China's SCS Strategy Thread

[PanAsian]

...
The other possible advantage with attacking China in the SCS is if the US wants to go nuclear with its first strike.

Conventional munitions would just be rearranging sand against those islands, but tactical nukes would either obliterate them outright, or at least make them uninhabitable.

Such an opening move would carry with it massive shock factor, while also complicating any Chinese response with a lack of suitable proportionate retaliatory targets. Especially if the strikes were carried by by B2s instead of USN cattier groups, who would have all retreated well back beforehand.

If US tactical nukes China in the SCS, China can just nuke Guam or the Diego Garcia place

Nuke anything on either side and it will proceed to MAD. Anything less makes nuclear deterrence pointless.

 

[plawolf]

Nuke anything on either side and it will proceed to MAD. Anything less makes nuclear deterrence pointless.

And yet both sides of the Cold War developed vast stocks of low yield tactical nukes.

Using tactical nukes would be a massive escalation and make MAD ridiculously likely, but it is not a guaranteed outcome.

There are certain targets that will make MAD all but inevitable if you hit it even with your lowest yield tactical nuke, like cities, which is why Guam is out as far as I am concerned in terms of possible Chinese retaliatory targets to a US nuclear strike on its SCS islands. But there will be targets that both side can nuke that could quite feasibly not result on MAD.

Normally the extremely high risk of accidentally triggering MAD would make the idea of nuking even those targets unthinkable, but Trump is no sane and rational leader is he? He has already done so many conventionally unthinkable things that we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of him gambling on China backing down if he only raised the stakes high enough.

 

[tch1972]

I tend to agree with this assessment.
if US initiates a conflict at SCS, China should not limit the theatre of operation there. All US military and naval bases at Japan, Okinawa, Philipines, and even Singapore become legitimate targets. Since the gloves are off, China may as well contemplate taking back Taiwan and restoring Okinawan independence in one go. I guess Asian countries ( Japan, SK included, but Australia excluded ) know about the threat to their own prosperity should a war break out, and will not side with the US easily in a military conflict.
After all, any sane Asian leaders would understand Trump really means it when he says America First, and would not sacrifice their own interests and welfare to appease him.

China needs to state clearly to Singapore that her military installations would be targeted if Singapore ever allows her Changi base to be used as launch pad by USA against China. I personally think Singapore is playing with fire by inviting USA to use her base to conduct freedom of navigation ops in SCS.

 

[Petrolicious88]

China’s MAD deterrent is very weak.

The official document describing china’s nuke policy explicitly says: under no circumstances will China use Nuke first. It also indirectly says, even when China mainland is attacked, it will still not use nukes. The only time the 400 page report says China Might respond with nukes is when key national infrastructures are nuked like the Three Gorges Dam.

The pentagon has studied this report extensively. It knows that if it attacks China, China will not respond with Nukes.

 

[SimaQian]

China’s MAD deterrent is very weak.

The official document describing china’s nuke policy explicitly says: under no circumstances will China use Nuke first. It also indirectly says, even when China mainland is attacked, it will still not use nukes. The only time the 400 page report says China Might respond with nukes is when key national infrastructures are nuked like the Three Gorges Dam.

The pentagon has studied this report extensively. It knows that if it attacks China, China will not respond with Nukes.

Sun Tzu said, "Appear weak when you are strong, appear strong if your are weak... Let your plans be dark as night."

Pentagon can study and believe what they want. Why would somebody put on paper what they plan to do, in case they are attacked by the enemy. Let your plans be dark as night.

 

[manqiangrexue]

China’s MAD deterrent is very weak.

The official document describing china’s nuke policy explicitly says: under no circumstances will China use Nuke first. It also indirectly says, even when China mainland is attacked, it will still not use nukes. The only time the 400 page report says China Might respond with nukes is when key national infrastructures are nuked like the Three Gorges Dam.

The pentagon has studied this report extensively. It knows that if it attacks China, China will not respond with Nukes.

I think it's antiquated text, like how Texas still has a law that states the penalty for stealing a horse is that you get hanged. That policy was written when China's missile technology and deterrent were extremely poor in order to assuage fears and to deny a rational America any reason to perform a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Today, Chinese missile tech is arguably better than America's and China's nuclear stock is secret to confound calculations for how to neutralize it. This text is a remnant of the past but changing it would shock and scare the world like MC2025. Regardless, anybody knows that when missiles fly, those words aren't worth the paper they're written on. Those who are naive enough to believe it risk leaving themselves completely unprepared for Chinese action including the possibility of a nuclear first strike.

 

[Untoldpain]

China’s MAD deterrent is very weak.

The official document describing china’s nuke policy explicitly says: under no circumstances will China use Nuke first. It also indirectly says, even when China mainland is attacked, it will still not use nukes. The only time the 400 page report says China Might respond with nukes is when key national infrastructures are nuked like the Three Gorges Dam.

The pentagon has studied this report extensively. It knows that if it attacks China, China will not respond with Nukes.

The Pentagon would be fools to believe a piece of paper will save them from Assured Nuclear Retaliation.

When the time comes to lay down the cards, the "No First Use" official document is not going to be worth the paper it's written on. One late night session of the Politburo Standing Committee, and it is as good as gone.

Nuclear deterrence, after all, is based on mutual capacity to destroy the other side. Trust simply do not come into the equation.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

This is interesting seem like basing fighter on the island is not the only option of PLAAF here is another one via JSch
The PLA has deployed fighter jets directly to islands in the South China Sea in the past, reports said.

Forbes reported in July that the PLA deployed at least four J-11B fighter jets to Yongxing Island of the Xisha Islands. Previous reports also suggested the presence of J-10 fighter jets and JH-7 fighter bombers on the islands.

Fu said that fighter jets deployed on the islands can react faster, but that maintenance on the islands is more difficult due to high salinity and humidity, and the number of fighter jets would be limited since island bases are relatively small.

PLA fighter jet breaks flight duration record in first 10-hour patrol mission to South China Sea
By Liu Xuanzun Source: Global Times Published: 2020/8/4 18:43:40

Pilots assigned to a naval aviation brigade under the PLA Eastern Theater Command keep their Su-30 fighter jet in a specified airspace while awaiting further clearance during an actual-combat flight training exercise in mid-February, 2020. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Li Hengjiang)

By having a Su-30 fighter jet completing a 10-hour armed patrol mission to the most remote islands and reefs of the South China Sea, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force recently broke its record on flight duration in a single sortie by a fighter jet.

Both technically and mentally challenging, this kind of mission is of significant strategic value to the PLA's complete patrol coverage of the entire South China Sea, experts said Tuesday.

An aviation force brigade attached to the PLA Southern Theater Command Air Force completed the patrol mission in the South China Sea, mgtv.com, a news website under Hunan Television, reported on Monday.

Dubbed "Thunderbolt Eagle," the brigade's main mission objectives concern the South China Sea, and since a round trip patrol mission from its base to the most remote islands and reefs would need 10 hours, this kind of long endurance mission has become necessary, the report said.

The previous PLA Air Force flight duration record for a single sortie by a fighter jet was 8.5 hours, it said.

According to the report, the Su-30 fighter jet refueled mid-flight with an aerial tanker, and the pilots consumed rations to keep their energy up.

"During a flight, the body reaches a limit at four to five hours, so pilots will relieve stress and fatigue by chatting and eating flight rations, which includes mineral water and chocolate," mgtv.com quoted pilot Lu Geng as saying.

Wang Ying, another pilot on the mission, said in the report that the mission is not about breaking the limit or the record, but about real combat.

Chinese military aviation expert Fu Qianshao told the Global Times that a 10-hour patrol mission is challenging because the fighter jet's fuel capacity cannot support such a long flight, so aerial refueling is needed, which is technically challenging. A long-duration flight is also very stressful to the pilots, as they also need to stay on high alert during their mission.

The mission demonstrated that the PLA Air Force's long-range flight capability and the scope of its patrol operations have greatly expanded, Fu said, noting that large warplanes like H-6 bombers have previously conducted similar missions, but they were not fighter jets.

Fighter jets can escort bombers or conduct surveillance missions on aerial and surface targets on their own. This is of significant value in safeguarding China's national interests and aerial security, Fu said.

The PLA has deployed fighter jets directly to islands in the South China Sea in the past, reports said.

Forbes reported in July that the PLA deployed at least four J-11B fighter jets to Yongxing Island of the Xisha Islands. Previous reports also suggested the presence of J-10 fighter jets and JH-7 fighter bombers on the islands.

Fu said that fighter jets deployed on the islands can react faster, but that maintenance on the islands is more difficult due to high salinity and humidity, and the number of fighter jets would be limited since island bases are relatively small.

This is why the long-endurance patrol missions from Chinese mainland bases are still important, and both deployment methods can complement each other, Fu said.

 

[siegecrossbow]

This is interesting seem like basing fighter on the island is not the only option of PLAAF here is another one via JSch
The PLA has deployed fighter jets directly to islands in the South China Sea in the past, reports said.

Forbes reported in July that the PLA deployed at least four J-11B fighter jets to Yongxing Island of the Xisha Islands. Previous reports also suggested the presence of J-10 fighter jets and JH-7 fighter bombers on the islands.

Fu said that fighter jets deployed on the islands can react faster, but that maintenance on the islands is more difficult due to high salinity and humidity, and the number of fighter jets would be limited since island bases are relatively small.

This sort of long duration flying will be much easier when fight drones are available.

 

[PanAsian]

And yet both sides of the Cold War developed vast stocks of low yield tactical nukes.

Using tactical nukes would be a massive escalation and make MAD ridiculously likely, but it is not a guaranteed outcome.

There are certain targets that will make MAD all but inevitable if you hit it even with your lowest yield tactical nuke, like cities, which is why Guam is out as far as I am concerned in terms of possible Chinese retaliatory targets to a US nuclear strike on its SCS islands. But there will be targets that both side can nuke that could quite feasibly not result on MAD.

Normally the extremely high risk of accidentally triggering MAD would make the idea of nuking even those targets unthinkable, but Trump is no sane and rational leader is he? He has already done so many conventionally unthinkable things that we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of him gambling on China backing down if he only raised the stakes high enough.

And yet none of those tactical nukes were ever used.

As a general note it's not just Trump the person but rather the Trump administration which includes a whole faction of the US elite with colonialist among other prejudiced mindsets and a tendency for playing dirty and brinksmanship as first resort.

So it's really a political and propaganda duel which has no bearing on actual MAD including but not limited to nuclear still being the most effective deterrence against nuclear and other forms of aggression. It would appear that MAD deterrence is in place otherwise even conventional military action can be threatened or used.

This holds true until there is meaningful escape and living life beyond planet Earth, which I think is currently as feasible as using tactical nukes without consequence on a full fledged nuclear power.