China Draws Sabre

[The Atheist]

I keep going back and forth on this. On the one hand, putting missile batteries on these islands seems like the obvious smart play. On the other hand, they're fixed targets and practically unmissable. If the US or one of its allies really wanted to operate in the region, all it would take was a few JSOWs to return the seas to status quo ante and return the US Navy to full freedom of action.

I can't see the US doing that. The value of trade is far too big to risk over a couple of islands.

Also, the chances of the missile batteries being taken out simultaneously and before they can return fire seems fairly unlikely.

The only end result I can see is that China's won the islands. They will use the missiles against Filipino, Vietnamese and Taiwanese vessels if necessary, but they'll watch US ships sail past, with neither side doing anything but whining.

I rate the chances of USA declaring war on China - which a surprise strike would be - at zero.

 

[Aepervius]

It takes a very brave leader to order a nuclear strike against forces of a nation who can put five nukes to each one of yours and still have enough left over to destroy the world twice over if needed be.

He also needs to be rather foolish.

Plus I wouldn't count on long range ballistic missiles to be all that effective against fleets. Sure, you can destroy it, but you'll need to use a fair number of warheads per fleet to be able to guarantee a hit. Unlike cities, fleets tend to move, that's kind of their point.

McHrozni

I am sorry but who is saying again that a few bomb on a territory claimed by China would be fine ? And that is NOT foolish ? By the point the foolishness starts who know where it ends. There is exactly ZERO reason for the US or any other army force to destroy those missile battery, and by the time there is a reason, then other more foolish steps are not far away.

As for having five more warhead : the way china is set up, you would need far more than that solely target at china to really sink it to the same level 1/5 of the bombs would to the US. They are far more rural than the US. The US on the other hand is concentrated on city and axes between those. A few bomb would do far far more damage on the long run to the US than to China. Same with economy, how much "made in US" stuff is necessary to China and how much would the US have to replace ?

The US would be very foolish to start bombing paracel.

As for the missile being only for posturing, no they also are here as a message : "we are serious and if you want to kick us out you will have to be VERY serious yourself". This is not about being able to use those missile, this is about the long-run type of message they send.

 

[Aepervius]

The US Navy has the world's preeminent anti-ballistic missile defense system. A few nukes from China--assuming they could even find the fleet in the first place--would be shot down.

I would not places my bet on that. And again an easy count-coutner-measure is to use a bit more warhead or mix with fakes. And that does not even count other types of missiles (cruise one for example, or a combo of both).

In several tests, the U.S. military have demonstrated the feasibility of destroying long and short range ballistic missiles. Combat effectiveness of newer systems against 1950s tactical ballistic missiles seems very high, as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.[4]

U.S. Navy Aegis combat system uses RIM-161 Standard Missile 3.

These systems, as opposed to U.S. GMD system, are not capable of intercepting an ICBM, even if it is in range.

A new system, scheduled for deployment during 2009, is U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. It has a longer range, but it is not known if it will be able to intercept ICBMs.

The first six intercept attempts missed the target (Flights 4-9). The first successful intercepts were conducted on June 20, 1999, and August 2, 1999, against Hera missiles.

Yes I know there were sucessful test afterward, against MRBM but also note that all baring one were against single warhead and missiles.

 

[Garrette]

Those saying that China has won the islands have it right. They could have put a lighthouse on the island to achieve the same thing, though. Putting a military asset there -- regardless if it has actual military applicability -- is the emphasis. We are not just staking claim to these particular bits of land; we are making it clear that the South China Sea is (or soon will be) our lake. You're welcome to transit for economic reasons, but have no doubt that it is ours.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well just think, if Trump gets in as President, he plans to build up the Military presence in South East Asia so that these guys will realise their place under the US Empire and start behaving. I mean really, send large numbers of troops into this zone and telling China to do as they are told or else... what could possibly go wrong.....

 

[Toontown]

Well just think, if Trump gets in as President, he plans to build up the Military presence in South East Asia so that these guys will realise their place under the US Empire and start behaving. I mean really, send large numbers of troops into this zone and telling China to do as they are told or else... what could possibly go wrong.....

Something already has gone deeply, disturbingly wrong. You have imagined a hypothetical massive deployment of "troops" into the area by a hypothetical president.

Then you have bitterly criticized the hypothetical decision as if it has actually happened. When in fact it is China which has barged into the area.

 

[Jules Galen]

The US Navy has the world's preeminent anti-ballistic missile defense system. A few nukes from China--assuming they could even find the fleet in the first place--would be shot down.

In any case, I doubt that China would open hostilities with a preemptive nuke strike. I think a more plausible escalation would be:

China perpetrates shenanigans > USN determines to force entry to South China Sea > USN shoots Chinese recon satellites, islands > USN enters South China Sea and projects force there > Diplomats negotiate a truce > Whatever China has already gained it keeps, whatever else it hoped to gain is saved.

But...you forgot a few parts of the story > China shoots down US Recon Satellites > China Sinks US Aircraft Carriers > China Destroys Guam And Okinawa Airforce Bases with Missile Attacks > Etc...


Seriously, I don't think going to war with China could in any way benefit the US. Also, the sooner we accept China as an EQUAL and not as some Asian State that fits within the American Framework of Global Dominance, then the better of we'll be.

Additionally, Americans had better wake up to the fact that China owns the South China Sea like we own the Gulf of Mexico. They are all powerful in that region.

 

[Jules Galen]

sorry...double post.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Something already has gone deeply, disturbingly wrong. You have imagined a hypothetical massive deployment of "troops" into the area by a hypothetical president.

Then you have bitterly criticized the hypothetical decision as if it has actually happened. When in fact it is China which has barged into the area.

Except that this "hypothetical massive deployment" is stated policy of that "hypothetical president" who is also the Republican front runner.

4. Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.

All I am doing is pointing out that should Trump get the nod, which is entirely possible at this point, and then win against the Democratic nominee, again which is entirely possible, and then keeps to his policy of bolstering US Military presence in the area to put China "on notice that America is back in the global leadership business and that their days of currency manipulation and cheating are over", that such an action would be entirely unwise.

In other words, you have a man than based on current polls could well be the next US President who thinks that blundering into the south China seas and confronting China there is a good idea. Apparently you don't consider this a scary prospect because... hey China.

 

[theprestige]

Those saying that China has won the islands have it right. They could have put a lighthouse on the island to achieve the same thing, though. Putting a military asset there -- regardless if it has actual military applicability -- is the emphasis. We are not just staking claim to these particular bits of land; we are making it clear that the South China Sea is (or soon will be) our lake. You're welcome to transit for economic reasons, but have no doubt that it is ours.

The US achieves the same effect every time a CSG transits the area. Indeed, these islands are effectively just stationary, anemic carriers: A few planes, a few missiles, some air defenses... Like an Admiral Kuznetsov run aground.

Would we say that Russia had "won" the North Atlantic if they were to send a Kuznetsov and its escorts to patrol there? Of course not.

At best, these islands mean that the USN no longer patrols those waters *entirely* uncontested. They don't really move the needle much on who would win an actual contest.

 

[Jules Galen]

The US achieves the same effect every time a CSG transits the area. Indeed, these islands are effectively just stationary, anemic carriers: A few planes, a few missiles, some air defenses... Like an Admiral Kuznetsov run aground.

Would we say that Russia had "won" the North Atlantic if they were to send a Kuznetsov and its escorts to patrol there? Of course not.

At best, these islands mean that the USN no longer patrols those waters *entirely* uncontested. They don't really move the needle much on who would win an actual contest.

Actually, I think they are a signal from China that if a contest were to arise, then China believes it will win.

I could be wrong.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, I think they are a signal from China that if a contest were to arise, then China believes it will win.

I could be wrong.

I'd say you are. They aren't stupid, and given the concentration of power in so few, they would be well aware that causing the deaths of millions of their people probably won't be seen as a good thing.

The position between China & US will be simple stand-off. Unless the USN is going to start escorting Filipino & Vietnamese boats through the area, the island will be serving its purpose.

 

[Jules Galen]

I'd say you are. They aren't stupid, and given the concentration of power in so few, they would be well aware that causing the deaths of millions of their people probably won't be seen as a good thing.
The position between China & US will be simple stand-off. Unless the USN is going to start escorting Filipino & Vietnamese boats through the area, the island will be serving its purpose.

Where did you get the idea millions of Chinese would die in a war?

 

[The Atheist]

Where did you get the idea millions of Chinese would die in a war?

You don't think that's a likely outcome if USA and China went to war?

I'd say it's a cast-iron certainty.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Where did you get the idea millions of Chinese would die in a war?

Probably from your statement that this is an indication that should a conflict arise China believes they will win. What other kind of "contest" and "win" did you have in mind when you wrote that? Ping Pong? Miss Photogenic? The X Factor?

 

[Jules Galen]

You don't think that's a likely outcome if USA and China went to war?

I'd say it's a cast-iron certainty.

Nope...not unless the US or China launches Nukes, and then it's bad for both sides. But, I don't think Nukes would be launched.

Also, China would not try to invade the US, and Vice Versa: it's a suicide game plan for the potential invader. So, this leaves a Naval/Air Force War over the Western Pacific - bloody, yet conventional and limited.

In the end, a lot of missiles will be launched, planes lost and ships sank - maybe both sides will take out each other's spy satellites. People will cry and gnash teeth, and then peace.

Furthermore, I don't expect that the Koreans or Japanese will let us use their countries as a staging point - they will want to stay out of the war (hey...the US will eventually leave, but China will be there forever). As a result, Air Operations will be launched from Guam (which will probably be savaged by Chinese Missiles and Air Strikes)

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nope...not unless the US or China launches Nukes, and then it's bad for both sides. But, I don't think Nukes would be launched.

Also, China would not try to invade the US, and Vice Versa: it's a suicide game plan for the potential invader. So, this leaves a Naval/Air Force War over the Western Pacific - bloody, yet conventional and limited.

In the end, a lot of missiles will be launched, planes lost and ships sank - maybe both sides will take out each other's spy satellites. People will cry and gnash teeth, and then peace.

Furthermore, I don't expect that the Koreans or Japanese will let us use their countries as a staging point - they will want to stay out of the war (hey...the US will eventually leave, but China will be there forever). As a result, Air Operations will be launched from Guam (which will probably be savaged by Chinese Missiles and Air Strikes)

Seriously? You envision a one-against-one scenario that is serious enough that Japan and Korea would say, "Hey, get your navies and air forces out of here", yet not involving one of the belligerents choosing to strike at China? Who's reining in Taiwan, by the way, when this happens?

The US is rather famous for fighting fire with fire. They'd level all facilities in the Spratleys. The Navy could do it with their current firepower. And then where's China going to shoot back from? The Mainland. And you really think that the US isn't going to shoot back? (Thereby, as The Atheist was implying, putting a massive number of Chinese at risk of annihilation.)

I'm on record as saying there ain't going to be any shooting. I don't change that opinion. But your scenario is absurd.... if shots are fired USA vs China or China vs USA.

 

[Jules Galen]

Seriously? You envision a one-against-one scenario that is serious enough that Japan and Korea would say, "Hey, get your navies and air forces out of here", yet not involving one of the belligerents choosing to strike at China? Who's reining in Taiwan, by the way, when this happens?
The US is rather famous for fighting fire with fire. They'd level all facilities in the Spratleys. The Navy could do it with their current firepower. And then where's China going to shoot back from? The Mainland. And you really think that the US isn't going to shoot back? (Thereby, as The Atheist was implying, putting a massive number of Chinese at risk of annihilation.)

I'm on record as saying there ain't going to be any shooting. I don't change that opinion. But your scenario is absurd.... if shots are fired USA vs China or China vs USA.

Seriously, I believe if the US goes to war with China, then it goes to war alone. China is not Iraq, or Afghanistan...it won't be some little botique war where pilots can fly around dropping bombs on peasants with contempt. And it certainly won't be a boating excursion for the US Navy surface fleet (who will finally learn why Aircraft Carriers are obsolete against A-Team Militaries). Japan and Korea know this - and they know that China is not going away when it's over. For this reason, I think they'll deny the US the use of bases from which to launch attacks and make sure China knows they are staying out of the fight.

Seriously, there is a lot of contemptuous ideas floated by a lot of Americans concerning China's military strength, and I think it's time we start to get rid of these ideas before someone supports doing something extremely stupid. Every year China's Military Power significantly increases as they plow money into it that's generated by the world's largest economy. In 2008, the question was asked of China and it's economy "Can they decouple from the US economy so that they don't face recession or...depression as a result of US economic woes?" Nowadays, the question is asked, as "If China's economy Tanks, can the world withstand such a downturn?" And remember - that's the same economy that's funding China's military.

I used to be one of those Bidness-oriented Free-Market Fundies who thought there was never a chance China could catch up to America as long as they were led by the Communist Party. Jesus, was I freakin' wrong! Not only is the Communist Party of China not what I thought it was (I figured they were a bunch of Soviet-era Bolsheviks), China has recently completed an infrastructure build-out that is unparalleled in Human History. With the exception of Japan (~1865-1920 era), the world has never seen a country progress so far, so fast. As a result people are still in the habit of thinking of China as some second-rate economic and military power. It ain't.

In 1865, Japan was known a fuedal society that exported nothing but bad opera and cheap fans. By 1920, Japan was plying the Medeteranian with tremendous battleships during the Paris Peace talks. Nevertheless, people in the west refused to change their initial summation of Japanese capabilities or ambition....until it was almost too late. Lucky for us, Japan's economy was relatively small compared to the US economy and this limited their ability to wage war. China doesn't have that problem: it's economy is pretty freakin' big.

Just some things to think about.

 

[Toontown]

Except that this "hypothetical massive deployment" is stated policy of that "hypothetical president" who is also the Republican front runner.

I'll provisionally take your word that Trump at some point during his stream-of-consciousness stumping may have threatened some sort of ground invasion of the South China Sea during one of his many overconfident moments.

Also, the latest national poll has Cruz ahead of Trump. Which Trump said could never happen.

All I am doing is pointing out that should Trump get the nod, which is entirely possible at this point, and then win against the Democratic nominee, again which is entirely possible, and then keeps to his policy of bolstering US Military presence in the area to put China "on notice that America is back in the global leadership business and that their days of currency manipulation and cheating are over", that such an action would be entirely unwise.

Right. If a particular series of unfortunate choices occurs, then the final unfortunate choice will be...the culmination of a series of unfortunate choices.

It is always unfortunate when a series of unfortunate choices occurs. But the probability of that particular series of unfortunate choices is p1 x p2 x p3

And p3 could only occur over the objections of the Pentagon.

Not much chance of all that happening.

In other words, you have a man than based on current polls could well be the next US President who thinks that blundering into the south China seas and confronting China there is a good idea. Apparently you don't consider this a scary prospect because... hey China.

Again, the latest national poll has Cruz ahead. It's early. Trump started fast, but he's fading.

If you want to worry about someone confronting China, I suggest Hillary. That alpha bitch doesn't like being messed with. I distinctly recall her response to a question about dealing with Putin. Her eyes glinted and she snarled, "Yes, I've met Mister Putin...", and went on to say things that suggested a very clear and cold relationship with Mr. Putin is in our national future. Mr. Putin will definitely not be feeling the love from Hillary in their future dealings.

And among China's many bad habits is a tendency to "test" a new US president. And I wouldn't put it past them to be harboring some sexist attitudes which might further embolden them and enrage Hillary.

So, situation normal. There are all kinds of series of unfortunate events possible. Just another day in paradise.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm on record as saying there ain't going to be any shooting.

Me too.

I'd say there's more likelihood of US attacking NZ than China.