China threatens war, calling Trump's bluff?

[Fudbucker]

I see your carrier group and raise you a YJ-100 cruise missile equipped with a 50kt warhead.

If China used nukes on us, they would be cutting their throats. We would respond in kind. They have less than 300 warheads. We have thousands.

 

[rjh01]

For the record, I said they are calling Trump's bluff, not getting ready for war.

As Aepervius said, what is the US going to do? Tillerson made a stupid poorly thought out comment in his nomination hearing.

Then you and I agree, no war. Both sides show everyone what they can do. Then the weaker side backs down giving the other side the status of superpower.

That is, unless this post of yours is right.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11669715#post11669715

 

[PhantomWolf]

If China used nukes on us, they would be cutting their throats. We would respond in kind. They have less than 300 warheads. We have thousands.

You don't think that 300 would be enough to deal significant long term damage to the US?

 

[rjh01]

If China used nukes on us, they would be cutting their throats. We would respond in kind. They have less than 300 warheads. We have thousands.

After 100 or so nukes hit the USA it would not be worth much. That leaves 200 nukes still sitting in China. Yes, if that happened China would be a wasteland. This is called MAD.

Edit. Looks like I got beaten by PhantomWolf who made a similar post.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The other question is would the US really be willing to respond to a nuclear attack against a military target involved in a shooting war with nuclear strikes on civilian populations?

 

[Fudbucker]

You don't think that 300 would be enough to deal significant long term damage to the US?

I think one nuke would do long-term damage, obviously. Losing a carrier group would really, really suck. But China HAS to know that we would retaliate in kind. China's nuclear arsenal is so miniscule compared to ours, they would have to be insane to escalate a conventional conflict into a nuclear one.

 

[Fudbucker]

After 100 or so nukes hit the USA it would not be worth much. That leaves 200 nukes still sitting in China. Yes, if that happened China would be a wasteland. This is called MAD.

Edit. Looks like I got beaten by PhantomWolf who made a similar post.

I agree, the principles of MAD apply. China is not going to use nuclear weapons against us, as PhantomWolf suggested they might.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think one nuke would do long-term damage, obviously. Losing a carrier group would really, really suck. But China HAS to know that we would retaliate in kind. China's nuclear arsenal is so miniscule compared to ours, they would have to be insane to escalate a conventional conflict into a nuclear one.

That doesn't answer this question....

The other question is would the US really be willing to respond to a nuclear attack against a military target involved in a shooting war with nuclear strikes on civilian populations?

If they believe that the US would not respond with launches against civilian populations over an attack against a valid military target, then such a strike is not insane at all.

Consider the options, the US can kill a billion people in retaliation for losing its carrier group, and get nuked itself, or it can lick its wounds and stop playing policeman in the South China Sea. Which would be the more likely option?

 

[Fudbucker]

That doesn't answer this question....

Yes, it does. China won't escalate a conventional conflict into a nuclear one.

If they believe that the US would not respond with launches against civilian populations over an attack against a valid military target, then such a strike is not insane at all.

What the U.S. does during war is designate military targets, and then completely obliterate civilians that happen to be near those targets. We've tangled with China before without it turning to an actual U.S.-China war, but if China uses nukes against us, we would respond with an immediate DOW, and even though we would be nominally going after military targets, Chinese civilian casualties would be extreme.

Consider the options, the US can kill a billion people in retaliation for losing its carrier group, and get nuked itself, or it can lick its wounds and stop playing policeman in the South China Sea. Which would be the more likely option?

The likely option is that MAD rules apply, like they did all through the cold war, and China doesn't use nukes against us.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That doesn't answer this question....



If they believe that the US would not respond with launches against civilian populations over an attack against a valid military target, then such a strike is not insane at all.

Consider the options, the US can kill a billion people in retaliation for losing its carrier group, and get nuked itself, or it can lick its wounds and stop playing policeman in the South China Sea. Which would be the more likely option?

Do you think the USA wouldn't reply with nukes if China used a nuke against a US Carrier?
If you do then you are seriously deluded.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you think the USA wouldn't reply with nukes if China used a nuke against a US Carrier?
If you do then you are seriously deluded.

Perhaps I am, but to me the loss of a carrier isn't worth the destruction of two countries and Billions of dead people. Apparently Americans are crazy enough to think it is.


ETA: In fact likely more than two since Taiwan would likely be hit as well, and the odds are that if missiles were flying in their direction, North Korea would launch resulting in the destruction of South Korea and Japan as well, so likely at least six countries all for the sake of a Carrier group!

 

[Fudbucker]

Perhaps I am, but to me the loss of a carrier isn't worth the destruction of two countries and Billions of dead people. Apparently Americans are crazy enough to think it is.


ETA: In fact likely more than two since Taiwan would likely be hit as well, and the odds are that if missiles were flying in their direction, North Korea would launch resulting in the destruction of South Korea and Japan as well, so likely at least six countries all for the sake of a Carrier group!

No political leadership could survive if it allowed itself to be nuked without a proportional response. A conventional war between U.S. and China is at least possible, but a nuclear one is fantastical. You don't attack a nuclear power that has 10x as many warheads as you do AND is the only country to have ever used them in war. Well, you do if you have a deathwish, but I assume the Chinese leadership does not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No political leadership could survive if it allowed itself to be nuked without a proportional response.

Nuking major cities is not a proportional response. As to not surviving, yeah I can see the campaign ads now. "Vote for us, we'd have got you nuked, unlike those other wusses."

More rational people might respond by nuking a isolated military asset, such as one of the bases on the disputed Islands, and then suing for peace as fast as possible, saying, you sunk my carrier so I'm going to kill half the planet's population to save face is just beyond stupid.

A conventional war between U.S. and China is at least possible, but a nuclear one is fantastical. You don't attack a nuclear power that has 10x as many warheads as you do AND is the only country to have ever used them in war. Well, you do if you have a deathwish, but I assume the Chinese leadership does not.

If we were talking about them nuking LA or something, I'd be in agreement, but going MAD over a military asset that was in the other guy's backyard pushing them around?

To be honest I'd be surprised if it even got to firing shots, if the US tried blockading the Islands, China would simply run the blockade with a ship filled with civilians protected by their navy and force America to stand down or fire on on a civilian ship. This is kind of the problem with Trump's rhetoric. He starts out with the biggest guns possible, and then has no where to go, either he follows through and starts a nuclear winter, or he backs down and looks weak. It seems to be an issue with the ultra-right wing, they have got themselves into a position where compromising means "getting everything we want" and anything less than that is seen as conceding.

 

[Giz]

Perhaps I am, but to me the loss of a carrier isn't worth the destruction of two countries and Billions of dead people. Apparently Americans are crazy enough to think it is.


ETA: In fact likely more than two since Taiwan would likely be hit as well, and the odds are that if missiles were flying in their direction, North Korea would launch resulting in the destruction of South Korea and Japan as well, so likely at least six countries all for the sake of a Carrier group!

It's not the carrier group per se, it's that if they let it slide they would be seeing a precedent. If Russia invaded the Baltic states and used a tactical nuke against Nato reinforcements (who they couldn't deal with conventionally) then the precedent would have been set that the usa folks and go home.

That makes one of two things likely;
One, Tactical nuclear strikes become likely
two, the usa preemptively pulls out of any areas that are not a core self interest (and Europe and Korea etc won't count)

Or... the usa responds to any use of nukes with overwhelming firepower.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then you and I agree, no war. Both sides show everyone what they can do. Then the weaker side backs down giving the other side the status of superpower.

That is, unless this post of yours is right.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11669715#post11669715

Don't put your words in my mouth. How about just speaking for yourself without pretending I agree?

That's not even what I think. It has nothing to do with who's weaker.

And you are totally misinterpreting that post you linked to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those of you dismissing China's military capabilities, you might want to update your decades old stereotypes.

China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
China is building a modern and regionally powerful navy with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, these observers view China’s naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific. The question of how the United States should respond to
China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is a key issue in U.S. defense planning.

China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a broad array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems. China’s naval modernization effort also includes improvements in maintenance and logistics, doctrine, personnel quality, education and training, and exercises.

Observers believe China’s naval modernization effort is oriented toward developing capabilities for doing the following: addressing the situation with Taiwan militarily, if need be; asserting or defending China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea; enforcing China’s view that it has the right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ); defending China’s commercial sea lines of communication (SLOCs); displacing U.S. influence in the Western Pacific; and asserting China’s status as a leading regional power and major world power. Consistent with these goals, observers believe China wants its military to be capable of acting as an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) force—a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict in China’s near-seas region over Taiwan or some other issue, or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. forces. Additional missions for China’s navy include conducting maritime security (including anti-piracy) operations, evacuating Chinese nationals from foreign countries when necessary, and conducting humanitarian assistance/disaster response (HA/DR) operations.

Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following:
 whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough and capable enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime A2/AD forces while also adequately performing other missions around the world;
 whether the Navy’s plans for developing and procuring long-range carrier-based aircraft and long-range ship- and aircraft-launched weapons are appropriate;
 whether the Navy can effectively counter Chinese ASBMs and submarines; and
 whether the Navy, in response to China’s maritime A2/AD capabilities, should
shift over time to a more distributed fleet architecture.

 

[Shiner]

Read my comments. No one fooled you. It was a series of articles in the Aussie press, quoting and actual person and quoting actual articles written in the Chinese press.

Shiner seems to think it's fake news because China hasn't declared war. The OP didn't say that nor does the thread title.

*Sigh*. You guys ......

I mistakenly used 'declaration' in one of my posts. The thread title says "China threatens war". You've attempted to support that by insisting that the "sabre rattling" really is a threat by China to declare war.

SG has simply ignored the point completely.

Sophistry is weak, and I really expect better from you.

The thread title is fake news.

 

[PhantomWolf]

*Sigh*. You guys ......

I mistakenly used 'declaration' in one of my posts. The thread title says "China threatens war". You've attempted to support that by insisting that the "sabre rattling" really is a threat by China to declare war.

You do realise that is exactly what sabre rattling is?

 

[Noztradamus]

I didn't want this to get buried in the POTUS Trump thread. It's too important.

Australia has concerns.

US 'threatens to involve Australia in war with China': Paul Keating condemns US secretary of state nominee's comments

First an ignorant phone call to Taiwan, with nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Now this ignorant comment by Tillerson .


South China Sea: Paul Keating says Rex Tillerson threatening to involve Australia in war

These hawks have no clue how to run this country.

China warns of ‘devastating consequences’ if US blocks its plans for artificial islands


Both China and Russia have leaders that can easily run circles around Trump and all he has in response are infantile Tweets.

So, not Australia, but just some Paul Keating guy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not surprised to see a repeating pattern here, complaining about a title nitpick instead of discussing the issues.

China warns of ‘devastating consequences’ if US blocks its plans for artificial islands

If Tillerson acted on his threats, Chinese state-owned China Daily warned “it would set a course for devastating confrontation between China and the US.” Satellite photos show China has been hard at work building military facilities in the contested waters, which are also claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam, among others.
The sentiment former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating to comment that Canberra needed to tell the incoming Trump administration from the get-go that Australia will sit out any US “adventurism” over South China Sea tensions.
“When the US secretary of state-designate threatens to involve Australia in war with China, the Australian people need to take note,” he said in a statement.

China CALLS OUT Trump: Beijing declares it will go to WAR with US over disputed islands

State-controlled newspaper the Global Times warned incoming President Donald Trump he would be "foolish" to stop China from accessing the islands.

The paper wrote on its website: "Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish.”

I said China was making threats, more likely than not, bluffing. Now can those of you whining about the thread title quit sidetracking the discussion and move on to the actual issues?