We all know that scenarios of hostilities are possibilities. However, let's hope they remain as such. If the real situation/s happen, there will only be disaster like what is happening in Syria and perhaps in near future in Eastern Europe. The side that appears to be losing will definitely unleash nuclear weapons. Do we want this in our region? Regardless of whose side we are on - let's be sensible & keep PEACE in our respective backyards - East Asia, Western Pacific.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
Equation
Lieutenant General
Yeah but the US fleet coming in from the Indian has to sail around the SCS, therefore risking getting discovered by any Chinese satellite and drone surveillance or even civilian fishing vessels(not all fishing ships are spies) that could send out signals in heavy traffic shipping lanes.
@Ironman
Let's say China beats Japan in the initial stages. Then China declares a ceasefire just before US forces are redeployed in strength.
Does the US re-initiate hostilities, knowing that the result is likely a full-scale war? And will that full-scale war involve involve a land invasion of South Korea or nukes. And in the aftermath of a conflict that stays conventional, the US has guaranteed that China will simply come back 20 years later for round 2 like Germany. Except China should be significantly larger than the US by that time.
This is just another example that there are limits to the usefulness of the military.
Let's say China beats Japan in the initial stages. Then China declares a ceasefire just before US forces are redeployed in strength.
Does the US re-initiate hostilities, knowing that the result is likely a full-scale war? And will that full-scale war involve involve a land invasion of South Korea or nukes. And in the aftermath of a conflict that stays conventional, the US has guaranteed that China will simply come back 20 years later for round 2 like Germany. Except China should be significantly larger than the US by that time.
This is just another example that there are limits to the usefulness of the military.
It may be more likely than you think. What if Japan salami slice at China by trying to or actually building on or militarizing the Diaoyus/Senkakus? Such as putting up a radar station? Even stationing a few SAMs and AShMs? Or even just a few infantry via rotary aicraft?
That "if it was the US forces who opened fire on the Chinese first" is an important distinction you mentioned. This just means the US will have a more difficult time than usual if it wants to spiral up an accidental clash or straight up instigate a clash. But US propaganda superiority can minimize any such difficulty. And if the US had a pre-meditated plan you can bet it will have additional forces in theater beforehand, either openly or under the guise of any of the many military exercises it conducts with allies in the region.
Though this is primarily a conversation between you and Iron Man, I have to say a Taiwan scenario can be triggered a number of ways and is entirely relevant and realistic. The ECS, Taiwan, and SCS are all in contention for China to break out of maritime containment by the first island chain and for China containment to tighten the noose.
Taiwan is China's reunification and first island chain breakout holy grail, which also makes it China containment's trump card if it can throw a wrench in it in any way. Some version of more "color"/"sunflower"/"umbrella" political radicalization in Taiwan on top of the DPP government, especially if that government is not sufficiently hostile to China, is likely in the cards.
Second the above.
While that is true, actions might be taken in EW, cyber, and space to disrupt this. Specific cyber and space warfare capabilities are already hard to determine other than that some capabilities exist. It's even harder to predict what specific actions any side might take at what particular points and what the response would be.
vesicles
Colonel
It has happened before. 1962 India-China border conflict. China attacked India and unilaterally stopped and pulled back before the US could act. And the US couldn't and didn't do anything other than verbal condemnation once China stopped and pulled back. China picked the time to attack precisely because the US was distracted from the Cuban missile crisis...
China again did the same thing to Vietnam in 1979 and 1984. Quick attack and pull-back. That seems to be China's style.
I am in full agreement with plawolf in that the full-scale WWIII-style of fighting is out of question. this is why China has been focusing on small-scale, high intensity and high tech battles since they started their military upgrading.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Actually India started the 1962 war. A few years back there was a lot debate whether India should release the Henderson-Brookes report that's been kept secret. Some of those that know what's in it have let it go public that India was the first to make incursions into China and China just had enough and went full force. The US knew this and just simply charged China started the war. That propaganda has worked to this day. Yes, some will conveniently forget the Gulf of Tonkin so cover-up is easy if someone else started the war.
vesicles
Colonel
Good to know! I had no idea!
Either way. My point was that China finished the fight quickly and with a bang before the US could intervene. And the US did not pick a fight with China afterward... This is the point that plawolf was making, I think.
How does sailing around the SCS somehow risk discovery MORE than sailing through it, where China already has bases to monitor traffic?? Look at a map of the Java and Celebes Seas. You are saying that these seas make the US more vulnerable to discovery than the SCS with its network of Chinese bases?
BTW, there are civilian ships all over the Western Pacific and SCS and in all the seas and straits, so this is a moot point. There is also no real reason to hide USN ship movements from China, since China will already know how long it takes for forces from the Middle East and Diego Garcia to arrive in the waters around DYT.
What "initial stages"?? How long are you giving China to "beat" Japan, whatever that's supposed to mean? Who says a Chinese "ceasefire" will be interpreted (or spun) as such by anyone outside of China? This sounds like utter cowardice to be honest: a 12 year old beats up an 8 year old, and then when the 18 year old shows up to get revenge, the 12 year old cowers and says "Just kidding! Don't hit me!" Nobody will pity China when the US says "f*** you" and proceeds to lay the smack down.
Your point is a distortion of history. There was no "before the US could intervene" because the US chose not to intervene at all. In fact India asked JFK TWO separate times to supply 12 squadrons of fighters along with US pilots to help India fight China, which Kennedy denied both times. Even if the US didn't want to send 12 squadrons because of the Cuban Missile Crisis (though I don't believe this is at all the reason), it could have sent 2. Or even just 1. As a show of support. It sent NONE.
China's unilateral withdrawal from India was made from a position of strength. Both sides knew it could have pressed far more deeply into India than it chose to in the end. A bloody nose is what Mao wanted to deliver to Nehru, and that is exactly what he did. On the other hand, China's unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam was made from a position of weakness. China was the one who received a bloody nose in that conflict, failing to achieve any strategic objectives and losing more forces in the process than Vietnam did.
Neither of these conflicts involved any kind of time element where China was forced to withdraw to avoid a countering attack from a third party, so neither of these conflicts have anything to do with a hypothetical Chinese unilateral ceasefire against Japan in the face of an impending and overwhelming US response.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
First off, cut it with your petty personal attacks. You are not going to provoke me, so don't even bother. All you are achieving is making youself look immature and petty.
Secondly, you may wish to learn how quotations work, because you are using them all wrong.
As to your question, of why the US won't attack, well haven't you answered it yourself with the bold part I highlighted?
How is it in America's interests to start a shooting war with China after an unilateral Chinese ceasefire? What would be the aims and benefits of doing that given the enormous costs and far greater risks involved? How does America expect to end that fight after they start it?
As for the escalation of a conflict between China and Japan. Firstly, this isn't the movies, two warships will rarely if ever conveniently take each other out in a hail of shells and missiles.
The balance of probability would be that one of the warships wins the encounter and sinks the other. In which case that surviving warship becomes the obvious fulcrum around which the conflict would escalate, as one side deploys assets to kill it, while the other scrambles to try and protect it.
Even allowing for your highly improbable scenario where both ships sinks each other at the same time, not all the crews will perish with the ships, so both sides will want to get assets into the area for search and recovery operations, and neither would be in the mood for much in the way of co-operation or negotiation.
Both sides will likely deploy military forces to try and secure the area before launching rescue operations, while treating the mirror claims and actions of the other as a transparent cover and pretext to seize military control of the area and the islands.
Given the general level of hostility the Chinese and Japanese populous has towards each other, it's frankly hard to see how one side or the other could pull back even if they wanted to if the shooting really starts.
The only way such a conflict will end is if it gets to the point where one side becomes unable to continue fighting.
China holds the clear military advantage. So Japan's obvious game plan is to drag the fight out for weeks or even over a month to allow the US to gather enough forces to risk direct involvement.
China's game plan is to deliver a knock-out blow a s quickly as possible to the Japanese such that they are unable to continue fighting. At which point China will be able to call a unilateral end to hostilities.
I was assuming you had the intelligence and imagination to follow the clear path I set; to easily see how one attack could lead to a retaliation, in turn triggers another response. It's pretty basic game theory stuff. I just followed it to its natural conclusion without spelling out every last minute detail and permutation along the way because I frankly have far better things to do with my time.
Now, are you asking me to map it all out in such excruciating detail because you honestly lack the mental facilities to do work it all out yourself, or are you just looking to score some cheap points?
Well isn't it obvious? Gain control of the Diaoyutai islands, while dealing a decisive blow to the Japanese naval and air forces to remove a main strategic rival; demonstrating Chinese military capabilities, resolve, and ultimately, restraint to anyone else watching to fundamentally undermine the fantasy America has created to underpin its position in Asia as the provider of security guarantees.
If this pathetically transparent straw man represents the peak level of thinking you are capable of, I am clearly wasting my time trying to get you to think of ideas and concepts that are going way over your head.
If you don't want to be treated like a simpleton, kindly stop acting like one.
And do you really think the US have enough assets cumulatively in all of those places, ready to set sail instantly, while still leaving sufficient forces in place to maintain the balance of forces and continue operational commitments necessary in those regions, to allow them to risk open conflict with China?
Please, indulge me. Draw up an order of battle of US forces forward deployed in those areas, apply availability ratios to determine assets ready to deploy, then allocate forces to remain on station to meet local operational requirements and show me what you think the US could actually deploy within a week.
The only thing worse for America than sitting back and letting China beat up Japan is to jump in on Japan's side half-arsed and get beat up alongside them.
Yes, because wars are only ever started by grand events
Oh, was WWII not was hostile as the Cold War?
The legacy of WWII still lives on in Asia, hell, the entire Diaoyutai dispute is a textbook example of that legacy at play today.
The level of general hostility between the Chinese and Japanese general public is as high as it has been since formal diplomatic relations were established.
Wars do not start because of incidents. Incidents provide the pretext and excuse for people to fight wars they already want to fight.
The risks of conflict between China and Japan are frighteningly high because the part of the populations of both who actually wants that war are at the highest level they have been since diplomatic relations were established between the PRC and Japan.
Sinking most of the Japanese fleet and shooting down most of its Air Force should pretty much cover it.
China will deploy a strong fleet to the Diaoyutai islands.
If Japan wants to challenge that, it will need to deploy a similarly powerful fleet, with air cover, which China will attempt to destroy.
Given the overwhelming advantage in air and naval strike power the Chinese have over the Japanese, it's hard to see how such a conflict would end other in the destruction of the Japanese fleet.
If the Japanese keeps their fleet at port, China will just keep the islands and call it a good days work.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Continued due to character limit.
It all boils down to whether the US really wants to fight this fight. If America wants to fight, it can dream up any pretext *cough* WMD *cough*. Similarly, if America doesn't want a piece of that fight, it can easily lawyer its way out.
After all, this is hardly without real life prescedent. The US also has a mutual defence treaty with South Korea. Where was the wrath of the American military when North Korea shelled South Korean territory again? How about that time they sunk a South Korean warship?
At the end of the day, the only question that truly matters is this - is America willing to start a war that will almost certainly cost it tens of thousands of lives, with a very real possibility of it going full nuclear, over a few specks of islands on the other side of the world that has nothing to do with America?
Exactly, now do you see why local US military commanders are fretting about not being the biggest guys on the block?
Such a conflict would be extraordinarily bad for America, which is why America is going to such great lengths of try and minimise the likelihood of it occurring.
Starting with the pivot to forward deploy more assets in Asia, and extending to cooking up trouble in the SCS to draw China's attention and forces away from North Seas Asia.
As bad as leaving Japan flapping in the breeze would be for America, fighting a nuclear war with China will be incalculably worse.
Countries looks after their own best interests first and foremost.
Do you need to go back to school to brush up on your reading comprehension?
Go read what I actually wrote again and understand it, and then maybe you can see how that entire rant is entirely meaningless, except to show your desperation to try and twist my words to fit the narrative you want to create.
My skin is just fine. From the increasingly shrill tone of your rants, I somehow get the feeling you are projecting here.
As much as I am sure this will go over your head, but I was actually trying to help you out before.
Go read the forum rules, especially the parts about personal attacks and insults.
So if you want a take a holiday to cool your jets, please continue with the petty personal attacks.
It all boils down to whether the US really wants to fight this fight. If America wants to fight, it can dream up any pretext *cough* WMD *cough*. Similarly, if America doesn't want a piece of that fight, it can easily lawyer its way out.
After all, this is hardly without real life prescedent. The US also has a mutual defence treaty with South Korea. Where was the wrath of the American military when North Korea shelled South Korean territory again? How about that time they sunk a South Korean warship?
At the end of the day, the only question that truly matters is this - is America willing to start a war that will almost certainly cost it tens of thousands of lives, with a very real possibility of it going full nuclear, over a few specks of islands on the other side of the world that has nothing to do with America?
Exactly, now do you see why local US military commanders are fretting about not being the biggest guys on the block?
Such a conflict would be extraordinarily bad for America, which is why America is going to such great lengths of try and minimise the likelihood of it occurring.
Starting with the pivot to forward deploy more assets in Asia, and extending to cooking up trouble in the SCS to draw China's attention and forces away from North Seas Asia.
As bad as leaving Japan flapping in the breeze would be for America, fighting a nuclear war with China will be incalculably worse.
Countries looks after their own best interests first and foremost.
Do you need to go back to school to brush up on your reading comprehension?
Go read what I actually wrote again and understand it, and then maybe you can see how that entire rant is entirely meaningless, except to show your desperation to try and twist my words to fit the narrative you want to create.
My skin is just fine. From the increasingly shrill tone of your rants, I somehow get the feeling you are projecting here.
As much as I am sure this will go over your head, but I was actually trying to help you out before.
Go read the forum rules, especially the parts about personal attacks and insults.
So if you want a take a holiday to cool your jets, please continue with the petty personal attacks.