China's SCS Strategy Thread

[AndrewS]

ASBM is developed after 1996 taiwan strait incidence. It supposedly to deter Carrier from getting too near. But looks like it didn't have that effect in current SCS situtation. potentially there could be 2 or 3 US carrier strike group gather there. So,itspurpose is defeated.

China needs to go back beef up its nuke deterrence. Its Minimal posture fails.

Solarz has covered the main points, but I'll add that:

1. There are only 2-4 brigades of ASBMs, which is not enough for all the carriers.

2. The USA can rely on the fact that it is also not in China's interest to start a war, as it would severely set back China's economic development

3. And I did mention 30 DF-41 missiles with 300 warheads, which should be enough for a secure second strike capability for 100 cities.

 

[siegecrossbow]

ASBM is developed after 1996 taiwan strait incidence. It supposedly to deter Carrier from getting too near. But looks like it didn't have that effect in current SCS situtation. potentially there could be 2 or 3 US carrier strike group gather there. So, its purpose is defeated.

China needs to go back beef up its nuke deterrence. Its Minimal posture fails.

Any attack on an U.S. carrier is equivalent to an attack on the U.S. soil and may result in retribution of a nuclear nature. I doubt China will employ the ASBMs as anything less than a last measure.

 

[GreenestGDP]

Any attack on an U.S. carrier is equivalent to an attack on the U.S. soil and may result in retribution of a nuclear nature. I doubt China will employ the ASBMs as anything less than a last measure.

NOTE to Mod:
Below is just a what--if analysis.
It is definitely not drumming for war.
In fact, this is to prevent war caused by ambiguous positions from US and PRC.

===

IMHO, if we follow this kind of US logic, then in time of war ... ...
PRC shall do both -- sink the carriers with DF-21D / DF-26, and attack US continent with DF-41.

In order to prevent this regrettable scenario, maybe the solution is for PRC to ask US -- publicly and very loudly worldwide, ... ...
How will US react if USN carriers are sinked by CONVENTIONAL AShBM DF-21D / DF-26 ??

If US answer with nuke attack on PRC, then PRC will announce publicly and very loudly worldwide, ... ... see US is a very sore loser, ... ...
US is forcing PRC to do both ... ... which is ... ...
sink USN carriers with DF-21D / DF-26, and attack US continent with DF-41 preemptively.

There is no need to wait around for a second.
Now both sides are clear where they stand.
Everybody has time to start digging their backyards for nuclear shelters.

 

[siegecrossbow]

NOTE to Mod:
Below is just a what--if analysis.
It is definitely not drumming for war.
In fact, this is to prevent war caused by ambiguous positions from US and PRC.

===

IMHO, if we follow this kind of US logic, then in time of war ... ...
PRC shall do both -- sink the carriers with DF-21D / DF-26, and attack US continent with DF-41.

In order to prevent this regrettable scenario, maybe the solution is for PRC to ask US -- publicly and very loudly worldwide, ... ...
How will US react if USN carriers are sinked by CONVENTIONAL AShBM DF-21D / DF-26 ??

If US answer with nuke attack on PRC, then PRC will announce publicly and very loudly worldwide, ... ... see US is a very sore loser, ... ...
US is forcing PRC to do both ... ... which is ... ...
sink USN carriers with DF-21D / DF-26, and attack US continent with DF-41 preemptively.

There is no need to wait around for a second.
Now both sides are clear where they stand.
Everybody has time to start digging their backyards for nuclear shelters.

How is that being a sore loser? Each carrier could host several thousand U.S. troops, and sinking just one of them could result in 9-11 level casualties. I think the U.S. is pretty justified in using nuclear level retaliation.

 

[LesAdieux]

How is that being a sore loser? Each carrier could host several thousand U.S. troops, and sinking just one of them could result in 9-11 level casualties. I think the U.S. is pretty justified in using nuclear level retaliation.

PLA killed some 50,000 GI in korea, McArthur, Truman and Eisenhower all made nuclear threat, the US congress even debated it, but China didnot flinch. today the situation is slightly different I believe.

 

[tidalwave]

How is that being a sore loser? Each carrier could host several thousand U.S. troops, and sinking just one of them could result in 9-11 level casualties. I think the U.S. is pretty justified in using nuclear level retaliation.

China won't attack US carrier for no reason. If Chinese warships got sunk by carrier strike group, all is fair game.

what China can control is to be loaded as Russia and US at nuke deterrence and make US make the call whether to use nuke retaliation or not.

 

[tidalwave]

At this pt, No body gonna stop body.
Chinese ASBM is bit too cute and gimmicky. It needs to go back to basics and fundamentals. It just needs ramp up it nuke deterrence. No shortcut and Gimmick about it.

US FON will go into 12 miles of islands and China will counter by putting weapons on the islands and resume reclaimation.

US objective to make China back down and soon it will find out FON within 12 miles/5 miles ain't gonna do jack, it ain't gonna make China back down so what would be its encore?

 

[Equation]

How is that being a sore loser? Each carrier could host several thousand U.S. troops, and sinking just one of them could result in 9-11 level casualties. I think the U.S. is pretty justified in using nuclear level retaliation.

There is NO Justification for using nukes other than when one's homeland is being invaded and over run by a foreign forces. If the US can't take the casualties when battling their enemies with conventional forces than don't get involve in the first place. Just simply using nukes for a conventional conflict is just plain cowardly act and therefore are inviting other players to do the same. War is NOT a sport, it is what it is, there's no substitute for it.

 

[Equation]

Whatever get the job done! Period.
All I am saying is ASBM doesnt have its deterrence effect as planned.

Are you sure? I haven't seen any repeat of 1996 when two US carrier battle groups are in between the Taiwan straight and the mainland lately. FON is just a simple game of chicken sail and run to appease their allies eyes, whom still haven't accepted the fact of a changing world and status quo.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Each carrier could host several thousand U.S. troops, and sinking just one of them could result in 9-11 level casualties. I think the U.S. is pretty justified in using nuclear level retaliation.

There is NO Justification for using nukes other than when one's homeland is being invaded and over run by a foreign forces. If the US can't take the casualties when battling their enemies with conventional forces than don't get involve in the first place. Just simply using nukes for a conventional conflict is just plain cowardly act and therefore are inviting other players to do the same. War is NOT a sport, it is what it is, there's no substitute for it.

To my understanding the US will not retaliate with nukes just by sinking their carriers.
They will only consider nukes as an option when US had confirmed that a ballistic missile had been launched or a nuke had been detonated by other means in which case they will deploy their own nukes as retaliation. That is why PRC requires to think about launching their DF-21Ds which could be armed with nukes or conventional explosives.

By the way, publicly the US carriers does not carry nuclear armaments anymore.