibly this charade drags out so far into the future that Chinese power grows to a point where it lays out a red line that if you come within 12 miles one more time, you get turned into a reef and from there on, China's SCS territories are enforced. In any vein, with all these islands built and developed, I don't see China compromising on anything; they're not going to abandon an island with 300 buildings, airfields, naval piers, military bases, etc... on it.

I also felt that these territorial claims so far from China are crazy ambitious, but when they were made, China was much weaker. How ambitious it is scales to how strong China is. After all, the US claims territories that are closer to China than the US. China's future can only be brighter and stronger.

While this is true and I certainly hope for a stronger China. It's certainly true that a nation's ability to "get away with things" corresponds to its strength but I personally feel that it is counter productive for China's endgame which I'm completely guessing (or hoping) is offering humanity a complete alternative to the Washington consensus and democratic model, steering the planet into a hopefully better direction where actual progress on social and economic fronts could be made rather than this existing model which is very obviously falling apart. Taking more space by might is the imperialist's method. I think China ought to exert force where necessary like defending its sovereignty and playing this game as far as gaining that end result. Compromising with everyone while protecting China's shipping interests and ability to defend the region from US aggression is enough. Pushing further may just damage the already toxic sentiments. Having said that, people's attitudes change dramatically with time and the public's memory is that of a goldfish, if it's accurately informed at all. These military bases and islands are a forward operation base against the US. China will not be dismantling them willingly that is for sure. We'll see if the US is happy to pay the price of prying it out.

 

[ougoah]

Yes, that's how it worked *before*. Except now, Trump, who is quintessentially group 2, is in charge of group 1. Worse, he's surrounding himself with like-minded people.

I think we're underestimating the influence of US Congress and Trump's many advisors, particularly military ones who understand what can and can't be done and the price for each.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Yes, that's how it worked *before*. Except now, Trump, who is quintessentially group 2, is in charge of group 1. Worse, he's surrounding himself with like-minded people.

You're focusing on the wrong point as the main difference between group 1 and group 2. It is not intellect but information. The public doesn't know what an HQ-9 is so they can be fooled. Trump doesn't either but his generals will tell him that it is a mobile SAM that is still somewhere on the island so he understands that the Chinese didn't just de-militarize; he's stupid but he understands simple sentences. Since your scenario revolves around the US decision-makers thinking that China backed down therefore interpreting it as a sign to advance, this should quell that worry. Neither Trump nor any of his confused and angry old advisers have done anything to push the envelope beyond sailing ships in circles which indicates that they understand their lack of options here.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Monday at 6:58 AM

interestingly,
France, Britain to sail warships in contested South China Sea to challenge Beijing UPDATED : Monday, 04 June, 2018, 11:30am

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and through a related NavalToday article
France, UK announce South China Sea freedom of navigation operations

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

noticed this Exclusive: At delicate moment, U.S. weighs warship passage through Taiwan Strait

June 5, 2018

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The United States is considering sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait, U.S. officials say, in a move that could provoke a sharp reaction from Beijing at a time when Sino-U.S. ties are under pressure from trade disputes and the North Korean nuclear crisis.

A U.S. warship passage, should it happen, could be seen in Taiwan as a fresh sign of support by President Donald Trump after a series of Chinese military drills around the self-ruled island. China claims Taiwan as part of its territory.

U.S. officials told Reuters that the United States had already examined plans for an aircraft carrier passage once this year but ultimately did not pursue them, perhaps because of concerns about upsetting China.

The last time a U.S. aircraft carrier transited the Taiwan Strait was in 2007, during the administration of George W. Bush, and some U.S. military officials believe a carrier transit is overdue.

Another, less provocative option would be resuming the periodic, but still infrequent, passages by other U.S. Navy ships through the Strait, the last of which was in July 2017.

The Pentagon declined comment on any potential future operations and it was unclear how soon a passage might take place.

Speaking in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying urged the United States to prudently handle the Taiwan issue so as to avoid harming bilateral ties and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait region.

“We have repeatedly emphasized that the Taiwan issue is the most important and sensitive core issue in the China-U.S. relationship,” she told a daily news briefing on Tuesday.

Taiwan’s Defense Ministry declined to comment, saying the news had yet to be verified.

Trump, who broke protocol as president-elect by taking a phone call from Taiwan’s president in 2016, has toned down his rhetoric about Taiwan in recent months as he seeks China’s aid in the nuclear standoff with North Korea.

The United States and China are also trying to find their way out of a major trade dispute that has seen the world’s two economic heavyweights threaten tit-for-tat tariffs on goods worth up to $150 billion each.

China has alarmed Taiwan by ramping up military exercises this year, including flying bombers and other military aircraft around the island and sending its carrier through the narrow Taiwan Strait separating it from Taiwan.

“They’re turning up the heat,” a fourth U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the U.S. view of Chinese activities around Taiwan.

Separately, it now appears unlikely the United States will send top officials to a June 12 dedication ceremony for the new American Institute in Taiwan, America’s de facto embassy in Taiwan. Washington does not have formal ties with Taipei.

U.S. officials told Reuters that the date clashes with the planned June 12 summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but added there will be another opportunity to commemorate the institute’s unveiling in September.

CASE-BY-CASE ARMS SALES

Since taking office, Trump has approved a $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan and angered Beijing by signing legislation encouraging visits by senior U.S. officials to Taiwan. Trump also named John Bolton, known as a strong Taiwan supporter, as his national security adviser.

The fourth U.S. official told Reuters Washington aimed to change the way it approaches arms sales requests from Taiwan to address them on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to bundling them together.

Rupert Hammond-Chambers at the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council trade association said moving away from bundling - a practice in place for a decade - would be better for Taipei’s defense needs, treating it more like a regular security partner.

“We get into difficulty when we treat Taiwan differently, which opens the door for the politicization of the (arms sales) process,” Hammond-Chambers said.

Military experts say the balance of power between Taiwan and China has shifted decisively in China’s favor in recent years, and China could easily overwhelm the island unless U.S. forces came quickly to Taiwan’s aid.

The United States is bound by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, but it is unclear whether Washington would want to be dragged into war with China over the island.

Asked about U.S. obligations to Taiwan, Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Logan noted Washington has sold Taiwan more than $15 billion in weaponry since 2010.

“We have a vital interest in upholding the current rules-based international order, which features a strong, prosperous, and democratic Taiwan,” Logan said.