China's SCS Strategy Thread

[plawolf]

It may be more likely than you think. What if Japan salami slice at China by trying to or actually building on or militarizing the Diaoyus/Senkakus? Such as putting up a radar station? Even stationing a few SAMs and AShMs? Or even just a few infantry via rotary aicraft?

Yes, another possible trigger for s conflict.

Although given the geography of the islands, such deployments are unusuatainable without significant prep work before hand to build the support infrastructure needed to support such facilities.

Any attempt at such works will be seen as a massive escalation and provocation, and I would argue, such prep work may trigger an incident long before the islands are ready to support radars or missiles.

Though this is primarily a conversation between you and Iron Man, I have to say a Taiwan scenario can be triggered a number of ways and is entirely relevant and realistic. The ECS, Taiwan, and SCS are all in contention for China to break out of maritime containment by the first island chain and for China containment to tighten the noose.

Don't fall for his Trumpism. I never said that scenario isn't realistic. Just that it's seriously out of bounds for this thread.

Besides, we have already discussed this subject to death any number of times before on this board, so I don't really see the point in repeating that exercise again. Especially given the overwhelming military disparity between the straits today makes the outcome of any such conflict almost a forgone conclusion, with only the cost up for debate.

The window for Taiwan Independence is shut for good.

 

[Blitzo]

As for the escalation of a conflict between China and Japan. Firstly, this isn't the movies, two warships will rarely if ever conveniently take each other out in a hail of shells and missiles.

The balance of probability would be that one of the warships wins the encounter and sinks the other. In which case that surviving warship becomes the obvious fulcrum around which the conflict would escalate, as one side deploys assets to kill it, while the other scrambles to try and protect it.

Even allowing for your highly improbable scenario where both ships sinks each other at the same time, not all the crews will perish with the ships, so both sides will want to get assets into the area for search and recovery operations, and neither would be in the mood for much in the way of co-operation or negotiation.

Both sides will likely deploy military forces to try and secure the area before launching rescue operations, while treating the mirror claims and actions of the other as a transparent cover and pretext to seize military control of the area and the islands.

Given the general level of hostility the Chinese and Japanese populous has towards each other, it's frankly hard to see how one side or the other could pull back even if they wanted to if the shooting really starts.

I generally agree with your position, and I think this particular part of your post is quite accurate for how an "initial minor incident between two opposing ships/aircraft can snowball into full conflict" scenario could occur, and that such a full conflict could eventually involve the US.

However, I do also have to say that it is definitely not a given that an initial encounter will result in a Chinese "victory," such as China being able to successfully conduct the range of air and naval missions that you described, in the amount of time that is available before involvement of the US.

So the key areas of dispute in this scenario, I think are:

1: in an initial air-naval conflict scenario between China and Japan, who will be capable of achieving "victory" and in what timespan?
2: related to the above, in the event of a Chinese "victory," what would the conditions be in which the US may (or may not) seek to intervene on behalf of Japan anyway, against China.

Obviously to go over this in detail means delving into a potentially lengthy conflict-scenario discussion which is discouraged by the forum -- however I will say that I think that both of the above two points, and especially no. 1, are reasonable questions to be asked by Iron Man (even if the way of asking them was a bit confrontational).

But at the same time, I also agree with your original statement, that the US is probably right to be increasingly concerned about the distribution of forces it has in the overall westpac region (permanently forward deployed forces). I wouldn't go so far as the moment to say that at present, "if a shooting war was to break out unexpectedly, China will absolutely enjoy significant local tactical and strategic force superiority in the opening stages" -- but I do agree that the balance of forces is shifting in China's favour.



====

And @Iron Man, I also have to chime in with plawolf and echo his statement that I think you're being unnecessarily personal in your replies. The venom and aggression in your posts towards individual members I think is not very conducive to good discussion, and if you disagree with someone or even if you think they're a fanboy or whatever, there are way more cordial ways of expressing it.
I think many of the points you've made in this discussion are valid things to raise, but the venom is a bit much, even as a reader who was not previously part of this discussion.

 

[Equation]

China was the one who received a bloody nose in that conflict, failing to achieve any strategic objectives and losing more forces in the process than Vietnam did.
.

Wrong it was Vietnam who lost the most lives (both militia forces and regular forces), they lost territories held by China until a truce and negotiation had been made decades after the conflict, the Vietnamese forces also suffered with the higher number of POW. If China just received just a bloody nose while the Vietnamese received an unconscious beat down with objectives to prove that the Soviet Union will NOT come by and helped them out. China has also defeated the Vietnamese at naval battles at sea during those time as well from both the South Vietnamese Navy and the current Vietnamese government naval forces EVEN when the Vietnamese had the superior naval ships.

 

[Equation]

How does sailing around the SCS somehow risk discovery MORE than sailing through it, where China already has bases to monitor traffic?? Look at a map of the Java and Celebes Seas. You are saying that these seas make the US more vulnerable to discovery than the SCS with its network of Chinese bases?
QUOTE]

Because by sailing through the Java and Celebes Seas you are reducing the area for Chinese satellites to search and track the armada. Plus the US Carrier forces to get much closer in order to power project other wise risk getting sunk by the DF-21D, DF-26, or even Chinese subs if it even dare to cross that A2/AD line.

 

[Iron Man]

First off, cut it with your petty personal attacks. You are not going to provoke me, so don't even bother. All you are achieving is making youself look immature and petty.

I’m sorry, did you not just call me a “simpleton” and “lacking in mental facilities”? Perhaps forum rules allow for massive hypocrisy, but you riding the high horse here makes me LOL.

How is it in America's interests to start a shooting war with China after an unilateral Chinese ceasefire? What would be the aims and benefits of doing that given the enormous costs and far greater risks involved? How does America expect to end that fight after they start it?

I already highlighted for you why the US would scoff at a “unilateral Chinese ceasefire”, which you have chosen to ignore because you have no good response for it. Because doing otherwise would literally undermine every other defense treaty the US has. The US bowing out of a conflict between Japan and China would signal the end of US preeminence in the region on a geopolitical level, even if the US still had the military muscle to flex there. No country would trust the US to back them up in any future scuffle with China, and they would immediately cozy up to China and leave the US behind. The US knows this full well. If Japan and China get into a shooting war over DYT or anything else, the US is going in whole hog. It’s that or lose the hearts and minds of Asian countries forever.

Both sides will likely deploy military forces to try and secure the area before launching rescue operations, while treating the mirror claims and actions of the other as a transparent cover and pretext to seize military control of the area and the islands.

Seize military control of the islands? In whose interest is it to “seize” military control of the islands and ramp up the conflict to a whole new level? China? They can’t hold those islands, and even if they declared a unilateral ceasefire, their boots would still be on the ground on DYT, massively undermining any pretense of “ceasefire” while the rest of the world sees China currently occupying foreign territory. Japan? They have no need to militarize it since they have current administrative control already and doing so would take the current standoff over the islands to a whole new level, something Japan has no interest in escalating.

Given the general level of hostility the Chinese and Japanese populous has towards each other, it's frankly hard to see how one side or the other could pull back even if they wanted to if the shooting really starts.

I know it’s in your interest to front a strong desire for conflict to further your little scenario here, but remember that we are talking about the real world, not online forums with internet generals trying to fan the flames of war. Chinese and Japanese popular sentiment are highly unfavorable towards each other, there is no doubt of this. But this is NOT the same as saying that these same people either in the civilian or the military communities would actually desire a military conflict with the other country.

Go ahead and show me a poll saying that the part of the populations of both countries who actually want war are at the highest level they have been since diplomatic relations were established between the PRC and Japan, and even if this is the case, how this bilateral sentiment could realistically translate into an actual war.

China's game plan is to deliver a knock-out blow a s quickly as possible to the Japanese such that they are unable to continue fighting. At which point China will be able to call a unilateral end to hostilities.

I was assuming you had the intelligence and imagination to follow the clear path I set; to easily see how one attack could lead to a retaliation, in turn triggers another response. It's pretty basic game theory stuff. I just followed it to its natural conclusion without spelling out every last minute detail and permutation along the way because I frankly have far better things to do with my time.

Now, are you asking me to map it all out in such excruciating detail because you honestly lack the mental facilities to do work it all out yourself, or are you just looking to score some cheap points?

I salute how you have now twice anticipated and preempted me because you know your own vulnerabilities so well. By accusing me of being too dumb to map out a realistic scenario, you think you can avoid having to present an actual working scenario and not sound ridiculous in the process. Well, YOU were the one who pressented the scenario, YOU are the one who needs to back up the superiority of Chinese forces in this conflict.

Well isn't it obvious? Gain control of the Diaoyutai islands, while dealing a decisive blow to the Japanese naval and air forces to remove a main strategic rival; demonstrating Chinese military capabilities, resolve, and ultimately, restraint to anyone else watching to fundamentally undermine the fantasy America has created to underpin its position in Asia as the provider of security guarantees.

Wow, I thought it was as simple as a limited naval engagement that you were envisioning. But your fantasies are clearly FAR more grandiose than I could have possibly imagined. Deal a “decisive blow to the Japanese naval and air forces to remove a main strategic rival”??? Am I actually reading this correctly? This wildly surreal statement stands in direct contradistinction to your stated goal of a limited conflict that would be resolved before the US could gather in force and overwhelm Chinese forces. Now it’s actually to deal a “decisive” blow to the Japanese military and “remove” a strategic rival. Not only that, it also makes a total mockery of your already surreal assertion that the US would not respond militarily if the Chinese only stopped fighting before the US arrived, now having apparently totally destroyed the bulk of the Japanese military. “Your ally Japan is toast. Let’s just shake hands and move forward like gentlemen.” LOL

And do you really think the US have enough assets cumulatively in all of those places, ready to set sail instantly, while still leaving sufficient forces in place to maintain the balance of forces and continue operational commitments necessary in those regions, to allow them to risk open conflict with China?

Please, indulge me. Draw up an order of battle of US forces forward deployed in those areas, apply availability ratios to determine assets ready to deploy, then allocate forces to remain on station to meet local operational requirements and show me what you think the US could actually deploy within a week.

You mean maintaining the balance of forces in Diego Garcia, Bahrain, Honolulu, Chinhae, Gua,, and Yokosuka? To guard against who? The Tongans? The Australians? Oh, I know, you’re thinking of the Madagascarians. I will draw up an ORBAT for US forces if you draw up an ORBAT for PLAN forces that can be brought to bear on DYT. Remember that this was YOUR original scenario, not mine. Remember to apply availability ratios to determine assets ready to deploy, then allocate forces to remain on station to meet local operational requirements and show me what you think China could actually deploy within a week.

Given the overwhelming advantage in air and naval strike power the Chinese have over the Japanese, it's hard to see how such a conflict would end other in the destruction of the Japanese fleet.

It’s not true just because fanbois may say it is true. Please detail the “overwhelming advantage” in air and naval strike power that the Chinese have over the Japanese. Trying to play the “it’s self-evident” card will just make your claims look even weaker than they already are now.

It all boils down to whether the US really wants to fight this fight. If America wants to fight, it can dream up any pretext *cough* WMD *cough*. Similarly, if America doesn't want a piece of that fight, it can easily lawyer its way out.

After all, this is hardly without real life prescedent. The US also has a mutual defence treaty with South Korea. Where was the wrath of the American military when North Korea shelled South Korean territory again? How about that time they sunk a South Korean warship?

Oh yes, I have no doubt in your mind that lobbing over some shells into a DMZ is the same as “removing” a formal treaty ally, “decisively” destroying the bulk of its military. Well played, sir. Well played. I think even if Japan and/or China sunk one of each other’s destroyers in a heated battle, as long as the situation did not escalate any further and Japan didn’t make a big stink out of it, the US would certainly still have enough strategic ambiguity to remain out of the fight. But you have made it absolutely certain what the American level of participation would be in your fantasy scenario.

As bad as leaving Japan flapping in the breeze would be for America, fighting a nuclear war with China will be incalculably worse.

Of course you would fail to realize that China has made the same calculation about fighting a nuclear war with the US, or that the US has made the calculation that China has made the calculation. There is no real winner in any nuclear war, but in a nuclear war between China and the US, China would become a giant smoldering crater. I think even you cannot dispute the numbers.

 

[Iron Man]

However, I do also have to say that it is definitely not a given that an initial encounter will result in a Chinese "victory," such as China being able to successfully conduct the range of air and naval missions that you described, in the amount of time that is available before involvement of the US.

To be perfectly honest this is a massive understatement.

But at the same time, I also agree with your original statement, that the US is probably right to be increasingly concerned about the distribution of forces it has in the overall westpac region (permanently forward deployed forces). I wouldn't go so far as the moment to say that at present, "if a shooting war was to break out unexpectedly, China will absolutely enjoy significant local tactical and strategic force superiority in the opening stages" -- but I do agree that the balance of forces is shifting in China's favour.

No one disagrees with the fact that the balance of forces is shifting in China's favor, so no one has really been arguing this point. Plawolf's original claim was what you just responded to above.

I also have to chime in with plawolf and echo his statement that I think you're being unnecessarily personal in your replies. The venom and aggression in your posts towards individual members I think is not very conducive to good discussion, and if you disagree with someone or even if you think they're a fanboy or whatever, there are way more cordial ways of expressing it.
I think many of the points you've made in this discussion are valid things to raise, but the venom is a bit much, even as a reader who was not previously part of this discussion.

I think you've unconsciously biased yourself here to the point of ignoring plawolf's inciting statements because of our discussion in the Navy section. It would be petty to link and quote every last one of such statements in this thread; I think you can just scroll up for yourself.

Wrong it was Vietnam who lost the most lives (both militia forces and regular forces), they lost territories held by China until a truce and negotiation had been made decades after the conflict, the Vietnamese forces also suffered with the higher number of POW. If China just received just a bloody nose while the Vietnamese received an unconscious beat down with objectives to prove that the Soviet Union will NOT come by and helped them out. China has also defeated the Vietnamese at naval battles at sea during those time as well from both the South Vietnamese Navy and the current Vietnamese government naval forces EVEN when the Vietnamese had the superior naval ships.

We clearly are going by different numbers, then.

Because by sailing through the Java and Celebes Seas you are reducing the area for Chinese satellites to search and track the armada. Plus the US Carrier forces to get much closer in order to power project other wise risk getting sunk by the DF-21D, DF-26, or even Chinese subs if it even dare to cross that A2/AD line.

Who says China knows whether the USN is sailing through the Java and Celebes Seas? Maybe the USN will actually be travelling through the SCS after all. Maybe the USN will go even further west and sail along the southern coast of Indonesia and pass up through the Banda and Molucca Seas. Maybe the USN will split up and go multiple routes. China can't really reduce its search area at all without taking the risk of missing the transiting forces.

 

[Blitzo]

To be perfectly honest this is a massive understatement.


No one disagrees with the fact that the balance of forces is shifting in China's favor, so no one has really been arguing this point. Plawolf's original claim was what you just responded to above.

Okay, well it is good that can be agreed upon.

I think you've unconsciously biased yourself here to the point of ignoring plawolf's inciting statements because of our discussion in the Navy section. It would be petty to link and quote every last one of such statements in this thread; I think you can just scroll up for yourself.

I've read plawolf's original post which began this (#3413, yes?), as well as the subsequent replies you and him made to each other, especially in regards to how the outcome of an initial conflict with Japan may unfold.
However I fail to see any sort of explicit inciting statement that warranted your use of loaded and personal phrases like "weasel it in" or calling his post a "giant wall of verbiage" in #3418, which I see as throwing the first volley and causing the unfortunate turn of events down a personal route.

If there was an inciting statement you disagreed with due to its content (rather than its tone), then there were far less aggressive or accusatory ways of going about it, instead of making things have the potential to go personal... and while I think plawolf also took things a bit personal as well (in subsequent posts), in this case I do believe you opened the volley first, and then later took things to more toxic and sardonic and sarcastic extremes in #3430.


Of course at this stage the genie is already out of the bottle and I have no particular contribution to this discussion beyond what I've already written... so whatever.

 

[Iron Man]

Okay, well it is good that can be agreed upon.

I have a feeling plawolf would most certainly not agree, which has been the entire nexus of debate in the last several posts. This debate itself seems somewhat out of place in the SCS thread since it has been concerning the validity of a certain admiral's off the cuff statement about the relative strength of militaries within the Westpac, that has subsequently been gobbled up wholeheartedly by certain segments of the PLA watching community. Though I don't see an obviously more appropriate destination.

I've read plawolf's original post which began this (#3413, yes?), as well as the subsequent replies you and him made to each other, especially in regards to how the outcome of an initial conflict with Japan may unfold.
However I fail to see any sort of explicit inciting statement that warranted your use of loaded and personal phrases like "weasel it in" or calling his post a "giant wall of verbiage" in #3418, which I see as throwing the first volley and causing the unfortunate turn of events down a personal route.

If there was an inciting statement you disagreed with due to its content (rather than its tone), then there were far less aggressive or accusatory ways of going about it, instead of making things have the potential to go personal... and while I think plawolf also took things a bit personal as well, in this case I do believe you opened the volley first and took things to more toxic extremes first in #3430.

Of course at this stage the genie is already out of the bottle and I have no particular contribution to this discussion beyond what I've already written... so whatever.

I would love to further expound on who said what first and what escalated what here in this thread, but this would be further going down a path that is already totally off-topic in a discussion that is already semi-off topic.

 

[Blitzo]

I have a feeling plawolf would most certainly not agree, which has been the entire nexus of debate in the last several posts. This debate itself seems somewhat out of place in the SCS thread since it has been concerning the validity of a certain admiral's off the cuff statement about the relative strength of militaries within the Westpac, that has subsequently been gobbled up wholeheartedly by certain segments of the PLA watching community. Though I don't see an obviously more appropriate destination.

What I meant was that the biggest area of contention (how a conflict scenario may unfold) should at least be accepted by both sides of the discussion.
Being able to simply and easily describe what the disagreements are, and then agreeing that is the disagreement, is a good way of moving forwards in a way that focuses on the disagreements themselves.

Though in this case, the topic of disagreement is one that verges on being discouraged by the forum rules -- i.e.: conflict scenario type discussions... so yeah.

I would love to further expound on who said what first and what escalated what here in this thread, but this would be further going down a path that is already totally off-topic in a discussion that is already semi-off topic.

Yes, discussing who-said-what usually are not that fruitful, especially in the context of trying to ascertain posts of a personal nature.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...
And @Iron Man, I also have to chime in with plawolf ...

I recall both said they had put each other on Ignore List(s) (it's happened in thread called something like Chinese ASh Missiles I believe, it's my lunch break so I don't have time to find the links right now EDIT I quickly found this: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-anti-ship-surface-missiles.t6345/page-25#post-405285) so it seems now they decided it slug it out LOL
I think Iron Man can become 'New Sheriff In Town' as his views are not one-sided West/China wins-no-matter-what ... interestingly, he put down
Brumby
first (who was wholeheartedly pro-Western, claiming technological superiority based on manufacturers'/PR Departments' statements LOL (I told him this on several occasions), and later I realized Brumby had portrayed Chinese technologies as if it was 1996 now)