They already are. The army has always been the lowest funded out of the three and China has the largest navy as of now.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
Thank God, need to really push ahead as of now dare I say in Pacific US is still the dominant power
That's why any random country can talk a big game about SCS
US nuking Taiwan island when it gets reunified is like PRC nuking Hawaii and Alaska. PRC will respond with all out nuclear exchange with US if US initiates nuclear war. PRC has enough nukes to cover the US several times over but will probably also nuke US partners in case it is nuked.
The US has not had nuclear monopoly on China since the 1960s. Scaling up stockpile and delivery systems isn't difficult or expensive or even that necessary to guarantee US thinks three times before acting. As important as it is for China to get close to matching US stockpiles, it isn't really that necessary. The US will lose 200 million plus people in an exchange if not get wiped. No one wants that but we're talking US initiating this because white man is right and might is right amirite? They just can't leave everyone alone.
SCS claims by China is vital for its security unless it wants US and allies positioning dozens of capable surface and subsurface warships right next to China, constantly threatening its trade and security. This is how the imperialists used to play, China's 9 dash line leaves this option out of their hands. They can sail through and do sail through once in a while to maintain their right of nvagiation... fine. Any long term presence in that area is really a threat to China's security. Imagine if both Russia and China placed dozens of ships and submarines along with nukes within 100km of US coastline all around its key shipping routes ready to fire and go to war at moments notice, performing surprise attacks etc. That's what the wankers in Washington want.
Nuclear isn't happening unless they want to go MAD. Even the most outdated, lowest, most conservative estimates of Chinese nuclear warhead count is at 300. Even if half become faulty and half are intercepted, a few dozen megaton nukes over the US is enough to end the US. In reality, 99% of those nukes will work, barely any will get intercepted, and China probably has at least several hundred more warheads than that.
NATO ships have been doing their navigation routine for a long time. China expresses annoyance and formal disagreement then everyone moves on. It's all just a formality and politics for NATO where each member need to show some subservience. If a war is triggered, I very much doubt those navies from Europe will get involved. They have no skin in the game and everything to lose, nothing to win. Sailing in peacetime is a good political move to show "solidarity" with US policy but when the shit hits the fan, they will act in a way that will surprise many western empire dreamers. That isn't a union. France and Germany will be the first to say I want nothing to do with this. UK will be the only coalition partner and this won't be fighting an Afghanistan, Iraq or even a Vietnam or Korea.
The US deep state does seem like it wants to escalate this with China. It isn't happy with not getting its way. They tried trade war, failed. They tried tech war and sanctions, embargoes, bans on IC fab, failed. They tried biological warfare and backfired. They haven't wanted to go kinetic because the main government there understand the civilian appetite for a war with China is going to be low no matter how much they have tried dehumanising Chinese people and badmouthing China for generations. Not to mention the number of deaths they will have to pay with. I doubt either the civilians or main government would have an appetite or that.
The US has not had nuclear monopoly on China since the 1960s. Scaling up stockpile and delivery systems isn't difficult or expensive or even that necessary to guarantee US thinks three times before acting. As important as it is for China to get close to matching US stockpiles, it isn't really that necessary. The US will lose 200 million plus people in an exchange if not get wiped. No one wants that but we're talking US initiating this because white man is right and might is right amirite? They just can't leave everyone alone.
SCS claims by China is vital for its security unless it wants US and allies positioning dozens of capable surface and subsurface warships right next to China, constantly threatening its trade and security. This is how the imperialists used to play, China's 9 dash line leaves this option out of their hands. They can sail through and do sail through once in a while to maintain their right of nvagiation... fine. Any long term presence in that area is really a threat to China's security. Imagine if both Russia and China placed dozens of ships and submarines along with nukes within 100km of US coastline all around its key shipping routes ready to fire and go to war at moments notice, performing surprise attacks etc. That's what the wankers in Washington want.
Nuclear isn't happening unless they want to go MAD. Even the most outdated, lowest, most conservative estimates of Chinese nuclear warhead count is at 300. Even if half become faulty and half are intercepted, a few dozen megaton nukes over the US is enough to end the US. In reality, 99% of those nukes will work, barely any will get intercepted, and China probably has at least several hundred more warheads than that.
NATO ships have been doing their navigation routine for a long time. China expresses annoyance and formal disagreement then everyone moves on. It's all just a formality and politics for NATO where each member need to show some subservience. If a war is triggered, I very much doubt those navies from Europe will get involved. They have no skin in the game and everything to lose, nothing to win. Sailing in peacetime is a good political move to show "solidarity" with US policy but when the shit hits the fan, they will act in a way that will surprise many western empire dreamers. That isn't a union. France and Germany will be the first to say I want nothing to do with this. UK will be the only coalition partner and this won't be fighting an Afghanistan, Iraq or even a Vietnam or Korea.
The US deep state does seem like it wants to escalate this with China. It isn't happy with not getting its way. They tried trade war, failed. They tried tech war and sanctions, embargoes, bans on IC fab, failed. They tried biological warfare and backfired. They haven't wanted to go kinetic because the main government there understand the civilian appetite for a war with China is going to be low no matter how much they have tried dehumanising Chinese people and badmouthing China for generations. Not to mention the number of deaths they will have to pay with. I doubt either the civilians or main government would have an appetite or that.
who told u that US won't risk a nuclear exchange under any circumstances? they r developing sea based BMD, lasers & their own hypersonic missiles.
I know the triad, & the 1st conventional strike may not be at mil. nuclear sites; but it may be just as effective.
the resulting armistice is a stalemate.
only in the PRC's leaders & mapmakers' imagination, not recognized by any1 else. If/when China decides that she's at war with Japan and/or SK, that self-declared EEZ will be closed. How would PRC react if US or Japan built an island with an air/naval base on a shoal in the E. China Sea & set up an EEZ there overlapping with her own?
their fisherman & others want their gov. to say that- watch the news & relevant past articles.
the US, France & UK also have MIRVs on SSBNs & US is developing HSMs, as mentioned above. They can loose Guam or Hawaii but China will get devastating strikes on its mainland, from different platforms & directions. Let's hope it won't happen!
nukes r great equalizers- the US relied on them in Europe & in Asia during the Cold War, having less conventional forces.
the SLOCs r still the main way, & all oil imports from there is done over them. Even if they build oil pipelines from Iran via Pakistan to W. China, they can be sabotaged or bombed.
China doesn't even have her viable triad yet: her SSBNs r safe only in the Bohai Bay & SCS, & from there they can target only Alaska, Hawaii, & the US West Coast, where BMDs r being set up & upgraded. The PLAAF still doesn't have B-1B/2/ counterparts yet; the USAF will field B-21s sooner than PRC will have its strategic bombers in any meaningful numbers.
Btw, . Before they all cleared, China will need to supply those islands by air only. Plenty of time to capture them all with MV-22s & C-130/17s full of marines & airborne troops flying low & fast while F-15/16/22s fly CAPs above.
theoretically speaking, do u think NK/Pakistan with their nukes can stop Chinese/Indians from invading, respectively?
they can hold only so many at any given time, so it's drop in the bucket. to make it their lake, they need to populate Vietnam, Philippines, & Borneo.
I agree, but they fill that they r successful at beating the system at its own game, making an independent living by earning extra $ they otherwise wouldn't have. FYI, most of the present US non-Native population near reservations r not the descendants of 17-19th centuries European immigrant settlers of the American West; their ancestors came later from Mexico, Africa, ME, Asia, Scandinavia, Germany & E. Europe.
in their own mind, they r as proud as they can be, with perseverance surviving as Natives while not being completely assimilating, against all odds.
The Taiwan issue is related to the SCS issue, as the island is on the Northern end of it. Now, will u forgive those Taiwanese (who r not foreigners in ur understanding), who would be resisting being taken over? why don't China find a place for them elsewhere in the world to avoid a war- after all, they r Ms of overseas Chinese all over the world? is China justified in destroying Taiwan "in order to save it", like US did with Vietnamese villages? The ROC gov. may conduct a referendum open to UN observers asking if they want to reunify. Then if China uses force, she'll be the aggressor committing war crimes. The West would then have a casus beli to intervene.
his forum is not a fighting contest, so it's not relevant. what u call superstition is a practical observation done & confirmed over Ks of years; just like theories of acupuncture, herbology, & geomancy.
to me, being biased & not seeing the forest for the trees isn't showing any wisdom at all.
How do u know it's my thinking too? It's what they likely think in their tanks & corridors of power. What I really think is not relevant: my opinion will not be consulted by them.
it would be stupid to use nukes by both sides, but it may still happen; as an old Chinese saying goes, when 2 tigers fight, 1 will be killed, but the other will get crippled.
schoolkids here r not taught to hate China; they learn to be wary of any1 not like them, & they r, as the adults, bombarded with anti-Chinese propaganda & half truths. But I heard that Chinese textbooks do teach to hate the West. When traveling there, some treated me with disdain, even though I wasn't born in the US/W. Europe & have nothing to do with European colonialism.
Last edited:
@ougoah Sir can the US compete with a resurgent Russia nuclear forces and that of an expanding Chinese nuclear asset? The US will bankrupt itself cause its need to respond, Sir if China do expand its nuclear warheads to 1,000 and the American do react, then the Russian will add the same to match the American. Its a continuous cycle and the American can't keep up, it is unlike the previous cold war where the American is facing a sole super power, this time she is facing two. (a formidable nuclear power and a economic superpower)
The point of diminishing returns for China would be maybe around 1000 warheads mark (personal guesstimate). That would also be assuming many are faulty, many get intercepted, and China will need to cover north American and European targets if it is the time to end it.
For the US, they want to cover all of Russia and have enough left to fight another nuclear exchange if it comes to that. Which is why their currently PODR is around their declared stockpiled number.
Stockpile isn't a pissing contest like you have described in your post. No one has a need to expand stockpile beyond what is necessary with a very conservative margin of error. China probably already has that and just wants to make it more known it has that and is actively creating more delivery systems. All those things are for show and political subtext.
Tsavo Lion is way off on his posts. I just wanted to address his nuclear war posts and his "oh Germany might be sailing into the SCS in a peaceful freedom of navigation routine ... so it's the end for China!"
And how does any of that make the US immune from retaliatory strikes? You do realise that BMD doesn't work perfectly right? You also realise that sea based BMD needs to be positioned in all the right places in order to perform decent enough intercepts right? You also realise that BMD doesn't reliably work well against SLBMs since you don't know where those will be launched from? Laser BMD has been long cancelled because it requires the plane to fly within relatively close range of boosting missile. A slow, large, high RCS defenceless plane flying around China's coast can maybe shoot down two or three boosting ICBMs launched in coastal China before the plane gets intercepted or shot down. It is so useless the Americans didn't even bother finishing the project before cancelling it. They just did some tests, realised the range is useless despite its commendable innovation and technical brilliance.
China already has hypersonic glide weapons and BMD. China recently intercepted a HGV in a BMD test. China has had BMD since the 1970s albeit with relatively weak industry and no match for the Soviets' or American's back then. BMD doesn't mean you can engage nuclear war with a major nuclear power.
US won't risk a nuclear exchange unless it is sure it has some magic technology that guarantees it safety or at worst minimal and "acceptable" destruction.
And what is stopping China from launching DF-31, DF-41, JL-2, JL-3, DF-5, DF-5A/B on the US? In years time, even H-20 carrying nuclear weapons? Why would the US only lose Guam, Hawaii (which I think China wouldn't bother doing)? Why do you insist on being this stubborn? I'm honestly curious. China has had the ability to launch MT nukes on mainland USA since at least 1981. Today China has more weapons, third gen nukes (as Chinese discussion refer to the latest generation of Chinese nuclear weapons), HGVs, MIRVs, MaRVs, and better SLBMs to carry that out.
No they did not rely on nukes being some equaliser to presumably prevent or win any war. What is going on here with the nonsense??
China's nuclear triad is definitely lesser than those of the US and Russia. The weakest link is stealth strategic bomber and SSBNs. China currently has no B-2 equivalent in service and lesser and fewer SSBNs than even Russia. It is soon to receive their stealth strategic bomber and is already starting to build Type 096. JL-3 is ready. ICBMs and SLBMs are receiving or received HGV capability.
I doubt any Chinese would go out of their way to treat you with disdain. So few foreigners who travel China, even those who hate and disdain China receive that sort of hate unless they are going out of their way doing something? Some examples include misrepresenting Chinese people and constantly working on agendas, slandering China like the SerpentZA youtuber and his friend. Literally everyone else experiences neutrality if not overwhelming positivity. Perhaps you were just overly political and rude to Chinese people and a few of them didn't live up to your expectations on how you wanted to be treated in China.
How on earth are Chinese textbooks teaching kids to hate the West? That doesn't happen. You mention half truths and anti-China propaganda but then you spew the same thing. You haven't been to school in China. I have. I have family who have and friends. There is a Marxist agenda in school systems with some teaching of Marxism and philosophy even up to end of high school but I'll say this, there is no anti-West program in school systems. That might change in future with how things are going but what you said you "heard" is absolutely untrue. If it were, why are Chinese people so naive about how much the west hates China and Chinese people? Most Chinese have had no clue about this until recent years when it has become much more apparent with US China politics and conflicts.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Under any circumstance? What's that about? I don't believe that. If the US was attacked in a devastating enough fashion, especially with a nuke, they should be willing to nuke back. Not short of that. At least we see the US unwilling to do one in the SCS despite China's advances and unwilling to use them in Georgia or Ukraine to prevent those areas from falling into Russian hands.
The US went from being to top in technology to playing catch up to China. ASBMS, hypersonic missiles, China has them and are improving them. The US wants them but keeps failing its hypersonic tests.
No, if you knew the triad and the methods for surviveability, you would not say a first strike could be just as effective. With Chinese nuclear submarines, hardened silos, decoy silos, and mobile launchers, there is no way to do a decapitating initial strike to prevent retaliation. You are just imagining what you want to see.
Yeah, after China beat North Korea off of the US, the US was able to prevent China from taking more and it stalemated there. The net result is Chinese gain in land.
They may choose to not recognize it for political reasons but the fact is they are well aware of it and thread lightly there. Even when the US performs FONOPS, you can see that these ships go right a bit into the claim line of absolute territory then come back out, which is an indirect recognition of it.
At war? Strike it with artillery. Hell, at war, we strike bases that aren't even in that area with artillery.
But their government doesn't say that and even if fishermen asked for it, they hold no political power to influence the government. That's assuming you said it's true, which I doubt.
LOLOL No, there's no Guam and Hawaii for the Chinese mainland. It's all of their countries if they strike China's mainland. You still demonstrate a failure to understand MAD and have some fantasy that these countries are more eager to strike China than China at them. If China takes nukes on the mainland, every US major city will be retaliated against.
Oh it won't. It's just your desperate imagination that these countries would go to nuclear war over China's gains in the SCS. It's not even close to reality.
That's fine; China has them too and we have hypersonic ones. The childish part is that you believe they will be used so easily when they are actually reserved as a last line against an existential threat.
So first you imagine these 2 countries blockading China when they have no interest or inclination, and then you imagine China's pipelines being bombed LOL OK, China can bomb the pipelines of those who did it. It's just so sad to see you go so far out of touch with reality to imagine scenerios that can stop China's march forward.
That's your imagination. There is nothing that says that those subs can be detected in the open oceans except American wishes.
hat is true; bombers are China's weakness but the H-20 is coming along. In the meantime, China's mobile launchers and subs can ensure second strike capability.
Those islands, as I said, are well-stocked and even have their own agriculture. B-52s are not survivable against SAMs or enemy fighters. The islands will not need to be resupplied like a naval ship; they are islands and can hold plenty of supplies.
Those islands are equipped with SAMS to defend against legacy aircraft (and possibly even stealth aircraft with China's anti-stealth radars) and can put up more than a significant fight themselves. The losses American forces will take trying to land on the island will be enormous, if they can land at all. Then, Chinese fighters (J-11B, J-20) can reach the area for backup against the few F-22s if they can even reach there. Chinese ASBMs can take care of large surface ships and that's not to mention China's navy. Worst case scenerio if an island falls, Chinese artillery from the mainland can blast the island and all its occupents before retaking them.
America can pick on small weak countries but it will not fight China. And only in your imagination would they take this step because they know China is a tree they will hang themselves on.
Too many imaginary off topic conflicts. NK nukes against China, it's biggest ally?? You always make no sense. India's incompetent nukes or no nukes.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I find it hard to believe that one person can be so full of nonsense. China will not populate these countries and will control the SCS through military technology, not by occupying all of the countries in or bordering the waters. China will only and has only populated the islands that it has claimed and built up.
And you're off topic again. They have no pride but the Chinese do in our nation; Chinese people live better. The other parts you wrote are irrelevent drivel.
You just said that you agree that they have no real pride. What you described is a coping mechanism for being powerless. The Chinese have real pride.
No, they are different issues. That is stupid for you to say that and it's ignoring moderator warning.
Of course. Those who are alive and repent can be forgiven.
That's stupid. 1. They can leave. But the land belongs to China. 2. They can find their own place in the world; there are no undiscovered islands to move them to. 3. Why are your suggestions so crazy stupid??
No, we didn't say that. Don't make shit up again. If we wanted to destroy it, it could have been done long ago.
They have no membership or ability to call on the UN.
The West doesn't lack casus beli; they don't care. They attack weak nations from reasons out of thin air. The West lacks the power and the self-sacrifice to intervene.
I didn't mean only physically; I meant at everything. Your superstitions are irrelevent.
It is a superstition because it is not based on a science. Astrology, Zodiac signs, Gypsy palm reading, Tarot cards, etc... are superstition and that's what you are falling back on because that's how badly you are getting trounced here. Horses don't lose arguments? LOL What kinds of BS is that? What would happen if 2 horses debated? The world would implode? Besides, winning an argument doesn't mean just talking. Every time you fail to answer a point and respond with irrelevent nonsense, you've lost an argument. It's only still going because you created another one, which you will lose as well.
Everybody's biased and we see the forest for the trees; it is you who treats war and nuclear exchanges like you're playing a computer game and thus failing to the the big picture that is reality. It's desperation-induced psychosis because you see China's rise and cannot stop it.
Because you said it?
No, the think tanks think the US will lose an intervention over the ROC and none of them recommend a nuclear escalation. You're alone.
This one you got right.
China won't need nukes; China is just fine and winning everyday conventionally. You're the one going crazy talking about the US using nukes hoping not to be nuked back when the reality is that they won't do it and they'll have no choice but to sit there and watch China get its way like they do now in the SCS.
American schools do teach wrong things about China to start their kids off with a negative impression of it. It's basically the same thing.
That's more during the cultural revolution. Things have changed a lot. Now, Donald Trump teaches everyone to hate the US and Biden can't get off the train.
With your ridiculous opinions on China, I would treat you the same way.
Last edited: