China's SCS Strategy Thread

L

Leningradpro

New Member
Registered Member
The matter of china playing the role of a police got me thinking. The US needs to continue this perennial war machine in order to sustain it's military and it's MIC. Imperialism feeds it's war machine. And the war machine aids it's imperialism. While I see china as a far cry from the imperialist, I fail to understand how does it expect to sustain this huge navy that it is building if it wants to stay in this non confrontational role. I guess my question hinges on 2 points. What is different in China's case? Can the Chinese shipbuilding or aircraft industry sustain itself without the need for perpetual wars or fuelling conflicts elsewhere to export it's products?
 
S

ShooterMiku

New Member
Registered Member
Leningradpro said:
The matter of china playing the role of a police got me thinking. The US needs to continue this perennial war machine in order to sustain it's military and it's MIC. Imperialism feeds it's war machine. And the war machine aids it's imperialism. While I see china as a far cry from the imperialist, I fail to understand how does it expect to sustain this huge navy that it is building if it wants to stay in this non confrontational role. I guess my question hinges on 2 points. What is different in China's case? Can the Chinese shipbuilding or aircraft industry sustain itself without the need for perpetual wars or fuelling conflicts elsewhere to export it's products?
Click to expand...
Simple answer, China's military giants does not have the power to guide the top layer of administration, but their US colleagues can.
 
W

weig2000

Captain
Leningradpro said:
The matter of china playing the role of a police got me thinking. The US needs to continue this perennial war machine in order to sustain it's military and it's MIC. Imperialism feeds it's war machine. And the war machine aids it's imperialism. While I see china as a far cry from the imperialist, I fail to understand how does it expect to sustain this huge navy that it is building if it wants to stay in this non confrontational role. I guess my question hinges on 2 points. What is different in China's case? Can the Chinese shipbuilding or aircraft industry sustain itself without the need for perpetual wars or fuelling conflicts elsewhere to export it's products?
Click to expand...

The reasons for:
  • Safeguarding global commons, SLOCs and trade routes - being the world's largest trading nation (and investor)
  • The One Belt, One Road
  • "Community of Common Destiny" - responsibility as one of the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world
  • International law-based international orders - emphasis being on "international laws" or "rule"
  • ...
What I really meant to say: there will be plenty of reasons to maintain a world-class, affordable military.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
FireyCross said:
I think there's a few reasons China hasn't shown any wiggle room on this one.

1. If China doesn't claim the EEZ she can't really claim the reefs, which would leave her in the worse diplomatic position of saying "Yes, we don't have any claim on these reefs, but we're building them into islands and putting our assets on them anyway." which is *really* bad optics to maintaining an line that you have a legitimate claim to them.*

2. Though an EEZ doesn't grant the right to block foreign military vessels performing exercises, one thing is does grant is rights over the seabed. If China gives up it's EEZ claim and other countries don't, this would legally prevent the PLAN from undertaking detailed mapping of the seabed for the benefit of submarine patrols, and possibly also her ability to install seabed mounted submarine monitoring systems. China's complex dispute with Japan over Parece Vela / Okinotorishima is related to precisely this, as Japan has blocked Chinese seabed mapping within the EEZ claim based on Parece Vela. Unsurprisingly, China has been reluctant to pursue that case with any real enthusiasm, as she knows full well if it was successful then it'd make her stance in the SCC extremely precarious.

3. China desperately wants to reduce her dependence on imported energy, which the SCC could potentially help with. Having those waters under foreign sovereignty would rule that out, or at least greatly reduce the degree of control China has over them.

4. Never underestimate pride. There's a lot of deep seated memories of the unequal treaties, and a strong urge to show the west that China won't be bullied. The more the western countries pile onto China about the SCC issue, the more she's going to double down. It's human nature.

* There is a sort-of precedent in that Australia claims the Torres Strait Islands, but doesn't claim any territorial waters in the Torres Strait, in order to maintain it's international status. However, this the big difference is that Australia already had a populated, civilian presence on those islands when she rescinded her claim to the territorial waters, and there was no ambiguity about the status of the islands as natural features, so I don't think there's any realistic way China could use this to square the circle with her neighbours. Furthermore, no one disputed Australia's claim to to the islands (PNG was threatening too, at the time of it's independence, which was avoided by the territorial water compromise, so it never came to anything).
Click to expand...

Decent analysis, but the fundamental problem with that is you are trying to retrospective apply UNCLOS to historical claims made centuries before UNCLOS and the very notion of territorial waters and EEZs were a thing. That is the central reason why the 9 dash line doesn’t conform to modern norms.

These claims were grandfathered in when China joined UNCLOS, which China did by exercising standard provisions within UNCLOS created precisely for such examples.

China’s current policy is deliberate strategic ambiguity in terms of what its historical claims means. That is to give itself maximum leverage to try to settle disputes with other claimants, but also to allow itself room to upgrade its claims should the need arises.

The SCS issue was essentially a minor non-issue until the US tried to turn it into a stranglehold against Chinese sea base trade, since that is the only realistic place on earth where anyone could actually try to cut Chinese shipping lanes.

Do it further away at Malacca strait and you have the mother of all administrative burdens trying to sift out ships heading towards China from the rest of the world and most likely strangle world trade before you could strangle Chinese shipping. Do it closer and you get annihilated by the PLA.

The US wanted its cat paws of the Philippines and Vietnam to grab islands and build military bases that the US could then ‘lease’ to dominate the region. Worst case they fight the PLAN far from mainland Chinese air cover and only one carrier and win easily.

What they did not even dream of was that China could build artificial islands to the scale and at the speed that it did.

Now not only will the PLAN have land based air cover from the island bases, it also have comprehensive long range sensor networks and bases for its vast fleets of type 022 FACs and 056A corvettes.

China has won the SCS. Western FON patrols are just bad looser antics that speaks of a lack of real options on their part rather than a demonstration of strength. It’s like street thugs walking in front of police stations giving the stink eye. They might think they look menacing, but they aren’t intimidating anyone sitting in those police stations since they know they can easily turn those thugs into Swiss cheese any time they please. That’s also why we are hearing less and less about the SCS, and why US propaganda attacks have since moved on to HK, Xinjiang and now Taiwan. It’s just a catalog of failures for them.
 
A

aubzman

New Member
Registered Member
There is a lot of talk about rules based order but not much about who makes the rules and it does matter who makes the rules. As for the 003's operational area, perhaps in 15 years time it will be part of a fleet of 20 carriers conducting freedom of navigation trips 15 miles of the west coast of the USA? Who knows? Just kidding!
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Leningradpro said:
While I see china as a far cry from the imperialist, I fail to understand how does it expect to sustain this huge navy that it is building if it wants to stay in this non confrontational role. I guess my question hinges on 2 points. What is different in China's case? Can the Chinese shipbuilding or aircraft industry sustain itself without the need for perpetual wars or fuelling conflicts elsewhere to export it's products?
Click to expand...

As per SIPRI, China's military spending has been consistent at a modest 2% of GDP for over 20 years.
That compares with over 3.5% for the USA or Russia.

So China could actually build and sustain a much bigger navy, if China chose to.

If China wanted a military confrontation, then China should increase military spending by 50%.
But that still only takes China to 3%, which is less than the USA or Russia.

China is still very much focused on its domestic economic development, which includes its shipbuilding or aircraft industry.
China's commercial industry is way more important than its military industries.

Anyway, back on topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top