China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

This discussion had already long since gone past 'risking' war with China, into straight up open warfare as an initial premise of the debate. I thought that part was already patently clear.

As for the SCS, those reclaimed bases can in no way pose any real threat to an advanced military, even if further built up than they are now. They have no logistical resupply routes, they have no strategic depth, and they have no natural barriers against attack. They are individual rocks on the ocean that are vulnerable on all sides to massed ASCM saturation attacks such as could be unleashed by the USN. Or, as I said, they could simply be bypassed via the Java Sea and Celebes Sea and dealt with later.

The main purpose of those SCS bases is that any attack on them would mean the risk of exposing the perpetrators location and therefore signal's China that it is under attack therefore use it's full arsenal to defend the homeland and eradicate the threat.

Think of it like the US Berlin Brigade existence in former East Germany. The forces there are small in comparison the huge Soviet Union tank divisions and former Easter Block units can easily over ran it. So why have it there in the first place? To report to higher command that they are under attack, take down the US flag and destroy it (don't let it get under enemy's hands as a trophy) and than surrender. Once it is reported knowledge that the base was under attack it tell the US and NATO commanders to send in everything they got at the on coming forces (except nukes). That's what I learned after talking to one of the guy's that served in Germany when I was at R.O.T.C.

 

[Iron Man]

The main purpose of those SCS bases is that any attack on them would mean the risk of exposing the perpetrators location and therefore signal's China that it is under attack therefore use it's full arsenal to defend the homeland and eradicate the threat.

Think of it like the US Berlin Brigade existence in former East Germany. The forces there are small in comparison the huge Soviet Union tank divisions and former Easter Block units can easily over ran it. So why have it there in the first place? To report to higher command that they are under attack, take down the US flag and destroy it (don't let it get under enemy's hands as a trophy) and than surrender. Once it is reported knowledge that the base was under attack it tell the US and NATO commanders to send in everything they got at the on coming forces (except nukes). That's what I learned after talking to one of the guy's that served in Germany when I was at R.O.T.C.

Or as I said, the US could simply avoid the SCS tripwire and bypass it altogether. IMO the US would only attack SCS (specifically any base at Scarborough Shoal) if it was rebased back in Subic Bay and wanted to use this facility to attack China. That is basically the only scenario in which the temptation to attack a reclaimed base in SCS at the outset of a US-China conflict would be very strong. Outside of this possibility, US forces arriving from the Middle East and Indian Ocean could just sail up into the Java Sea and then the Celebes Sea en route to Taiwan, thereby avoiding any delaying conflicts with SCS-stationed Chinese forces.

 

[Equation]

Or as I said, the US could simply avoid the SCS tripwire and bypass it altogether. IMO the US would only attack SCS (specifically any base at Scarborough Shoal) if it was rebased back in Subic Bay and wanted to use this facility to attack China. That is basically the only scenario in which the temptation to attack a reclaimed base in SCS at the outset of a US-China conflict would be very strong. Outside of this possibility, US forces arriving from the Middle East and Indian Ocean could just sail up into the Java Sea and then the Celebes Sea en route to Taiwan, thereby avoiding any delaying conflicts with SCS-stationed Chinese forces.

Before or after they get discovered by one of China's, subs, surveillance planes, ships, drones and satellites being stationed along the SCS?

 

[Iron Man]

Before or after they get discovered by one of China's, subs, surveillance planes, ships, drones and satellites being stationed along the SCS?

Before, since they wouldn't even be in the SCS in the first place.

 

[plawolf]

While China itself has little to worry about in terms of a potential US invasion of the mainland (I'm pretty sure the US has no interest in attempting this particular scenario), the US also doesn't actually need its allies to "hold out" for any length of time, as if China actually had the ability to take any of its surrounding countries, excepting possibly Taiwan. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia all have little to worry about in terms of an invasion from China. So really what are we talking about here? A US invasion of the Chinese mainland? Extremely unlikely. A Chinese invasion of any of its US-allied neighbors? Extremely unlikely. A Taiwan invasion scenario? This is the only scenario which is even remotely a possibility for a US-China conflict.

Well, little wonder the rest of your post makes so little sense - you have fundemantally misunderstood the nature of the threat and question.

The examples you listed above will never be made at the local field or regional command levels. Those are way above the pay grade of even the commander of US Pacific forces.

Any Chinese invasion of an US treaty ally will trigger the mutual defence treaties in place, in which case the regional commander has minimal strategic choice. Barring a direct countermand from PONTUS, those kinds of examples will fall firmly on the list of exceptional circumstances I mentioned, where US forces will be engaging out of necessity rather than choice, and will be expending lives in large numbers to buy the time it will need for reinforcements to arrive.

As you rightly noted, such examples are exceedingly unlikely, and other than knowing that there are dedicated eggheads gaming out scenarios and writing a playbook they could consult in the event anything like that actually happened, I seriously doubt any US field commander is going to be devoting much, if any of their time and attention to thinking about such scenarios.

The real scenarios that keeps such field commanders up at night, and what no doubt prompted the original remark, are the unintended clashes that could arise out of the blue to trigger a full scale conflict.

These events could trigger a vicious, but short and contained limited war, which will be over before the US could deploy enough reinforcements to make a decisive difference.

An example would be a clash between Chinese and Japanese patrol ships around the Diaoyu islands.

Civilian coast guard ships face off against each other; either through error in judgement, an accident, strong emotions or a combination of all those factors, there is a collusion between the two ships and the Japanese ship sinks.

Another nearby Japanese coast guard ship opens fire and sinks the unarmed Chinese coast guard ship.

A nearby PLAN warship opens fire and sinks the Japanese coast guard ship.

A nearby Japanese warship opens fire on the Chinese warship, so on and so forth.

Same deal with a clash in the air in China's ADIZ.

Chinese fighters scramble to intercept Japanese fighter. Both sides engage in a little 'aggressive manoeuvring'. One fighter clips another, causing it to break up with no chute, wingman of lost fighter gets emotional and opens fire.

Different trigger, same outcome.

And those are just the obvious examples of the top of my head. If I could be bothered to, I'm sure I can dream up many others.

It's actually frighteningly easy to see how such a small spark could trigger a full blown limited war between China and Japan.

All sides will know that this was an unintentional conflict, and no side wants a full-scale war on their hands. So all sides wants to end it as soon as possible, yet they will also want to emerge as the clear victor.

Because China knows it enjoys initial local tactical and strategic advantages, which will start to erode more and more the longer the conflict drags on for as the US redeploy a forces from elsewhere, China will have the clear incentive to move as rapidly up the escalation ladder as possible (within reason of course before you start), with the aim of delivering a knock-out blow to win the fight before the US can risk direct intervention.

China could then 'magnanimously' call a unilateral ceasefire, with a full spectrum diplomatic offensive to stress that Chinese forces were only defending themselves, and are proving that by only holding ground instead of advancing to launch follow-on attacks against the now 'defenceless' Japanese as a show of 'good faith'.

That would make it exceptionally difficult for the US to re-initiate hostilities after it had gathered enough forces to risk it.

That is going to be the Chinese play, and the commander of US forces will know that, so is going to have a tough choice to make - either to leave the Japanese to get beaten up by the Chinese while the USN sits the whole thing out, and risk fundamentally undermining the value of US defence commitments; or be forced to send the forces under his command into the fray without waiting for reinforcements, against an enemy that will enjoy local tactical and strategic military advantages even with the might of his forces added to those of the Japanese, so runs the risk that China will be able to defeat both sets of forces and still call its unilateral ceasefire to hamstring the US follow-up response.

If that were to happen, it will still be exceptionally hard diplomatically and politically for the US to re-open hostilities if it was the US forces who opened fire on the Chinese first.

That is the 'nightmare' scenario that would have been playing on the back of the mind of the Admiral when he stated that the US isn't the biggest guy on the block - it isn't, and that matters.

The local disposition of forces, and opponent faced absolutely plays a critical part in the decision making process of US field commanders.

Remember those recent news clips of Russian fighters overflying USN warships? Do you really think the USN would have allowed the fighters to get that close if they were Iranian?

Hell no, if those fighters were Iranian, the USN would have "lit 'em up" as a warning long before they got within visual range of the ship, and shot them down before allowing them to overfly the ship.

The ROEs are different because in the case of Iran, the USN knows it has overwhelming local force superiority to win any conflict scenario, so has little fear of Iranian retaliation.

Against the likes of China and Russia, local US field commanders will have far stricter ROEs and engagement thresholds when it comes to actively initiate hostilities in support of allies. That is the reality of not being the biggest guy on the block.

Your Taiwan scenario is both entirely off topic, and shows some considerable bias and deviation from reality. It almost feels like a deliberate downplaying of Chinese military capabilities as retribution for some imaginary slight against US military prowess.

Either that or your judgement is well and truly suspect if you honestly believe that fantasy.

Regardless, I see nothing productive coming from any more wasted words on that red herring.

The admiral stating that the US is no longer the biggest guy on the block is facetious at best. You can try and weasel it in that he was talking about forward deployed forces if you want, but even if he was this distinction as it stands now is essentially meaningless.

'Weasel'? Getting a bit personal are we not? Did I bruise your ego with facts?

Uhh, no. Sadly, your giant wall of verbiage about the SCS...

Yet more personal attacks. Classy.

Once again, your deliberate downplaying of Chinese capabilities is disappointing.

 

[tidalwave]

now, the question, if conflict broke out, Would US attack those islands if there are floating Nuclear power stations there. Scarborough and Michief island close to Philippines, any radiation fallout would affect Philippines greatly.

USN have to think hard about that one for sure.

 

[tidalwave]

lol, floating nuclear reactors powering some meaningless artificial islands.

This idea is so stupid that it doesn't have to be even considered.

no way dude, it''s all over the news in both Chinese and Western media.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

each island can potentially host up 15K to 20K people. It needs alot of power and for desalination,

see, you learning something new , right?

 

[texx1]

lol, floating nuclear reactors powering some meaningless artificial islands.

This idea is so stupid that it doesn't have to be even considered.

Today is Sept 25, 2016 in my time zone.

I believe this is the second time you have posted in gross violation of the one month ban imposed by a moderator (siegecrossbrow). First time can be a mistake, a second time suggests an intention to disregard forum rules. Thus you have been reported to moderators.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An archive of your clear violation of your month long ban.

 

[tidalwave]

When Mao bombarding Kinmen, US thought about attacking China with Nuke but Taiwan is awfully close, the radiation fallout will definitely affect taiwan therefore US cancelled that idea.

By same analogy, if US bombed those islands with floating nuclear power stations, its going to affect Philippines, so I am 99.9% confident US wouldn't risk that unless they don't care if Filipino become genetic Mutants.

 

[Iron Man]

The real scenarios that keeps such field commanders up at night, and what no doubt prompted the original remark, are the unintended clashes that could arise out of the blue to trigger a full scale conflict.

These events could trigger a vicious, but short and contained limited war, which will be over before the US could deploy enough reinforcements to make a decisive difference.

Is that what you really think? Okay then, let's take your examples and see where they go...

An example would be a clash between Chinese and Japanese patrol ships around the Diaoyu islands.

Civilian coast guard ships face off against each other; either through error in judgement, an accident, strong emotions or a combination of all those factors, there is a collusion between the two ships and the Japanese ship sinks.

Another nearby Japanese coast guard ship opens fire and sinks the unarmed Chinese coast guard ship.

A nearby PLAN warship opens fire and sinks the Japanese coast guard ship.

A nearby Japanese warship opens fire on the Chinese warship, so on and so forth.

Uh huh. And then what? China builds up, pwns Japan quickly, and then says to the US as it arrives on China's doorstep "oh, I was just playin, let's stop now". Can this scenario get any more delusional here? You also skipped about 500 steps in your "China Pwns Japan Uberly and Quickly" fantasy scenario. So the nearby Japanese warship opens fire on the Chinese warship. And then? They both destroy each other in a hail of shells? In whose interest is it to further escalate this situation into a full scale conflict? And what would China's objective even be in such a scenario? Please don't tell me your scenario is as banal as "kick some Japanese ass, go home and drink some Maotai". Please explain exactly what you think China would do to ramp up hostilities and what its objective(s) in this supposedly short conflict would be, and in what timeframe it hopes to wrap up its asskicking of Japan before the US can get there. And try to remember that DYT is less than 1 day's sail from Chinhae and Yokosuka, less 2 days sail from Guam, less than 6 days sail from Honolulu, and less than 7 days sail from Bahrain via the SCS or less than 9 days via the Java and Celebes Sea and then the Eastern coast of the Philippines.

Same deal with a clash in the air in China's ADIZ.

Chinese fighters scramble to intercept Japanese fighter. Both sides engage in a little 'aggressive manoeuvring'. One fighter clips another, causing it to break up with no chute, wingman of lost fighter gets emotional and opens fire.

Different trigger, same outcome.

Uh huh. The death of one or a few pilots is going to cause either side to ramp up to a full scale conflict is basically what you're saying. I'm fairly confident the leaders in both Beijing and Tokyo are not as hotheaded as internet fanbois can be.

And those are just the obvious examples of the top of my head. If I could be bothered to, I'm sure I can dream up many others.

It's actually frighteningly easy to see how such a small spark could trigger a full blown limited war between China and Japan.

I have no doubt you are capable of dreaming up all sorts of scenarios. And I have no doubt that you find it "easy" to see how a small spark could "trigger" a "full blown" "limited" war between China and Japan when even at their worst level of interaction they have been nowhere near the level of hostility and tension that the US and USSR experienced during the Cold War. And somehow we are all still here after several decades of this. Imagine that.

Because China knows it enjoys initial local tactical and strategic advantages, which will start to erode more and more the longer the conflict drags on for as the US redeploy a forces from elsewhere, China will have the clear incentive to move as rapidly up the escalation ladder as possible (within reason of course before you start), with the aim of delivering a knock-out blow to win the fight before the US can risk direct intervention.

Please expound on the details of said "knock-out blow" instead of assuming it's somehow going to magically happen because you think China is uber vs Japan.

China could then 'magnanimously' call a unilateral ceasefire, with a full spectrum diplomatic offensive to stress that Chinese forces were only defending themselves, and are proving that by only holding ground instead of advancing to launch follow-on attacks against the now 'defenceless' Japanese as a show of 'good faith'.

That would make it exceptionally difficult for the US to re-initiate hostilities after it had gathered enough forces to risk it.

I find this to easily be the most preposterous of all your statements so far. A US act of bowing to China attacking a formal treaty ally would undermine every other such treaty the US has, and it has plenty. SE Asia already feels that there is only a lukewarm commitment on the part of the US to the region. This act of obeisance would be a diplomatic and more importantly, a geopolitical, disaster for the US. Every country in the region would start flocking to China once they see that the US will not live up to its explicit treaty obligations with a formal ally. While you may prefer such an outcome, I have no doubt the US would not.

Your Taiwan scenario is both entirely off topic, and shows some considerable bias and deviation from reality. It almost feels like a deliberate downplaying of Chinese military capabilities as retribution for some imaginary slight against US military prowess.

Either that or your judgement is well and truly suspect if you honestly believe that fantasy.

Not even remotely. It's funny that you are the one to question someone else's judgment when you are advocating that China could defeat Japan in some ridiculously short-lived fantasy conflict and expect the US to not retaliate militarily. Your attempt to frame the only realistic potential source of conflict between the US and China as a short-lived scenario in which the US wouldn't even be participating is somewhat humorous, I admit. By removing the US entirely from a US-China conflict, of course China would be the winner. What possible chance could the US have in such a scenario? That you dismiss a Taiwan scenario out of hand as implausible to the point of not even worth discussing shows your irrational desire to limit the discussion to only short-lived conflicts for the SOLE purpose of giving China the best chance to possess your fantasy desire of being the (short-lived) big dog of the Western Pacific. By your funny logic we could keep going further down the rabbit hole and limit the timescale even moar. In a hypothetical scenario involving 5 052D warships around DYT and 1 Kongou warship that escalated into a shooting conflict (because of course all people in the military are such massive hotheads) that lasted only 2.1 hours, China would clearly be the biggest guy on the block. I really can't disagree with that assessment.

'Weasel'? Getting a bit personal are we not? Did I bruise your ego with facts?

Yet more personal attacks. Classy.

Once again, your deliberate downplaying of Chinese capabilities is disappointing.

This indicates to me that you have a very thin skin, and rather you are the one whose ego is easily bruised. Also, I feel I am far more realistic about Chinese capabilities than you are, given what you have been posting. Your 'assessment' of Chinese capabilities, like that of most fanbois, is one based on aspiration rather than on facts.