China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Michaelsinodef]

I will just make one note here. The way anti-submarine airplanes typically detect and track submarines are by using the magnetic anomaly detector to find there is a submarine in the area and then air dropping sonar buoys to pinpoint its location. When the Russians did their latest upgrade of submarine production facilities at Sevmash, they also added workshops for titanium and composite material construction. One of the rumors about the Husky submarine was that it would use double hull construction with composite outer hull. Well the thing is composite materials won't be tracked with magnetic anomaly detectors. So a submarine built with those will have a much lower magnetic signature. So right now this isn't an issue but might become so in the future.

In the PLA first strike thread, from @Patchwork_Chimera, he mentioned how MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) we're consistently able to find to find subs.

And I think the PLA also has this tech (think I saw an article about them even putting it on Satellites?).

So the delay for the next generation subs, might also be because they want to layer the outer part of their next generation subs with some composite material???

 

[ht1688]

For those of you who understand Mandarin, this is a good program:

His basic assertion is that the US is still deeply affected by the results of the Korean War. China at the time had no air power, no mechanized artillery, not even bullet proof vests. Yet they were able to drive the Americans back to the 38th parallel. The US was so traumatized that they would not get involved in 八二三砲戰 in 1958 around Kinmen (金門). In both cases, China did not have nuclear weapons. During the Vietnam War, China warned the US not to cross the 17th parallel else China would enter the war, and the US abided by it. At 23:07, he lists some of the wars the US has been involved in since WWII, and they've all been with small countries (with the exception of the Korean War w/ China). He says the US has not been successful fighting in East Asia (Korean and Vietnam Wars).

An important message he wants to send to the Taiwanese audience is that the US will NOT be actively engaged in a conflict over Taiwan (except in a role similar to the current one vis-a-vis the war in Ukraine). As an aside, he is a DPP member.

 

[tphuang]

I read through a few of the 40 pages on that thread. Correct me if I am wrong, what I got out of that was that if the U.S. provoke China with the intent of using tactical nukes on Mainland China, the Chinese are at a disadvantage. From a purely military point of view, I agree with that assessment. However, I believe

1. the U.S. is not likely to go down this path given the severity of the potential response from China.

The entire point is that China is at a disadvantage right now due to the severe imbalance in nukes between the two countries. In the event that US loses conventionally, it could resort to nuclear blackmail.

Which is also why it's important to create geopolitical situation where 094s can operate safely in both SCS and East of Philippines. Having 2 subs in large swath of ocean with 12 SLBMs with global range would provide for sufficient deterrent even if somehow the silos/TELS get wiped out in a surprise attack.

2. If the U.S. were to go down this path, the Chinese would nuke a factory in the U.S. like the Iron & Bath Works as a proportional response and show it is ready to escalate into full nuclear war. When it is their core interests at stake, they have never been afraid to confront the other big powers. We see this in the Korean War(U.S.) and the Sino-Vietnam War(Soviet Union). More recently we see this in the SCS confrontation with the U.S. navy in 2016 after the ruling in the Hague. When faced with the prospect of a full fledged nuclear war, the U.S. would back down, especially if the matter does not involve its core interests. Taiwan is not a core interest for the U.S.

Again, China loses out big time in any nuclear confrontation in its current geopolitical landscape.

3. Judging from how the U.S. behaved recently in Syria, Afghanistan and now in Ukraine, when someone do thumb us back and ready to fight, we would back away.

4. While some people in the U.S. might want to go to nuclear war with China, it is quite something for the U.S. president to make that decision, carry out the planning and act on this. While some may benefit from such a war, it is very far from certain that a sitting president would gain from such a move. When the risk is enormous and the chances of success is low, there would be areas a president can spend his energy that are better rewarded. We saw this with Trump and Biden so this is a bi-partisan response.

The Chinese military planners has to plan for the scenario where irresponsible/insane people are in charge of US policies and would do anything to keep its hegemonic power.

5. If the U.S. was able to push Taiwan to cross the redline, the Chinese could simply ignore it. after all, they would have enough military power to take back Taiwan in a few more years. If the Chinese do nothing, it would be very hard politically for the U.S. to start a war, let alone a nuclear one.

I actually would be fine with China waiting until it's more ready before launching an invasion in the even Taiwan declares independence. I don't necessarily think it needs to happen in day 1. I'm sure others would be far better versed in discussing the consequences of a non-immediate (I guess within a couple of months) retaliation. One thing for sure, nobody would take China seriously if it threatens invasion in the event of Taiwanese independence and don't carry it out.

Aside from all of the above, China right now does not have enough fire power (or at least don't convincingly have enough power) to win conventionally against US + Japan + Taiwan. It would be a huge risk if a war broke out in 2025.

As such, you have to use diplomacy to turn things in your favor. And you use a combination or carrots and sticks to accomplish this. As I said:
1) Philippines has to be neutral
2) Singapore has to be neutral
3) It would be best if Japan does not get involved in a serious way

3) can only be assured if:
1) they build up enough cruise/ballistic missiles to target and also have missiles/PGM inventory to keep offline relevant bases in Japan
2) achieve blockade through blocking any traffic through SCS and East of Philippines
3) able to target and effectively disable oil refineries/storage in Japan

 

[ansy1968]

A question, In a conflict between China and the US when the Chinese sink a Carrier and the US use nukes, will that oblige the Russian to retaliate as well? The MAD principle IF one launch everybody launch still apply? There is a reason why China coalesce with the US in the Cold War and now with Russia.

Even with children running the show in DC, there are still sane people in Washington, thus the strategy of a proxy war. And the Chinese answer is an economic war. With western society fixation on Instant Gratification, lets see if they're able to withstand the pain that hurt them most, their pocketbook.

 

[Coalescence]

A question, In a conflict between China and the US when the Chinese sink a Carrier and the US use nukes, will that oblige the Russian to retaliate as well? The MAD principle IF one launch everybody launch still apply? There is a reason why China coalesce with the US in the Cold War and now with Russia.

I don't think its likely or wise to put faith that Russia would help out by nuking in retaliation because it would also make them a target for nuclear attacks as well. But maybe depending on the situation and the relationship China have with Russia, they could try strike a deal for Russia to supply nuclear warheads and delivery systems, permission to station submarines on Russia's naval ports for second strike capabilities, or the best but most unlikely of them all is a nuclear umbrella agreement with Russia.

 

[reservior dogs]

nobody would take China seriously if it threatens invasion in the event of Taiwanese independence and don't carry it out.

Aside from all of the above, China right now does not have enough fire power (or at least don't convincingly have enough power) to win conventionally against US + Japan + Taiwan. It would be a huge risk if a war broke out in 2025.

As such, you have to use diplomacy to turn things in your favor. And you use a combination or carrots and sticks to accomplish this. As I said:
1) Philippines has to be neutral
2) Singapore has to be neutral
3) It would be best if Japan does not get involved in a serious way

The threat to Taiwan is to keep them from declaring independence. Once they do cross the line, China has the option of non-military means of retaliation. If other countries don't take China seriously, that is fine. It does not fundamentally impact the rise of China, which is what matters. This is especially true if you are within five years of being able to take Taiwan and fight the U.S.

As to the neutrality of different countries, a large part of this is not diplomacy but the strength of the country. It depend on the perception of the strength of China by these countries. The Singaporean government is shrew and unified, but they depend on the U.S. for protection and market access. If the U.S. does a full court press to get them into the war with both threats and enticement, it would be a close call. The Philippines government has a contingent of pro-American elements, including its military. I don't know enough about its internal politics but if pressed to pick a side, a large part of this is who they perceive will win. They will easily renege a deal if they perceive the other side will win. You can count on Japan being fully onboard with a war like this. They have wanted to see a war like this where the U.S. fights China. In addition, Japan is not an independent country in the normal sense, more like an extended state of the U.S. Only the U.S. can stop protecting it if we perceive it will cost too much compared to the benefits.

If the U.S. is pushing for a war in 2025 and the Chinese are five years away from achieving local dominance, they don't have to oblige on the spot. They can always wait five years until they build up their military, then pick a fight on a time of their own choosing.

Also in a nuclear exchange, the U.S. has to consider Russia. Let's for the sake of argument say that the Chinese only has 300 warheads( I highly doubt this figure, would not be surprised to see double or triple the number today), and half of these get through, That is 150 warheads and we kiss the top 50 cities goodbye. A U.S. that is severely weakened this way opens the door to blackmail by the Russians who has intact their cities and their entire nuclear arsenal. When it comes to nuclear war, it is a tripolar relationship and the U.S. must consider Russia. Knowing Putin, he will not miss an opportunity like this. I am not saying he would be on the side of China, but he will balance to make sure no side wins and both sides are severely weakened coming out of the war.

 

[tphuang]

I don't think its likely or wise to put faith that Russia would help out by nuking in retaliation because it would also make them a target for nuclear attacks as well. But maybe depending on the situation and the relationship China have with Russia, they could try strike a deal for Russia to supply nuclear warheads and delivery systems, permission to station submarines on Russia's naval ports for second strike capabilities, or the best but most unlikely of them all is a nuclear umbrella agreement with Russia.

Exactly. UK doesn't even put faith that American would do nuclear retaliation for them. They are spending extraordinary amount of money for their own underwater nuclear deterrent. China cannot rely on Russia to retaliate for them. At best, they can see if the Russians are willing to sell them some nuclear warheads. This was discussed before, but China would pay good money to get 1000 nuclear warheads from Russia now.

They are already working with the Russians for a BMD early warning system. It may be prudent to have joint BMD system and find other allies in other part of the world where they can build additional BMD tracking stations. That would be a huge help already.

I don't know if the Russians could really protect Chinese nuclear subs in the event of an exchange, so I would not be comfortable stationing them in Russian naval ports.

The threat to Taiwan is to keep them from declaring independence. Once they do cross the line, China has the option of non-military means of retaliation. If other countries don't take China seriously, that is fine. It does not fundamentally impact the rise of China, which is what matters. This is especially true if you are within five years of being able to take Taiwan and fight the U.S.

As to the neutrality of different countries, a large part of this is not diplomacy but the strength of the country. It depend on the perception of the strength of China by these countries. The Singaporean government is shrew and unified, but they depend on the U.S. for protection and market access. If the U.S. does a full court press to get them into the war with both threats and enticement, it would be a close call. The Philippines government has a contingent of pro-American elements, including its military. I don't know enough about its internal politics but if pressed to pick a side, a large part of this is who they perceive will win. They will easily renege a deal if they perceive the other side will win. You can count on Japan being fully onboard with a war like this. They have wanted to see a war like this where the U.S. fights China. In addition, Japan is not an independent country in the normal sense, more like an extended state of the U.S. Only the U.S. can stop protecting it if we perceive it will cost too much compared to the benefits.

If the U.S. is pushing for a war in 2025 and the Chinese are five years away from achieving local dominance, they don't have to oblige on the spot. They can always wait five years until they build up their military, then pick a fight on a time of their own choosing.

hmm, China pretty much has to retaliate in a timely manner or else its brightest of red lines mean nothing. I also don't know how CCP can remain in power if it's seen to allow Taiwan to separate without doing anything.

It's actually kind of strange to me that you do not see the US containment effort over China and their freak out that they might lose hegemony over East Asia. American foreign policy establishment is obsessed with maintaining its hegemony.

Also in a nuclear exchange, the U.S. has to consider Russia. Let's for the sake of argument say that the Chinese only has 300 warheads( I highly doubt this figure, would not be surprised to see double or triple the number today), and half of these get through, That is 150 warheads and we kiss the top 50 cities goodbye. A U.S. that is severely weakened this way opens the door to blackmail by the Russians who has intact their cities and their entire nuclear arsenal. When it comes to nuclear war, it is a tripolar relationship and the U.S. must consider Russia. Knowing Putin, he will not miss an opportunity like this. I am not saying he would be on the side of China, but he will balance to make sure no side wins and both sides are severely weakened coming out of the war.

Again, can't rely on anyone but yourself. 300 warheads does not mean 300 ICBM/SLBMs, a lot of the missiles will have multiple warheads. Fixed location silos are also easier to neutralize by initial first strike. And America has spent tremendous amount of resources in recent years to develop SM-3, THAAD and GMD. You may want to take a look at how many interceptors they have built up.

china needs to ensure it can have 094s out on patrol during heightened security environment and be able to protect them adequately.

You may want to see how important ASW is for PLAN

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542219599323832321

KQ200 again on the cover of PLA Daily. Think about it this way. You need the KQ200s to be able to find the USN subs that are extremely quiet/capable. Keeping them from finding 094s and getting too close to Carrier. But the carriers is also necessary to protect KQ200s from getting shot down.

Again, why is Philippines important? Not having US aircraft/subs departing from there means fewer bases for PLA to attack and fewer bases where the aircraft/subs can depart from. As such, they can be more easily be tracked. Without tracking them, you cannot keep them from your 094s. The 094s are too loud to operate in an environment without protection

 

[reservior dogs]

hmm, China pretty much has to retaliate in a timely manner or else its brightest of red lines mean nothing. I also don't know how CCP can remain in power if it's seen to allow Taiwan to separate without doing anything.

Retaliation does not have to be immediate military action. If the U.S. pushed Taiwan into declaring independence, and China took some token commercial boycott and such as retaliation, I don't think the CPC would lose its power as long as the people understand that the government is waiting for a better time to invade. Don't forget that the CPC also have full control of the media they will be going into full spin mode to push their narrative. There are precedence on this. After Chen Shui Bien and the Chinese threatened Taiwan with war, Bill Clinton sent in the carriers and the Chinese backed down. Did CPC lose power over that? In Ukraine, the Ukrainians reneged on Minsk II. Putin bid his time for eight long years. In the meantime, the two republics were being shelled by the Ukrainians. The Russians were assuming that Putin was doing the best he could and were not in revolt over this. Putin did not lose this power over this.

It's actually kind of strange to me that you do not see the US containment effort over China and their freak out that they might lose hegemony over East Asia. American foreign policy establishment is obsessed with maintaining its hegemony.

I absolutely see the fear and obsession from the U.S. establishment about losing our hegemony over East Asia. However, there are a lot of issues that are more immediate, things like recession, inflation etc. At the end of the day, we have a democracy where officials are elected. To stay in power, which is primal to everything else, the officials, including the president, has to be elected and they must control the senate and the house of representatives. In this environment, it is very difficult to prepare for such a very high risk action. Obsessing over something is very different from taking action with such high risks(to the continuation of the presidency).
Given the track record of the CIA, if they tell the president that the Chinese only has 300 warheads, would a president be able to take this as fact and make such an important decision based on it? After all, the Chinese are fully capable of making many more over the years. Even if they only have 300 and we manage to take out a big part of China and we lose our biggest 50 cities, that would be a disaster for the president. He would not be able to recover from this. Would he go down this path knowing that in the best case scenario, he would lose his presidency? what is good for the hegemonic power of the country is not always good for the president who must take actions. To take out China as a power that threatens U.S. hegemony, we cannot just drop a tactical nuke on a factory. In the longer term, that would not stop the rise of China. We pretty much have go through with a full nuclear exchange.

Even if we were to take such an action, it would be a huge undertaking and highly unlikely the Chinese would not catch wind of it. We need to mobilize opinions to ensure the public went along with it. We need to push a very reluctant Taiwan into stepping over the line, and Taiwan is penetrated on many levels with Chinese spies.

Again, why is Philippines important? Not having US aircraft/subs departing from there means fewer bases for PLA to attack and fewer bases where the aircraft/subs can depart from. As such, they can be more easily be tracked. Without tracking them, you cannot keep them from your 094s. The 094s are too loud to operate in an environment without protection

Don't get me wrong, I am not against China working with the Philippines to block the U.S. from using their ports. I am just not optimistic that this will succeed. If the U.S. is willing to risk nuclear war, we will find a way to station our ships in the Philippines. Maybe we tell them that this is all an exercise. When the battle begins, is the Philippines going to kick us out? The best they can do is to put up some protest.

I don't disagree that the Chinese need more time to catch up. Their leadership is quite aware of the world environment and quite smart. If the U.S. were to pick a fight in 2025, I am sure they will find a way to push things out a few more years until they are ready. The only leverage the U.S. has is Taiwan. The Chinese do not have to take the bait.

If they feel they needed a few warheads urgently, I am pretty sure, being the planning sort, the Chinese would be able to swing a trade with the Russians well in advance of actually needing to use the warheads and increase their warhead count by a few hundred to a thousand. I do believe they have enough today and are not worried about not being able to handle a nuclear exchange despite their low key response to a potential nuclear war.

 

[reservior dogs]

KQ200 again on the cover of PLA Daily. Think about it this way. You need the KQ200s to be able to find the USN subs that are extremely quiet/capable. Keeping them from finding 094s and getting too close to Carrier. But the carriers is also necessary to protect KQ200s from getting shot down.

My understanding is that 094 can launch its birds from SCS and be able to reach the U.S. In that case, the safest place for them to be is right under the Chinese carriers.

 

[Coalescence]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Interesting, could this be exploited to foster division between Taiwan and Philippines, or for a deal to keep US boats and planes from using Philippines as a military staging ground in an armed reunification scenario? @ansy1968